Waging War on 'Unemployables'? Race, Low-Wage Work, and Minimum Wages: The New Evidence

H. Hutchison
{"title":"Waging War on 'Unemployables'? Race, Low-Wage Work, and Minimum Wages: The New Evidence","authors":"H. Hutchison","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1866365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Capturing both popular and academic imaginations, recent literature contributions contest the standard treatment of minimum wage statutes as vehicles that enlarge the economic and social dislocation of vulnerable workers. A persistent strain of the current scholarship dedicated to progressive labor ideology implies that minimum wages or, alternatively, living wage statutes are necessary to preclude the degradation of low-wage workers. The publication of Simon Deakin and Frank Wilkinson’s recent article, Minimum Wage Legislation, constitutes yet another effort to destabilize the neoclassical consensus that emphasizes the adverse employment effects of wage regulation. Prescinding from orthodox economic analysis, Deakin and Wilkinson insist that there is a good efficiency-based case for minimum wage legislation. If the authors are correct, and if efficiency standing alone supports their normative viewpoint, then the contention that such legislation ought to be seen as a societal good might become tenable. Unfortunately, their claims are highly doubtful. Perceived through the lenses of American labor history, classical liberalism, Critical Race Theory and neoclassical economics, the authors’ allegations signify the capitulation of reasoned analysis to ideology. Rather than supporting the interest of the public or of vulnerable workers, their starkly conventional and progressive approach to labor law reform recalls John Stuart Mill’s embrace of Social Darwinism and consequent exclusion of inferior classes of workers. The authors’ approach also verifies Mill’s observation that modern liberal democracy - operating consistently with the goals of exclusion - is insufficient to protect disfavored groups and individuals from the coercive power authorized by a majority or its hierarchs. Since Deakin and Wilkinson’s credulous claims are in harmony with more than a century of progressive policies, and since the normative and prudential case for raising or retaining the minimum wage remains weak, marginalized members of society have much to fear from their analysis.","PeriodicalId":309648,"journal":{"name":"Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1866365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Capturing both popular and academic imaginations, recent literature contributions contest the standard treatment of minimum wage statutes as vehicles that enlarge the economic and social dislocation of vulnerable workers. A persistent strain of the current scholarship dedicated to progressive labor ideology implies that minimum wages or, alternatively, living wage statutes are necessary to preclude the degradation of low-wage workers. The publication of Simon Deakin and Frank Wilkinson’s recent article, Minimum Wage Legislation, constitutes yet another effort to destabilize the neoclassical consensus that emphasizes the adverse employment effects of wage regulation. Prescinding from orthodox economic analysis, Deakin and Wilkinson insist that there is a good efficiency-based case for minimum wage legislation. If the authors are correct, and if efficiency standing alone supports their normative viewpoint, then the contention that such legislation ought to be seen as a societal good might become tenable. Unfortunately, their claims are highly doubtful. Perceived through the lenses of American labor history, classical liberalism, Critical Race Theory and neoclassical economics, the authors’ allegations signify the capitulation of reasoned analysis to ideology. Rather than supporting the interest of the public or of vulnerable workers, their starkly conventional and progressive approach to labor law reform recalls John Stuart Mill’s embrace of Social Darwinism and consequent exclusion of inferior classes of workers. The authors’ approach also verifies Mill’s observation that modern liberal democracy - operating consistently with the goals of exclusion - is insufficient to protect disfavored groups and individuals from the coercive power authorized by a majority or its hierarchs. Since Deakin and Wilkinson’s credulous claims are in harmony with more than a century of progressive policies, and since the normative and prudential case for raising or retaining the minimum wage remains weak, marginalized members of society have much to fear from their analysis.
向“失业者”宣战?种族、低工资工作和最低工资:新证据
最近的一些文学作品抓住了大众和学术界的想象力,对最低工资法规的标准对待提出了质疑,认为它加剧了弱势工人的经济和社会混乱。当前致力于进步劳工意识形态的学术研究的持续压力表明,最低工资或生活工资法规对于防止低工资工人的退化是必要的。西蒙·迪肯(Simon Deakin)和弗兰克·威尔金森(Frank Wilkinson)最近发表的文章《最低工资立法》(Minimum Wage Legislation),构成了另一项破坏新古典主义共识的努力,该共识强调工资监管对就业的不利影响。与正统的经济分析不同,迪肯和威尔金森坚持认为,最低工资立法有一个基于效率的良好案例。如果作者是正确的,如果效率本身就支持他们的规范性观点,那么这种立法应该被视为一种社会利益的论点可能是站得住脚的。不幸的是,他们的说法非常值得怀疑。从美国劳工史、古典自由主义、批判种族理论和新古典经济学的角度来看,作者的主张表明理性分析向意识形态投降。他们没有支持公众或弱势工人的利益,而是对劳动法改革采取了明显的传统和进步的方式,让人想起约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒(John Stuart Mill)对社会达尔文主义的信奉,并因此排斥了下层工人阶级。作者的方法也证实了密尔的观察,即现代自由民主——始终以排斥为目标——不足以保护不受欢迎的群体和个人免受多数人或其等级所授权的强制权力的侵害。由于迪肯和威尔金森的轻信主张与一个多世纪以来的进步政策是一致的,而且由于提高或保留最低工资的规范和审慎理由仍然薄弱,社会边缘化成员对他们的分析有很多担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信