readx;? Genius One Second Remember, for you to provide a wonderful novel to read. Pen fun and pavilion www.biquge.info

The word "sweatshop" is an insulting label given by leftists to factories that they see as poor-conditioned and low-wage. The attacks on "sweatshops" include trade unions deliberately smearing capitalists on their own interests, but most of them are simply motivated by good intentions and good intentions. But we all know that good intentions do not equal good results.

In the "sweatshops" of left-wing criticism, there are few factories that force workers to work, do not allow workers to quit, and treat workers as slaves. On the contrary, workers are actively applying for these "sweatshop" jobs – a free choice that is important because voluntary trading is mutually beneficial, and one person chooses to enter a factory because other ways of making a living are worse for that person. Unfortunately, there are many "progressives" who unthinkingly oppose "sweatshops", which has led to some "sweatshops" being forced to close down or withdraw their capital, with the result that many unemployed workers have to go back to the village to farm, scavenge waste, wander, and so on, and live a more desperate and bloody life (perhaps, in the eyes of the leftists, this is an idyllic and leisurely life).

The so-called "sweatshop" is often a necessary process in the early stages of capital accumulation. When a place is poor and white, there is a lack of capital and talents, and external capital enters the factory to recruit workers, creating a large number of more stable, relatively high-income and more attractive jobs, otherwise there will not be so many people flocking to the industrial area. Factories may have created a perception of poor conditions for people in developed regions because they did not pay attention to the environment in order to keep costs down, but at this time, workers in developing regions may be more concerned about income than about working conditions. In many factories in China, workers will even rush to work overtime to make money, and do not hesitate to pay bribes to get overtime opportunities.

Capital brings not only employment, but also equipment, technology, management and training. At first, wages were low because of the large supply of low-skilled laborers, but many entry-level workers gradually became skilled technicians, mastered more knowledge, earned higher incomes, and improved their lives, and at the same time made their next generation likely to have a higher starting point;

The disappearance of "sweatshops" in developed countries in Europe and the United States is not because of regulation and intervention, but because the improvement of the economic level and the upgrading of industries after industrialization have eliminated local "sweatshops". In fact, the "sweatshops" gradually became less sweaty, the increasing welfare of corporations was precisely the increase in productivity, and the competition in the labor market prompted the capitalists to act spontaneously without government intervention or appeals from good people; for example, the two-day rest week was first popularized by the automobile giant Ford in the early 20th century.

Foxconn may be the epitome of a "sweatshop" that is often attacked by Chinese and Western media, but the criticism is nonsense. Foxconn's production not only makes many goods cheap, but also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs -- imagine how Foxconn could have formed such a scale in a market economy if it had brutally and viciously oppressed workers? Some people regard corporate profits as the original sin, but the fact is that the increase in profits can enable enterprises to increase the payment of wages in order to retain talent and labor. Helplessly, some people do not pay the workers more than half a cent, but they like to wield the moral stick to accuse the capitalists who provide the workers with the opportunity to earn money; they do not consider the consequences of the banning of "sweatshops", and probably only care about the illusion that they are physically and mentally comfortable and morally sublimated.

The defense of "sweatshops" is more about the future and well-being of workers. In a market economy, the so-called "sweatshops" are in fact "factories of hope" for many people on the road to a better life, where there is no violence and oppression, and there is a collaboration between people trying to improve their lives. Economic development and property protection are the most powerful ways to solve poverty, optimize the environment, and eliminate "sweatshops". Remember: business is the greatest philanthropy.

The outer article intervenes in the income regulations with intentional or unintentional harm

Introduction: Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results, and even if an intention is bad at first. Only by understanding the sources of real growth in income levels can we avoid self-defeating with good intentions.

The most direct way to practice the idea of increasing the income of working people through administrative intervention is to intervene in the legislation of wage levels, and the most common in the world is the "minimum wage law". Except for a few countries in the world such as Singapore, Switzerland, and Norway that do not have minimum wage regulations, most places have set minimum wage standards to a greater or lesser extent, and the standard line of this system is rising in many regions.

In the United States, for example, several unions in Los Angeles have begun to apply to the government for an "exemption" from the minimum wage law to 15 per hour by 2022 – a scene that is both comical and well enough to show that their members are well aware of the law's effects.

Of course, many of today's proponents of the minimum wage law no longer hold a view of overt discrimination against other races, nor do they side with vested interests to attack small and medium-sized competitors, but the effect of harm to entry-level workers who lack skills and experience, regardless of their intentions, is the same. The minimum wage law is equivalent to removing the lowest steps of the job market, adding obstacles to the entry of many people who lack education and skills; Qualities such as working with others are not innate, and often need to be acquired, but the minimum wage law deprives them of this opportunity to accumulate at the bottom, and they cannot freely contract with the company, and they have no way to even support it at the beginning, so how can they climb up?

It is likely that some people, with the mercy of Our Lady, will say that anyone who works has the right to receive a reward sufficient to support the family. Regardless of this standard of "living", the fact is that many of the initially disadvantaged are young people who have not yet formed a family, and these entry-level jobs are not in themselves lifelong breadwinners. Moreover, as previously emphasized, a mandatory minimum wage will only cause them to lose a lot of opportunities, and will not make each of them magically increase their income.

It is clear that any well-intentioned justification of the minimum wage is untenable. Although we have only talked about the minimum wage law above, I believe that you will be able to draw inferences from the laws and regulations that interfere with wage income and have a deeper understanding.

As another example, social security is mandatory for individuals and businesses in many countries. Now suppose a very simplified scenario, you have a nominal salary of 10,000 per month, and you get 7,500 after the tax deduction is paid, and the company needs to pay 4,000 for you according to the law, at this time, it seems that the 4,000 is the welfare that the state has won for you through the law, if there is no mandatory requirement, how can the enterprise pay an additional 4,000 guarantees?—— It would be naïve to think so, because from the employer's point of view, only the cost of employment is 14,000, on the other hand, the average value you create per month is at least more than 14,000 (otherwise the employment relationship is a loss for the company). Suppose that the value you create by doing this work is 15,000 and the profit you make is 1,000 per month[Note i], will the company continue to pay you 10,000 nominal wages (5,000 profits) if the government suddenly abolishes the mandatory fees?

In a free and competitive labor market, no, because other companies will be happy to poach you at a price when they see a good profit: Company A will bid you 12,000, Company B will pay you 13,000, and Company C will pay you 14,000...... The freer the market, the closer your wages will be to the marginal value of what you produce – the labor and management sides in the market are equal, and the more enterprises, bosses, and capitalists, the stronger the bargaining power of employees. Therefore, the well-intentioned forced payment of fees for employees seems to be an intervention to obtain additional income security for workers, but in fact it only reduces the disposable income that workers receive, and those that are levied and cannot be used can be regarded as a harm to workers. [Note ii]

Many people have all sorts of illusions about income regulations, which are ultimately due to a lack of understanding of why people's wage levels are rising, and some even think that the increase is only due to the generosity of the bosses – which is a very naïve view. So, filtering out the noise of inflation, where does the overall rise in people's real income levels come from?

Derived from the increase in productivity, the investment of capital, the innovation of technology, the improvement of tools, the proficiency of personnel, etc., have increased the level of production, made goods more abundant, more affordable, and more affordable, so that people can have higher purchasing power of the same amount of money in their hands - this is the root cause of people becoming richer and the overall rise in the level of real income.

If the laws and regulations that intervene in income can really make people's incomes rise and get rid of poverty, then if we directly suggest that poor African countries raise the minimum wage and force local enterprises to pay all kinds of extra fees, will the problems of poverty and livelihood security of the African people be easily solved? If the minimum wage is directly raised every month, won't everyone become a millionaire?—— yes, we can easily see the absurdity in this with just a little fallacy.

The prosperity of people and the increase of incomes are not driven by a single decree, but by the development of a free market and the economy. In fact, as long as it is in accordance with the ethics of freedom, that is, there is no fraud or coercion, the free contract between the employer and the worker must be a win-win situation, and with a starting point there are infinite possibilities for future improvements—the free side is the cornerstone of prosperity and the source of happiness.

[Note i]: The unhealthy notion that companies pay workers less than what they create creates is "exploitation" needs to be corrected urgently. You must know that only when there is profit can investment be attracted, and with investment, there will eventually be economic operation and development, etc., etc., and this is the only way to have employment.

[Note ii]: Aside from the question of whether it should or should not, various "gaps" are no longer news, for example, the United States' unfundedliabilities are measured in trillions of dollars, and even if they had not defaulted and were successfully recovered, they would have already depreciated. (To be continued.) Mobile phone users, please browse and read, a better reading experience.