2007 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the announced purpose of H.R. 2 is to raise living standards for
all Americans. This is certainly an admirable
goal, however, to believe that Congress can
raise the standard of living for working Americans
by simply forcing employers to pay their
employees a higher wage is equivalent to
claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by
passing a law saying humans shall have the
ability to fly.
2007 Ron Paul 10:2
Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above
the market wage rate, it creates a surplus
wedge between the supply of labor and the
demand for labor, leading to an increase in
unemployment. Employers cannot simply
begin paying more to workers whose marginal
productivity does not meet or exceed the law-
imposed wage. The only course of action
available to the employer is to mechanize operations
or employ a higher-skilled worker
whose output meets or exceeds the minimum
wage. This, of course, has the advantage of
giving the skilled worker an additional (and
government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled
worker. For example, where formerly
an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled
workers at $5 per hour or one skilled
worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of
$6 suddenly leaves the employer only the
choice of the skilled worker at an additional
cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues,
if the minimum wage is the means to
prosperity, why stop at $6.65 — why not $50,
$75, or $100 per hour?
2007 Ron Paul 10:3
Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are
often young people at the lower end of the income
scale who are seeking entry-level employment.
Their inability to find an entry-level
job will limit their employment prospects for
years to come. Thus, raising the minimum
wage actually lowers the employment opportunities
and standard of living of the very people
proponents of the minimum wage claim will
benefit from government intervention in the
economy.
2007 Ron Paul 10:4
Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in
the name of making things better for low wage
earners violates citizens rights of association
and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens
you are incapable of making employment decisions
for yourself in the marketplace.
2007 Ron Paul 10:5
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction.
Quite the contrary, Congress must enact
an ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory
reform to remove government-created
obstacles to job growth. However, Mr. Speaker,
opponents of H.R. 2 should not fool themselves
into believing that adding a package of
tax cuts to the bill will compensate for the
damage inflicted on small businesses and
their employees by the minimum wage increase.
Saying that an increase in the minimum
wage is acceptable if combined with tax
cuts assumes that Congress is omnipotent
and thus can strike a perfect balance between
tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or
worker, in the country is adversely affected by
Federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us
anything it was that any and all attempts to
centrally plan an economy, especially one as
large and diverse as Americas, are doomed
to fail.
2007 Ron Paul 10:6
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise
the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences
of this bill will be vested upon
those who can least afford to be deprived of
work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend
that Congress can repeal the economic
principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this
legislation and instead embrace a program of
tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen
the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in
human history: the free market.