3. When businesses are left uncontrolled, they will exploit their power to abuse the labor.
4. MW assures a minimal income to survive and pay the bills of a family. For these every worker in the market is entitled.
5.
6. The low skilled workers are the ones to actually be hurt of the MW as they are the ones to be over priced. As low skilled workers become pricier, the competition they face on employers’ dollars grows. They have to face on one hand the skilled workers which are of a higher value to the firm and are now priced more attractively; and on the other hand compete with capital investments in technology that could replace a large portion of their work if not entirely. Low skilled workers might not get fired but may expect a their work environment to deteriorate to pay back these salary raises: longer hours are expected and perks are denied.
7. When a worker is employed, no matter it’s wage and productivity (as long as it is positive) contributes to the economy, unemployment doesn’t.
8. Bouncing Up the Ladder - Jobs are means to improve skills, and the wages sought for are tightly coupled with skill. A high MW prevents from getting entry-level jobs, they might simply not exist, and thus prevent from unskilled workers the opportunity to enter the market and develop the skills necessary. Disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences: remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.
9. Minimum wage is set to support a family. Most young workers are not head of families and would settle for a lower fee.
10. Minimum Wage is exposed to abuses: Lobbies (often unions and strong firms) justify a raise in the MW. This is because strong firms suffer less from a rise in costs and it would create better market standings for them, sort of a bigger portion of a smaller pie. The unions know that an increase in the MW will lead to further raises in their pockets.
11.
12. These policies do not result in major reductions of income inequality, and often they have the opposite effect.Let’s inspect these in detail:<br />1. Discouragement of work incentives<br />As the experiments suggested, a decline in the work incentive is inevitable. Baring in mind the net yield for the benefiters:<br />Yd=Y-tY+b<br />One can easily obtain that each for the working poor, benefitting from the NIT, an hour of work’s income is actually less than the wage paid for it, thus the incentive of adding work hours to the week drops. <br />2. Poverty Line being so important would be the target of politicians<br />The poverty line as it called, a certain income below which a government see the tax unit (a family) as living below reasonable standards of living. This point should be declared as the income tax threshold (TIT) which marks who is benefiting from the taxation and who pays.<br />Of course, the poverty line (and thus the TIT) is an index which marks the value of a basic basket of products a family consumes. This index being so complex to define is at aim of politicians and policy makers. Even the definition of what is the poverty line and of what are the contents of the basic basket are determined by politicians, and often are a political compromise rather than a decision made with academic or scientific tools. Political powers thus engage in manipulating this figure in order to satisfy pressure groups, and as a cause the poverty line is often tempered. <br />For example lifting the threshold brings more families to the beneficiaries and could be exploited as apolitical ransom. <br />3. The system is highly dependent on individual assessments. <br />It is ripe for patronage and corruption. Recipients are to report their annual earnings and there is a lot of risk in giving the temptation to them.<br />4. NIT’s true effect is unclear<br />As always is the case with government intervention in the free market, the true effect of such interventions remains unclear, and also may be discovered after a long period of time; often too long, while the harm is also hard to undo.<br />Though the effect on work incentives for subsidy recipients is clear, some economists think that the overall effect on total labor supply is ambiguous. It is possible that some workers not previously on welfare might decide to work less, given the option of an income subsidy under a negative income tax scheme. The total number of people receiving subsidies might therefore be larger than under a conventional welfare system<br />5. Destruction of the family structure.<br />As experiments show, there has been a drastic change in the stability of the families forgone under the NIT experiment. Empowering the secondary earner of the house (often the woman) with wealth big enough to sustain a family by its own may be the cause of breaking fragile marriages. One can also assume that more adults will form a single parent family with this empowerment. While not arguing which family structure is better, severe sociological effects are to be dealt with and shall be considered before the country engages them.<br />Furthermore, there should be an effect on the size of the families, and the birth rate of the families benefitting from the NIT. Aside the relatively easiness of forming a single-parent family, bringing to the world more kids to these families could be a probable option, as the benefit grows along the size of the family. Whether this effect is positive or negative shall be left for the government to decide, perhaps countries with low fertility rates like Italy or Russia could benefit with such a measure. Still, one has to remember that the births encouraged here are within a limited circle of low income families, and their future could be bright only under adequate conditions of health, education and livelihood.<br />Some unsolved deficiencies in NIT:<br />Rural farmers could benefit from this income way more than others: growing vegetables for self use and still living well especially in large families. <br />If the employer is aware of the employee’s benefit of the NIT, it will end up in his pocket: The employer could exploit this benefit by reducing the pay to the worker, knowing that the worker still gains enough through the NIT system. Could also lead to frauds as the employer and the employee would engage contracts that could split the revenue from the state. <br />MY OPINION<br />The biggest potential of NIT is in improvements over the existing public assistance programs. It has enough tools to effectively replace almost any welfare program, mainly because the means provided to the beneficiaries will be directly used without further distribution mechanisms, making the process a lot more efficient and targeted to the people’s needs.<br />The NIT provides a quick and unitary approach for raising poverty up to the desired level, where as existing welfare systems are often fragmented, uncoordinated and even simply off target.<br />Cash grants enlarge the freedom of choice, instead of receiving benefits one could purchase his choice of services. The government shall still encourage investments in education, as these investments may be left out by various groups. Education and the improvement of the work skills are the best means to escape poverty.<br />It may be true that the NIT will lower the incentive of the poor to work as the marginal revenue of each errant dollar is lower, but overall the NIT is a better alternative to MW and other forms of poverty alleviation.<br />TO CONCLUDE<br />As said on MW, the only valid strategy for poverty prevention is to increase opportunities for people to work. These can made by both providing the workers as much skills through education, training and good working environments. On top of that the government shall supply an infrastructure easy to build business on, efficient, stable, work incentives through low taxes, wise investments <br />BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />Books<br />Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom [1962]<br />Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Free to Choose<br />Papers<br />Fallacies of the Negative Income TaxHenry Hazlitt, Mises Daily, December 27, 2006http://mises.org/daily/2406<br />A Retrospective on the Negative Income Tax Experiments: Looking Back at the Most Innovate Field Studies in Social Policy<br />Robert A. Levine, Harold Watts, Robinson Hollister, Walter Williams, Alice O’Connor, and Karl Widerquist<br />New Research Findings on the Effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit<br />by Robert Greenstein and Isaac Shapiro<br />March 11, 1998<br />http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1649<br />Milton Friedman on Income Inequality<br />Julio H. Cole, Journal of Markets & Morality<br />http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_200901121256.php#ftnt_anchr_31<br />