Oh but it does have to be that high if you wish to deal with greed. Anything less and the greedy get to keep more than they give to the Government in taxes. Other wise you get what we have, rampant greed at the top.

Regards, Kirk

As a libertarian I oppose social engineering by government and that's exactly what you're proposing.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Um, no, sorry but a real libertarian would never defend a minimum wage hike or argue for unions as a solution. In fact, quite the opposite--much more likely to argue to do away with the minimum wage altogether. Based on your arguments here, whatever your views are, quite simply, you ain't no libertarian.

http://journals.gmu.edu/PPPQ/article/viewFile/368/296

Libertarian FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Minimum Wage Laws: A Popular Falacy-The Libertarian View | Hawaii Reporter

The Case Against the Minimum Wage – The Skeptical Libertarian | Blog

The Libertarian Answer to the Minimum Wage Debate - Mic

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

One false beliefs it that "libertarian" arguments are perfect when, in fact, they often contradict themselves. I've only retained two of your links to exemplify this fact.

From the first link:

From the second link:

While advocating for negotiations where a mutually agreeable wage is "voluntarily" estabished the fact is, as pointed out in the second statement, there is no negotiation. The "market" sets the rate, period. The employer offers the "market rate" and the applicant must either accept or reject it. For the person in need of employment they must accept the rate whether they agree with it or not. The employee is not "voluntarily" accepting the rate but instead is "mandated" into accept the rate. Only if the person has pre-established financial resources can they afford to say "No" to the "market wage" being offered.

There is no negotiation and there is no voluntary agreement on compensation for someone that must work for the "market rate" offered or starve.

The individual is incapable of addressing the "market rate" for employment because, for the vast majority, they must accept the market rate or starve. They need the job, can't refuse it, and they are "coerced" into accepting the "market rate" for compensation. As we are both aware "coercion" nullifies the contract because the contract was not "voluntary" by both to begin with.

On the other hand "organized labor" represented by unions, have demonstrated the ability to negotiate compensation above the existing "market rate" and based upon a voluntary agreement, as advocated by the first link, a mutually acceptable rate of compensation can me achieved. We can also note that these "negotiated" compensation rates also increased the "market rate" for non-union works as well historically but that ability has al but ceased to exist with the decimation of the unions under the law.

So at one time we had a means of addressing voluntary compensation agreed to by labor and enterprise and it established a fair market value for labor based upon negotiation (that Libertarians advocate) but that is all but gone and there is no longer "negotiation" related to compensation. The market and the market alone drives compensation and the market alone always seeks to establish the lowest possible compensation solely for the benefit of the enterprise and never for the benefit of the worker.

Another quotation from the second link:

No, logic doesn't dictate that increased compensation results in lower employment. Demand for the product or service creates the necessity for the employment and as long as the product or service price provides "value" then the consumer will purchase it. Can a product or service be "over-prices" by an enterprise? Absolutely but it's not over-prices as long as the "value" is greater than the selling price.

I actually took the time to investigate Walmart and employee compensation is roughly 25% of gross sales. Even if every dollar of increased compensation was offset by an increase in pricing a 10% increase across the board in compensation would only results in a 2.5% increase in pricing. Not a single Walmart customer would actually notice a 2.5% increase in pricing and the number of employees required by Walmart wouldn't change by even one employee. It truth many Walmart employees can't afford to shop at other retail outlets and they would spend the additional income at Walmart resulting in more employment because Walmart would have to hire more people if that 10% increase in wages was spent at Walmart.

One final point that is mentioned in the first link.

I highlighted "responsibilty" because I have a question related to that.

When we're "responsible" for ourselves we don't expect "something for nothing" and we wouldn't expect any enterprise to sell us a product or provide a service for less than it costs. Not only do we expect to pay their costs but also a little bit more so that they can "profit" by providing the product of service we require. We benefit from the service or product we receive and the enterprise benefits by providing it.

That's a win-win situation referred to in the last sentence.

Enterprises have all sorts of necessary expenditures when it comes to providing the goods or services we require. There's rent, utilities, office supplies, materials for production, yadda-yadda-yadda and that little bit of "profit" at the end and we're "responsible" as individuals when we purchase their products or services we require by not expecting them to sell those products or services at a loss. Basically we don't expect the "owner of the enterprise" to subsidize us or for a someone else to subsidize the enterprise so we can pay "below cost" for what we need.

So why do we do that with employees. Just like the enterprise the employee has necessary expenditures. They have rent to pay, food to buy, utilities to pay for, transportation expenses, health care expenses, they even need to invest for retirement because they won't always be able to work for a living. Like the enterprise they even need a few dollars, after all of the necessary expenditures are paid for, that are "profit" where they can simply get a little enjoyment out of life. Maybe save up and take a short vacation or have that bottle of wine with dinner tonight.

When we're the "employer" is it not our responsibility to ensure that our employee isn't "working for a loss" where they can't meet their basic and necessary expenditures? Why would we believe that our enterprise shouldn't operate at a loss but expect or employees to operate at a loss? isn't that irresponsible? If I'm the employer is it responsible of me to under-compensate to the point that my employee has to rely on food stamps just to have enough to eat? If they can't afford to go to the dentist with a tooth ache because I never paid them enough so they could afford to go was I being responsible?

Here I am, the employer, and I'm profiting from the labor of my employee but I'm not even paying them enough to live on. They need rent assistance to pay the rent. They need food stamps to feed their children. They need Medicaid to pay their medical bills. They need all of this because I'm not being responsible for paying them enough compensation for them to actually live on. Instead of me being responsible I'm shoving that responsibility off onto government welfare programs or private charities just so I can profit by under-compensation.

As the customer purchasing the products and service am I responsible if the employer isn't paying their employees enough to live on. Basically I'm purchase the goods or services below the combined costs of both the employee, that makes the product or provides the service, as well as the enterprise.

The "fair market price" has to include all of the expenses necessary to deliver the product or service to me and that includes the necessary compensation for the employee so they can cover their expenditures as well as the expenditures of the enterprise.

If it doesn't then it's not the "win-win" situation that the quotation states we're supposed to be striving to achieve. We cannot tolerate "losers" under the Libertarian economic philosophy just because some employers choose to be irresponsible.

If some employers won't be responsible voluntarily then pragmatically, even as Libertarian, we're going to have to mandate that they are responsible.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Sorry, but no thread with a fast food joint as part of its topic can ever be complete without this ...

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

You forgot, an increase in taxes.

One issue I'll take when all you said ... you're arguing the employer should have responsibility for the employee just as the employee has responsibility for the employer.
The only problem with that is glaringly simple: the worker works for the company, not the other way around.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

What increase in taxes?

If you like kangaroo meat, nothing wrong with that. It's actually very tasty. Ask me how I know.

Oh. Did I forget to mention the higher tax bracket one gets placed into?