Are minimum wage laws just or unjust? Do they violate any negative moral rights? Do they truly benefit the people they are intended to help (presumably, low-wage workers)?
Yes, minimum wage laws are unjust to workers who are unallowed to work for less, even though it is the only work they find. The law is unjust to low-skilled minorities who cannot produce fifteen dollars per hour of output. The minimum age is similarly unjust to owners of businesses who are not allowed to choose the best mix of machines and labor. Owners who can mechanize can do that while keeping a few better workers and increasing the remaining ones' output. Possibly, owners who cannot mechanize shut their businesses. The laws are also unjust to consumers, who are forced to pay for everything the law touches. Nonetheless, consumers deserve to purchase the best values they get to help in their lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although most economists admit that minimum wage laws lead to unemployment plus other economic problems, many ignore the fact that minimum wage laws violate negative moral rights. Broadly, minimum wage laws are immoral since they violate both employers' and employees' rights to freely contract, thus making criminals of employers who are honest and decent.
Primarily, almost every nation possesses a minimum wage law. Nonetheless, their details vary depending on nationality; for instance, France has a universal minimum in its economy. Others like South Africa and New Zealand categorize workers and sector types. The government must mostly set the minimum wage and periodically revise in consultations with labor and business organizations. Firstly, while looking at the impact of minimum wage laws on welfare, we identify employers mighty not follow the minimum wage law. If nobody is receiving the minimum or when the law is mainly on paper, it is irrelevant ( Borgschulte, & Cho, 2020 ). For instance, in nations with huge shadow economies, a worker might be given under-the-table supplements by the employers, otherwise known as "envelop payments," to evade costs or taxes of offering benefits. However, in such conditions, the employer could react to a rise in the minimum wage by minimizing the envelope payments, parting the whole compensation intact. Employers can also underreport the hours worked by employees, thus making sure the total pay remains intact. Or, employers can fail to report any employment, thus evading the minimum wage laws fully. Thus, does a rise in minimum wage impacts low-income workers? It depends.
Is Social Security unjust? Does it violate any moral rights, such as negative moral rights to property?
Yes, social security is unfair/unjust to low-income earners, high earners, married couples, and singles (almost everyone). Nonetheless, social security might seem fair since it gives all American citizens a right to participate in a program that will aid them by offering support at old age. Despite that, social security is unjust as it could be, and other individuals are primarily pushing for advancements.
I believe social security is immoral. It is rightful to say that some individuals do not plan well for unlikely or distant events like disability and retirement. Social security gathers revenue by taxing workers' income and applying it to pay disabled people, retirees, and other beneficiaries. The remaining cash after payments is given to the Treasury in exchange for special debt to the government that can get redeemed as cash in paying benefits ( Borgschulte, & Cho, 2020 ). Social security is immoral since the current generation is getting forced to offer support to the previous generation. However, since the population is aging, the burden to the young generation is rising. Thus, there is a huge way between the elderly who are anxious for their benefits and the young who are getting huge tax burden burdens. Therefore, I consider social security unjust, and it violates citizens' moral rights, which leads to negative impacts.
References
Borgschulte, M., & Cho, H. (2020). Minimum wages and retirement. ILR Review , 73 (1), 153-177 .
