Question

Ontario passed legislation to increase Ontario’s general minimum wage from $11.60 per hour to $14 per hour on January 1, 2018 and then to $15 per hour on January 1, 2019. Increases in the minimum have always been contentious with business arguing against them. In October 2006, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in the USA released a formal statement titled "Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage" signed by 659 economists including four Nobel Prize winners in Economics and other leading economists. Daniel Klein, an Economics professor at George Mason University in Virginia and editor of the journal, "Econ Journal Watch", sent a questionnaire to all 659 signatories which, among others, asked them to respond to the following statement: Daniel Klein: "In one manner of speaking, liberty is a freedom from political or legal restrictions on one's property or freedom of association. Subscribers to this definition are apt to say that the minimum wage law is coercive because it (along with concomitant enforcement) threatens physical aggression against people for engaging in certain voluntary, consensual acts (namely, employing people at sub-minimum wages). (Notice that even subscribers to this definition of liberty recognize that it does not itself carry a policy recommendation; values other than liberty exist and might conflict with it.)" Below is a response by one of the economists to the Klein's statement: William Waller: "Liberty is freedom from political or legal restrictions on one's property or freedom of association as long as this behavior involves no involvement or impact on any non- consenting third party. Once social, cultural, or political institutions are involved in supporting, facilitating, or creating an environment for this behavior, then it is legitimate, indeed required, that a larger notion of the public interest be considered in the behavior. Since no legal employer/employee relation of which I am aware exists that does not involve currency, use of the postal services, use of roads, payment of taxes, etc, the definition of liberty is not in my view encumbered by this question." Here is another response to Klein's statement: Michael Sattinger: "I think the definitions of property rights (and rights in exchanges) are essential for markets and liberty. Property rights inevitably benefits some and harm others, so the coercion referred to would be inevitable. Not raising the minimum wage would also be coercive according to the definition of liberty proposed above."

(i) What is the fundamental difference between Michael Sattinger's argument and William Waller's argument? Carefully explain answer. (ii) Michael Sattinger and William Waller both seem to accept Daniel Klein's definition of liberty but then reach a different conclusion from Klein's? Would you describe them (i.e., Sattinger and Waller) as deontologists or welfarists/utilitarians? Explain.

Answer 1

i)                   The definition of william waller simply means that liberty is being able to freely engage with others without the government questioning or interfering with your property in any way as long as this liberty of association does not affect any other person who is not enjoying this freedom of association and freedom from property restriction.

On the other hand, Michael Sattinger means that property rights will benefit others without and hurt others without the owners being able to do anything about it, and so not raising the minimum wage property right will

The fundamental difference between the two is that Waller argues that there is freedom of association as long as employees do not uphold the restrictions by laws and government, meaning that employees can be employed and receive lower than minimum wage. Michael implies that as long as there is laws that requires raise in wages, businesses have to adhere to it without question

ii)                 

Since Deontology judges morality of issues based on rules, then Waller is a deontologist because he advocates that businesses adhere to raise in wages to the interests of the employess while Sattinger is a Utilitarian because employees will be employed and receive sub-wage if they consent to the idea of receiving less that the minimum wage set by law

Utilitarianism hypothesis expresses a choice is made in thought to the best formal it has on individuals. The utilization of technology can affect human life through major creates and era of salary. This makes its relevant as the focal points are many considered to the issue it brings that can be understood. Deontology judges morality of issues based on rules