In his provocative article, "Why There Should Be A Global Minimum Wage," Jason J. Campbell poses the following question: “Since outsourcing is a viable economic model wherein First World corporations export their labor to defer cost and maximize profits, should there be an international standard for the minimum amount that laborers, of any country, may legally be employed for?” (“To what extent does it differ from slavery,” he then asks.)
I’ll stay away from the moral argument, which seems to be the mainstay of Mr. Campbell’s article. The question of implementation, or the feasibility of enforcement, is another bag of worms; consequently, I'll stay away from it, too. What I’d like to argue, however, is that the very idea of global minimum wage (and a multitude of same-order concepts) presupposes a certain state of affairs – “the new world order,” I called it for short. In effect therefore, whether wittingly or not, Mr. Campbell has given us a blueprint, a glimpse of the future – not the future you or I would necessarily desire but a future nonetheless. His argument is (how shall I put it?) “in reverse,” first positing a controversial piece of legislation – one which, on the face of it at least, would appear to be ludicrous under the existing conditions – and then daring us to imagine a state of affairs, a world in which the exact same proposition or body of laws wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. Hence the underlying purpose: to unpack the argument and by means of reverse engineering, to reconstitute it anew.
In the interest of exposition, I'm going to proceed incrementally, from the existing cases to those which are still in the process of forming – eventually to those which are likely to come into being in the near or not so near future. “Global minimal wage” shall remain our point of focus – the lever – but let there be no misunderstanding: any similar such concept (such as “uniform currency” or “no-discrimination clause”) would do just as well. And here, the most logical place to start would be the U.S. itself, already a federation de jure and de facto (despite a growing sentiment to the contrary).
For better or worse, the minimum wage law is the law of the land. True, every attempt at increase has been fought, and bitterly, by business interests and state legislatures from North Carolina to Texas. But once the new law is passed, it becomes a moot point: the states had better comply or else.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
A worldwide federation, a single world government - it's a nice thought, but I'm leery of it for the same reason I wouldn't want a single-party system...even of liberals.
On the other hand, there's a significant group of people out there who think that America should not be a part of any worldwide organization, that we should do what (they think) is best for America and we should pay little heed to the rest of the world no matter how important it is to the rest of the world as a whole....which is one reason why Bush wouldn't go for the Kyoto protocols.
The only way I think we can hope to have a true world government - and it would have to be a type of federation - is to increase education for all at every level. Education, education, education...and the rest will come in time as a result.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
And kudos to Blogcritics - "Technorati" was referenced as a source of information in a news article in the most recent issue of Newsweek - the 'socialist' issue. Congrats to all!
3 - Roger Nowosielski
It's not something I'm wishing for, Glenn. But no means do I want to give up national identity, and all the goodies. But we may well be heading in that direction if the world continues in this turmoil.
In essence, it was just an imaginative exercise - how things might look if . . .
I think a leveling that would come about would be pervasive, and it'd have to include education - not just the general level of prosperity.
4 - Cindy
Roger,
I have something to say about Robert Nozick. He does not appear to be referring to what most Anarchists are calling Anarchism.
He appears to be referring to something quite undesirable to most Anarchists and in my opinion unlikely and impossible to sustain called anarcho-Capitalism.
Of course it would result in a Minarchist state. How could such a proposition exist without state? Who would enforce the contracts?
5 - Roger Nowosielski
Are you referring to the text I referenced?
6 - Cindy
Yes. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia
7 - Roger Nowosielski
I'll have to look more closely as I'm in the process of re-reading it in connection with my next piece. If he does, that may be a particular version of anarchism that Nozick is committed to (perhaps under the influence of John Rawls). But his main argument - apart from the matter of enforcing contracts - still appears to hinge (to the best of my recollection) on offering protection - the whole gamut, that is - from protection agency, to dominant protection agency, the minimal state, and so on.
So even from that aspect alone, the argument appears to be convincing enough that the emergence of "the state" is a natural development - if one starts, that is, with a hypothetical construct such as "state-of-nature."
8 - Cindy
Roger,
The more I am reading about Nozick, the more I am finding that I suspect, in all our conversations, we are calling something one thing yet meaning two entirely different things.
9 - Roger Nowosielski
You'll have to be more specific than that. What do you mean exactly?
10 - Cindy
Give me a few minutes.
11 - Cindy
Okay, well first of all, Nozick's entire argument is based on beginning with a "free-market" state of nature.
This is rejected by Anarchists. None but Dave's variety, anarcho-Capitalists, would accept a "free-market" state of nature.
While people are free to use whatever words suit them...anarcho-Capitalists, though they have some ideas in common, are not what is meant when anyone commonly uses the word Anarchism.
I have found that, Murray Rothbard confirms that this is in fact what Nozick is starting with.
12 - Cindy
Actually, I could go beyond Rothbard's criticism of Nozick to form my own argument that Anarchism, as I am using the word would be more likely to prevent the formation of a state.
13 - Roger Nowosielski
You can provide me with that reference, link, etc.
I believe you're right - and I have to give it some thought. But Nozick only picks up one version and takes off from there. There was Hobbes before - the originator of the idea. And his version, as you know, was quite different.
I believe Nozick picks up Lockean version - which was already uploaded from that offered by Hobbes - with natural rights, contract, etc - so in that sense you're right. Of course, Rousseau's version - the Social Contract - came later; and it departs from Locke.
As I said, I'll look at it, but I still think that apart from the idea of contract, the main idea is protection.
The reason why I believe Nozick starts with the Lockean version is that it allows for the smoothest transition from a no-state situation to one in which state must be established; and there's something to be said for this strategy - trying to imagine a situation that's as close to an operative state and yet which is not quite a state.
So shall see!
14 - bliffle
IMO the only effective minimum wage or wage support movement was the Union movement. Unions create political power in the workplace, locally, with a federation system that extends geographically and through other industries.
15 - Cindy
ROBERT NOZICK AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE* MURRAY N. ROTHBARD
There you go. That is a pdf in case you have trouble with pdfs.
16 - Roger Nowosielski
OK, but I don't want to go too deep into this subject here because they won't let me publish later on. So I'll have to talk around it.
17 - Roger Nowosielski
Yes, bliffle. But as of late - and since the union movement in the US has been, if not dying, then at least limited to certain key industries/businesses - all the increases in the MINIMUM wage laws across the US has taken place in the political arena, regardless of where the pressure/s had come from.
18 - Cindy
I can adjourn that discussion til your anti-Marx article, if you prefer. Is that where it would fit?
19 - Roger Nowosielski
No, It's the next I'm doing - arguing against "the privatization of prisons" on moral grounds.
20 - Cindy
Cool. I can wait 'til then.
21 - Cindy
I would like to finish reading this one anyway. I'm only part way through.
22 - Dave Nalle
I'm pretty sure that Rothbard wouldn't have liked being called an anarchist and especially wouldn't have liked being classed with the anti-property social-anarchists Cindy is trying to lump him in with.
Dave
23 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, I'm going to give it a read anyway - if only to see how he disagrees with Nozick. But even without "the free-market" set up, there's still the problem of offering protection - Nozick's main argument, if I'm correct - so I don't see how one can get around that problem.
Roger
24 - Cindy
I haven't begun on that yet.
25 - Cindy
Dave,
I think perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. I am talking about Nozick. Rothbard is criticizing Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia.
In referring to Rothbard, I said nothing about him personally. I merely referred to his critique.