Many people, especially liberals, still widely accept the view that we need minimum wage laws to provide the working poor with a fair wage. A minimum wage is a legally mandated price floor for labor — for instance, in California it is illegal to hire a worker for less than $8 an hour.
On the surface, this sounds perfectly reasonable. After all, it would be unfortunate to receive such low wages that one would struggle to acquire basic goods such as food or health care.

This is just one example of how many who claim to support capitalism believe it needs to be mitigated or controlled in some way; otherwise it leads to exploitation.

Unfortunately, these views are mistaken; indeed, they are flawed from both an economic and a moral perspective. Economically, because minimum wage laws create unemployment among some lower skilled laborers (those very groups they are designed to protect). Morally, because these laws attack people’s rights to negotiate their income and moreover imply that an employer has a moral obligation to provide workers with a certain income (she doesn’t).
These two aspects are interrelated, of course, but I will start by first discussing the economic flaws and then move to the moral argument.

It is important to remember that wages are essentially no different than any other price: the price of one’s labor. Furthermore, this price reflects certain facts: it reflects facts about how much an employer values your work (if they valued it less than your wage, they would not hire you at that wage) and whether, everything else being equal, you find that work worth doing at that wage. A worker’s value to her employer depends on factors, such as how much training she needs, her employment history and her ability to efficiently carry out tasks.

But if this is true, then surely increasing a minimum wage via legislation cannot alter these facts. As 20th century economist Henry Hazlitt once wrote, “You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit to him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering.”

The attempt to change those facts creates unemployment, as those whose work is worth less than the minimum wage cannot be employed at a profitable wage. In other cases, where hiring fewer workers is too detrimental, employers might simply increase the prices of their goods and services, which in turn reduces the purchasing power of lower-income people (who suffer more from price inflation than other groups).

But who are those whose work might be worth less than the minimum wage? It is inexperienced or low-skilled people (such as students!). The wages of middle and high-income workers are not directly affected by the minimum wage.

We can see now why we cannot eliminate poverty by simply dictating a minimum wage of, say, $50 an hour. This would likely result in drastic price increases, massive unemployment among low-skilled laborers, or both.
Minimum wage laws are immoral insofar as they constitute a violation of our rights — specifically, our ability to trade freely in the labor market. To be able to make the decisions to live the best possible lives we can, we need to be free to rely on our independent, rational judgment.

Sometimes, it will be advantageous for me to accept a low-paying job, if I need to build experience or I have other sources of income to supplement it. Similarly, employers will sometimes find it profitable to hire workers with less skills, and therefore will sensibly want to pay them less than other workers. This does not constitute exploitation: one could only reach that conclusion by dropping the context that employers are offering a positive benefit to potential employees, and that the relationship between a worker and her employer is a trade.

Laws that regulate economic activity, of which minimum wage laws are merely one example, attack our ability to engage in trade with others and force us to act against our rational judgment and our values.

In a laissez-faire system, wealth creation and productivity are unfettered by government interference, and everyone (including the working poor) can benefit the most from the rational and productive behavior of others. It may be true, though, that even in a free society, poverty will exist. And to the extent that people see it as a problem, we can help those in need through private charities.

In doing so we can recognize the fact that charity is and ought to be the voluntary decision to support causes that we value, not the redistribution of wealth or regulation of economic activity by force.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the primary issue is not “how to provide the working poor with a ‘fair’ wage,” (which is not the province of a proper government) but rather how to achieve society governed by justice and a rational economic policy, which themselves depend upon a foundation of political theory (individual rights) and ethics (rational egoism). The answer, once again, is freedom.

TRISTAN DE LIEGE can be reached at tflenaerts@ucdavis.edu.

Jan. 18
reclaim UC @reclaimuc
yudof, birgeneau, celaya… what about katehi?

Jan. 20

Michael Ian Black @michaelianblack
Preview of the kinds of football references I’ll be making during the next two weeks: “Just made myself a super bowl of cereal!”

Jan. 23

Stephen Colbert ‏@StephenAtHome
I believe Ayn Rand’s first love poem went: Roses are red/ violets are blue/ finish this poem yourself / you dependent parasite

Jan. 24

Jerry Brown ‏@JerryBrownGov
California is back, its budget is balanced and we are on the move. Let’s go out and get it done.

Jan. 27

Andy Verderosa ‏@Andyverderosa
Ugh, someone send me some good articles on the human condition so I can turn off MSNBC.

Tweets of the week is a new recurring feature compiled by BECKY PETERSON. This week’s should be called “Tweets of the last two weeks.” We’re still working on the name and taking suggestions. To contribute to Tweets of the week, e-mail opinion@theaggie.org with the tweet, the tweeter and a link.

As Winter Quarter midterms approach, so do the reminders of not having any idea of your living plans for the next school year. You are regretting spinning that wheel at The Buzz, because West Village just sent out its fifth email of the hour and shoved yet another frisbee in your face on the Quad.

If you currently reside in a dormitory (lucky beyotches), chances are, you and your anxious fresh-from-the-nest floor mates are already discussing who to leave out of the apartment located three miles away from campus (“If we put three of us in a room, we’ll only pay $300! So much better than paying $400 to share a room with one person.”)

And if you already regret choosing to live in the middle of nowhere (South Davis), now is your chance to give those tired legs a rest from the 20-minute bike ride you power through on a daily basis. As for the rest of the upperclassmen, time to find that single-room apartment downtown where you can be free of the clingy roommates you’ve had over the years.

For some reason, students are under the impression that housing for 2013-14 needs to be solidified in the upcoming months. So, we’ll address a few things to keep in mind when touring complexes and scouring the internet for random roommates.

1. Sure, the complex may boast two pools, a hot tub, a movie theater and a gym. But can the customer service provide you with adequate help with the amenities? Not in the slightest. (Hint, read DavisWiki comments.)

2. Two miles away, but oh-so-cheap? Have you even factored in how much you’ll hate yourself when you have no friends that want to visit you? What about the amount of laundry and showers you’ll need after sweating through that 20-minute bike ride in the rain? Factor in your utility bills, y’all.

3. Choose your roommate wisely. Trust us, everyone deserves to have privacy. If you didn’t learn that with your psychotic roommate in the dorms, convince your parents of it now. You need it. You want it. An extra $100 a month to be able to leave your clothes on the ground, have intimate moments with your lovers and be able to sleep naked? Think about it.

4. Prime location downtown for a reasonably steep price? Do you realize the amount of money you’re going to spend at the Farmers Market, at the bars and at restaurants?

5. If you feel the need for a companion pet in the near future, first choose the first of the seven cats you plan to purchase. Second, eliminate all housing options that don’t allow pets. Easy as that.

Ultimately, the decision to live next to Target is yours. Ignore our eye-rolling when you request Tipsy Taxi to transport you to your friend’s house for movie night, just because no buses run that late.

By now, many of you are probably wondering when I’m going to start writing about the “really” sexy stuff. You know, the topics that will help you become a naughty sex kitten/super stud/overlord of all bedroom activities. To which I say, there can be no sex kitten (or sex anything else) without consent and protection. You can be a safe sex kitten.

But, that being said, I do think it’s time to move into some topics that make the average person fan themselves like a Southern belle in a heat wave. So today, I’ll be giving you a guide on how to talk “dirty.”

Now, I’m a big proponent of dirty talk, but that’s mostly due to the fact that I’m pro-communication during sex. Other people may be less enthusiastic on the subject, or downright embarrassed at the idea of anything resembling romance novel dialog exiting their mouths.

If this describes your mindset, hear me out. Yes, I am calling it dirty, and I know that conjures up the image of something repetitive and uninspired. But talking dirty can encompass all types of speech during sex, from sweet to sultry. And this article is all about figuring how to do it in a way that works for you.

First of all, it’s good to accept that dirty talk is probably going to sound a little silly when you first try it. Embrace that. If you get caught up in worrying how ridiculous you might sound to some faceless (and highly voyeuristic) outside observer, it will be hard to maintain confidence, and confidence is key. So forget about everything except you and your partner.

Before continuing, a word of caution: If you want to bring more sexy talk into your relationship, it’s best to check with your partner(s) to see if there are any areas you need to avoid when talking dirty.
For instance, the question of who is whose daddy may not bother some, but may really squick others out. And words such as “bitch” or “slut” may make some people uncomfortable, or trigger memories of sexual partners who were far less kind to them than you are. So it’s always a good idea to establish guidelines for dirty talk, just to make sure everyone is comfortable and happy during sex.

Mind you, such a conversation does not only have to focus on the “do nots.” If you’re stuck on what to say when talking dirty, they can help you figure out what topics and words to use. For instance, find out if your partner has any fantasies that they don’t necessarily want to act out but would love to hear described, and go from there.

Now, the main components of good sexy talk are tone and content. And, as any public speaker will tell you, it’s not what you say but how you say that often wins the crowd. So, let’s focus on tone first. Tone can be tricky, because you want to still sound natural and like yourself, yet most people can’t imagine themselves saying anything raunchier than, “oh baby.” To solve this problem, I’m going to borrow a piece of advice I usually recommend for roleplay. When you are talking dirty (or roleplaying) you are still yourself. You’re just heightening various aspects of your personality and using them to put on a show. So, let the side of you that growls, or purrs, or begs for more be your dominant voice for a while.

Once you’ve settled on a tone that fits the moment, you can move on to the content. This is where adjectives become your best friends. The more descriptive you can be, the better. Describe what you’re going to do and how you’re going to do it or, conversely, what you’d like done to you. Describe your partner, how they look, how they feel in your hands and what being with them is doing to your various body parts.

Look, this isn’t English class. Lurid prose is encouraged.

If you’re still stuck, you can fall back on a classic template such as, “Oh honey, I am going to ‘verb’ your ‘direct object’ so ‘adjective’ you’re going to ‘verb.’” Or, focus on sensations and wants. What are you feeling this very moment? What do you want to happen next? Use those things as your inspiration, and I promise that you’ll find out that you have a lot more to say in bed that you thought you did.

SAM WALL is pretty sure “safe sex kitten” is next year’s Halloween costume. Email sewall@ucdavis.edu to find out why.

Many students have no idea that they’re funding sports programs on this campus. Whether or not this is an appropriate allocation of student fees is a big topic of debate, but here’s something we’re pretty sure most can agree on: If students are funding sports, students should have a voice in how major decisions are made in the athletics department.

Rewind to earlier this month — ASUCD President Rebecca Sterling vetoed a resolution that would have called for increased transparency and greater student influence within the UC Davis Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA). She said certain parts of the bill were inappropriate and she wished there had been more student-athletes involved in its creation. Senator Kabir Kapur plans to introduce a resolution with the same idea, making adjustments based on Sterling’s comments, later this quarter. We hope it passes.

Why?

Rewind further — four sports were cut in April 2010. The University cited campus wide budget cuts. Discontinuing women’s rowing, men’s wrestling, men’s swimming and diving and men’s track and field was set to save $2.4 million.

For student-athletes, this was a tumultuous time. Some believed that these cuts were unnecessary, that there was foul play between the administration, ICA and the committees that made the decision. Some are still fighting for those four sports to be reinstated.

Those people will point out select budgetary mysteries, like how ICA was supposed to absorb $400,000 in operational expenses once the sports were discontinued. But instead, those expenditures increased to $600,000.

Student fees contribute about $18 million to ICA each year. Unwittingly, students fund 75 percent of the ICA’s total budget.
When students are funding sports, it only seems reasonable to give students some access to the inner-workings of ICA.

If there was a panel of students that was given a chance to comment on the cuts in April 2010 before they happened, could a sport — or two, or all four — have been saved? We’ll never know.