Greetings fellow steemians!
As the title suggests, I would like to explain my opinion on how minimum wage generally stagnates the economy by limiting the individual's ability to change careers while unemployed, and how introducing exemptions will enable unemployment to be increasingly reduced in regards to how long benefits are received, as people would be able to learn skills and obtain a job in an industry in demand, and consequently increase overall employment rates.
Let me start with an example to clarify my thesis. John has been laid off from his job at the local factory, where he was getting paid well as he had been there for 10 years, and earned a few raises. His company moved their operations in Asia, due to the dramatic difference in cost, which means much more profit in the pockets of the stakeholders. This is common, as globalism enables them to operate in any part of the world, so why not produce in another country for a fraction of the cost? A topic for another discussion.
John wants to change careers, as he is unable to find a similar position due to a lack of demand. John lives in a relatively small city, with many medium and small businesses, in diverse industries. John wants to start an apprenticeship as a tradesman and tries to find a contractor to work for, however, due to his lack of experience, he was unable to find someone willing to pay him for a few months until he learned enough to start contributing enough and handle things on his own. Many of the contractors are single or two-person companies and are either subcontracted by another company, so paid just enough to take the job, or they find their own clients and charge just enough to make some profit. Paying a person that really doesn't do much, which in this case would mean being able to actually do minimal tasks to speed up everything(for example measuring and cutting wood, layout for framing etc. ), isn't really affordable. Therefore is it generally unlikely for John to get hired as an apprentice without any sort of external support (government/private agencies).
This is why certain governments like the Ontario provincial government have implemented tax-funded apprenticeship programs, meant to help the student with unemployment benefits while studying in school and the employer by offering incentives (like up to 19,200$ per apprentice) if certain criteria are met. There is also a "second career" program aimed to support you while attending college to learn new skills. This is however limited to what the government believes are the jobs required, consequently restricting your choices to a few programs, and it doesn't necessarily solve the employment problem post-graduation, due to lack of experience.
If businesses had the possibility to accept any entirely voluntary offer by someone like John to work for free for the first few months, while for example being able to receive unemployment benefits, it would be a win-win situation.
Obviously, fairness would dictate that in order for this to happen a business would have to demonstrate it's unable to support the apprentice, and the apprentice can't be used for labor or anything that otherwise would be done by a paid employee or the person teaching you the skills. For example, completing tasks in order to practice skills, like measuring and cutting lumber if a carpenter, or mixing cement and working it if a cement mason or plasterer, would be considered an essential part of the learning experience and not free labor. Other considerations would be made to ensure fairness and curb abuse by employers.
I would have done this myself a few years ago when I got laid off and was unemployed for about 6 months. I couldn't find a company that was willing to hire as an apprentice (paid). I have the working experience sufficient to work as an apprentice and would've been able to prove it if allowed to.
To conclude, while I believe there should be a low rate minimum wage, I also strongly believe there should be exemptions based on individual will. Often allowing such exemptions will permit people to acquire new skills while on unemployment, with the ultimate goal of finding a more stable or sought after career.
I would like to leave you reflecting on a few questions.
If I want to learn in exchange for my labor, without receiving money, why can't I?
Why does the government have to determine how I manage my labor?
I understand they need to protect minors and those incapable of making their own decision, but why does a capable adult need protection?
It is assumed we are idiots (and most of us, they're not wrong) that don't know how to protect our best interest.
Then again, considering we have decided to be ruled by a government under threat of violence, and canned freedom in exchange for the illusion of security, I am not surprised we would seek the government for guidance in how to handle your relationship with work and how to pay you based on what they think should be the pay .
From a libertarian perspective, there is no harm if each person agrees consensually to something.
Individuals are ultimately more than capable of taking care of themselves and being responsible and accountable when grown up.
Thank you for your time!
