I can't think of many goods where monopsony power exists because I'm lucky enough to live in a world where it's rare, even in labor markets. The one possibility that comes to mind is the relationship between the government and defense companies like Raytheon, but even those companies are allowed to sell to foreign governments, albeit after jumping through some hoops.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to believe monopsony power mostly occurs in the labor market, but I also wouldn't consider the minimum wage to be the first line of defense against poverty. Its proper application may be in a very small number of areas where options for employment are few, should they exist.
Perhaps, but even if you accept the Monopsony Power argument, I still don't think it's reasonable to treat the minimum wage as the 13th floor when it comes to explaining youth unemployment.
If the market price for the good is already more than 25% above the legally mandated floor, than a 25% rise in that floor will have no effect. If the least-skilled jobs in the economy already pay $15/hr, then a rise from $7 to $10 will not change the amount consumed.
For #2: Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. Or, how about money itself? I'm sure many libertarians would like to mandate that the value of money should never fall. And as long as you are calling income a "good or service", I suppose you could throw pension benefits in as another answer. Yes, I'm being a bit facetious here.
Let me rephrase that then. What makes you think libertarians want government to have anything to do with money? You seem to be hinting at not wanting government fiat money. That's fine with me, going back to hard money. But if you look at inflation 1800-2005 or similar stretches, you can see a gradual deflation in the late 1800s, inflation during wars, deflation after wars, and constant little variations that don't really matter much. The only way to mandate no deflation is to have government control money.
I have no references for this and can remember no useful details. Maybe 10 years ago, I read of someone who had found a way to make Gucci (or similar!) goods as well as Gucci itself, but by machine, cheaper, and under his own brand, so not Gucci knockoffs. (I know nothing of Gucci, whether they really are good quality, nothing. The brand might not even have been Gucci.) He sold his goods far below Gucci prices, but well above "ordinary" prices. He got very few sales. Then he raised his prices and sales increased.
The obvious storal of the mory is that people buy that kind of product for bragging rights, not for perceived quality.
Thanks. I agree it sounds more like a Veblen good. I had to look both up. When I first read that article years ago, it was a new concept, but easily understandable. People aren't buying a Gucci HANDBAG, they're buying a GUCCI handbag.
I can't think of many goods where monopsony power exists because I'm lucky enough to live in a world where it's rare, even in labor markets. The one possibility that comes to mind is the relationship between the government and defense companies like Raytheon, but even those companies are allowed to sell to foreign governments, albeit after jumping through some hoops.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to believe monopsony power mostly occurs in the labor market, but I also wouldn't consider the minimum wage to be the first line of defense against poverty. Its proper application may be in a very small number of areas where options for employment are few, should they exist.
Perhaps, but even if you accept the Monopsony Power argument, I still don't think it's reasonable to treat the minimum wage as the 13th floor when it comes to explaining youth unemployment.
If the market price for the good is already more than 25% above the legally mandated floor, than a 25% rise in that floor will have no effect. If the least-skilled jobs in the economy already pay $15/hr, then a rise from $7 to $10 will not change the amount consumed.
But it also will not change the price, and thus not qualify as the "government mandated price hike" specified in the post
For #2: Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. Or, how about money itself? I'm sure many libertarians would like to mandate that the value of money should never fall. And as long as you are calling income a "good or service", I suppose you could throw pension benefits in as another answer. Yes, I'm being a bit facetious here.
Why do you think libertarians would want government to mandate anything about money?
Many people would prefer to avoid a fiat system where the government can devalue money by creating more of it.
Let me rephrase that then. What makes you think libertarians want government to have anything to do with money? You seem to be hinting at not wanting government fiat money. That's fine with me, going back to hard money. But if you look at inflation 1800-2005 or similar stretches, you can see a gradual deflation in the late 1800s, inflation during wars, deflation after wars, and constant little variations that don't really matter much. The only way to mandate no deflation is to have government control money.
Most i know who favor a minimum wage say all need a "living wage" and do not think of a wage in terms of a price.
Government defender contracts
I have no references for this and can remember no useful details. Maybe 10 years ago, I read of someone who had found a way to make Gucci (or similar!) goods as well as Gucci itself, but by machine, cheaper, and under his own brand, so not Gucci knockoffs. (I know nothing of Gucci, whether they really are good quality, nothing. The brand might not even have been Gucci.) He sold his goods far below Gucci prices, but well above "ordinary" prices. He got very few sales. Then he raised his prices and sales increased.
The obvious storal of the mory is that people buy that kind of product for bragging rights, not for perceived quality.
That's called a Giffen good: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/giffen-good.asp
I don't think anyone supporting the minimum wage argues youth labor is a Giffen good.
Or more likely it's a Veblen good. Sometimes I confuse them.
Thanks. I agree it sounds more like a Veblen good. I had to look both up. When I first read that article years ago, it was a new concept, but easily understandable. People aren't buying a Gucci HANDBAG, they're buying a GUCCI handbag.