Bill Gates had to give 30 cents of every dollar he earned to the US government to avoid going to prison. That's domination - the threat of force if penance is not paid. Wal-mart never made anyone work for them. They simply have said we will pay $7.25 for someone's time with basic skills - if no one was willing to work at that wage they would up it. The value of unskilled labor is low.

If the free market ensured that all people were given a wage that adequately reflected their value, the bottom 40% of earners would be getting more than 10% of the income.

Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. Microsoft then abused its wealth to "embrace, extend, extinguish;" which is sort of a perfect illustration of how consolidating lots of money gives totally unbalanced market advantages to a few entities.

You make it sound as though it's a willful transaction between two parties. Yes, taxes go to those things, but it's compulsory. If I don't like Microsoft I can choose not to buy their products. If I don't like the NSA or CIA torture tactics, I can't opt out of their services. BIG difference.

It's absurd to me that someone would assert that Bill Gates is being dominated by paying taxes whereas these other people are somehow not being dominated by accepting a low wage in the same system.

Also Bill Gates has the resources to change citizenship if he thinks there's a better deal elsewhere. Many of these other people would not be financially able to move to another country and work there legally. So it's definitely more willful for him than for the minimum wage workforce.

There are compelling arguments in favor of abolishing the minimum wage, just as there are compelling arguments in favor of increasing it. Neither position is necessarily wrong, and each requires making trade-offs for the other, but either way, the imposition of a minimum wage is not voluntary to those upon which it is imposed.

You missed the point. Let's get rid of the minimum wage. Suppose Alex is looking for a job, but all the jobs they can find that will hire them pay less than what they think is fair. Does Alex have a choice? No; if they doesn't get a job they will starve and die.

I acknowledge that there are bad actors in the system, namely Wal-Mart, who I'm guessing would be happy to pay workers as little as they possibly could, regardless of the burdens it imposed on them (I say because I believe their union-busting activities were unethical, not because I in any way despise their pay practices as they currently exist), but for the most part, a free exchange helps small business compete against bigger business.

In summation, hamstringing employers and employees is unnecessary. It's a shame, because in the tech community, we've already seen the value of a less-regulated workforce with things like oDesk and such. Companies who just need a Wordpress site are free to hire from oDesk, and will likely receive bids in the sub-$50 range which, in a more traditional arrangement, would violate labor laws. Similarly, we've seen it illustrated that those bottom-end producers aren't necessarily cannibalizing sales from up-market producers, as they're able to better distinguish themselves through marketability, experience and references. The artificial pay barrier we've imposed prevents many of the existing low-skill earners from getting experience and/or transitioning into higher-skill earners.

That clears things up completely. Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for the confusion.

The same applies to every company that has to get their physical goods to market on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.

Let's reframe. Our economic system is capitalism. That means I can exclusively control (via state force) a region's natural resources (a "property" relation between me and everyone else in the universe). It also means that most people try to rent themselves out, giving themselves up to someone's command for half their waking lives, in what is called wage slavery.

The more bargaining power the wealthy elites have, the less they have to pay their subordinates, and can impose worse working conditions. Another phenomenon is you can have a city with as many empty houses as homeless people... when property relations are extended to the virtual, unauthorized sharing/using ideas and computer bits are criminalized.

A person who seeks value from society - value originating at the work of others - has to provide such value back. If all you can do is simple manual labor, you will need to provide quite a lot of it to purchase scarce items that have a high degree of inherent value (such as an iPhone).

Evidence? I think quite a lot of rich people are rich not because of an ability to create value, but an ability to extract cash. E.g., 95% of Wall Street's activity. And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value.

I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable".

>And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value

Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth.

The growth of investments mainly comes through the work of the people at the company invested in. There is little evidence that the people managing retail investments do more than add overhead. And managing retail investment is a pretty small part of what Wall Street does.

> Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth.

Entirely relevant. Those people didn't become rich because of their ability alone; it was ability plus luck. That means using wealth alone to imply virtue isn't very persuasive.