100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 06, 1981 - Image 10

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1981-06-06

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 10-Saturday, June 6, 1981-The Michigan Daily
Opinion
Page 8 Saturday, June 6, 1981 The Michigan Daily

The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCI, N. 23-S
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Human, priority
ONLY A FOOL would contend today's uni-
versities remain pure citadels of learning
The University Medical School's tentative
decision to abolish its Physical Therapy
Curriculum - one of only three such programs
in Michigan - seems infused with the worst in
corporate tactics, including professional
elitism and strong-arm policies against "ex-
pendables."
Physical therapists are in desperately short
supply across America - some 14,000 positions
remain chronically unfilled. Therapists must
be experts in multiple forms of treatment, from
simple exercise to delicate ultra-sound
therapy; they must maintain the patience to
assist often badly-disabled clients through
days, even years of grueling rehabilitation.
It takes an extraordinarily caring individual
to persevere in such a profession - yet physical
therapists are traditionally scorned by other
members of the medical establishment. Like
practical nurses or paramedics, therapists are
often dismissed as auasi-nrofessionals.
Such snobbery certainly appears a
motivation in the present controversy. The Med
School haughtily insists it is responsible only
for training doctors and nurses, not physical
therapists (the PT Department is jointly con-
trolled by Med and LSA). Physical Therapy
makes no money for the Med School, which
reportedly would rather concentrate on
lucrative, "glamour" subjects, such as cancer
research.
The entire Physical Therapy budget is
estimated at $100,000 - approximately the
salary of a single surgery professor. PT Direc-
tor Richard Darnell readily asserts the current
budget is sadly inadequate; he and his
colleagues would prefer seeing their depar-
tment abolished if not provided with sufficient
funds to train their students properly.
While the Med School has never laid its finan-
cial books open to the public, it seems doubtful
a department which can afford such non-
essentials as new parking ramps can't
adequately fund a science that fills such an ob-
vious medical need.
We urge the Medical School to reconsider its
decision; it's more than a matter of economics
- it's a matter of human priority.
Al 1WZ FORd NO!ALTK
AD (MMI WA
p EA
NA'

WANTEDWNE
ROY LEE WILLIAMS ROY LEE WILLIAMS
FOR PRESIDENT
On Federal Bribery- of the
Conspiracy Charges. TEAMSTERS
f ~UNIONf
* THE 1.LA TIMES SYNDICATE

I_

The unfree market

One of the bulwarks of liberal
philosophy holds that all people
shall be helped by government if
government determines they
need it. Among these
manifestations of paternalism lie
the Great Protectors - such as
rent control, wage and price con-
trols, and the minimum wage.
These sweeping economic
guidelines mandated by the state
are designed to regulate the
economy so that those deemed in
Common
Sense
By Mark Gindin
need receive just treatment.
Most prominent among the 'to be
protected' category are the poor
and the minorities - both
relative classifications at best.
It is unfortunate that each of
the aforementional mechanisms
actually accomplished more
harm than good. It is even more
unfortunate that the public not
only approves of these policies,
but cries for more.
Two of these three economic
apocolpyses will be discussed
later. It is the minimum wage
that shall command the attention
of today's Common Sense.

An example always helps. If
Joe of Joe's Market wants to hire
a high school kid to stock the
shelves after school, he could
put a sign in the window adver-
tising the job opening. In a free
market, an applicant would walk
in, haggle with Joe over wages,
take the job, and both would be
satisfied.
If the kid was getting too little
wages, he could quit. If Joe was
paying too much, he could fire the
kid. A free market transaction
benefits both parties or there is
no transaction.
With the state-imposed value
on the kid's work, the free market
is not given a chance to operate.
The kid will not be offered the
work if Joe cannot afford the
price the government demands
he pay his help. Joe will not ac-
complish the work needed to be
done, so his productivity will
drop.
The sensible solution to the
problem is a complete abolition
of the minimum wage. The cries
of anguish that eminated after
Candidate Reagan suggested that
sale proposal showed not
everybody understands what
would happen.
If the minimum wage law were
eliminated, productivity would
increase while unemployment
would be reduced. Joe would hire

workers at an affordable price,
while his store- would prosper
from the increased labor.
With no federally mandated
minimum wage, the facts show
there will be less unemployment.
Each rise in the minimum wage
has shown a subsequent rise in
unemployment as workers are
priced out of the market.
The only question remaining
would be how much wages under
the present minimum wage
would be reduced. The sensible
answer is not much. Ifa company
presently can afford to pay a
worker the minimum wage, it
can continue to attract the best
workers by maintaining the wage
or even raising it.
Undeniably, there would,
inevitably, be people working for
less than the present minimum
wage. But the point is that they
will be working. Nobody is for-
cing them to work for wages
lower than other people, but the
work will be available and
workers will be available to fill
the jobs.
Which is better, to work for less
than some other people, or not to
work at all? In a free market, you
are free to choose. In an unfree
market, you are not. At present,
you are only free not to work
because nobody can afford to hire
you.
It's about time people
rediscovered they are served bet-
ter and more efficiently in a truly
free market than in a market
dominated by the government.
The elimination of the minimum
wage laws would be an act of
good sense. Others will follow.
Mark Gindin is a michigan
Daily staff writer. His column
appears each Saturday.

4

QOOPNFAU
ill AYU

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan