First, since the word is used for so many different things (and has been since its inception) you need to define
or use some other term, or there will be especially limited hope in understanding what you mean.
Second, the article presents a history
of the Swedish welfare state; that history is taken as an illustration
of the author's points. To wave away those points, one show that they do not fit the history, or at least provide an alternate structure of explanation.
Third, your characterizations of the points is just plain sloppy. The author wouldn't stand pleased, nor his argument undermined, if some trivial amount of work were required to receive transfer payments; and the second point as you've stated it would be both tautologically true and rather useless.
Fourth, one would like to know what you mean by
. When it comes to minimum wages, the nature of the support is primarily theoretical. Unambiguous direct empirical evidence is difficult to assemble. (Note the mess caused by Card and Krueger.) But claims that effort is responsive to reward are supported by theory and
by every-day experience (indeed, or measure
of rewards is ultimately a reflection of the responses that they elicit!) and
by controlled experimentation; claims that people observe others and mimic succesful behavior are likewise supported. And, while I'm not familiar with a theoretical model of transfer resentment
that isn't ad hoc
, certainly ever-day experience and controlled experiment support its commonality.
Fifth, of anyone who'd actually argue
(rather than just baldly claiming
) that minimum wage laws were a reasonable
price to pay to prevent blatant exploitation
, I'd like to ask the following:
- What, here, constitutes exploitation?
- What makes blatant exploitation worse than covert exploitation?
- What distinguishes reasonable from unreasonable prices?
- Is it acceptable to reduce the exploitation (however identified) of workers exactly by reducing the number of workers?
- What do minimum wage laws do to the exploitation of the unemployed?