Withoutasolidunderstandingoftheshortcomingsintheirlogic,adefenderofthefreemarketscanappearnaïve.It'snotenoughtoknowtheprinciplesbehindtherightwaytodothings;wehavetobeabletoexplainwhygovernmentregulationisthewrongway.TheproblemsintheargumentsthatIoftenheartoexplainhowunnecessaryourminimum-wagelawsare:Weusuallycondensetheseargumentsintothreecategories:Thatcollusionamongcompanieswoulddrivewageratestonearzero;thateliminatingminimumwagewouldcausesalariesacrosstheboardtodrop;andcitizensshouldnotbecompensatedsopoorly.Eachoftheseargumentsmayappearvalidonthesurface,buttheyallhavefatalflaws.Themostcommonconcernwhendiscussingthepossibilityofeliminatingtheminimumwageisthatcompanieswillbeabletogettogetherandgangupontheiremployees,forcingthemtoacceptwagesofnearlynothing.Thissoundsreasonable,butitleavesouttwokeypoints:employeesarenot"forced"toworkataspecificplace,andcompetitionbetweenbusinesseswillautomaticallyleadtodifferentwages.TheLivingWageisdrivenbytheideathatworkersarenotfreetochoosewhotheyworkforandinwhatconditions,buthavetoacceptwhattheirbossespresentthem.Butworkersarefreetoworkwheretheylike.It'struethatanemployerdoeshaveameasureofcontrolovertheemployeesameasavendoriscontrolledbyhiscustomers.Inotherwords,anemployeeneedstohaveaskillthatisworthpayingfor,justlikethevendorneedstohaveaproductthathiscustomersarewillingtobuy.Theothererrorwiththeideathatisitdoesn'ttakecompetitionintoconsideration.Inordertoriseabovetherest,acompanyneedstohavebettertalentthanitscompetitors.Obtainingtalentedpeople,drawingthemfromotherareasofemploymentismosteasilydonebyofferingsuperiorsalariesandbenefits.Thisiseasilydemonstratedbythefactthatmostworkersarepaidmorethanthelegalminimum.Acompanyneedstopaymoretogetbetteremployees.Evenifanentireindustrydoescollaborateanddepresswages,thearrivalofevenonecompetitorwillingtopayhighersalarieswillerasetheothers'advantage.Therefore,bothnaturalcompetitionandworkers'freechoicepreventcompaniesfrombeingableto"force"employeesintoexploitation.Theminimumwageisnotap