Slavery is alive and well in Montgomery County (MD) reports the Washington Post. Immigrant workers like Gloria Ramos are hired to work as live-in housekeepers or nannies. But often times they realize too late that the work is a lot harder than they thought. Aside from caring for 3 children for her $200 a week, Ramos was "forced to cook daily for seven members of the family. She found herself working as late as 3 a.m. to finish all her tasks. To make matters worse, her promised weekly paycheck often didn't materialize." Not surprisingly, Ramos quit.

If immigrant advocates have their way, laborers like Ramos won't have to worry about being put into situations like that any more. In fact, they might not ever have to worry about working in Montgomery County again.

The advocacy group is asking the council to protect such domestic workers with far-reaching legislation that would establish a living wage for such employees of at least $10.50 an hour, unless they also receive medical insurance. The proposal also would mandate paid holidays, vacation time, sick leave and family and medical leave time.

I can think of no better way to drive up unemployment than to mandate a so-called "living wage". Not to mention the laws are inherently racist and discourage the hiring of low-skilled workers. Dr. Walter Williams explains:

One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.

Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.

Plus there is also the overall effect on unemployment. If an employer has three workers making $5 an hour, and is suddenly forced to pay them more, he may lay one of them off and expect the other two to pull up the slack. While the two guys making more money are better off, it's little consolation to the guy that got laid off to pay for their raises.

Still yet, you could look at it this way. Lets say a guy is getting paid $8 an hour to sweep the floor. Here you come, fresh out of high school looking for a summer job, and offer to sweep that floor for $6 an hour. Why should the government be allowed to tell you that's illegal for you to work for that little bit of money? When you don't have very many skills and you're out there competing for work, sometimes your price point is the only competitive advantage you have.