Bizzaro like Democrat economics
Despite all the talk that Democrats won on a centrist/conservative platform, and talk that the Dems are moving towards the middle, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has decided to lead with raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.45 or about a 41% increase. Kennedy feels that he has an iron-clad mandate for this move.
"If there is one message from this election that emerged loud and clear, it's that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty."Yup, the one message wasn't corruption/ethics, it wasn't the war, it was minimum wage. I get that he's looking at all the initiatives that passed, but using that logic anti-gay marriage initiatives passed 7-1. That's a huge mandate given his standards, can we expect him to introduce a Federal ban on gay marriage? As a side note, avid readers of this blog (Hi Mom!) know that I do think American workers are underpaid, but that I prefer market solutions over Federal solutions.
Let's look at his other solutions. College tuitions are "too high" so he wants to increase the money in circulation by raising loan amounts and decreasing interest rates to pay them. Now that will surely bring tuitions down. I mean anytime you give a group more money, prices in the area go down right? For example, if you want to decrease inflation you print more money. I honestly think the Democrats live in Bizzaro world when it comes to economics.
Perhaps most troubling is this quote on how to pay for all this.
"There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is, who's going to get it,"Well clearly not the tax payers. Do you think that idea even crossed his mind?
The good news is that we have a Republican in the White House to stop this kind of rampant spending. Surely W's learned a valuable lesson from the mid-term "thumping," and will return the GOP to it's small-government roots. Let's go to the White House
President Bush on Wednesday said increasing the national minimum wage is likely an issue on which he could cooperate with Democratic leaders in Congress.Awwww crap.
"I believe in a lot of issues we can find common ground and there's a significant difference between common ground and abandoning principles,"
Posts
6 comments:
Upon "what's fair" I agree with you and our Stalin; but "What's just?" That, if nothing else, is what rule of law is for. And, yeah, I'm FIRED UP!
Nah. As always, I'm ambivelent. I have no problem with what I'm paying my lawn crew, being reasonably assured that whatever it is, it beats the going rate in Mexico or Guatemala (and I couldn't care less what it means for Lou Dobbs' America). It's what white people are paying brown people that has me handwringing. No, it's not my business; yes, I am a Democrat.
So here I sit, hoping there's someone out there making sure everyone's doing what maybe I think is the right thing, intellectual leanings and lack of evidence--as a consequence of lack of interest--aside.
At least I know I got what I deserve: Ted Kennedy.
I absolutely think that one person, working a 40 hour week should be paid enough for a reasonable quality of life. But what's reasonable? What if you have a kid? What if you have two? I also know that we will always have a minimum wage...so what to do? Like I said, my main problem is that I'm sure people would not mind working for just less than the minimum wage as opposed to not working. If you had to pay more, would you hire less? The fact of the matter is that taxes and benefits add on to whatever the wage is from the employers perspective. A 40% increase in the absolute minimum wage is actually more like 50% plus for company expenses. Imagine doing that across a large employee base.
In the article Kennedy points to the fact that so many states have passed their own minimum wage law. I think that's vastly superior. The voters in a state have a much better idea of whats fair, or just for that state. $7.55 goes a lot further in Mississippi (yes I just had to do the "crooked letter I" thing) than in New York. Cities are doing the same with even more focused application. This lets the citizens of that state or city, deal with the ramifications and justifications.
I also wonder if there is a way to reward companies that pay more through tax breaks or other incentives. The more the private market pays, the less the public has to pick up (not perfect, but that is our system - a solution should acknowledge reality).
Finally, I still like tying the minimum wage to Congressional salaries. At least there will be accountability and a very public marker for both.
Tax breaks. I wondered what you'd think of those. And now I know why you're "only" 54.
I'm also trying to look at this from the employer's point of view--specifically as the owner of an office cleaning business (something I'm beginning to give serious thought to becoming) and I'm wondering what I'd do without a minimum wage to determine what's fair for an employee. The going rate would be simple enough to ballpark, but I tend to think what's fair would work out to be considerably more than even the proposed wage. My expectation in return would be excellence, but how reasonable is that for unskilled night work?
At this point it's more of a moral than an economic puzzle for me, but an engaging one nonetheless. Thanks for the brain food.
The beauty of a free economy is that you get to pay whatever you want. The reality will be that the more you pay the less you will employ. You may decide that it is more just to give 10 people a job instead of 5 as opposed to paying only 5 very well. Or you may not. A minimum wage law dictates that choice. Where's the justice in that?
So you think you're better than me?
What do you mean, "think"?
Post a Comment