by Jack
What’s wrong with $15 an hour minimum wage? Even at $15 an hour a person is barely able to make ends meet. This is survival, not prosperity. So what is the objection by the right to a minimal livable wage? Is this just a case where the rich can never have enough, where they are exploiting the poor for personal profit?
No, but these arguments are sprinkled with just enough truth to make them sound believable, especially if they are told often enough and said with passion and conviction. On the opposing side, which would generally be the conservatives or right-wingers, it’s not that they aren’t uncaring, but they are bound by logic and reality. The reality here is the price of goods is tied directly to the cost of overhead – this would be the cost of doing business and guess what? Wages are a big part of overhead!
If you raise the minimum wage, if you raise corporate taxes, if you raise health insurance premiums, or anything tied to end cost of the product or service, it follows that the cost of that product or service will go up. This is how inflation works and inflation robs our wealth and it harms the poor more than anyone else. But, in addition to this, we generally see a realignment in jobs so business can maintain their competitive edge. Realignments mean workers will either wind up doing more to justify their higher cost within the company or if that is not possible, their hours will be cut in order to hold their new part-time wages to something the company can afford. For the company sometimes it’s better to have two part-time workers than one full time worker with full benefits.
Raising the minimum wage is a catch 22 that works only for a short time, then we all pay for it. When the minimum wage goes up, everybody wants a raise, because they want to maintain their parity spread that is often based off the minimum wage. So, raising the minimum wage eventually causes all wages to go up and over time we all pay more for everything, then the cycle starts over again. There is no escaping this reality in a capitalist society. But, something else was lost when minimum wage becomes what it was never intended to be, a “livable wage.” What could that be, you may wonder? Well, lets think about it for a moment.
Lets say you have reached a point in life where you can look back a decade or two and recall your very first job. Did you earn a “livable wage” or did you earn an [entry] level wage? Were you happy to get that starter job and did you learn from that experience? Please don’t tell me you kept that job at the McDonald’s drive up window as your career choice to raise a family and buy a home? Reality check: A $15 minimum wage does cost jobs, it does limit employment opportunity for young, inexperienced, entry level workers to learn basic skills and later grow and leverage from that experience.
Increasing overhead in any way leads to inflation and that hurts the poorest among us more than anyone else. You would think that leftwing democrats would understand this? Well, they do…their leaders get it, but they MUST pander to their voter base of people who are desperate for that $15 an hour raise because most of them don’t get what it really means. They only see the short term effect.
We’ve been adjusting the minimum wage since it’s inception and we’ve never once been able to stay ahead of inflation, not once. We keep upping the minimum wage and the argument in favor of it is always the same. It’s an endless endeavor.
Now factor in something else. Why do you think we’ve had this massive exodus of jobs to foreign countries and so many business closings in the US? It’s all about that nasty word…”overhead.” The world is a very competitive place, it is sometimes a ruthless dog eat dog world…survival of the fittest! Who turns out the best and cheapest widget wins! This is reality, it’s capitalism 101 and no amount of leftwing rhetoric can change it.
The world is not clamoring for more socialism or communism or more government regulation to impede business, it’s moving toward more capitalism because that has been proven to be the most effective way to lift up whole countries and everyone in them. Capitalism creates wealth, opportunity and better living by giving us more choices. This plays right into human nature, socialism and communism fail because they are going against human nature. So who is the most caring, the left who is selling a falsehood because it plays well with their voter base, even thought it will eventually hurt them more than help them; or the right who cares about ALL jobs and ALL business, because that will lift up ALL our people?
Now you know that raising the minimum wage to a so-called livable wage is not a short cut to a better life for workers on the lowest rung of the employment ladder. We built America believing that fair competition, hard work, and equal opportunity will do more for the quality of life than any other system.
It has been proven time after time that freedom, low government overhead/regulation/obstruction and the opportunity to be something special, beats the heck out of any other system every time.
There is this and then there is so much else going on in Crazyfornia that will cripple the economy, for instance the ever increasing cap and trade taxes that most people don’t even know about.
Nearly everything you write about here regarding Crazyfornia cries out for the creation of the state of Jefferson. Without it this state will get worse over time to the point where the only option will be to leave.
Excellent article, Jack! I’m highly in favor of people being lifted out of the chains of poverty but this band-aid fix won’t do that and it will hurt people.
We must address this issue becasue it affects people in their everyday lives. But we must also sew it into the larger fabric of ideology.
The left wing mantra has two parts. One is expressed as “a living wage.” The other as “Income equality.” Yes I know, they complain about income inequality but if that’s the complaint, then isn’t the solution ultimately income equality…a top down management of how much people are allowed to make? Nobody talks about it in this way but isn’t that what free college and free healthcare and free food and free housing and free preschool and on and on ultimately strive to create? If this is true why not skip the meandering path and just declare that henceforth everything shall be given through the government! Why not simply take all wealth for “fair” redistribution? Why? Because the left in America fool themselves about how far they can go before they completely compromise freedom. (And because inside every human heart is the longing to be free.)
“The world is a competitive place, it is sometimes a ruthless dog eat dog world…survival of the fittest. This is reality and no amount of leftwing rhetoric can change it. The world is not clamoring for more socialism or communism, it is moving toward capitalism because that has been proven to be the most effective way to lift up whole countries and everyone in them.” – Jack
Equally true: The world cannot thrive and grow when surviving on “a little capitalism” and “a little freedom.” It can only subsist.
The world has depended on a thriving and growing American economy. Were it not for the American economy and it’s strength, the democratic socialist nations of the world would be floundering. They can maintain the appearance of being able to “afford” big social programs because of American economic and militaristic strength. Diminish that strength, as we’ve seen in the last seven years, and the democratic socialist countries begin to fail. Not surprisingly, these are the conditions that also invite radical violent and controlling elements that do not favor freedom or capitalism.
The USSR and China were dying because of the extreme communism that held their people hostage for so long. Freedom and capitalism cried out to the people in those countries. When the cold war ended we saw capitalism introduced, but marginally. Old habits die hard. Powerful leaders and militant groups fight the transition. There are strong pockets of resistance. At the top there are leaders who want to hold on to the ability to amass wealth for themselves. They found the game of mollifying the people with handouts and propaganda a great means to that end. Allowing a “little” capitalism was something they thought would work. But neither Russia nor China are doing well today because of the still strong nationalist control. Much of Europe is floundering and near collapse for the same, albeit softer reason…they do not value freedom or understand how personal freedom works hand in hand with capitalism.
Weakness in America uncovers the basic weaknesses of democratic socialist nations.
Then there are the radical militant organizations pushing a far left agenda south of our borders. These organizations are pushing into America now, too. America stands alone but is faltering…how does that bode well for anyone?
Add the Islamist extremism and it’s clear to see that freedom, as well as capitalism, are under assault even as the people of the world clamor for them. It bothers me greatly that so many young people are enamored with socialist answers to economic problems. I know the impulse comes from a heartfelt desire to help others but when do common sense and critical thinking come into play? They know the expression, “Feed a man a fish and he eats today; teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life.” How is it that they cannot apply this simple bit of wisdom?
There are many ways to oppress people. Obviously we can’t abide a free for all void of all laws and regulation. But laws should maximize freedom rather than blunt it. Laws should support business rather than stifle it. And laws should serve as a means of holding people accountable so that it can all work. That’s much easier when laws and regulations are simple, clear, and specific and are not aimed at manipulation, control, and a loss of freedom.
The $15.00 minimum wage is a job killer. It’s also just another step, in a scheme that patiently introduces many many steps, away from freedom and abundance and toward mediocrity and an all encompassing power structure at the top.
Well done Jack!
Related: Watching “Chuck Norris vs Communism” on Netflix. It tells the story of life in Romania in amazing first person accounts regarding the viewing of US films. Must see (subtitles) but worth the effort. There’s a reason our founding fathers warned us to guard our freedoms.
Thank you Tina and a brilliant reply in comments. Well done!
I agree. The CEO’s are barely making a living at 10 – 20 million a year. Maybe it’s time to build Chinese factories here.
Now I figure if we have a maximum salary at $300 a week we can give CEO’s and investors complete power. The economy will grow because when the average person has no money to buy anything the rich can buy out everything and become kings and queens!
A Health economy needs people to have enough money to purchase goods. The wealthy hide their money. Americans are tired of this fascist gov.
In other words Epic Fail!
Bottom line Americans will fight for $15. We are not slaves. Propaganda will not work. People are fighting back against the fascists.
I find it interesting Conservatives work so hard to enslave American Workers and feed those who are hoarding money.
Dewster, I’m not going to put a limit on how much a CEO should earn and neither should you. If we do that (via government) we get onto a very slippery slope. Who wants government to control CEO wages, raise your hands? Dewey….you are all alone. lol
Better that we have REAL board of directors and REAL stockholder meetings to decide a salary based on what the CEO brings to the table. Put an end to cronyism, phony bailouts and lying on so-called independent quarterly reports.
Want to do something good Dewey/ Our watch dogs are asleep, wake em up!
Right now big government has failed miserably to keep corporations from being looted by illegal practices at the top. More government won’t fix that, but better government will. Get it?
Look Dewster, you either support capitalism or you don’t. Do you want big government and communism or do you want to accept the flaws that go with capitalism? Hey, that’s why there is a Bernie Sanders running. He sounds like your man, go waste your vote on that socialist. He’s not going to win, the fix is already in for Hillary, we know it I suspect you do too.
A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue much of Obama’s damage, its a vote for bigger government and more taxes, and getting less in return. There’s your choices Dewey, what are you going to do? Are you going to support the far-left socialist wage controllers or do something smart for a change?
The minimum wage has been a nice political football for the left for quite some time. In Bill Clinton’s first administration the Democrat Party had a lock on the White House & the Congress. The could have done anything they liked with the minimum wage, especially the bandied-about indexing it to inflation. I don’t remember it being brought up, not even whispered about.
Great comment JB. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Likewise the Obama administration had two years with a super majority and they chose to put all their eggs in the Obamacare basket when they could have concentrated on a number of issues they claim Republicans block. Maybe their only important at election time. 🙂
Please feel free to enlighten and inform us here at Post Scrips anytime!
Thanks JB an excellent point!
Jack Dewey likes to pretend that there are no socialists in corporate boardrooms.
We agree that corporatism needs to come to an end. It’s destructive. Big business interests should not be deciding policy.
But neither should big environmentalism or big education, or the AFLCIO or the SEIU.
Our military does have the responsibility to advise Congress. Defense of the nation is a constitutional obligation. But our representatives should be looking at the big picture and the interests of all the people not special interest groups.
Where Dewey and conservatives part ways is how to get there. Dewey seems to think that big government programs and control are the answer. But if we examine Obamacare, we find that several big wealthy insurance companies colluded with socialist democrats in writing and promoting the legislation. If we look at Obama’s policies on the environment we see collusion between wealthy environmental extremists and the administration to shut down coal and fossil fuels. Politicians, particularly big government politicians, always seek help from organizations and groups to sway the people, including the very wealthy. Democrats are the party of the rich when it comes to wealthy donations. Thomas Steyer, big environmentalist, donated $73,725,000.00 to democrats in 2014. Michael Bloomburg gave over $20 million.
I don’t think this is what the founders had in mind for our federal government. They envisioned a limited federal government created to bind the states together, to secure our freedoms with a strong military, to represent the people diplomatically, and to act as mediator in disputes between the states. A limited federal government would end collusion between the federal government and special interest groups. The people in the individual states would still have to do battle within their states to prevent this practice but at least we’d have the option of voting with our feet.
The other thing Dewey doesn’t understand is that money in the hands of a few wealthy people doesn’t stop him or anyone else from earning more money and getting ahead. In fact, when those people are free to spend and invest their own money our economy thrives. Conversely, when high tax structures and costly regulations that are put in place to fund the socialist dream, the people suffer with less opportunity and more dependency.
Dewey is under the spell of the conspiracy theorists and therefore cannot think outside that world of resentment and fear. It would be good to see him step out of the box and breathe the refreshing air of freedom.
My vote is for doing something smart for a change.
Off topic, but had to share.
Thanks to Ted Cruz we still have our 2nd Amendment right to own guns.
“â—ľIn the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz assembled a coalition of 31 states in defense of the principle that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms”
Ever Had a Look at Ted Cruz’s Resume? It’s BLOWING MINDS:
http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruzs-resume-is-very-impressive-should-make-him-standout-amongst-other-candidates/
Good to have you back Peggy, hope you had a restful visit at the beach.
I commented on Ted’s resume back at the start of this circus when this article first printed…agree it’s impressive.
Had a very relaxing time. Nothing sweeter than the sound of the surf just yards away from the deck I sat on with a good book and cold drink.
Even stopped at a real estate office. But, over a million dollars for what I wanted and with Bernie signs everywhere I came back to reality.
Can’t say they weren’t warned.
Economics should be a required course for high school and college graduation requirements.
KARMA: Leftist Bastion UC Berkeley Laying Off Staff Due to Minimum Wage Hike
http://louderwithcrowder.com/19875-2/#ixzz46ErYwrmx
Follow us: @scrowder on Twitter | stevencrowderofficial on Facebook
Peggy, if you follow the links back to the original SFGate article, there is absolutely no mention of the minimum wage hike factoring into UC Berkley’s decision. Townhall literally made that part up, and hoped people wouldn’t check the original source; Steven Crowder fell for it, and now so have you.
Don’t believe everything you want to hear.
Peggy the “spokesman for the American Federation of State Chancellor, ” Todd Stenhouse, wouldn’t blame Browns wage hike on this decision. The left isn’t about to advertise that it knows this will cause layoffs for minimum wage earners. But even Brown admitted before announcing his signature said that said raising the wage too high will cost jobs and put a lot of poor people out of work. When LA raised the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour, a study out of UC Berkley “found that raising the minimum wage in Los Angeles would cause city’s unemployment rate to rise and economy to shrink.”
Given the timeline of these announcements , one following on the heels of the other, I’d say that the decision to cut low paying jobs at Berkley, rather than trimming the fat in the bureaucracy at the top, or dropping programs that don’t contribute much in terms of usable real world skills, is highly probable.
National Federation of Independent Business:
Chris I think you are too quick to dismiss the announced minimum wage hikes in Berkley’s decision to cut jobs. Obviously they were already looking for ways to make cuts because of budget challenges but if that’s the case it makes sense that this announcement only added more pressure to an already troubling situation. Simple common sense tells us that if costs go up adjustments have to be made and the higher minimum wage will cause employee costs to go up even beyond the wage hike for employees.
You are also too quick to charge that TownHall “literally made that part up.” There’s more evidence to suggest the hike contributed in this decision than there is that it had nothing to do with it.
Tina: “Peggy the “spokesman for the American Federation of State Chancellor, ” Todd Stenhouse, wouldn’t blame Browns wage hike on this decision.”
No, but Townhall claimed that he did. From the Townhall article:
The $15 minimum wage hike in California has sent financially troubled UC Berkeley into decision making mode, and “the people who clean buildings, who work in food services or health clinics,” says Todd Stenhouse, will be the ones without a job.
This is clearly written to give the impression that the point about minimum wage is a paraphrase of Stenhouse’s words, when really it is an invention of the author. (It’s also deceptive to cite the minimum wage in the lede and the headline when there is no evidence provided that it was a factor in the decision; the writer is editorializing and passing it off as a factual news article.)
It’s certainly possible that the minimum wage increase was a factor in Berkeley’s decision. It’s still unethical and dishonest to put words in people’s mouths, and to pass off editorialization as fact. It’s dishonest and unethical even if the author really believes that the minimum wage had an impact.
Thanks for sharing Chris.
There is zero reason to believe that the announced higher minimum wage plan didn’t DIRECTLY affect the choice to lay off low wage employees. NONE!
Liberals are such phonies!
WHat were the wages of the CEO’s running those businesses?
Bottom Line Americans are not going to be slaves.
Tina you fall for the propaganda like no other.
The 10 states that raised their wages are seeing a positive impact so far. Imagine that people spending money? That scares you?
Do you support all the human slavery being used for the products you buy?
http://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/
WHy do you rail the American workers for those who make more than a workers yearly wages in an hour?
They move jobs to pay less for their own profit. GREED
Dewey read the book called Flat World. It explains just what you need to know.
I’m sure Obamacare, immigration by Muslims and Mexicans, and gay marriage all had something to do with it too. Why not throw all those in the headline as direct causes as well?
You’re missing the point. It is unethical to simply throw one’s own personal bugaboos into something that purports to be giving the facts, thereby twisting those facts to give a false impression. (The lede makes it look like Todd Stenhouse said something he never said. It does this intentionally.) Do you disagree with this principle? Is your answer “It depends on who does it, and whether they are doing it to advance a political cause I believe in?”