Dems can’t have it both ways
Posted by BrianI was up early this morning (~ 4 AM) feeding the youngest baby and watching Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC. He was talking to a Dem strategist about Pelosi’s first 100 hours scheme and he asked a very well phrased question (paraphrasing):
The new Dems coming into power have claimed to be pro market (in contradiction to the well founded popular perception). How can they seriously make that claim while simultaneously advocating a federally mandated minimum wage (yet alone increasing it)?
The strategist, whose name I can’t recall, couldn’t muster a good answer. He actually said something to the effect of, “even $7.25 an hour isn’t enough to make a living.” He is obviously well skilled in his art though, because he quickly changed the course of his response to a talking points summary of the goals of the 100 hours scheme. I was hoping Tucker would ask, “why stop at $7.25? What is a living wage?”
There should be no federally mandated minimum wage. It should be a state issue, but even then I would argue that the individual states shouldn’t meddle in a contract between an employer and a worker. The minimum wage today is nothing more than a government dependency tool. It is a vehicle that politicians can use to buy votes from two segments of the population: people who undeservingly get a government mandated raise and people with more compassion than common sense who feel some sort of guilt at their own success and think it is appropriate to toss a bone to the “less fortunate.”
The first few hours of the Dem control presents a mixed bag for me. They appear to be sincere about restoring fiscal responsibility that has been quite lacking for the last few years. But their fervent support of government dependency programs is deeply troubling (not that Republicans had been doing much better in this regard).
Related content:
January 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
How can they promote a free market and promote a minimum wage? The same way that Republicans can promote a free market and promote corporate handouts. There actually are countries that don’t have minimum wages, and you’re free to look at them as an example of standard of living for their working class. I hear that those 9-year-olds in China are really living it up.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I’m no fan of subsidizing businesses. Tax breaks are good. Subsidies are bad.
Comparing our labor market with China’s is absurd. It doesn’t help to mix in the topic of child labor, which is restricted in this country for good reason. It should be noted, though, that even in the world’s most populous country the labor market is becoming tight and income is rising. Some companies have even started to leave China for places like Vietnam because wages have gone up too high and qualified workers are too scarce. To specifically address part of your last sentence, the Chinese people are living it up relative to the lifestyle they enjoyed not too long ago.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
What is happening in China is a good thing. As the world market grows there will always be some job displacement. As far as the central point goes, the minimum wage is a good thing. I could live with the state’s setting it, because of the differences in the standards of living from state to state, but we have to have something. Just because some people are poor enough to work for $1.00 per hour we shouldn’t make then (in china or here) so we can have cheap socks.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I suppose it is better for those people to simply be unemployed with no opportunity for advancement? Low wage jobs are gateway jobs for ambitious, but unproven workers.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
You’re missing the point. They should be employed, but they should be paid for what their jobs are actually worth. A low-end job may be a low-end wage, but when you’re making the product that is actually bringing in the profits, you deserve more than $1/hour. Just because someone is desperate enough to work for ANYTHING doesn’t mean that they should be taken advantage of. Cheap labor only benefits the employer, and only in the short term. Meanwhile, low-end workers with more disposable income will spend more, and guess where that money goes… It actually INCREASES corporate profits, but not in an artificial or temporary way like with tax cuts and labor cost cuts. You’re actually making more money because you are selling more product. Novel idea.