Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
This is what the WSJ had to say about the minimum wage increase:
Mandating Unemployment, Congress prepares to kill more jobs.
First, "a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent (though not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects." Second, "studies that focus on the least-skilled groups [i.e., teens, and welfare moms] provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects."
Proponents argue that millions of workers will benefit from the bigger paychecks. But about two of every three full-time minimum-wage workers get a pay raise anyway within a year on the job. Meanwhile, those who lose their jobs or who never get a job in the first place get a minimum wage of $0.
Mr. Neumark calculates that the 70-cent per-hour minimum wage hike this month would kill "about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24." Single working mothers would also be among those most hurt.
Keep in mind the Earned Income Tax Credit already exists to help low-wage workers and has been greatly expanded in recent years. The EITC also spreads the cost of the wage supplement to all Americans, not merely to employers, so it doesn't raise the cost of hiring low-wage workers.
For example, consider a single mom with two kids who earns the current $6.55 minimum at a full-time, year-round job. In 2009 she receives a $5,028 EITC cash payment from Uncle Sam -- or about an extra $2.50 per hour worked. Other federal income supplements, such as the refundable child tax credit, add another $1,900 or so. Thus at a wage of $6.55 an hour, her actual pay becomes $10.02 an hour -- more than a 50% increase from the current minimum. (See nearby table.)
But that single mom can't collect those checks if she doesn't have a job, and the tragedy of a higher minimum wage is that it will prevent thousands of working moms striving to pull their families out of poverty from being hired in the first place.
The need for minimum wage manipulation is the direct result of the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of the value of the dollar and size of the money supply, all of which should be dictated exclusively by the free market. Without a free-market currency, there is no free market. The debasing of our currency undermines our savings & retirement funds and slowly diminishes the purchasing power of our wages. The setting of artificially low/high interest rates creates booms & subsequent busts. In total, the Fed determines the winners & losers in society. But no one really ever blames the real source of the problem because it’s not politically convenient. We’re trained to be reactionary sheep. Minimum wage is no different than any other market intrusion requiring more market intrusion, and I’m weary of rationalizing emotional subjects.
The looming crisis few ever acknowledge will happen when the trillions of dollars of inflated money supply we’ve exported comes home to roost. We’ve escaped our fates this long because China and other importers (lenders) have held the dollar as reserves, hiding the real size of the money supply. The dollar becomes less favored every day. In predictable fashion, Americans (steered by govt media) will inevitably cry out for a stable currency when our dollars become worthless. You can bet your waning 401k that a new fiat currency will be waiting to pick up the pieces, and it will be a regional (N. American) or global currency issued by bigger central banks or the World Bank. Mark your calendars.
And the nature of the proletariat (now all of us) will never cease. Give us more money, more bread, more chocolate rations, more cigarette coupons, more, more, more. Their power over us is simply a mastery of mass psychology. Sadly, we understand the nature of government and have chosen to forget it.
The most chilling insight into this dishonest system comes from one of its biggest proponents, John Maynard Keynes, the father of Keynesian Economics: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . . become 'profiteers', who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie [middle class], whom the inflationism has impoverished not less than the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds . . . all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless.” -- The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), pages 220-233