Given that the Minnesota Legislature apparently has no economic sensibilities whatsoever as they offer up a minimum wage increase, I thought it perfectly fitting to offer up a repost from a RX Op-Ed from back in 2006. The same specifics and premise of my piece apply.
The Star Tribune story on the wage increase can be found here:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/18452859.html
Money For Nothing
Old sayings are a dime a dozen yet their underlying message is priceless. For example, if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day; teach the man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime. Having come up empty on a number of fishing excursions I’m not quite so certain of the exact truth in the adage. Though, all kidding aside, the underlying message is in fact priceless. Perhaps the most notable of these implies that what you reap is what you sow or similarly that you will possess the very fruit of your labor. And, considering yours truly has been instilled with the gift of the “Minnesotan work ethic”, I wouldn’t think twice to question the truth in such timeless teachings. Nonetheless, from a politically ideological standpoint, the silver lining behind such metaphors, at least amongst Liberal Democrats, seems long since forgotten.
Liberal Democrats have a propensity towards an ideology that the path to social betterment comes via the Robin Hood theory. The very act of taking from the “rich” and redistributing it, in essence to level the playing field, is a practice for which they have seemingly perfected. The vast array of such measures by which they implement this socialist movement are forever far and wide; from last week’s call by the Minnesota Private College Council for the state to spend $50 million dollars a year to pay eligible minority and low-income high-school students to take college prep courses, to similar calls for Affirmative Action, to consistent curbs on growth and profitability both at the individual and corporate level (undermining Capitalism in the process). Quite matter of factly, these and other such actions by Liberal Democrats have consistently been a hindrance to the fruition of the very individual and society for which they possess to better.
So comes the Democrat’s insistence to raise the Federal Minimum wage from its current rate of $5.15 an hour to a whopping $7.25 an hour. Such insistence comes despite reports this week that American wages are actually on the rise at a pace not seen since the 1990’s (The Christian Science Monitor). Such rises in earnings come as a result of tamer energy prices resulting in “real” wage gains which, after inflation, are above 3% over the past 12 months; a trend that, in spite of a recession risk that has not yet disappeared, economic analysts anticipate will continue to benefit paychecks into 2007. Yet, such modest gains, which come on the heels of positive economic growth (i.e. lower oil prices, low inflation, lower cost of goods, and low unemployment levels), are at risk of being thwarted by Democratic measures to raise the Federal Minimum wage when they assume control of the House in January.
Now, forgive me for missing the logic in this latest Liberal idiom but I don’t equate as rational the very notion that while transitioning a dog from kennel to an all day free reign of the house, you give him a Milk Bone before leaving for a ten hour work day in hopes Fido won’t use your new carpet as his own personal toilet. Similarly, we ought not institute a Federal mandate on a business owner to pay a low-skilled worker an additional $2.10 an hour in hopes the business owner is going to receive a $2.10 increase in productivity. You need not be an economist to know that increased productivity begets an increase in earnings not the other way around.
Proponents of a wage increase, like Massachusetts’ own Senatorial lifer Ted Kennedy, cite that “Americans are working harder than ever, but millions of hardworking men and women across the country aren’t getting their fair share”. But, considering that the current Federal Minimum Wage is nearly $2.00 more, when adjusted for inflation, than what the $.25 an hour 1938 rate would warrant, the argument could be made that hardworking men and women are getting their fair share. And, contrary to Kennedy’s claim, the 2005 Minimum Wage Characteristics according to the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) cites that hardworking men and women at or below the minimum wage are not in the millions. Kennedy further goes on to state, “We’re not rewarding work fairly anymore, and working families are falling behind.”
Perhaps Kennedy can allude to which working families he’s referring to. Might he be referring to the small business owner, with a wife and two kids, who’s hired a handful of young high school students (low-skilled workers who had no qualms about fulfilling an employer’s needs at $5.15 an hour) who is now forced to choose between cutting his productivity or cutting his profit margin? Or, is Senator Kennedy referring to that paltry percentage of married individuals working at or below the minimum wage; the percentage of which the 2005 statistics do not account for being childless.
Folks, the truth is that the bulk of workers at or below the minimum wage in earnings are young individuals. Consider that half of those workers are under the age of 25. A quarter of those workers are between 16-19. Going against this conventional wisdom, Liberals continually note that a person working for the minimum wage 40 hours a week would earn about $10,700 a year, an amount that falls below the federal poverty level for a family of three. And so therein, my friends, lies the problem.
The minimum wage job is a stepping stone on life’s path to self betterment. It’s not some sort of a grotto meant to support a family of three. The perpetual insistence of it as such, then using such an insistence as the backdrop by which to force an increase, would only condone and reward a failed social practice lending credence to the generational welfare cycle. A minimum wage job is meant to be a precursor of things to come. It teaches an individual vital skills such as responsibility, maturity, time management, professionalism, and organization; skills that they’re expected to take with them as they become productive successful members of society on the path to social betterment. A path that comes not via Liberal’s Robin Hood theory, but rather a path which comes through hard work while reaping what you sow; in turn enjoying the very fruits of your labor.
And so while an extra $2.10 may very well purchase a fish to feed an individual for a day, the constant self reflection that such an individual is laboring for minimum wage ought to be the very thing that inspires such and individual to start fishing.
4 comments:
Just another example of the federal government telling businesses how to do their business, and hello, the cost increase to the business owner will get passed onto everyone, including those minimum wage earners.
They directly result in job losses. They don't result in an increase in productivity. And, it undermines the contract between the employee and the employer.
It may have been uttered twenty some years ago but my God does the adage ring true:
"In this present crisis of ours; Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
Soapbox,
This is an interesting article, Soapbox. One thing I do think about, though, is that it is a little hard to pay for college on a minimum wage salary, yet basically I agree with what you're saying. Liberals just don't understand some of the cause and effect relationships.
Hi Beth,
Sorry I haven't been by your blog. There are times in which blogging seems harder than I thought it was going to be and I'm finding myself actually avoiding blogs that either have daily posts, or more comment traffic than I can handle. I guess it's sort of like when there is a long line at a fast food restaurant. The business itself is doing well, so there is no need to feel sorry for them, yet there are also always a few costumers who walk out because the line is too long and they do not wish to wait. Some will actually go instead to a bran new, less well known and less popular business where things are more peaceful.
There are lots of high energy, fast reader, quick responder types that actually love the very sort of blogs that I avoid. One of these days, I'll be more efficient at this and will be able to interact with a few more of the "high energy bloggers".
I'm glad you are hanging out here, though, because I do like you.
"...is that it is a little hard to pay for college on a minimum wage salary,..."
While perhaps students are working minimum wage jobs while they are in college (mind you a great many of them are are also earning tips); provided there college education is geared towards a field where there is actually work to be found, they are likely to have then gained the credentials to then take a job in that respective field. While the job they may then take is obviously at the lower end of the economic scale within that field, given they are just entering it, jobs that require a college degree are not the sorts of jobs that then pay minimum wage.
Post a Comment