Ravenwood - 03/09/05 06:15 AM
Like I said yesterday, most people support price controls for wages. My best guess is that it represents an ignorance of economics and the drawbacks associated with such a regulation.
This CNN Poll currently has a whopping 79% of the more than 170,000 respondents answering 'yes' to the question: "Should the minimum wage be raised?". I wonder how many people would still feel that way if the question read, "Should the minimum wage be raised, if it resulted in higher prices and increased unemployment?" My guess is that it would be somewhat lower, (but probably still above 50%).
Think about it. If minimum wages really worked, why not just pay everyone $50 an hour?
Category: Left-wing Conspiracy
Comments (4) top link me
That is the same reasoning I've used with people for years regarding tax increases and their effect on the economy. If tax increases help so much, why not just tax eveybody at 100% and create the first perfect society? I actually had the following conversation with a left-leaning relative once:
Me: Tax cuts will help bring this country out of recession.
Lefty: We can't afford the tax cuts, which will only make the deficit grow and hurt the economy.
Me: So you're telling me that tax increases will help the economy grow?
Lefty: Yes. Look at Clinton - he raised taxes and the economy absolutely boomed as a result.
Me: Did it ever occur to you that the economy may have boomed in spite of the tax increases? Anyhow, even if your statement were true, why not just tax everybody at 100%? That way we would have the greatest economy possible.
Lefty: People wouldn't accept such a large tax all at once.
Me: Why wouldn't they? Doesn't a perfect economy benefit them tremendously?
Lefty: (silence)
Me: Are you telling me that people just don't realize how much they would benefit from a 100% tax?
Lefty: Look, it's not about that. It's just that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes and the gap between rich and poor just keeps growing. Giving tax cuts for mainly the rich hurts us all.
Me: I guess the solution is to make the rich just as poor as everybody else, right? At least then we are spreading the misery around evenly. Once progress is halted and most of the coutry's wealth is destroyed we won't have much left to argue about, I suppose.
Lefty: You just don't get it, man.
Me: I must not.
Posted by: roger at March 9, 2005 9:02 AMFunny, Roger. :P
I'm conflicted. I am all for a free market, but at the same time I hate working with people who only deserve mimimum wage. If the company had to pay $7 an hour we'd definitly get a hire quality employment pool.
This is working at Wal Mart, btw, a mixed bag in itself.
Posted by: Rhett at March 9, 2005 11:13 AMI think I saw the ultimate argument for why the minimum wage is unnecessary the last time I visited my in-laws in WA. My wife and I went to Fred Meyer (kind of a Pacific NW version of WalMart) and they had a help wanted sign up.
They were offering starting wages of $14/hr for cashiers, up to $18 for experienced ones.
This was in Issaquah, just east of Seattle. I've also heard that burger flippers in Seattle make $8-9.hr.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at March 9, 2005 1:57 PMRhett,
Wal-mart is a discount store. If you want full service, you need to go to a full service store.
Otherwise why not just pass a law that says Wal-mart has to hire better workers?
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 9, 2005 2:03 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
