(Where have I heard that before?)
MSNBC's butter and egg man, Ed Schultz, is all in an uproar over the Republicans not supporting President Obama's proposal for a minimum wage hike to 9 dollars an hour. Hot Air has the report with a video clip of the blustering talk show host.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/schultz-no-way-will-raising-the-minimum-wage-will-hurt-small-businesses/
Plus the return of Ted Kennedy for our entertainment.
I have a question for Ed; Why not raise it to 15 dollars an hour? In fact, why not 25 dollars an hour? That's fair, right? Won't that help the economy even more?
I'll leave the rebuttal to the Hot Air writer, Erika Johnsen, but once again, the government is telling small businesses how much they have to pay their workers. If you are a small business owner, does that affect how you do business, how many of your products you are going to produce and how many workers you are going to hire-or even if you can stay in business?
But who am I to argue with Ed the Economist Schultz and his academic studies?
4 comments:
No, Gary, the rebuttal is my job, as the official Fousesquawk critic of the Right to Work for Less Committee. Why not reduce the minimum wage to 2 cents per hour? Then small businessmen could make more money and build themselves big mansions and become big businessmen!
Minimum wage laws exist because, in an economy where most of the citizens do not own productive capital to employ themselves with, and industrial economies of scale do not favor a nation of small producers, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, each in their own way, dreamed of, the law must protect those who "need a job" from rapacious exploitation by those into whose hands productive capital is concentrated.
We could, as an alternative, socialize ownership of all enterprises, or make employee ownership and management mandatory, but the minimum wage allows for a very minimal fairness in allocating the fruits of labor, while allowing business owners more flexibility, which is not all bad.
It is far more true of business vs labor, than business vs government, that "You didn't build that." Oh yes, the entrepreneur took more risk, accepted a good deal of deferred gratification, and probably has more vision and managerial skill, and for that, they get to take a good chunk of the net revenues. But the laborer is worthy of his hire, a principle enshrined in Scripture but not recognized by the blind operation of "the free market."
I would suggest, however, that we ADD to the minimum wage laws a provision that, over and above an absolute minimum flat hourly wage, in any enterprise, the lowest paid employee should receive no less than one percent the compensation of the highest paid executive. That won't affect many small businesses, where frankly the owner probably takes only ten or twenty times what the lowest paid employee makes. But in a large corporation, it would cut the top CEO pay to from about $70 million to about $7 million a year, so that janitors aren't making more than $70,000.
That $70,000 will promptly add to the revenues of small business, which is all to the good, rather than letting the really big boys hog it all.
I recall when Santa Monica tried to pass a minimum wage law at a higher level than the State of California mandated. A restaurant owner complained on camera "That would eat away 20 percent of my profits." Well, good. If you can give all your employees a raise and still keep 80 percent of your profits, that's what should happen.
Why $9 an hour? Probably because that's as far as our president thinks is politically feasible right now. Having found that I can support myself comfortably and build up some small savings on $13 an hour, I think what it takes to support a family would be more like $15 - $17 an hour.
Of course if corporate CEO's cut their compensation back to $7 million, there will be room to cut prices to consumers, which will lower the cost of living, and leave some room to increase the minimum wage a bit less. That would be good for small business. Or, more money could go into shareholder dividends, which would be spent at the small businesses, increasing their revenues.
Its such a sappy old lie to use the small business owner as poster child to save the big boys from their just deserts.
Siarlys,
If some guy wants to work for two cents an hour, that is his problem. He can take his labor elsewhere, just as he can if he thinks 7 dollars an hour isn't enough.
If you want to decide how much profit a business can make (honestly) then you don't believe in capitalism. Who are you to say that a business has to give employees a percentage of the executives?
One of the most telling and bothersome things this dude said was when he referred to illegal immigrants as, I believe, the
"emerging majority", which is certainly what Dems/libs consider them to be, thus the "Dream Act" and "comprehensive immigration reform", a euphemism for amnesty and virtual "instant citizenship".
Gary, I have NEVER claimed to believe in capitalism. Capitalism is the antithesis of Christianity.
I have accepted the argument that a free market is necessary, due to the fact that there are simply too many variables for ANY centralized bureaucracy to make the right calls even 50 percent of the time. So we need ways to let water seek its own level, and for trends to emerge from individual decisions.
Your pathetic sappy weeping for the poor business executive is the cover they need to DESTROY the free market. It is a myth that the employee, or person seeking work, is an equal to the person who owns an enterprise large enough to employ a significant number of employees.
A free market REQUIRES a legal framework that restrains the capitalist and protects the wage laborer.
If a lamb wants to present its throat to be ripped out by a wolf, that is his problem. He can take his wooly fleece to another field if he doesn't want to die.
Who are you to say that a business has to give employees a percentage of the executives?
I'm an informed citizen and patriot, who cares about my country. A business of any size was NOT built by the unaided efforts of the executives. The share due to labor requires legal protection just as surely as contract law is necessary to make sure BOTH parties honor a contract.
Of course powerful labor unions who can force concessions out of wailing weeping executives is even better.
Post a Comment