Amid President Obama's call for a raise in the minimum wage, Nancy Pelsoi, who supports the idea, has a weak chink in her armor when it comes to this issue.
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-nancy-pelosi-other-dems-wanting-minimum-wage-hike-pays-interns-nothing
Now watch this 2008 interview of Pelosi by Jeff Helfeld when he tries to get her to explain why she uses interns who are not paid for their services. Watch until the end because a flustered Pelsoi makes a fool of herself by terminating the interview and calling for the guard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So what does the hypocrisy consist of? Explain yourself.
Yes, Siarlys, I will "explain myself". Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who are always pushing for a higher minimum wage are benefiting from interns who are working for nothing.
It's a clear case of "do as I say, not as I do."
Of the 35 Senate offices that pay their interns, only 11 are run by Democrats, according to the Daily Caller.
“To cavalierly call for a $10.10 minimum wage while the vast majority do not pay their interns, shows that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth and are not living up to the same standards they expect of others,” Michael Saltsman, Employment Policies Intitute’s research director, told the Daily Caller.
“If you created a situation where you all of sudden had to pay for interns, there would be fewer intern positions available. A lot of folks up in Congress don’t seem to realize that the same dynamic applies in the private sector. If you raise the cost of hiring employees, there are going to be fewer opportunities available for workers."
Interns and employees are two different things. True, internships can be abused, but in theory, and sometimes in practice, interns are people who lack the qualifications to be employees, aren't expected to be terribly productive, but are allowed to hang around and do a little useful work (but mostly take up the time of busy paid staff asking questions and learning to do new things) because it will be good educational experience for the intern.
Nothing cavalier about asserting that once these interns have learned some skills, and are ready for a real job, they should be paid enough to actually cover their bills with their earnings.
Michael Saltsman would have done Goebbels proud.
The ONLY dynamic that motivates employement in the private sector is, "if we hire more people, we can produce more goods and services, and since customers are clamouring for more of our product, we'd make more money." Nobody in the private sector every neglected to hire a new employee, whatever the minimum wage, if the result would be more revenue and higher profits.
There are lots of proposals, options, and prospects that are presented to businesses and businessmen all the time. Each one is assessed for the possibility and the probability of making a profit for the company and the stockholders who own the company and want a return.... or else.
Labor cost is one of many considerations. Higher labor costs turns a good prospect into a mediocre one and a mediocre one into a poor prospect and into a pass.
Those lost prospects costs jobs that could have been created.
From a business standpoint each employee and prospective one has an economic value. If the government forces a business to pay employees more than their economic value to the extent they can't make a profit, the company won't expand and will contract which will certainly cost jobs.
With so few people in the Obama administration that were actually involved in commerce it's no wonder that they come up with such lame brain ideas. Liberals NEVER consider consequences... NEVER what is likely to come next....NEVER consider negative incentives. Is it any wonder our economy is in the dumper? Only thing worse is our foreign policy.... But I digress.
Spoken like a true capitalist Miggie... lying through your teeth, except you've said it so often I expect you believe it.
A mediocre prospect, based on demand, at very high wages, compared to a borderline losing prospect, based on very low wages, might tip in favor of the borderline losing prospect as potentially more profitable.
But if ALL prospects are governed by the same minimum wage laws, the borderline, mediocre, and marvelous prospects will all face a level playing field as far as wages go. (Variations based on need for more skilled personnel who can command higher pay levels is independent of minimum wage laws, and if indirectly affected, that applies across the board to all specialties and prospects as well).
Again: If the wages are fixed, or a floor is fixed, and if there is a prospect of making money by hiring, people are going to be hired. If demand for goods and services is down, people are going to be laid off.
What minimum wages laws cost ALL business and ALL investment prospects across the board is how big a margin they can keep for themselves. That of course is the eminently appropriate purpose of minimum wage laws.
(Hey! Anybody notice how quickly the "intern" argument disappeared once I questioned its integrity? It doesn't have any integrity! So now we're back to the same tired old boogeymen the captains of industry have been trying to scare us with since Coolidge was president).
Post a Comment