Over at Zero Hedge today, a chart showing retail trade offers a notable emerging difference between states that recently hiked the wage and those that held firm. Retail is most telling, as the indusrty has among the highest level of these type of workers.
 |
| Retail Trade/Chart via Zero Hedge |
Fast food workers recently went on strike to obtain higher wages, not due to their hard work on the job, but because of the perception that they deserve it and the corporate employer can afford it. In an interview with Business Insider economist, Paul Krugman thinks the overall costs of raising the wage would not cause as many issues as most think. Krugman fails to recgonize the adminstration he advocates for has no right to direct the capital of private firms through social engineering. Economically, why cause any issues? Why not reduce encumbrances firms face limiting the obstacles faced in advancing growth?
Unless, of course, you have other objectives.
Common sense would dictate that government intervention in this arena is designed to help the workers and help the economy grow, but that is a farce. Government mandated wage levels, along with price controls, are impediments to growth. Therefore, the goals are not economic, but politically driven, with the plans set forth in the Cloward and Piven Strategy the objectives.
Free market capitalism, with limited governmental restrictions on business, is without question the best path to prosperity. Under the current administration, fees, taxes and government regualtions have increased while freedom and prosperity have decreased.
In the form of the old argument regarding the minimum wage, now you have an example of why.
2 comments:
Excellent post, and definitely one of the issues I've always had with government intervention has been motives. I remember seeing those idiots on TV complaining that they should be making $15 an hour at McDonalds because McDonalds is a very big company. The very reason outsourcing occurs is because of this strange idea that an employee's share should be determined solely by the growth of a company, and not on the actual job requirements.
I've always believed that any type of government interference into issues such as this should be extremely minimal. As long as the employee is being paid a fair wage in comparison to others working the same job, there's not much of a problem. The only issue I see is an employee who doesn't know how to maximize their dollar. My father came to this country and droves taxis while going to school. He's now retired after working as an accountant for a major bank, and he used the money from his taxi and security jobs to pay his way. My mom wiped the asses of old people and did security work. Now she's about to retire from the NYPD and made good money with her real estate deals. I'll be retired in three years, and I have two crappy security jobs. It's not about the money one makes. It's about what one does with the money that dictates what kind of life they're gonna live. NPR did an excellent article on a program that is designed to get people out of poverty called Circles.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/16/347954335/a-circle-of-support-helps-families-stay-out-of-poverty
The government has bigger problems. They should stick to those and let the people work things out on their own. With programs like Circles, not-for-profit orgs, lawyers, and judges, I think we can do a better job taking care of those that really need it.
Thanks for reading and offering your commentary. Circles looks quite promising, and the article is now posted on the BAHL Revere Facebook page. Congrats on your upcoming retirement!
Post a Comment