Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 12, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Forums » Internal Affairs
  • Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews: Jackie and Serial Adulterer JFK Had a 'Good' and 'Full' Marriage
  • Bozell Column: Another Fleeting Failure for NBC
  • Martin Bashir Implies GOP Too Racist to Have Marco Rubio as VP Candidate
  • Barbara Walters, Shameless Hypocrite: Hits Kennedy Mistress for Greed, Tells Her She Should Have Stayed Quiet
  • NY Times Writers Rush to Obama's Defense Like It's Their Job
  • Rachel Maddow Trumpets Inane 'Amish Bus Driver' Analogy for Obama Contraception Rule
  • MRC's Bozell Scolds Media's Reluctance to Cover HHS Birth Control Mandate
  • Chris Matthews Excoriates: Rick Santorum Is a 'Theocrat' and Franklin Graham Is a 'Disgrace'

Oppose - Raising the Minimum Wage

  • Login or register to post comments
No replies
Sat, 08/05/2006 - 9:37pm
RHSMITH
User offline. Last seen 5 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/30/2006
Oppose -  Raising the Minimum Wage
 
I oppose an increase in the minimum wage.  I would prefer to see it abolished.
 
1) What a hair-brained idea!  The more you raise the MWL the more you raise the poverty line.  When it was $1 ph, (in 1960), the poverty line was not even discussed in the media.  I wonder what the argument was in favor of the minimum wage law in 1937 when it passed @ 25 cents per hour?  The whole concept of a minimum wage law is bogus.  Cradle to grave government?  You create a dependency on the government in every new generation with the MWL.  It destroys independent thinking!  What will you you do when government fails you?
 
 
2) The MWL is already the most inflationary set of laws ever passed by congress.  Do you remember the 20% inflation under Jimmy Carter?  A direct link to the MWL increase of 1960 and the following years.  Do you remember the question posed by candidate Ronald Reagan in the presidential debates of 1980, "Are you better off than you were four years ago? " Did you notice who got elected?  Did you notice the riots in France when they proposed an adjustment in the 'job for life' employment concept.  There will come a time in our future when we will realize the stupidity of this kind of interference in the economic lives of our citizens.  Just remember how hard it is to un-ring a bell.
 
3) The only group to benefit from the MWL are property owners who can raise the rents when they think the market has any extra cash available.  Think of the barber shop owner, he wants to make a living and pay his rent.  He will need to raise the price he charges to meet his own needs.  Back in the fifties, you could get a haircut for about 50 cents, now it starts at $10.  That is inflation!  Don't forget to look at congress and their $500 annual increase, year after year.  What a 'MWL' they have!  They are so smart(and the public is so stupid) that they don't even have to vote on it, its automatic!
 
4) How do you teach children to be responsible individuals, if they cannot get a job?  I guess everyone will work for the government pretty soon.  Look at the low paid workers in the military.  And on TV, they sell it by saying they will pay for higher education.  Risk your life and we might pay for college.  No wonder minorities makeup most of the military population.
 
5) Up until 1960 at $1 ph, the MWL had no great economic impact on our society.  In the Summer of 61, after we got a 35% increase in the 'MWL', we got the 'flower children' and 'drugs' and a drop-out generation.  This was a large part of the 'baby boomer' generation.  What I do not see is a sociological study on the impact of the MWL on our society.  Congress wants a study on everything else! 
 
There are a lot of papers on the economics associated with the 'MWL', and none on the social impact derived from the inflation and the loss of jobs of young people.  Cato institute has several.  Where are the sociologists on this subject?
 
One thing that always bothers me is that whenever I try to have a rational discussion on the subject of the 'MWL', I almost always get the comment that it doesn't buy much in today's terms.  That is not the relevant concept.  The 'MWL' is an 'entry level position', and learning is the issue.  You hear everyday how the schools are failing to educate.  The education then falls to the small business community to try to make a profit while training these 'new hires' in the ways of business.  BTW, most children get their first job with small business in this country.  Children live at home with their parents, and do not pay rent.  With entry level employees it is about being 'productive', not about how much money they make.  When they are productive, they are worth more.  And, if they don't get it, they are free to sell their skills elsewhere. 
 
The 'MWL' has created more problems than it has solved.  The poor are still poor!  More of our population works for the minimum wage than ever before.  The concept of helping the poor cannot be solved by inflecting all of society with the 'MWL'.  Educating them is the only way.  Burdening small business with the costs of the 'MWL' is only a method for more failure.  Just look at the difference in economic terms of the big cities and rural America.  A small business might be able to survive in the city with some commercial activity, but how does one create enough commercial activity to support a number of employees out in the hinder-land?  A few have done that, but very few!  In the meantime, since there are few(if any) jobs in small town America, all the children head off to the big city.
 
Take immigration, the poor farmer working the fields South of the border, and probably has a large family, sends his sons to 'Del Norte', where the 'MWL' will give him much more income than he can earn in the fields with his family.  The U.S. has very porous borders and a lot get through.  No other country in the world allows their borders to be breached, as is the case in this country.  It becomes a political question.
 
R.H.Smith
P.O.Box 7010
Van Nuys, CA 91409-7010
 
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT
Top
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

 

  • Idea of the Democrats better than the reality (Wisc. State Journal)
  • The cynical and self-contradictory Gospel of Obama (Krauthammer)
  • Video: Protesters at CPAC admit they're being paid to protest (Daily Caller)
  • Does the drug 'ella' cause abortions? (Weekly Standard)
  • Does income inequality cause global warming? (Power Line)
  • Jay Carney gets snippy about Super PACs (Verum Serum)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Try a Sweater Vest, Mitt
more cartoons
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.