Talk about ignorance! In essence, the logical argument by the NY Times in today's editorial is that increasing a price has no impact on demand. All demand curves, according to the NY times are independent of price. Give that view, why not raise the minimum wage to $ 100 per hour, since that action, by the logic of the NY Times' editorial, would have no effect on the demand for workers, nor would it affect the profitably of businesses.
To reiterate the obvious: (i) a minimum wage law reduces the demand for labor, thereby causing unemployment; (ii) a minimum wage makes it a criminal offense for workers to trade their labor for training in job skills. Trading labor for job skills is something that is absolutely indispensable for the future of the poorest Americans; (iii) increasing the minimum wage alters who gets hired as employers will no longer consider workers with a lower skill set; workers who would have been hired at the lower wage.
The conclusion: the minimum wage is a dagger in the back of poor people and helps entrap the poor in an endless cycle of poverty and hopelessness. Raising the minimum wage just exacerbates the problem and plunges ever more Americans into this government-created poverty trap.
Those writing editorials for the NY Times never had to compete for a minimum wage job as they cruised through their prep schools and elite colleges and now move back and forth in their limousines to their NY Times editorial offices. Increasing the minimum wage, even to $ 100 per hour, won't have any impact on the lives of the editorial staff of the NY Times. But it will affect those who have no hope of ever reaching the plush lives of an editorial writer for the NY Times. The lives of poor people are permanently diminished by minimum wage laws, while the rich and affluent bask in their arrogant view that they are somehow helping humanity by keeping a boot-heel on the hopes of the poor.
0 Nhận Xét