Posted on 04/14/2013 4:49:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
What happens when the U.S. Secretary of Labor visits a church in Charlotte? If an incident earlier this month is any indication, faulty political promises and destructive economic policies continue to spread.
It took place on April 3rd. Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Seth Harris made an appearance at a Baptist Church in North Carolina’s largest city, along with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx. He was visiting to promote President Obama’s proposal of elevating the federal minimum wage requirement from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour.
Harris and Foxx gathered in a large room within a Baptist church building. They sat in a large circle with several “average” (which means “hand-picked, pre-screened, and pre-approved by the Labor Department”) Americans living in Charlotte who work at jobs that pay only minimum wage. As news microphones and cameras caught all the action, Harris facilitated a “discussion” with the minimum wage earning Charlottean’s, and explained how their lives would benefit from the President’s new proposed mandate.
Harris told the group participants that if the minimum wage requirement was raised to $9 an hour, a full-time worker at the current minimum wage would earn an extra $3,500 more per year. A total of 557,000 workers in North Carolina “would directly benefit from that proposal,” he said, noting that President Obama is seeking to “lift people out of poverty” by imposing this new proposed requirement.
It all sounded so good. But in reality, there were problems.
For one, mere laws don’t “lift people out of poverty” – genuine wealth creation does. Using the force of government to mandate that a business owner pays a worker a specific wage does not ensure that wealth is being created. On the contrary, such laws are coercive mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and they only ensure that an increasing amount of existing wealth is taken away from one individual or group and transferred to another.
History, even recent history over the course of our lifetimes, demonstrates this. While roughly half of the world’s population -about 3 billion people - live in measurable poverty today, the other roughly 3 billion are measurably “middle class,” and mostly facing upward mobility.
So what has happened to the more fortunate 3 billion? We have not been “minimum waged” to wealth. We’ve been fortunate to live in countries where we’ve been relatively free to privately own property and advance in the marketplace and amass wealth for ourselves.
The best examples of this have been post-World War II Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, along with the increasingly liberated economies of China and India. Many Americans seem oblivious to this capitalistic, free market transformation that has taken place over the last few decades – surely if we were aware of this we wouldn’t have elected our current crop of politicians who are taking us in the exact opposite direction – but the transformation is nonetheless real.
Another problem with Harris’ promises is that they are based on the false assumptions that government bureaucrats understand the inner-workings of a business than a business owner does, and that government mandates always produce their desired outcomes. Can every small business in Charlotte – or anywhere else in the U.S. – afford to “absorb” the increased labor costs that will ensure with a higher minimum wage mandate? Harris is frequently asked about the un-intended consequences of his policy proposals, and will frequently say “I reject the notion that this kills jobs.”
Did you hear that business owners? He “rejects” it, so it is obviously not a concern. In fact, Harris promised the minimum wage earning Charlotteans that raising the minimum wage requirement will actually improve wages overall, and stimulate job creation.
Harris, by the way, took no time at all in Charlotte to meet with the business owners that would be impacted by the proposed wage mandate. When you have degrees from elite schools, and your work experience is based exclusively in the worlds of academia and law, and you wield the power of government (these characteristics describe both Harris and Barack Obama), it’s easy, apparently, to believe in the infallibility of your ideas. There’s no sense wasting time on the “non-believers.”
For now, Americans have put their collective trust in politicians who have promised to re-distribute us all to a better, “more fair” existence. Let us hope and pray that we see the error of our ways – before the country is irreparably damaged.
The minimum wage itself doesn’t require a wage increase for anyone. It simply bars anyone from being hired for less than a certain amount…
Said another way:
It just makes it illegal for anyone who lacks the skills to generate more than a certain dollar amount of worth from being hired at all.
“Harris is frequently asked about the un-intended consequences of his policy proposals, and will frequently say “I reject the notion that this kills jobs.”
AKA: I reject this reality and substitute my own! ...And condemn anyone in this reality - like the poor - to pay the price for it.
“The reality is that every increase in minimum wage creates inflation-”
That’s not entirely true. When the typical starting wage is above where the minimum wage is increased to, such as happens when there’s full employment, the minimum wage in that particular circumstance doesn’t cause inflation or immediate unemployment increase. By cherry picking these time periods the left to get studies which show a lack of negative effects of minimum wage increases. On the other hand, during the specific time periods there’s also no benefit for the minimum wage increase.
However, even if the minimum wage increase doesn’t cause any immediate rise in unemployment, it has a strong tendency to down the road when the economy turns bad, ensuring that the downturn affects the poor and the young even more than it otherwise would.
No, the gov’t should be out of the employee-employer contract negotiations entirely.
It’s bad enough knowing with SS, unemployment ‘insurance’ and the plethora of other TAXES, one can be bringing home SO much more $$.
Get 3rd payer out of the picture as well, deduct from your overall taxes; same IMHO that life insurance should be done, and the Citizen and market go back to their FREE status.
Disagree...9th amendment gives the states the power to regulate labor relationships...Federal government should have no say so at all in individual labor relationships...
You seriously don't think certain employers would not abuse that relationship in certain economic conditions ?
Labor laws were enacted for that reason...The state has a role in protecting the working class of people...from inscrutable organization...bear in mind I'm not proposing overbearing regulations like we have today...just some reasonable regs to keep employers honest...and fair...
Sorry, I see nothing in the 9th to suggest such.
Oh, I firmly believe, especially in this day and ago, that word of mouth and those employers who would disparage their employees would soon be out of business.
If one if Free, one is able to enter into any contract of their choosing for the exchange of ones mental/physical abilities for anthers’...whatever (money, jewels, barter, trade, etc.). Gov’t has no control nor obligation to get in the way of that exchange
Correct
I meant to post the 10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The states (not federal) does have a compelling interest in the way it's citizens are treated...
I see you have an Rand objectist tinge to your post...Been there, done that..
Not all men are created equal...some are stupid, dumb beasts that will be easily manipulated and abused by men with power...there should be a low benchmark in the law where the state has a interest to protect those stupid dumb beasts...
Unless you would like to the power of the unions grow exponentially by corporations abusing people...like happened in the early 19th century...
Sorry but the Contract clause dis-allows the States (I think it’s Lochner vs. New York). RE: ‘compelling interest’. Too much of a slippery slope there for me. All Power is inherently of and from the People; the designation of tasks to gov’t are far and few. We already see the numerous Laws already on the books ‘for the good of all’ that are neither enforced nor followed.
I’m def. of the Rand/(L) bent. You are correct RE: intelligence of some People. We see too much with the current 49%+. In that instance, it is gov’t itself that is the source of manipulation/coercion. Though, ONLY gov’t has the power of FORCE. Some Men will always be a willing slave to have some semblance of security, regardless if it is gov’t or other Men doing the enslaving.
And, I must disagree again RE: Unions. Fake constructs given monopoly power by gov’t (IMHO, the ONLY way a monopoly can exist). The jobs/wages belong to the employer.
No, of course not but this administration has convinced the low information Americans that they can tax the nation into prosperity. It is sad to realize how many Americans believe the nonsense.
Obama’s notion of how to improve the nation reminds me something Churchill observed. "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
so per se you are terminated from a job unfairly...because they wanted to hire the bosses nephew.... To whom do you turn...?
Since in your world the State has no compelling interest in fair labor practices ?
Since in your world the State has no compelling interest in fair labor practices ?
You actually expect the federal government to intercede in a small business hiring decision like this?
Should the federal government actually stand in the way of an employer wanting to appoint his nephew to a job?
What if my nephew is qualified? What if the guy I terminated is actually a lousy worker? Should I have to endure an EEOC lawsuit under those circumstances?
Do you really hate your boss that much, that you would subject him to federal regulations regarding his employees?
When I said the “state” I meant it as literally the state as in one of the 50....not the federal entity....
I wouldn't want Austin deciding whether I was "fair" to my employees, either.
Whether I compensated them properly (minimum wage, overtime, etc.), didn't expose them to unsafe working conditions fine -- the state can regulate those things.
But whether I was "fair"? No, they shouldn't be allowed to regulate that. If the boss wants to hire his nephew, that's HIS business.
‘Unfairly’?? The position was NEVER owned by the employee. The employer can fire and hire anyone whom they choose. They own the business, pay the taxes, pay the employees, are hounded by EEOC/OSHA/etc.
Are there no paper shuffling positions in corp. America? Of course there are...is that ‘fair’?? Or should gov’t start validating all positions of employment? Maybe determine how much each position should make? In your thought process, where does the Constitution, Freedom and Liberty take a back seat so that the STATE/gov’t can get their ‘compelling interest’ in business/labor practices?
Job site unsafe? They can be sued. Wages too low or position too demanding? People stop working there. Biz adopts to the market, else they go under.
Life is not equal nor fair. Gov’t is there to support our Rights and ensure our choices are made with the best information possible (OK, the last part is my wish). It has no basis to interfere with any of the above, let alone how much rain falls on your roof, what’s veg. grow in your garden and/or the milk came straight from the cow.
Supply the information for the People to make their own decisions and let the Free market dictate. Don’t like what’s out there, do it yourself, create your own business, grow what you want. Get gov’t OUT of our lives.
They aren't going to hire Americans when they can hire Chinamen for $0.17/hour ($2/day 12hr/day). And Americans aren't going to buy American made when China made is 50% cheaper.
We need import tariffs and pretty heavy ones to suck the profit out of offshoring and to get Americans to buy American again. That will put Americans back to work. We can lower tariffs once unemployment has dropped.
But until you do something about trade policy, minimum wage increases will just accelerate offshoring.
Younger soldiers still can save a lot of money if they’re frugal and live sensibly. Had you joined a jump unit you would have doubled your pay, no? How did you enjoy Fort Devens?
Devens was okay as a student. As an instructor and Senior NCO it was good duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.