Matt Walsh has one of the best common sense blogs around. Today he takes on the Minimum Wage debate; the latest brilliant economic strategy from the party that brought you Obamacare, the Stimulus, and the whole concept of “Too Big To Fail.”
Worker: “Hi, I’d like to work for you.”
Employer: “Sorry, the government says we have to pay everyone at least 10.10 an hour. We don’t have any money in our budget to hire more workers at that rate.”
Worker: “Well, I still need a job. I’ll gladly work for 6 dollars an hour. Deal?”
Government: “Hold on! You can’t do that. You’re not allowed to sell your services for less than 10.10 an hour!”
Worker: “But… I’d rather make under 10.10 than be unemployed. Why can’t I enter into a private employment contract with this establishment if we both feel that the arrangement benefits us? We are both consenting parties, aren’t we?”
Government: “Because that isn’t fair.”
His argument makes eminent good sense, and is the kind of sense that should prevail. Unfortunately, this is no longer the country of good common sense, we’re the country of Obamaphones, “living wage,” and “Brawndo’s got electrolytes.”
Comment trolls concede the argument that the higher minimum wage kills jobs, and are mostly protesting, “But big corporations should be forced to pay workers more to punish them for making money.” Never mind that big corporations are the ultimate benficiaries of minimum wage increases and Government regulations; they are better capitalized to absorb the impact of a minimum wage increase than smaller competitors. Support for a minimum wage increase is, in essence, a vote to help big corporations drive out small businesses and increase market share.
I guess they figure people are better off living on welfare than working an honest minimum wage. This is actually true, from an economic standpoint. Raising the minimum wage does not fix this problem, it just contracts the pool of jobs and puts more people on welfare.