Pandering for votes
The editorial “Raise the minimum wage? It's a rank political ploy” says “the White House, Big Labor and their liberal backers are coordinating support for President Obama's proposed federal wage-floor hike from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour ... .” It correctly suggests that the support is grounded in “broad economic ignorance” of the relationships between wages and unemployment rates.
There is more to it than that; the politicians who support the minimum-wage increase are clearly avoiding economic reality and unfortunately pandering to the most vulnerable citizens to get votes. Surely those who argue that the minimum wage should be increased are not so stupid as to not understand that every time the cost of labor increases, machines become relatively less costly.
This has happened since the invention of the wheel and is clearly happening today, as machines are replacing humans at grocery store checkouts, turnpike toll booths and in countless other labor-intensive applications. Nevertheless, there is a solution for those struggling with jobs that pay minimum wage; the key is to acquire an education and/or skills that are scarce and in demand — it's really basic economics.
Otherwise, these folks should realize they could be replaced by a machine and unfortunately relegated to the lower rungs of the economic ladder, regardless of the extant minimum wage. Moreover, they should not be misled by the cruel hoax perpetrated by Mr. Obama and his minions as they lobby for the increase.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- LCB: Asset to modernize
- Appalling advice
- Cameras not the answer
- Report reactions I
- ATI’s broken promises
- Wrong on immigration I
- Relief at the pump
- Protesters not law-abiding
- Library funds
- Thinly veiled disdain
- Helping the horses