Minimum wage hikes hurt black communities

And Leftists can’t wait for it to occur.

Most recently, Jane Fonda said this about the minimum wage as per the Detroit Free Press:

Jane Fonda visits Detroit to push for $12 minimum wage

by Ann Zaniewski

Actress and activist Jane Fonda will be in Detroit this weekend for a fundraiser to promote a $12 minimum wage in Michigan and better rights for all workers.

Fonda will discuss her activisim and committment to workers’ rights from 6-8 p.m. Saturday at Colors Restaurant, 311 East Grand River Ave. She will “talk directly with restaurant workers about the struggles they endure receiving the tipped minimum wage,” according to a news release about the event.

My first thought was: where are the other $3 dollars per hour that Leftists are demanding? Why so tight with your wages, Jane Fonda?

After all, Fornicalia Governor Jerry Brown said, about the $15 minimum wage:

Gov. Brown admits $15 minimum wage makes no sense, signs bill anyway

by Eric Boehm

Economically, a $15 minimum wage doesn’t make much sense for many parts of California.

Even Gov. Jerry Brown, who on Monday signed a bill to increase California’s minimum wage to that level, knows that.

In what could go down as one of the most honest moments in political history, Brown told reporters that raising the minimum wage was more about culture and politics than about economics.

Trust me, Brown is in the throes of dementia per my sources. At many times his wife is actually running Fornicalia. Here, perhaps, his true thoughts emerged but for a brief moment.

“Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” Brown says in a video posted online by the Sacramento Bee newspaper. “But morally, and socially and politically, they make every sense because it binds the community together.”

Right. Binding the community together in economic destitution.

Reaffirming my position that Leftists and Demorats think only of emotions and not facts or reality. Leftists were shedding flecks of enamel from their teeth when they heard this.

Sadly, as Larry Elder has talked about for years, the people most likely hurt by minimum wage laws are blacks in America.

What are the costs of a minimum wage in general? Economist Milton Friedman said this, applicable then as now.

The figures change; consequences do not. Milton Friedman said: “the people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks.”

From BET.com:

Black Teens Are Fired When the Minimum Wage Rises

Two labor economists report that when the minimum wage increases, Black teens suffer disproportionate dismissals.

It is no surprise that Black teens, 16- to 19-years old, are disproportionately unemployed. At the Great Recession’s bottom, African-American teens had an unemployment rate of nearly 50 percent while the rate for all teens was 27.1 percent. In the weak post-Recession, many teens compete for jobs against down-sized adults with college degrees.

And economists William Even from Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University report that when a state, or the federal government, increases the minimum wage, Black teens are more likely to be laid off. The duo analyzed 600,000 data points, which the Employment Policies Institute says included “a robust sample of minority young adults unprecedented in previous studies on the minimum wage.”

Why?

A key reason is that many young Blacks hold tenuous, low-skilled positions in the nation’s eating and drinking businesses, such as  fast food restaurants. The researchers report “that nearly one out of three Black young adults without a high school diploma works in the industry.”

There is a caveat.

It is a sector that welcomes their entry, and lauds young Black workers in its ads. But African-American teens working in that highly-competitive industry with its narrow profit margins should know that their job is on shaky ground when the minimum wage rises.

Is there any morality connected to the so-called “minimum” or “working” wage”

Is there any sort of an historical reference to the minimum wage and blacks in any general case? From PanAmPost.com:

US History Shows the Minimum Wage Has Harmed the Black Community

by Grant Phillips

Black teenage unemployment was roughly equal to their white counterparts in 1948, but has since diverged sharply away from whites. The same is true for the labor force participation of black teenagers.

The minimum wage continued to reduce black youth employment from 1940 to 1970, with the racial unemployment gap expanding as a result.

However, during this same period, the racial income gap shrank to it its lowest point. Wage growth for the entire black community — not just black youths — was almost double the subsequent growth from 1970 to 2000.

Let that statistic sink into your brain pan for a moment or three. The terrible trend built by Leftists began rolling in earnest.

While older blacks already in the workforce were less likely to be affected by the new price floor, the minimum wage effectively prevented black teens from gaining work experience, and the necessary skills for future labor. This was exacerbated by an education system rigged by racist government funding mandates, which prevented black teens from building sufficient human capital through schooling.

When this generation of black teens hit their 20s, many of them had no job experience and, because of wage floors, were unable to find employment. Eventually, they exited the workforce entirely.

Until 1970, the labor force participation rates of black males age 20-24 were equal to, and even slightly higher, than whites of a similar age.

Let me repeat and emphasize that last sentence: “Until 1970, the labor force participation rates of black males age 20-24 were equal to, and even slightly higher, than whites of a similar age.” 

How odd that this information flies directly in the face of what Demorats, Leftists and Poverty Pimps tell you.

Unemployment of the same group, which widened after the minimum wage, was 62 percent higher than whites in the same year. By 1980, both measures worsened as blacks exited the labor force in large numbers.

In 1965, the Great Society began to “fight” racial and economic disparity through a number of welfare programs and jobs initiatives that still exist today. These policies were targeted at the poor, and although blacks were continuing to make large economic gains, they disproportionately qualified because they were still the poorest demographic at that time.

LBJ’s “Great Society” was the beginning of the long claw to the bottom for American blacks, instigated by a man who said:

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

Or as LBJ is reported to have said to one of his black chauffeurs one day:

As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.

Or one of LBJ’s most famous quotes.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

That one seems to have been vastly prescient and accurate to this day. Just ask Dinesh D’Souza.

Unfortunately, the Great Society has had very little impact on the poverty rate, and has completely failed to reduce the socioeconomic disparity between black and white Americans.

Blacks made significant gains in economic prosperity up until the minimum wage and Great Society welfare state; all in spite of lawless government policies. Without these disastrous programs, they would have continued to make productive gains and close the economic gap.

The Cato Institute then asks, at Cato.org:

Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?

by Jim Powell

Good intentions are over-rated. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, for instance, has been hailed for its lofty goals of reforming the American economy and helping the under-privileged. Yet mounting evidence, developed by dozens of economists across the country, shows that the New Deal prolonged joblessness for millions, and black people were especially hard hit.

The flagship of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act, passed in June 1933. It authorized the president to issue executive orders establishing some 700 industrial cartels, which restricted output and forced wages and prices above market levels. The minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people who weren’t worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some 500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to have lost their jobs.

That cannot be. Just ask Demorats and Leftists.

Marginal workers, like unskilled blacks, desperately needed an expanding economy to create more jobs. Yet New Deal policies made it harder for employers to hire people. FDR tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls discouraged employers from hiring. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. New Deal antitrust lawsuits harassed some 150 employers and whole industries. Whatever the merits of such policies might have been, it was bizarre to disrupt private sector employment when the median unemployment rate was 17 percent.

Then unions stepped in.

The Wagner Act (1935) harmed blacks by making labor union monopolies legal. Economists Thomas E. Hall and J. David Ferguson explained: “By encouraging unionization, the Wagner Act raised the number of insiders (those with jobs) who had the incentive and ability to exclude outsiders (those without jobs). Once high wages have been negotiated, employers are less likely to hire outsiders, and thus the insiders could protect their own interest.”

Wait. Unions love blacks. Right?

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped.

Oh stop. Please. We’re told by Leftists and Demorats that unions historically then and now love American blacks. Just as Demorats have historically loved American blacks.

AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

Uh. Ooops. And I haven’t even addressed the TVA — Tennessee Valley Authority — issue.

What about New Deal spending programs? They were channeled away from the poorest people, including millions of blacks, who lived in the South. These people were already on FDR’s side, so, from a political standpoint, there wasn’t anything for FDR, as an incumbent, to gain by giving them money.

Does this sound like something of a precursor to LBJ by FDR?

If FDR’s New Deal policies weren’t conceived with racist intent, they certainly had racist consequences. Hopefully in the future, more people will try to better understand the often startling, unexpected consequences of government interference with the economy.

You have to ask, though, are wages even the primary issue? From an episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Mike Rowe makes a series of insightful points.

Then, from the Employment Policies Institute, at EPIOnline.org:

Minimum Honesty on Minimum Wage

It tells you all you need to know about the drive to alter New Jersey’s Constitution to hike the minimum wage that the measure’s proponents keep citing a study that was completely discredited more than a decade ago.

Back in 1994, Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger claimed that they’d looked at Garden State fast-food outlets in the wake of the state’s 1992 minimum-wage hike — and found that employment increased relative to similar restaurants in next-door Pennsylvania.

But six years later, the Card & Krueger study was debunked in the same economics journal that originally published it.

Perhaps after a crashing bit of reality set in?

Far from boosting employment, they found, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey decreased employment — just as economic theory would predict.

Sadly, some journalists are also playing this game: In recent months, writers in Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The New York Times have also trotted out the study to support their points.

Then Salem Radio’s host Larry Elder weighs in, at the WashingtonExaminer.com:

When left wing economists Gruber and Krugman practiced economics

by Larry Elder

President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, called for a minimum-wage hike and for government-mandated paid family and medical leave.

“We are the only advanced country on Earth,” said the President, “that doesn’t guarantee paid sick leave or paid maternity leave to our workers.” On the minimum wage, Obama issued this challenge: “And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

In 2011 — less than four years ago — Gruber gave an MIT lecture called “Applying Supply and Demand.” About the minimum wage, Gruber said: “Let’s say the government rolled in and set a minimum wage. … Workers want to supply more hours than firms want to hire. … You end up with excess supply. And we call that excess supply ‘unemployment.’ ” He also insisted that a higher minimum wage pressures an employer to turn to automation: “We have a downward sloping demand curve, and why is it downward sloping? Because the higher the wage, the fewer workers the firm wants to hire. It would rather use machines instead.”

Hello Future? Fast food kiosks? Fruit picking machines? Even the Roomba?

Krugman even dismissed Card-Krueger, the widely cited minimum-wage study that purports to show its positive effect. Krugman pretty much dismissed it. “Indeed,” he wrote, “much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages ‘do,’ in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.”

“In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price — determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.”

Are you beginning to see a bit of a recurrent theme throughout the post? Something about the corruptive and deleterious effects of Leftist intrusion into the once-nuclear black family in America?

Cui bono?

BZ

 

Amazon: killing the unskilled laborer

unskilled-laborAnd creating an entirely new cultural, social and business paradigm.

I cannot emphasize this more: our country — nay, the planet — has just been turned upside down. I suspect you think I’m radically overstating the issue. You’ll soon discover that I am not.

Leftist Jeff Bezos is about to not only turn retail business on its head, he is about to gut those persons who vote Demorat and/or Leftist. Because he is about to put them all out of work.

First, what is AmazonGo?

From Amazon.com:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is Amazon Go?
Amazon Go is a new kind of store with no checkout required. We created the world’s most advanced shopping technology so you never have to wait in line. With our Just Walk Out Shopping experience, simply use the Amazon Go app to enter the store, take the products you want, and go! No lines, no checkout. (No, seriously.)

How does Amazon Go work?
Our checkout-free shopping experience is made possible by the same types of technologies used in self-driving cars: computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning. Our Just Walk Out technology automatically detects when products are taken from or returned to the shelves and keeps track of them in a virtual cart. When you’re done shopping, you can just leave the store. Shortly after, we’ll charge your Amazon account and send you a receipt.

How big is the store?
Our roughly 1,800 square feet of retail space is conveniently compact so busy customers can get in and out fast.

What do I need to get started?
All you need is an Amazon account, a supported smartphone, and the free Amazon Go app.

Why did you build Amazon Go?
Four years ago we asked ourselves: what if we could create a shopping experience with no lines and no checkout? Could we push the boundaries of computer vision and machine learning to create a store where customers could simply take what they want and go? Our answer to those questions is Amazon Go and Just Walk Out Shopping.

What can I buy at Amazon Go?
We offer delicious ready-to-eat breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack options made fresh every day by our on-site chefs and favorite local kitchens and bakeries. Our selection of grocery essentials ranges from staples like bread and milk to artisan cheeses and locally made chocolates. You’ll find well-known brands we love, plus special finds we’re excited to introduce to customers. For a quick home-cooked dinner, pick up one of our chef-designed Amazon Meal Kits, with all the ingredients you need to make a meal for two in about 30 minutes.

So I can just shop normally?
Yes! Just browse and shop like you would at any other store. Then you’re on your way. No lines, no checkout.

Perhaps you’re asking, at this point, am I nothing more than a shill for Amazon? Why such a lengthy quotation from Amazon?

I’m not a shill for Amazon. But I want you to understand the basics up front. I want you to understand what Amazon is offering initially and how it will itself morph and change to something else entirely, bringing the rest of the retail industry kicking and screaming along with it.

Trust me, with Amazon this is an experiment. It will expand from simply convenient foodstuffs. And beware: it accomplishes this feat of convenience by completely recording everything there is to know and see about you, storing the information into company databases. If it is digital it can be hacked. If you partake of the experiment any semblance of privacy you thought you once had will be well and truly gone, never to be re-established again.

THE LOGICAL EXTENSION:

This is a time when unskilled workers are demanding and, in many cases and locales, acquiring a $15-per-hour minimum “living” wage. The move is already having unforeseen consequences — but only unforeseen if you are a Leftist or a Demorat. Those of us with a common sense, business and logical bent knew what to expect.

Businesses have no duty whatsoever to lose money no matter what various governments legislate. A wage jump this large means that businesses have to examine all of their costs and — no shock — any business’s greatest costs are in personnel.

People are messy. They are finicky and critical and they get sick, take vacation, offend others, become unproductive, lazy, unhappy, pick fights, expose companies to various forms of societal lawsuits, and come with mandatory workers’ comp, medical and other benefits. In a word, people are expensive.

Some businesses, therefore, are now doing their best to eschew unskilled or minimally-skilled labor and instead replacing people with, in the immediate case of the restaurant industry, ordering kiosks or devices on tables from which to order and pay. In Seattle, for example, one of the first places to embrace a mandatory $15-per-hour wage rate, small businesses began to shutter their doors, close, go bankrupt or physically move outside the city to neighboring Kings County.

This is already happening. It is already a movement within business.

Now comes Amazon.

And businesses have to compete.

Do the logical extension: Amazon will expand these stores. Other retail stores and chains are allowing Amazon to take the step like the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

But what if Amazon is wildly successful?

Businesses have to compete.

This paradigm will expand to other stores and chains and various forms of retail. When the first large chain embraces the technology the others almost have no other choice. They will do so too. The time will come when you’ll enter a Costco or a WalMart or a J.C. Penney’s or a Nordstrom or a Bed Bath & Beyond, pick up what you want, and leave.

Perhaps “great” for the consumer. But what about the unskilled or minimally-skilled laborer? Their services will no longer be, on a major level, needed. How do these people primarily vote? Leftist or Demorat. And who is Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon? A wild Leftist. Schadenfreude.

A note to those who have no motivations, have no aspirations, no skills, no interest in acquiring skills: you are about to be crushed.

REPERCUSSIONS:

First, the only persons needed to work those first Amazon stores will be those who prepare the food, stock shelves and clean. Cashiers and/or human interaction will be mostly absent. I suspect for some consumers this will be a blessing. I, for one, patronize a store solely to shop, not to chat, unless I need specific advice regarding, say, technological devices.

When the technology really begins to get legs, there will be pushback from unskilled labor, from, say, California’s SEIU, various unions, Leftist groups, BLM and others. I predict that you will initially see mob runs on these stores where large groups will enter and simply loot a store wholesale.

There will be massive labor, union, budgetary, business, cultural and social implications.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR LABOR:

This new paradigm will decimate the unskilled or minimally-skilled labor force. It has to. There is no other option if businesses not only wish to compete with each other nationally but internationally as well.

It will also have a major impact upon immigration. The bulk of illegal immigrants bring no skills with them; they do however bring needs like food, housing, support. Illegal Mexicans, immigrants from other nations will no longer be required to “do the jobs that no one else will do.” There are, already, machines that pick fruit and other vegetables in fields. The need for immigrants will diminish.

This is a game-changer, ladies and gentlemen.

It will not happen overnight.

But it will happen.

BZ

 

Over a third of jobs gone in 20 years

McDonald's Ordering KioskBecause of technology.

The initial focus of job elimination will be on unskilled workers primarily because of the recent insistence on a minimum “living wage” of $15 for jobs that were never meant to be anything more than entry-level introductory jobs.

One of the first targeted forms of job elimination will be at what are termed “fast food” type restaurants, where a kiosk can somewhat readily streamline the ordering process.  Whereas a human employee once touched the CHEESEBURGER icon, you will be able to do that yourself.  These various kiosks are already in operation in Europe and here in the US.  McDonalds readily admits they are a response to $15 minimum wage demands.

Of course, there will be “unforeseen consequences” to this wage increase demand — that I readily and easily foresee.  More on that in a moment.

From the UKIndependent.com:

Robots are going to steal the jobs of chefs, salespeople and models, researchers say as they unveil full list of likely robot professions

by Andrew Griffin

Scientists have created a huge, in-depth analysis of what jobs are under threat from robots — with salesmen, chefs and even models all in the firing line.

Researchers have assembled a full list of all the things that robots are good and bad at, and so what jobs they are likely to take. In all, about 35 per cent of jobs are likely to have been taken on by robots in the next 20 years, the researchers said.

Some professions — such as therapists, personal trainers and teachers — are safe from the coming robot apocalypse. But those that require repetitive skills, the manipulation of data or manual entering of information could see their jobs taken away.

The first question you must ask: is this me?  If you have one of those delineated jobs, that means you likely inhabit an unskilled or semi-skilled job that isn’t long for this earth.

That also means you need to refocus your attention on upgrading your job skills or perhaps moving into a different job altogether.

Cops and firefighters, you’re somewhat safe for now.  But many more Intersection lights and speed cams are coming.  Some people want to eliminate the police traffic stop altogether, as well as pursuits.

Some traits don’t immediately lend themselves to a robotic takeover.

Those traits include creative endeavours, such as writing, entrepreneurship or scientific discovery.

Will or can a robot take your job?  Find out here.

For the time being, jobs that demand a high degree of human interaction are safe.

But that brings us back to unskilled and/or repetitive jobs.

Like those that illegal aliens used to fill — and jobs the likes of which are being eliminated due to, in Fornicalia, the drought — and in other places by the more rapid introduction of various forms of technology because of increased business costs.

In other words, the argument supporters of illegal Mexican (and other) invaders make on behalf of those invaders — that they do jobs others won’t or can’t — isn’t holding water any more.  A greater number of jobs in the agricultural or various service fields are being mechanized.  This isn’t speculation; it’s occurring right now.

Therefore, the “need” for more illegal immigrants in order to fill the increasing number of unskilled jobs is a specious one at best, more and more unnecessary with each and every passing week and month.

For real Americans, the writing is on the wall: adapt and educate yourself or become superfluous.

For illegals, we don’t need your unskilled labor.  We don’t have enough room to accommodate the unskilled true American citizens in the labor force already.

Which translates to: illegal invaders these days mean only to acquire their portions of American Free Cheese, their own piece of the Entitlement Pie.

Their future is to take and not to produce.

Adding unskilled Syrians who bring only more Islam to the equation?

That is stupidity beyond stupidity.

BZ

 

Future of $15 an hour “minimum wage” demands

So here is your $15 an hour minimum wage future, idiots:

MINIMUM WAGE FUTUREGet used to it.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a nuclear physicist to push the CHEESEBURGER icon at McDonalds.  All it takes is another automated kiosk.  Translated: if you lack skills you’re easily replaceable by automation, human morons.

Anyone even remotely understand the word “margin” in terms of business?

BZ

 

$15 points to ponder:

Living Wage NowPeople across the United States seem to want a $15 per hour “minimum wage.”  This is literally twice the current federal minimum wage.

They don’t just want it, they are protesting (bankrolled by organized labor) and in some cases being arrested for it.

These persons believe that working at, say, a McDonald’s should be offered what is termed a “living wage.”  That is, a person should be able to possess a job at a McDonald’s and live on that wage, raise a family.

I suppose, in a world dotted with purple skies, a $15 “minimum wage” is a good place to start, coupled with free health care and various forms of additional welfare.

The problem becomes three-fold, however:

1. Few consider the actual consequences of various acts, and
2. Who pays and how much?
3. What are the societal results?

In terms of unintended or unforecasted consequences, they may already be occurring.  From the BusinessInsider.com:

Wal-Mart suddenly closed 5 stores and laid off thousands of workers and no one knows why

by Hayley Peterson

Wal-Mart suddenly closed five stores in four states on Monday for alleged plumbing problems.

Some employees believe that the stores were closed because of worker protests for higher pay.

Employees of the Pico Rivera store were among the first to hold Black Friday protests in 2012.

“This is the first store that went on strike,” an employee told CBS Los Angeles. “This is the first store in demanding changes for Walmart.”

I would tend to place this article into the “unintended consequences” portion of my story.

I don’t doubt for a moment that Walmart is closing these stores because they’re uninterested in catering to those persons seeking to fleece the company, by either wages or unionization.  They are of sufficient size that they can take the fiscal hit.  For a time.

Walmart is the largest single employer of persons in the United States, at 2.2 million.  Leftists despise “big” and they despise “corporations,” but fail to make the links between Capitalism, profits and freedom.  They fail to understand the concept that, as costs increase, businesses either pass these costs on to the consumer or they fail.  When businesses fail they stop providing jobs.  To you and me, this is a simple and obvious concept.  Not to Leftists, who believe that businesses have an obligation to lose money if such loss “benefits” certain strata of persons, as a societal onus.

Further, unionization is a desired outcome.  When unions flourish, the first thing they do is enable a closed shop and force union dues.  When you’re an undersea welder making $26 to $50 an hour, or a port crane operator making $82.15 an hour in NYC, you can pretty much afford your dues.  But with a cheeseburger icon prodder or a burger wrapper making the desired $15 an hour, dues are going to hurt.  And you’re not going to get a choice.

In Seattle, a bastion of Leftism, businesses are shuttering doors in anticipation of the minimum wage boost.  Why?  Because small businesses can’t, literally, afford it.

Further, just why is it that commuter airline pilots make roughly $15 to $20 an hour and — yet — unskilled workers pushing the CHEESEBURGER icon at McDonald’s expect to be paid a similar wage rate?  I find that a ridiculous disparity on any number of levels.

Let’s be frank for just a moment, shall we?

Minimum wage positions were meant to be nothing more than introductory jobs, easing new workers into the ranks of the employed, getting them used to punching a time clock, appearing for work on time, being dependable, responsible, answerable to a higher authority, learning a preliminary skill, basic societal and business competence.

Let us also admit that not everyone was issued precisely alike from the factory.  Some persons — and I’m sure you know your fair share — simply don’t have the inclination or the capability to perform certain jobs.  In other words, they’re blithering idiots.  Perhaps it’s your brother, your nephew, a co-worker or even your boss.  You wouldn’t trust them to clean your toilet reliably and with acumen, much less what they’re doing now.  Unless they are doing nothing.

Therein lies another rub.  Actors ask: what is my character’s “motivation” in a certain scene, movie or play?  There exists a strata of human clotted clag that simply lacks motivation, goals and aspirations.  They are perfectly satisfied with doing nothing,  accomplishing nothing, and expect to be paid and comforted for it.  These people are drones.  Their numbers are increasing daily because, for no other reason, various governments encourage such behavior — such as the federal government and your state government.  In my case, Fornicalia.  Fornicalia is a Drone’s and Illegal’s Paradise.  It is also a psychologically-damaged and developmentally-disabled magnet.

Many people now say, however, that these unskilled workers are working two or three like jobs in order to provide for their families.  Taken off these jobs or kept at a lower wage, these workers would actually cost the taxpayer more than if businesses would simply ante up to a $15 per hour scale.

This is a false argument.

Minimum wage jobs were meant to be introductory jobs only, not jobs for life.  The wages for these jobs were and are commensurate with the skills and education necessary to perform them.  I made $5.79 an hour as a deputy sheriff in Fornicalia in 1978, putting my life at risk every day.  I considered myself lucky to have the job at all.  And yet, at the time, the minimum wage was $2.90.  There was no way I could afford a house in that coastal county — they were beginning at $100,000.  Way over my capability to purchase.

So guess what?  I didn’t purchase a house.  I didn’t purchase an ATV, a motorcycle, a recreational vehicle, a motorcycle, and I didn’t carry a balance on my credit card.  And yet, oddly enough, I survived and then thrived because I stuck it out.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I stuck it out.  I refused to extend myself and place myself into a budgetarily-precarious position.

Self control.

What a concept.

So pass that $15-per-hour minimum wage, Leftists, and let’s just see where it gets those workers it was meant to “protect.”

It is not business’s job to lose money.

BZ