Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. An increase has always hurt the poorest by raising prices and closing them out to the possibility of moving up. It began in the Great Depression and FDR hurt blacks and women the most who at that time could compete for jobs by using their negotiating for wages. This is more smoke and mirrors by Democrats. What employer would take a chance on an 18 year old with no skills but potential? Some kids don't even know how to show up on time--it's part of learning/teaching your minimum wage staff. Very few employed people earn minimum--it was already too high. Employers forced to pay $10-$15 will look for people worth it. California has hurt the poor and particularly American born minorities (immigrants often have a better work ethic if they walked 1,000 miles to get here).
Only about 1.4% of wage earners make federal minimum, compared to 13.4% in 1979. And that's not good. Those are earning/learning jobs--part time, good for teens and the mentally challenged that require good mentoring to move to the next level. Those jobs are now done by machines who won't take smoke breaks, call in sick, or want off for a relative's funeral. The good paying, living wage jobs are the kids who went to trade school, or high school grads who can be carpenter or plumber helpers.
Some are saying then an increase is needed for Social Securty. For that we have COLA. Like Minimum wage, Social Security was never meant to be a living wage. Rate of return in 2022 was about 6%--and considering a dicey economy struggling with socialist Bidenomics, that's not bad. It was about 1.2% in the late 90s. Possibly private investing could do better, but SS has a number of other programs to help workers that pensions and 401-k's don't. Unfortunately, we are now down to about 2.9 workers for every retiree. In 1940, that was 42. Someone in FDR's cabinet couldn't do the math. But that's Democrats. Promises, promises.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment