Nicole Gelinas, contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, and Paul Sonn, legal co-director of the National Employment Law Project, provide the pros and cons of the New York state legislature's proposed minimum wage increase.
can't tell if gelinas is psychotic or evil.
Gary from Queens: Actually, I thought that you mentioned that Williams is Black in order to point out to the vast majority of NPR listeners that there are Black people in this country who are not economically-ignorant.
Sheldon from Brooklyn ASKS:Gary - do you have a favorite Jewish, female, and Asian economist as well?
ANSWER: Sheldon, No, I do not. And I never had a "favorite black" anything either, before Obama was elected president. Because Brian Lehrer and his listeners taught me that being there's a premium on being black. That somehow, by way of one's race, there is something intrinsically better about you if you are black.
I will admit, I have no idea what that could be, if one is supposed to be assessing character and actual accomplishments. So when I mention ones race, I'm really just trying to be sociable and go along with everyone else.
Hugh, you make an excellent point about occupational licensing. That's why people who believe in a true free market are against occupational licensing (and all licensing, in general, such as taxi cab medallions and liquor licenses).
How much does the disparity between the minimum wage and a living wage cost taxpayers in government programs to assist the working poor? How much do taxpayers pay to support minimum wage requirements for employers?
Sheldon from Brooklyn ~
Poor Gary, he just can't help it.
$11.50/hr leaves you with somewhere around $300/wk after taxes. $1200/mth.
How do you afford a $500+/mth health "insurance" product on $1200/mth?!?!?!?
G_D BLESS AMERIKA®!!!
"The things that people are really worried about are crime and noise and the cost of living." Really? I very much doubt it. Cost of living, maybe. Crime and noise are not at the top of anyone's list lately. We're much more worried about jobs and salaries.
Has Gelinas been following the news?! People overwhelming cite the economy as their number one concern.
The "crowding out" argument that Gelinas just offered directly contradicts the very conservative line she and similar thinkers otherwise endorse. Conservatives claim we are at full employment, so no person able to command higher wages by virtue of skill or training is going to choose a lower-paying job or one that pays the same and requires less skill. That's the _conservative_ line.
The right-winger naysayers want to have their cake and eat it. In one breath they pick from Keynesian thinking to argue against justice. In the next they pick from Friedman and Hayek to to argue against injustice.
Tying minimum wage increases - in percentages - to congressional salaries: has that ever been considered?
Or tying increases - in percentages - to other government workers' salaries?
David, that was a good article. Peter Schiff was a guest on BL show a few years ago. he schooled Brian on libertarian economics.
Just like the Buffet Rule, Obama will get dems to advocate for a minimum wage increase before the election, in order to portray Romney as uncompassionate.
This demagoguery is only possible because the public doesnt have a basic understanding of these economic issues.
He does make a good point....that most of these low wage jobs are not the type that would be moved to another state just to lower overhead.They are location specific.
The United States and New York State _support_ higher wage regulations for doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, real estate brokers, etc. How? By requiring licensing, bar exams, accreditation. These clearly have an effect of raising pay in their various disciplines (there may be other reasons for such things, but not even conservative economists would dispute that such requirements raise costs).
Any discuusion of NYC's & NYS minimum wage must include the extremely high Regional Cost Of Living (RCOLA) in NY.
I believe that NY's minuimum wage is artificially low, compared, say, to Idaho.
Gary - do you have a favorite Jewish, female, and Asian economist as well?
Yet again, we see how low the bar is for somebody to win credibility as an 'expert' if he or she is a right-winger. Nicole Gelinas has a BA in English -- no background at all in economics. But so what! She's conservative.
Gary: Never let economic logic stand in the way of "compassionate" people.
Here's another good essay on the subject:
What difference would it make anyways? Any low skill job is going to be some "undocumented" worker getting paid "undocumented" wages. Meaningless debate given the realities of the hemisphere.
Go back to first principles:
QUOTE“What exactly does the Constitution authorize the federal government to do in order to ‘provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States’”?
This clause appears in the preamble of Article I, Section 8. Its meaning was fraught with controversy until seemingly settled when FDR, threatening to pack the Supreme Court, cowed the justices into signing off on the New Deal. Progressives insisted the General Welfare Clause was a sweeping grant, citing Hamilton as their champion of omnipotent, centralized government. Though this distorted Hamilton’s notion of general welfare (which was not robbing Peter to pay Paul), the Left maintains that Leviathan is empowered to tax and spend for any ostensibly humanitarian purpose.
Not so. As James Madison explained, the Constitution was designed to limit government. The General Welfare Clause is not an open-ended license to enact someone’s transient notion of humanitarian good — particularly at someone else’s expense. Were that the case, the federal government would gradually eviscerate state sovereignty and usurp the liberties of the people. (See, e.g., the last 70 years.)
The General Welfare Clause, like its companion summons to “provide for the common Defense,” is merely the preamble’s framing of the high purpose behind Section 8’s carefully enumerated powers, which follow. The central government may provide for the general welfare only by those powers: to regulate commerce, see to the integrity of the currency, establish standards for naturalization, raise and equip the armed forces, and so on. If it is not spelled out in Section 8, it is not the federal government’s job — and there is nothing in there about Uncle Sam insuring our retirements, socializing medical care, or dictating a minimum wage.
It is not that Madison was “not concerned about the very poor.” He and the framers were simply possessed of a basic bit of wisdom that eludes us sophisticated moderns: The strength and genius of America lie in its people, not its government. Government, though necessary, tends to corruption, factional self-dealing, and sloth — especially as it gets more distant from the lives it affects.UNQUOTE
February 4, 2012 4:00 A.M.http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290138/see-mitt-pander-andrew-c-mccarthy
My favorite black economist wrote the following:
Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly25 April 2006Walter Williams If higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwidepoverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of OprahWinfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage."After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of theheartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong.MORE:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22walter+williams%22+%22South+Africa%22+%22minimum+wage%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
Minimum WageMarch 30, 2005MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT AN ANTI-POVERTY TOOLA proposal by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)to increase the minimum wage from its current $5.15 an hour is a bad idea.Moreover, the idea that minimum wage legislation is an anti-poverty tool issheer nonsense, says economist Walter E. Williams. There is little evidence suggesting increases in the minimum wage help thepoor. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal:While minimum-wage workers earn $5,000 below the poverty line for a familyof three, only 2.2 percent of working adults earn the minimum wage. Minimum wages discriminate against the employment of low-skilled workersbecause employers are not willing to pay $7.25 an hour for a worker whoseskills enable him to produce only $4 worth of value per hour. The low-skilled worker category is dominated by teenagers who lack thematurity, skills and experience of adults.MORE:http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1473AND:http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=24
Jewish World Review April 14, 2010 / 30 Nissan 5770 Minimum Wage Cruelty By Walter Williams Which allows an American Samoan worker to have a higher standard of living:being employed at $3.26 per hour or unemployed at a wage scheduled toannually increase by 50 cents until it reaches federally mandated wages at$7.25? You say, "Williams, that's a stupid question. Who would supportpeople being unemployed at $7.25 an hour over being employed at $3.26 anhour?" That's precisely the outcome of Congress' 2007 increases in theminimum wage. Chicken of the Sea International moved its operation fromSamoa to a highly automated cannery plant in Lyon, Georgia. That resultedin roughly 2,000 jobs lost in Samoa and a gain of 200 jobs in Georgia.MORE:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041410.php3
Entry level jobs are not intended to be a "living wage".
If i want to pay my 15 yr old niece $10 an hour to clean my house or do chores, the government has no right to force me to pay more than that.
Employers will pay the going rate. They will reward a worker for a service to them the same way you reward the Pizza shop for its service to you. If the price of a slice is too much, you decline the transaction. you don't run to the government and demand it establish a minimum price for that slice.
Well, maybe you would. but most people realize today that centralized, command economies fail. (Look up the Soviet Union and Commie China.)
For that matter, look at the condition Europe is in now. Socialist democracies that established living wages have negative growth and border on insolvency now. Statism doesn't work. Europe is your benchmark.
And philosophically, please tell me to what extent I'm my brother's keeper? Must I support HIS children by supplementing his wages?
And what about practicality? A federal minimum wage is an anachronism. One can live on $15/hour in Des Moines, perhaps. But in NYC?!
The less government manipulating prices and resources, the better everything is. Economics and capitalism is not about fairness. it's about what works for the system and most people in it. It's the tragic view of life, as Mamet reminds us. It's no place for utopian idealists.
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.