Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Saturday, January 01, 2005
A Comment from Cao Regarding the Minimum Wage
Thanks Cao. Cao can be linked at http://caosblog.com/:
The federal government has no business mandating wages. It's counterproductive and actually serves to create a new serf class. It actually destroys the jobs of many it is designed to help. Such concepts as the minimum wage are antiquated vestiges of Soviet-style, command-and-control government that empowers the powerful at the expense of the little guy.
How liberating it would be for the lowest wage earners if government actually got off their backs and cut taxes, eliminated programs like Social Security and ended wealth-redistribution programs of all kinds – including the minimum wage?
Let's assume one earns the minimum wage of $5.50. Let's assume that person never earns more than $5.50 an hour –an almost ridiculous assumption, but one I'll make for the purpose of illustration only.
If that person works 40 hours a week, he or she will earn $220. Over 50 weeks a year, that equals an annual salary of $11,000. Saving only 15 percent of that income – less than the amount taken from an employer for Social Security – he or she will have saved $1,650 a year.
Not much, you say?
After 40 years of saving $1,650 per year, at only 6 percent interest, that person would have $266,000. At 8 percent interest, that person would have $462,000. At 10 percent interest, that person would have $830,000. At 12 percent interest, the accumulated wealth would reach a staggering $1,560,000. That's how easy it would be for a minimum-wage earner to become a millionaire.
All this is possible if only the worker had the right to invest the money currently grabbed from him by the government for Social Security in a private, interest-bearing account.
It shows what an absolute rip-off Social Security is.
But back to the minimum wage thing. No one is helped by hikes in the minimum wage. They are a pittance in the big scheme of things. If you rely on the government raising the minimum wage so you can make more money, then you are dependent on the government. That is a trap. And it's a trap many politicians like. They love it when you look to them for everything. The socialists in the democratic party are TRYING to make us even MORE dependent on government.
I would ask a couple of questions to those so eager to raise the minimum wage by a dollar or more. For starters, why are you so cheap? Why not raise it 100 percent? Or, better yet, how about 1,000 percent? If raising the minimum wage doesn't have any negative effects on the economy, why not mandate salaries of $100,000 a year?
If these incremental hikes in the minimum wage are really so good for the economy, if they don't have any negative effects on people, why not make them much bigger, much more "generous"? Why not hit our target the first time? Why do we have to keep going back to the well?
The reason, I think, is clear. Everyone acknowledges that such large mandates on private commerce would have a devastating impact. We would destroy the U.S. economy. If there is major harm done by large-scale intrusion of the government in private business matters, then smaller injuries -- perhaps even undetectable hurts -- are occurring with the smaller mandates.
No one is suggesting that the economy is flourishing because of increases in the minimum wage in recent years. What they argue is that the damage they do hasn't been very severe -- which means they concede there has been some damage. And that means that our economy would be stronger -- by some degree -- if these increases had not been approved. So, why on earth would we want to keep gambling? Why would we take an action that could very well start the next recession? Why would we want to slow down the economy by even a tiny percentage? Why take action to hurt the economy at all?
Caoilfhionn, at 2:22 PM
The federal government has no business mandating wages. It's counterproductive and actually serves to create a new serf class. It actually destroys the jobs of many it is designed to help. Such concepts as the minimum wage are antiquated vestiges of Soviet-style, command-and-control government that empowers the powerful at the expense of the little guy.
How liberating it would be for the lowest wage earners if government actually got off their backs and cut taxes, eliminated programs like Social Security and ended wealth-redistribution programs of all kinds – including the minimum wage?
Let's assume one earns the minimum wage of $5.50. Let's assume that person never earns more than $5.50 an hour –an almost ridiculous assumption, but one I'll make for the purpose of illustration only.
If that person works 40 hours a week, he or she will earn $220. Over 50 weeks a year, that equals an annual salary of $11,000. Saving only 15 percent of that income – less than the amount taken from an employer for Social Security – he or she will have saved $1,650 a year.
Not much, you say?
After 40 years of saving $1,650 per year, at only 6 percent interest, that person would have $266,000. At 8 percent interest, that person would have $462,000. At 10 percent interest, that person would have $830,000. At 12 percent interest, the accumulated wealth would reach a staggering $1,560,000. That's how easy it would be for a minimum-wage earner to become a millionaire.
All this is possible if only the worker had the right to invest the money currently grabbed from him by the government for Social Security in a private, interest-bearing account.
It shows what an absolute rip-off Social Security is.
But back to the minimum wage thing. No one is helped by hikes in the minimum wage. They are a pittance in the big scheme of things. If you rely on the government raising the minimum wage so you can make more money, then you are dependent on the government. That is a trap. And it's a trap many politicians like. They love it when you look to them for everything. The socialists in the democratic party are TRYING to make us even MORE dependent on government.
I would ask a couple of questions to those so eager to raise the minimum wage by a dollar or more. For starters, why are you so cheap? Why not raise it 100 percent? Or, better yet, how about 1,000 percent? If raising the minimum wage doesn't have any negative effects on the economy, why not mandate salaries of $100,000 a year?
If these incremental hikes in the minimum wage are really so good for the economy, if they don't have any negative effects on people, why not make them much bigger, much more "generous"? Why not hit our target the first time? Why do we have to keep going back to the well?
The reason, I think, is clear. Everyone acknowledges that such large mandates on private commerce would have a devastating impact. We would destroy the U.S. economy. If there is major harm done by large-scale intrusion of the government in private business matters, then smaller injuries -- perhaps even undetectable hurts -- are occurring with the smaller mandates.
No one is suggesting that the economy is flourishing because of increases in the minimum wage in recent years. What they argue is that the damage they do hasn't been very severe -- which means they concede there has been some damage. And that means that our economy would be stronger -- by some degree -- if these increases had not been approved. So, why on earth would we want to keep gambling? Why would we take an action that could very well start the next recession? Why would we want to slow down the economy by even a tiny percentage? Why take action to hurt the economy at all?
Caoilfhionn, at 2:22 PM
totalkaosdave, 6:08 PM
|
