Minimum Wage and Maximizing Morality (op-ed)
If I asked you what’s two plus two, you’d answer four, but suppose I asked you to explain the moral justification for the sum of the equation.
And since you had no justification I told you the answer should be five because it’s more than four and more is moral.
Hopefully you would reject that baseless moral argument by protesting the equation wouldn’t add up.
But I agree with you.
Then I explain the reason why it doesn’t add up is because addition is immoral.
Ridiculous, right?
Years back news footage captured fast food workers demonstrating for pay increases. A few demonstrators carried signs that said: You can’t raise a family on minimum wage.
But the next time news footage showed workers demonstrating for the same cause the sign was different. This time the sign said: You can’t raise a family on $7.25
What’s the difference?
The first sign makes the hourly rate irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the current minimum is increased, doubled, or tripled it’s still a minimum that a worker has to earn over to raise a family. But the dollar amount featured in the second sign provides a moral focus for policy makers because they want to help families that deserve more, and in “family raising” scenarios more is moral regardless of how it adds up.
A few months ago California’s governor signed a $15 minimum wage bill. This was a partisan accomplishment by California Democrats. The bill had no Republican support.
California’s Democratic governor said, “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense, but morally, socially, and politically they make sense because it binds the community together and makes sure parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way.”
Businesses maximize profit by cutting costs, but the state of California is going to maximize morality by increasing the cost of production, because, according to the governor, “Work is not just an economic equation,” especially if you believe the sum of an equation is immoral just because it’s less than what’s demanded by demonstrators.
This is why business minded conservatives believe in limited government. They know legislators can’t test their product before it reaches the market, which makes public policy an experiment on the people.
Critics called the governor’s minimum wage bill an aggressive untested idea. Alan Krueger, former chief economist for President Obama, said an increase at such a high level could be counterproductive. It’s also estimated that the bill will eventually cost the taxpayers $3.6 billion in higher pay for government workers.
Business groups said, raising wages will force employers to increase prices or cut costs by laying off workers or reducing hours, but if this is done to meet demands and simultaneously make a profit will these employers be accused of immoral addition?
And more importantly, when morality is completely maximized by the employer what is the moral obligation of the consumer, will two plus two equal four or five?
Antitrust laws were established to prevent business monopolies, but no economic policy should be trusted when it's based on a political party’s monopoly on morality.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 6/1/16
And since you had no justification I told you the answer should be five because it’s more than four and more is moral.
Hopefully you would reject that baseless moral argument by protesting the equation wouldn’t add up.
But I agree with you.
Then I explain the reason why it doesn’t add up is because addition is immoral.
Ridiculous, right?
Years back news footage captured fast food workers demonstrating for pay increases. A few demonstrators carried signs that said: You can’t raise a family on minimum wage.
But the next time news footage showed workers demonstrating for the same cause the sign was different. This time the sign said: You can’t raise a family on $7.25
What’s the difference?
The first sign makes the hourly rate irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the current minimum is increased, doubled, or tripled it’s still a minimum that a worker has to earn over to raise a family. But the dollar amount featured in the second sign provides a moral focus for policy makers because they want to help families that deserve more, and in “family raising” scenarios more is moral regardless of how it adds up.
A few months ago California’s governor signed a $15 minimum wage bill. This was a partisan accomplishment by California Democrats. The bill had no Republican support.
California’s Democratic governor said, “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense, but morally, socially, and politically they make sense because it binds the community together and makes sure parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way.”
Businesses maximize profit by cutting costs, but the state of California is going to maximize morality by increasing the cost of production, because, according to the governor, “Work is not just an economic equation,” especially if you believe the sum of an equation is immoral just because it’s less than what’s demanded by demonstrators.
This is why business minded conservatives believe in limited government. They know legislators can’t test their product before it reaches the market, which makes public policy an experiment on the people.
Critics called the governor’s minimum wage bill an aggressive untested idea. Alan Krueger, former chief economist for President Obama, said an increase at such a high level could be counterproductive. It’s also estimated that the bill will eventually cost the taxpayers $3.6 billion in higher pay for government workers.
Business groups said, raising wages will force employers to increase prices or cut costs by laying off workers or reducing hours, but if this is done to meet demands and simultaneously make a profit will these employers be accused of immoral addition?
And more importantly, when morality is completely maximized by the employer what is the moral obligation of the consumer, will two plus two equal four or five?
Antitrust laws were established to prevent business monopolies, but no economic policy should be trusted when it's based on a political party’s monopoly on morality.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 6/1/16
Comments
Post a Comment