I am, of course, one of those neoliberals, someone ever willing to do the bidding of my capitalist masters. So of course I agree with the 1987 New York Times editorial board that the correct rate for the minimum wage is dollars zero per hour. The sensible way to deal with poverty and low income is to allow the market to work itself out, see what employers are willing to pay in various areas for various types and skill levels of labour, and if there’s people let over at the end who do not have what we regard as a sufficient income then we give them some money. That is, poverty and low incomes are to be dealt with through the welfare system and redistribution, not by messing with the market. You know, that messing with the market which has made Venezuela such a shining beacon of economic hope under Bolivarian socialism.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ere-should-be-no-federal-minimum-wage-at-all/
Great idea and a great argument, but liberals lust for control and power - power to compel otherwise free individuals with the full force of the federal government..... What the author suggests here is to maintain the freedom WHILE paying for the those that cannot make it on their own. Fine idea in my book.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ere-should-be-no-federal-minimum-wage-at-all/
Great idea and a great argument, but liberals lust for control and power - power to compel otherwise free individuals with the full force of the federal government..... What the author suggests here is to maintain the freedom WHILE paying for the those that cannot make it on their own. Fine idea in my book.