Democrats are weak..... Check out the logic and you will likely agree.........
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...imes_weak_argument_for_a_15_minimum_wage.html
Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial board endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. The idea of more than doubling the U.S. wage floor has been popular for a while among the activist left and has had a champion in presidential contender Bernie Sanders. But with the Gray Lady's seal of approval, it seems that fighting for 15 nationwide has become a mainstream liberal policy stance.
Which is frustrating, because the argument in favor of a $15 federal minimum is, asever, extremely weak.The Times' editorial, which puts remarkably little effort into actually arguing for its position, is a good example of why. It begins by pointing out that several cities and states are weighing proposals next year that would increase their hourly minimums to $15. A handful, including Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, are already in the process of doing so. The paper then notes that there are lots of poor, conservative states that won't raise their minimum without prodding from Washington, even though it's still difficult for families to make ends meet in those parts of the country while working low-wage jobs. In Alabama and Mississippi, for instance, it takes around $20 per hour for a single parent to raise a child, according to MIT's living wage calculator. From there, the Times concludes: “Sooner or later, Congress has to set an adequate wage floor for the nation as a whole. If it does so in the near future, the new minimum should be $15.”
And that's it. Because there are few places in the country where a single parent could get by on less than $20 an hour,1 the Times reasons that we should at least guarantee everybody $15. Nowhere does the paper even acknowledge the very real possibility that more than doubling the federal minimum might lead to unintended consequences, which could hurt the exact same low-income Americans the move is supposed to help.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...imes_weak_argument_for_a_15_minimum_wage.html
Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial board endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. The idea of more than doubling the U.S. wage floor has been popular for a while among the activist left and has had a champion in presidential contender Bernie Sanders. But with the Gray Lady's seal of approval, it seems that fighting for 15 nationwide has become a mainstream liberal policy stance.
Which is frustrating, because the argument in favor of a $15 federal minimum is, asever, extremely weak.The Times' editorial, which puts remarkably little effort into actually arguing for its position, is a good example of why. It begins by pointing out that several cities and states are weighing proposals next year that would increase their hourly minimums to $15. A handful, including Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, are already in the process of doing so. The paper then notes that there are lots of poor, conservative states that won't raise their minimum without prodding from Washington, even though it's still difficult for families to make ends meet in those parts of the country while working low-wage jobs. In Alabama and Mississippi, for instance, it takes around $20 per hour for a single parent to raise a child, according to MIT's living wage calculator. From there, the Times concludes: “Sooner or later, Congress has to set an adequate wage floor for the nation as a whole. If it does so in the near future, the new minimum should be $15.”
And that's it. Because there are few places in the country where a single parent could get by on less than $20 an hour,1 the Times reasons that we should at least guarantee everybody $15. Nowhere does the paper even acknowledge the very real possibility that more than doubling the federal minimum might lead to unintended consequences, which could hurt the exact same low-income Americans the move is supposed to help.
