I’ve been covering the minimum wage media beat for Civic Ventures for nearly three years now, and I’ve seen lots of dumb takes:
Several European countries, some of which are held up as social paragons by the left such as Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, have no minimum wage. So, how is it a “dumb take” if countries with similar standards of living as ours do just fine without one?
However, that horse has left the barn, we’re always going to have a minimum wage, so let’s move on.
people who think the government should subsidize immensely profitable low-wage employers like McDonald’s and Walmart,
The argument here is that because the wages paid by these retailers place people below the cut levels for welfare, the government is essentially subsidizing low wages.
Government can fix this in a second by a very conservative proposal: that being a far more rapid phaseout of benefits at the lower end of the scale for the working poor. If a person is going to get 30K in annual benefits if they don’t work, and only 10K in annual benefits if they work as much as a 10-hr-week minimum wage job, everyone leaves the low-end workforce overnight. WalMart and McDonalds would screech to a halt, and raise wages until it was financially beneficial again for people to work.
Simple. What you are doing there is complaining about the unintended consequence of a system that the Democrats support. Fix the unintended consequence, then. The Tea Party will support you.
people who argue that awful restaurants should be protected from the free market.
That particular commentor based his argument on an erroneous assumption. Therefore, he never actually argued what you called him out for. Nice Straw Man, there.
They love the phrase because it transforms the poor and unlucky into greedy, salivating takers who are leeching on the good will of average Americans.
You’re expressing a narrative, not fact. We support the unlucky and the portion of the poor who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. The portion of the poor who are poor because of their own bad life decisions? Not so much.
Her argument that workers expecting a livable wage from their employers are takers in search of a “free lunch” sets a dangerous precedent, shifting expectations even further to the right. The idea that compensation is a handout redefines the idea of work in such a fundamental way that you can’t even fairly call it capitalism — it’s corporatism at best, and slavery at worst.
This is a rubbish analysis. In context, the obvious point here is that workers are entitled to a compensation commensurate with meritorious factors: their aptitude, education, experience, and the nature of the job. When government mandates a pay rate that is ABOVE what the employee’s merit would bring for them, the DELTA between the two is the “free lunch”. And the term is quite accurate. The employee is getting something they would not have gotten had not it been for a government regulation.
You’re taking Rampell way too literally, without caring about context.
For 40 years, those in the top one percent have kicked the rungs out of the ladder behind them as they’ve climbed ever higher.
You cannot logically draw that statement from the graph. We all know that the rich have been making out like bandits for some time now. We do not fully understand why, as you presume to do. We can understand HOW, but WHY is more difficult.
The first logical solution to this mess, and I agree it is a mess, backed up by data, is to promote an ample supply of good-paying jobs. There is very little evidence that economic redistribution is the solution to the problem.
We have to fix this system. I can think of two levers to accomplish this without some sort of class warfare. First, we can tax the wealthy at sensible levels.
I believe we already do. Next?
And second, we can ensure that all Americans can participate in the economy.
Welcome to the Tea Party.