Treasury Secretary Lew doesn’t want poor people working full time

“It is not acceptable for people to work full time and live below the poverty line.”

So apparently the National Government gets to decide what’s an acceptable way for people to live their lives.

But putting that aside, the “poverty line” is a government construct as is the “minimum wage.”  You can simply set the minimum wage high enough so that anyone working full time will be above the poverty line.  Then anyone who can’t find a job for $7.25 (or the $10.10 that Lew would prefer) will be unemployed and collect government welfare. Problem solved.  This is how Democrats think.  They would rather a person not work than make less than whatever arbitrary hourly wage they come up with.  The fact that someone could take a job for $5.00 an hour, learn some skills through that experience, become a more valuable worker, and then begin to earn a higher wage is irrelevant.  After all, the minimum wage argument is to get ignorant people to vote for them and to appease Labor Unions who are some of their biggest campaign contributors.

To be fair, Republicans always go along with this for political reasons.  They don’t like having this argument so they eventually cave and accept a minimum wage hike.  The best you can hope for from them is a “compromise” where they agree to raise it slightly less than the Democrats want.

Still, I’m confused by the numbers.  Someone making $7.25 an hour working 40 hours a week earns about $15,080 per year.  If it’s a single person, they earned more than the government poverty line number of $11,490.  However, if they’re trying to support a family of four then they need to earn $23,350 so they’re well below this.  Now raise it to $10.10 and (setting aside the issue of all the people making between $7.25 & $10.10 who get laid off) the annual income is about $21,000.  So they’re still not making enough to support a family of four above the Government’s own definition of poverty.  Why so stingy then? Where did the $10.10 come from?  Why not at least raise it to the $11.22 necessary to earn $23,350 annually since the State is clearly able to legislate poverty out of existence? Hell, if raising the minimum wage doesn’t increase unemployment as advocates insist, why not just raise it to $100 an hour or $1000 an hour so we can all be rich?

For more on this nonsense, I would urge people to read Murray Rothbard.

One thought on “Treasury Secretary Lew doesn’t want poor people working full time

  1. Tussock,Hurt some so that others may befient? Even if you’re right about the befient (and I assert that you are wrong), your position is scarcely moral.You’re still ignoring the fact that (especially in the highly competitive low-margin areas like, say The Warehouse and such), if someone is worth $5 / hour, and the Government makes you pay them $6 / hour, you either have to put prices up (hurting the minimum-wage earners the most, as they’re the ones who buy from such places), or not hire the person. You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.BTW, with respect to ‘perfect competition’ – have a read of , again from the :The “pure and perfect competition” doctrine seeks to replace the competition among producers in the creation of wealth, with a competition among consumers in the form of a mad scramble for a fixed stock of existing wealth. It seeks a state of affairs in which no additional buyer can obtain a product without depriving some other buyer of the goods he wants for that is what competition at full capacity would mean. It seeks to make men competitors in consumption rather than in production. It seeks to transform the competition of human beings into a competition of animals fighting over a static quantity of prey. In other words, when it denounces capitalism, it is denouncing the fact that capitalism is not ruled by the law of the jungle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *