Christie may be being politically pragmatic, hoping to kill the increase while seeming to support one. Or, he may support the concept, but believes the Democrats' larger increase with indexing is simply economically impractical at this time. Whatever the reason, Christie signaled his support for a mandatory minimum wage increase.
That didn't stop the NJ Star-Ledger from jumping on Christie. In Christie Veto on Minimum Wage Another Blow to Working Poor, the editors said that he "again disregarded the pressing needs of the working poor," practically accusing him of waging war on the poor for cutting subsidies they have no right to in the first place. The veto, they write,
...fits a pattern. His first budget effectively raised income taxes on low-wage families by scaling back the earned-income tax credit. He has also ended health care coverage for thousands of low-wage families, closed down Planned Parenthood clinics that served them, and tried his best to raid huge sums of money from a trust fund set aside for affordable housing. In each case, the target is the working poor.
Cutting government subsidies is not taking from the poor. It's taking less from the taxpayers. That aside, in these comments, I focused on the main issue at hand:
One thing is certain: The SLEB [Star-Ledger Editorial Board], the Democrats, and Christie support the minimum wage law. That's too bad, because the law not only kills jobs--especially entry-level jobs that many young people need to step onto the "economic ladder"--it is immoral.
Proponents can cite all of the studies they want to "prove" that minimum wage laws don't cost jobs, and opponents can counter with plenty of their own that they do. But opponents have common sense and economic theory on their side. It simply makes no sense for employers to pay a worker more than that worker contributes to the productive process. No business can stay in business for long if it loses money on every hour it pays its employees. Price controls don't work.
Most importantly, opponents also have the moral high ground. An employer and employee have a fundamental human right to contract voluntarily to mutual advantage, and no one has a right to forbid it. If a young person is willing to work for less than the political busybodies think he should, it is his right. Furthermore, it is simply wrong to deny someone without the skills for a higher wage the opportunity to gain the experience, self-discipline, skills, and self-esteem needed to advance economically. Minimum wage laws essentially kick out the lower rungs of the "economic ladder of success," ensuring that many never get the chance to become self-reliant.
This is a shameful position for an alleged champion of "equal opportunity." Minimum wage laws effectively keep many of the poor from ever becoming the "working poor," which the editors profess to be the champion of.
Related Reading:
End, Don't Raise, Minimum Wage Laws
Minimum Wage Doesn't Belong in the Constitution--or Law
Contract Rights Means No Insurance Mandates or Minimum Wage Laws
No comments:
Post a Comment