Those who believe in a minimum wage are misguided, though
their heart may be in the right place. Unfortunately, the higher the minimum
wage, the higher the unemployment rate, particularly for young people and
minorities, the very people the minimum wage is supposedly designed to help. It
also results in more failing businesses, higher prices for consumers and lower
tax receipts. Additionally, it will soon lead employers to replace workers with
robots, further worsening unemployment. In reality, it is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose
proposition. But, again, one can understand
the motive—or at least the emotion—behind the concept.
What is
harder to understand, and virtually unprecedented, is Minnesota Representative
Keith Ellison’s recent call for a “maximum wage.” The Gopher State Democrat,
and, incredibly, Democratic National Committee Chairman, says the U.S. should
institute a maximum wage so CEOs and managers can’t make so much more money per
hour than their employees.
A
maximum wage would require government to place a cap on all earnings,
confiscate all earnings over a certain amount, or tax those earnings at a rate
of 100 percent.
In a
recent interview, Ellison remarked, “Why shouldn’t there be a
maximum wage?” Then, after a reporter questioned him on his remark, Ellison
responded, “I did not make a joke
about maximum wage; I made a statement
about maximum wage. What I’m saying is … If you were to say, ‘Look, if you make
more than 20 times more than the people who actually make the products and do
the services of your company,’ then we’re going to tax you more.”
Maybe
the punitive income level for “bigwigs” should be set at 19 times more than the
people under them. Or 12 times. Or five-and-a-half times, perhaps. And how long
have the CEOs and managers been employed? How has their performance been? Why
are they CEOs and managers?
If the
owner or CEO puts up the money, takes the financial risk, thought up,
constructed and organized the business, hired and paid for its employees (who
now pay taxes themselves), must comply with all federal and municipal rules and
regulations, has to travel frequently, and is frequently scrutinized by the
public, and somehow produces a successful entity, perhaps placing an arbitrary
hard cap on his or her income is not especially wise. Or conducive to economic
growth.
This is
textbook socialism. It does not seek to raise everyone up. It seeks to make
everyone (nearly) equal in outcome, economically. This can only occur when
everyone is (nearly) impoverished.
If the
wealthiest folks in a society make, say, $10 million a year, while the “poor”
people earn and or receive benefits equal to $33,000 a year, is it really more
beneficial and more rational to put laws in place that limit the rich to an
income of $200,000 a year—laws that will also guarantee the poor people will
only take in, say, $10,000 a year? While
the income gap is dramatically less, everyone, especially the poor, is
dramatically worse off.
In case
you think I’m just slinging numbers out there…you’re right…to a degree. But
this is, in essence, what has happened in every Communist/Socialist country in
the history of the world. Unless human nature is somehow radically altered,
this will never change.
If we
really wish to follow through on Rep. Ellison’s genius, we must also consider
placing limits on how good-looking people may be, how articulate, how charming.
The government should mandate minimum and maximum permitted scores in all
sporting contests, as well. Wouldn’t that be exciting? If there are minimum
scores needed to pass certain tests, surely there should be maximum scores allowed, so that the feelings of others
aren’t unduly hurt. I think there should be minimum and maximum IQ scores. The
minimum should be 65, and the maximum should be 130, no matter the given
individual’s actual mental acuity. No one needs to be recognized as being more
than twice as smart as anyone else.
I have
spoken. Let it be so. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment