The minimum wage is, among other things, racist in its results. At least that is the conclusion of the this-week-departed Milton Friedman, the most brilliant economist of our generation. Rather than writing a second post at this point on the subject (there will be a third, a creation again of mine), I’ll simply refer you to an article on the subject by the esteemed Bill Buckley, with, again, thanks to Justin Taylor:
The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Radically Tolerant - of all people, irrespective of race, faith, circumstance. As a person, you will be treated with the respect and dignity you deserve as an individual created in the image of God.
Radically Intolerant - of slipshod reasoning, emotion without intellectual substance, bad ideas, lazy thinking, cowardly ad hominem attacks, the preposterous notion that 9/11 is some government conspiracy (proceed directly to the Loony Bin; do not pass "Go"; do not collect $200), the designated hitter, and the Dallas Cowboys.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
Ogden: Unfinished Business
Marshall: Reclaiming God's Original Intent for the Church
Yancey: Rumors of Another World
Frazee: The Connecting Church
Pearcey: Total Truth
Postman: Amusing Ourselves to Death
Bork: Slouching Towards Gomorrah
24 Responses to “Raising the Minimum Wage: Bad Idea (Part 2)”
There is no need to raise the minimum wage if we just do the right thing that we should have done all along – become socialists!
gurufrisbee ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Ah…perhaps this is the forum in which we might have that discussion vis a vis socialism (I’ve been meaning to get to it via email). Submitted: nothing in Scripture, in the words of Christ, suggests to us that socialism is a recommended form of government. There’s the gauntlet; let’s have a little fun!
Byron ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 3:20 pm
That’s a meaningless gauntlet to throw down. Nothing in scripture, in the words of Christ, suggests capitalism is the recommended form of government. And frankly, I think Acts 2:44-45 is a pretty compelling example that scripture does give us for the recommendation of socialism.
gurufrisbee ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Agreed; capitalism certainly isn’t found in Scripture per se. It my first toss was meaningless, I’ll toss it down a different way, then; make the case as to why you believe, as a Christ-follower, in socialism as the preferred form of government. Capitalism, I believe, is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others.
Byron ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 3:40 pm
OOOooooo, a real topic. Let me try.
Guru, the scripture you gave is problematic for socialism on a few levels.
(1) THeir “system” (for a lack of a better word) was voluntary, and had no governmental involvement. YOu may say that is irrelevant, but I say
(2) Their sharing was within the faith community of believers, and there is no indication by this passage that this was inclusive of those outside of the faith community, which is exactly what governmental involvement would do – forcefully engage the unwilling outside the faith community in this willing sharing among the believers.
You may be able to sell some form of socialism, but I don’t think you can base it on this passage, which is addressing the believers willing choice to share with other believers AS THEY HAD NEED.
Hefe ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 4:01 pm
One, I don’t think socialism is a form of government. It’s specific to economics and while that certainly means it branches into several (if not ALL) other areas, it doesn’t actually provide the framework for governing all areas.
I don’t have all the time right now to get into because my school is about to be closed down due to snow. But here is a lot of what it comes down to for me. The median income in the U.S. is around 45,000. That alone would inspire me to ask – Who can’t live on 45,000 a year? And what precisely do you need to have that will cost you beyond your 45K?
But it’s not real. Using the median to represent income is more accurate because it’s closer to representing what most people earn without being skewed by the ultra-rich. But for the purposes of looking at socialism, we MUST use the mean income – which is over 60,000 a year! And that is a ONE income home mean. Who can’t live on that? What needs do you have beyond 60K? And are those needs so great that it’s worth COMPLETELY eliminating poverty in this nation? I cannot believe it is.
gurufrisbee ~ Nov 27, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Gu, I’m willing to give you more time, cut you some slack because of school, because I think you danced on this one right around the issue. You need to build a much better case than a utopian dream, I think.
For my part, someday soon I’m going to post on a couple of things: one, why I LOVE rich people (I do, even though I have no aspirations of being rich), and two, some practical suggestions for ensuring that any given person will not live a life of poverty. I’m sure you’ll LOVE those posts, buddy!
Byron ~ Nov 28, 2006 at 10:21 am
By the way, Hefe…dead on.
Byron ~ Nov 28, 2006 at 10:21 am
Bet you didn’t think I could say something worthwhile while AT THE SAME TIME increasing my post count.
Multi-talented, some would say.
Others would call it an abnormality.
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Hefe – Call me “others.”
But you are indeed on the money.
Our church practices biblical socialism in the sense that we share with those who have need. I have been amazed in fact at how many folks are willing to sacrifice so that a brother or sister can have transportation or food or utilities paid.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Another word on this topic (and on topic too).
I was getting my morning brew of half Coke and half Diet Coke at McDonalds yesterday morning when I noticed the price had gone from 1.37 to 1.43. I simply noted this to the cashier, a young guy about 19. He said, “You can thank the minimum wage for that.” “How so?”, I asked. He told me that everything went up about the same rate as the minimum wage. I asked him how he felt about it and he said he didn’t like it. Why? Because he makes a few cents more than the new minimum is now. So his prices are going up but the raise didn’t help him.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 2:19 pm
6 cents. That’s rough man. How about stop drinking stuff that will kill you, and save the whole $1.43 to get a new party whistle.
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Hefe, the party whistle was free. Don’t need a new one; I kept that one and bring it out when needed – if you know what I mean.
Economizing on whistles is how I afford the big beverages.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Just say, “Supersize Me”!
Wait, what was the topic of this post,anyway?
Oh yeah, minimum wage.
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Well, that settles it for me. Hefe, you really need to take that medication. Focus, dude.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:46 pm
COngrats, Warren, on passing that 150 mark. I’m sure yours were mostly relevant posts. FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:49 pm
You’re a little late noticing that milestone. I take back my compliment about the Renaissance Man thing.
And to keep this real, we are earning far less than the minimum wage here.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 3:58 pm
There are more importatn things to be earned than minimum wage. Like respect. Or being the leader of the comment race. Mutually exclusive, but both important in their own respects.
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Well, at least I have one of the two…
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Yeah, but it would be nice to have respect also…..
Hefe ~ Nov 29, 2006 at 8:33 pm
…and also a pony. Maybe a dollar instead. Because respect and a dollar will buy you a coffee at McDonalds.
Hefe ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 8:13 am
Sorry for the delay – no internet at home and we’ve been bad weathered out of coming to school for the last two days.
One, I don’t think your points about the scripture in Acts do anything to deter my belief about it, Hefe. Sure it was voluntary and sure it was among a community of believers. Does that mean it cannot be the best option? Of course not. If anything, to me, that shows that it clearly was the best option and that we Christians should not only embrace it and follow it, but encourage our non-Christians to see the wisdom and good results of it, too.
Two, Byron, I didn’t “dance around” anything. You’re predetermined to not like the idea of socialism and we both know that. Frankly, a utopian dream to me is WAY more than enough a reason to support something. If it is a utopia, why wouldn’t you want to see it come about? You may feel you need more than that to want to support this, but I do feel this issue really is as simple as the fact that we can eliminate EVERYONE from living in poverty in exchange for no one living with excessive wealth. Very simple to me.
gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 10:25 am
Guru, I agree with you, we a Christians SHOULD embrace it AND encourage other non-believers to see the wisdom and good results of it. But there is a HUGE leap between that concept and socialism as an institution. If the above sentence is all you mean by socialism – a voluntary sharing among believers that witnesses to the unbeliever – than fine, I embrace that. But that is not really socialism, nor is it what you have in mind when you speak of socialism – at least from my perspective.
Hefe ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 11:07 am
Byron,
You’re right – if it was simply a voluntary sharing that would not be socialism. But the sharing of all is the socialism part and it is the best economic possibility if your interest is in eliminating poverty. We humans, and sadly in particular, we Americans are far too greedy to go for it, but just because something is unlikely to happen doesn’t mean it’s still not the best option and what you should encourage.
gurufrisbee ~ Nov 30, 2006 at 12:04 pm