Hypocritical Nancy Pelosi demands $15 minimum wage
On February 27th, 2020, the House passed Biden's $1.9 trillion "relief" plan without including the $15 minimum wage. This was because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that including a minimum-wage hike in the bill doesn't comply with Senate budget rules. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted no time displaying her economic ignorance, promising that a $15 minimum wage was inevitable. "It is therefore inevitable to all of us that the $15 minimum wage will be achieved, even if it is inconceivable to some, it is inevitable to us, and we will work diligently to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable." Nancy Pelosi went on to say, "The $7.25 minimum wage that exists now is, in many instances, in many instances, an exploitation of the American worker." The seemingly empathetic motives behind the $15 minimum wage being pushed by Speaker Pelosi are sinister at worst, or at best, blatantly hypocritical. The sinister motive for enacting a $15 minimum wage should not be overlooked. The higher the minimum wage rises, the more people are put out of legal employment. A worker who, for whatever reason, cannot find work at the minimum wage cannot legally put their labor on sale to increase employment opportunity. This results in more dependency on the state and more votes for socialist politicians like Nancy Pelosi. While the sinister motive may seem far-fetched to some, it should be remembered what Nancy Pelosi said to Wolf Blitzer in an interview regarding Coronavirus relief back in October 2020. When being pressured by Wolf as to why the bill was being held up, Nancy at one point responded to Wolf with, "Have you fed them? We feed them, we feed them". The hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi's demands for an increased minimum wage was exposed in 2008 by libertarian documentarian Jan Helfeld. Helfeld asked Pelosi why it should be illegal for someone to sell their labor for less than the minimum wage, to which Nancy had no concrete answer. After being pressured to answer why she does not pay all of her interns the minimum wage, Pelosi abruptly ended the interview, telling Helfeld he "made a mistake" and proceeded to call on the guard to help end the interview.
One more point I left out. Those emoyees that did work hard and distinguish themselves to be deserving of a wage above the existing minimum instantly..... through the stroke of a government imposed regulation...... will have their relative higher earnings instantly reduced ...... perhaps barely higher than some unproven new employee. That seems incredibly unfair... a bit like the issue of forgiving student loans penalizing those that paid theirs or worked and paid during college or worse still didn't even go to college knowing the expense.... when they could've gone for free with loan forgiveness. Completely unfair. And employers aware of how dispirited their higher paid employees may have become seeing their relative earnings reduced may not be able to afford increasing that compensation and deserved future pay increases given the cost burden of having to pay unproven or undeserving employees at such a higher wage. Whole thing is unfair.
Excellent job exposing the sinister hypocrisy of Pelosi's position regarding raising the minimum wage. Many people seemingly lack the capacity to think through the full impact of such a move..... unable or unwilling..... to see past the surface component of this issue..... having the compassion to help the lowest income earners in the economy attain a better standard of living. Typical of the Left's stance on many issues ...... compassion is the sole motivation while absent is the broader analysis of the "unintended" impact of such policies. Unintended is in quotes as the arguement could be made that consequences are actually understood and are fully intended. And what are these consequences? The following come to mind.... Any economic gain made by minimum wage earners would be temporary as the increased labor cost ultimately works its way through the economy and real earnings are reduced back to the starting point. As mentioned it prevents low skilled and young entrants into the work force from being competitive by accepting an initially lower wage to secure employment and then using that opportunity to demonstrate qualities deserving of a higher wage. It reduces employment opportunities in general by increasing the incremental cost of adding employees. It places a financial burden on small businesses that may already be operating on razor thin margins and minimal staffing. Small business provides the majority of employment and the result might be increased unemployment... perhaps the intended unintended consequence of increasing government dependence. Perhaps a thinking out-of-the-box option that still includes government involvement in setting wages.... to the extent any such involvement may be needed to preclude abuse of the work force through collusion to keep wages artificially low .....might be to reward employers that pay their employees a higher wage. How about the government provide financial incentive to employers that hire hourly workers and pay higher wages by reducing their tax obligation. If the government wants to engineer economic/social policy..... such as wages and living standards for low skilled labor ....... how about removing the burden of pursuing this utopian vision from the backs of private employers and place the costs on the government itself. To extent you pay your work force more the less you owe Uncle Sam.
Ugh! I can’t believe anyone still listens to this virtue-signaling, insider trading, Marie Antoinette.