Regarding Gary Crooks’ Oct. 20 musings about doubling the minimum wage, he paints with too broad a brush. He is correct: Somebody will pay in either higher wages or the current welfare transfers. He is right that “the public pays either way.” But one “public” is the taxpayer, who pays involuntarily; while the other “public” would be customers, who have a choice of what they buy. Big difference, especially if you happen to own an affected business.
Looking a bit deeper than Gary, what happens to the wages of non-minimum-wage workers who were leap-frogged by doubling minimum wage? Wage hikes for all? Now you’ve made all “public” contributions involuntary and paid by the consumer. So, should we expect a tax decrease by paying charity directly to the charity cases? Right.
Finally, the government believes that if you increase the cost of something, you get less of it; think cigarettes, alcohol, speeding, securities fraud, etc. Won’t this apply to starter jobs, too? Now, even the targets of charity are paying (with job loss), but they can come back to welfare, right? Sheesh! It’s enough to make one ponder the purpose of minimum wage; a springboard or a career?