Why you ask? Because our politicians are still attaching unrelated spending to the Iraq bill. Still. This time around they’re (Democrats) attaching money to raise minimum wage, which will later be used for political cheerleading. You mark my words . . . “We increased minimum wage,” and “What a great day for the middle class,” are phrases you will hear a lot in the coming months. (I guess if they pay people more, they’ll get more to pay for this ridiculously costly war in the form of taxes).

“. . . minimum wage goes up to $5.85 two months after Bush signs the bill, then to $6.55 one year later and to $7.25 the next year.” via Time Magazine.

Why this is a bad idea
Let’s just get something on the table for all those who are going to make the incredibly lame argument that I probably make more than minimum wage, so I don’t know “what it’s like.” Yep, I make more than minimum wage. I also have a college degree, a high school diploma, did three internships, worked at two PR agencies and two newspapers, volunteered probably more than 2,000 hours while I was in college and spend hours a week reading about things related to my field. I also blog and write columns for Connect Magazine to keep my writing skills sharp (both for free). I’m the only child in my family to graduate from college (six kids), and no, my dad didn’t pay for any of it.

So, yes, I make more than minimum wage at what I do, and I think minimum wage makes about as much sense as a maximum wage. It doesn’t make sense (or cents).

Here’s my issue with it. “Currently, a person working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $5.15 makes about $10,700 a year. An increase to $7.25 would boost that to just over $15,000 a year.”

This is true, but it doesn’t do anything to increase or perpetuate a person’s ability to increase or boost their individual ability to earn more. It rewards them for doing the same. Salary caps reward people for doing the same (which might be not much at all). It takes production out of the equation. It takes performance out of the equation. It removes that element that nudges a person to say, “I don’t want to make $5.15 an hour,” when the truth of the matter is every day they do the same thing for the same wage they outwardly suggest that they are completely fine with $5.15 an hour. (I went off on this in another post at another time: Socialism is one of the Democrat congress’ top priorities).

Remember the definition of socialism?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage an egalitarian socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. This control may be exercised either directly through popular collectives such as workers’ councils or indirectly on behalf of the people by the state.” Property and distribution of wealth are subject to control by the state. Somebody tell me how making a business “distribute wealth” in the form of federal-mandated minimum wage isn’t socialism?

The bill has $4.48 billion added for business owners to offset the costs, which basically means the government will take more of that $7.25 an hour in order to give some back to the business owner who has to pay it. Make sense? Didn’t think so.

So What’s the Solution?
Don’t reward ($2 more an hour) more value creation through a minimum wage increase when there is no actual increase in value creation (improved skills/production/effectiveness). Perpetuate people and their development and growth. Perpetuate their ideas and ambitions and their inner ability to say “I want to make more, so I’m going to make more of me.”