Monday, March 10, 2014
None of the arguments against raising the minimum wage have fallen apart.
This is a critique of the Joshua Holland article in "Nation of Change" entitled "All of the arguments against raising the minimum wage have fallen apart.".
The first argument that allegedly "collapsed" was that a higher minimum would cost jobs. "We also have real-world experience with higher minimums.". We do, but they reference only one, the Washington State experience. They don't analyze what might account for Washington State's better employment growth other than higher minimum wages. With at least thousands of major factors, making a claim of causation from ONE factor from ONE location is absurd. If that's the best he's got, then either he does not understand science at all, or he's being deliberately dishonest.
It gets worse though. His refutation of the argument “It will hurt mom-and-pop businesses” is that small business owners favor it. So what? Since when do small business owners know microeconomics? Argumentum ad populem is a classic logical fallacy. This man is a idiot, or thinks we are.
But even assuming they knew enough economics to make the judgment only and that judgment determined their opinion only 57% to 43% favored it. What if the ones the 43% that believed they would be harmed by it would be harmed by it much more than the 57% who favored it? Note that 82% of them "say they already pay their employees more than the minimum". So at least 25% of the small business owners wouldn't have to pay their own employees any more, but still didn't support the raise. Note that at least some are COMPETING against people who employ people at minimum wage. So in other words among people who definitely don't pay extra direct costs and possibly have their competitors pay higher costs, at most 69.5% * support it. This is weak sauce indeed, even for argumentum ad populem. Additionally at least 5% of those who said that "“people will have a higher percentage of their income to spend on goods and services” and small businesses “will be able to grow and hire new workers.”" didn't support it. Pathetic.
So how about the argument that “Major costs will be passed along to consumers”, fallen apart? Not exactly. The argument here is based on the effects of increasing wages at _2 companies_. That's not even 0.0001% of the companies out there. To pretend that everyone buys everything from Walmart and McDonald's is an insult to his reader's intelligence.
But that's his job. To insult his readers intelligence by telling them exaggerations and lies, and obvious one at that. You see when an intelligent argument can be made for a leftist cause, you don't need the average Nation of Change writer. Their job is to take up the baton when no rational argument can be made.
25% of the total don't support it and pay more than the minimum. Divide that by the 82% of the total pay more than the mimimum and you get 30.48% of those who pay more don't support it. Which means that at most 69.51% of those who pay more than minimum support it.