BCT Editorial – 12/6/06

This page was last updated on December 9, 2006.

Bottom line; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 6, 2006.

Another bogus “working poor” editorial. There have been several editorials on this topic since September 2004 and they are all basically the same editorial with the words moved around. Among these retreads are “Even worse,” “A real challenge,” “With us always,” “Morally right,” and “Dire straits.”

I suggest you read the following papers.

Understanding Poverty in America (Backgrounder #1713); Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; January 5, 2004.

Poverty and Inequality; The Heritage Foundation; August 25, 2004.

The Data on Poverty and Health Insurance You’re Not Reading (WebMemo #556); Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; August 27, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Minimum-wage hike does little to address plight of working poor

“Democrats have put increasing the minimum wage at the top of their priorities when the next Congress convenes in January.

“They want to increase the wage to $7.25 an hour, up from the current federal minimum of $5.25 an hour. Supporters say the increase is long overdue. Adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.

“Chances are good the legislation will make it through Congress. As it is, The Associated Press reports 28 states, including Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia will have minimum wages above the federal level in 2007.

“However, the increase really won’t do anything to lift people out of poverty. A person working a $7.25-an-hour job for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year would make $15,080 a year. That’s below the official poverty level for a family of three - and the official numbers ($16,600 for a family of three, $20,000 for family of four, etc.) are woefully unrealistic.”

[RWC] Let me apologize up front for the name-calling I’m about to do. What idiot, moron, etc. believes any single person – let alone two or more people – is supposed to live on the minimum wage? Minimum wage jobs are those that require the least amount of employee skill and have the least economic value to the business.

“Actually, the true poverty level is much higher. Depending on the circumstances, people in jobs paying $12 to $15 an hour (and, in some cases, even higher) are living paycheck to paycheck.”

[RWC] Note the editorial fails to note the federal government takes 15.3% of the paycheck right off the top for Medicare and Socialist Security taxes.

“But it’s not just wages. Many working poor labor in jobs that don’t have health-care coverage or retirement plans, and they’re not making enough money to pay for health-care or to put aside for retirement.

“To make matters worse, the gap between rich and poor in the United States is growing. Many middle-class families are seeing their incomes erode as well.”

[RWC] Note the editorial fails to tell us what’s wrong with an alleged growing “gap between the rich and poor.” My neighbor getting richer doesn’t make me poorer. Does the Times believe there’s a fixed amount of wealth and that people get richer by making other people poorer?

“More needs to be done at the national level to address the needs of the working poor and the growing concerns of the middle class. These are the people who are working hard, often in unrewarding jobs. They are contributing to the good of our nation’s economy and should be able to share in its bounty.”

[RWC] Who doesn’t “share in [our nation’s] bounty?” We are paid the economic value of the job(s) we perform. If a person can perform a job with a higher economic value, he should change jobs. No one’s forcing anyone to take low-paying jobs.

Does the Times believe the feds should force businesses to pay employees more than they truly earn? For example, if the economic value of a potential job is $5/hour, should the business be forced to pay $7/hour? If the government would force the business to pay $7/hour for a $5/hour job, does anyone believe the potential job would materialize?

Does the Times pay its employees more than the economic value of the jobs they perform?

“Equally important, their work ethic sets a good example for their children.”

[RWC] Yes and no. What example does it set “for their children” when people choose to have families they know ahead of time they can’t afford? When you choose to have a family you know you can’t afford without mooching off others, you set an example of irresponsibility. You tell your kids it’s OK to acquire that which they cannot afford. That’s one of the reasons people don’t save, keep credit card balances, et cetera.

“The United States fast is approaching the point of becoming two nations, one rich and one poor. How we address this problem and resolve it will determine what kind of America we will have.”

[RWC] Is this the Times endorsing former Sen. John Edwards for president? As a reminder, Mr. Edwards’ 2004 campaign theme was a “two Americas” theme. As another reminder, Mr. Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial (personal injury) lawyer.