Feed on

Former Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and Daniel Mitchell proposed in a New York Times letter on Wednesday to increase the minimum wage.

Same old stuff from the liberal supporters, right? Well, sort of. In their letter, Dukakis and Mitchell surprisingly demonstrate that they are two of the most honest and understanding people around. They rightfully assert that increasing the minimum wage will result in unemployment and reduced opportunities for low-skilled workers.   However, m ost liberals who support living wage and minimum wage campaigns refuse to believe that increasing the price of labor causes entrepreneurs to find ways to substitute away from it – thereby hurting the very people the laws are trying to help.   What it confusing is that when I discuss related issues with these people they understand full well the consequences of the law of demand.  In other words, they realize that if the price of the things they buy regularly increased, they’d find a way to buy less of them.

This irony is interesting in and of itself, but it is not nearly the scariest part of the position taken by Dukakis and Mitchell. You see, Dukakis and Mitchell are supporting minimum wage increases because they think it will create more unemployment among immigrants than among American natives – and they are probably right.   In fact, the letter explicitly is written as a policy proposal to reduce immigration of low-skilled workers to this country.

How can the liberals advocate minimum wage increases both under the premise that they will increase unemployment and will not increase unemployment? In good conscience they must understand the real impact of minimum wage legislation – their support for such legislation is merely to curry favor with entrenched interest groups and care nominally about the low-income and low-skilled people of America.

If you are scoffing at this, go and study the history of the “progressive” movement in America. These idealists first pushed for minimum wages and regulations on working conditions at the turn of the 20th century and advocated them for women only. Why? To keep women from being in the workforce and get them back in their homes, where presumably the progressives felt women belonged.

It seems that “progressive” liberals have not changed in over a century, yet millions continue to drink their hypocrisy laced Kool-Aid.

Leave a Reply