An Open Letter to Mark Brewer
[Note: revised addressee to read "Mark Brewer" instead of "John Brewer". I'm not sure how that one slipped by me. Cheers!]
Mr. Brewer,
There are a lot of things I love about Michigan, like the vast wilderness in our midst (or, within a few hours’ drive). Last week, I went to the Upper Peninsula. I hiked around the Tahquamenon State Park and, save for the mosquitoes, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
But there are a lot of things I hate about Michigan, primarily the politics, and the nonsense that comprises the politics. While I was on vacation last week, you and your party proposed, among other measures, a 35% increase in the state’s minimum wage — raising it $10 an hour. This is insanity, for a number of reasons.
In the real world, businesses are going under faster than anyone can count, and workers are losing their jobs at an equally alarming pace. Raising the price of the single largest cost for many businesses can’t possibly solve either problem. By what math (or mysticism) do you figure that increasing the cost of head-count will save businesses (which employ workers), or keep businesses from laying off even more workers?
I will assume for the sake of argument that the otherwise immutable laws of economics simply don’t apply here in Michigan, and that the objection I outlined in the preceding paragraph without merit. Fine. If the laws of economics don’t apply (and in order to propose a mandatory 35% wage increase, you must believe that said laws don’t apply) why don’t you instead propose that we raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour — anyone working full-time would instantly be on pace to earn $200k per year!
You know as well as I do, that in the real world, it simply doesn’t work that way. Raising the minimum wage simply redistributes jobs from one area to another, or redistributes the amount of capital investment (as businesses make tradeoffs between capital and labor). Go to any large chain grocery store, and you can witness the effects of the last minimum wage hike: U-Scan machines are replacing checkout clerks at the grocery stores.
When the wages due to labor are held artificially high, a few lucky employees are able to reap the benefits, but the rest of them are out of luck.
Mr. Brewer, you claim to be “on the side of people who are suffering,” but a proposal like this one (and the other talking points I’ve seen) can only, ultimately cause even more people to suffer.
Sincerely,
David Z
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
About The Author
Fresh off the presses.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/metr...
Mark Brewer, not John Brewer.
Thanks – not sure how I missed that one…
How bout instead of having so many socialist type programs in the government to waste tax payer dollars on (I noticed about a 50 mile stretch of I-94 is about to be unders construction again), why don't they just lower taxes some more. My assumption would be that he wants an increase in minimum wage to provide more money so people can spend more. But even if this is the case, the price of product will increase accordingly as to be able to pay these employees. Stupidity and being illogical at its finest. I love our government.
To be honest, the more the government trys to do things to "fix" the issues, the more the fuck it up.
I know people right now in south Florida that are hurting BAD and would take a job @ $4/hr if it was legal to do so.
But its not, so they will continue to suffer further and many of them will collapse and lose it all.
Your gov't at work.
Please note: Unlike those who complain about foreign invaders willingness to work for low wages, that is not my complaint. However, to give an unfair advantage to those whose native land is adjacent to our own, as opposed to those who would like to immigrate from more distant lands is ludicrous.
In addition, those who violate our immigration laws also violate other laws once in the country. They are criminals.
On a somewhat different note; do you leave the door to your home standing open when you are away? Would you really tolerate just anyone coming in, especially if they left your refrigerator empty and trashed the place? I think that you do not and would not. On the other hand, I assume that unlike a home invasion, you would welcome a polite visitor who knocked at your door and waited for you to answer. I also do not mind those who knock and wait as opposed to kicking my door down.
In like manner, I expect that any nation MUST secure its borders. Otherwise, that nation ceases to BE a nation.
To conclude, I strongly favor LEGAL immigration. However, no nation should tolerate INVASION.
The ‘unfair advantage’ is a geographical coincidence. Should we subsidize trans-pacific travel for Malaysians who want to come here? No…
The evidence strongly suggests that this statement is false.
Secure its borders against what threat? The threat of impoverished, oppressed people who want to make a better life for themselves? You may not be familiar with my philosophy, but I relish the idea of nations which ‘cease to be nations’…
So do I. I just think that considerably more immigration should be ‘legal’. The only reason most illegals come here ‘illegally’ is because it is nearly impossible to come here ‘legally’.