I am trying to understand the liberal re-write of the laws of
economics: By raising the cost of doing business, businesses will flourish and
the workers will reap the rewards; that business and life are one-dimensional;
that a business, large or small, whether through mandate, regulation, or taxes
(when those are increased), will be willing to eat the cost and make less
Liberals believe that these businesses will not raise prices
and/or cut labor costs and people; that these businesses were created solely to
provide jobs and benefits, and one can arbitrarily dictate what a particular job
is worth; that business pays taxes—not the consumer—through the price of the
goods and services received; that unskilled entry-level jobs are meant to feed a
family, not train one in the work ethic whereby one receives more money and/or a
promotion based on merit.
As far as this final dynamic is concerned, because we as a
country and state turn a blind eye on the unskilled labor crossing our boarders
illegally, businesses are being forced through government intervention to pay
more than the jobs are worth.
We are being told that raising the minimum wage will make it
easier for low-skilled workers to live in high-cost-of-living states such as New
York. This is where the one-dimensional theory comes in. Liberals and Democrats
actually believe that these higher labor costs will not be offset by higher
prices. It is a Catch-22 that the liberal brand of economics refuses to
acknowledge. In real life, money will always find a way, and business will make
the profit they believe they have earned. In real life, businesses are created
to reward the creator and investor with a profit on their ideas and money, and
they will only hire those necessary to reach that goal. So in real life, when
the cost of doing business goes up, the cost of the product will also rise, and
those on the lower rung of the economic scale will continue to be unable to make
We are told that the only source of income low-rung workers
receive is their wages. This, of course, is a falsehood. Because we are a
compassionate people, there are certain safety nets that we who are higher on
the economic rung pay for through our taxes. Lower-rung workers are eligible to
receive rent subsidies, food stamps, child care, and welfare, among other safety
nets. They also receive the earned income tax credit that, in effect, gives back
the monies paid to Social Security and Medicare. According to Congressional
Budget Office figures, a person who makes $13,000 a year, when the other safety
nets are factored in, actually makes close to $35,000 a year, depending on their
use of Medicaid.
Two years ago, when the minimum wage was raised to $9 an
hour, it was deemed sufficient. Now the governor wishes to raise that to $10.15
an hour; more for New York City. The Working Families Party says that is not
enough - it should be $15 an hour. Why stop there? Let’s make those wages $20 an
hour, or better yet, $30 an hour. How much is enough? How far before you price
those jobs out of existence to the low-skilled worker?
It is the same when we are told the rich must pay their fair
share of taxes? How much more is their fair share? Already the top one percent
pay 47 percent of all taxes. The top 3 percent pay 70 percent. The bottom 45
percent, through the earned income tax credit, pay no taxes. In fact, a great
portion get rebates.
No matter how hard the Liberals and Democrats try, you cannot
change the laws of economics. You cannot achieve an equal outcome regardless of
skill without lowering the bar for all. You cannot make the poor rich by making
the rich poor.
The only way to raise the bar for those on the lower rung is
to make sure all have equal opportunity. Their initiative is what and should
determine whether they rise on the economic scale. It may not be fair, but life
itself is not fair, and no law or laws can make it fair.