Friday, April 25, 2008

Living Wage = Death to American Competition

Taken from a remarkably inaccurate site, the official Obama website, as a plan to combat poverty : Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing.

Looking beyond the fact that his plan is socialist in nature, I want to assess the impact it would have on American competition and the sad truth that it would not really benfit anyone.

If the Unites States were to implement a so-called "living wage" it would further chase away domestic and foriegn investment. Corporations are already faced with tremendous challenges in the U.S. and are willing to examine alternative solutions (ie outsourcing and moving operations) At some point, as the millions and millions continue to ring up, companies will leave. It will become impossible to compete with both freer market countries of the far east and the eastern bloc. Thus, labor market demand will fall increasing unemployment in posistions that are most easily outsourced, HURTING the people that Barack so dearly wants to help.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You obviously hate America, 95% of us work for a living, driving the wages up of the 95% who work will end the recession.

Your way failed, destroying wagesand labor failed for Hoover, failed for Reagan and Buish 1, and failed for W

The only way to end the recession is to force up wages. The 95% have no money, the economy fails, without the 95% majority, the 5% rich can not keep the economy afloat

It's not socialism, retard, it's American capitalism the way it used to be, in the 40'sand 50
5 the rich were taxed 91% and the economy was booming and workerswere paid well, with astandard of living

You simply hate us 95%, I bet you sponge off your mother and have no clue whatit means to work

you stupid ditto-head

BFREE09 said...

Well, that was eloquent. You mention the 1940's and 1950's as times of economic boom, while gdp growth was actually around trend. This in itself is misleading because these were times of tremendous war-induced government spending and an economy that was significantly less globalized (ie a different environment) However, that is besides the point. My point is that a living wage will hurt those who need it most and encourage companies to outsource. I have a great respect for the American worker, which is exactly why I oppose a living wage- it eliminates American jobs.