Serious question: How on earth could anyone oppose a policy that would effectively give low-skilled workers (workers who barely make enough money to feed themselves, let alone a family), higher wages? After all, we live in difficult economic times, and it doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable that individuals working in low-skilled jobs should be entitled to a minimum, universally agreed upon standard of living. And indeed, as you might expect, this isn’t by any means an unpopular idea: According to a recent Gallup poll, almost all the Democrats -- and precisely half the Republicans -- surveyed would vote “for” a proposal...
What exactly is the moral basis upon which it is considered right for a third party to forcibly interfere with the negotiations between an employer and his employee? A thing is worth what it is worth because of what people are willing to pay for it. The mail clerk isn't paid the same as the CEO because it isn't the mail clerk's money which is at risk nor his knowledge of the business which is responsible for its existence and growth-and if the mail clerk could DO what the CEO does, he would no longer be the mail clerk! Let the employer and his hire determine the worth of the labor.
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 2 hours ago
- Lundergan Grimes: Iron Dome is great for keeping Hamas from tunneling into Israel Mary Katharine Ham 2 hours ago
- Organizing for Action asks WaPo to recognize its work, with hilarious results Mary Katharine Ham 3 hours ago
- S.E. Cupp: It’s a myth that conservatism is hostile to atheism Allahpundit 4 hours ago
- Chuck Todd: Democrats and Republicans should be embarrassed by this impeachment nonsense Guy Benson 4 hours ago
- GAO investigation: Why, yes, the Healthcare.gov disaster was the result of terrible government management Allahpundit 5 hours ago