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...
Well you are overlooking the fact that the floors still need to be swept everyday. Sure you would be able to find someone to fill that position for even less than 5 dollars an hour. Desperate people will work for next to nothing. But that doesn't mean that in a civilized society we should take advantage of that.
- Ed Henry goes there: Why is Obama fundraising after admitting he has no ISIS strategy? Noah Rothman 39 mins ago
- Change: Obama set to delay executive amnesty until after the midterms? Allahpundit 1 hour ago
- End of an era: Chelsea Clinton leaves NBC Ed Morrissey 1 hour ago
- Inside the collapse of Obama’s Syria ‘strategy’ Noah Rothman 2 hours ago
- Politico, WaPo, ABC: This “no strategy” comment will do serious damage Ed Morrissey 3 hours ago
- How many times does Josh Earnest have to say ‘strategy’ before you forget yesterday? Noah Rothman 4 hours ago