A letter from my senator-- Higher minimum wage will hurt workers

Dear Ms. <TexasLawyer>:

Thank you for contacting me about efforts to increase the minimum wage. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.

As you may know, the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-188) established the current minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour. I understand the concerns that many Americans have about the difficulties confronting low-wage workers. While increasing the minimum wage may be well intentioned, I do not believe it will—by itself—aid minimum-wage employees or make the U.S. more competitive in today’s global economy. Such an increase would further the financial burden on small businesses and ultimately translate into higher product prices and layoffs. These consequences would disproportionately hurt low-wage workers.

To improve the well-being of American workers, Congress must focus on promoting continued economic growth, reducing the tax burden on small businesses, and increasing production—circumstances that will benefit all Americans. You may be certain that I will keep your comments in mind as I work with my colleagues in the Senate to promote economic growth and secure the financial well-being of all Americans.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

You Senator should be working for minimum wage! :argh:

:kick:

I thought this was an interesting factoid.

About 50% of (U.S.) legislators are millionaires, as opposed to about 1% of Americans. The concerns of ordinary Americans are not shared, at least not viscerally, with their legislators. (Examples, according to a Pew poll last December 86% of Americans think the minimum wage law should be raised and 65% think there should be government backed universal health insurance even if taxes have to rise. (Even the CEO of one of the country's worst labor exploiters, WalMart, is asking Congress to raise the minimum wage.) Obviously neither of these overwhelmingly popular ideas is going anywhere in a Congress of the rich and for the rich.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2005/10/eat-rich-congressmen_23.html

I think he will be vulnerable next year.

Right on top of his head.

His argument would have some merit if they were planning to raise the MW beyond market norms, but the increase is modest and the current wage so low that his argument is silly. It's like arguing that cooking food too much would lead to charred and inedible food, therefore there should be no safety standards for cooking food.

There is a point beyond which a minimum wage would begin to hurt the economy and workers. At some point smaller businesses would no longer be able to afford to, or would not find it worth the effort of, staying in business, or at least of operating at a size where they were needed employees. We need to avoid hitting that level--destroying small business puts more power in the hands of big business, which drives wages down and stifles the economy (this is what happens when big business is given tax cuts, too). After that, you get into a couple of complex arguments about social spending (do you take money from the wealthy to fund those who are harmed by the new economic conditions, thus creating a more equitable but less reward-based system?) and the purpose of government (does government have the right to interfere with honest business ventures) and even the basics of economics (since the value of money is relative, not absolute, at what level does giving more money to people simply decrease the buying power of money--in other words, when does the economy use inflation to adjust the value of money? Money is based on labor, at its heart, and when labor and money are separated--as in giving money to people who aren't employed--money adjusts downward to average itself out over the labor actually done. So, giving people money they aren't working for devalues the money you are giving them. Our unemployment and social spending programs aren't expensive enough to make a real differene--and even if they were, they stabilize the economy and help prevent radical economic swings. But at some level of compensation or unemployment it could have a negative affect).

But we aren't talking about anything close to that level. Maybe a true "living wage" bill would begin to approach that concern. John Cornyn is an idiot.

workers will only be allowed to make $2.00 per day like they do in third world countries so we can be more 'competitive'..and skilled workers should NOT BE ALLOWED to make more than one would make in India or China, so we can be more 'competitive'...FUCK CORNYN AND HIS 'COMPETITIVE' CRAP!

Not all industries (or companies) operate in the same way. In some industries (those that do not, as economists say, hire "competetively" but rather "monopsonistically"), minimum wage laws would increase employment and production. The government needs to identify these industries and target them for higher minimum wages. Senator Cornyn is only partly right. The extent of his rightness and wrongness, though, I am not sure about.

If they could afford to buy food, they might get fat. Then what would they do? They'd need more money for Slim Fast or Nutrisystem and a gym membership. What evil $2.00 more an hour could cause. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. You're always thinking about the welfare of your constituents. (What a friggin' asshat.)