Sen. Boxer: Yeah, I’d say a $10/hour minimum wage sounds about right

posted at 9:51 pm on August 27, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

I’ve shot down the stupidity of minimum-wage law idolization on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show before, but I merely wanted to draw attention to perfectly succinct and facepalm-worthy gem of a demonstration of progressives arbitrarily declaring a number that they deem “fair” to satisfy their minimum-wage whims, because how else could workers possibly be protected from the ostensible caprice of business owners and free-market signals? The real question, of course, is who is going to protect American workers from the ‘unintended’ (but entirely predictable) consequences of top-down liberal vagaries? Via RCP:

And by the way, I want to tell you something. We need to raise the minimum wage. That will make a huge difference out there. People are struggling. The difference between the wealthy and the working poor has grown. We raise that minimum wage, and we move forward with the vision of this president that we have, which is: Everyone pays their fair share, we make investments where it matters. We’re going to be — this is going to be a great century for us. … I think about $10. I think that would be right.

(This was all during a segment, by the way, about how California’s economy is doing relatively fine because, hey, that’s exactly what happens when “the wealthy are paying their fair share” and the state legislature has a Democratic supermajority to run the place. You’d think the segment was a self-parody of Democratic talking points, except that, astonishingly, it isn’t.)

It first sounded pretty random when President Obama suggested raising the national minimum wage to $9/hour in his State of the Union address last February, but Democrats have been casually picking up on the issue. I’m thinking that they’re going to try to to turn it into a major campaign issue for 2014 as yet another way to beat Republicans over the head with what Democrats portray as their horrendous, spiteful apathy for the working poor. It’s just too bad that, here in the real world and not on MSNBC la-la-land, there are few policies that have proved as directly damaging for economic prosperity and precisely wrong way to lift the working poor.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The R’s passed term limits back in the Gingrinch “Contract with America” days. The SC ruled it unconstitutional.
txhsmom on August 27, 2013 at 10:03 PM

That’s why an amendment is needed.
jawkneemusic on August 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress

lovingmyUSA on August 28, 2013 at 8:59 AM

How much does Big Eddie pay his staffers? Or on his radio show?

mike0993 on August 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM

The difference between the wealthy and the working poor has grown.

Maybe we should change presidents and get a fair one. Instead of this sorry excuse. Uncle Jimmah where are you?

Herb on August 28, 2013 at 9:52 AM

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress

lovingmyUSA on August 28, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Screw the House, look to the states to invoke Article V:

or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Conservative4Ever on August 28, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Several years ago when the federal minimum rose to $7.25/hr, I was Chairman of a department at a small public university in Oklahoma. We had a student office assistant who was a true “social activist”, president of the local Young Democrats and a very vocal supporter of raising the minimum wage. Well. the federal increase came about without a corresponding increase in our student wages budget. Something had to give and it was her position. She learned an important economic fact of life at that time.

morbius on August 28, 2013 at 10:33 AM

She learned an important economic fact of life at that time.

morbius on August 28, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Are you certain she learned anything? Or did she just go her way, certain that the man had it in for her and was keeping her down?

GWB on August 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM

The minimum wage paid by the private sector is $0. That’s what they pay everyone they don’t employ.

The ‘unofficial’ minimum wage paid by government is set by unemployment insurance. Of course, this is the minimum wage for not working and indirectly sets the minimum wage in which the worker is willing to accept. You see, when recieving unemployment, any wage is viewed in marginal terms. Working is only worth it if the marginal wage above unemployment is worth the effort.

The $7.25/hour ‘official’ government minimum wage only determines the number of unemployed and not working people there will be. Which, by the way, also helps determine how many people will be on the many government poverty programs. Other side effects include, economic growth rates, inflation, and Democrat voters. The last side effect being the most important.

strickler on August 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Are you certain she learned anything? Or did she just go her way, certain that the man had it in for her and was keeping her down?

GWB on August 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Later in life, absolutely convinced she was a victim of social in-justice, maybe she became a leading figure in the OWS movement.

Very few true “social activists” seem to ever learn anything from the school of hard knocks and continue to repeat their idiocy over and over and over.

hawkeye54 on August 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

We have a constitutional amendment and other laws precluding slavery. There is nothing wrong with, by law, establishing a minimum dollar value on someone’s work time below which we would consider employment a form of slavery.

Ira on August 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

When will the working poor realize that lowering the minimum wage actually helps them out.

Pablo Honey on August 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I’m shocked they didn’t find a $50 / hour minimum wage fair.

Athos on August 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Dear liberals, quit pissing away the value of the dollar and people’s paychecks would keep up with the unofficial inflation rate people have to deal with in real life.

It is only fair…

Chubbs65 on August 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM

The Republicans should agree to support any minimum wage the Democrats favor, and then up the ante by showing support for increasing it another twenty percent. This, all for the purpose of winning the 2014 elections. Then after their victories they can wipe out Obamacare with majorities in both Houses, write rules that will forever cement the Republican policies and start the process for a real economic recovery. Let the libs shrill about not keeping their promises. We’ll just take a page out of their own book to win elections.

HiJack on August 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I’m shocked they didn’t find a $50 / hour minimum wage fair.

Athos on August 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

If the argument is that a). people need a “livable wage” and b). raising the wage has no negative impact on jobs (now magically creates more jobs!), then there is no reason at all not to support a $50 minimum.

And yet, they never seem to want to get on board that train. Just like the 17% food tax to subsidize low-wage fast-food workers.

The Schaef on August 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM

We have a constitutional amendment and other laws precluding slavery. There is nothing wrong with, by law, establishing a minimum dollar value on someone’s work time below which we would consider employment a form of slavery.

Ira on August 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Your village called. They mentioned something about you being over-qualified.

GWB on August 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Boxer’s hidden stock tip: invest heavily in retail touch screen companies and self service checkout registers.

DarthBrooks on August 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM

There is nothing wrong with, by law, establishing a minimum dollar value on someone’s work time below which we would consider employment a form of slavery.

Ira on August 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

If you like higher unemployment among the poor and the young, do the above.

Meremortal on August 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM

We have a constitutional amendment and other laws precluding slavery. There is nothing wrong with, by law, establishing a minimum dollar value on someone’s work time below which we would consider employment a form of slavery.

Ira on August 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

The fault with that argument is that nobody is being forced to accept a job at that pay level. All salaries are negotiations for voluntary labor, with both parties allowed to accept or reject the terms.

DarthBrooks on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Why stop at $10?
Why not make it $20,then EVERYONE can be in the middle class.

dverplank on August 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Yeah, I’d say Boxer’s time is up.

jake49 on August 28, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Why stop at $10?
Why not make it $20,then EVERYONE can be in the middle class.
dverplank on August 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM

…and all the children will be above average, too!

Marcola on August 28, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Sen. Boxer: Yeah, I’d say a $10/hour minimum wage sounds about right

Great Barbara, Start a business and you can pay salaries as high as you want. People will so flock to work for your business that other companies will have to raise their pay to get people to work for them.

But of course Barbara doesn’t want to be bothered to do as she says, but she’s happy to force us into her Marxist dream nightmare.

RJL on August 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM

The minimum wage in San Francisco, California is already $10.55 per hour.

San Francisco liberals are going to be really angry at Senator Boxer when they find out that she wants to lower the minimum wage to $10 per hour!

Meanwhile, the ILLEGAL aliens in the Sanctuary City of San Francisco are happily working for less than the minimum wage, and since the ILLEGAL aliens don’t pay taxes on the income they receive under the table (or health insurance, or auto insurance etc.), they can make a nice living in San Francisco.

wren on August 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Here is the link that shows the minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.55

http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=411

wren on August 28, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I am still waiting for leftists to explain why being unemployed at $10.00 per hour is better than being employed at $8.00 per hour…

Colony14 on August 28, 2013 at 8:24 PM

A $25 chicken in every $50 pot!

Spend it all – we’ll print more!

jangle12 on August 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Everyone pays their fair share

Hey Barb,

When God made the Earth, he had a choice between ‘Spherical’ or “Fair”.

Why Stop at $10.00 an hour? why not $80.00? Why not $1,000.00?

…Now go get me a drink, Democrat Utopian retard.

a5minmajor on August 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Ask a liberal to consider the effect on prices of goods and services after raising the minimum wage and then take a picture of the blank look on their face.

Ellis on August 28, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Hold on….wasn’t $7.25 the fair minimum wage? Isn’t that exactly what this dumsh!t said when pushing THAT arbitrary number?

The lesson here is the same lesson it has always been. The minimum wage will never be high enough for her. When she gets her 10 bucks (and she will, populists always get their way) she will then say it isn’t enough again. She doesn’t care what the minimum wage is, she just wants to run on the issue of raising it.

Same with taxes. They are never high enough. The day after obama got his “fair” tax increase on the rich, he claimed they still weren’t high enough, they still weren’t paying their “fair” share.

Same with education spending. No matter what it is today, it isn’t high enough. If we increase it tomorrow, it will still not be high enough the day after tomorrow.

It’s all about running on the issue of raising the amount the govt or teacher’s unions or minimum wage workers get. And it will NEVER be high enough, since no matter how high it goes, the issue can still be run on by the populists. No matter how many times they keep getting their way, it’s never enough.

That’s why they don’t demand $1000/hr minimum wage. When they get it, the issue is dead for years, not days.

runawayyyy on August 29, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2