It's a very interesting article. In some ways, it's similar to the pro-gun argument that more guns = less crime. In this case, more money in the right hands = more spending at that same level. I've never been a fan of the idea of a minimum wage but will admit that this article does present a different perspective from what I've held before. The idea that if you give your lowest level of employees a decent wage, you reduce the dependency on government subsidy is interesting. Supporting the bottom level of our society through higher taxes and government programs is woefully inefficient. Maybe skipping the government route and putting the money directly into those folks that have jobs is the better choice.
Then again, I also think that one of the biggest issues we face is with our countries mindset. It used to be that to employ a person was a worthy goal. What you did for a living helped to determine how you were seen by others. If you ran a factory that employed 100 people, you were admired as an employer. Today, people are not valued or judged by what they do or how well they do it, but more by what they have or how they look. A company is not valued by how many it employs, but more over by how much it makes. If that factory owner can improve his profit margin by automating the production line and laying off 25 workers, he's considered a success today. If he can lay 60 of the remaining 75 off and offshore the work, he's thought to be brilliant. People see him in his Mercedes or playing golf in the middle of the day and want to be him.
Until work is valued again, both from the folks doing it as well as those employing them to do it, nothing will change.
Then again, I also think that one of the biggest issues we face is with our countries mindset. It used to be that to employ a person was a worthy goal. What you did for a living helped to determine how you were seen by others. If you ran a factory that employed 100 people, you were admired as an employer. Today, people are not valued or judged by what they do or how well they do it, but more by what they have or how they look. A company is not valued by how many it employs, but more over by how much it makes. If that factory owner can improve his profit margin by automating the production line and laying off 25 workers, he's considered a success today. If he can lay 60 of the remaining 75 off and offshore the work, he's thought to be brilliant. People see him in his Mercedes or playing golf in the middle of the day and want to be him.
Until work is valued again, both from the folks doing it as well as those employing them to do it, nothing will change.