Suburban Teens Get Minimum Wage Raise

Liberals like to say that the minimum wage is too low for a person to raise a family on. It's true and it will always be true. The increase in the minimum wage on 7/24 won't change that. The good news is that myth of millions of Americans supporting families of four with just one minimum wage-earner is a big lie. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of minimum wage-earners are single, they work only part-time and they live in households with total incomes substantially above the poverty line.

As the politicians trumpet their victory in raising the wage, you won't hear them tell you that 53% of the affected workers are teenagers and college age adults. There will be no mention that they live at home where the median family income is over $64,000 a year. You won't hear them point out that many are food servers and others who work for tips, which are usually more than the hourly wages.

The workers over age 24 aren't doing too badly either. The vast majority live in households above the poverty line and the minimum wage earner has usually chosen to work only part time. In fact, only 6.1% fit the stereotype of being a single parent working full-time.

These statistics don't show the length of time that people are working for minimum wage before they get their first earned raise or move on to a different, higher paying job. Of course, if you were to believe the Democrats, the same people have been working at the same job, for the same pay, for the 10 years since the last increase in the minimum wage law. That's just ludicrous.

Still, there are a few people who are working at low paying jobs for long periods of time. If the government were serious about helping them it would study what factors are preventing these people from having or being able to act upon their ambition. A .70¢ an hour increase isn't going to fix that kind of problem.

So after reading the news you may have felt that a lot of poor people were going to have a better life after today, Well, the real truth is that some kids in high school out in the 'burbs are going to be able to buy an extra CD next week.

See the statistics reported in more detail in this report from the Heritage Foundation.

If You Support Amnesty, Then Support It

The proponents of amnesty for illegal aliens have frittered away their opportunity to convince Americans that the “Grand Compromise” was good for the country. They needed to persuade law and order supporters that the doctrine of not allowing lawbreakers to keep their ill-gotten gains should be put aside in the case of the aliens’ sojourn in this country. Instead, the supporters spent the last month employing three counter-productive uses of rhetoric intended to obfuscate, not enlighten.

Their first device was attempting to reclassify amnesty as not “amnesty”. Resorting to reading dictionary definitions to buttress their case was ludicrous. The understanding of the American people is that amnesty meant allowing illegal aliens to live and work in the U.S. Since it was clear that the supporters favored legalization of residency and employment, to deny that they were in favor of their core position and worse, to agree that “amnesty” was something that no one wanted, only weakened their argument.

The second verbal volley they used was the passionate tirades about proponents caring about the country and opponents being un-American. Such tiresome antics showed people that the supporters were realizing that the proposal could not be argued or won on its merits. The effect of emotional outbursts was to encourage people to look even more closely at the details to see what the haranguers were trying to hide. Of course, analysis of the details would be the last thing the supporters would want to encourage people to do if they wanted to pass the bill.

The third and most deceptive remarks came in the last week before the final cloture vote. Accepting that Americans were more interested in enforcement than in giving away jobs to foreigners, the supporters went on the offensive by only talking about the enforcement provisions and dropping references to the fate of the illegal aliens within our borders. By that time it was of course too late since everyone already knew that independent analysis of the bill had revealed that the effect on illegal immigration was expected to be negligible.

I am happy that the bill as it existed at the end did not move forward, but I have some free advice to future proponents of amnesty legislation:

• Don’t deny your core belief. If you believe in amnesty, embrace it and convince others of the validity your position.
• Don’t use the played out response that the jobs held by illegal aliens are ones that Americans would not do. Explain why you believe it is okay for employers to try to maximize their profits by hiring cheaper labor.
• Admit that Mexicans and Central Americans would win while average Americans would lose, but provide convincing arguments why Americans should agree to it.
• Drop the deportation canard and explain how you believe it would be possible for aliens to remain in America even though they would have no source of income (with employment enforcement).
• Get a clue that it is not about a path to citizenship, it is about the right to live and work here. Explain why it would be okay for illegal aliens to be at the head of the line of people wanting to enter the country.
• Don’t pretend to be more compassionate-than-thou. There is nothing uncompassionate about helping people to get home to their own country. If I was stuck in a foreign country I would be very grateful if that nation provided help to get me home.

The good news about the defeat of “comprehensive immigration reform” is now the Senate can start work at crafting comprehensive immigration reform. The white flag senators can fade into the background and let those who want to do what is right and practical for the country lead the way.