dirty little secret ------- sssshhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anyone
How LESS MINIMUM WAGE = more jobs
Doesn't there come a point where the liars should cut the crap and just admit the truth!?
The above clip from PBS Newshour is about the sub-minimum wage which is legal for some handicapped workers. They're called 14C jobs, where workers are allowed to do jobs at $4/hour and even less, provided they are certified handicapped.
Here is the truth, and everyone really knows it, despite the lies:
Minimum wage law causes loss of some jobs.
If you keep repeating this slogan that
MW Does Not Kill Jobs
especially after watching this video clip of Judy Woodruff interviewing handicapped workers, then you are a certified liar -- there's no other way to put it.
Just answer the obvious question: Why is it that these sub-minimum wage jobs are allowed, and have been allowed for decades? There can be only one reason, and you know perfectly well what that reason is: If these lower-wage jobs are made illegal, and the MW law is enforced for all these workers and employers, then those jobs will -- what? they will sshhhhh disappear. You know it, everyone knows it, and yet we're not supposed to say it.
If those employers are told they must double the wage, increase it to the MW level,
answer ---- What will happen to many of these jobs?
Come on --- answer the question. If you give an ultimatum to these employers to pay the legal minimum wage to these workers ---- $15/hour or whatever --- what is going to happen?
Come on, say the words. You know what will happen. What's causing you to choke up? You can't say the words?
Notice how Judy Woodruff refuses to ask this question outright, but you can tell what she's thinking, and some of the others also. You know that if those employers are told they must pay the higher wage, they will eliminate most of these jobs. Probably 90% of them.
They're paying only $4 or $5 or $6 per hour under this exemption provision in the MW law. Tell them they have to pay double or even triple and what's going to happen? You know, everyone knows what will happen. And yet they don't even ask that question here in this video clip. The question is almost begging to be asked, everyone is thinking this question who is interviewed here and speaks about it.
She asks this one employee who says she likes her job and wants to keep it. And yet it's suggested that she might not have a choice and the job could be eliminated ---- if these jobs are ended and the wage has to be raised up to the MW level.
And what does this employee say? Listen to her say: "My choice!"
Without saying it per se, she is arguing that it's better to keep the lower wage jobs if employers want to hire her, and
It should be her choice, rather than others demanding that the MW be enforced.
How can you honestly deny that MW causes job loss after listening to this? Isn't it obvious that there are extra jobs which would not exist if this exemption did not exist? Isn't it obvious that it's only the ABSENCE OF THE MW (in these cases) which makes these jobs possible? !!
Explain how you are not a liar to deny that MW causes job loss, after watching this video?
And the additional question is: Why is it virtually forbidden to even ask the question -- What happens if employers are forced to raise the wage higher? e.g. to double the wage?
Why is it forbidden to even ask this question?
Why doesn't Judy Woodruff ask this question here in this news item on whether these low-wage jobs should be made illegal?
Do proponents of MW here have the honesty and integrity to answer this question? Probably not. Minimum wage law is based on dishonesty and lying and scapegoating of employers and nothing else. And that's why no proponent of MW will answer this question and explain why these sub-minimum wage jobs are allowed, or what will happen if the law is changed to force the wage up and -- sshhhhhh eliminate these jobs.
Notice how the Senator (who wants to allow employers to continue doing this, or seek lower-wage labor) makes an appeal to the market and competition and the company's need to reduce cost and conform to the Law of Supply-and-Demand -- saying that getting the work done is what matters, and higher performance by workers is worth paying for at a competitive wage level (which is less than MW in some cases). He tries to not say this outright, but he's clearly implying that the handicapped workers are of lower value and are viable employees only at the lower wage level. And employers must do what's viable for the business.
Notice that J. Woodruff says the 14C program was enacted originally in order to allow some disabled job-seekers to get hired. In other words, reducing the wage level for them made it possible for them to get hired because a job would be offered to them which otherwise would not exist (at the higher required wage level) = higher wage required = fewer jobs.
Notice that (about 7:40 in the video) the one interviewed uses the phrase "right to work" -- what does that mean?
Notice the code language. They won't come right out and say it. But with this code language they are saying these jobs would be eliminated, taking away their job, their "right to work" if the higher wage level (MW) is enforced.
