In an ironic turn of events, it appears that people living off of Seattle’s new minimum wage levels are asking for less work hours. The reason? They can no longer be eligible for many welfare programs.
The law, which will raise minimum wage in the city to $15 (by 2018) appears to have some unintended consequences. Indeed, people who work these “entry level jobs” are not only reportedly draining their struggling employers, but also complaining about it at the same time.
Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX) spoke candidly about the situation.
“People need to realize that you cannot expect to get $11 an hour, which is the current minimum wage in Seattle right now, and still get handouts from the American taxpayer. They also need to understand that richer people are used to a certain kind of lifestyle. I mean, my wife and I are worth nearly $295 million and I wouldn’t part with a cent of it for these moochers.”
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) the top Democrat on the Senate committee that deals with labor issues was also present at the time and had a different stance.
“The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If it had kept up with inflation it would be over $21 an hour. So then we have this gap where government assistance won’t help people, but they still can’t live on these slight increases in wage. Perhaps if the ultra wealthy were willing to part with a small portion of their exorbitant wealth, then we could help struggling Americans to live decent lives.”
Representative McCaul, who was still present, then shared his rebuttal.
“If we start paying people more money, then I’ll have a bit less. That just doesn’t seem fair. What if I have to sell a few cars or one of my homes? Don’t you see that this would be harmful!?”
When asked if Senator Murray would like to respond, she laughed, pointed at McCaul, and said, “I think he made my point for me.”
Thank you for reading my latest article. For more of the latest follow us on Facebook.
We “pay” people not to work — with welfare benefits and other subsidies — including the $15 minimum wage. Specifically we pay some to KEEP them making low incomes — or working less hours. Consider:
The Pennsylvania Department of Welfare has determined that a single parent with two minor children making $9,000 who takes full advantage of the welfare offerings nets the same income as if he/she worked for $69,000, but lost the benefits and paid taxes.
Moreover, moving from $9,000 to $69,000 results in the imposition of a roughly 100% DE FACTO tax along the way — more income results in more taxes paid coupled with more lost benefits. There’s no economic incentive to improve oneself. And there’s no reason to think other states are materially different.
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/yes-100-tax-on-earned-income-for-single.html
This is madness!
Don’t blame people for rationally responding to our anti-work welfare programs. Instead, change the benefits by quickly phasing out eligibility for for such windfalls.
BTW, even useless “make work” welfare requirements drives many out of the welfare system.
I see your comment and I raise you… my eyebrows. 2 kids and only $67,000? I hope she lives in Detroit.
That woman is an idiot. Why should I or anyone that worked hard for what we have, have to give FORCIBLY to others? I give to whomever I choose, and I don’t choose those people…