“CBO: Wage hike to cost 500K jobs”
But so what? According to sources like the NYTimes, this loss of employment represents a mixed bag, because it will supposedly pull 1 million people out of poverty — which, not to make light of that, is not too difficult to do when you keep changing the definition of relative poverty so that it constantly jibes with your policy preferences.
The truth is, many of those who are now in “poverty” are really not, by recent historical standards, and the amount they receive in entitlements and other lucre makes it so that some families whose primary breadwinner is a minimum wage-earner have more disposable income than those who bring in annual income of close to $60K dollars. And that’s before a minimum wage hike designed specifically to fund unions and create new dependents.
Semantics, though, this discussion of the word “poverty”. And we know semantic arguments are fundamentally unserious when it comes to politics. So let me move on to another point: the 500K jobs that will be lost — and this is in 2016 alone — will mean that at least 500K more people will fall into poverty, at least, the kind of “poverty” that comes with living on the government dole these days.
More and more, we create disincentives to work; and the end game is to create a voting populace in which those dependent on the government vote for those in government who keep promising to steal from the productive class and distribute the fruits of their labor — which is in essence their liberty — to those who learn to feel entitled to it.
Sooner or later, of course, you run out of other people’s money, as everyone knows. It’s just that this latest crop of leftist shitbags don’t much care. Because right now, they’re divvying up the spoils and taking care of themselves and their clients. What comes next?
Meh. They can always just blame that on Bush.