Minimum Conditions for Biden’s Minimum Wage

By George Liebmann

An increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour is said to be part of the initial program of the Biden administration. This change is not as drastic as it would seem; few workers (only 2 percent of wage earners, a decline from 13 percent in 1980) receive hourly pay as low as the federal minimum wage, most states (30 of 50) have higher minimums, 23 of them over $10.00 and the increase will undoubtedly be phased in over a period of years—a House bill proposed phasing it in by 2025.

The major effect of an increase is not felt among the lowest wage-earners but by those somewhat above them, since experienced workers generally expect to be paid more than neophytes receiving the minimum. The fact that such a small percentage of workers receive the minimum suggest that the level needs adjustment. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, compensation of wage-earners as a percentage of gross domestic income fell from 52 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 2019. It has been estimated that 53 percent of minimum wage recipients are younger workers. There are many studies, few of them disinterested, on the employment effects of minimum wage increases. The preponderance of them suggests that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage will produce a 1 percent to 2 percent drop in the number of employed younger workers or a loss of perhaps 200,000 jobs nationally.

The extent of job loss is a question of fact, not, as the more simple-minded free market economists suggest, purely one of theory. There is a division between economists who believe that mathematics is the neighboring discipline to economics and those who, more conscious of “the crooked timber of humanity,” look to more imprecise history and social psychology as the neighboring disciplines. Initial low-wage employment assures a supply of the managers who are needed later, and may help breed consumer loyalty. There is also a conservative case for minimum wage laws. John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Political Economy pointed out that where government aid to low-income workers exists (as with the food stamp, Medicaid and housing programs), absent a minimum wage, it operates as a subsidy to low-wage employers by assuring the subsistence of their workers. Judge Learned Hand suggested that it, “gives us hope of meeting its cost by increased efficiency … A means of ascertaining who…is fit to survive without mingling the fit and unfit in a vague class half fed and half educated.”

The youth unemployment that provides the strongest case against minimum wage increases is sometimes sought to be mitigated by establishment of sub-minimum wages. This is vehemently opposed by organized labor, and their complexity and short duration assures that few employers avail themselves of them; only a handful of large employers and virtually no small ones do so. There is a better way of assuring that the minimum wage increases that Biden proposes do not have adverse effects on society.

Workers …read more

Via:: American Conservative

      

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Rabbi Yaakov Menken: Biden’s address to Congress left anti-Semitism unaddressed. Why?

By Yaakov Menken President Biden spoke about “the viciousness of the hate crimes” in his address to Congress but never mentioned the community that is overwhelmingly the most frequent victim. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

      

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Why Bitcoin Isn’t the Future of Finance

By John Mac Ghlionn

Last year, the United States printed more money in one month than in the first two centuries after its founding. Meanwhile, across the pond, the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money at breakneck speeds.

With money printers working overtime, making the move to a decentralized digital currency like Bitcoin, which is built on the principle of a finite supply, seems logical. Alas, ever since Richard Nixon did away with the gold standard 50 years ago, logic has been largely abandoned.

No, the next step in our monetary evolution involves CDBCs, or central bank digital currencies. Not very sexy. Not particularly innovative. But highly efficient. Unlike Bitcoin, CBDCs are centralized in nature, which means they are issued and regulated by a singular entity, i.e. a country’s central bank. CBDCs operate on a principle of practicality; Bitcoin, at this moment in time, does not. Many fear it never will.

Have you tried to purchase anything of significance with Bitcoin? Of course not. For a currency to flourish, practicality is a key ingredient. Unlike Bitcoin, which seeks to replace physical cash, CBDCs will complement physical cash. The transitioning from physical cash to CBDCs will be slow and steady. Not very exciting, but extremely practical. Bitcoin calls for a revolution, but CBDCs call for an evolution. Evolution takes time.

Another reason why Bitcoin probably isn’t the future of finance involves its volatility. In a stable, reliable economic structure, there’s little room for volatility. As I write this article, Bitcoin is headed for its worst week in well over a year. Those in the know very much believe that the crypto market is ripe for a crash. Even if a flash crash doesn’t occur, serious regulation of the crypto market is imminent. In the U.S., there’s even talk of an 80 percent crypto capital gains tax. The problems for Bitcoin are very much existential in nature. A crypto collapse is a distinct possibility.

With China, the U.S., and the E.U. all likely to roll out digital currencies in the very near future, the idea of Bitcoin and CBDCs coexisting in harmony is a highly delusional one. The former is built on the idea of removing central banks from the economic equation. CBDCs, on the other hand, are built around the authority of central banks.

Considering central banks control the narrative, why bet against the current framework? After all, the house always wins.

Today, at least 86 percent of central banks around the world are engaged in CBDC research. Countries like Sweden, with its e-krona, and the Bahamas, with it sand dollar, have already tested their own digital currencies. Meanwhile, in the U.K., the Bank of England is reportedly exploring options, too.

Once rolled out internationally, CBDCs will be interoperable, meaning people will be able to use different currencies (pay, exchange, etc.) with relative ease.

Most importantly of all, CBDCs will allow central banks to monitor …read more

Via:: American Conservative

      

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

Jason Chaffetz: Biden’s first 100 days – now we know just how much president was hiding the truth

By Jason Chaffetz The marketing of Joe Biden as a centrist alternative to Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was completely wrong. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

      

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

RNC Chairwoman McDaniel: Biden’s first 100 days – president’s lies can’t compete with GOP vision for America

By Ronna McDaniel President Joe Biden’s Wednesday night address to Congress was a dishonest disaster, full of partisan lies from a career politician. …read more

Via:: Fox Opines

      

Invalid XML: 410 Gone Gone The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.