The Gross National Debt

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Worms, bulldozers and economics

Let's open a can of worms and serve annelid sammiches all around.

How many believe the law-mandated minimum wage is wrong?

How many believe employers should pay whatever they think is appropriate?

Aight, now the real question - how many of you believe employers should subsidize pay for substandard employees?

Ah so. That is not a hypothetical question, or as Hawgin' likes to say "Great. Baker is making stuff up again."


Anyone see a problem here?

If this proposal passes, it is going to eliminate jobs for the handicapped. Poof. Gone. Is not like there are a lot of jobs for handicapped folks anyway.

Employers will not hire disabled folks because they will have to pay 'em the same as nondisabled people.

This goes deeper than what you are thinking right now. Maybe. Possibly not. You may be ahead of me. Let's see.


If you've read this blog with any regularity, you know my take on employee pay. If you don't know my take, go ye forth and be edified within this blog.

Lemme digress a second here to splain something. I grew up farming. Dad paid employees, and me, based on what we did. We got paid for productivity. The more we worked and produced, the more we made. In the 80s, we had one lady who worked for us who made more than $100 a day. We had some who barely made $20.

Is this fair?

More to the point, should employers be forced to subsidize the pay for handicapped employees?

Things like tax incentives and less than minimum wage mean people with disabilities can get jobs. They may not earn as much as other folks. But what if they can't produce as much as other folks? What if their production is 75 percent of the average nondisabled person's output?

How much should they be paid?

An employer hires a person with disabilities. The person does their absolute best. At minimum wage, the employer is losing money by keeping that person on staff. At less than minimum, the employer breaks even.

Which one is fair?


All in favor of a level playing field? What if that leveled playing field means running over you with a bulldozer?

The Americans with Disabilities Act is one of the most massive pieces of legislation the liberal left ever pushed onto the American people. It goes beyond Abominable Care. Bush I signed it into law.

The ADA puts an unbelievable burden on employers and businesses. Yes. It does. I've seen it. Some people in California have literally made a VERY good living just suing people under the federal ADA and the state version.

This is a case of using the whole fire department to extinguish a single candle.


Here's economics so people on the far left and far right can understand. Businesses have employees because the employees help the business make money. Employees who cannot produce get fired.

So, do handicapped people deserve to have a job?

I say certainly, if they can do the work. But that is a decision an employer must make.

If they can do the work, but not as well as a nonhandicapped person, then should they be paid less? Or, should the business be forced to subsidize the pay? Is it right to penalize the nonhandicapped employees against their wishes to support the handicapped employees?

If we're running this strictly on the economics I list just above, handicapped employees get fired. But when they get paid less because they produce less, employers are willing to step out and offer jobs.

Mandating identical pay is going to flat kill those jobs. That's fair to whom, exactly?


No doubt I'm gonna get someone whose left wing knickers are now in a Gordian knot. I'm going to be called all kinds of pejoratives.

Shuddup. You have no idea what you refer to. I do. The above situations? Handicapped person trying to get a job? I'm living it RIGHT NOW. So, shup until you have walked with me and understand my situation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.