The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage and CT Governor Dan Malloy

Transcript:

After reviewing a 2014 news conference concerning an increase in the minimum wage, I am completely convinced that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy does not have the least bit understanding of economics.

"Today I am proud to announce one more piece of legislation that I will be submitting which is to increase the state minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years"

That some people can think government is able to make our lives better by setting a minimum wage baffles me.  Forget the fact that everything government does is inefficient by nature, or that for government to help one person it must hurt another.

Let us just logically take a look at the idea of minimum wage.  Advocates of the minimum wage range from wanting a federally mandated $15/hour minimum wage to over $20/hour but regardless of the number requested I always have the same question; why stop there?  If you think the government could set a minimum and make everyone's life better, why only $20/hour?  Why not $50/hour? or $100/hour? or maybe the government can pass a law that mandates a $1000/hour minimum wage, so that way we can all be rich, live in mansions, and drive Lamborghini.

Obviously this is absurd, as there are not many businesses that will be able to pay the increased wages, and would be forced to either drastically raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Well this concept applies to any increase in the required wage.  There are many small businesses that are struggling to stay open and pay their employees at the current required wage, and if it were to increase by just a dollar or two, the business would not be able to pay the extra hundreds or thousands a month and be forced to raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Now that employee that you were trying to make have a better life, has no job.

As shown by the next clip, Governor Malloy at least somewhat understands this concept but shows further ignorance of economics by brushing the increased prices away as no big deal, and makes the absurd statement that most businesses that pay the minimum wage are forced to stay in an area and can't leave regardless of the increased labor cost.

Reporter:  "Governor, no business has ever passed an exorbitant tax or an increase, its passed onto the consumer [sic].  Don't you feel that you just increased the cost of living in the state?"
Governor Malloy: "Well I think to some extent that may be reflected in costs but if you look at the nature of the businesses that are largely paying the minimum wage, they are businesses that can't leave the state.  They're here, they're providing services and products to the people of the state of Connecticut."

This is such an absurd conclusion that I don't know where to begin to dispute it.  When mentioning businesses that can't leave, I am assuming Malloy is referring to minimum wage jobs like restaurants that are very location focused, that have built their business through satisfying the local population, and can't just get up and relocate.  While it is true that these businesses can't just get up and relocate to another state, there is nothing that prevents them from just shutting down.  If they can't afford to pay their employees, or lose customers due to the increased prices that are a result of the increased salary paid to their employees, then the businesses will just close down.  The first businesses to close will be the single small family owned restaurants as they do not have the resources that big chain restaurants have, to deal with costly government regulation.  A restaurant like McDonalds has the resources to invest in automated order taking machines as a substitute for the newly increased cost of having an actual human employee.  But even a restaurant like McDonalds isn't REQUIRED to stay in a city and lose money.  If government regulations become so taxing that even a big chain store can't make a profit, then they will eventually just close or leave as well.

The next thing Governor Malloy says is really ridiculous, in my opinion.  He essentially says that people want to pay their workers more but I guess are just not smart enough to pay their workers what they feel they deserve and that is why we need government to force them to pay their workers more through minimum wage laws:

 "...I think when you ask people of the state of Connecticut whether they believe that the people who wait on them, who care for them, who take care of their children, should receive a $10.10 salary , I think you are going to find overwhelmingly that the people of Connecticut do agree."

So, according to the Governor's logic, there are people in Connecticut who are paying someone the minimum wage to watch their children, who feel that the babysitter deserves more than the minimum wage, but just aren't paying the babysitter more because there isn't a law requiring them to do so?  Why wouldn't they just pay the babysitter more themselves?

This same concept applies to the other group that Dan Malloy mentioned, waiters.  If Connecticut residents truly feel that the people who wait on them at restaurants deserve more pay, there is nothing from stopping those people from leaving a bigger tip.  It is obvious that Governor Malloy, with his push for an increase in the minimum wage, is just appealing to the low income, low information voter that doesn't understand the impact of government wage laws.

To conclude, more laws and bigger government are not the solution to the countries economic problems, but in actuality the cause of them.  Instead of asking for a government mandated "livable wage", we should be asking why the current non-livable wage of $10/hour, would be an extremely great wage just fifty years ago.  $10 in 1966 would be the equivalent of about $74 today.  This devaluing of the dollar is caused by inflation, or more money being "printed" into circulation resulting in increased prices.  This crippling power that the Federal Government, working in conjunction with The Federal Reserve has, needs to be the main topic of any discussion involving government involvement in wages and prices.  Other than that there is not much Dan Malloy or any Connecticut politician can do to help the economy other than to get out of the way and let the free market operate.

Related analyses:

• Is United States Senator Chris Murphy The Answer To The European Terrorist Problem? - March 25, 2016 (link)
• Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes. - March 16, 2016 (link)
• Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
• CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)

Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition

As discussed in my most recent video, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is delivering a new message to the people of Connecticut about how there will be no recovery from the recession and we should not expect to have as much as previous generations.  Malloy says that he, along with "economists across the world" had predicted a normal recovery from the recession, but have now come to find that this is not, and will not be the case, as the Great Recession is looking more like the Great Depression.

"It's clear that the Great Recession had a long lasting impact on the American economy.  We had all hoped, economists across the country, across the world, had predicted that although it might be a little bit slower, it would be, in essence, a normal recovery from the Great Recession.  That's not true. The Great Recession is more like the Great Depression in its long term impact on the economy." - Dan Malloy on WNPR, 02/18/16

While it is true that the Governor had been telling everyone for years that the economy was recovering and improving from the recession, it should be noted that there were some economists who predicted this lack of growth, and were saying exactly what Dan Malloy is now saying.  One particular economist is Peter Schiff, who most famously predicted the 2007-2008 crash.

For example, when Dan Malloy in 2012 was saying that "things are coming back" and in 2014 saying "the economy is improving", Peter Schiff was saying, in 2012, "we've been in a depression since the end of 2007", and in 2013 saying "wait until you see how bad it's going to get during the Obama recession".

In my opinion, Dan Malloy's solutions to the economic problems, such as increasing the minimum wage, will only make things worse.  In future videos I will be further critiquing Dan Malloy's views on the minimum wage, and overall economic policy.  To be sure to catch the latest uploads, subscribe to our channel on YouTube or click 'like' on The Goodman Chronicle Facebook page.

CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016

To open the legislative session for 2016 the governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy has a new message: get used to a lowering of your standard of living because the pre-recession prosperity of your parents days, where wages and home prices went up, is not coming back.

"Really what the overall message today is that Connecticut's and the nations economy was changed by the Great Recession.  We all thought that, you know, that we'd get back to what was an old normal.  Well quite frankly, we're in the new normal.  And I think government has to catch up to where the people are and understand that the people have already made that adjustment.  They're not counting on an economy that their parents and their grandparents counted on where wages and home values went up steadily every single year." - Governor Malloy, opening day round-table discussion

"We live in changing times, you don't have to take my word for it, you hear it from your constituents everyday.  A visceral feeling that our country and our state are not going back to how things were before the great recession.  Families are budgeting differently. Their expectations are changing. They know that they can't rely on the same economy their parents and grandparents did, where wages and home values steadily increased." - Governor Malloy's Opening Day Address to the General Assembly 

What the governor does not tell you is that many policy makers view the economic downturn and the lowering of our standard of living as a good thing because it means we use less energy, thus saving the planet from greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

As an example, in 2014 the state announced that it had met its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and credited "the economic downturn" as one of the major factors involved with helping to reach that goal.  Director of Policy for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Jessie Stratton, was working for, and speaking on behalf of the Environment Northeast Organization back in 2010 when she also credited the economic downturn for "reduced electricity consumption."

To better understand this concept of a reduction in energy consumption being a good thing we have to go back to at least 2001 when the state had announced its goal of reducing green house gas emission in the state by up to 85%.  This means a reduction in energy use, which means a reduction in the use of products that require energy to be made, which means a reduction in pretty much everything.  As an example of the vast level of green house gas reduction looking to be imposed by the state, a 2008 state document said that "Connecticut will need to decrease GHG emissions by more than one million metric tons per year for over 40 years"  which they say is "equivalent to the emissions from electricity used by over 137,000 homes each year or the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year."

This idea that single family homes and private motor vehicles are bad for the environment is being used by the state and federal government to implement a program of "Smart Growth".  Smart Growth occurs when government attempts to reduce private motor vehicle and single family home ownership by using taxes, laws, and regulations to focus high-density development around a transit line.  An example of this is occurring in the capital city of Hartford where over a thousand apartment units have been or are being constructed in the downtown area along the newly built CTFastrak bus line.  These construction projects have received millions of tax-payer dollars in loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance.

Policy makers like to tout the benefits of living in an apartment, next to a bus line, and not needing to own a car or maintain property, but they leave out the many benefits of home and car ownership.  For example, your options as to where you would like to live, work, grocery shop, or seek entertainment are vastly increased when you have a personal motor vehicle.  Without a personal motor vehicle your options on where to live, work, shop, and play are limited to what is on your bus or train route.  There are a number of benefits of personal home ownership as well, not the least of which being privacy, and not having to be around people that you do not want to be around.  When our buying options are limited in such a way by these state-sponsored energy-reduction Smart Growth policies designed to restrict private motor vehicle ownership and single-family home ownership this directly results in a lowering of our standard of living.

This policy of Smart Growth was not created at the state level though, it is a top down policy that extends up through the federal government all the way up to the international government level with the United Nations.  Evidence of this can be found in the various Connecticut climate change papers where various organizations affiliated with the United Nations, like the IPCC, are cited, but most specifically in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan where the topic of greenhouse gas emission is discussed, it is stated: "The ultimate goal mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  This is relevant because the United Nations is more explicit in their desire to lower the standard of living of industrialized nations like the United States, all in the name of fighting "climate change".  In the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, an action plan presented at the same 1992 Earth summit in Rio that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was presented, it states that "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries."  This sentiment is even more explicitly expressed , and quite coincidentally in almost the same terms that Governor Dan Malloy is using, in the children's edition of Agenda 21.  Rachel Kyte, the Vice President of the World Bank Group at the time of the publishing of the childrens edition of Agenda 21 is quoted as saying that children should not expect as much as their parents.  The actual quote is this:

"You can't bring up a new generation of people telling them they can have everything we have and more."

An interested person researching climate change and the United Nations will continue to come across this concept of a lowering in the standard of living of industrialized nations being a necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  At TheGoodmanChronicle.com we attempt to document how this agenda is directly affecting residents of Connecticut.

To conclude, we need to look at this recent revelation by Governor Malloy in its proper context.  The state government, along with the federal government, have been adopting policies in order to get the people to use less energy and reduce consumption.  This is why the economic changes brought with the recession are being embraced.  When we have less money, we consume less.  As we progress further in this agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emission we can expect further economic, as well as social and cultural changes, all in an apparent effort to fight "climate change".  Only an informed and vigilant citizenry can get in the way of these changes from taking place.