The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO


April 21, 2014

Other Views: Robbing the poor

— Combining their “income inequality” obsession with business bashing, some liberals are blaming supposed corporate greed for the financial challenges of the poor. Such theories are only plausible in the abstract. Under scrutiny, they fall apart.

A recent video produced by Slate, a liberal website, argues that Wal-Mart could raise wages and ultimately save taxpayer money because fewer of its workers would qualify for food stamps. Currently, Slate says, cashiers are paid an average wage of $8.81 per hour. To raise that sum to $13.63, Slate argues, Wal-Mart could raise prices 1.4 percent. A 68-cent box of macaroni and cheese would instead cost 69 cents. Slate claims this would keep many Wal-Mart employees off food stamps.

This sounds like a win-win. But Robert VerBruggen, editor of RealClearPolicy, notes the plan has some major flaws. For one thing, it requires some poor people to pay more for goods so other equally poor people can get a raise. This isn’t Robin Hood robbing the rich to give to the poor. It’s robbing the poor to give to the poor. Research from the University of California at Berkeley has concluded that if Wal-Mart raised prices to fund a higher minimum wage, 28.1 percent of the price increase would be borne by consumers in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Many other Wal-Mart customers facing higher prices are thoroughly middle-income families who aren’t exactly rolling in dough.

“Transferring $100 from Wal-Mart customers to the lowest-paid Wal-Mart employees is like taking $28 from some poor people and giving it to other poor people, taking $59 from some nonpoor people and giving it to other nonpoor people, and taking $13 from nonpoor people and giving it to poor people,” VerBruggen writes.

Even if that doesn’t bother you, the plan has other problems. For one thing, about half of that cashier’s raise would be immediately lost thanks to the perverse incentives of welfare.

Jeffrey Dorman, a Forbes contributor, has noted that those on welfare could face a huge effective tax rate if their minimum wage was increased to $10.10 per hour. Dorman wrote that “a hypothetical single mom with one kid would see more than half of the proposed minimum wage increase offset by a reduction in benefits from the federal government and increased taxes.” The hypothetical mother would face a reduction in her federal Earned Income Tax Credit and in food stamp support. She would now have to pay employment taxes on her increased earnings.

In the abstract realm of liberal economics, businesses can simply raise prices at will, and everyone benefits; no one gets seriously hurt. But reality remains stubbornly resistant to liberal nostrums. Those pushing a minimum wage hike in Oklahoma City should keep this lesson in mind.

—The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City

Text Only
  • Our View.jpg Our View: No need for No. 9

    “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects?”

    July 29, 2014 1 Photo

  • Your View: ‘Right to Farm’ is wrong

    On Aug. 5, voters will be asked to make a decision about Amendment 1.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: No on Amendment 7

    The Missouri Department of Transportation is wanting more money through a three-quarter-cent addition to the sales tax. Consider one example of how it spends your money.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: Bad way to get revenue

    I received two fliers through the mail today asking me to vote “yes” on Amendment 7, which would add a three-quarter-cent tax to Missouri’s sales tax to help maintain roads and bridges.

    July 29, 2014

  • Other Views Other Views: Symptom of bad policy

    The Obama administration continues to be surprised and shocked when its policies of good intentions suddenly meet the hard reality of unintended consequences.

    July 28, 2014 1 Photo

  • Rebecca French Smith, guest columnist: Amendment 1: Farmers are 'boots on the ground'

    Take a moment and ask yourself who was the last person in your family to farm.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View; Makes no sense

    Chess was never my game. It’s too complicated.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Time value of money

     I was shaking my head along with Anson Burlingame (“Much has changed in U.S. over 14 years,” Globe, July 22), then he offered his readers a chance: “Go ahead — take your pick.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Boiling a frog

    We voters are now being urged to vote on Aug. 5 for Amendment 7 “to fix our roads, highways and bridges.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Our view: 'Yes' on 7

    Opponents of Amendment 7 say this: “Missouri families are already hard pressed to pay their bills during this period of slow economic recovery.”

    July 26, 2014

Local News
Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that electronic devices and communications are protected from searches and seizure without a warrant, do you think Missouri needs Amendment 9 added to its constitution?

A. Yes.
B. No.
     View Results
NDN Video
Two Women Narrowly Avoid Being Hit by Train In Virginia, the Rise of a New Space Coast New Sanctions on Key Sectors of Russian Economy Crayola Announces Family Attraction in Orlando US Ready to Slap New Sanctions on Russia Kerry: Not Worried About Israeli Criticism Boater Rescued From Edge of Kentucky Dam Girl Struck by Plane on Florida Beach Dies Rodents Rampant in Gardens Around Louvre House to Vote on Slimmed-down Bill for Border Looming Demand Could Undercut Flight Safety Raw: 2 Shells Hit Fuel Tank at Gaza Power Plant Raw: Massive Explosions From Airstrikes in Gaza Giant Ketchup Bottle Water Tower Up for Sale Easier Nuclear Construction Promises Fall Short Kerry: Humanitarian Cease-fire Efforts Continue Raw: Corruption Trial Begins for Former Va Gov. The Carbon Trap: US Exports Global Warming Traditional African Dishes Teach Healthy Eating