THIS Is The Type Of Liberalism I Can't Stand

The type that doesn't have the courage of its alleged convictions.

This piece by Jordan Weissmann on Slate.com fits into a particular type of commentary:  the "I'm a Democrat/liberal/progressive, but ..." type.  I've never understood why the people who write this drivel are Democrats in the first place.  Maybe it's because of a family connection, or because they live in a predominantly blue part of the country, or because they or their family has somehow benefited from some particular form of public spending.  At least those people have naked self-interest on their side.  The worst members of this group are the ones who openly flagellate their self-interest and the public interest they allegedly stand for in the name of "bipartisanship"--or more specifically, the Republican form of "bipartisanship," best characterized by JFK as "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

I'm not sure which of these sub-categories Weissmann fits into and, frankly, I don't care at all.  It's bad enough that he uses the Web to attack a policy that has demonstrated time and again that it's an economic boon.  There is no evidence--zero, none, zip, nada, zilch--that raising the minimum wage costs jobs.  If anything, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary:  that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.  And to anyone who understands wealth creation, that makes perfect sense.  Contrary to the Ayn Rands of the world, who think that wealth is born Athena-style from the brains of the investing class, wealth is a transactional process.  My spending is someone else's income, your income is someone's else's spending, and vice versa (with apologies to Paul Krugman).  Investors need consumers, or they will ultimately lose their investment.  If it makes sense to put more money in the hands of investors, doesn't it also make sense to put more money in the hands of consumers?  If anything, doing so protects the money in investors' hands, by expanding the purchasing power of their consumer audience.

And, as counter-intuitive as it may sound, raising the minimum wage boosts competition as well as consumption.  Raising the minimum wage enables small businesses to compete for talent more effectively with corporate America, by offering talented new employees the chance to help build an enterprise from the ground up while still being able to support themselves and their families. As far-fetched as it may sound, I'm not alone in thinking this way.  And I'm certainly not alone in making the obvious point that raising the minimum wage increases tax revenues while decreasing the reliance of the public on overstretched social programs.

We've spent more than three decades giving the investing class the equivalent of much more than a $15-per-hour minimum wage.  We've seen the results of banana Republican economics.  Isn't it time to see what happens when we give a break to people on both sides of our transactional economy?  Do we really have anything to lose?  Ultimately, even Weissman doesn't think so; he tenatively argues that Seattle should go for it.  I do, too.  I'm betting the rewards will ultimately overwhelm any sense of risk.