I provide accounting services to several small businesses. One of my retail clients is planning to slash the hours of the 2 teenage employees who are affected by the minimum wage increase. Why? Because they are the most marginal employees on the payroll. Other employees in their teens and 20's who are more capable are already earning well above the new minimum wage. As Mr. Laffer points out, increasing the minimum wage serves only to increase the disparity between the employable (i.e. trainable) and the unemployable. What a cruel joke!
Obama's Washington Post Editorial: Reading Between the Lines [View article]
"Part of this goal will be met by helping Americans better afford a college education"
What he is referring to is the college loan "reform" which just went into effect. Under this reform, college loan payments are based on income, not a straight amortization of principal. Okay, that is reasonable. If, however, a borrower has not been able to pay back the entire loan after 25 years (10 years for public servants!!!!!!), the remaining debt is forgiven. This means we taxpayers will be paying the cost of "educating" those students who choose to major in fields which provide them with few useful skills (think Cultural Anthropology, Folklore, Communications, French, Women's Studies, etc.).
Isn't this a bit backward? Shouldn't we be rewarding those who enter useful, employable fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math rather than subsidizing those who are unemployable except to expand bloated government agencies? And this will build "a pillar of a stronger economic foundation"? It's no wonder the U.S. is being left in the dust by China.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedMinimum Wage Factoids [View article]
Obama's Washington Post Editorial: Reading Between the Lines [View article]
What he is referring to is the college loan "reform" which just went into effect. Under this reform, college loan payments are based on income, not a straight amortization of principal. Okay, that is reasonable. If, however, a borrower has not been able to pay back the entire loan after 25 years (10 years for public servants!!!!!!), the remaining debt is forgiven. This means we taxpayers will be paying the cost of "educating" those students who choose to major in fields which provide them with few useful skills (think Cultural Anthropology, Folklore, Communications, French, Women's Studies, etc.).
Isn't this a bit backward? Shouldn't we be rewarding those who enter useful, employable fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math rather than subsidizing those who are unemployable except to expand bloated government agencies? And this will build "a pillar of a stronger economic foundation"? It's no wonder the U.S. is being left in the dust by China.