TAKE THESE JOBS AND SHOVE ‘EM?: Ampersand pointed me to a series of posts defending a higher minimum wage. I’ve read two so far, “How Minimum Wage Increases Employment” and “Why Job Losses from Min Wage Don’t Matter.” I can’t rightly put my finger on my problems with the first one–odd that there’s so much talk of consumption but not of investment, that’s one problem, but I am pretty sure that if I were either a) less fuzzheaded or b) more economically ept I would have more to say about that post.

I do have something to say about the “job losses don’t matter” post though. Basically, Nathan Newman says, I don’t buy that instituting or increasing a minimum wage would lead to job losses. But let’s say it does. These job losses will be balanced out by the fact that still-employed min-wage workers will be making more money, which will mean increased tax revenues, which we can use to fund welfare for the unemployed!

Er. Ah. Yes, well, indeed…

To be fair, Newman also says the tax money could be spent on education and suchlike, which opens a few more kettles of fish. But he focuses on monetary transfers to the unemployed a.k.a. the dole. Thus, he argues, the still-employed end up with more money than they had before, and the newly-unemployed end up with a decent enough welfare check that they’re basically at financial status quo ante.

I don’t know, maybe Newman is being frivolous here because he believes that the jobs WON’T be lost, so he’s just kind of tossing this claim out there? If he’s serious about this “solution,” he’s ignoring the huge, obvious differences between welfare and work. It’s not just about cash in hand. It’s about:

knowing you’re productive vs. knowing you’re a public charge

structure in your life vs. lack of structure (chaos)–this is a huge deal in communities where a lot of people are on welfare

greater degree of independence vs. greater degree of dependence

being viewed as more marriageable vs. being viewed as less marriageable

gaining skills to move up in your job as you choose vs. somebody else’s idea of a “job training program” that might be Good For You

sustainable employment (and sustained contribution to the economy) vs. temporary assistance

plus more stuff I can’t think of right now.

As I read the post, I kept thinking about two people I know whose fathers were laid off. Not for cause. Just laid off. Unemployment came as a psychological blow that they took out on their families. It was pretty obviously a horrible time for the newly-unemployed men and those who loved them–not so much because of financial issues (though the sudden change in financial prospects and plans hit hard) but because of the shock of unpleasant change and the disruption of the men’s sense of their place in the world. Contra Cyndi Lauper, money doesn’t change everything.