The “disabled” and the logical fallacy of minimum wage hikes

So, according to his article in the Albuquerque Journal, Santa Fe’s Mayor, David Coss doesn’t think an increased minimum wage hurts his City. The cynic might believe that Coss is just trying to lure Albuquerque to enact bad economic policies similar to those of his home town in order to reduce, but I think Coss is a true-believer.

What I don’t understand is what advocates of the higher minimum wage have against the disabled. What, you say? Wonderful organizations like Voices for Children and “Ole” would NEVER discriminate against the disabled. Oh yeah, well why does New Mexico’s minimum wage law state the following: Section 50-4-23 allows the Director of Workforce Solutions to issue special certificates for those “whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by physical or mental disability or injury or any other disability…”

So, New Mexico’s minimum wage law discriminates against the disabled and the ballot measure on November’s ballot here in Albuquerque doesn’t do anything to remedy the situation. That means that the disabled may continue to be employed at wages below the minimum. But, you say, raising the wage paid to the disabled might make it impossible to find jobs!

And that conundrum is in a nutshell the problem with minimum wages and raising them. For many disabled, the value of their labor is lower than the minimum wage. Of course, the problem is not limited to the disabled and I’ve also known disabled who were among the hardest-working people in a given workplace and were far superior to many so-called “able” employees. If you are “able,” but have few skills and little or no experience, then “Voices” and “Ole” and other advocates of mandated wages are perfectly-comfortable with making a productive an economically-untenable proposition. Leeway is only given if the Director of Workforce Solutions deems you “disabled.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “The “disabled” and the logical fallacy of minimum wage hikes”

  1. This is a quote from the Cross article: “Ultimately, the decision on increasing a minimum wage is not an economic question. It is a moral question. ”

    Need anything more be said about his position?

  2. Andrew: Who is the arbiter of the term “fairly?” Bear with me on this: If an employer has a million dollars to spend on her staff, and chooses to pay one person that amount, that would be great for the one person, but unrealistic for the company. If she were to drop said “fair” amount to, say, 1/4 of that, she could hire four folks and pay them a “fair” amount. Now, should she decide to drop the amount to only five dollars, she could hire a whole herd of workers. Oh, but nobody would work for five dollars, you say? Then she wouldn’t have any employees because nobody would work for such a small amount. The moral of this story is that water seeks it’s own level; she’ll learn fast that a “fair” amount to offer is what people will accept. For the government to establish a “fair” minimum wage is ridiculous, and none of its business in a Free Enterprise society. The higher the minimum wage, the fewer folks can be hired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.