Consider costs of city minimum wage
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Gaines Wilburn
The recent $9.36 per hour minimum wage law proposed for Greensboro by the Minimum Wage Committee is another attempt to socialize our market economy, ostensibly to aid Greensboro heads of household living below the poverty line.
Yet as William James points out (letter, April 1) many (most?) of those earning the minimum wage are dependents working to supplement household incomes — not primary breadwinners. I have some additional reservations.
How many of the rest of us are willing to pay for this and see it become law? What about next year or the year after, when it's determined that the minimum should be raised? What will be the penalties for noncompliance? Who will enforce the new law in addition to present duties, and at what cost to the community?
Andrew Brod (column, March 25) seems to be of the opinion that not many jobs would be lost and not many would move outside Greensboro due to the nature of the work. Let's say he's right. The reverse of this, however, is the following: How many people from outside Greensboro would compete with city residents for low-skill jobs at wages up to 50 percent higher than what they can earn outside the city? How many of these would be illegals (are we not enough of a magnet already)?
And with the increased competition for $9.36 per hour jobs, how many city low-wage earners, the people the new law was supposed to benefit, would lose their jobs and join the unemployed?
Does this still sound like a good idea?
The writer lives in Greensboro.