As the intern here, this is my first time doing the "Comment of the Day" post, so forgive me for not knowing the rules—namely, that we're not allowed to pick Trevor anymore. Apparently, he wins it all the time.

But I’m definitely giving it to Trevor for going into the wonky weeds re: Mallahan's rhetoric on a living wage, and defusing the false dichotomy between good pay and unemployment.

(Gomez’s comment about Mallahan needing a plan to get jobs, before he ensures they pay well, ran a close second.)

Trevor Says:

The idea that high wages for the poor necessarily contribute to unemployment is not based in economics, which requires empirical claims and a knowledge of history, but in partisan political ideology.

Firms very often pocket reduced labor costs or reduced taxes as profit instead of hiring more workers. Union busting and tax breaks generally don’t get us out of recessions as deep as the one we’re in. Requiring higher wages for some jobs may result in higher unemployment in some industries. But in others it might instead reduce profits, reduce middle management, or result in costs being passed on to consumers– costs that might not actually be all that much.

What’s more, as opposed to landlords who let their units sit vacant hoping the market will turn around, or wealthy people who are sitting on their money til they feel more sure about investing it in the economy, poor people tend to their spend money and save very little. And that actually produces jobs. Which is why progressive taxation, deficit spending, unionization, and living wage jobs ordinances might be the best thing for our economy right now– because they take idle capital and give it to people who will get it circulating again.

10/26/2009 AT 1:39 PM