From the mailbag:

First up, NSW writes:

There’s another unintended consequence to raising the minimum wage in California. Minimum wage employees are not those paying to keep California running. Their small business employers probably pay a not insignificant portion of that bill. Without profits those employers no longer pay taxes. Businesses with with small profits pay small taxes. The workers, despite a higher wage, still do not pay. Less money to the state means either a bigger hole in the budget or less money to toss to friends.

I suspect if the ruling class realized they were reaching into their own pockets not just into the “evil” business owner’s pot of money they might moderate this change. Than again, if they had any fiscal sense the state wouldn’t already be on the ropes.

Indeed! The supposition we have seen from the Left is that most employers are greedy corporations who employ folks by the thousands. The obvious reality is that small businesses employ the largest chunk of minimum wage earners, and will be the first and hardest hit. Amazing what two seconds of thought will reveal, eh?

And also, there is SMR who has these thoughts:

To the Most Dread Czar,

Your most recent post incisively disposes of the progressives’ publicly acknowledged motives for an increase in the minimum wage. I urge you, though, not to allow them to distract you with their clumsy mendacities.

I submit that they offer the argument that they care about “living wages” as a convenient sop to the cognitive dissonance in their constituency so that the mindless will continue to vote for them.

The question, “Cui bono?” should apply not to their putative beneficiaries, but to their actual ones. Who really benefits from this?

Unions – their members’ wages are often tied to minimum wage by some factor.

Big business – by quashing small business, they remove competition. Have you noticed the automatic soda filling machines in fast food restaurants? I’m convinced that those are a result of minimum wage increases. The machine does the job that a small restaurant can’t afford to pay an employee to do. And who makes the machine? Not a small shop, I’d bet.

Bureaucracy – when they increase the breadth of their domain, either by increasing the activities to oversee (and tax) or by increasing the dispossessed supplicants for largess, they solidify their positions.

I’m not a tinfoil hat type minion, but I do not believe that the consequential benefits that accrue to those three groups (when the ostensibly-intended beneficiaries in fact suffer) are accidental. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m currently reading about Thomas Jefferson’s distress as he saw Hamilton’s manipulation of government finance to the benefit of the non-producing classes at the expense of the producers, so I may be suffering from a bit of “seminar syndrome.” But I don’t think it’s wrong.

Please don’t kill me,
Operative SMR

Killed? How about rewarded? Your observations are quite on the mark: you mentioned three solid lobby groups. Yes: unions actually compete against minimum wage earners, and this is the origin of the recent fast-food walkouts. The unions, realizing their days of cash flow are numbered, are looking to unionize anyone stupid enough to join. Fortunately, the minimum wage folks seem to realize they will make less than minimum wage after union dues are taken out and seem to be uninterested. Very well: if you can’t make ‘em join, beat ‘em.

And yes, big business has little reason to deal with minimum wage earners. The Czar would not have included them as a lobbyist, but your reasons are sound enough. And finally, the political class benefits by throwing imaginary bones. As NSW adds, this won’t help a bit with taxes or revenue collection, but your rationale for including them is solid analysis, one thinks.

Finally, BG wrote in to growl at the Czar for his apparently optimistic piece on the Democrats fearing they will share the blame if the government shuts down. With that one exception, feedback on that piece was quite positive.

BG is convinced that the GOP will be blamed exclusively due to a combination of factors. But really, the Czar thinks BG is more on the money than the folks who praised the piece because the Czar, ultimately, thinks the GOP is going to cave on this issue.

Yes, the House pushed the CR through. But the Senate is not going to pass it. And even if they do, which they won’t, the President will not sign it. And the Czar did not mention that even though the GOP got Clinton to cave, the blowback was not all that great for the GOP. Lest we forget: 1996 was not a happy year for the GOP.

The Republicans know this, and know that when push comes to shove, the Republicans will do neither. Obamacare is coming; ultimately, its implementation is going to cost the Democrats far more severely than a government shut down.

Optimistic? Not the Czar so much, at least not for a successful defunding effort. Yes, we do support the idea of it as a symbolic middle finger to the Democrats, but ultimately we know it will fail.

However, when Obamacare is implemented, the shock and horror hitting America could well change the political landscape in the Republicans’ favor for a decade or more. The Czar is more optimistic about that.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.