It's really just redistribution of wealth

I realize that some will vilify me for this letter, but, facts are facts. 

The goal of a minimum wage is not reduced employment, but, to redistribute earnings from the employer to low-paid workers. A review of 91 studies by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Economics University California Irving determined that if minimum wages were increased, a overwhelming negative employment was the result in 85 percent of the cases (http://ideas.repec.org/p/irv/wpaper/060708.html).          Very few of these studies they examined showed positive employment and under least skilled groups significant adverse effects were stronger. The study that the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas conducted, indicated that 60 percent of the minimum wage workers earned more a year later as opposed to those that did not have a high school diploma or were unskilled.

In the United States, there are 4,400,000 jobs unfilled. No skilled workers, unreasonable distance between work force and employers, or job seekers unwilling to accept a minimum-wage job are some of the reasons for unemployment.  Presently, 35 states pay more in welfare than a minimum-wage job. The governments wants to increase the cost of labor by 40 percent for many small businesses that account for 75 percent of the work force in the U.S.  Makes no difference if that employer is making a profit or not. All you have to do is observe how many small businesses survive beyond a year.

The conclusion of the aforementioned review supports that a negative impact on employment occurs in the majority of cases. Credible evidence all points to negative employment both for the U.S., as well as, other countries.

Politicians ignore these studies because it does not support their ideology. The increase in a minimum wages sounds good unless you are the employer who has to cope with a “forced government mandate.”

Rucinski is a resident of Libby.