Election Results - wages

November 6 was Election Day here in the USA so I plan to post a few post-election observations this week. Today's posting is a response to a Duluth, Minnesota voter who voted for the "moderate Democrat" running for mayor - Don Ness - because she said Mr. Ness has promised to implement a "living wage".

From an Economics 101 perspective the living wage concept is completely false since the "wage" is not set based on any principles of economics. But the larger problem is that voters like this woman become completely dependent on government for their quality of life versus taking it upon themselves to improve their station in life. Personally I would much rather move to a cabin in the woods to live off the land versus having a life dependent on government soup kitchens but that is me :-)

I was reminded of this Duluth voter's quote when I noticed this employment ad in my community newspaper which I quote below:

Awesome Career

Government Postal Jobs!

$17.80 to $59.00 hour entry level

NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED (note - I added the all CAPS here)

Now hiring! Green Card OK. Call 800.370.0146, ext. 102 Closed Sundays

So with "no experience" it appears most anyone who wants a job can pursue this opportunity which pays an annual salary (based on the hourly rates mentioned in the ad) of $34,176 to $113,280 assuming you work 40 hour weeks all year.

Now that is what I call a living wage especially since you could get these nice paying jobs with no college education debt apparently. Again -- why does any government feel obligated to create living wages when government jobs like these are available?

Personally my idea of a living wage is much higher than government leaders are mandating employers to pay so I have no use for their central planning since I much prefer to build my own income versus being reduced to a mere vassal of the state.

Live free or die on food stamps,

Todd