The fast-food companies are employers, not parents of minor children. They have no moral or legal obligation to provide these additional goodies to those who happen to work in their restaurants. Like the value of any good or service, wage rates are set by the market. If better jobs were available, the fast-food workers would take them. If the fast-food jobs were to disappear, the workers would likely find jobs that are even worse or be unemployed. This would increase the amount of government transfer payments. So it would be more logical to say that if the fast-food industry did not employ so many marginal workers, that the burden on government would be even higher.Update: Susan Fiegenbaum has also skewered the P-D editors.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Post-Dispatch editors outdo themselves
The editorial page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is renowned for its wacky leftwingedness and willful ignorance of basic economics. But I was not prepared for the editors' jump onto the latest loopy bandwagon claiming that government programs such as food stamps and Medicaid are a form of corporate welfare. I was trying to pen a retort to this nonsense, but I was having a tough time grasping the roots of its sheer stupidity. Fortunately, David Hornburg, of Des Peres, succeeded where I failed. Read the whole thing, but here's the crux of it, especially the first sentence: