The special and lower minimum wage for the disabled. Sleepy Joe will abolish it.

The question is, why? Who gains from this?

What makes this all so difficult to understand is that no one, no one at all, gains from this abolition of the special rate. With the usual electoral buying of favor and votes at the taxpayers’ expense, we can moan about it, but at least we can see the point, the purpose. But there is no one at all gaining from this, so what’s the point? Why try to screw over the one piece of independence these unfortunate people have?

I regard this specific proposal as being truly evil and am, therefore, against it as you might have gathered. But what truly confuses me is why? Whose votes get bought by further damaging the lives of the disabled?

20 thoughts on “Elsewhere”

  1. There are still plenty who think that an increase in the minimum wage simply results in pay rises. Mostly these are people not affected. But it’s a means of showing that they care, which is all they want.

  2. Easy to see who benefits. The Dems sell this as a victory for the disabled and the virtue-signalling idiots who vote for them see this as another sign of virtue, so their vote is secured. That disabled people suffer as a result means nothing.
    Disabled rights groups will support this, even if they know it is wrong, because orange man bad. That’s how fucked up the US is.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    I heard a good argument against minimum wages the other day, well an old one well put. I paraphrase:

    Minimum wages aren’t about the battle between evil capitalists and poor downtrodden workers, they’re a battle between productive and unproductive workers.

  4. Good rant, Mr W. The trouble is that sound logic won’t convert mutton-headed virtue-signallers.

  5. BiND As someone I worked with 40 years ago noted, he didn’t need a union because being good at his job he could always get better than the union rate for the average unionised worker.

  6. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious

    The special and lower minimum wage for the disabled. Sleepy Joe will abolish it.

    And if you understand that Sleepy Joe’s goal is to increase the citizenry’s dependence on the federal government, and thereby increase the control of the federal government over said citizenry, then you have the answer as to why he would want to do it.

  7. djc
    Indeed. I lost 50 quid a day when I was forced to join a union. The dumbass workers think that they will get the pay of the average worker in the same job. Long term they will get the marginal rate of pay, i.e. the value of the least productive worker.

  8. Bob Crow did pretty well for his members.

    I always had a sneaking admiration for the bloke. Loathsome, sweaty, gimlet-eyed, a humbug and a looter. And yet. He set out to justify his salary in the eyes of his shareholders … and he succeeded.

  9. Why does having a wooden foot mean my boss can pay me less? My mortgage costs me just the same, my food costs me just the same, my car costs me just the same. If you’re going that way, I have six children, PAY ME MOAR!!!

  10. The UK should devolve the minimum wage rules to Local Authorities. If Middlesbrough wants to drop it for the disabled and over 60s then let them. Or increase it and see investment move to the next nearest area. Would love to see which way Nicola moves. She possibly thinks you can compel prosperity by increasing the range of income in which consensual exchange of labour for money is illegal.
    But if they must exist then it should not be a centralised decision.
    I think the 5 happiest countries in the world do not have centralisation of minimum labour rates. The USA going the wrong way on this if they elect Joe.

  11. I think Mr. Biden wants to get rid of that lower minimum wage for the mentally disabled because he doesn’t want to be subject to it when he takes office.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ Bob Crow did pretty well for his members.

    I always had a sneaking admiration for the bloke. Loathsome, sweaty, gimlet-eyed, a humbug and a looter. And yet. He set out to justify his salary in the eyes of his shareholders … and he succeeded.”

    Yes indeed, and we should never forget that teachers’ unions are there to look after teachers and not children, no matter what they claim when the say they’re thinking of the children. Ask Devil’s Kitchen, he had a marvellous rant after a story about a teachers’ union at a Tory conference. Got him in trouble with Andrew Neil.

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ Why does having a wooden foot mean my boss can pay me less? My mortgage costs me just the same, my food costs me just the same, my car costs me just the same. If you’re going that way, I have six children, PAY ME MOAR!!!”

    That’s why I think we have it about right, we don’t expect employers to pick up the tab for the disabled or those with social difficulties. If someone needs extra money the benefits system should step in. It should also compensate employers if they employ disabled people who aren’t as productive because there is a social and societal benefit to them being employed.

  14. @Tim W

    Careful there, you don’t want sacked like at Forbes

    I agree, minimum wage is evil as it renders many low IQ and disabled unemployable – which is why unions in USA demanded it to keep low IQ black cheap labour out

    It’s a discrimination Dominic Lawson writes about (Downs child)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *