I too would feel conflicted about supporting more social programs out of pocket
given that these lower income people don't pay any State or Federal income
tax. Religous conditionaing aside, how much should the rich support the poor
beyond the taxes they pay?
It's more difficult for a wealthy person to relate to the plight of the
less wealthy. It just is. In their minds, typically, there's no reason
why everyone shouldn't be wealthy.I have an uncle who is a
multi-millionaire, who says we shouldn't have a minimum wage, because
"most of those people aren't even worth that!"I started
to repeat the Biblical admonition about a camel going through the needle easier
than the rich man getting to heaven, but then I realized the point was futile.
Shocking! The middle and lower income class want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
The wealthy were hit hard in 2013 with tax increases: 3.8%
additional tax on passive income, 4.6% increase in highest marginal rate, 1%
additional taxes on wages, 5% increase on capital gains rate, the phase out of
itemized deductions and phase out of exemptions. Those paying the most taxes
are paying a lot more taxes.Most of the bottom half continue to pay
zero income taxes. Fair?
The 1% would like to re-write the scriptures as well, to say: "where much is
given much more should be given, and where little is given much more should be
taken away" versus actual scripture: "where much is given much is
expected." Their callousness and brazenness never ceases to amaze.
What should we call the people who lust after the wealth of others; greedy?
If the rich don't support certain social programs it doesn't mean they
don't care for the poor. Perhaps they understand that such programs
don't work well. I have talked to several people who had their jobs
outsourced to India. The more we cry for increased benefits and wages, the more
many companies will save money by outsourcing or cutting their labor supply.
Sometimes raising the minimum wage (or other measures) leads to job loss and
hurts the very people we intend to help.The ultimate "wealth
redistribution" is the experiment of the USSR which ensured that everyone
was poor and all waited in lines many hours to simply get bread. There is a
vast array of disagreement among economists and people of all political
persuasions as to how effective various social programs are. It is entirely
possible that trapping generations of poor people in inter-generational poverty
with dependence on government programs is the most cruel thing we can do for
these people. Of course, some of the rich are greedy and don't care about
the poor, but these are the wrong questions and methods to determine that.
I wonder if there is any consideration given to the fact that most of these
wealthy people became that way without any of the proposed programs. That they
understand why such programs are **counter** productive and actually make the
problem of achieving prosperity **harder**!My family of 6 children
was very financially poor when I was young. Our father's salary was raised
to $750/mo. just six months before he died at 61, the highest point of his life.
Yet every one of us graduated from college. Some with the help of scholarships
(my slothful school work precluded me from such) but **all** of us with the help
of Summer and part-time jobs.None of us achieved anything like the
wealth of the people described in this article. And none of us would ever
consider it just or fair to take (remember, taxation is a coercive process)
anything from them to "equalize" the results of our live. Even to pay
for the well-intentioned government programs being proposed.I value
freedom much more than wealth.
What a shock. The 1% doesn't want to give more to the poor than they are
already coerced into giving.
There is a certain segment of the poor population that if you keep giving to
them, they will always expect to receive. Even among that poor population there
is a sense of entitlement. The way the help the poor is to help them get on
their feet so they can help themselves. Free handouts never work.
know a guy who has bought various companies. he then increases his profits by
freezing or eliminating his employee's retirement and places more burden on
his employee's shoulders with the other benefits they get. It is true where
much is given much is required. But it shouldn't be the government deciding
who gets what and how much. Greed, pride and the entitlement mentality of the
people is ruining this world.
The rich may or may not be greedy but support/non-support for government social
programs, if reported correctly here, is a poor proxy for determining greed. For
example there is ample evidence that raising the minimum wage actually hurts the
poor because it eliminates jobs and opportunities for low skilled workers to
gain skills that can command higher wages. It could be a valid reason some rich
people oppose it but the study doesn't appear to take such factors in
With regard to the scriptures "where much is given much is expected" is
referring to people's responsibility back to God who gave those blessings.
Government didnt give people their wealth nor did God appoint goverment to be
the reciepient of those "much expected" returns. Still, I
completely agree with this principle. I guess goverment can try to copy it try
an jusify what they want to do. However, at some point you have to define what
"much expected" means as far as percentaisge of income being taxed.
Lets remember, that all money going to the poor doesnt have to go through the
government. In fact, that might be the least cost effective way to donate to the
poor. Back to the scriptures, some rich person might quote the
Parrable of the Talents. Paraphrased it said that "to him who was faithful
over many things shall be given more from those who were not faithful over even
few things. Government cant establish Religion so it makes sense
that it shouldnt try to be a substitute for it either.
I don't think their is anything inherently wrong with being wealthy, but my
two major concerns are: the wealthy using their monies for pushing their agendas
through donations to politicians, PACs, etc for which the middle class and
working poor really have difficulty (honestly, no chance) competing against. The
prevailing tax rates in this country penalize the working class disportionately
more than the wealthy, there should be a larger tax rate on wealth rather than
Perhaps it would be more logical to assume that most of the wealthy worked for
it, and understand how wealth is gained - through hard work, ingenuity, and more
hard work. Perhaps they have not forgotten the hard work they put in to gain
their wealth, and they would rather not cripple the very people who are wanting
more by giving them money.It is clear that giving people money does
not build their capacity to earn more money. In fact, it holds them in the
lower classes. Welfare studies bear this out - welfare becomes a generational
family tradition, not a "way out" to prosperity and hard work.When you give someone something for nothing, you have just reinforced that
doing nothing is what must happen to get something. Humans are simple creatures
and when reinforced, continue the same pattern.The wealthy know it
is all a scheme to trap the "common man" in poverty so the social
planners can own their votes. It will be the undoing of our country as people
are no longer motivated to work hard and prosper, being tricked by the false
"charity" of those who use governmental power to steal from some to pay
Wealth seems to be evil, until someone else wants to take it away. One
man's greed is another's ambition. Wealthy people spend their money on
commodities and services thus creating jobs. I love those ugly, garish
McMansions in SLC and Park City considering all of the craftsmen they employed,
their maintenance costs and the high property taxes they pay.
This study and article are misleading! The writers are implying that people who
are opposed to government sponsored social programs are greedy. I can think of
many very charitable, giving people who fight for ideas like personal
responsibility and initiative, rather than government social programs. One of
the most giving leaders I know used to speak about the evils of the dole.I'm not saying that there aren't greedy millionaires. Lets
just be careful to not judge someone as greedy because they want to help in a
This study and article are misleading! The writers are implying that people who
are opposed to government sponsored social programs are greedy. I can think of
many very charitable, giving people who fight for ideas like personal
responsibility and initiative, rather than government social programs. One of
the most giving leaders I know used to speak about the evils of the dole, not
because he didn't want to help pay for it, but because of the harm he saw
it causing people!I'm not saying that there aren't greedy
millionaires. Lets just be careful to not judge someone as greedy because they
want to help in a different way!
Most rich people got there by working harder than most non-rich people want to.
[I know some are rich by inheritance, but---most.]So it's not a
surprise that most rich people look at poverty as fixable by hard work. Also, most rich people did not get that way by government programs. [I
know some make it by getting government contracts and building a business or
whatever, but---most.]Thus, it's not always that they're
greedy as it is that they know government programs are not a way to achieve
wealth. If you want people to become more successful, government programs are
not the way to do it--unless you're the one providing the program.And--whether rich or not, if multiple levels of government come and take half
your money, and you know they're spending much of that half to allow many
able-bodied people to avoid working at all, you'd be unhappy. Don't
pretend otherwise. Plus, the study questions look somewhat biased
toward the result they hoped for.
If you are Christian you are supposed to realize that you haven't provided
yourself with anything. The most you have done is gather what was given to the
entire human race.Most of the wealthy in the us didn't even do the
gathering; they have employees to do it.So when you take more than
you need and watch others go without, just be ready to justify it if you really
think you can. Be ready to say ALL the poor people were lazy and didn't
deserve to be able to see a doctor, a good education or a lunch at school.A million dollars now doesn't make much sense if you are selling
out your eternity. Of course most people agree with that on Sunday and then by
the next day many are spouting off Glen Beck and Rush quotes about the poor that
are just lazy. Any parent including God, if they leave their kids
home alone long enough will come home to find one of them taking charge and
making the others do all the chores before they get a small piece of the pizza
you ordered for all of them.
The challenge is that most wealthy people had a leg up on the rest of society,
either by being born into it and/or having the opportunity to get into the best
schools and NETWORKS of the elite to further their wealth and elite status in
society. The other "99%" have a more difficult time achieving that
status because they have to work that much harder to attain the best education
and tap into those elite networks.Sure there are many "rags to
riches" stories in America -- Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc., but most
wealthy people had money to begin with and were able to build on that wealth and
privilege (e.g., George Bush, Romney, Donald Trump, the Kennedys, etc.).The challenge is how do we give the other 99% the same opportunities --
or at the very least, reduce those barriers so that they to can live the
American dream of upward mobility. Some at the very lowest circles of society
(the minimum wage earners) may never move up because they don't see or have
the skills to move out of those realms. But ambitious,
entrepreneurial types need to be given a leg up.
Thou shalt not covet.
I admire people who get rich by doing so honestly. The question really is: Is
using the money to help others more important than getting rich? Making money is
great, but those who are willing to use that power to help others are on a
higher moral ground. It is hard to judge someone unless you know them. I do know
this: It is wrong to covet someone else's material wealth. Serving others
is truly the highest gift one can give. Each of these wealthy people have the
agency to do as they like with their wealth. To take that agency away is
stealing, in my opinion. (And the scriptures, too.)
Having been poor in ones lifetime doesn't guarantee a person will have
empathy. Look at Glen Beck.
"He said that the main findings of the study were that rich Americans would
rather reduce deficits by cutting entitlement programs like Social Security and
Medicare instead of raising taxes on the rich." Not only that, the wealthy
want to and have largely succeeded in chopping private pensions to pieces. Those of us who are concerned about wealth concentration are often
criticized as being "covetous." I deny being such. My opposition to
the 1% is based on their determination to destroy all types of support for
retirees like me. I think the 1% sees retirees like me, drawing a pension and
receiving social security, as a drag on their profits. The 1% want guys like me
dead, and the sooner the better in their view. So my view of the 1% is not due
to covetousness on my part, rather it is based on my own instinct for survival.
What a flawed and ridiculous conclusion to draw from this study! To conclude
that wealthy people are "greedy" because they support certain political
and fiscal policies is absurd in the extreme. Greed is not defined this way.
Well-considered opinions on what constitutes wise government fiscal policy may
not support the measures the survey authors obviously consider
"compassionate" or "generous," but those opinions are just as
valid as any. And they have nothing to do with greed.
Wow. What a bunch of hooey! Talk about a biased world view...The
wealthy create jobs, provide venture capital, endow scholarships and make other
charitable contributions.Of course they don't favor having
government shake them down for redistributionist schemes.
What a lovely spin most of the posters on this thread have weaved. The 1 per
centers aren't greedy! They only want what's best for everyone! And
they worked so hard for what they have. Every single one of them. Now, you want
to talk about greed? How about all those lazy people who think that the
government should help our poorest and help make sure our kids are educated?
Seriously, folks...get real. The state of utah takes cow towing to a whole new
level. The rich aren't waiting on pins and needles for you to join their
club. This thread reminds me of the house slave who saw himself as special and
tsk tsked at those no count field hands. Folks, that guy was still a slave. And
what's more, you aren't going to be having dinner with the one per
centers any time soon.
"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands,
having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ
the flower of the country as servants ... They employ also a great number of
manufacturers and tradesmen ... But after all there comes the most numerous of
all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work.... I am conscious that an
equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this
enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators
cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let
their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human
mind.... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to
exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions
of property in geometrical progression as they rise.... The earth is given as a
common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry
we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be
provided to those excluded from the appropriation" - Thomas Jefferson,
letter to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785.
Nosea,Consider the parable of the talents.
I am grateful but a little surprised that the Deseret News would publish this
study. I applaud the newspaper for their integrity in doing so.As a
former Republican (now conservative independent) I could no longer stomach the
attitude of many in the GOP and such selfishness on the part of many wealthy
Americans as reflected in this quote from the study: "the main
findings of the study were that rich Americans would rather reduce deficits by
cutting entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare instead of
raising taxes on the rich".That selfish attitude runs counter to
the teachings of the Book of Mormon as I understand them. While I do not support
President Obama in his beliefs about "marriage equality", I certainly
believe he is more in tune with the teaching of the Book of Mormon and the Bible
when it comes to being concerned about the needy and those with second class
opportunities in this country. That is why in good conscience I
could not vote for someone like Mitt Romney who seemed to me to be out of touch
with ordinary working Americans.Thank you Deseret News for sharing
this insightful column.
This article is misleading. The article claims that since these wealthy people
are against government-forced redistribution of wealth through taxation, that
these people are therefore "selfish". On the other hand, these surveys
tell us nothing about these same individuals' private charity! Nor does it
acknowledge the negative effects that many of these government social programs
have, and which many of these wealthy people understand. This survey does show
that many wealthy people support capitalism, which is not surprising since many
recognize that when a healthy capitalistic environment exists, it is the best
way to give those who are poor the opportunity they need to improve their
situation, and it often was exactly that type of environment that allowed them
to succeed in the first place. Renowned author Arthur Brooks has observed,
"... self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness.... In fact, the
millions of Americans who advocate for private entrepreneurship and limited
government—whether they are rich or poor—may be stingy when it comes
to giving away other people's money through state redistribution, but they
are surprisingly generous when it comes to giving away their own money
Granted, some (but not all) wealthy are selfish and some (but not all) poor are
lazy. It's a complex issue. Many good points have been offered on both
sides. Having lived in France for 4 years I have seen that the nanny state is
alive and well there. And I have seen up close and personal how it has stifled
among its people, on a broader scale than here, the initiative, creativity and
the willingness to work hard. I know plenty of French who are industrious and
hard-working. But I definitely observed that their nanny state has bred
widespread malaise. I hope we don't end up with that irreversible slippery
slope here in the USA. That said, I too have concerns about how much lobbying
power wealthy corporations have in the USA, but I have similar concerns about
the lobbying power of public sector unions and certain categories within the
legal profession. I wish I could offer a magic solution. I doubt there is one,
and some degree of dynamic tension on policy issues is vital and useful. The two
(or more) sides will need to keep bargaining in good faith for a long time.
The 1$ are not any more greedy than the poorest 1%.They just as
human and have all the same human foibles and weakness and behaviors as the
poorest.Its scary how the left teaches hate and judges others, and
wants treat certain others as less human and take from them.And then
hypocritically ascribe those same traits on those others to justify their
actions. ( even mass murders, and mass theft, of the French revolution and the
Russian revolution, Cuba, Cambodia, china, Lithuania, nazi germany, and dozens
of other places that have claimed to impose "equality" described by
their leftist ideologies)I know of no far left government that has
ever made the poor rich. No matter the claims of how they are for the little
people. Only the leftest leaders have ever gained anything.If you
want to truly change the wealthiest 1%, or the poorest 1%, they only true way is
change hearts, their is no other way that doesn't lead mass murders and
mass impoverishment, great loss of freedom and liberty.Long
suffering Love is the answer, teaching hate and to take is not.
As for me and mine, I do not want to be taken care of, I just want the
government to get out of my way and I will take care of myself.
I agree, Mr. Barker, that people who "lust after the wealth of others"
are greedy.But, that greed goes both ways. The company owner who
lusts after the labor of his workers, taking a greater portion than s/he is
entitled to have, is also greedy and a "taker." If people are turning
to governments to help them it is because they have given up on the trickle down
that was promised 30 years ago.Labor is entitled to own their value
as much as the richest investor, perhaps more so, since it is all that they
Thou shalt no covet also means you don't covet more than your share of what
the Lord provided for the entire human race.
Opposing government programs that have demonstrably FAILED to solve the problem
of poverty, and indeed, made them progressively [pun intended] worse cannot be
taken as proof that someone is "greedy."Unless, of course,
you are a member of the liberal media, or someone riding in the wagon instead of
helping to pull it.Nor, does this study take into account the
voluntary charitable actions of the [evil, greedy] rich people.This
is the sort of agenda driven advocacy I would expect to find in the
"other" paper, especially since it lacks the balanced perspective of
opposing views, or revealing the actual survey questions and results.Greed is a very serious character flaw, be it in a rich person, a reporter, or
the masses who expect that someone else will give them their daily bread, a free
phone, a prepaid credit card, and free housing. A more telling
study would be to survey the attitudes of a random 1,000 people who are living
off the money confiscated from the taxpayers of this country. See if they are
appreciative and working their way off the dole, or disgruntled that they are
not getting as much "free stuff" as they think they deserve.
"Increasing the minimum wage" would make income inequality worse, not
better. The same with expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and government
jobs programs for the unemployed. The entire premise of this article is wrong.
Rich conservatives clamor about America being a "Christian" nation when
the issue involves something like gay rights, same-sex marriage, etc. However,
when the issue involves feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, these same
people all of sudden become Social Darwinists.
Nosea said:"The 1% would like to re-write the scriptures as well, to
say: "where much is given much more should be given, and where little is
given much more should be taken away" versus actual scripture: "where
much is given much is expected." ..."That is a disturbing
distortion of scripture. Using taxes to force people of means to "give"
is not at all what those scriptures are saying. To "give" implies using
our free will to do something good. We live in a free country where we reward
innovation, not punish people for being successful. Undoubtedly there are people
who in a Scrooge like fashion oppress others to tilt the odds in their favor to
accumulate more wealth--just as there are poor people whose "eyes are full
of greediness and will not labor with their hands". There is no simple
solution for the problem of economic inequality. But for the majority to vote to
force-ably redistribute wealth from the minority is *not* a good solution either
from a democratic or religious perspective. This would have lots of unforeseen
consequences, and it bothers me to see LDS scripture used to justify such a
The opposite of poverty is NOT wealth.The opposite of poverty is justice.
My problem with the 1% is that they want to cut their taxes and raise mine.
That is the 1% solution to deficit reduction.
The study authors conclude that wealthy people do not support the plight of the
poor, but that findings appears to be the authors interpretation of survey
questions that ask a different question. Wealthy entrepreneurs who made their
millions through hard work (and perhaps some luck) I think would tend to agree
that many social programs keep people in poverty rather than try to lift them
out of poverty. Thus, the authors conclude that the wealthy are heartless
because they oppose such social programs when the wealthy might oppose such
programs because they create disincentives to work. A better question would be
to ask the wealthy what proportion of their wealth they contribute to different
causes--such as humanitarian aid.
Government is the great equalizer: It makes all equally poor, except those who
are politically connected. Many wealthy people help the entire society simply
by providing more opportunity for others. After all is said and done, lifestyle
comes from production, not someone stifling production by controlling, limiting,
and confiscating according to political whim.
@Baron,Actually the statistics are the opposite of what you propose.
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. They started plumbing
businesses, went to professional school and saved, or simply were very
conservative with their money. Yes it is hard to want to pay more to a
government which is already taking 40% of what you make.I do not
want more taxes and I want to help the poor to get out of poverty. I would much
rather give $20,000 to a charity that is actually helping people turn their
lives around than send $10,000 to Washington where it will be squandered.Remember, the government spends over $20,000 on anti-poverty programs
for each person in poverty. Yes, over $80,000 in tax money is spent on a family
of 4 in poverty. If you just handed them the cash they would be solidly middle
class.Maybe it is just that the wealthy understand how incredibly
inefficient the government is and do not want to waste more of their money.
some_guy is bothered by people using scripture to justify their concern with our
top-heavy wealth distribution. I hate to ad gas to the fire, but from the
online Book of Mormon 4 Nephi: And it came to pass in the thirty
and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face
of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and
disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not
rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the
heavenly gift.Some-guy also believes that forced redistribution is a
bad thing. To a degree I agree with him. A major redistribution would be very
disruptive. But as Marx would say "it's not the people, it's the
system." In other words capitalism simply created huge inequalities. We
have to learn other ways of thinking and doing. A first step would be to get
familiar with Marx. Sooner or late this is going to happen.
This is a lousy article. The fact that the wealthy do not think that government
entitlement programs are an effective way to deal with the challenges of poverty
is no reflection on the compassion of the wealthy. Government is inefficient,
compulsive and ever growing.
Look at the Warren Buffet rule, [not the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
Glenn Beck rules]and that pretty much says it all.When his
secretary pays more in taxes than he does [%], When Mitt Romney pays less
than I do [%]....WE - in America - have a problem, and MOST
wealthy will not admit, and they DO use their money as power to influence
Laws in their favor....Just like the Gadianton's did.
Mitt Romney and other rich people pay millions in taxes, and you and I do
not.The 1% are already paying for what they use AND for what others
who are lazy and refuse to pay for what they use.The govt does not
become more expensive simply because Mitt made a lot of money.We
should all pay for what we USE, and Mitt doesn't use more government
resources than I do
The rich aren't greedy they earned it, poor people are greedy, they want
something for nothing.
Let me see...so I have 40 trillion dollars.....the last thing anyone should be
calling me is greedy.......but rather I with 40 trillion think you who think me
greedy are the real greedy covetous losers.....
Very interesting article:1) Rich people are greedy! I’M
SHOCKING! if you are not greedy how do you get rich? Promote people to purchase
lottery?!!!!!)2) “87% rich people think the very important
problem is to eliminate national budget deficit”, SHCOCKING! Rich
people are wise here!3) By the way, rich people also are right on to
reduce or eliminate “minimum wage” regulation. SHOCKING! Rich
people are wise here! Do you think the USA is still a free-market-oriented
country? (Please refer to “2014 Index of Economic Freedom”, USA
continue to slide since 2008! currently 12th over the world.)
An old movie said it right, and said it best -- WallStreet, "Greed is Good!" ~ Gordon Gekko [played by Michael Douglas]
The article's author implicitly makes the huge assumption that
"increasing the minimum wage" actually "improves inequality".
If we could decrease inequality by increasing the minimum wage, why not raise
the minimum wage to $25/hr or more. A plethora of studies have shown that
increasing minimum wage in reality increases NOT decreases inequality.
Increasing taxes has proven similar results. Once these fallacies are exposed
the author's accusation that the 1% is greedy is a moot point. Instead of
creating laws forcing others to share by coercion our efforts would prove more
effective if we created a God loving society. We would then love to share with
our neighbor. Richard V. Burkhauser and Joseph J. Sabia,
“Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help
the Working Poor?” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 77, No. 3 (January
2010); Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, “Does the Minimum Wage Reduce
Poverty?” Employment Policies Institute, June 2001; Jill Jenkins,
“Minimum Wages: The Poor Are Not Winners,” Employment Policy
Foundation, January 12, 2000; Ronald B. Mincy,
I'm sure many are greedy but by saying hand outs are not the answer
doesn't mean your greedy. We have to remember that incentive is what made
our country great not hand outs.
Why don't we discuss how to create good paying jobs that people are
qualified for?Instead we focus on how to steal money, give handouts,
and not solve the real issue. Which is the economy and not the need to increase
@conservative scientist: "The ultimate 'wealth redistribution' is
the experiment of the USSR which ensured that everyone was poor and all waited
in lines many hours to simply get bread". Why do you consider the USSR
example, brutal failure that it was in every way, more 'ultimate' than
successful examples like European style social democracy? Scandinavian
socialism? Isn't it normal practice to include successful models when
testing the merits of social policy, and not just at the most egregious
failures. To seek and cite only the negative is a tendentious and fallacious
form of argument.
@benevolus: "For example there is ample evidence that raising the minimum
wage actually hurts the poor because it eliminates jobs and opportunities for
low skilled workers to gain skills that can command higher wages."
Benevolus, I've heard both this and its opposite from partisan sources. Can
you point to the places and times in which raising the minimum wage had the
effect that you describe, and provide citations or links to non-partisan sources
that you are basing this statement on? How long did the lower employment
statistics take to return to pre-hike levels in those cases? Does the history of
minimum wage hikes in the United States follow this pattern, or are you
referring to other countries? Thanks.