One of America’s most elite economies, the National Football League, has a minimum wage of $477,000.

It probably isn’t fair that a bench-warmer in the NFL, who on occasion might address Chris Berman or make a cameo on Sports Center, makes more money than the President of the United States, who on occasion might address Tony Blair or make a cameo at the United Nations. But given the nature of football’s business, it is a reasonable figure for owners to pay.

Ald. Austin King, District 8, former Ald. Tom Powell and UW student and activist Joe Lindstrom are proposing that Madison hike its minimum wage from the federal standard of $5.15 to $7.75 an hour, a figure that would be the highest such wage for any city in America.

The problem is that Jerry Jones doesn’t own the McDonalds on Lake Street, and Daniel Snyder isn’t picking up the tab on the university’s custodial staff.

The $2.60 hourly pay raise comes out to be over $5,000 a year for a full-time employee. And although there is little question that those earning minimum wage could use the extra money, and the idea of giving them a raise strikes up cuddly undertones of charitableness, the question becomes one of where the extra money will come from.

Contrary to the irresponsible spending philosophies of carefree liberals, money doesn’t simply grow on trees. And so the truth becomes that for $5,000 to get into an employee’s pocket, $5,000 must come out of the business somewhere.

So where will it come from? Will prices get hiked, spitting consumers? Will quality be reduced, also spitting consumers? Or will jobs be slashed?

The laissez-faire principles of a competitive market like Madison already regulate prices and quality (yes, that means that Madison’s economy is partially controlled by a force other than the government, a notion which liberals everywhere seem to have trouble grasping). So that leaves one clear way for business owners to come up with the extra $5,000: cutting jobs.

Ah, yes, the irony: In order for some members of the lower class to make more money, other members of the lower class will have to cease to make money.

(And Mr. Deters’ touching comments to the contrary from a small-business owner become irrelevant when you consider that the employer states up front, ” … we pay better than minimum wage.”)

But King, who was genuinely gracious enough to grant this columnist an interview despite his opposing ideologies, insists that jobs won’t be lost, because, among other reasons, “Business people are smart, and most of them have a heart.”

But it simply doesn’t jive that if “smart” businessmen haven’t already found a way to maximize their efficiency, a minimum wage hike will inspire brilliant new initiatives.

And as for the hearts of business owners, it is important to note that there is no “maximum wage.” Businessmen are free to give their minimum-wage employees that $2.60 raise anytime their hearts so desire. But chances are that on their way to the top, most employers learned the valuable lesson that if you don’t balance heart with mind, both will lose out.

Now the minimum wage would only apply to Madison. But King doesn’t believe that businesses will pack up and head for Verona or Middleton, because, “Most businesses that pay below $7.75 an hour are geographically-based businesses.” And he is right to note that a gas station with a prime location in Madison can’t easily move. And while proponents of the wage hike seem to take smug pride in the fact that they will be affecting businesses incapable of fleeing their wrath, their shortsightedness renders them oblivious to what those businesses will have to do to come up with those extra $5,000 a year. Once again, job cuts seem the most likely explanation.

Another faulty premise put forward by proponents of the ordinance is that businesses would actually save money, because a higher wage would lead to a lower turnover rate which would, in turn, equate to fewer recruiting and training expenses. Again, a gentle reminder is in order that no law prohibits business owners from paying above minimum wage if such logic holds true.

Bizarrely, UW is exempt from city ordinances like this proposed wage hike. But King knows that it really will catch up with the school eventually, noting, “While this wage doesn’t directly affect [UW] employees, the university knows it is still in the same job market as everyone else in Madison.”

Now even if State Street businesses can defy economic logic and compensate for the increased minimum with higher prices or lower quality, UW, which doesn’t pay all if its employees $7.75 an hour, doesn’t have the same luxuries. Tuition is already a sore spot for the school, and any further stretching of resources would threaten the university’s prestigious academic standing.

Proponents of the ordinance suggest that the university can maximize efficiency to cover the wage hike, but it seems that with state budget cuts already taking their toll, things are running about as efficiently as they can.

When confronted about the possible toll the wage increase would have on UW, King comes up with a response largely indicative of the reckless liberal spending ideology. “We’ll do what we always do when we run out of money,” King said. He pauses, lists various fruitless ideas and then concedes, “We’ll cut some jobs.”

Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in rhetoric.