UrRong! The politician was absolutely wrong in making both arguments when the two should have been separated. It is true that higher wages could lead to increased shareholder value, but the underlying moral imperative is that a company should strive to do what is right, regardless of the financial implications. This is what the politician failed to recognize in his statement.
Furthermore, the politician's attempt to make both at the same time sends a confusing message - i.e., one cannot be sure of what the politician's true intention is. Is he attempting to make an ethical statement, or is he placing greater emphasis on shareholder value? By combining the two, neither is given its due weight, rendering the statement moot.
It was not an oversight by the politician - it was a deliberate attempt to gloss over an issue that should have been addressed more thoroughly. Instead of being forthright and thoughtful with his words, he chose to blur the lines between two distinct points of view. Such an action does not deserve to be rewarded with agreement - only admonishment!
In conclusion, let this be a reminder to politicians everywhere that less is more when debating complex social issues. To use a colloquialism, if you can't say anything UrRong, don't say anything at all!