Minimum wage follies: Triple the stupidity ...
By advocating tripling the federal minimum wage at a committee hearing, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., removed all doubt about her ignorance of basic economics — which a new study confirms.
She thinks productivity gains mean the $7.25-an-hour minimum wage should be about $22 an hour. A new Employment Policies Institute (EPI) report provides the needed reality check, saying her idea “makes zero economic sense and demonstrates how out of touch Sen. Warren is with business realities faced by employers who hire people and pay them the minimum wage.”
Mike Saltsman, EPI research director, tells The Washington Free Beacon she's oversimplifying. He notes that while productivity in all businesses rose about 60 percent during the last 20 years, productivity in food service — think entry-level jobs — rose just 7 percent.
Such workers' value to employers' bottom lines — wages' real basis — hasn't come anywhere close to tripling. “(T)here's only so fast you can bus a table or cook a burger,” Mr. Saltsman says.
And the entry-level job market's already tightening. Such employers, leery of ObamaCare's $2,000 fine for each full-time employee not provided health insurance, are reducing hiring and full-time staff.
So, this is no time for any minimum-wage hike that inevitably would reduce entry-level jobs, let alone for tripling the minimum wage — an idea as nonsensical as government mandating a $100,000 minimum salary for all.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- Another StingRay case: Get a warrant!
- Economics moronism: Good grief