... And some liberal logic
Given her views on the minimum wage, let alone on President Obama's intention to raise it, it's easy to see now why Christina Romer no longer chairs his Council of Economic Advisers.
“First, what's the argument for having a minimum wage at all,” queries Mrs. Romer in The New York Times. “Basic economics” upholds the value of “robust competition” not only in providing for fair wages but also in “preventing businesses from misbehaving.”
And raising the federal hourly minimum — as proposed from $7.25 to $9 — doesn't translate to a boost for the poor or for the economy, she writes. Most of the affected workers aren't, themselves, poor but are supplementing their family income. And the anticipated cash “flow” into the economy is more akin to a trickle.
More likely, an artificial wage hike “could harm the very people whom a minimum wage is supposed to help,” she writes.
Romer's no conservative. The economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, helped craft the administration's abysmal $862 billion “stimulus” package. Even in her Times analysis, she concludes that the nation “could do so much better if we were willing to spend some money.” Good grief!
What's significant is that even this liberal advocate of big-government spending regards raising the minimum wage as a half-measure, at best. An economic policy premised on artificial wage manipulation is, itself, half-baked.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Tuesday essay: Sophie