Higher wages? No, minimum thinking
Two new reports on the plight of fast-food workers conclude that the minimum wage is costing taxpayers a bundle for society's so-called “safety net” costs, which presumably could be offset if the minimum wage is raised.
Just pay no attention to the ugly unintended consequences.
A study by economists at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign states taxpayers are spending up to $7 billion a year on public assistance, such as Medicaid, for fast-food workers, who earn an average of $8.69 an hour, the Los Angeles Times reports. And this, when these companies pay $53 million in salaries to top execs, according to a report by — surprise! — the Big-Labor-backed National Employment Law Project.
“In its quest to unionize the fast-food industry, the SEIU has demonstrated that it will leave no stone unturned,” says Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute. As for the public-assistance argument, it earns a higher grade in creative writing than it would in any high school economics class, Mr. Saltsman says.
To wit: What happens to these entry-level jobs if employers are forced to raise salaries? There'll be fewer jobs and more automation. Consider, for example, the outcome of innovations such as E-ZPass and automated checkouts at supermarkets.
The researchers didn't consider the public's cost if thousands of fast-food workers are pink-slipped. But if Big Labor can take a bite, even a small one, out of the fast-food industry, who cares, eh?
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.
- Saturday essay: Garden chances
- Jamestown revealed: History comes alive
- Kittanning Laurels & Lances
- The Connellsville Redevelopment Authority: Facts & findings
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Regional growth
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Medicare @ 50: Sick, getting sicker
- The Brady affair: Contract law