Raise the minimum wage? It's a maximum mistake
Making a bad idea even worse, President Obama, emboldened by voters equally ignorant of basic economics, now wants to raise the $7.25 federal hourly minimum wage — not to the $9 he called for in his February State of the Union address, but to $10.10.
Mr. Obama issued that call just days after voters approved hiking the state minimum wage from $8.25 to $9.25 in New Jersey and the local wage floor in SeaTac, Wash., home of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to $15. He endorsed the $10.10 federal minimum proposed by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. George Miller, D-Fla.
The higher a minimum wage is, the greater are its negative effects — including failure to achieve positive effects touted by advocates. As Heritage Foundation labor scholar James Sherk told Congress in June, the minimum wage “has proved ineffective” at lifting families out of poverty.
Hikes “reduce overall employment” and make “entry-level positions less available, in effect sawing off the bottom rung of many workers' career ladders,” Mr. Sherk testified. And higher minimum wages can actually hurt impoverished workers, costing them federal tax credits and assistance as their incomes rise and burdening them with effective tax rates exceeding 50 percent.
What Obama is advocating is greater economic damage — the proven and predictable consequence of raising wage floors by government fiat.
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.
- Brewster advances
- Collaring the EPA: Hold the cigars
- Social Security’s mess
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap
- McKeesport Tuesday Takes
- Confusion resolved: Go River Hawks
- Sunday pops
- Checking the Somali threat: A-s-s-i-m-i-l-a-t-i-o-n
- U.N. Watch: Sanction sidestep
- Apple Music & Taylor Swift: A good & timely lesson