ObamaCare & minimum wages: A double whammy
President Obama has joined the cacophony of lawmakers clamoring to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. This, when ObamaCare already increases employers' cost for their employees.
Combined, the proposed minimum-wage hike and ObamaCare's provisions would deal a devastating blow to entry-level earners, effectively sawing away for many the first rung of the employment ladder.
Under ObamaCare, employers with at least 50 employees must offer qualifying health coverage to full-timers. By 2015, this provision is projected to add $2.24 per hour to the cost of providing single coverage to an employee, according to James Sherk and Patrick D. Tyrrell. The penalty for noncompliance is a fine of $2,000 per employee, paid from after-tax dollars, Messrs. Sherk and Tyrrell write for The Heritage Foundation.
Together with the aforementioned minimum-wage proposal, “employers that provide health insurance would have to pay at least $13.27 per hour for workers with the required single health coverage” by 2016, Sherk and Terrell report. If employers opt instead to pay the penalty, the cost would be at least $12.71 per hour for each full-time employee.
Businesses already operating within tight profit margins would be forced to cut jobs, roll back workers to part-time hours or both, thereby eliminating what typically are first-time employment opportunities.
The minimum-wage proposal and what's already contained in ObamaCare will do considerably more economic harm than any conceivable good.
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.
- Another Iran warning: Listen to Abdullah
- Saturday essay: Garage bees
- Connellsville’s cleanup: Shine up your city pride
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Will the Wagner plan to privatize liquor be the catalyst that finally gets this done?
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The Box
- Peer review: Unsettling ‘science’
- Kittanning’s ward voting: Equal representation