Raise the minimum wage? It's a rank political ploy
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Jan. 5, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Desperate to distract voters from ObamaCare's botched rollout, Democrats see minimum-wage hikes as their salvation issue in 2014 gubernatorial and congressional elections. But their campaign strategy promises losses for jobless Americans, job-creating small businesses and the economy as a whole.
Associated Press and New York Times reports say the White House, Big Labor and their liberal backers are coordinating support for President Obama's proposed federal wage-floor hike from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and for putting proposals for higher state minimums on ballots alongside close congressional races. Never mind the broad economic ignorance revealed by polls showing broad support for higher minimums — even among Republicans.
Government's market-distorting wage floors raise employers' costs, forcing them to reduce hiring and hours. Young and minority entry-level job-seekers, whose unemployment rates far exceed the general population's, are disproportionately disadvantaged — yet they're the voters whose 2014 turnout Democrats cynically seek to boost with their class-warfare campaign theme.
Whether it's Katie McGinty trying to stand out among Pennsylvania gubernatorial hopefuls or congressmen nationwide facing GOP challengers emboldened by ObamaCare failures, Democrats are aiming for short-term political rewards. But raising minimum wages does long-term economic damage — especially to key Democrat voters most vulnerable to their pernicious effects.
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.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- Fixing Ford City’s water leaks: Time is money
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saturday essay: The gardeners’ etiquette
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness