Senseless in Seattle: Fantasy economics
By upping the minimum wage to a ridiculous $15 an hour, Seattle City Council has virtually guaranteed a losing hand for an untold number of workers.
Sharply higher than Washington state's $9.32, Seattle's new hourly minimum was promised by the mayor, pushed by a socialist council member and passed unanimously — in defiance of basic economics. The higher that minimum wages are, the worse unemployment will be — especially for less skilled workers — because the more costly labor is, the less there will be.
The negative consequences have been shown time and again: in 1964 by future Nobel laureate George Stigler, in February by the Congressional Budget Office's forecast of 500,000 lost jobs if the federal hourly minimum rises from $7.25 to $10.10, in March by an Express Employment Professionals study that found a higher minimum would cause 38 percent of employers to lay off workers.
Even liberal economists favoring higher minimums expect serious fallout from Seattle's stratospheric hike, according to Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute. With metro Seattle's youth unemployment at 31.4 percent, the damage will be “particularly severe,” he says, noting that the political director for that socialist council member admits “there's no serious economic rationale or research behind the dollar amount.”
In other words, Seattle's $15-an-hour minimum wage is a command economics fantasy — with devastating effects for real-world workers.
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 carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- The Thursday Wrap
- The Gulftainer deal: Ports of peril?
- Saturday essay: For the birds
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- Inversion conversion: Obama’s hypocrisy