Democrats, liberals and union leaders periodically whine about the minimum wage. This usually happens right after Republicans gain one of the houses of Congress or the presidency, the thinking being that Republicans can’t be against a minimum wage without looking heartless. Sadly, that ploy usually works.
But for years responsible economists have been arguing that raising the minimum wage actually hurts employment and drives up costs. Liberals, as usual, scoff at that, and claim that the GOP is just shilling for big corporations.
Facts don’t usually mean anything to liberals, but here’s an example that pretty much confirms everything conservatives and responsible economists have been saying for years (emphasis added):
Application of the U.S. minimum wage to American Samoa, pursuant to the scheduled increases mandated by Congress, continues to have devastating effects on American Samoa’s economy. It is causing severe distortions in American Samoa’s labor market. It has driven up labor costs such that businesses are being forced to cut employment, close or relocate.
This is from a 142-page GAO report, but if liberals don’t buy its conclusions, then here’s confirmation from another source (emphasis added):
But there’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market.
That’s from a 1987 New York Times editorial. 1987! And yet liberals and their union backers have pushed continually for raises in the minimum wage, with the old philanderer Ted Kennedy leading the charge. If its effect is demonstrably economic destruction, why is it advocated so consistently?
After all, The New York Times is like a religion to the left, isn’t it? Why don’t they follow its 1987 teachings?
