NR tackles the minimum wage debate

Echoing Roy Cordato’s language about a “cruel hoax,” the latest issue of National Review features a short article panning President Obama’s proposal to address income inequality by raising the government-mandated federal minimum wage to $9 per hour.

A higher minimum wage is a cruel sentence of unemployment for young and low-skilled workers, for whom the real minimum wage is $0.00 per hour. It is also a poor way to help out poor people. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the last minimum-wage increase (to $7.25 per hour) would increase wages by some $11 billion in the subsequent year but only by $1.6 billion for poor families, meaning that it would cost $6.88 to provide $1 in economic gain to poor households. Some of that additional income no doubt flowed to families that are low-income but above the official poverty line, which is to the good, but many minimum-wage earners are nowhere near poor; rather, they are low-earning members of reasonably well-off households, including young people are parents working part-time. If our policy goal is to make work more rewarding for people at the lower end of the labor market, raising the minimum wage is a clumsy and inefficient instrument.

The article goes on to note that a more “straightforward” way to address the issue is to cut payroll taxes, “which eat away at the wages of the poor disproportionately.”

No comments yet. You should be kind and add one!

Our apologies, you must be registered and logged in to post a comment.