It’s all the conservatives’ fault, that’s what MSNBC wants you to believe. Not just the last four years, but the last forty are to be blamed on conservatives policies.
That means no Democratic policy or other Republican policy could possibly make up for the ‘low minimum wage and anti-union policies’ of the last two generations.
In the above linked piece, the liberal columnist actually uses the following line,
A study of three cities by the Center for Economic Policy Research found evidence to “support the view that a citywide minimum wages can raise the earnings of low-wage workers,”
In other words, we needed a study to tell us that raising the minimum wage would raise earnings for low wage workers. Now, the rest of the line goes on to explain that the study finds it wouldn’t affect anyone’s employment status. In other words, companies wouldn’t be less apt to hire people just because you raised the minimum wage.
But the author goes on to argue that a spillover effect would drive up wages for everyone.
Well, duh. If you pay a laborer minimum wage and his supervisor a few dollars more, then raise the day laborer’s salary, you have to then also raise his supervisor’s pay or there’s a problem.
This is a completely incoherent argument for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which that it brings nothing new to the actual discussion, which is a federal minimum wage. States adjust minimum wage as they see fit, it simply can’t be lower than the federal minimum wage.
Of course, no comment from this columnist on how state’s own policies have affected the economic standing of its citizens.
There was a secondary argument about how unionizing is down, although he presents no evidence that such a trend is based on anti-union conservative policies. Someone should explain the difference between correlation and causation.
In fact, the ‘anti-union’ policies of conservatives like Scott Walker actually saved thousands of public employee jobs including teachers, something the unions themselves were unwilling to do in favor of holding the line on salaries and benefits.
It’s been the union movements own petulance and lack of foresight which has contributed to its demise, but I suppose MSNBC is right to point out how fewer unions could mean lower wages. It also means more people employed.
Ask workers in Spain where if you can’t get into one of the big labor unions, you simply can’t get a job. Period.
Furthermore, there’s a strong economic argument to be made that lowering the minimum wage for young workers doing menial jobs would considerably increase overall employment levels of young people and increase productivity.
For every study the left can site, I can site six more that say raising the minimum wage would hurt businesses. In fact, it’s an issue in San Jose right now, where a recent study found just a 25% hike could cost as many as 3,100 people their jobs.
And you know what the real irony is? That big 4.5 million jobs number Obama loves to throw out about his job creation record includes 1.6 million minimum wage jobs.
The total number of jobs fell almost 3 million, so the total number of people employed has fallen under Obama and 35% of the people who did find a new job are getting minimum wage.
It would be impossible to blame conservative labor policies for that, considering Democrats controlled Congress following the 2008 election.
The latest Pew Poll showing Romney’s debate outing shifting the election 12 points into a 4 point Romney lead, it’s understandable the left would be scratching and clawing to put together a cogent argument.
But, just like these latest numbers, they don’t look good for liberals.