More than 500 economists, including three Nobel laureates and several members of past administrations, have signed an open letter to the White House and Congress urging them to reject a federal minimum wage increase.
They warned that hiking the minimum wage would cause economic damage:
“One of the serious consequences of raising the minimum wage is that business owners saddled with a higher cost of labor will need to cut costs, or pass the increase to their consumers in order to make ends meet. Many of the businesses that pay their workers minimum wage operate on extremely tight profit margins, with any increase in the cost of labor threatening this delicate balance.”
For some reason, this has always been a hard concept for liberals to grasp. Whether it's an increase in taxes, cost of materials or cost of labor, businesses will always — always — pass those increased costs along to the consumer; they always have, they always will. It's called capitalism.
The economists cited the recent bipartisan Congressional Budget Office report which found that increasing the minimum wage would lead to job loss.
"The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) most recent report underscores the damage that a federal minimum wage increase would have. According to CBO, raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would cost the economy 500,000 jobs by 2016.
Many of these jobs are held by entry-level workers with limited experience or vocational skills, the very employees meant to be helped.”
And therein lies the irony; while Obama trotting around the country espousing the virtue of raising the minimum wage may sound good to some, not only will many of those minimum wage employees be laid off; many more won't be hired in the first place.
Obama and the Democrats fully understand this concept: it doesn't really matter as long as they win the PR battle because Democrat voters have shown time and time again they don't keep score; they never do. Liberalism has not proven to be about results. Emotion and intent are all that seem matter to the left.
How else can one explain the fact that 50 years and trillions of dollars after Lyndon Johnson launched the “War on Poverty,” urban Americans are no better off today, yet continue to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?