And now a word about the Democratic Party. As the Republican Party self-deconstructs, the Democratic Party is undergoing its own agonies. True enough, the Dems, as opposed to the Reps, are not involved in a civil war. Their process does not resemble a reality television show. They know better than to compete with Republicans at a game that the Republicans seem to have mastered.
The Dems have a different kind of problem. They do not have anyone who resembles a credible presidential candidate. Some will say that Her Hillaryness is totally qualified to be president, but that suggests that one does not know the meaning of the word “qualified.”
But, the Democrats have not been winning elections by nominating qualified candidates. They run on a platform of give-aways. Remember when John Kennedy told American not to ask what their country could do for them but to ask what they could do for their country. Well, today’s Democrats, both Sanders and Clinton are telling the low information voters who flock to them that they will give them whatever they want, for free. Promise them anything, and then… blame the Republicans when it does not come true.
Many people are surprised that this message has found such a fertile breeding ground in the minds of college students. If so, one has not been paying attention. The brains of today’s college students have been marinating in unearned praise since kindergarten. Said students have been taught that hard work and perseverance is for chumps or for Tiger Cubs. They have been taught to seek after the Holy Grail called flourishing and have learned that being competitive is bad. They have come to believe that they cannot compete against their peers around the world. In that, I dare say, they are not wrong.
If you cannot compete, you want free stuff. It’s like second childhood: instead of Mom and Dad, you have Bernie and Hillary… aka, the government. All you need to do is to tax the rich. If the system refuses to reward you for being an itinerant slug, then the system must be rigged.
You have been brought up to avoid competition, so you know that you are not going to be able to do what it takes to earn a good living. Ergo, you are drawn to free stuff like flies to garbage.
But, if you are capable of competing, the offer of free stuff is a seductive lure. If the government is going to reward those who do not work, why should you work?
Truth be told, the Democratic Party does not openly support lassitude, lethargy and indolence. It prefers to make a federal case of the minimum wage. Because, people who receive the minimum wage are not receiving welfare. They are doing a job, job for which the solons of the Democratic Party have persuaded them that they are being underpaid. The system, you see, is rigged against them and does not pay them enough to support their families. Nowhere does this liberal analysis ask how much value each employee is adding to any enterprise. Why bother with the only pertinent question when you can offer people large dollops of unearned praise.
The low information voters who flock to the Dems love it. They will be receiving more money for doing the same thing. It doesn’t matter what happens to the company’s profitability. Capitalists are all crooks anywhere, so they must be robbing their employees anyway. The Democrats haven’t told their voters that the choice is not between a greater or lesser salary, but between having a job and being unemployed.
They have tried it out in Seattle, and, lo and behold, raising the minimum wage has been shown to be a job killer.
Mary Perry reports for the American Enterprise Institute:
Now that the first Seattle minimum wage increase has been in effect for more than ten months, and as local employers brace for the additional minimum wage hikes that will eventually increase their annual labor costs per full-time minimum wage worker by 61% and by a whopping $11,300 (from the increase in hourly labor costs from $9.32 to $15 an hour), are there any noticeable effects so far on the city’s labor market? Is Seattle’s radical experiment with the highest-ever minimum wage in US history serving as a “model for the rest of the nation to follow”? Or is Seattle serving as an “economic canary in the coal mine” for other cities and states (and the country) considering the “bold action” of imposing higher labor costs on employers by as much as $15,500 annually per full-time minimum wage workers if they enact legislation increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour?
What effect has this had on employment?
Early evidence from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Seattle’s monthly employment, the number of unemployed workers, and the city’s unemployment rate through December 2015 suggest that since last April when the first minimum wage hike took effect: a) the city’s employment has fallen by more than 11,000, b) the number of unemployed workers has risen by nearly 5,000, and c) the city’s jobless rate has increased by more than 1 percentage point (all based on BLS’s “not seasonally adjusted basis”). Those figures are based on employment data for the city of Seattle only (not the Seattle MSA or MD), and are available from the BLS website here (data are “not seasonally adjusted”). Those three negative employment effects are displayed in the three charts above and I’ll explain each in greater detail below.
What did the labor market look like in Seattle before the politicians got involved and raised the minimum wage:
However, until the first minimum wage hike last April, all three of Seattle’s labor market indicators had been showing ongoing and strong signs of improvement for the previous five years: the city’s employment had been steadily increasing since early 2010, the number of unemployed workers in Seattle had significantly declined from a peak of more than 33,000 in 2009 to fewer than 13,000 by last April, and the city’s jobless rate had fallen steadily from a post-recession peak of nearly 9% to only 3% by last April (unadjusted). But then each of those key labor market variables for the city of Seattle reversed sharply starting last April when the city started suffering significant job losses, which then contributed to a noticeable spike in the number of the city’s unemployed workers and a sharp jump in the city’s jobless rate between April and December. And each of those three reversals in the nine months of last year were the worst examples of labor market deterioration for each of those variables since the Great Recession.
There you have it. Higher minimum wage equals more unemployment. One understands that the Democratic academic elites will trot out studies showing that increasing the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment. The experience of Seattle says otherwise. Are you going to believe the liberal academics or the facts on the ground? Besides, if it doesn’t work out as promised they can always blame it on George W. Bush and the Tea Party.