NYT endorses Obama's minimum wage proposal, but called for scrapping it in 1987....

In a 1987 editorial unearthed by Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and circulated by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the Grey Lady argued 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,” the editorial reads. “A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.”

That position, more often heard these days from the likes of Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, is a far cry from the NYT’s 2013 take on the minimum wage.

In the real world, setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero.

University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."

The minimum wage is also an ineffective way to reduce poverty. Most families in poverty don't have someone who works, so making it more difficult to get a job exacerbates poverty. Mr. Obama says that a "family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty level. That is wrong."

He left out that most minimum-wage earners are not the primary bread winner. Nearly 40% live with a parent or relative. The average family income of a household with a minimum-wage worker is about $47,023—which is far above the poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four.

The damage from a minimum wage hike depends on the overall labor market. If the job market is buoyant, as it is in the fracking boomtown of Williston, N.D., fast-food workers may already make more than $9 an hour. But when the jobless rate is high, as it still is in California and New York, the increase punishes minority youth in particular.

That is what happened during the last series of wage hikes to $7.25 from $5.15 that started in July 2007 as the economy was headed toward recession. The last increase hit in July 2009 just after the recession ended, and as the nearby chart shows, the jobless rate jumped for teens and black teens especially. For black teens, the rate has remained close to 40% and was still 37.8% in January.

A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession."

Republicans may fold again to take the issue off the table in 2014, but it's a tragedy that those who will suffer the most are Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters.

Wonder what changed....

About 30 years?

Is the point you're trying to make that opinions cannot be changed?

Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right )

Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right )

The 80s were the "great experiment" of Conservatism, which failed horribly as America's industrial base, the rights of American workers, and our educational and physical infrastructure were all sacrificed to enrich a few wealthy Republican plutocrats.

And regardless of what you may think of that, it's fundamentally ridiculous to argue that people (or an editorial board) should be forever bound to the ideas they had 30 years ago. 30 years ago, people thought that big shoulderpads and even bigger hair were hot.

if $9 is good, then $15 must be better, right? Why only $9?

So you really have no clue what changed for the NYTimes and you prefer to just attack (as usual) Republicans. Got it. It would have saved you some typing to just come out and say that.

if $9 is good, then $15 must be better, right? Why only $9?

Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

Wonder what changed....

New York Times Called To Abolish The Minimum Wage In 1987
[huffingtonpost.com]



Now we have the NYT [nytimes.com] endorsing the "Minority Youth Unemployment Act" [wsj.com]

That is what happened during the last series of wage hikes to $7.25 from $5.15 that started in July 2007 as the economy was headed toward recession. The last increase hit in July 2009 just after the recession ended, and as the nearby chart shows, the jobless rate jumped for teens and black teens especially. For black teens, the rate has remained close to 40% and was still 37.8% in January.

A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession."

So it's worth creating unemployment among those needing to develop their skills the most if it raises the standard of living for a select few?