Compare these two disturbing points:
From National Review, via Mercatus:
When he was in Ghana this weekend, the president tried to encourage African governments to embrace institutions that promote economic growth. He said, "No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top." You go, president Obama. However, he doesn’t think that American businesses deserve the same treatment. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent (at the federal level). That’s the second highest of all the OECD countries. It’s higher than France and Sweden. If you add the state rate, that’s an average of 40 percent. And yet, he wants to reform the system in a way that that would punish U.S. firms by closing the loopholes that allow them survive competition abroad. In my Reason column this month, I look at president Obama’s corporate tax reform proposal. It’s not pretty. President Barack Obama is very insistent on the need to "save American jobs." The spending and the Buy American provisions of his massive stimulus package, approved by Congress in February, were meant to "create or save" millions of U.S. jobs. "Saving jobs" was also the stated goal of his recent pledge to eliminate tax advantages for companies that do business overseas. But instead of saving American jobs, Obama’s new corporate tax is apt to worsen what is already the highest unemployment since 1983 and make America’s companies even less competitive in the global marketplace. Read the whole thing here.
The San Francisco Examiner (yes, even San Fran realizes minimum wage is a job killer!):
On July 24, the federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25, the third in a series of increases that included a hike to $6.55 in July 2008 and $5.85 in July 2007. These represent a significant increase from the $5.15 rate that prevailed for a decade.
With the increase in unemployment to 9.5 percent in June from 9.4 percent in May, Congress should rethink the hike. Increasing the federal minimum wage is the latest in the Blue State vs. Red State battles, with congressional leadership spreading the pain to reduce the advantages of states with low minimum wage laws.
With the work forces in California, Massachusetts and Illinois declining, and residents migrating to fast-growing states without minimum wage laws, like South Carolina and Alabama, congressional leaders had an incentive to change the playing field by spreading the misery.
The lower cost of living in central states makes the higher minimum wage even harder to absorb, because customers can’t pay the higher costs. The same breakfast could cost $10 in a New York diner and $5 in South Carolina. That’s why it makes no sense for Congress to impose Blue State rates on the Red States, unless it’s to drive up the unemployment rates of their low-skilled workers.
Members of Congress assume that if the minimum wage were raised, all workers would retain their jobs. But this is not the case. An increase to $7.25 an hour, plus the mandatory employer’s share of Social Security, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation taxes, brings the hourly employer cost close to $8, even without benefits.
With the minimum wage increase, employers will only hire workers who can produce $8 an hour worth of goods or services. That will be fewer people than they employ today. Employers can change technologies or hire more skilled workers to keep their firms in business.
Denying work opportunities to those whose skills and output don’t add up to $8 per hour is not compassionate, it’s manifestly unfair. At a time of rising unemployment, the federal government is dooming unskilled workers to the ranks of the unemployed by saying they cannot even take the first step on the career ladder. That’s not the road to job creation and economic recovery.
This trend gets scarier every day…!