The minumum wage

A blog post at the Washington Post suggests that the recent increase in the minimum wage was a bad idea.

Back in 2007, Congress enacted a three-stage increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, the last installment of which took effect just last July. This was done with the best of intentions, of course. But what it meant in practical terms was that, at the height of a savage recession, the government essentially imposed a substantial tax increase on hiring. No wonder the unemployment rate among black teenage males is at an all-time high of 57 percent.
....
If Obama and Congress were really as serious as they say they are about reducing unemployment, they would at least be willing to discuss rolling back last July’s minimum wage increase. It would create some jobs for those who need them most, and it would not cost taxpayers a dime. Yes, those who get hired at a reduced minimum wage would have to work for less. But at least they'd be working.

The reaction of the commenters is interesting. The majority berate the idea with invective with comments like these:

Mr. Lane, I would suggest that you experience of joy and comfort of living on a minimum wage salary for a few months, and then write an article about it. People like you are what got our country where it is now economically. President Obama, with the grace of God, will heal your years of abuse.
....

I agree with the other posters. How can this guy even write this crap? Lower the minimum wage when it took so long to get it raised? Of all the suggestions on increasing jobs in this country, this has got to be the most stupid one yet.
The minimum wage was low and employers still weren't hiring and the employees had to get government help just to eat.
Easy for an idiot like this to make this claim when he doesn't have to feed a family on the minimum wage.

I wonder if they have any idea of how stupid they appear to those who actually know some economics.

Meanwhile, Tigerhawk is worried about the increase in costly regulations and its effect on hiring:

Already our economy is struggling against health care "reform," massive new regulation and/or taxation on any business that emits carbon, the proposed "Employee Free Choice Act," new regulation in financial services, new corporate "governance" requirements, fiscal catastrophes in all the large states controlled by the Democrats, and huge new tax increases for the people who actually decide to hire people (whether they are corporate tools or individual entrepreneurs). Do we really need "an array of 90 rules and regulations" from the Labor Department on top of all that?

Just when you think "they can't keep making it harder," they do.

I thought this comment especially interesting:

I just bailed out of a deal to buy a company which has gone from a money-making position to a money-losing position in the past two years and is in need of a turn-around. The services provided by this company are extremely carbon-intensive. There is just no way I can justify risking capital on a business like this in this regulatory environment.

There are no other buyers on deck. I suspect this business will be liquidated within 6 months. Another 150 jobs gone. Way to go, Obama.

This is what you get when nobody in the Administration has any private sector experience.

It's tough being a teen

From Forbes, noting that the teenage unemployment rate is 24%, the worst since 1965. Clearly the recession is a big part of that, but also,

Lopez Eastlick says there is another major factor: rising minimum wage requirements. Minimum wage increases raise the bar for entry-level employment. From 1997 until 2007, the minimum wage stood at $5.15. Congress raised it to $5.85 in 2007, to $6.55 last year, and in July it is scheduled to increase again to $7.25.
....
"For teens who are not in the work force, as many as 10 years later there are financial impacts to that. Ten years later, if you were not employed, you're lagging behind your peers," says Lopez Eastlick. "There's an invisible curriculum you learn from having a job."

(For more bad news for young people in today's job market, see the last link here.)

Update: From the New York Times, "Say Hello to Underachieving":

If the only problem were tedium, students might find a recessionary summer unpleasant but endurable. But some expressed concern that the economic gloom might be a preview of harsh career realities that await.

“The worst thing about this summer is the lack of hope felt by so many kids,” Lydia Wiledon, a Barnard undergraduate, wrote in an e-mail message. “College students ready to thrust themselves into work find nothing, and those most in need are edged out by older, more skilled individuals who are overqualified for such foot-in-the-door opportunities. I worry about how this employment drought will affect my generation in the future.”

Lack of hope? Didn't we just elect Hope? The problem with the unwanted leisure?

Students who enter the job market during a recession can see their wages lag behind comparable students who graduated in better times for as long as 15 years, according to a recent study by Lisa B. Kahn, an economist at the Yale School of Management.

A month ago Iowahawk outdid himself with his post on "funemployment":

As frivolous as it sounds, funemployment is a statement about American society. Experts say it's a sign that Americans are slowly embracing a healthier lifestyle that centers on self-actualization, survival, and Twitter rather than the often soul-crushing burdens of corporate careerism. These experts frequently credit the Obama Administration.

"Recession is a great opportuning for people to get outside, enjoy a sunny park bench, and have fun," said Robert Lester, a professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Business. "And President Obama is making that kind of fun possible for more and more people every day."

Read the whole thing if you need a laugh.