The New York Times recently declared, citing the release of a University of California study, that companies with employees earning an annual wage so low as to qualify them for government aid of some sort are effectively being subsidized by the federal government and implied that this is an odious situation that should be rectified at once.
The study should be troubling: Our present panoply of programs for low-income assistance doesn’t phase out until somewhere north of $50,000 for an employee with two children filing jointly. But here’s the conundrum for the Times: Are we to believe that if we looked at their roster of receptionists, janitorial staff, interns, and various entry-level workers, there wouldn’t be at least a few earning below $50,000 a year? And if there are a few people working for the Times and receiving government assistance—being subsidized by the federal government, as the editors see it—shouldn’t that be more troubling for an ostensibly independent paper than it would be for a Walmart or McDonald’s?
The larger question is whether the Times thinks that the minimum wage should be set so that no one working a 40-hour week would qualify for any government assistance. If so, that would necessitate a minimum wage of at least $25 an hour, or more than three times the current level. Does the Times believe that the minimum wage has so little impact on employment that an increase this extreme wouldn’t increase unemployment in the slightest?
If that is indeed what it holds to be true, it behooves the paper to certify that every single employee—as well as those employed by its contractors—receives a full-time salary that is at least $50,000 a year. Given that newspapers seem to be minting money these days, it shouldn’t be too difficult for it to raise wages a bit—unless it doesn’t care about its workers.
The banal argument that the Times bought lock, stock, and barrel is asinine: Providing wage subsidies or government aid to working men and women isn’t remotely the same as subsidizing their employers, and to imply that it is is facile and disingenuous. Facile, disingenuous, and par for the course, for the paper of record.
