There's an article in
Forbes pointing out that engaging in that line of attack could backfire.
If the Democrats want to change the conversation on this, they ought to hammer home the fact that the Republican mantra that employment eliminates dependency and precludes requiring welfare benefits holds absolutely no water in the 21st century. The dichotomy of a person working and being self-sufficient or a person not working and getting money from the state is a false one. The real choice is between working and needing a little bit of public assistance or not working and needing a lot more public assistance. We can tinker with the minimum wage, but it ultimately boils down to a question of how many poor people you want to be employed versus unemployed and the degree to which their income is going to be derived from transfer payments.
I'm sorry, progressives, but if you have a McDonald's franchise with 20 people making $8 an hour, and you raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, you're not going to have 20 people making $15 an hour. You're going to have less than 20 people making $15 an hour and the remainder not working at all and needing even more state assistance than they would have needed if they worked at McDonald's for $8 an hour. Conversely, Republicans, the McDonald's owner is not going to go all Ayn Rand and shut down his restaurant and go live in Galt's Gulch.
