More partisan "reporting" from al-Reuters

Thomas Ferraro of Reuters has written what amounts to a summary of Democrat talking points on the party's effort to raise the minimum wage. The very title of the article reflects partisanship: "Democrats to raise wages for poor workers." The article might as justifiably be headlined "Democrats seek to limit jobs for unskilled workers."

It swallows whole some very few geographically and temporally limited studies that seek to show that the laws of economics have been repealed at the low end of the wage scale:
Democrats, who draw support from organized labor, point to studies that conclude a modest increase would cause no significant job loss.
Not even a hint that there are other studies refuting the implausible thesis that raising price does nothing to suppress demand.

Even worse, really an unpardonable sin of omission, is the article's failure to note that many union contracts specify wages that are a certain number of dollars above minimum wage. The reason unions want the minimum wage raised have everything to do with raising the above-minimum wages of their members. If they truly cared about those on the bottom of the ladder, they would not seek actions that logically reduce job openings at the minimum wage.

Nor is there any consideration of the fact that the vast majority of minimum wage earners do not work full time, and do not provide the sole support for a family. Most minimum wage work is for supplementary income, not to be the mainstay of a family. There is rhetoric in the article suggesting the contrary, about how hard it is to sustain a family at the minimum wage.

Although the article has nothing to do with Middle East policy, it is of a piece with Reuters' biased coverage of that region. A once-proud and honest news organization  has degenerated into a propaganda vehicle. We are all the poorer for it.
Thomas Ferraro of Reuters has written what amounts to a summary of Democrat talking points on the party's effort to raise the minimum wage. The very title of the article reflects partisanship: "Democrats to raise wages for poor workers." The article might as justifiably be headlined "Democrats seek to limit jobs for unskilled workers."

It swallows whole some very few geographically and temporally limited studies that seek to show that the laws of economics have been repealed at the low end of the wage scale:
Democrats, who draw support from organized labor, point to studies that conclude a modest increase would cause no significant job loss.
Not even a hint that there are other studies refuting the implausible thesis that raising price does nothing to suppress demand.

Even worse, really an unpardonable sin of omission, is the article's failure to note that many union contracts specify wages that are a certain number of dollars above minimum wage. The reason unions want the minimum wage raised have everything to do with raising the above-minimum wages of their members. If they truly cared about those on the bottom of the ladder, they would not seek actions that logically reduce job openings at the minimum wage.

Nor is there any consideration of the fact that the vast majority of minimum wage earners do not work full time, and do not provide the sole support for a family. Most minimum wage work is for supplementary income, not to be the mainstay of a family. There is rhetoric in the article suggesting the contrary, about how hard it is to sustain a family at the minimum wage.

Although the article has nothing to do with Middle East policy, it is of a piece with Reuters' biased coverage of that region. A once-proud and honest news organization  has degenerated into a propaganda vehicle. We are all the poorer for it.