COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama puts his political fortunes above the least among us by badgering Republicans in Congress to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
In 1938, Congress first established the federal minimum wage and has periodically raised it to accommodate inflation. Currently at $7.25 per hour, it appears woefully inadequate to fair-minded Americans and the president feeds this sentiment by carping that it's worth 20 percent less than when Harry Truman was president.
What Obama doesn't tell voters is the minimum is often paid to teenagers bagging groceries and college students on work-study jobs that are really masked financial aid.
Moreover, adults earning the lowest wages have sources of income not enjoyed in Truman's days: an earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. And employers of domestic workers now fund Social Security pensions and more unemployment insurance -- an additional 8 percent in compensation generally not offered in Truman's time.
Liberal newspapers and cable networks are fond to roll out single mothers, scripted by union-supported community activists and organizers, who recount they cannot afford to eat earning so little at McDonalds. Yet, they are awfully energetic and hardly ever appear malnourished and correspondents never get around to asking how they use their food stamps or about support received from their children's father.
Except for apologists for farmers who don't farm and economists hanging off the left edge of reality, economists don't like price fixing -- whether perpetrated by unscrupulous businesses or politicians buying votes. After all, agricultural supports raise what struggling mothers must pay for milk, clothing and other essentials for their families.
The minimum wage makes hiring workers more expensive, eliminates jobs at the bottom of the ladder and generally slows growth and raises unemployment.
Economic studies show that periodically raising the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation creates little additional harm -- after all that is not much different than the raises most other Americans receive as prices rise. However, what Obama is proposing is a wholly different matter.
Congress last adjusted the federal standard in 2009. Since then consumer prices are up 9 percent but the president is proposing a 39 percent jump. Along with higher taxes and health insurance costs -- thanks to Obamacare -- most businesses will be compelled to substitute more technology for workers. Drug stores, grocers and McDonalds, for example, can make greater use of computerized check out and order taking -- and even impose premium prices on patrons insisting on accessing clerks directly.
McDonalds is already challenged by an inability to raise prices because working-class Americans can't afford to pay another dollar for lunch.
Across the board, small value-priced restaurants and hotels will do less business or close and others in the planning will never open. Ask the folks in the lodging business in the SeaTac, Wash., where the city council has jumped the local minimum wage beyond what the market can reasonably bear.
Obama understands Republicans in Congress, who care about creating jobs and growth, cannot happily approve a huge increase to $10.10. Hence, he gets to run around the country fashioning Democratic candidates in the fall elections as champions of justice and the GOP leaders as throwbacks from the Age of Dickens.
To this economist -- like it or not -- a minimum wage is a fact of life. Raising it to keep pace with inflation and a bit more to $8.25 won't much affect employment.
Giving the president a political victory by jumping it further will only serve to deny hundreds of thousands of working poor decent jobs. In the meantime, his politically motivated campaign blocks a reasonable adjustment and keeps those earning the least from getting a raise.
(Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland and a widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter: @pmorici1)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)