OPINION:
Last week, Bernie Sanders reintroduced $15 federal minimum wage legislation.
Five in six U.S.-based labor economists agree that such a policy would cost jobs for youth. Even left-wing economists from the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton administrations have advised against it. And a recent review of minimum wage literature from the San Francisco Federal Reserve suggests minimum wage hikes may cost more jobs than expected.
But when have facts and logic ever stopped activists? They rely on fact-starved emotions to inform their positions on public policy. They recognize that by tapping into the public’s emotions on issues like the minimum wage, they can win public policy debates even if the evidence is lacking.
That’s not to say activists never use facts. It’s just that when they do, they skew them. Instead of facts informing public policy positions, they’re used as the handmaiden of a pre-existing agenda. Sen. Sanders justifies his federal “one size fits all” $15 minimum wage by saying, “Millions of full-time workers are in poverty.” He forgets one fact: Roughly 60 percent of working-age people in poverty don’t have a job. A wage hike is a Pyrrhic victory for those people. And increasing the wage for the least skilled will only add to that number.
A classic example of activists skewing data comes from the AFL-CIO’s annual “Executive Paywatch” report. It claims the average worker bee earned $36,875 compared to the average $12 million-plus compensation of S&P 500 CEOs. The data strikes an emotional cord, but falls apart under closer inspection.
The vast majority of America’s 223,000 chief executives don’t steer multibillion-dollar enterprises. And most don’t employ a large percentage of low-wage employees. Reality check: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports average CEO pay as $194,350 — not $12 million. As Saturday Night Live character Roseanne Roseannadanna might say, “Never mind.”
Skewing data to advance an emotional campaign extends beyond the labor space. Utah recently became the first state to lower its arrest level for drinking prior to driving from .08 to .05 blood alcohol content (BAC). Activists claimed the move as a logical next step to end drunk driving. It has an undeniable emotional appeal.
But data from the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration reveals that only a tiny fraction of traffic fatalities involve drivers with a BAC between the current and new .05 level. And the government acknowledges that drinking at the new low level can’t be presumed for causing these accidents. Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving has declined to support efforts to further lower the limit, with its founder calling it “a waste of time” from the real threats facing drivers, namely hard-core drunk drivers.
Activists are also increasingly politicizing science to advance their agendas. The long-standing principle in toxicology is the dose makes the poison. But activists point to studies where mice are overloaded with various substances to advance their fear-mongering agenda about minuscule amounts of essential chemicals in consumer goods.
This is perhaps best evidenced by California’s Proposition 65 warning label law, which requires every business to put warning labels about cancer and birth defects on everything from french fries to flip flops or face massive lawsuits. As a result, the warning labels are everywhere and have become meaningless. When everything is a danger, then nothing is a danger. Overreaching, however, is another marker for congenital activist appetites.
Businesses that operate in these activist sandboxes have facts on their side. This gives them a head start in any policy debate. But facts are irrelevant in the discussion if not communicated early or effectively to blunt the hysteria.
Too often I see policy paper tactics substituting for effective proper communications. It’s a 20th century way of fighting a 21st century communications war. Facts provide credibility, but fear, love, anger, greed and sympathy move the needle. We’re all familiar with the idea of simple, bumper-sticker messages. That’s even truer in the age of Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
If winning is a policy goal, then consider offense, not defense. And play to emotion. “Just the facts, ma’am” may have been enough on “Dragnet,” but it’s no longer enough today.
• Richard Berman is the president of Berman and Company, a public affairs firm in Washington, D.C.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.