Opinion from the Left
Tariffs have taken up a lot of column space in the past few weeks as media outlets across the spectrum have covered the seemingly ever-changing tariff policies President Donald Trump has imposed, paused, negotiated, and reinstated.
When the stock market experienced its biggest one-day drop in five years after Trump announced his tariffs, recession panic ensued from economists, investors, and civilians alike, Newsmax (Right bias) wrote in a headline that Vice President J.D. Vance was “'Feeling Good' About Tariffs Despite Bad Day.” But this optimistic outlook has not always been the right’s response to controversial economic policies, particularly ones with such apparent consequences.
When California increased its minimum wage for fast food workers in 2024, many conservatives were outraged. The editors of National Review (Right) dubbed it the “Minimum-Wage Disaster,” and others claimed the increased costs would “cripple thousands of small business owners.” One of these “small business owners,” who owns 18 McDonald’s franchises, complained that he “can’t charge $20 for a Happy Meal” to compensate for the increased labor costs imposed by the state.
Yet, less than a year later, when Trump imposed astronomical tariffs that economists predicted would raise inflation and cost American businesses millions of dollars per year, Republican politicians say their constituents are happy to bear that cost for the sake of “making America great again.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) told CNN (Left) that the tariffs are a cost that “will be passed on to consumers,” but his constituents are willing to “do what it takes” to support Trump’s policies. Rep. Mark Alford (R-MS) said, “If I have to pay a little bit more for something, I’m all for it to get America right again.” When asked in a Reuters/Ipsos (Center) poll if “any short-term economic pain is worth it to make the U.S. stronger in the long term,” 73% of Republicans polled said yes–juxtaposing only 39% of all participants.
So what’s the difference?
Both an increase to minimum wage laws and tariffs are government-imposed costs on American businesses that will affect individual businesses’ budgets and be passed on to consumers.
Yet, conservative outlets like National Review have been far harsher on the minimum wage debate than on tariffs. Is this because of a true difference in benefits, or a difference in values?
The numbers show that one of these government-imposed costs has clear, immediate, negative consequences on American consumers. The other has the potential to bring down government spending by billions of dollars every year and give low- and middle-income Americans more spending power than ever before.
Though economists across the spectrum can’t agree on exactly how much tariffs will cost the average American–Newsweek (Center) reports it could be around $4,900 annually–they all agree tariffs will drive the cost of goods up, not down. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell also said “unemployment is likely to go up” as a result of the tariffs in a statement on Wednesday. According to CNBC (Lean Left), 37% of CEOs expect to cut jobs this year, with an additional 14% saying they are undecided but considering layoffs.
It is true that after California raised its minimum wage to $20 an hour for fast food workers, employment in that industry fell by 1.3% while total private employment in the state declined by only 0.2%. This suggests that, similar to the inflated business costs caused by tariffs, a higher minimum wage may affect employment rates, at least in the short term. On the other hand, low-income workers receiving higher wages will stimulate the economy with their increased spending power. And, even more aligned with this administration’s cost-cutting mission, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, raising the federal minimum wage to just $12 an hour could reduce public assistance expenditures by $17 billion per year.
This is because workers making $7.25 an hour–where the federal minimum wage has been for the past 16 years–often rely on government assistance to supplement their un-livable wages. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 59.8% of workers with hourly wages of less than $7.42 receive some kind of government assistance (programs like food stamps and Medicaid, for example).
And do these workers living off government assistance to supplement their minimum wage jobs work for mom-and-pop small businesses that are the backbone of the American dream? Not unless you consider Walmart and McDonald’s small businesses, which would be a bit of a stretch; both companies are in the top five employers whose workers participate in government assistance programs. In other words, American tax dollars are subsidizing Walmart and McDonald’s labor budgets by supplementing their employees’ incomes.
Would increasing the federal minimum wage up to a number that workers could live on–or even better, thrive–cause some hiccups in the economy, such as inflation or temporary job loss? Surely.
But these calculated losses that conservatives rage against are exactly the same as the ones we are experiencing right now as a result of Trump’s tariffs.
In the name of making America great again?
Tariffs may make America appear stronger and more forceful to other nations. They could help boost domestic production, and they may give us slightly increased leverage in foreign markets (where we already have a strong hand). However, if we so adamantly want to protect American-made goods, shouldn’t we also protect the Americans making them?
It seems to me that both conservatives and liberals would agree that a great nation has workers that are independent from welfare programs and can rely on their own labor to thrive and grow. A great nation improves the lives of the many before lining the pockets of the few.
Emily Allen is an Adjunct Professor at Belmont University and a News Editor on the Allsides team. She has a Left bias.
This piece was reviewed and edited by Editor-in-chief Henry Brechter (Center) and News Assistant Malayna Bizier (Right).
