Skip to main content

Raise the minimum wage rally with a man holding sign saying

The slew of positive effects the Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday that we can expect from raising the minimum wage shouldn't be ignored. We're talking about giving 16.5 million people a raise and lifting 900,000 people out of poverty. But of course it's the CBO's estimate that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost around 500,000 jobs that's grabbing the most attention, even though it goes against economic consensus. Mike Konczal goes into detail on how the CBO put "a thumb on the scale towards an estimate of job losses that is, as Harvard University’s Lawrence Katz told me, 'higher than the consensus.'"

It's important to understand that this report is the CBO's review of the existing economic studies, not any new research. And what they accepted, rejected, or emphasized from the existing literature:

... involved a lot of adjustments in the direction for a higher impact. In the report, the authors themselves clarify that they are taking a more conservative line. All predictions, of course, amount to speculation of things that could happen in the economy, but in this one the speculating goes in a direction that is, to a surprising extent, in tune with Republican ideology.

The report speculates that a minimum wage indexed to inflation would reduce jobs. It speculates that the speed of the minimum wage increase, or its level using various inflation measures, would reduce jobs. It argues job losses will be higher because of very new research centered on growth levels, even though that research is highly controversial. It speculates that technological change is coming faster than expected, and this will have an impact. And it also, crucially, speculates that these would bite much harder at $10 minimum wage instead of a $9 one.

This is not, in other words, the CBO doing original research on federal budget, about which it is especially informed and knowledgeable. This is the the CBO looking at work other people have produced and coming to conclusions that go against the bulk of the most respected work on the subject. That prediction from the report should not be dominating the discussion over all of the good raising the minimum wage would do—good that isn't in even this amount of dispute.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:16 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that we should go ahead with a minimum (6+ / 0-)

    wage increase, EVEN IF some jobs are lost because the economic activity that it will create should begin to offset those losses leading to an upward cycle of employment at higher wages. That being said, I don't think it is prudent to cherry pick the CBOs findings and simply say that when they promote our ideology they are correct and when they don't they study is 'flawed'. This will lose more people than win. What needs to happen is to point out that in the LONG run higher wages will lift all boats. You can't win by saying everything the CBO says that I like is correct and everything I don't isn't. It doesn't work that way. Is the GOP hyping the negative? Of course, because it fits their narrative! We need to hammer the positive!

  •  It reads like the RNC wrote it (0+ / 0-)

    I read it.

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:55:54 AM PST

  •  How about a new study for $22.20 impact as that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob, whenwego, navane50mg

    would get us back to 1968, back when blue collar single worker families could get a house, a car, afford to live, save for college for the kids, there was an actual American Dream, etc, etc.

    Then came Republicans, and it all went to shit .... fast forward to 2014 ... people suddenly notice that it went to shit.

    •  That's what Americans wanted as long as POC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HappyinNM

      Have less.

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:33:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  $22.20? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew

      Don't know what you're talking about with that, but there was a lot more to affordability in 1968 than minimum wage ($10.55 or so in today's dollars, and the all-time high level).

      1968 also pre-dated nearly all emissions, fuel-economy and safety requirements (ie, no expensive catalysts, no expensive air bags, not expensive side-guard door beams, etc), so cars were indeed a lot cheaper.  There's a reason they can build a $3500 car in India but can't in the US.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:35:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Living Wage Means USA Not For Indentured Servants (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan, a2nite, Amber6541

    Republicans talk about increase in minimum wage as no free lunch.  But in reality, the low minimum wage has been a free lunch for Billionaires (eg: Waltons) in that the sub-living wage was paid by US taxpayer through foodstamps, rental subsidies and medical care.  
    The plutocracy could take that to the bank to add to their already obscene wealth pot.

  •  Job creationism (0+ / 0-)

    is an important element of fundamentalist Dowism.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:32:26 PM PST

  •  And what jobs will be lost? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, whenwego

    Some fast food franchises will close.  Good - we're eating too much of that anyway.

    For the most part, I suspect it will be part time jobs lost.   A small business that had some help a few hours a week, that sort of thing.

    And Wal-Mart.  If even one Wally World closes because of this, it may not be a bad thing in the long term.  Maybe some of the long lost mom and pops can come in and fill in the void.

    The lowest level "office" jobs around here all started out at $9-10 an hour anyway.  That is, the big telemarketing groups.  When I quit working the phone banks about four and a half years ago, I was making $12/hour.  Same thing when I quit my help desk / tech job because I finished my master's degree (and now make double that.)

    The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

    by catwho on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:34:09 PM PST

    •  I hope your explanation isn't our campaign... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew

      ...pitch this fall.

      Any way you spin this, the report can be successfully injected into any number of campaign ads against red state Democrats in the senate. I don't like how it makes our side look in support of this thing.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:42:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But this is EXACTLY the problem with the CBO: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean

    The fact that it is 'scoring' anything at all shapes policymaking. This is what leads to the green eyeshade approach to national governance that is a very new, relatively modern, very conservative phenomenon. Whenever you want to do something good, it has to be 'scored' and who gets to keep the score? A fucking economist, the least scientific of all the scientific disciplines. Doing anything good is always 'scored' badly, which means politicians then follow up with doing nothing, no matter what the public sentiment is.

    Policymakers should focus on making policy and setting the annual budget to implement the policy. The primary factor should be democracy. What do the people want? That should drive your policy, not what some East Coast Establishment economist (pundit) thinks.

    If the people want a minimum wage increase, their government should give it to them. What some jerkoff economist thinks is irrelevant.

    •  ...and yet our side trumpets CBO reports... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctkeith, dinotrac, AlexDrew

      ...and opinions from economists that suit our political aims. That is one of the ways the ACA was ultimately sold as acceptable in the first place i.e. CBO projections of costs apropos debt and deficits.

      We can't have it both ways, BBB. It's like public-opinion polling. You can't cherry-pick what you like and poo-poo what you don't.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:44:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please follow the links before calling it (0+ / 0-)

        cherry picking.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:48:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean the links to left-friendly blogs... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew

          ...included in the write-up?

          I'm afraid I don't find an echo chamber convincing...and neither will swing voters in the fall.

          The fact remains, we bleat about CBO reports when they crash our narrative (i.e. The ACA is GRRREAT!) and praise them when they support our narrative (i.e. The ACA is GRRREAT!).

          You know it...I know it...and yellow dog knows it.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:57:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Follow the links! It's called peer review. (0+ / 0-)

            Here's the man you refer to as a lefty friendly blogger:
            Arindrajit Dube's "About me"
            http://arindube.com/

            My work focuses on labor economics, health economics, public finance, and political economy. My core areas of research include minimum wage policies, fiscal policy, income inequality, health reform, and the economics of conflict. I received my B.A. in Economics and M.A. in Development Policy from Stanford University, and my Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago. Prior to joining UMass, I held a Research Economist position at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at University of California, Berkeley. I am also currently a research fellow at IZA.  I am visiting the economics department at MIT during Spring 2014.

            I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

            by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:02:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  One freakin economist = gospel... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlexDrew

              Man...this place sometimes...

              Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

              by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:03:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please argue the data rather than engaging (0+ / 0-)

                in ad hominem attacks.

                I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

                by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:07:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Challenge singular assertions = ad hom... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AlexDrew

                  Oh brother...seriously, just stop. Flailing doesn't become you.

                  Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

                  by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:14:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  more ad hominem (0+ / 0-)

                    Please address the points Arindrajit Dube raises and please explain why we should have more faith in your perspective.

                    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

                    by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:16:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know why we trumpet the CBO either. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean

        The problem is this whole concept of 'scoring' which is some kind of crazy alchemy of predicting the future that not even the CBO accurately predicts. I mean NEVER is the CBO spot on about ANYTHING!

        The fact that they can be consistently wrong, yet constantly consulted as credible gives them something in common with Washington Media Pundits. I'll be their all basically the same kind of people.

    •  in favor of ignorance (0+ / 0-)

      There is nothing wrong with having an estimate of the costs and benefits of legislation. There are going to be downsides to raising the minimum wage. Just as there are downsides to providing affordable care to millions of poor Americans. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Doesn't mean we can't be proud of doing it.

      Knowing about these downsides in advance is not a problem. The problem is our society has become risk-averse to the point that it's a phobia. (In stark contrast to the "exceptional" myth, we seem to be a nation of cowards.)

      The CBO report provides more than enough ammunition for our side of the debate. All we need are leaders willing to fight for us.

      •  You could hear from a variety of disciplines (0+ / 0-)

        on the cost and benefit of legislation. If you asked one economist about the economic productivity, it would be very difficult to justify Medicare. It imposes a regressive tax that hits workers, consumers and small businesses harder than it does the wealthy and large organizations. It pays health expenses for people who produce nothing of economic value. If you did a cost/benefit analysis of Medicare, or of the Pentagon's DARPA, or even Social Security, no policymaker in his right mind would every support such things.

        That's because there was once a time when people thought it is okay for ordinary people to determine what should constitute 'cost' and 'benefit' rather than leaving it as a specialty to the pseudo-science (astrology) of economics. People just did things because they made good common sense, or because it was the right thing to do.

        •  good grief (0+ / 0-)

          The CBO didn't make a determination that we shouldn't raise the minimum wage. They made no determination at all, except to estimate the effect such a change would have. Which is their job.

          It's up to the legislators to decide to incorporate (or not) that information in their decision-making process.

          People with an axe to grind might choose to emphasize the numbers that support their side of the argument and overlook (or downplay) the numbers that do not. The fact that we elect innumerates doesn't mean that we should embrace innumeracy.

          •  That is the wrong job for them to have. (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, but 10 years ago the CBO predicted that by 2013 we'd have a $508 billion surplus. That was their job, and they completely fucked it up. No credibility. But it is hard to have any success when people are asking you to predict the future, which most of us cannot do with even the best of datasets.

            The proper role of the CBO should simply to provide a clear snapshot of the BUDGET facts as they are TODAY. As of right now, here is the situation. That's all they need to do. Just tell us how much money is in the kitty and the state of the bills. That is it. Not 'scoring' shit that has nothing to do with the budget.

            The policymakers should do the future shaping all on their own, with input from a variety of disciplines.

    •  To give you an example of what I mean, (0+ / 0-)

      If the CBO had 'scored' the Interstate Highway System, it would have probably indicated 'minor economic development' and 'extraordinary government expense'  rather than the massive economic and tax revenue growth the Eisenhower System has delivered.

  •  the bottom line is that (0+ / 0-)

    the American people overwhelmingly support a minimum wage increase, including not only Democrats, but most Republicans and independents, as well.

    Regardless of whether they might or might not be some job loss as a result, the advantages to increasing the minimum wage to our economy and to the health and well-being of the American public are indisputable.

    If nearly a million people will be pulled out of poverty and more than 16 million increase their income, that's far more important than any possible job loss...

  •  I've been shaking my head all day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Love Me Slender

    Raising the minimum wage will lift a lot of people out of poverty. If its true that we could lose as many as 500,000 jobs as a result, what happens to those people? Aren't they then thrust into poverty? How should this be interpreted? Experts please.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:39:10 PM PST

    •  Those people don't exist. Please follow the links. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

      by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:50:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are thrust into despair...beyond poverty... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew, fcvaguy

      ..and those people DO exist...despite the assertions to the contrary by some.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:58:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This thinking will NEVER make sense to me. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    When I owned a business, I hired the number of people I needed. Fewer employees would have hurt output. Unless businesses close, I don't understand how they could function with fewer employees than they thought were necessary at a lower hourly rate. The last time I said this, someone said businesses would get robots. Please don't go there.

    •  Cost/benefit analysis. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HappyinNM

      If you were paying the n+1 employee more than his/her "worth" to you in revenue (or profit), you wouldn't hire him/her. I'm pretty sure you know this?

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:42:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a case of cost/benefit analysis. It's (0+ / 0-)

        the number of people needed to run a business efficiently. Example: Store requires 5 clerks to attend to all the duties required. If there are 4 clerks, everyone has to work faster, but perhaps less accurately, or not giving enough attention to customers. OTOH, 6 clerks will mean someone will have nothing to do for periods during the day. So exactly 5 clerks are required. If the minimum wage is raised, those conditions don't change. The point: People don't hire more people because they can get them for a lower wage. Nor do they get rid of people because they now cost more. Either they need 5 clerks or they don't.

        •  I disagree--that number is not (0+ / 0-)

          hard and fast. If biz increases, you need more people to handle it. I guess it depends on the biz, but I can't imagine a scenario where the same number of people would be able to handle, say, a doubling of customers/output . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 09:26:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? This discussion is about whether (0+ / 0-)

            employers would lay off people if the minimum wage is raised. While your comment is accurate and well stated, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

            •  It's merely the converse (0+ / 0-)

              situation. If the work provided by the nth employee doesn't merit the salary s/he is paid, a rational (if heartless and cruel) employer would fire her/him.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 12:13:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your comment still doesn't address the (0+ / 0-)

                minimum wage issue. The diary was about the CBO report that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost 500,000 jobs. It has nothing to do with individual employees and their ability to do a proper job. My original point is that either an employer needs x number of employees or he/she doesn't. Employers usually only hire the number of employees they need. And the question is: would they need fewer employees if the minimum wage was raised?

                •  Right. And when the salary (0+ / 0-)

                  of that last employee is raised, a new cost/benefit analysis would be run on that worker's worth to this brutally logical employer. (Kinda like the more disingenuous responses to the passage/enactment of the ACA we're heard about.) They would need fewer employees any time they think they can afford to have fewer. Have you never heard of layoffs and firings?

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 03:24:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  W T F*&^ity f*&^ f*&^ f*&^? (0+ / 0-)

    Why on earth would the CBO do this? Who called on them to make this kind of study, which is not their central purpose? And how is something that reaches a conclusion "higher than the consensus" allowed to be published in the first place? Any kind of study like this is supposed to reveal what the consensus is in the first place. This whole thing stinks.

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:40:33 PM PST

  •  First Fed minimum wage was $0.25/hr in 1938 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    When a gallon of gas was $0.10, loaf of bread $.09, and a new house cost $3,900.00

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:45:51 PM PST

  •  Should be indexed to CEO pay increases! (0+ / 0-)

    You better believe those are beating the inflation rate.

    Fair is fair.

  •  Results from Bush embeds? (0+ / 0-)

    Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:50:35 PM PST

  •  Lower the Minimum Wage to $4.40 (0+ / 0-)

    It seems self-evident that raising the minimum wage by $2.85, from $7.25 to $10.10, would result in some job loss, though there would be all kinds of offsetting benefits. It also seems self-evident that lowering the minimum wage by $2.85, from $7.25 to $4.40, would result in more jobs. More jobs! Yahoo! Let's do that!

    •  Justice delayed is justice denied, again and again (0+ / 0-)

      The reason there may be an impact to jobs is that going from $7.25 to the necessary $10.10 in just 3 years results in a relatively sudden 40% increase rather than the gradual no-impact increases of an inflation-indexed minimum wage.  

      The refusal to inflation-adjust the $7.25 MW in the beginning and the refusals to increase the MW for many years has been an injustice to MW workers and their families.   And now the RighTeas want to compound that injustice by further obstruction and delay.

  •  Screw the excuses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, KingBolete

    If a job is worth being done full time, the worker of it is due a living wage. It should be law that any full time worker requiring public assistance for basic necessities triggers a MANDTORY levy on his employer.

    I am tired of subsidizing the low pay of American companies, even as their executives stock up on 3rd homes and yachts.

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

    by pajoly on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:17:24 PM PST

  •  Jeremy West (0+ / 0-)

    http://econweb.tamu.edu/...

    I am a Fellow in the Private Enterprise Research Center and the Bradley Foundation, and a Ph.D. student in Economics at Texas A&M University. My research consists of studies in empirical Industrial Organization and Public Economics, primarily in the area of Energy Economics. Additionally, I serve as a research assistant in the Texas Census Research Data Center and compose the weekly Trans4cast newsletter for Internet Truckstop. You may download my CV as a pdf file here.

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:29:54 PM PST

  •  So fine. Step up to $10.10 a year later. (0+ / 0-)

    Start at $9.50.

    That's much more in keeping with historical minimum wage levels anyway.

    The hard part to figure out is that the economy is just jam-packed with feedback loops.

    All those people with more money in their pockets have to do something with it.
    If they put it in the bank, it becomes available for investment.
    If they don't --- well, I have a funny feeling that people making minimum wage are unlikely to be shoveling dough into Grand Caymans accounts.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:30:56 PM PST

  •  Sounds like we need more research then (0+ / 0-)

    Original, carefully reviewed research. And then we have to make a collective decision via voting about whether X amount of lost jobs are worth Y amount of increased prosperity.

    "We need institutions and cultural norms that make us better than we tend to be. It seems to me that the greatest challenge we now face is to build them." -Sam Harris, neuroscientist

    by MarthaPeregrine on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:09:53 PM PST

    •  The lost jobs cited by CBO are a statistical (0+ / 0-)

      artifact.
      http://arindube.com/...

      As I show in a new paper, the short answer is: no. The negative association between job growth and minimum wages is in the wrong place: it shows up in a sector like manufacturing that has few minimum wage workers, but is absent in low-wage sectors like food services and retail. In other words, it is likely a statistical artifact, and not a causal relationship.

      I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

      by Just Bob on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 04:23:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  CBO Report (0+ / 0-)

    "As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses
    could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is
    about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the
    range between a very slight reduction in employment and
    a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers (see
    Table 1).
    Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in
    their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to
    $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million,
    according to CBO’s estimates."

    As most of you readers of the DailyKos already know, the CBO analyzes and estimates coming to a concensus of opinion; it's accuracy rate is pretty good, though it sometimes misses the mark.

    As with most of the scare headlines from many news sources, they focus on the negative without delving into the questions that are raised in the report.  

    If one would take the time to READ the CBO report for themselves, I believe they will see that bringing the level of income up for individuals and families is actually a positive move.  

    And, I'd venture to say that in previous years in the past when the minimum wage was raised, the sky didn't fall.  It actually increased business as more workers had money to spend.

  •  May I add.... (0+ / 0-)

    1. Wages would rise for 16.5 million workers.

    2. Income for families living below the poverty line would rise by a combined $5 billion, and by $12 billion for those earning less than three times the poverty level.

    3. About 900,000 people would be moved out of poverty.

    4. The raise would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers.  (Might or might not)

    But, our media focuses on number (4).  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site