Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost an estimated 1.3 jobs but would also lift more workers above the poverty line, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates in a report released Monday.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

If implemented by 2025, the CBO estimates, the $15 federal minimum wage would boost paychecks for 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. About 10 million workers who now earn about $15 an hour might see their paychecks increase slightly as well. The trade-off would be 1.3 million more people out of work. Those who lose their jobs (or are unable to find them in the first place) are likely to be lower-income workers, unskilled workers, and those with little work experience.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Cut CEO and executive salary's and bonuses and that would more than cover any costs.
It's Simple math.

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-09 11:07 AM | Reply

Yes, because people won't have to work three jobs to afford rent and food.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-07-09 11:23 AM | Reply

It's moronic to have the same minimum wage in Manhattan, NY as in Manhattan, Kansas.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-09 11:27 AM | Reply

Yes, because people won't have to work three jobs to afford rent and food.

#2 | POSTED BY NIXON AT 2019-07-09 11:23 AM | REPLY

Only 4.9% of people work more than 1 job. Many of those are optional side hustles for discretionary income.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-07-09 11:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Only 4.9% of people work more than 1 job

He got his talking points from Wokamala and AOC, acknowledged experts in the field.

twitchy.com

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-07-09 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like a win-win.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-09 12:13 PM | Reply

Those who lose their jobs (or are unable to find them in the first place) are likely to be lower-income workers, unskilled workers, and those with little work experience.

Fascinating .. those are just the type of people coming across the border.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-09 12:17 PM | Reply

Republicans favorite theory and the only possible conclusion while the orange sloth is in charge. Fact is this issue has been studied extensively with just as many claiming employment grows with minimum wage rise as the opposite conclusion.

#8 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-07-09 02:59 PM | Reply

More People Probably Work Multiple Jobs Than The Government Realizes

www.forbes.com

"Although Ocasio-Cortez did make a basic mistake, the explanation Soave gave has a hidden hitch. It presumes the government has accurate counts of of how many people have jobs and how many are unemployed, or holding multiple jobs, for that matter. It doesn't and the numbers aren't built on such records."

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-09 03:14 PM | Reply

CEOs make hundreds of times more than the average worker. It used to be around fifty times more in 1990.

I thought this was the best economy ever(for more than the 1%)? Why hasn't the federal minimum wage been raised just a little in the last ten years? Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is about the same as it was in the late 60s.

#10 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-07-09 04:42 PM | Reply

It would be interesting to know how much the government would save on entitlement programs but raising the min wage and forcing businesses to pay for their employees cost of living instead of replying on tax payer subsidies.

#11 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-07-09 11:44 PM | Reply

"Fact is this issue has been studied extensively with just as many claiming employment grows with minimum wage rise as the opposite conclusion."

Claims by people who aren't economists don't count.

If you raise the minimum wage, it's going to result in few jobs. Period.

Raising the price of anything is going to result in less demand, just like lowering the price will increase demand.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-11 05:18 AM | Reply

"It would be interesting to know how much the government would save on entitlement programs but raising the min wage and forcing businesses to pay for their employees cost of living instead of replying on tax payer subsidies."

You're presupposing that an employer has an obligation to pay a worker a living wage. That itself implies that consumers would be willing to pay more, or that investors would be willing to accept less for their investment to make this happen. In other words, it assumes that other parties make a sacrifice in order to provide an additional party with a benefit for which they have done nothing in return.

Back in the real world though, increasing the cost of labor just results in less demand. Low skilled labor is easily replaced by technology.

...And if a worker is replaced by technology, then that person becomes a ward of the taxpayer, with the taxpayer bearing the full financial burden of keeping them alive. As a taxpayer, I feel that having an employer subsidize the cost of keeping these individuals alive, even a little bit, is better than nothing at all.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-11 05:23 AM | Reply

I have a really hard time believing that 4.9% number for the working multiple jobs.

At my company at least 7 of 16 of us work side hustles. Just about every job I have worked at easily 20% of employees did side work. Heck I pretty much consider 60 hours to be a normal work week it's been so long since I wasn't trying to find a way to make extra money.

As far as 15 bucks go yeah that is nuts nation wide. In 2008 I supported a family of 5 on 12.50 which today would be 14.87 I don't think a min wage should be quite high enough to support a family of 5 on one income, that's a bit much.

#14 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-07-11 06:53 AM | Reply

"As far as 15 bucks go yeah that is nuts nation wide."

More than half are ages 16-24.

Has there ever been a time when teenagers needed to have enough money to buy better cars than their parents?

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-11 08:35 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort