CBO: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could eliminate 500,000 jobs by 2016

posted at 3:21 pm on February 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m treating it as good news. At least 500,000 people won’t have to worry about “job-lock” now.

There’s no problem here that indefinite unemployment benefits can’t solve, my friends.

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). 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

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

So more than 80 percent of the gains in earnings will go to people other than the very poorest, and meanwhile as many as a million people potentially could end up being laid off. When you net out all the income created and lost by this disruption, says CBO, you come up with a modest gain of $2 billion, or about what the feds spend in four hours on a given day. AEI’s Michael Strain visualizes the trade-off this way:

And as icing on the cake, per CBO, while hiking the minimum wage would reduce deficits slightly in the near term, it would have the opposite effect as the timeline gets farther out. I realize there’s an apples-and-oranges element in comparing this to workers voluntarily leaving the labor force under ObamaCare, but put the two together and we’re now looking at three million jobs disappearing from Obama initiatives on top of the many millions that disappeared over the past five years during and after the recession. What exactly is our employment target at this point?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Lean Forward.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

So that plus Obamacare equals 3 million more unemployed people?

El_Terrible on February 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Occupy Parents’ Basement!

Mr. D on February 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM

EmBrace Le Suck!!

canopfor on February 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM

2 of those jobs eliminated would be mine and Spawn’s.
*glares*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM

What I want to know is, if by Obama raising minimum wage for federal workers, does that mean total number of jobs will be cut by the federal government assuming appropriations remain at a constant level? If so, that could be him shooting himself in the foot. Of course, Boehner probably will go along with increasing appropriations to offset the job losses because he is an idiot crybaby.

txmomof6 on February 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Dems on CBO in 2009: The CBO’s projected cost of Obamacare is right on the money.

Dems on CBO in 2014: The CBO’s projections on job losses from Obamacare and increasing the minimum wage are heretical.

BuckeyeSam on February 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

but put the two together and we’re now looking at three million jobs disappearing from Obama initiatives on top of the many millions that disappeared over the past five years during and after the recession. What exactly is our employment target at this point?
===============================================

TRANSFORMATIONAL AMERICA,..Hope and Change Style!!

canopfor on February 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM

anti-Midas effect.

rbj on February 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I’m treating it as good news. At least 500,000 people won’t have to worry about “job-lock” now.

There’s no problem here that indefinite unemployment benefits can’t solve, my friends.

Because 500,000 people can now pursue building reclaimed eco friendly birdhouses & writing narcissistic poetry that nobody would ever read anyway…Live the Dream…

Unemployed & Boring Creatives…It’s what’s for dinner…

workingclass artist on February 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Venezuela’s got nothin’ on us baby!!!

Bat Chain Puller on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Gee. All I wanted was to retire at age 72 when my house got paid off. I guess the Gub’ment has other plans.

Turtle317 on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

FORWARD.

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Well, hell, they considered 5 million people losing their insurance as only a small number of people. What’s 1 million people to them.

tbrickert on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

So in reality were probably looking at 2,000,000 jobs lost.

tommer74 on February 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Obama then asks the question: “How many can we get unemployed if the we raise it to $11.00? 2 million? Then go for $11.25.”

albill on February 18, 2014 at 3:33 PM

And the Obamanistas let out a collective cheer. FORWARD! YES WE CAN! HOPE N’ CHANGE!

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Amnesty should clear this problem right up.

MMK on February 18, 2014 at 3:34 PM

If you like your job, you can keep it. Period. No one is going to take it away from you.

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 3:34 PM

What exactly is our employment target at this point?

I don’t know what our employment target is, but 0-bama is dropping bombs on it at every turn.

stick on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

It’s only jobs, what’s to get upset about?

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

What’s wrong with that? I’d raise it to $12/hr. like Ron Unz wants to do, or even higher.

It is the only way left for us to pull people away from the government teat and turn them into taxpayers.

Will there be many people who won’t be able to upgrade their skills enough to be productive enough to warrant paying them that much? Of course. Mostly Democrats, and mostly people who are already trapped on the dole.

On balance, the benefit of turning millions of people into taxpayers way more than offsets the damage done mostly to Democrat voters.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Hey now there’s a wonderful pro-worker policy.
Let’s make a half million more low wage workers unemployed.
At least the people who make EBT cards will have jobs…..

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

This would lead to the expansion of many UNPAID internships — like as a restaurant server, bartender, salesperson.

KenInIL on February 18, 2014 at 3:38 PM

How to eliminate unemployment: Eliminate the minimum wage.

The whole idea of the minimum wage is totally nonsensical and antithetical to conservative values.

Why not increase the minimum wage to $100, $200, or $1000/hr? I’ve asked this question before and no one has given me an answer.

nazo311 on February 18, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Great, another liberal tool to free up those mired in job lock.

antipc on February 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage?
Here is article from WSJ linking unions to minimum wage.

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM

FYI: My son and I are AGAINST raising the minimum wage.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 3:41 PM

What’s wrong with that? I’d raise it to $12/hr. like Ron Unz wants to do, or even higher.

It is the only way left for us to pull people away from the government teat and turn them into taxpayers.

Will there be many people who won’t be able to upgrade their skills enough to be productive enough to warrant paying them that much? Of course. Mostly Democrats, and mostly people who are already trapped on the dole.

On balance, the benefit of turning millions of people into taxpayers way more than offsets the damage done mostly to Democrat voters.

Why not $100/hr or $1000/hr? Have you ever taken an economics class?

You’re looking at this in a one-dimensional economic vacuum. You’re assuming small businesses can just afford to pay people more than their labor is worth. You’re assuming that these people will be hired at all.

Bad assumptions.

stick on February 18, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Lean Forward.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

The plan is working! Embrace the hope and change.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 3:42 PM

The actual minimum wage is $0.00 as many will find out while Obama meddles in free not so free enterprise.

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 3:42 PM

вперёд, товарищи!!!!!

NavyMustang on February 18, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage?
Here is article from WSJ linking unions to minimum wage.

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM

‘xactly…..you raise the minimum wage, union wages increase. You’ll always find strong union support for raising the minimum wage for that reason.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Is 500,000 jobs lost viewed as a bug or as a feature by Democrats?

I would bet they view it as a good thing. Beggars are easier to please.

No Truce With Kings on February 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I’m treating it as good news. At least 500,000 people won’t have to worry about “job-lock” now.

Dammit. My first take, stolen in the first sentence like that!

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

It all sounds very “liberating” to me.

TarheelBen on February 18, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Half a million jobs?

Small potatoes compared to the 99 million jobs saved or created by the stimulus and the new ObamaCare subsidies so we don’ts got to work at all!

Thanks, Obama!:-p

Adjoran on February 18, 2014 at 3:45 PM

So, raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 an hour. That way current minimum wage workers will all become millionaires before being laid off. Don’t worry about there not being any businesses open for anyone to shop at, or, if there are any open business, get ready for $100,000 loaves of bread. /s

Ruckus_Tom on February 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Who wants to pay $15 for a Big Mac?

Lol, leftist trolls, do you realize this only hurts the people you claim to want to help? Higher morning wages equal less jobs and more expensive foods and services. Poor people depend on the cheap menus at many restaurants. Why do you hate poor people?

Oh that’s right Obmamanistas…..because utopia, FORWARD!!

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage?
Here is article from WSJ linking unions to minimum wage.

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM

FINALLY!!

As far as I’ve seen I’ve been a lone voice on this on all the boards I frequent.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

On balance, the benefit of turning millions of people into taxpayers way more than offsets the damage done mostly to Democrat voters.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Uh, you do realize that small businesses (like my daughter’s restaurant) will have to offset the cost of paying employees $12 per hour by raising their prices to the consumer, don’t you?

And that’s on top of rising food costs and what they’ll have to pay out for Obamacare.

So yeah, let’s raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour – if you’re happy paying $13 for a hamburger. Or, seeing another business bite the dust, which will put dozens of now current taxpayers out of work.

Flora Duh on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

So more than 80 percent of the gains in earnings will go to people other than the very poorest, and meanwhile as many as a million people potentially could end up being laid off.

Yep, mostly to the high-school working-age children of the middle class, the few left that can make change.

slickwillie2001 on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

What exactly is our employment target at this point?

The Administration’s focus is not on an employment target – nor has it been. The focus is on expanding the welfare state and trapping more into a cycle of dependency on the government.

That ensures the need for more government – to solve the problems that more government created.

Athos on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Judging from my experience in the late 1990′s if the unemployment rate for those with only a high school education is low enough employers will bid wages well above the government mandated minimum wage. Deporting all of the low skilled illegals could recreate that situation.

agmartin on February 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM

No harm in asking Hillary what she thinks about all this, is there? Or would that be unfair? Nothing wrong with getting her on the record. :)

butch on February 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Higher minimum* wages

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM


WH Fires Back:

Obama proposes raising federal minimum wage 2014
1m
===
White House says the ‘CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists’ – @WhiteHouse
read more on whitehouse.gov
===========================

Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers
Posted by Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson on February 18, 2014 at 03:24 PM EST
*************

The new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report finds that 16.5 million workers would get a raise from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and this would help millions of hard-working families, reduce poverty, and increase the overall wages going to lower-income households.

On employment, CBO’s central estimate is that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3 percent decrease in employment and CBO acknowledges that the employment impact could be essentially zero. But even these estimates do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment. For example, seven Nobel Prize winners and more than 600 other economists recently stated that: “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”

The following are six key points from the latest CBO report. For more information, last week the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a summary of the economic case for raising the minimum wage.

1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers. According to today’s CBO report, 16.5 million people making less than $10.10 per hour would get a raise if the minimum wage is increased. This figure does not include CBO’s estimate of as many as 8.0 million workers who currently earn just above $10.10 an hour but could also potentially see a raise due to the “ripple effect” of a shifting wage structure.

2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses. Middle class families earning less than six times the poverty line (i.e., $150,000 for a family of four in 2016) would see an aggregate increase of $19 billion in additional wages, with more than 90 percent of that increase going to families earning less than three times the Federal poverty line (i.e., $75,000 for a family of four in 2016). On net CBO estimates that national income would rise.

This finding is consistent with the fact that 62 percent of expert economists polled by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business agreed that the benefits of raising the minimum wage outweigh any potential costs, as compared to only 16 percent who disagreed.

3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today. Specifically CBO finds that the extra purchasing power for workers will expand aggregate demand and strengthen the economy today. As CBO wrote, “Raising the minimum wage increases that demand, in CBO’s assessment, because the families that experience increases in income tend to raise their consumption more than the families that experience decreases in income tend to reduce their consumption. In the short term, that increase in demand raises the nation’s output and income slightly.”

This finding is consistent with other research. For example, a study released by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour would raise growth by 0.3 percentage point in the short run.

4. CBO found that only 12 percent of low-wage workers will be teenagers. Contrary to critics’ claims that teens are the primary beneficiaries of increases in the minimum wage, CBO, found only 12 percent of the workers likely to benefit from a minimum wage increase are teenagers.

5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case, as many American who work full time are unable to make ends meet. This finding echoes the broad consensus of academic studies on the topic, which is nearly unanimous in finding that increases in the minimum wage reduce poverty.

6. CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists. The bulk of academic studies, have concluded that the effects on employment of minimum wage increases in the range now under consideration are likely to be small to nonexistent. CBO also agrees that the employment effect could be essentially zero, but their central estimates are not reflective of a consensus of the economics profession. Specifically:

Seven Nobel Prize Winners, eight former Presidents of the American Economic Association and over 600 other economists recently summarized the literature on the employment effects of the minimum wage in this way: “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”
The pioneering research in this area was conducted by John Bates Clark Medal winner David Card and Alan Krueger, who published a study in the American Economic Review in 1994 finding that fast food restaurants in New Jersey did not cut back employment relative to Pennsylvania after the former State raised its minimum wage. They concluded, “We find no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.”
The Card-Krueger research was generalized by Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich who compared 288 pairs of contiguous U.S. counties with minimum wage differentials from 1990 to 2006. Based on this, researchers found “no adverse employment effects” from a minimum wage increase.
A recent literature review of the extensive published work on the minimum wage concluded: “[W]ith 64 studies containing approximately 1,500 estimates, we have reason to believe that if there is some adverse employment effect from minimum-wage raises, it must be of a small and policy-irrelevant magnitude.”
Another recent review of the theory and evidence on the minimum wage by John Schmitt at the Center for Economic Policy Research concluded that “The employment effects of the minimum wage are one of the most studied topics in all of economics. This report examines the most recent wave of this research – roughly since 2000 – to determine the best estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.”

Overall the logic for the finding that raising the minimum wage does not result in large adverse impacts on employment is that paying workers a better wage can improve productivity and thereby reduce unit labor costs. These adjustments, along with others that firms can make, help explain why the increase in the minimum wage need not lead to a reduction in employment. Higher wages lead to lower turnover, reducing the amount employers must spend recruiting and training new employees. Paying workers more can also improve motivation, morale, focus, and health, all of which can make workers more productive. In addition, by reducing absenteeism, higher wages can increase the productivity of coworkers who depend on each other or work in teams. In addition, businesses can adjust in other ways rather than reducing employment (for example, by accepting lower profit margins). CBO’s estimates do not appear to fully reflect the increased emphasis on all of these factors from the recent economics literature.

Jason Furman is the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Betsey Stevenson is a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/18/congressional-budget-office-report-minimum-wage-confirms-consensus-views-beneficiari

canopfor on February 18, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Because 500,000 people can now pursue building reclaimed eco friendly birdhouses & writing narcissistic poetry that nobody would ever read anyway…Live the Dream…

Unemployed & Boring Creatives…It’s what’s for dinner…

workingclass artist on February 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM

They could even write two autobiographies about themselves before age 50 and any meaningful accomplishments.

ConstantineXI on February 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Look for the MSM to emphasize the 0.3 percent figure, but that is very misleading. As others may have pointed out above, the minimum wage (including the proposed increase) is only binding for a small set of jobs. So, to position these projected job losses as a percent of *total* employment is just wrong. In other words, we should think about the 500K number relative to a much smaller denominator than total employment. The ideal denominator would be the set of all jobs that pay between the current minimum wage and the proposed one…

The other interesting angle is that this likely hurts lower income/lower skilled people harder; it is the antithesis of fairness. I realize that most people making the minimum wage (even in Obama’s economy) are not head’s of households, but this is not good for the lower end of the labor market…

Entrephil on February 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Logic be damned.

BKeyser on February 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM

What is sad, is not that the politicians pander with these foolish policies.

What is sad is how utterly stupid people are…how ill informed, how simple math escapes them.

ObamaCare, this fiasco, whatever the government gets involved in, adds cost.

And as expenses or costs of goods raise, prices raise, and we end up with a situation where;

At one time we built a nation, infra-structure, dams, electricity, railroads, highways, bridges, etc., all on single family incomes (in general).

Now we can’t maintain those items, let alone build new ones with both husband and wife working…what has changed?

Government interference, regulations, control, taxes, entitlements…

And it is all because government adds to the cost of goods, and business do not pay for those added costs…customers do.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Occupy Parents’ Basement!

Mr. D on February 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Sachiko on February 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

This is really sad. 500,000 lost jobs won’t nearly meet the goal.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Well, hell, they considered 5 million people losing their insurance as only a small number of people. What’s 1 million people to them.
tbrickert on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

And while they might be big Dem voters, they’re not big Dem donors.

Marcola on February 18, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Occupy Parents’ Basement!

Mr. D on February 18, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Sachiko on February 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

As the economy sinks, I’m thinkin’ it may soon devolve to Occupy Grandparent’s basement for parents AND kids.

Visions of the movie “Dr. Zhivago” and the scene where he comes home to find it divided up for the entire neighborhood comes to mind.

“If you like your room, you can keep your room”

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM

John Goodman, economist on Cavuto just said that the number of lost jobs is closer to 4M and not what the CBO is saying.

And he disputes the WH line that there are no economists out there disputing their numbers.

Oivey….the destruction of the middle class continues unabated.

CoffeeLover on February 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM

canopfor on February 18, 2014 at 3:50 PM

That is because the first round of increases are for government employees, and they don’t get laid off, in fact that number is growing and will continue to grow because the government does not have to make a profit.

To counter act that, private enterprise will not tolerate that…what these so called experts forget in their basic econ 101 is the law of diminishing returns.

You can raise 10%, and maybe get good results, and maybe 20% disaster…

Entry level is not meant to be an above poverty level pay, it is exactly that.

A person who can only wash dishes, is not a $10 an hour job…sorry, but the job defines the wage, not some politician, because eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

They cannot point to where a government controlled business succeeds better than a private one. Indeed the opposite happens, so how can these “great ideas” ever expect to be successful, when it has proved to be the opposite?

Economists can best be defined by Charles DeGaulle, when asked who was going to replace his head economist…”I am looking for a one armed economist, so they can never say ‘on the other hand’.”

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Why not $100/hr or $1000/hr? Have you ever taken an economics class?

Yes. There is a little thing called the point of diminishing returns. Raise the rate too high and you lose more jobs than are worth pulling up the workers getting the benefit.

You’re looking at this in a one-dimensional economic vacuum. You’re assuming small businesses can just afford to pay people more than their labor is worth. You’re assuming that these people will be hired at all.

Bad assumptions.

stick on February 18, 2014 at 3:41 PM

I am assuming no such things. Of course jobs will be lost. That is what I said.

Uh, you do realize that small businesses (like my daughter’s restaurant) will have to offset the cost of paying employees $12 per hour by raising their prices to the consumer, don’t you?

And that’s on top of rising food costs and what they’ll have to pay out for Obamacare.

So yeah, let’s raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour – if you’re happy paying $13 for a hamburger. Or, seeing another business bite the dust, which will put dozens of now current taxpayers out of work.

Flora Duh on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Of course they will have to raise prices, and I loathe Obamacare more than you do, and the only burgers that will go to $13 will be the ones already at $12.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM

John Goodman, economist on Cavuto just said that the number of lost jobs is closer to 4M and not what the CBO is saying.

And he disputes the WH line that there are no economists out there disputing their numbers.

Oivey….the destruction of the middle class continues unabated.

CoffeeLover on February 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Well, really – has the CBO ever really been right on any of their predictions? (rhetorical)
Same goes for most economists.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Creating jobs is not the point… enlarging the dependency class in order to establish one party rule is the point.

mjbrooks3 on February 18, 2014 at 4:15 PM

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:11 PM

touché, sadly the MSM is not going to give the economist who disagree with this president and administration air time to explain their positions.

CoffeeLover on February 18, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Of course they will have to raise prices, and I loathe Obamacare more than you do, and the only burgers that will go to $13 will be the ones already at $12.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Sorry, but you’re mistaken about that.

Flora Duh on February 18, 2014 at 4:16 PM

On balance, the benefit of turning millions of people into taxpayers way more than offsets the damage done mostly to Democrat voters.
fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Your first post seems to indicate you think this is a good idea. I didn’t pick up on any sarc in it, and apparently others didn’t either.
Do you really think increasing the minimum wage will turn millions of people INTO taxpayers?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Rove: “Republicans shouldn’t be gloating about the economy right now. Let’s focus on Benghazi.”

Romney: “I agree.”

will77jeff on February 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

The 1996 Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires federal agencies to submit reports to Congress on economically significant rules.

According to CRA data, the Obama Administration has a 29 percent higher average of yearly major rulemakings than Bush did after his two terms in office. Bush’s overall average was 63 and Obama’s currently sits at 81.

There were 77 major rules in 2013, 67 in 2012 and 80 in 2011. In 2010, the administration added 99 major rules to the books — more than any other year since the passage of the CRA.

New regulations cost money, but they also cost a lot of man hours.

In 2013, regulators added an estimated 157.9 million hours of paperwork to comply with the 80,224 new pages of regulations in the Federal Register, according to a report released by the American Action Forum.

AAF found that the cumulative number of hours spent on regulatory-related paperwork in 2013 was 10.38 billion hours, an increase of nearly 158 million hours from 2012. The report’s author believes it would take more than 78,000 employees working full-time to complete the additional paperwork.

This on top of minimum raise…it’s accumulative, not just one act it’s the mindset of a group in charge that says regulations and mandates help, not harm…and so far, that has been proven false in just about every area of government intervention.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 4:18 PM

On balance, the benefit of turning millions of people into taxpayers way more than offsets the damage done mostly to Democrat voters.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Uh, you do realize that small businesses (like my daughter’s restaurant) will have to offset the cost of paying employees $12 per hour by raising their prices to the consumer, don’t you?

And that’s on top of rising food costs and what they’ll have to pay out for Obamacare.

So yeah, let’s raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour – if you’re happy paying $13 for a hamburger. Or, seeing another business bite the dust, which will put dozens of now current taxpayers out of work.

Flora Duh on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

It’s gonna get worse…Obama is doing new fuel standards for trucks.

workingclass artist on February 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Obamacare + Immigration Reform + Minimum Wage Hike = DISASTER

Wigglesworth on February 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM

On employment, CBO’s central estimate is that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lead to a 0.3 percent decrease in employment and CBO acknowledges that the employment impact could be essentially zero.

The impact is not zero if you’re one of those 0.3%.

itsspideyman on February 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM

CBO: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could eliminate 500,000 jobs by 2016

We’ll probably lose that many anyway. The economy is terminally ill. Companies have learned to increase their stock values through layoffs and closing plants and warehouses. And as long as the Federal Reserve, Inc. continues to pump billions of cheap fiat currency into (the upper echelons of) the economy, they’ll make money as long as they can keep this scam going.

Of course, this, Obamacare, their messed up “green” policies and many other things certainly aren’t helping and are designed in part to tip the already faltering economy over. The other part is that Obama and his crew are making billions.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 18, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Do you really think increasing the minimum wage will turn millions of people INTO taxpayers?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Not at $10.10, unless they work two jobs. It also needs to be somewhat higher to do other important work like taking them off the Obamacare subsidies.

However, when the minimum goes up there is a ripple effect on higher wages. Also, the closer people are to earning enough to be impacted by taxes, the more likely they are to see the drag taxes create on their future prosperity.

In this case I am not being sarcastic. I appreciate your recognition I do use sarcasm against most ideas we hear promoted from the left.

This one is different. It has the potential for turning progressives into conservatives by reducing their dependency on Democrat promoted programs, and it does it without hiring a single new bureaucrat.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Eliminating jobs, a Democrat Party specialty.

Viator on February 18, 2014 at 4:27 PM

This on top of minimum raise…it’s accumulative, not just one act it’s the mindset of a group in charge that says regulations and mandates help, not harm…and so far, that has been proven false in just about every area of government intervention.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Well there ya go – the Dems are creating jobs, right?/

Of course the Dems and the libtard voters never seem to understand that those regulatory jobs that the gubmint forces on companies come at the expense of actual productive jobs, or at a cost to the wages of the productive workers, and/or higher costs for the end product or service the company provides.
And of course any additional labor adds more overall production cost to the company (with no increase in overall productivity), which reduces profit and in the end reduces taxes owed to the gubmint – IF company revenue were to remain the same (which is not likely).

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Thomas Sowell writes: It is surely no coincidence that during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage — the Calvin Coolidge administration — unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years.

For those who think all of economists are in agreement, I think Thomas Sowell has a pretty good handle on economics.

He is the one who pointed out the union’s support of raising minimum wage.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM

FYI: My son and I are AGAINST raising the minimum wage.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Hey, at least you’ll have free time to eat Ramen noodles together–Jay Carney

annoyinglittletwerk on February 18, 2014 at 4:31 PM

This one is different. It has the potential for turning progressives into conservatives by reducing their dependency on Democrat promoted programs, and it does it without hiring a single new bureaucrat.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM

It does nothing of the sort. This will put more people OUT of work, which puts more people on the gubmint dole. The biggest impact will be on kids who will be less likely to get a first job, which means they never get a chance to gain job skills to work their way up the chain.
And the resulting increase in costs and prices means the increased wages for those who still have a job will mean nothing for actual buying power. It’s nothing but a shell game to make people think they’re getting more when in reality everyone loses.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 4:33 PM

However, when the minimum goes up there is a ripple effect on higher wages. Also, the closer people are to earning enough to be impacted by taxes, the more likely they are to see the drag taxes create on their future prosperity.

In this case I am not being sarcastic. I appreciate your recognition I do use sarcasm against most ideas we hear promoted from the left.

This one is different. It has the potential for turning progressives into conservatives by reducing their dependency on Democrat promoted programs, and it does it without hiring a single new bureaucrat.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Don’t you understand, business does not pay wages, we do. They just write the checks from the money we pay them.

The unions are the ones pushing this, read a little Thomas Sowell and you will have a better understanding of who pays what.

And if you think giving “progressives” more money will make them conservative, pal, better research what has happened with better paying government jobs.

What happens is the “progressives” the liberals see the government as their savior and become even more attached.

Liberals need to find out who really pays them, and as long as people like you support government programs, like this, to support them, they know who to vote for.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM

annoyinglittletwerk on February 18, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I can’t eat Ramen. It’s too high in sodium. LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 4:39 PM

They is NOT learning.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Paging Bill O’Reilly… man of the folks!

dpduq on February 18, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Obamaconomy for this Obamanation.

D-fusit on February 18, 2014 at 4:46 PM

What’s the problem? Campaigning to increase the minimum wage will help the Democrats politically and that’s what’s important. Plus, if 500,000 minimum wage workers lose their jobs, that’s 500,000 workers who can’t use their experience to move up to better jobs. It’s also 500,000 people who can be permanently dependent on government unless the evil Republicans take away their benefits.

mattmillburn on February 18, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Why not $100/hr or $1000/hr? Have you ever taken an economics class?

You’re looking at this in a one-dimensional economic vacuum. You’re assuming small businesses can just afford to pay people more than their labor is worth. You’re assuming that these people will be hired at all.

Bad assumptions.

stick on February 18, 2014 at 3:41 PM

why not drop the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour? Thinking of all the jobs those small businesses will create.

loveofcountry on February 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

FINALLY!!

As far as I’ve seen I’ve been a lone voice on this on all the boards I frequent.

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Government does not care one bit about the minimum wage workers, it is all about payback to unions for votes.

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM

why not drop the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour? Thinking of all the jobs those small businesses will create.

loveofcountry on February 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

If you’re trying to start up your own business, as my wife is, the actual initial hourly wage is less than that – in fact so far it’s a negative rate.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

why not drop the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour? Thinking of all the jobs those small businesses will create.

loveofcountry on February 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

And what is wrong with that?

If you don’t want to work for 50 cents, move on. A business would go broke if they paid minimum wages at 50 cents, they wouldn’t have any employees.

But to empty the trash, is that worth $10 per hour? Is it worth $5 per hour?

What you don’t understand is simple economics…supply and demand.

And that is why we are in the mess we are, because people like you do not understand the basic, and I mean basic, economic laws of a capitalist society, a “free” business society.

And because you don’t understand the basic principles, you turn to politicians to make your decisions for you…

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

There’s no problem here that indefinite unemployment

I filed a claim in early January, and I still haven’t heard or seen anything in the way of payment.

Gotta love gob’mint.

Vero Beach Florida on February 18, 2014 at 5:01 PM

If you’re trying to start up your own business, as my wife is, the actual initial hourly wage is less than that – in fact so far it’s a negative rate.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Amen, maybe we could demand that every potential customer we call on, they have to pay us $10 per hour just to present them with an opportunity to do business with us.

right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM

It’s gonna get worse…Obama is doing new fuel standards for trucks.

workingclass artist on February 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM

They will do to trucks what they’ve done for cars. The only way to do this is by a “fleet” measurement, so it will mean smaller trucks, with less carrying capacity. Thus companies will have to buy more of them to move the same loads because our bananas aren’t getting lighter. Yes, they will ‘get better gas mileage’.

slickwillie2001 on February 18, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Of course they will have to raise prices, and I loathe Obamacare more than you do, and the only burgers that will go to $13 will be the ones already at $12.

fadetogray on February 18, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Sorry, but you’re mistaken about that.

Flora Duh on February 18, 2014 at 4:16 PM

I think you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between profit and profit margin, Flora.

Lanceman on February 18, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Thus companies will have to buy more of them to move the same loads because our bananas aren’t getting lighter.
slickwillie2001 on February 18, 2014 at 5:09 PM

But that’s ok cuz banana’s are dying out, so soon there will be no need for trucks to transport them….
So it all works out in the end, right?
//

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I filed a claim in early January, and I still haven’t heard or seen anything in the way of payment.

Gotta love gob’mint.

Vero Beach Florida on February 18, 2014 at 5:01 PM

get a job

Wade on February 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM

why not drop the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour? Thinking of all the jobs those small businesses will create.

loveofcountry on February 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM
right2bright on February 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Well, I say eliminate the minimum wage entirely.
In some parts of the country, where cost of living is cheap, the minimum wage is overkill – too high and hurts businesses.
In other parts of the country, where cost of living is high or available labor is low, prevailing wages are already above the minimum, so it’s useless.
The government shouldn’t be involved because there’s too much variability across the country and the labor market as a whole.
Let the market sort it out and we’d all be better off.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I filed a claim in early January, and I still haven’t heard or seen anything in the way of payment.
Gotta love gob’mint.

Vero Beach Florida on February 18, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Well, my wife quit her job to start a business – so she gets nuthin’.
Life isn’t fair – but it’s worse if you’re depending on the gubmint to save you.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Democrats say great news!! Fewer people working and on the teat means more registered Democrats.

rmkdbq on February 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM

The real key is in this figure of the CBO report. When examining cohorts defined by the ratio of family income to the poverty level, the only group that sees a decrease in overall income is those who have a ratio of 6 or more.

Also interesting:

Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).

Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.

Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

So with a net improvement in overall real income, with most of the benefit being enjoyed by the poorest families, we could then also get people off of welfare and instead have them get their money where it should come from: their job.

Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Lean Forward.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

[Bend over]

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 5:35 PM

I’m treating it as good news. At least 500,000 people won’t have to worry about “job-lock” now.

Dammit. My first take, stolen in the first sentence like that!

Axeman on February 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

When was the GOP so worried about job growth? During the sequester debate, ever major investment bank issued draconian reports on anticipated cuts to GDP, with both corporate America and the Chamber of Commerce begging the GOP not to make sequester cuts final. Of course, the Tea Party, in particular, forced sequester, reduced GDP growth, and ensured that millions of jobs (and federal income tax) never materialized.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-gdp-impact-of-cuts-in-full-sequester-2013-1

bayam on February 18, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3