The Political Impact Of The CBO Minimum Wage Report
The Congressional Budget Office just put out a report on what effects raising the minimum wage might have on the American economy. The Washington Post has a pretty good rundown (complete with charts and excerpts from the report), which does a good job showing what the C.B.O. numbers really are, and what they predict. One of these numbers in particular is getting most of the attention, but we're going to largely avoid the debate over the numbers themselves and instead focus in on what this report is going to mean politically for both sides in the debate.
The number that's going to get all the headlines tomorrow is a prediction the C.B.O. made as to what raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will mean for total employment. Since all C.B.O. numbers are nothing more than estimates, they provided a range of possibilities -- one fact that is sure to get lost in the fray. The range the C.B.O. predicted for job losses was (best case) "very slight decrease" to (worst case) 1,000,000 jobs lost. The middle of this range is the number most news organizations will go with, though, as the C.B.O.'s "most likely" guess: 500,000 jobs lost.
What also may get lost in the noise as well are the benefits the C.B.O. predicted. If the minimum wage is raised to $10.10, this will affect the wages of 16.5 million workers. Close to one million of these will be raised above the poverty line. But all of them will see more money in their pockets.
There's a huge argument that has been raging for decades over whether raising minimum wages actually does "lose" jobs, I should mention. Many economists reject the notion, pointing to states that have raised minimum wages and their neighbors who haven't. Most studies show that there is no effect on unemployment rates in neighboring states when one of them raises their minimum wage. If the other side of this argument is right (the "raising minimum wages causes more people to be fired"), then you would expect to see the state with the higher minimum have more unemployment, right after the pay hike takes place. Which, in study after study, does not take place. Of course, those on the other side of this argument have their own studies, which is why the debate has been raging for decades.
Setting that aside, and taking the C.B.O. report at face value, what this would mean (if the C.B.O. average turns out to be right) would result in a gamble for those people earning the minimum wage: either your pay rises or you lose your job. However, the odds are pretty good in this equation. Losing 500,000 jobs out of 16,500,000 affected means a 1-in-33 chance of losing your job. But it also means a 32-in-33 chance of getting a healthy raise. That's a fairly safe bet -- a 97 percent chance of better pay versus a 3 percent chance of losing your job. This may sound somewhat crass, but it is the choice faced by those who would be directly affected.
Of course, both sides of the political aisle are already out there spinning things. Republicans will likely use the higher number, and state as an unvarnished fact that "a million people will lose their jobs." Democrats will point to the lower estimate, and state that "the C.B.O. report showed there's just as much chance that nobody will lose their jobs." Such is the nature of predicting the future.
For Republicans, this will make passing any minimum wage raise harder. Or, to put it in more context, it will make it easier for Republicans in Congress not to do anything on the minimum wage. That much seems fairly obvious. If fellow Republicans are out there hammering away at the "million lost jobs," then it becomes tough (especially in an election year) for any Republican to buck the party line. But is not passing a minimum wage raise going to help or hurt Republicans with the voters? That's a bigger question than the chances of passing any bill through the House any time soon.
Republicans are in danger of defining their party as supporting anything the C.B.O. says creates jobs and (conversely) being against anything the C.B.O. says will hurt employment figures. The minimum wage report follows a report on the Affordable Care Act where the C.B.O. report was boiled down to an (incorrect) Republican talking point: "Obamacare will kill 2.5 million jobs." Now, with the minimum wage report, Republicans are going to use the C.B.O. numbers in similar fashion, politically.
At first glance, this seems like good political strategy for them. The number one issue with the public is jobs and the economy, after all. Heading into an election, the Republicans can paint themselves as the great defenders of jobs against the machinations of dastardly Democrats. But Democrats could very easily turn this against Republicans, in two ways.
The first is to point out all the Democratic bills which the C.B.O. predicted would create millions of jobs, but which Republicans either did not support or killed off in Congress. "Congressman Smith voted against three bills which would have created 6 million jobs!" would be the campaign ad tagline. If you live by the C.B.O. figures, then you can also die by them, in other words. And there are plenty of Democratic ideas which have received glowing C.B.O. job numbers, so this really wouldn't be all that hard to do.
The second way Democrats might benefit is by taking the minimum wage case directly to the people. This issue was already shaping up to be a great one for Democrats on the campaign trail, and the C.B.O. report isn't likely to change that very much. Raising the minimum wage is popular with the public. Very popular, in fact. And it's not like they haven't heard the argument "raising the minimum wage kills jobs!" before, since it has been the Republican argument for a very long time. A large majority of the public (anywhere from 60 to 80 percent in most recent polls) favors raising the minimum wage because they see it as an issue of fairness, at heart. Even those making more than the minimum wage favor it heavily, either because their own pay might go up as the wage floor rises (the whole Kennedyesque "rising tide lifts all boats" thing), or they personally know someone (friend or family) who actually makes the minimum wage and would benefit directly. Or, perhaps, they just remember their own first job and how tough it was to work for a pittance. For whatever reason, the issue is wildly popular. Which is not going to change much (if at all) because of one C.B.O. report.
Democrats were already set up to make a giant push for raising the minimum wage, both on the national level and in various states. It was shaping up to be their go-to issue for the midterms. If the C.B.O. projections don't wildly influence the public's opinion, then it is still going to be a winning issue this fall.
Nancy Pelosi has announced she's going to try a longshot to get a minimum wage rise on the floor of the House -- a "discharge petition." To succeed, she'd have to get a majority of the sitting House to sign a document demanding a vote. This would mean over a dozen Republicans would have to break party ranks. This entire effort has probably gotten harder in the short term, at least.
In the longer term, however, it may be surprisingly successful. If summer rolls around and congressional Republicans see that the public is still overwhelmingly for raising the minimum wage, some of them may just have to rethink their position (to save their own jobs). If Democrats are successfully beating up Republicans over minimum wage out on the hustings, then Republicans may indeed want to get something passed before the election. I have no idea what the chances of this actually happening are, but it is a real possibility.
This is where the current Democratic proposal may get changed, though. Which brings us back to the C.B.O. report. They didn't just provide estimates for a raise to $10.10 an hour, they also made projections for a raise to only $9.00 an hour as well -- and those numbers look a lot more reasonable, politically. For the key job loss number, the C.B.O. predicted a best case of "very slight increase" to a worst case of "200,000 jobs lost," with a midpoint of "100,000 jobs lost." Of course, being a smaller raise, it would affect fewer people and do less for the working poor. But politically, it may be a viable compromise (after all, when President Obama first mentioned the idea in a State Of The Union address, he called for raising the minimum wage to only $9.00 an hour -- it is only more recently that he got on board with the $10.10 figure).
What shouldn't get compromised away, however, is one game-changing part of the current Democratic proposal, which would mean that the whole minimum wage issue would be taken out of the hands of the politicians. Because, much like pay for Congress and pay for federal workers, the minimum wage would for the first time have a "cost of living adjustment" built into it. These yearly "COLAs" would mean that the minimum wage would keep pace with economic reality. By pegging the minimum wage to inflation, with built-in COLAs, it would mean that Congress would never again have to use it as a political football. Which would be a gigantic relief for the country, really.
In the short term, Republicans are going to try to use the C.B.O. report as ammunition for their position, which is against raising the minimum wage at all. They will pat each other on the back and talk their talking points on the campaign trail for the next few months. But my guess is that it's going to be a pretty hard sell for them once the primary season is over. The public has heard the "job destroyer" argument before, and they don't buy it -- they're still overwhelmingly for the idea. Democrats will be out there in full support, and if the polling shows that Republicans are starting to be hurt by the issue, then Republicans may even be forced to the table in Congress to pass some less-generous minimum wage hike before the election, to insulate them from the charge that they don't care one whit what happens to the poor. But if this should come to pass, while Democrats might give a little ground on the wage agreed upon, they should stand firm on tying the minimum wage to economic indicators. Because, even though mostly lost in the debate right now, that COLA is going to sound mighty refreshing to the public, if Democrats make it a centerpiece of their political efforts. "We will never have to fight this political fight again" is going to sound pretty good to a lot of people.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris
Raising the minimum wage may well result in employers reducing employees to cut costs, EXCEPT, that putting more money in consumers' pockets, especially if it raises them from poverty and creates disposable income, increases consumer demand, which is what REALLY creates jobs. So its no surprise the two factors would largely cancel each other out leaving jobs, overall, largely unaffected.
The COLA is something the Chamber of Commerce will fight tooth and nail, with full Republican support, no matter what public opinion is. Unless Democrats take retake the House I don't see it happening. Certainly not this year. The minimum wage needs to be increased and a COLA is a great idea. But while inflation and the lack of a COLA hurt those near or below the poverty line, what's been hammering the middle class is abuse of temp workers, and no one is even looking at it. Temp workers are supposed to designate workers hired do to unforeseen circumstances. An emergency supplement to the full-time workforce. Not an inexpensive replacement for it. Its supposed to provide business needed flexibility not a means of reducing wages and benefits, avoiding fair employment practices. The rampant abuse of the temp worker category should be reformed or eliminated, which would vastly reduce the number of people receiving minimum wage.
But it also means a 32-in-33 chance of getting a healthy raise. That's a fairly safe bet -- a 97 percent chance of better pay versus a 3 percent chance of losing your job. This may sound somewhat crass, but it is the choice faced by those who would be directly affected.
"Hay, that thing just killed a civilian!!!"
"We project a 6% collateral damage rate. Acceptable."
"Yea.. Unless you happen to be one of the 6%"
-Blue Thunder
:D
The problem here is that Obama promised to be POTUS for ALL Americans..
Not just 32 out of 33 Americans...
I agree that a COLA tie-in would be the most desirable way to go..
But keep in mind that minimum wage jobs ARE minimum wage jobs for a reason..
And ya'all are also forgetting that, if minimum wage rates are increased then that will require a wage increase all across the board...
Which will depress the economy... by resulting in MORE unemployment..
Michale
Link to the CBO report
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
It's worth a look, especially appendices A and B which describe model assumptions and the body of historical evidence driving the assumptions.
The report is a lot like a street lamp on a foggy night: it sheds light, and provides some support to anybody wandering by. This is not a criticism as such, just a description of state-of -the-art.
The direction you chose when you leave the lamp is mostly determined by the neighborhood you live in.
"a gamble for those people earning the minimum wage: either your pay rises or you lose your job. However, the odds are pretty good in this equation. Losing 500,000 jobs out of 16,500,000 affected means a 1-in-33 chance of losing your job. But it also means a 32-in-33 chance of getting a healthy raise."
Keep in mind that these bottom rung jobs tend to have a lot of turnover. You lose one, you pick another on the treadmill. It's not like you are out of work for the rest of your life-even if it seems like it is when it happens!
Look at it as an expected value, 26%*.97 + -100%*.03 = 25%-3% = a 22% raise as you cycle along the new job treadmill with 3% less jobs. That's a good gamble over the long haul, which helps explain the popularity of 10.10 among those earning minimum wage.....and the unpopularity of the proposal with those paying the minimum wage.
Moving along in small jumps, as I see it, the REAL issue is income inequality, and the 10.10 proposal is going to have a very small impact on income inequality.
You lose one, you pick another on the treadmill.
And yet how many millions of Americans have given up looking for work because they CAN'T pick up another on the treadmill??
Michale
LewDan [1] and TheStig [4]
I haven't read the CBO report. Did they include the increased disposable income and subsequent increased consumer spending in their (incredibly large range) jobs calculations?
Also, since many people would be moved above poverty levels and no longer need Gov't assistance (food stamps, etc), did the CBO include increased Gov't spending or hiring in its assumptions?
Speak2
The CBO is trying to be an honest broker with regards to competing economic theories. That accounts for a lot of the CBO prediction spread.
It does factor in disposable income and consumer spending, but I'm not sure how fine grained the analyses are. Projected federal budget deficits go down just a bit over the first few years, then flip to a slight increase in the out years. Basically trivial.
Overall, projected real income for all workers would increase by 2 billion, which seems way too small to spur consumer demand by much. And.... The 2 billion net is fairly small compared to other disposable income shifts up and down at for different income brackets. All in all, it's a small transfer of income towards the working poor. The number of people below poverty level goes down, the net effect is to help the least among us. Jesus would likely give His Net Approval.
All the above are reported central tendencies.
TheStig -
Thanks for providing the CBO link. I should've done that in the article...
-CW
Thanks, TheStig.
S
The CBO is trying to be an honest broker with regards to competing economic theories. That accounts for a lot of the CBO prediction spread.
Call me persnickity, but it seems to me that the CBO should worry more about being honest to the FACTS and don't worry about how their spun...
I mean, is the CBO sticking to the median aspects because it actually BELIEVES those are the bigger possibilities??
Or are the sticking to the median aspects because it's more politically correct..
I saids it befores and I'll says it agains..
Politically Correct has GOT to be the WORST idea in all the annals of BAD IDEAS there ever was...
Michale
Interesting.
I think overall the idea to push for a minimum wage raise is a good one.
There's a number of things I don't believe the CBO report took into account. One of them being, if people are paid better, demand may increase, and this would subsequently increase jobs.
At the very minimum (no pun intended), it's much more likely to better lives than the latest Republican proposal which ... can you guess what it is?
More tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy! (Because the benefits will surely trickle down :) )
-David
BTW, statement from some of the leading edge economists (including 7 Nobel prize winners) arguing that recent research supports there will be little affect on jobs
http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/
I know, I know. But what do Nobel prize winning economists know?
David,
There's a number of things I don't believe the CBO report took into account. One of them being, if people are paid better, demand may increase, and this would subsequently increase jobs.
Key word there being *MAY* increase..
What if demand doesn't increase??
Things would go from bad to worse...
I know, I know. But what do Nobel prize winning economists know?
About the same as Nobel prize winning "peacemakers" know, eh??
Michale
I know, I know. But what do Nobel prize winning economists know?
About the same as Nobel prize winning "peacemakers" know, eh??
IOW, the fact that Nobel prizes are based as much (if not more) on politics rather than merit is well established.
Michale
Here is the entirety of the minimum wage issue summed up in a few words.
Those who it helps will be helped a little.
Those who it hurts will be devastatingly, possibly irreparably, hurt..
It's that simple...
Michale
Heheh.
One thing you have to understand about economics, Michale, is that "may" is always there. Whether people say it or not.
For example, raising the minimum wage may lead to 500,000 jobs being lost.
Or it may not.
Beware of anyone who doesn't use "may" when talking about economics. (Or at least don't let them sell you any stock or used cars.)
So who do you believe?
Unless I see something fishy, I'll take the economists over the politicians any day. Always question them too though.
-David
So who do you believe?
Me?? I don't "believe" anyone..
I take their information into account and weigh that against the consequences of the proscribed actions..
As I pointed out in #17...
Is it worth it to devastate a percentage of American's lives to that a, albeit, larger percentage would be helped out a little??
I am not advocating any action here with this comment...
I am simply pointing out the likely results.
Do the needs of the many outweigh the survival of the few??
That is the question...
Unless I see something fishy, I'll take the economists over the politicians any day.
Who wouldn't???
"I'de like to give the mother a gynecological exam."
"Who wouldn't??"
-Ghostbusters II
:D
Michale
Michale [12] -
Actually, in this case, the CBO was trying to be "politically correct" ... but towards the conservative point of view.
There are competing economic theories. The newest research proves that minimum wage hikes have little-to-no effect on jobs. Older research says it costs lots of jobs. Most economists accept the new research as disproving the earlier research, but if the CBO had gone with that consensus, they would have annoyed lots of Republicans. So they weighted the older studies heavier in their formula, and came up with the numbers they did.
In other words, they were being "politically correct" for the conservatives.
The studies aren't "spin" (either side), they are wrestling with one of the most complex problems in any science (especially involving human behavior) -- proving "causation" (in other words, X causes Y). This is a problem across many branches of science, in fact.
akadjian [14] -
Aha! Exactly what I was talking about...
Michale [17] -
Um, "devastatingly" perhaps. But "irreparably" is just not true. And "a little"? A raise from $7.25 to $10.10 is not "a little," it's over 39%.
But I would bet dollars to donuts (to say nothing of quatloos) that if you offered the choice to minimum wage workers:
"You will have a 97 percent chance of a raise, and if you currently make the minimum, it will be almost a 40% raise. But you will also have a 3 percent chance of losing your job. So, are you in?"
I bet an overwhelming number of them would accept that deal. Nothing in life is 100% certain, but 97% is pretty darn close.
And, [19] -
I was wondering how long it would take for you to quote Spock. But let's have the full quote, so we can put it in context in the current argument, eh?
Heh.
-CW
I bet an overwhelming number of them would accept that deal. Nothing in life is 100% certain, but 97% is pretty darn close.
And what of the 3% who lose their livelyhood??
Ever see STORM OF THE CENTURY???
I was wondering how long it would take for you to quote Spock. But let's have the full quote, so we can put it in context in the current argument, eh?
It was paraphrased to fit the circumstances..
Let's face it. If a poverty/low income family loses their job, it will be devastating.
In other words, they were being "politically correct" for the conservatives.
It's still sickening.. Politically correct is abysmal, regardless of who it favors..
Just stick with the FACTS, thank you very much.. :D
Michale
It's still sickening.. Politically correct is abysmal, regardless of who it favors..
Just stick with the FACTS, thank you very much.. :D
Of course, that was directed to the CBO, not to present company... :D
Michale
Let me weigh in here as an employer. There is only one reason anybody ever hires a worker, and that is to do a job. If you have a job to do you will hire someone and pay what you need to pay. A few years ago I had eight employees today i have 2.5 employees, if I had the customers i would love to rehire those workers and i would be happy to pay them what I needed to. A rise in the minimum wage will have exactly zero impact on my hiring decision, if i have work I will pay it if i have no work i will not pay even a dollar an hour. My business depends on customers buying and the rate i pay my workers has nothing to to with it. In fact if workers in general were paid more they would become the customers that make my business grow.
If high minimum wage were a bad thing then you would expect those areas with hing minimums to be struggling, but in fact they are prospering. San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in the state and the lowest unemployment rate in the area.
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation from the sixties when there was a more general prosperity it would be $26 and hour today. If it were $26 today would we have the gross inequality and distorted economy we have today?
SF,
Let me weigh in here as an employer. There is only one reason anybody ever hires a worker, and that is to do a job. If you have a job to do you will hire someone and pay what you need to pay. A few years ago I had eight employees today i have 2.5 employees, if I had the customers i would love to rehire those workers and i would be happy to pay them what I needed to. A rise in the minimum wage will have exactly zero impact on my hiring decision, if i have work I will pay it if i have no work i will not pay even a dollar an hour. My business depends on customers buying and the rate i pay my workers has nothing to to with it. In fact if workers in general were paid more they would become the customers that make my business grow.
Let me ask you a question..
First off, let me say that I don't know what business you are in.
But let me lay out a scenario and get you to comment..
Let's postulate that you are a baker and you own a small bakery...
You have 2 bakers that work for you and you pay them a rate commiserate with the income that they bring to your business.
Let's further postulate that your baked goods are of such quality that you can afford to pay your bakers a rate that is above minimum wage.. Let's say $10.10 per hour...
For the sake of the discussion, let's say you employ a janitor of sorts who sweeps and mops your floors, takes out your garbage and generally keeps things clean and tidy... You pay him minimum wage because that is all you can afford... Again, for the sake of this discussion, let's say that the min wage in your state is $8.25 p/h...
Now, the government comes in and tells you that you have to pay that janitor $10.10 per hour...
But your business doesn't make enough money to keep that janitor if you have to give him a 30% raise..
And, if you CAN make ends meet with the raise in pay to the janitor, what do you think your bakers are going to think if you are paying a janitor the same rate you pay them..
THEY are going to want a raise to to keep the proportionate rate of pay the same..
So, not only do you have to give your janitor a 30% raise, you are going to have to give your bakers a 60% (2*30%) raise...
So, your employee costs are going to jump by 90%....
Now, as I said, I don't know what business you are in, but it seems to me that ANY small business owner simply CANNOT afford a 90% jump in employee expenditures...
Now, of course, you can tell your two bakers that you really CAN'T afford to pay them as much as you pay the janitor.....
But what would that do to morale?? And I can assure you that morale is a BIG factor in ANY small business... I speak from a wealth of experience in that regard....
Of course, you could fire the janitor and hope your bakers don't get too miffed over being paid minimum wage for work that is VITAL to the survival of your business...
You see my point??
This is the problem with MANY of the Leftists/Progressives/Democrats agenda items..
They fail to think things thru and recognize the negative repercussions of their agenda....
Michale
This is the problem with MANY of the Leftists/Progressives/Democrats agenda items..
They fail to think things thru and recognize the negative repercussions of their agenda....
The immigration issue is another perfect example..
Let's throw 30 million unskilled workers into a job/employment environment that is already depressed..
WHAT could go wrong??? :^/
Michale
So, not only do you have to give your janitor a 30% raise, you are going to have to give your bakers a 60% (2*30%) raise...
So, your employee costs are going to jump by 90%....
Uh...epic math fail? Increase everyone's wages by 30%, your payroll goes up 30%...
They fail to think things thru and recognize the negative repercussions of their agenda....
Oh, the irony...
Uh...epic math fail? Increase everyone's wages by 30%, your payroll goes up 30%...
See!!! I told you that I am not the economic genuises.... genuisesii ya'all are!!!??
If I have to pay person A 30% more and have to pay person B 30% more and person C 30% more, then that = 90% to me....
But, at least I know yer paying attention..
That's why I know that, when ya DON'T chime in, you must be conceding the point.. :D
They fail to think things thru and recognize the negative repercussions of their agenda....
Oh, the irony...
For example.......???????
Michale
Since I know you ARE paying attention, do you want to address #25??
No??
Didna think so... :D
Michale
For example.......???????
See #24...
Since I know you ARE paying attention, do you want to address #25??
No??
Didna think so... :D
Address what? Overinflated numbers from Republican talking points?
What happened to:
Just stick with the FACTS, thank you very much.. :D of #21?
Bashi,
Com'on! I know you are a smart guy.. Why can't you simply address the points instead of proffering up what are, for all intents and purposes, spelling and grammar lames??
For example (see? This is how giving examples are done) regardless of the exact number, the point of the immigration example I gave is that it's a grossly bad idea to dump millions and millions of unskilled workers into a job pool already over-flowing with unskilled workers..
In the comment to SF, regardless of the specific accuracy of the percentages, the simple fact is, raising the min wage CAN cause businesses to go under and CAN cause employees to be fired..
But do you address that?? Of course not. You nitpick at peripheral bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with the main point..
If you are going to address my comments, then address my comments..
"Quit trying to hit me and hit me!!!"
-Morpheus, THE MATRIX
:D
Michale
Michale [21] -
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
-Spock
"Or the one."
-Kirk
The needs of the many (97% getting a raise of up to 39%) outweigh the needs of the few (3% losing their jobs, IF the CBO is right, that is...).
It's a pretty easy concept. And no president is ever (that's EVER) going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time, sorry.
[22] -
But there are no facts. Or "FACTS" if you will. These are ALL predictions of the future, not hard and cold facts. Therein stems the problem, politically, for all.
SFBear [23] -
Thank you. You make a clear and welcome point.
Michale [24] -
You're making the other side's case. When minimum wages go up, it is a rising tide that lifts all boats. So even people who are making above the minimum wage are in favor of lifting it. Which is perhaps why 70-plus percent of the public are for it. I heartily wish the GOP good luck arguing the other side of that case.
[25] -
Actually, they're already IN that worker/employment market. So legalizing them doesn't change the basic equation.
BashiBazouk [26] -
Thank you for introducing some basic math, and basic common sense!
:-)
Michale -
They're already here. They're already working -- under the table. The job market won't change. The number of employees won't change. The number of people looking for work won't change. Nobody's being "dumped" anywhere. They'll just be now paying all the taxes into the system that they've been successfully avoiding. So less taxes for everyone else.
Look into statements by prominent Republicans on "de facto amnesty" if you won't accept the facts from a lefty. Go on -- Google it. See for yourself...
-CW
The needs of the many (97% getting a raise of up to 39%) outweigh the needs of the few (3% losing their jobs, IF the CBO is right, that is...).
It's a pretty easy concept. And no president is ever (that's EVER) going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time, sorry.
My point is, the 97% will be helped a little..
The 3% will be devastated...
Is it worth it??
They're already here. They're already working -- under the table. The job market won't change. The number of employees won't change. The number of people looking for work won't change. Nobody's being "dumped" anywhere. They'll just be now paying all the taxes into the system that they've been successfully avoiding. So less taxes for everyone else.
If you honestly believe dumping millions of LEGAL workers into the unskilled job market won't impact unemployment, then I have some swampland in FL to sell you! :D
Look into statements by prominent Republicans on "de facto amnesty" if you won't accept the facts from a lefty. Go on -- Google it. See for yourself...
The fact that Republicans support it makes me suspect it even more!!! :D
Michale
M, 32
"My point is, the 97% will be helped a little..
The 3% will be devastated..."
This is an utterly false dichotomy. Minimum wage jobs suffer already high turnover and short tenure, especially those in service industries.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/derosetichy/2013/04/29/are-you-spending-more-by-paying-your-employees-less/
Minimum wage workers already jump between crappy paying jobs with regularity, for multiple reasons, the rate will just increase a bit. This "Devastation" is already routine, but it's not like "you'll never work again in this town." Job hopping will increase a bit with 10.10, but it will be scarcely noticeable in all the noise because current job rates are already so high.
On the other hand, every minimum wage worker will see a raise, ultimately 30% depending on where you live. That will be noticed. Slightly shorter job tenure, but dramatically increased average pay over the long haul.
James Kirk never worked in food service, but if he somehow got beamed down into one, I think he'd accept the downside risk and urge his fellow humanoid minions to fight for 10.10. So would Spock. Maybe not McCoy, but only for dramatic tension.
So even people who are making above the minimum wage are in favor of lifting it.
OF COURSE people are in favor of lifting it..
But ask them if they are in favor of lifting it if it means their employer will have to close shop and fire everyone??
I bet you hear a diff story then...
That's the problem with ya'all.. You simply REFUSE to accept the NEGATIVE consequences of these actions..
Michale
TS,
Minimum wage workers already jump between crappy paying jobs with regularity, for multiple reasons, the rate will just increase a bit.
You consistently miss the point.
There ARE NO crappy paying jobs for fired workers to jump to!!
And, if Dems have their way and flood the market with freshly minted unskilled Dem voters/workers, then there are going to be LESS than no crappy paying jobs for fired workers to jump to...
There is always welfare which is likely the Dem plan. Make more people dependent on government. Take away the people's dignity..
That's always been the Democrat way...
Michale