I did read the report. Citing the section where they stated that a lower increase would simply cost fewer jobs than a greater increase sort of only reinforces my point.
Originally Posted by Redress
Alright. Show me where he admitted that increasing the MW would reduce the demand for labor at the lowest income.
That is not what the report states:
Now we are getting to real arguments. Here is my counterpoint: again using the CBO report, the largest job loss likely to happen is about 1 million short term, assuming an increase to 10.10(the 2/3 probability range for that increase is actually a "very slight decrease" to a decrease of 1 million). Note that this is in the short term and jobs levels will return to the norm over time.
...The change in employment of low-wage workers also differs over time. At first, when the minimum wage rises, some firms employ fewer low-wage workers, while other firms do not; the reduced employment is concentrated in businesses and industries where higher prices result in larger reductions in demand. Over a longer time frame, however, more firms replace low-wage workers with inputs that are relatively less expensive, such as more productive higher-wage workers. Thus, the percentage reduction in employment of low-wage workers is generally greater in the long term than in the short term...
Which matches what I said above - by accelerating the process of automation and increasing the incentive to innovate in that space, you create a worse situation than the "well they may have lost those jobs in a few years anyway" scenario that was given in response.
In contrast, 16.5 million people are working for less than 10.10, so they would see a raise of some amount. Or to put it another way, for every job lost, over 15 people see their standard of living increase. This does not include those who see a raise from the ripple effect, which would increase, probably dramatically, those who see at least a modest pay raise. Everything is about tradeoffs. To me, that sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff. Slightly harder to find a job for awhile
, but when you get it, it pays more, and importantly, more relative to the cost of living
1. the people most likely to be laid off are the least-skilled, least-experienced, least-educated, who are also least-likely to be able to find a job at the new rate. In the ladder of life, you've taken the shortest people and told them to jump the most to reach the bottom rung.
2. The cost of living will increase as well. Not all, but some (relative portion will likely differ by business model and industry), of the increased costs will be reflected in increased prices.
and a final point: If we argue (and liberals make this argument convincingly) that society should be measured by how we treat The Least Of These, then I think it is worth arguing that we should not be completely screwing the poorest person in a group of 16 to hook up the other 15 with a couple of extra bucks an hour. I am not willing - and I think most folks would not be willing - to actively screw over the poorest of the poor to subsidize anyone, even slightly wealthier poor. It's worth noting in that context that 73.8% of the real wage increases will go to families who are already above the poverty line. However, I understand that some will not agree with that, placing greater emphasis on the net gain. I do appreciate the recognition, acceptance, and defense of the trade-off.