The Myth of Minimum Wage Killing Jobs

[JoeTaxpayer]

42. Can there ever be an objective view?

I have no hidden agenda. I've seen the same talking heads offer their 'job killer' rhetoric, and cite the data that suggests a 300K job loss. Ok, let's say for a moment this is correct.

The current proposal is to go to 10.10 over the next 2 years. I think that you'll find the incremental money these workers get is spent before they get their next paycheck. This has a stimulative effect on the economy, and typically affects the very businesses they work for, especially the Walmarts.

I'm hopeful that the data is clear, that as we see the wage rise, we can measure this multiplier effect and also monitor the direct causation of job loss due to the rise. If we get 16M people to $10.10, at a cost of 300K jobs (a recent study offered this), we have those 16M earning an incremental $91B, based on the increase and 2000 hrs/yr, but $4B in lost wages from the 300K job loss. If the estimates are true, this seems acceptable as a trade off.

The $91B is high velocity money. For the non-economist, this means it's money that gets spent fast as these earners aren't putting it into the bank, they are spending it as soon as they make it. I've used the expression, "they are cashing their check at 5:30 on Friday to put dinner on the table at 7:00." It's unfortunate, but it also means an immediate boost to the economy, far more than the silly payroll tax cut years ago. A great number of the 16 million workers will require less government help, and the savings will more than offset those who have lost their jobs. The same talking heads that say "you wouldn't be in favor of the raise if you are one of the 300K" are offering a red herring, as if they actually care about those who will be helped or hurt.

The minimum wage hasn't risen in a long time, yet my grocery store has implemented self-checkout, as has my local Borg (Home Depot, if you are not a fan of pet names).

As a new poster here, I will candidly admit, I am not in favor of income redistribution. So please stop taking my tax money and subsidizing Walmart employees' wages. It would seem to me that if they paid their workers a fair wage, I can keep my money, as the workers wouldn't need the subsidy. In the spirit of "follow the money," my taxes aren't going to those minimum wage earners, but to the Walton family.

Last, the nonsensical argument of "if $10 is good why not raise the wage to $20, $25, etc?" My sane response? There is a number, reminiscent of the Laffer curve, where the next .10 in wages is a negative to the system. It may be at $12.50, it may be higher. I don't know. What I do know is that it's not at $7.25. The pundits that keep turning up on CNN never get this far in the conversation. I look forward to some intelligent discussion here.