Bernie Sanders

Sorry, Bernie Sanders. Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour Wouldn't Create Millions of Jobs. But It Might Destroy Them.

This is an idea that's become increasingly common amongst more liberal Democratic politicians and policymakers.

|

Flickr / Brookings

On several occasions during last night's Democratic presidential debate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist whose populist presidential campaign has posted surprisingly strong numbers all summer, voiced support for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.  

"In my view," Sanders said at one point, "what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition free."

Raising the minimum wage like this is an idea that's become increasingly common amongst more liberal Democratic politicians and policymakers: The city of Seattle, Washington passed a law raising its minimum wage to $15 last year, and the Los Angeles city council voted to follow suit. Soon after, New York state announced a plan to raise the minimum wage of all fast food workers to $15, and the state's governor, Andrew Cuomo, recently said he believes it should apply to all workers.

Many of these plans start from the assumption, implicitly or explicitly, that these minimum wage hikes would be relatively cost-free, pointing to several studies seeming to show that increases in the minimum wage don't have much effect on jobs.

Here is what the author of some of the most influential of those studies, former Obama administration economic adviser Alan B. Krueger, had to say about raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in an op-ed for The New York Times last week:

15 an hour is beyond international experience, and could well be counterproductive. Although some high-wage cities and states could probably absorb a $15-an-hour minimum wage with little or no job loss, it is far from clear that the same could be said for every state, city and town in the United States.

Krueger goes on to warn of greater risk, and the potential for "severe" trade-offs, if policymakers pursue a $15 minimum wage, warning that it would go beyond what any research supports. Ultimately, he concludes, it is  "a risk not worth taking. "

Krueger wasn't disowning his own work or abandoning his position. He still supports raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour over a period of years, which he thinks could be done with essentially no job loss.

There are some reasons to be skeptical of that claim too: The Congressional Budget Office, which generally tries to take a moderate approach to economic evidence and put its estimates right in the middle of the consensus range, found that even a more modest hike to $10.10 an hour nationally would most likely cost about a half a million jobs, and while it's possible such a raise might produce minimal job loss, it's equally possible that it would cost a million jobs.

Overall, as David Neumark and William Wascher have found, the bulk of the evidence from research into the minimum wage suggests that hikes tend to decrease employment.

The point is that Krueger's research, while notable and worth paying attention to, is on the edge of what the evidence can possibly support.

But Democrats like Sanders who support a $15 federal minimum wage have gone far beyond even that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a move, which would be, at best, a foolish gamble with the nation's economy. 

It is especially telling that Sanders' call for a higher federal minimum wage came in the midst of a related call to create millions of jobs through infrastructure projects, and fears that trade has cost the nation employment too (it hasn't). Sanders says he wants to create millions of jobs. But he's proposing policies that might well destroy them.

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Wins Everything—by Promising Everything

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, this is a thing he said? Like really? He said that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will “create millions of jobs”?

    New law: Anybody who runs for public office must demonstrate a basic knowledge of macroeconomics.

    1. One of my proggie friends explained it to me: middle-class demand for goods and services creates jobs, therefore more people entering the middle class = more jobs. Simple!

      When i asked what about the supply half of the equation, he changed the subject.

      1. Well, he gets half of it. Sort of.

      2. Profits!

        1. Sanders is secretly a robot and he is secretly working to give more jobs to robots. There is no other explanation.

      3. Heard this same argument from a 20-something co-worker. Basically: “When people have more money they will spend it, creating more jobs and more money for everyone. And the companies will make more money because people have more money.”

        It’s the perpetual money-making machine.

        1. I like to ask why not make minimum wage $50 an hour, that way everyone would be making six figures and we could all be financially comfortable.

          1. I like to ask why not make minimum wage $50 an hour, that way everyone would be making six figures and we could all be financially comfortable.

            When you put it that way, people usually just make fun of you for “not being serious”. Of course that’s just a way of avoiding the question, but that’s how it goes.

            I’m considering phrasing the question slightly differently, by asking, “So you can create wealth and productivity by just ordering it into being? If that’s the case, why isn’t every country rich, since they could just order it to be so?”

            1. Sure. Why not just hand everyone a million dollars – and then watch the general price level increase just about that much?

            2. “If that’s the case, why isn’t every country rich, since they could just order it to be so?”

              Because the evil industrialists & bankers, of course! /derp

            3. Hey, conservatives, why not cut the minimum wage to $2 an hour and create lots and lots of jobs?

              1. Hey, idiot who doesn’t know what a libertarian is, why think that it’s in any way a function of government to create jobs?

              2. My sarc-o-meter didn’t ring, so I think you’re serious, RM.

                Dropping the MW would not “create” jobs, per se. It would make some lower paying jobs available to those who choose to work them. Where these jobs exist now, they are always paid “under the table”. Yes, some more jobs would be available with a lower MW. Possibly even “Lots and Lots” of jobs.

                Please explain the problem with that.

                1. Edit: Raise the MW to $15 / hour does not “destroy” jobs, either. It just makes a $12/ hour job illegal.

                  1. Raise the MW to $15 / hour does not “destroy” jobs, either.

                    I’ve been rolling around that, technically, it aborts them. And in a very real sense, you are aborting a person’s livelihood prior to the 80th(ish) trimester.

                    The problem is, plenty of the people who support aborting someone’s livelihood in the 80th trimester don’t bat an eye about aborting life, relatively whimsically, at 20 weeks and beyond.

              3. Why not just get rid of the minimum wage altogether? That’s what I’m for.

              4. How about get rid of it entirely? I’d back that.

                Now explain why if $15 is great, why isn’t $50 even better?

          2. This is a great way to expose the dark underbelly of those people supporting minimum wage hikes.

            The REAL reason people don’t want to raise the minimum wage to $50 or $100 or $200/hr. is social signaling within the social hierarchy.

            Pecking order, in simple terms.

            We saw when Gravity Payments increased their minimum wage to $70,000/year that the best and hardest-working people quit. This is because they felt that people lower down the merit scale shouldn’t be rewarded as much as the more productive people near the top of the merit scale. What a person earns also contains a social signal that indicates a person’s relative social status in society.

            So when a person advocates $15/hr. but not $50/hr., it is their ELITISM or CLASSISM that is blocking them from going all the way. They want to keep the poor in their relative place, except this assignment is now artificially set by the government rather than set by free-market consensus.

            They feel bad if the “lowest rung” of their pecking order is doing badly BECAUSE IT MAKES THE WHOLE PECKING ORDER LOOK BAD, and that’s the real reason why they advocate raising the minimum wage. It is simple and sheer social signaling (“look at how good I am because I care about the lowest rung–never mind that I won’t let the lowest rung get elevated to my level, but I care, I really care”).

            1. This is exactly right. I once had one of those MW conversations mentioned earlier, and I asked about setting the minimum wage set to exactly what they made. The look on their face was pricelessly indignant. They of course thought the idea was preposterous because they had skills and experience that these “other people” didn’t and they would be making what he made for doing bullshit jobs. There was a brief moment when I thought the light would go on….but it didn’t – for exactly the reasons you mention.

            2. That is a brilliant analysis. Thanks!

        2. If a person’s labor value isn’t worth $15 to the employer now, how can amending a figure in a federal wage statute make it worth that much tomorrow?

          If it’s that simple, if we could just legislate our way to prosperity, why haven’t we done it before

          1. If a person’s labor value isn’t worth $15 to the employer now, how can amending a figure in a federal wage statute make it worth that much tomorrow?

            You don’t understand. You can’t place a value on someone’s labor. That’s… distasteful. You see, the person’s wage should be based upon what they need and what they deserve. Greedy businesses may place a monetary value on someone’s labor, but that’s only because they’re greedy and seeking profits. That’s not fair to the employee. Employees deserve a wage they can live on, regardless of what they produce. Duh.

            1. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

            2. Employees deserve a wage they can live on, ….

              And regardless of how high on the hog they think that should be.

              1. Yeah, I don’t get that “deserve” bullshit part.

                I deserve to be Miss America too.

            3. Employees deserve a wage they can live on

              And I deserve a wife with big tits and a small waist. And a new boat. And complete happiness and contentment. And probably a bunch of other stuff too.

              1. No you don’t.

              2. And a pony. If I can’t have a pony then you don’t get your silicon implant barbie.

                1. Silicon? No, I deserve natural tits.

              3. Being poor and wanting stuff is a great motivator for skills improvement.

              4. That’s like a 40 year old’s version of Occupy Wall Street demands.

          2. We’re just not legislating hard enough! #FEELTEHBERN

          3. If a person’s labor value isn’t worth $15 to the employer now, how can amending a figure in a federal wage statute make it worth that much tomorrow?

            Not obviously backwards enough!

            If I have an employee with experience and/or expertise who makes $15/hr. and the state raises the min. wage to that point, haven’t they just, effectively, nullified his/her experience and expertise?

            1. Because having special skills is NOT FAIR!

              1. Yep, when I worked in retail, I basically acted as a second department manager, helping direct people to what we needed to do and getting things set up for success, so that my department manager could focus on the bigger picture and keep us running. DUH I was paid more than the others.

              2. Having special skillz is a privilege in need of checking.

            2. Which is the whole shell game of minimum wages in the first place. If a $15 minimum was instituted, it would begin a process of price signalling through the economy, and a usually a demand for looser dollars by the hard asset investing class. More money is dumped into the supply so that soon the increase in real dollars is offset. It’s simply just a new bottom and everything calibrates from there. In short, an artificial floor is meaningless without imposed ceilings. Only those truly destitute are affected because their zero-position is now further away from the bottom wrung.

            3. Absolutely, so those who were make $15/hr march into the bosses office and demand $20/hr. And those making 20 will want 25, etc, etc.

              Since those employees are making more money, the company will have to raise prices, and very soon no one has any more buying power than they had before

              1. Exactly. That’s what happened when the fed minimum was increased to $7.25. Prices went up a lot and jobs for anyone under 16 vanished. Jobs for 16 and 17 year old kids became very rare. Before the increase to $7.25 McDonalds in this area would hire 15 year old kids to wash dishes, do other cleaning and run the registers – and paid them more than minimum wage. If they stuck around instead of scarpering off with their first paycheck, kids could work through high school, advancing in job duties and pay raises. Those who decided that they liked working for a living instead of taking off to college for four years could advance to management positions, which at fast food franchises pay some pretty good money.

                There’s too many restrictions on what people under age 18 are allowed to do for work to make it worth the money to hire them at $7.25. Who is going to hire people under age 22 at $15 an hour? Age 22+ is where the college graduates are.

                The current minimum wage has all but eliminated the possibility of people starting to work at a young age then working their way up – as many of the older wealthy Americans did. Raise the minimum wage to $15 and we’ll see very few people starting at age 18 to 21 and working their way up.

                1. When I was 8 I started mowing neighbors’ lawns for $5 a pop. That was 1969. At 11 I caddied and could pull down $2 an hour when you included the tip. At 12 I got a busboy job for a $1.50 an hour, paid out of the cash register. Then washing dishes the next year. In between, babysitting and other neighborhood odd jobs. Then at 15 I got my first ‘real paycheck’ job, scooping ice cream for minimum wage at $1.65 an hour.

                  Though that doesn’t sound like a lot of money in any of those gigs, I was able to save up and buy a car the day I turned 16. And then I could get even better jobs.

                  What really sucks about all these minimum wage points, just like the poster said earlier — goodbye to the teenage jobs. From those jobs I learned how to show up on time, figured out how to make the boss happy, and even found joy in the simple zen of doing a job and getting rewarded for it. What invaluable things.

                  Now every minimum wage job is apparently only intended for people who support families of four, who need ‘living wages’. And if you’re paying that, it’s not going to be for some high schooler. Poor kids of today, who are missing out on such an important part of climbing the ladder.

          4. Because businesses have a monopsony…

            Until we’re talking about immigration, then suddenly they don’t have a monopsony and immigrants don’t hurt the working class.

            Basically, Big Business has a monopsony whenever it helps the progressive case, and doesn’t have a monopsony whenever it would hurt the progressive case.

        3. The confusion of money with wealth is a fundamental part of the proggie worldview.

          1. Oh yeah? Money isn’t wealth? Give me all your money then! No? Then it is wealth! Ha!

            1. ^^ #SCIENCE

        4. Ask that person about old people on fixed incomes and what a minimum wage increase does to them.

        5. Ah yes, confusing money and wealth. A classic sign of economic ignorance.

        6. But people DON’T have more money to spend. At best, it’s a wash – I pay you $15/hour, you have more, I have less. While you may have more money, I have less.

          1. I think the case would be: your loss is loss from profit and therefore investment, their gain is gain for consumption, boosting aggregate demand.

            The argument that raising minimum wage is a net good essentially assumes there is a surplus of investment and a dearth of consumption, and that increasing your workers’ income at your expense ultimately leads to goods being consumed.

            All of this of course assumes disemployment does not occur, and ignores that price increases due to min wage increases disproportionately harms the very people who benefit from the wage increase, because they disproportionately consume goods/services produced by minimum wage employees. In the end, best case scenario, raising minimum wage does nothing substantive at all.

      4. The thing is, if merely putting more money into people’s pockets via a minimum wage increase (or some other form of coerced spending) actually grew the economy, then even those greedy capitalists would be in favor of it. After all, they would stand to gain moar money, would they not?

        It’s like progs think rich people just want poor people to suffer even at the former’s expense, so that’s why the wealthy hate government spending,* or something.

        *Of course, tons of rich people today have gotten rich from lobbying the government to spend on their businesses.

        1. It’s like progs think rich people just want poor people to suffer…

          Well, yeah. Obviously. Rich people get rich by exploiting workers and by ripping off their customers. That’s how capitalism works. Eventually the rich will own everything and the masses will be their slaves. Duh. Everyone knows this.

        2. It’s like progs think rich people just want poor people to suffer even at the former’s expense, so that’s why the wealthy hate government spending,* or something.

          Progressives believe that only the government can do things that are good. Therefore those who are successful at something without government’s permission must inherently be bad.

          1. or cheating, or ripping someone off, or paying someone under the table.

            Anything but selling people something they want at a price they like

      5. So if $15/hr creates millions of jobs, wouldn’t $150/hr create TENS OF MILLIONS of jobs??!!

        1. Now you’re just being greedy

    2. Wait, this is a thing he said? Like rally?

      Why, yes. Yes he did:

      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu…..pid=110903

    3. I’ve had this same discussion with proglodytes numerous times. Stating that they’ve just essentially described a perpetual motion machine usually gets them to shut the fuck up right away.

      1. You’d be surprised at how many people believe perpetual motion machines are actually possible.

        1. They DO work, but only in a vacuum.

          1. And sans internal friction, which is impossible.

    4. I think he was saying we create millions of jobs with infrastructure spending (remember the stimulus and shovel-ready jobs? Neither does he).

      I don’t think he really said the minimum wage would create jobs. Although he probably believes it, because he’s an economic idiot.

      1. RC Dean is correct. The other way is funnier, but this is what Ol’ Bern actually meant.

        I think….

      2. Well, certainly if you look at the transcript (see my link above), you are correct. They have transcribed it:

        But the truth is that for the 40 years, the great middle class of this country has been disappearing. And in my view what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition free. .

        The semi-colons make this a list. It’s still an idiotic policy that is part of his plan to restore the middle class.

        1. I’ve watched the middle class (minus public employees) slowly being wiped out for the last fifty years, due mostly to the Dems calls for increased spending and socking it to the rich. But the rich aren’t the ones paying. You could take everything the rich have and it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for all the promises. The poor don’t have anything to steal except their dreams of a future. So who does that leave to rob other than the middle class?

        2. I don’t know where the “middle class is disappearing” shit comes from either.

          1. It comes from years of politicians making promises to enact programs to protect our vanishing middle class.

            The thing is, and once again discounting government employees, you can’t be middle class without actual skills anymore. Germany and Japan and China have rebuild their factories since WWII, so living in the one country that wasn’t bombed back to the bronze age is no longer a vital job skill.

            There is a huge middle class in America. The traffic on my commute into Greater Boston and the number of biotech companies hiring anyone with a college degree and the ability to spell F.D.A. is evidence of that. But, people with actual in-demand skills tend to be small-c conservative and not to look kindly on new government programs that they will inevitably have to pay for. The people who feel entitled to be “middle class” because they were born in America and finished High School are the ones who are the target of the rhetoric from both establishment parties.

            1. I absolutely hate the idea that the middle class is somehow dependent on government programs for its existence. Isn’t the good thing about being middle class that you can provide for yourself and don’t need to depend on any programs or handouts to maintain your lifestyle? I’d say that by definition if you depend on some government program to maintain your standard of living, you are not middle class.

        3. Wow, that’s like 18 boldfaced lies in one paragraph. I don’t think there is a single true statement or idea premised on a true statement in that entire list. Bravo,Bernie!

      3. Yes. He did not actually say that the minimum wage increase would create jobs. Perhaps he is counting on infrastructure spending creating more jobs than a ridiculous minimum wage would destroy.

    5. Actually, looking at the quote, he doesn’t make that claim:

      “what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers”

      So, rebuilding the always-crumbling infrastructure creates millions of jobs, the rest is just part of a laundry list of things Government needs to do to take care of us properly.

      1. Millions of government jobs and/or government paid for jobs. But where is the money for those to come from – from taxing the rich and big business? How are they to pay those higher taxes when their labor costs go up due to an increased minimum wage?

        You can’t get something for nothing in this world…except at someone else’s expense. Yes, you can squeeze more golden eggs out the goose, but if you keep squeezing you soon get nothing but shit and a dead goose. Sanders is either stupid or outright dishonest – probably both.

        1. He sincerely believes this shit. He does so because he has the statist’s zero-sum concept of economics, in which wealth is a fixed quantity that falls from the sky and economics is the science of divvying up the manna.

    6. Comrade Bluster, you must understand that if Party decide to decree many millions of new jobs at higher wages than that is what will happen. Glorious State bring prosperity through decree. Comrade Sanders say so.

      There will be no problems. Problems outlawed at last Party meeting.

    7. And, surprise, the moderator didn’t question him on it.

      Both parties are the ultimate surface reactionists. Dig beneath the surface and ask follow-up questions, and their policies fall apart.

  2. We could also invest in basic economics classes for everyone.

    1. Basic civics and a basic understanding of the law would also be helpful.

      1. IOW, the kinds of shot people used to learn in high school before they were made into proggie indoctrination camps.

        1. *shit*, not shot.

          1. This is why we need common sense gun control edicts.

      2. How can there be basic understanding of a hetero-, malecentric-, white privilege law?

        1. Yep, those law courses would be implemented as histories of the unfairness of it all courses.

      3. With the government deciding the curriculum? People are better off knowing nothing than what they would teach.

        1. I dunno. If students learned just how deeply the government penetrates every aspect of modern life, they may just be more skeptical of “the free market did it” claims that politicians love to make.

          1. Or they might want it deeper.

            1. Or they might want it derper, as progressives are wont to do.

            2. We can only hope, I’m tired of just the tip. Oh wait, what were you talking about?

      4. Civics classes and business classes will be outlawed because they teach you the outdated Constitution and evil capitalism.

    2. That is the problem with government ran education. High schools require 4 years of English Lit (reading Shakespeare), but only 1 semester of government and 1 semester of economics (at least from my experience as a student and as a parent of 2 HS students). The government has no desire to teach it’s students how government and economics work. The enemy of government is a well informed citizen. The government will not “create” their own enemies.

      1. 4 years of English, not all literature. In theory, they are also teaching people to write, which is pretty important in any field.

        But I agree that it is ridiculous that that is required for 4 years, but a semester each on economics and basic civics stuff is OK. And one year of math is apparently all you need too.

        1. In theory, they are also teaching people to write, which is pretty important in any field.

          The operative phrase here being “in theory.” I was astounded by how many of my classmates in law school were unable to write a coherent paper, much less undergrad or high school.

          1. Yes, it is important to know how to write, but to learn that one must also learn to think – not what to think – but how to think. The latter is probably not going to be taught in English classes anymore – wasn’t much even when I was in school forty odd years ago.

      2. And even with four years of English, people still use constructions such as “government ran education” (when did they stop?) or “it’s citizens” (IT IS CITIZENS!!!).

        1. Grammar is a white hetero-normative cislord form of oppression

          1. Kelsey Grammar is a trigger word for me, oppressor! I’m allergic to tossed salad and scrambled eggs.

            1. I know what tossing a salad is, but is scrabbling eggs like, an even weirder move?

      3. I know the public schools in my area don’t require 1 semester on basic economics; or even on personal finance. It’s elective.

        1. All I remember them teaching about economics in K-12 was:
          – A brief explanation of supply and demand (with no mention of how higher prices are supposed to motivate others to bring more product to the area and alleviate the shortages)
          – Some half-hour video with Uncle Scrooge and those three little duck children explaining economics

        2. Well, you wouldn’t want too many kids to learn about saving, would you? Who would do all the spending and boost aggregate demand?

      4. The problem is that you can’t really teach modern economics without your students having some basic understanding of calculus first. All the models and concepts require that you understand differential equations.

        The attempt to get around this has led to the widespread use of IS-LM in basic economics. Economists teach IS-LM because they can move the curves around the graph and tell stories about them without needing math. Unfortunately they leave the impresion that Keynsian pump-priming is something that makes sense if you have a real economic model under your theory and aren’t just pushing lines around on a graph. So, you get Progressives lecturing you that you don’t get economics because you don’t understand the core economic principle that when government takes your money and spends it, the economy always grows as a result.

        1. “The problem is that you can’t really teach modern economics without your students having some basic understanding of calculus first. All the models and concepts require that you understand differential equations.”

          Oh bullshit.

          1. Call it that if you want, but ask any econ professor why they still teach IS-LM in Econ 101 and they will tell you it is the only model they can use that doesn’t require more math than most American students can follow.

            Even basic concepts like supply and demand need to rely on micro-based utility maximization equations. Models that aren’t based on actual human behavior tend to give unrealistic results – such as IS-LM. That model assumes that people see the higher wages and work harder as a result, because they fail to notice that prices have also increased in proportion so they aren’t really making any more money per hour in terms of purchasing power.

            1. You don’t need an advanced physics formula to know that shit is going to fall to the ground. You don’t need advanced economic formulas to know that scarcity is a fact. And it’s scarcity that creates the dismal science. And it doesn’t take advanced formulas to agree that when you have two people you have disagreement, and with three or more you have politics of the majority. The only question you have to ask is how much Force are you prepared to have to “cure” our divisions.

            2. Maybe Cobb-Douglass production functions require calc, but I don’t recall much in the intro courses that require calc. at worst, you’d probably just end up teaching students some calculus without them knowing it.

              Most people don’t have too much difficulty understanding basic calculus; it’s when you put it to them formally that they freak out. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity which is the derivative position, and there, even a toddler should be able to grasp what a derivative is from that.

        2. I don’t think the simple economics of supply and demand that are taught in high school (at least they were in mine 20 years ago), needs an understanding of calculus.

          Of course I was taking pre-calculus at the same time so who knows if that really did help me understand.

        3. No one should graduate high school without at least a basic understanding of calculus.

          1. That’s nonsense. Half the people could (and probably should) exit the education system when they’ve gotten their three R’s. If I’m an elitist, fine, but the guy who pumps the septic systems at the highway rest stop doesn’t need to know calculus. He certainly needs to have a rational understanding of scarcity though. That would probably go much further than understanding the implication of the 2nd differential of an equation.

            1. Half the people could (and probably should) exit the education system when they’ve gotten their three R’s.

              AKA eighth grade. You should be able to handle basic calc by the end of HS. If you can’t then you likely shouldn’t have gone in the first place.

              the guy who pumps the septic systems at the highway rest stop doesn’t need to know calculus

              That guy should have never wasted my money by going to HS in the first place. Compulsory education past eighth grade is a total racket.

            2. I’ve always wondered why they don’t teach classical logic in high school. It would do wonders if even a small percentage of students graduated with a solid understanding of why ad hominem is not a valid form of reasoning, or why “all X is Y” does not mean that “all Y is X”.

              1. That would make the electorate much harder to fool. Government has it all figured it.

                1. I don’t have as much faith in the cleverness of government as you do. If that is what’s going on, it’s entirely by accident.

          2. Actually, I’m going to come in mi it up by declaring that it is actually more important that students get an understanding of statistics than of calculus.

            Unless you’re a physicist, you’re going to use statistics a lot more both in work and in daily life than differential equations. Even in economics, I would argue statistics is more important. Determining correlations between variables, dealing with multi-colinearity, understanding the need for multiple hypothesis testing corrections, etc. Statistics and probability theory are, imo, even more underappreciated than calculus.

        4. I took calculus in high school and college, and close to 30 credits of econ in college, and never had any of my econ classes use calculus. It’s not necessary to understand supply & demand, public finance or foreign trade.

    3. Civics and economics was a required course when I attended high school. Unfortunately it’s not much help when it’s a variant of Keynesian economic theory being taught.

    4. Yes, but you’d need teachers who understand it to teach it.

  3. Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour Wouldn’t Create Millions of Jobs. But It Might Destroy Them.

    But, Peter, you just say that because you don’t like poor people and you don’t want them to earn a living wage and you are a shill for Big Oil and stuff. Not because you have facts or know basic economics, no: your intentions are evil. Have to be.

    At least, that is what Marxians would argue on Facebook.

    1. The people love simple fixes. That’s why socialism and its taproot, Marxism, are so broadly appealing.

    2. “Why do you feel the need to be a tool for the rich?” is the most common Progressive response when someone points out how supply and demand work. It’s all about the feelz.

      1. Wait… You mean you’re not getting checks from the Koch Brothers to make pro-capitalism comments all over the Internet? You’re getting a bum deal, dude!

  4. In my view,” Sanders said at one point, “what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition free.”

    He do love him his free shit at someone else’s expense, don’t he?

    1. Why do we allow people like this to prosper in any way? When I see people like Sanders, I envision my boot on their neck after enduring some of their insolent nonsense. These people are weak and stupid. The only reason any of them are in charge is because we allow it.

      Stop allowing them.

    2. Big-hearted Bernie is all about doing good works, but having someone else pay for it. Reminds me of an old braying jackass by the name of Marvin Zindler, who used to live down in Houston.

      1. +1 ice machine slime

      2. Fuck him for getting the Best Little Whore House in Texas shut down.

      3. That’s how progressives work. They are just so generous, they will give you the shirt off my back.

  5. The point isn’t to create anything other than a dependent pool of voters.

    If redistribution created or even assisted in the creation of individual skills, interests, and motivation, we’d all be millionaires.

    1. The point isn’t to create anything other than a dependent pool of voters.

      I’m not so sure. I think Bernie is a true believer.

  6. The $15/hour thing is just insane. How does anyone thing that’s reasonable? That’s $30,000 a year at a full time job. Which is plenty for a family to get by on if they aren’t in a high-cost city and quite comfortable for a single young person. And every fucking moron and teenager deserves that income just by virtue of being a warm body?
    Minimum wage is probably minimally harmful if it mostly trails wage trends as it has mostly done up to now. But this crap is seriously dangerous.

    1. Re: Zeb,

      The $15/hour thing is just insane.

      Any form of price control by a central authority is based on the insane notion that a few notables are somehow wise enough to know what the true price of something should be.

      Minimum wage is probably minimally harmful if it mostly trails wage trends as it has mostly done up to now.

      The problem is that because of the many variables at work in a market system, it is quite difficult to know if the harms were indeed minimal or not. People make choices when facing conflicting alternatives according to their subjective valuations, which means you’re going to get different results from the ex ante with even a small increase, let alone a greater increase.

      1. Any form of price control by a central authority is based on the insane notion that a few notables are somehow wise enough to know what the true price of something should be.

        I’m in an insurance law course at this very moment. Last week we had the chief legal counsel to our state insurance commissioner speak to our class. This is exactly the attitude he had.

      2. The problem is the proliferation of studies that ignore the fact that minimum wages tend to trail market-clearing wages, and thus that hikes in the minimum tend to have minimal effects, as the wage is still below the actual market flow. So, statists can point to said studies and claim that raising the minimum wage from 4.50/hour to 5.50/hour in a market where burger flippers are making 7.00/hour didn’t cause job losses, so an increase to $15 won’t either.

    2. And yet the public never learns. When this shit increases youth and other marginal-worker unemployment, the “free market” will be blamed, and the cycle will continue.

      1. Well yea, those free market folks are just such cold hearted bastards

      2. Yup, you got it. When people’s hours and pay got cut after Obamacare, it sure as hell wasn’t Obamacare that got blamed. It was evil !KKKorporashuns! keeping the little guy down.

    3. Well, no, Zeb. If you’re just a warm body, you get welfare. You have to work for the minimum wage, at least.

      Or something.

      1. Yeah, the one-legged biker, obese retard and 200 year old man who I see standing by the doors of Walmart are probably severely underpaid for all of their hard work.

        1. Hey, I do the best I can, okay?

          1. And God bless walmart for employing people like you. But I bet at $15/hour they would look for people who can do more than stand there and say “hi” when they feel like it.

            1. The best part about Hugh’s one leg is that it’s near impossible for him to chase you around the store when you don’t say hi back.

              1. Goddamn does he try, though.

        2. dude those stickers don’t peel themselves, and I can get shin splits standing like that all day.

    4. How does anyone thing that’s reasonable?

      It’s vaguely plausible, particularly to the sort of person making less than $15 an hour who has never given any though to why real wages rise.

      We devote too much time to taking these absurdities seriously. It’s just a bunch of politicians catering to people who’ve never given five minutes of thought to the question of economic value or why some jobs, skills, and talents net people more money in the market than others.

    5. Anyone remember all the 30K millionaires from housing boom?

    6. Yeah, there’s a whole lot of terrible assumptions being made by min. wage hike advocates. One of which is that all min. wage earners are single mothers struggling to make ends meet. In reality most of them are young single people living with their parents/friends and they only make the minimum wage for 6-12 months. After that they get a raise or move to a better paying job. It’s almost as if the min. wage is being used by workers as a stepping stone to better things and not as a means of supporting a family in perpetuity.

    7. And every fucking moron and teenager deserves that income just by virtue of being a warm body?

      Monica Lewinsky thought she should be found a $90,000 a year job just for having blown Cigar Bill – and she didn’t even swallow.

    8. You don’t think every person has an inalienable right to live in Midtown Manhattan? That every wife shouldn’t have the right to stay at home and watch soaps all day while living off of her husbands minimum wage work? What kind of soulless retrograde filth are you?!

  7. $50 an hour minimum and we’re all as rich as Nazis!

    Pencil whip our way to prosperity: It’s so easy!

    1. You know who else was as rich as Nazis?

      1. Democrats?

      2. The victims in Stalin’s mass graves??? Wait!—-

  8. Minimum wage should be $15/hr and college should be free. Why won’t Bernie think of the teachers?

  9. “In my view,” Sanders said at one point, “what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition free.”

    I’m sure that sounded as if there were an English sentence buried in there somep[lace, but it sure reads like:
    “Mumble free shit mumble more free shit mumble and free shit!”

    1. “Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure” has to be one of the most grating phrases in modern politics.

      1. Given the excessive reliance Progressives put on the notion that all my wealth is belong to them, because roadz, one would expect that the would shy away from also pointing out that the government does an amazingly shitty job at fixing said roadz.

        1. I never understood the “roadz” argument…

          The roads, power lines, etc. were built WITH TAX DOLLARS the first time around. The way they use that argument, you’d think that these politicians just rolled up their sleeves one day and started building roads for free, and now they’re politely asking for some payment for all their hard work. It’s made even more absurd by the fact that nobody had a choice to opt out.

          Imagine if I came to your house and took $20 from you and then mowed your lawn. You might say “well, I was going to mow it myself, or hire someone to do a better job for a more reasonable price, but whatever… Thanks, I guess.” Then as you’re sitting in your house relaxing, I barge in and say, “look at you, just sitting here and relaxing! You’re getting a great benefit because of all my hard work! You should pay what you owe me for mowing your lawn!” and then I take $20 more from you.

          That would be fair, according to the progressives who use the “roadz” argument.

          1. I think it was Harry Browne who said, “The government breaks your legs, then gives you crutches and tells you that you wouldn’t be able to walk if it weren’t for them.”

          2. Ironically, the roads argument works against them in a lot of ways. Just bring up air pollution and automobile emissions and you can make their heads explode:

            What if the cost of using roads was actually associated with the, um, *actual use* of roads? People wouldn’t drive gratuitously as much; they might walk or bike take the train more instead to avoid incurring the cost of using the road. Of course rich people would be able to afford to use roads more than poor people, but this would effectively mean roads would also be mostly funded by the rich people who were using them most, and less wealthy people would have the option to save money by using roads less. Poor people save money the environment is better off, win/win right?

            Instead, roads are given to all for free and paid by all by force, so use of roads is no longer connected to the costs of maintaining or using them.

            Arguably, one could in part blame mankind’s contribution to global warming on the fact that there is no incentive for citizens to use roads in a cost-effective manner, precisely because roads have been made a public good.

    2. By that logic, I we bombed Washington DC to smithereens, we’d have instant stimulus and millions of jobs.

      1. I like the way you think…

    3. [O]ur disastrous trade policies [have] cost us millions of jobs[.]

      Fuck you, Sanders, you mendacious twat. He’s such a lying sack.

      1. My free trade policy with the nation of GroceryStoristan has clearly been a disaster. For one thing, if I grew my own livestock and vegetables instead of buying from GroceryStoristan, I’d have lots more work, so obviously I would be richer. For another, I buy lots of stuff from GroceryStoristan, but they never buy anything from me; clearly they are hoarding up my money, getting richer and richer as I get poorer, until the day they can buy me out entirely.

      2. The main issue in trade is that we’ve hamstrung ourselves for decades with labor and environmental laws that have diminished our productivity and to be an equal “trader” with the world. It’s rippled through the entire economy and part of the reason we have allowed ersatz education to flourish – there’s been a declining need for really useful people with proper education as we’ve hobbled our really productive sectors.

  10. OK, I’ll give him a pass on the college tuition thing if he clarifies that he’s only talking about the tuition cost. So, for example, he’s for eliminating the $5000 tuition cost but leaving the $35000 in administrative fees.

    1. And don’t forget food and housing.

      1. Do I get my money back then? Or do I still have to pay back my loans?

  11. The worst thing about raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour is that you’re still going to have millions of workers stuck in dead-end minimum wage jobs trying to eke out a living on a paltry poverty-level income of 15 dollars an hour when any compassionate person knows a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work requires a hike in the minimum wage to maybe $22.50.

    The worst thing about raising the minimum wage to $22.50 per hour is that you’re still going to have millions of workers stuck in dead-end minimum wage jobs trying to eke out a living on a paltry poverty-level income of $22.50 an hour………..and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby doo.

    The only solution is to make both a minimum and a maximum wage – and make them both the same thing. Since we already know the real minimum wage is zero, well, guess what Bernie Sanders and his ilk have in mind for a fair tax rate?

    1. How many people do you think would fall for it if he offered to make minimum wage $150/hr with a 100% tax rate?

    2. You don’t need the maximum wage to be the same as the minimum. I mean, you do want to give workers some sort of incentive to improve. What you do is impose a 100% tax on earnings above some arbitrary number like a million dollars a year. The rich will still pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars, and all that new tax money can go to improve the plight of the poor. It’s not like that tax will result in the rich doing something else with that money. No. It’s not intended to, so that can’t possibly be the result.

  12. Sorry, Bernie Sanders. Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour Wouldn’t Create Millions of Jobs. But It Might Destroy Them.

    “Those are only the crummy low skill jobs anyway, and with free college, everyone will be able to get higher paying, good jobs, so we won’t need those low wage, low skilled jobs anymore.” /retards on FB

    1. Either way, millions of people would be beholden to government and vote appropriately.

      Win-Win

    2. My favorite related faction is the one that says that if you can’t pay your workers $X an hour, you shouldn’t be in business to begin with.

      1. Yep. If you can’t pay these wages or adhere to these regulations, that’s really just the market telling you that your business is not viable. That’s the free market at work!

      2. It is all about making themselves feel smug

      3. They enjoy watching people they don’t like suffer above all else.

      4. “if you can’t pay your workers $X an hour, you shouldn’t be in business to begin with.”

        I love that line. It’s like if I stabbed someone in the gut and said, “well if you can’t survive a little knife in your intestines, you’re too weak to live anyway!”

        1. PS: I might also reply with “I agree – only big corporations with tons of capital to spend on government-mandated wages should be allowed to be in business!”

    3. Why doesn’t the government just print $300 trillion and just give everyone $1 million. Boom! Everyone in America rich!

      I’ll accept that Democratic nomination now.

    4. Why doesn’t the government just print $300 trillion and just give everyone $1 million. Boom! Everyone in America rich!

      I’ll accept that Democratic nomination now.

      1. So nice, I’ll say it twice! Efficient like government!

  13. Sorry, Bernie Sanders.

    What are you apologizing for? He’s the one who sucks.

    1. Sorry we have fallen so far as a country that we have socialist running for President.

    2. Samir: Why don’t you just go by Mike?

      Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.

  14. pay equity for women workers;

    I thought women belonged at home to take care of babies?

    1. Well, yeah, but they’ll still be getting paid.

      1. That’s no joke. I’m starting to see more and more calls to classify child rearing as a job that parents should be paid for.

        1. What do you mean I shouldn’t be paid for doing something that I should do because I created the little buggers?

        2. classify child rearing as a job that parents should be paid for.

          Who hired them? Who do they work for? Do they get vacations? How would that work?

          1. Simple government check if you qualify.

        3. And as far as I’m concerned they can pay themselves as much as they want.

          Of course, I don’t think that’s what they have in mind.

  15. I can take a wild guess and say that Bernie’s adopted home state wouldn’t be able to absorb a $15/hr. wage. There are hardly any jobs there to begin with and the pay is relatively low even for professional jobs (though the cost of living is high, given that they tax the ever-lovin shit out of their residents and non-resident property owners)

    1. Vermont has a $9.15 min wage (as of Jan 2015) and a statewide GDP of $30 billion, which is the lowest in the nation.

      Things in Vermont don’t make any sense for Vermont, much less for the rest of the country.

      1. At least their governor achieved a brief moment of clarity when he realized they couldn’t afford single-payer health care. Too bad his brain went back down the proggie rabbit hole and he couldn’t see that the same concept applies to just about everything else, too.

      2. Vermont should promote it’s ski industry. I’m sure there’s a medium-sized hill somewhere that gets some snow.

    2. If they raise taxes enough all those NRPOs will simply stop paying taxes and abandon the properties. Good luck with that, Vermont.

      Doesn’t look like they’re close enough to Boston to have many people who work out-of-state, either.

      1. Yeah, if you live in VT, that’s pretty much where you work. The Adirondack region of NYS is a depressed shithole (despite the lovely lakes & mountains). You might be able to swing work in NH if you lived in eastern VT, but all the jobs in NH are concentrated in the Manchester area, which is not commutable from VT.

        It’s a real shame. I love VT so much, but their sucky government and the Free Shit Brigade of citizenry make it impossible to live there.

        1. Killington has some of the best ski terrain out of all the of the mountains on the East Coast, and they have an infrastructure that rivals some of the Rocky Mountain resorts. It just sucks that it’s in Vermont.

          1. I’m partial to Bolton Valley. Killington is a tourist mecca.

            1. Never tried Bolton before, but it’s been probably a decade since I skied the east coast. I did always like Killington but I know what you mean about the crowds. We use to hit up Canon and Loon a lot to avoid the crowds.

              I grew up learning how to use my edges on the fine blue porcelain of New England’s “snow” and then got spoiled out west in the Rockies. If I go skiing now it’s either the Rockies or forget it. Once you ski in 50 degree weather with a 72 inch base and no crowds you never want to go back. Aspen is insanely expensive (tickets are $130 a day) but that is the most amazing mountain I’ve ever laid boards on. No kids, no easy trails, tons of terrain and it’s rarely crowded.

              1. I’ve skied the last two years in Park City and have enjoyed the wonderful conditions they’ve had to offer – slush and corn! Why, it was just like being in VT in late March! Except it was early February….

                (needless to say, we’re giving up on Utah. The likely choice for us in 2016 is Copper)

                1. Ah that’s a bummer. I’ve had probably 2 bad days out of several hundred in Colorado lifetime. One year we hit Aspen a week before they were hosting the World Cup. We hit the Downhill course fully fenced off before they closed it to the public one morning after a nice dusting of about a foot of powder. There are no words to describe how amazing it is to go so fast on such soft conditions.

                  But I know that any ski area can have it’s slush and corn conditions, and I bet the East Coast has had some great days after all the snow they’ve been getting the last few years. My thing is that the Rockies just have longer runs, meaning less time on the lifts.

      2. Western Mass gets New Yorkers, I believe New Hampshire gets the Bostonians. I think Vermont out of staters are coming from further away.

    3. (perhaps something for reason to look into, eh? How VT itself would do with a $15 wage).

  16. The government has created millions of jobs. Many of those people who have permanently left the workforce are on permanent disability. Those people are paid by the government to sit at home. It’s essentially a high-paying government job.

    1. But paying millions of people to produce nothing stimulates the economy!

    2. I think there’s something to learn from that.

      For Libertopia to come, we may have to pay useless bureaucrats to sit at home and do nothing–at least for a while. I mean, they’re useless, and they know they’re useless. The reason they cling to their miserable jobs (and working for the federal government is miserable) is because they know no employer in their right mind would hire someone who’s worked for the federal government for ten years or more.

      We’re talking about people who have been drained of initiative, who have been actively discouraged from thinking for themselves. Their pay has virtually nothing to do with performance–it’s how long they’ve been there. I might rather hire someone with a prison record!

      In order to get such bureaucrats to give up their shitty jobs, we may have to pay them to sit at home. And isn’t that what we want? Wouldn’t it be better if the Drug Warriors simply stayed home every day? Yeah, we’d still have to pay them to sit at home, but at least we wouldn’t get the downside of them fighting the Drug War–and that might be worth more than what we have to pay them to stay home!

      Yeah, it’d be like they’re running a protection racket: Pay me to stay at home or I swear to God, I’ll show up to work and do my job–and you’re not going to like that! But a lot of business owners pay that kind of protection money–because it’s worth it.

      1. For Libertopia to come, we may have to pay useless bureaucrats to sit at home and do nothing–at least for a while. I mean, they’re useless, and they know they’re useless.

        I hate to quote Ann Coulter, but it could be thought of as a ‘safe streets program for Capitalism’.

        1. The bureaucrats would be a small problem if they were useless. Unfortunately they are very useful in strangling the economy with regulations and eroding individual freedom with Big Brother’s power and intrusiveness.

      2. For Libertopia to come, the ranks of the progs will need to be thinned. Probably through attrition.

        in other words, the progtards won’t go quietly, and it won’t be through elections.

  17. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: listening to progressives talk about economics is like listening to fundamentalist Christians talk about evolution.

    It’s just amazing that the people who advocate reorganizing our entire economy to combat global warming are so completely clueless about how the economy works.

    A pox on both parties, but I will never support a Democratic candidate until I see one whose economic thinking isn’t dumber than creationism. And I haven’t seen one since at least 1996.

    Willful stupidity on economics seems to be to the Democrats what being pro-Second Amendment is to Republicans–I don’t think you can win the Democratic nomination unless you’re willfully stupid on economics.

    1. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: listening to progressives talk about economics is like listening to fundamentalist Christians talk about evolution.

      Quit stealin’ my lines.

      1. That’s my line!

        1. When Kshama Sawant was elected to the city council, and the Seattle Times kept saying that “we need a populist voice on the council (I suppose Trump wouldn’t count)”, I pointed out many times that they’re essentially hailing someone who holds views which were the economic equivalent of creation science.

    2. ” I will never support a Democratic candidate until I see one whose economic thinking isn’t dumber than creationism.”

      I have been told recently that your concerns are trumped by their superior-optical-posturing on weed, snooping, and war*

      (*none of which they had seen fit to actually do anything about while in control of congress and the white house, but hey, making nice-noises is to be commended)

    3. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

      ? Thomas Sowell

  18. “create millions of jobs by…. rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers; and our disastrous trade policies, which have cost us millions of jobs; and make every public college and university in this country tuition free.”

    Not one of these things would even provide modest positive pressure on employment

    What is jaw-dropping is the assumption that this formula he provides is ready-accepted by journalists to even make sense.

    1. Journalists. That’s the keyword.

    2. Didn’t we already spend a trillion or so on a “stimulus” package that would create thousands of “shovel ready jobs” to fix our “crumbling infrastructure”?

      How’d that one work out again?

      1. See my comment below =

        Between 2009 and 2015… the bill on total “new” infrastructure spending…

        (and that’s assuming the previous budgets in the DoE, DoT, DoEd, etc. were somehow insufficient to keep the roofs from leaking, etc)

        … is easily in the hundreds of billions.

        And they’re still pumping the Infrastructure-spending story despite the previous hundreds of billions having gone into utterly meaningless stuff. <<br /
        and still no one else in the media seems to understand that its just a gigantic fucking myth, and “infrastructure” is just a key-word for “more spending”, most of which is going to cronies.

        The fact is, the stuff we actually USE, we pay for in myriad ways that doesn’t need government. We need government to force people to spend money on shit no one uses.

  19. Think of say a McDonalds,with 20 employees,open 18 hours,6 people a shift ,that would wipe out much of their proffit.The carry out where I buy beer and wine has about 6 low wage collage age kids working there.With his margin he’d have to fire at least 4. Of course,there’s the inflaton effect,prices will go up,wiping out this ‘fair wage’ increase.Small business would be a thing of the past,unless ,the owner and family did all the work.Walmart has a very small proffit margin and would have to raise prices or go out of business.

    1. The next logical step for progressives is price controls on everything. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this happen in my lifetime.

      1. Prices aren’t fair, so of course they need to be controlled. I mean, if something costs more than you can afford, that’s not fair. And if someone sells what you’re selling for less, that’s not fair either. Only government can make it fair. And don’t give me any nonsense about surpluses and shortages. No one intends for that to happen.

        1. Some asshole college kid puking up the pablum his commie prof. fed him was spouting that nonsense over public chat in an online video game I play. These stupid assholes really believe in that stuff.

          Fortunately this country has a lot of landfills for them. And a lot of sump trucks to deliver them to those landfills.

      2. The next logical step for progressives is price controls on everything. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this happen in my lifetime.

        I saw it happen under Nixon. Didn’t work then either.

      3. I seriously think that progressives are going to start attacking business’ freedom to hire their own workers. Think about it: selection in hiring destroys all of the progressives’ plans for utopia. Mandatory maternity leave makes employers hire fewer females? Minimum wage increase causes them to only hire the most valuable workers and leave the marginal workers in the dust? The logical solution – if you believe that business owners have zero rights and that a government ban is the solution to every problem – is to take hiring decisions out of the hands of business owners.

        It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if, in a decade or so, they proposed some kind of system where job seekers have to register at a government bureau, then employers who need workers request them from this bureau. It would fulfill their dreams of ensuring their preferred ratio of males to females, whites to non-whites, gays to straights, etc.

    2. And of course the people on S.S. would need a big raiise to cover the prie increases ,and FICA would need to be raised and on and on and on. Pond ,meet rock.

  20. Maybe we should elect Bernie so he can institute all of his hair brained economic policies that will fail spectacutlarly. I figure that socialism will leave a bad taste in the public’s mouth for maybe one election cycle until they all forget again.

    1. *spectacularly* Jesus shit eating Christ that was a bad typo

      1. You failed spactecyoulourlee!

        1. I think it was closer to “spectacle cutlery”

    2. Risk is progs would want to double down…they just need to go further or have the right top men

    3. With the amout of debt all ready on the books and then Bernie’s spending? We’d need to stock up on ammo,beer ,wine,ect.

      1. Don’t forget deodorant of your preferred brand(s).

    4. That’s hare-brained, as in Bugs Bunny.

      “That’s all folks!” which describes the result on the economy…

      1. When these fools go on about this garbage I just point to Venezuela and tell them that’s where we are going to end up. Most of them have no idea what I’m talking about.

    5. Except they’ll blame it on the free market and not enough spending/diversify.

      Do the masses blame Obamacare for their hours and pay getting cut?

  21. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a move, which would be, at best, a foolish gamble with the nation’s economy.

    But lack of a living wage is a foolish certainty!

    /prog

  22. “In my view,” Sanders said at one point, “what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure…”

    Millions of jobs? I work for a large contractor and we’re having a hard time finding enough people to do the work we have. There aren’t that many people who want to do construction anymore. They’ve been told computers or law school is the way to go so the construction workforce is getting older and dying off.

    There also is a real disconnect between the politicians and the actual number of people you need for construction projects like freeways, or light rail construction. I was at a press conference for a light rail job we had in Houston a few years ago and listened as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee announced the project was going to create 10,000 jobs. Well, I guess, if we parked all the equipment and did it old school with bucket brigades and shovels.

    At most we were looking at hiring maybe 350 people throughout the entire three year job. And we had a hard time doing that too, because so few of the locals could either pass a drug test or had too many felonies on their records (we allowed two in the past 10 years). I suspect Bernie will find similar problems if he tries to restart the Civilian Conservation Corps.

    1. Well, I guess, if we parked all the equipment and did it old school with bucket brigades and shovels.

      “Why not with teaspoons?”

      I suspect Bernie will find similar problems if he tries to restart the Civilian Conservation Corps.

      He’ll hire ’em anyway. At least *his* crumbling infrastructure will be newly built.

      1. Welp, if you can’t hire Americans because of their criminal records, you’ll just have to hire immigrants, because we can’t really do background checks in foreign countries and their (US) records will all look clean.

    2. I would be ok with a federally funded hand-built wall around NYC, and the entire west coast

    3. Re: DFG,

      The problem in this case is you, DFG, for not showing enough enthusiasm. I thereby commit you to a reeducation camp where you will be purged of these silly doubts and embrace the Revolution again, like your comrades have done.

    4. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

      There’s your problem right there.

      1. Pretty much.

        1. Of course, I live in a state that sent Alcee Hastings, Corinne Brown, and Alan Grayson to congress, so I don’t exactly hold the high ground here.

      2. Oh yeah, a real piece of…work. She threatened to make us redesign one of the lines because local activists claimed a tree right in our path had been planted by Martin Luther King’s Jr.’s nephew at some ceremony in the 1970s and was therefore sacred (his nephew?). The fact that no one had any record of this happening in the 70s didn’t really matter. They were going to shut the job down unless we went around that damn tree. We put a fence around it so that no one would “accidentally” cut it down and started to negotiate so that we didn’t have to do a $1 million redesign. I left the job before it was resolved but last time I pulled it up on Google Streetview it was gone so apparently cooler heads prevailed. Or the right people were given “jobs” or “donations.”

    5. This “crumbling infrastructure” bullshit is a myth, anyway.

  23. Kreuger’s studies are not worthy of discussion. They’ve been thoroughly debunked. His data collection was so poor he probably should never have been published.

    1. He looked at the number of people on the payroll and concluded that raising the minimum wage increased employment.

      What he failed to look at was hours worked. Turns out, in a result that will be a total shock to nobody who understands business, that raising the minimum wage led to a lot of full-time workers being demoted to part-time, so that the money spent on extra wages was recovered by not having to pay them full-time benefits. Then, you hire more part-timers to make up the lost hours. VIOLA! Higher minimum wage INCREASES employment. It reduces total compensation, of course, but, hey, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

      1. Even worse his results weren’t replicable. He and Card had their own special survey data.

  24. Why can’t we get a mainstream politician who is good on both social and economic issues? Here we’ve got someone who is pretty much great on social issues, but is an economic ignoramus. It’s as if most humans have some innate urge to control some aspects (but not quite all aspects) of other humans’ lives and politicians are just tapping into that.

    1. Reall?,Bet he’d make some one bake a cake if they didn’t want to.If sure his for federal abortion funding.Myself,I’d sell to anyone,and abortion is thye law,but making eveyone pay for it is not my cup of tea.I also doubt he stop the drug war,or let people drink the milk,or eat the food they prefer.He is evil.

      1. Ask him if a bar owner should be allowed to let people smoke in his business.See what he says.

      2. Pretty great relative to most politicians. The funding abortion thing is one that I file under economic issues, along with the other trade regulation stuff.

        I think Bernie would end the war on drugs if he could. Whether he thinks he has the power to go around Congress to do so is another issue.

        1. The funding abortion thing is one that I file under economic issues, along with the other trade regulation stuff.

          Well, plenty of people of a wide array of political stripes would argue that economic and social issues aren’t exactly different issues. Lots of the time, this gets them labeled as bigots.

  25. I’d also be curious to see if there’s any analysis on how this would affect the underground economy and under the table jobs. My guess is a lot of jobs that were previous “legit” would go under the table. If the progs think income inequality is bad now….

  26. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a move, which would be, at best, a foolish gamble with the nation’s economy.

    It’s not gambling when the outcome is known.

  27. Bernie kind of looks like an Underpants Gnome.

    Step 1: Raise the Minimum Wage
    Step 2: ????
    Step 3: Profit!

  28. The myth of “Crumbling Infrastructure

    I wouldn’t be surprised if construction-oriented labor unions were out there pulling up Amtrak rails, hoping that another train-crash might bring another few-hundred-billion into the “building-stuff boondoggles” that are annually rolled out like the newest idea in the world

    Last i checked, the Federal Govt spent something like $100billion+ in 2009 on bullshit “infrastructure” projects that amounted to throwing money at anyone who claimed they were Greening Shit up, putting more-efficient lightbulbs in the DMV, “weatherizing” Military Bases, and other highly-utilized “Infrastructure”. Then they quietly dropped an extra $10bn a year upping GSA contracts.

    Every year its the same fucking thing. then in 2012-2013 the budget called for $30-50 billion in new spending *per year* on “Infrastructure”…

    …and now, just 2 years later… lets throw another $300bn on top of that

    apparently polling shows that “Infrastructure” is a word everyone agrees WE NEED MORE OF THAT SHIT. So they throw money at it like its the fucking solution to every problem we didn’t know we had. And somehow its still all “Crumbling”.

    1. Well, infrastructure is definitely crumbling in Los Angeles. But that’s because the politicians there take the money slated for maintenance and squander it on social programs and lavish pay and benefits for the city employees. Now they say they need to raise taxes on everyone to pay for the crumbling infrastructure that they’ve neglected over the past few decades. Scumbags.

    2. It’s like “security” spending to local governments (police, fire, EMT, etc. ), or “education” spending. It’s a buzz word that triggers an emotional response in voters causing at least 66% of them to vote “yea” every time, no questions asked.

      1. Exactly.

        However, fire/police/EMT and education are things that people can generally see and measure. Not to mention that most of those things are paid for with local/property taxes and other things not requiring federal money-shoveling.

        “Infrastructure” is especially magical because of how vague it is. Could be a bridge! Could be a road. Could be new lights being installed in the courthouse. Could be buying Hybrid-Cars for a bunch of mobile bureaucrats, because “Green”.

        I’m not sure if its the effect of aging, and just discovering things that were already there… but it seems to me that modern politics is primarily involved with creating these Buzzword-type fuzzy ideas, then insisting that they are “Crucial” and “Urgent” and we need to “Do something”, i.e. throw money at it ASAP

        By the time anyone starts to wonder where the money went, its time to trot out Buzzword #2, which will suit until Buzzword #1 can be reintroduced, new and improved with sprinkles and glitter.

  29. Speaking of minimum wage, further proof that Rubio is a complete imbecile:

    http://tinyurl.com/ohubpl9

    Warning, links to Huffington Post

  30. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  31. “”In my view,” Sanders said at one point, “what we need to do is create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour; pay equity for women workers”

    Not to be a pedant, but there’s a semicolon between rebuilding infrastructure and raising the minimum wage. This implies that these are two separate things, meaning that he wants to rebuild infrastructure and raise the minimum wage. So, I don’t think you need to apologize to Bernie for saying that he wants to create jobs *by* raising the minimum wage. That’s not what he said.

    The other key word in your title is “might”. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr might also give a substantial raise to millions of people that work in lower paying jobs and (;) might give teenagers who work at McDonald’s more spending money. I know, I know… The latter is a terrible thing– in effect, a theft from corporate CEOs who do a lot.

    1. Yes, raising labor costs will *obviously* result in ‘more money for (fewer and fewer) employed youth’

      You are a bottomless well of stupidity

      1. If we just analyze the effect of increasing the minimum wage without considering x, the increase in wages of people getting a pay raise, then raising the minimum wage might be a bad idea. Which is pretty much what your article says. That’s real intelligent. Maybe you should be CEO.

        1. No, dipshit =

          the point is artificially higher wages mean fewer people being employed

          Artificially raising the prices of goods reduces demand.

          Every moronic liberal seems to grasp this when its a thing they dislike, like Cigarettes, or short term Capital Gains.

          Yet they suddenly develop a chinstroking attitude that labor is somehow magical and complex and free from the basic laws of supply and demand, and will allude to “Studies” they’ve never read and don’t understand, despite the bare facts of reality staring them in the face.

          You’re a walking Dunning-Kruger case-study.

          1. ^^Damn, AmSoc just got taken out to the intellectual woodshed…Wonder if he is #FeelingtheBern?

    2. might give teenagers who work at McDonald’s more spending money. I know, I know… The latter is a terrible thing– in effect, a theft from corporate CEOs who do a lot.

      Which is more likely? 1. That the extra wages will come out of the CEO’s paycheck. 2. That the extra wages will come out of some combination of reduced labor hours and higher prices.

      Show your work.

    3. might give teenagers who work at McDonald’s more spending money.

      Which they’ll need to pay the higher prices. Well, the ones who will still have jobs, anyway.

      I know, I know… The latter is a terrible thing– in effect, a theft from corporate CEOs who do a lot.

      You’re delusional enough to think that the cost of a wage increase will be passed on to CEOs. How cute.

    4. Tell us, amsoc:

      Has any minimum wage increase been accompanied by a cut in pay for anyone not making minimum wage?

      Not counting, of course, the cut in pay to zero for workers fired because they have been priced out of the market. I mean, people who still have a job.

    5. Did Bernie verbalize this semicolon? I think you’re reading a lot into a semicolon that was put in there by some transcript typing flunkie.

      1. Its not the semicolon; its the change of tense from “rebuilding” to “raise”.

        If he meant the minimum wage would create jobs, he would have said:

        create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; raiseing the minimum wage to $15 an hour etc.

        1. But that assumes he’s using parallel construction. The third and fourth clauses doesn’t start with a verb, which undermines that theory.

          1. By the time you wander to the end of that sentence, its pretty much gibberish. You can make an argument its all supposed to create jobs (in his mind, anyway), but, honestly, trying to parse the ravings of that old man is a fool’s errand.

    6. HEY ASSHOLE! HAVE YOU PAID YOUR GODDAMN MORTGAGE YET?

      1. Why would he when he thinks Bernie will pay it for him?

    7. Have you actually been to a McDonalds, or any fast-food restaurant, in the last 10 years or so? It’s very rarely staffed with teenagers unless they’re working the front counter; their staff are mostly immigrants now.

      In fact, teenage labor force participation has gone through the floor in that time frame. What makes you think raising it to $15/hr is going to ramp that up when the manager can hire an easily cowed immigrant that isn’t asking for every other weekend off?

      And as history shows, minimum wage increases are reactive to inflation. Shouldn’t the focus be on trying to figure out how to deflate our currency instead so that minimum wage increases become unnecessary?

      1. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr will make American Socialist’s investment in Momentum Machines go through the rough.

    8. Have you ever tried dividing the CEO of McDonald’s compensation (and, remember, stock options don’t constitute liquid cash that could be distributed to workers) by the number of hours put in by workers at McDonalds corporation to see what a huge raise they could get if the CEO’s pay were distributed to them? Of course you haven’t, you don’t have the intellectual curiosity to care if you are spouting bullshit or not.

      1. By huge, I mean “maybe enough to buy a Happy Meal” annually.

  32. Krueger is smart enough and wise enough to know that statistics showing no measurable unemployment increase correlated with small increases to minimum wages doesn’t actually imply that jobs are immune to the law of supply and demand, or that arbitrary increases to wages can’t reduce employment.

    Unfortunately, he realizes that morons have latched onto his work and claimed that it proves exactly those things, calling that “sciency” analysis.

    So, of course he’s got to issue disclaimers. He knows what’s coming.

  33. “statistics showing no measurable unemployment increase correlated with small increases to minimum”

    We can’t measure it, but right-wingers know its there. If we aren’t sure that the data we have supports the null hypothesis that increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr, why don’t we actually look at the unemployment rate in a place that has done that in Seattle? Allegorical stories of woe from failing pizza chains are nice sentimental things, but I’m actually wondering specifically what the recent unemployment rate is.

    1. Anecdotal. Alliteration is a bitch.

      1. So’s your mom.

      2. so, why not $150?

      3. I AGREE AMSOC $1000 MINIMUMWAGE FOR AALLL!!!! #FEELTEHBERN!!! #PROSPERITYZ!!!! #99%

    2. Whatever the data on the impact of “small” increases, we aren’t talking about a small increase.

    3. Firstly, no one has claimed “raising the minimum wage to $15 would instantly destroy the economy”, only that it would have negative effects. There are many other things that affect unemployment. Secondly, you are aware, right, that the minimum wage in Seattle is not currently $15? It’s only $11 right now, scheduled to ramp up over a period of years.

    4. AMSOC YOU ARE TEH SMARTEREST MAN IN THE WEBZ!!! THANK YOU FOR DEIGNING TO SPEEK TO US LOWLY LIBERTARDIANS!~!!!!111!!1

      I LOVE YOU BUDDY!!!!!

    5. The wage increase in Seattle is still being phased in and it’s already a disaster. You just love to double down on stupid, don’t you?

      Go pay your fucking mortgage you deadbeat.

    6. We can’t measure it, but right-wingers know its there.

      Price floors create surpluses and price ceilings create shortages. It’s a fact of economics, and it applies to workers as well. A price floor on inexperienced labor creates surpluses of inexperienced workers. Don’t believe me? Look at the stats on youth unemployment compared to the average. It is significantly higher, especially among minorities. Why? They lack experience, and when given a choice between an experienced and mature worker over a young and inexperienced one at the same government mandated price, employers naturally pass up the young people. If those young people could legally sell their labor for less money, they could gain the experience to demand more.

      And trust me, they know it.

    7. You’re quoting me. Are you trying to reply to me?

      We can’t measure it, but right-wingers know its there.

      Which is exactly something I didn’t say. You’re really just confirming my comment: you don’t know what the actual point of the statistics is.

      If we aren’t sure that the data we have supports the null hypothesis that increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr, why don’t we actually look at the unemployment rate in a place that has done that in Seattle?

      Because it’s being phased in, and won’t go in full effect until 2020. Again, this is why people should know what they’re doing before the start trying to draw conclusions from data.

      In other words, learn science before trying to be “sciency’.

      1. All I’m really saying is: “See, that Krueger guy? The person who’s studies you guys keep referring to? He’s trying to warn you that your analysis is faulty. Perhaps you should listen to him. He is an expert, after all.”

    8. Some good news bad news in Seattle unemployment figures

      http://www.seattletimes.com/bu…..-year-low/

      Good news – Washing adds 5 thousand jobs. Reality – 4 million Washingtonians are not in the labor force, and some of the jobs gained are bound to be seasonal and freelance.

      The economy does not run strictly on low paying retail or fast food industries. Some states might see gains in manufacturing or construction, but those jobs are almost certainly reserved for certain segments of society. A kid with high school diploma will probably not beat out 20 people for a logging position.

      The left knows this already. They’re the ones complaining about lack of opportunities for their base. But the min wage battle is an ideological one, so if the industries they typically detest post gains in cities with high min wage, they’ll point that out as evidence that high min wage doesn’t kill jobs.

      1. That’s actually all bad news. If you read the article carefully, you see that the “unemployment rate” fell because people stopped looking for jobs (the labor force shrank). That is not an indication of a better economy, it’s an indication that people are long term unemployed and without hope.

    9. I’m actually wondering specifically what the recent unemployment rate is.

      I wouldn’t expect an increase in the unemployment rate; it’s the wrong thing to measure. If you set the minimum wage at $15/h, the people commanding less than that wage won’t become unemployed, they become unemployable. Unemployable persons are not counted in unemployment statistics, they show up in a reduction in the size of the labor force. Most of their jobs are not lost either, but they get filled by people actually worth $15/h, along with a smaller reduction in the number of jobs.

      Let’s be clear again: if you raise the minimum wage by 20% and all the workers making less than that get fired instead of getting a raise, you still wouldn’t see any significant increase in unemployment or overall loss of jobs.

    10. I dunno, go ask the hundreds of people in Seattle living on the street or in our many tent cities how the minimum wage is working out for them, you asshole.

  34. No thank you, Bernie.

  35. Part of me (a large part of me) wants to say – FINE! You got it, Bernie! Here’s your $15/hour and everything else you asked for – free day care and college and higher taxes on the millionaires and billionaires.

    And then, take early retirement and high tail it out of this country.

  36. If you’re serious about examining the results and determining whether or not a significantly higher minimum wage is a good thing, let’s not pussy foot around. Let’s make it $20 / hr. or better yet let’s guarantee everyone of working age a minimum salary of $40k per year. That seems to be the number that is popular among those advocating such a thing. Then we will see what, if anything happens to the economy. An interesting experiment to be sure.

  37. Frankly, Bernie is insulting. “You stupid poor people are too stupid to ask for higher wages on your own, or increase your marketable skills on your own, or find a new job. So I’m gonna take care of you.”

    Insulting.

    1. Such condescension is displayed by proggz to all their various bases when you think about it.

  38. Better unionization than a minimum wage IMHO. At least, there’s the patina of voluntarism in collective bargaining.

  39. Same old conservative stuff. Pay people a living (barely) wage and it will cost America “slave-wage” jobs.

    The conservatives (i.e. the wealthy) hate to see people actually survive by working. But here’s a solution:

    How about cutting the minimum wage down to $2 an hour.

    According to conservative mathematics, if raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour costs jobs, reducing it to $2 an hour should create jobs.

    Waiting for the Koch brothers to propose it.

    1. Not sure why I’m responding, but…

      The minimum wage should be $0. And that’s what it is, for all intents and purposes.

      If you raise the minimum wage to $15, there are a good number of people currently making $7-$14 an hour that will begin making $0 an hour.

    2. Aww, look everyone, a drive by trolling.

      I didn’t think retarded liberals even did this anymore.

      1. Somebody on Twitter/Facebook/Salon/Reddit/whatever posts “HEY GUIZE LOOK WHAT THESE DUMB LIBERTARDIANS ARE SAYING”, and the drive-by trolls come checking in.

        Happens especially every time somebody posts Reason articles on Fark.

      2. DesigNate|10.14.15 @ 3:38PM|#
        “Aww, look everyone, a drive by trolling.
        I didn’t think retarded liberals even did this anymore.”

        If you click on his handle, you’ll find he has a blog every bit as pretentious and imbecilic as tureman’s.
        Meh…

    3. What is a living wage exactly and how was this computed? Does one die right away without said living wage?

    4. If raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour costs jobs, reducing it to $2 an hour should create jobs.

      Who says it wouldn’t? Low-paying jobs, sure, but jobs nonetheless.

    5. I think Michelle Bachmann did propose abolishing the minimum wage, arguing that it would ‘end unemployment.’ That’s obviously wrong, but yes, reducing or abolishing the minimum wage would create jobs. Why wouldn’t it?

      And why would conservatives/the wealthy “hate to see people actually survive by working”? So they want them to… die by working? You went through the effort of registering here, you could put some work into this trolling.

    6. if raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour costs jobs, reducing it to $2 an hour should create jobs.

      And why wouldn’t this be the case, at least potentially? If I could have a full-time housekeeper or valet for $2/hour, I’d probably do it. The thing is that the prevailing wage here is generally above that anyway, so I don’t know that I’d get a lot of applicants, but that’s the thing about prices – if you’re offering way less than going rates, you don’t generally get much.

      For those who don’t believe the minimum wage has a real effect, I can say that I know that it does. My wife runs a small business, and would like to hire some assistants. The thing is that is really hard for a receptionist or gofer to add $20+/hour in value to a small business. According to the socio-economic geniuses on the left, that means she doesn’t deserve to have assistants…which is the same thing as saying that somebody else doesn’t deserve to have a job. Apparently it is preferable that she not have any help and that somebody looking for work make zero dollars per hour instead of $10/hour.

      1. Because deep down, progressives hate poor people.

    7. How about cutting the minimum wage down to $2 an hour.

      How about cutting it to $0.

      According to conservative mathematics, if raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour costs jobs, reducing it to $2 an hour should create jobs.

      That’s one possible effect. Another is simply to raise prices for everybody, in effect a regressive tax. There are other possible consequences.

      Waiting for the Koch brothers to propose it.

      Why wait? about half of economists want it eliminated.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

    8. Rodger – your book is ranked #1,540,428 at Amazon. You are my hero!

      Since you are supposedly a business turnaround specialist , you do realize how labor market works right?

      People compete for jobs based on skills. The more competition their is the more the wages paid for the labor goes up. The less competition, the price goes down.

      Setting an artificially floor, makes everything out of whack. That’s ok right it’s all about the unions (which are tied to min wage).

      Hey, why is 15 the magic number?

      So if you owned a business, being a business turn around specialist, would you a) take a paycut (not possible for small business), b) raise prices and pass on to the customer, or c) higher less workers.

      Come on it’s not hard.

  40. How heartless do you have to be to oppose a minimum wage?? Some people are trying to raise families of four! FOUR! It’s just not fair that, for whatever reason, some people have four children and they require more money because of it. Maybe science will answer the question of why some people have kids and others don’t… But for the time being, we need the government to mandate a shining happy living wage so that people who somehow end up with more kids don’t have to struggle financially.

  41. When we have government sponsored elections my platform will be to make the minimum wage $1000/hour. Then everyone will have 39 hours a week to spend it. BOOM! PROSPERITY all over the fucking place! I’ll wear a hat that says “Make Americans RICH!” or some such shit.

  42. What – only $15.00 an hour? Why not $1,500.00 an hour?

    Then we could order $500.00 big macs !!

  43. He is a near-retarded economic illiterate who has never once in his life held a real job. Yes, I believe he said this. Also, fuck him.

    1. And in CA, we have moonbeam with similar qualifications. And similar stupidity.

    2. It’s frankly incredible how someone who has been a politician for four freaking decades can be seen as a “man of the people”.

  44. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  45. Bernie Sanders Inspires Techies to Launch Facebook-like Social Network!

    WeLoveBernie.net is a new, Facebook-like social network devoted to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and progressive causes and its purpose is to mobilize millions of people for a political revolution! Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his message about taking back America for the 99%, the social network offers the bells and whistles of Facebook where users can post profiles and photos, promote their organizations, books, music, artwork, documentaries, films and other items of interest to this community. The network can support multiple languages and 100 million users.

    Join the Political Revolution here: http://welovebernie.net/

  46. The very idea of a minimum wage is offensive to anyone who values voluntary exchange in the market place. Why should Senator Sanders have the power to set terms of trade for us? Who on earth does he think he is?

  47. Funny how these proposals to hike the minimum wage are never accompanied by a proposal to reduce the higher tax bracket the newly risen workers will now enter. Feature, not a bug.

  48. If wages aren’t high enough for people to live decently, then federal and state programs spend billions to make up the difference. It’s inefficient to have the government intervene. When businesses pay a living wage, it keeps people out of poverty, expands consumers’ spending power, and reduces government outlay… all at the same time. Some wealthy people understand that a $15 minimum wage will grow the economy: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ma…..eory-scam/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.