Minimum Wage

Leaked Clinton Emails Reveal that Even Democratic Policy Advisers Worry a $15 Federal Minimum Wage Would Cost Jobs

The Democratic presidential candidate knows a $15 an hour federal minimum would cost jobs, but supports it anyway.

|

credit: Catherine Bauknight—ZUMA Press—Newscom

For much of the Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton said she supported raising the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 to $12 an hour. But over the course of a drawn-out race with rival Bernie Sanders, who supported a $15 federal minimum, Clinton shifted her position, eventually saying in April that she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if given the opportunity. Clinton's shift on the issue mirrors the larger shift by the Democratic party as a whole.

One of the most remarkable things about the move by Democrats to support a $15 an hour federal minimum wage has been how divorced the idea has been from economic expertise. Not only have conservative economists warned about the negative consequences of such a move, but some of the party's own leading policy voices have said that it's dangerous and would almost certainly result in significant job loss.

For example, former Obama administration economic adviser Alan Krueger—whose work has helped lay the foundation for liberal arguments that smaller hikes in the minimum wage would not result in significant job loss—warned last year in a New York Times op-ed that a $15 an hour minimum wage would likely result in "severe" economic consequences, and that many areas of the country would not be able to absorb such a hike.

Behind the scenes, it's been clear that much—maybe even most—of the liberal policy community is uncomfortable with the idea, even though many have refrained from public criticism.

Even still, it's notable that Neera Tanden, the head of the Center for American Progress, cautioned the Clinton campaign last year about supporting a $15 federal minimum wage.

As Sean Higgins of The Washington Examiner reports, an April 2015 email from Tanden to four senior Clinton staffersresponding to a list of policy proposals states that "Substantively, we have not supported $15—ysou will get a fair number of liberal economists who will say it will lose jobs." (The email was obtained through an illegal hack, and published by Wikileaks.)

It's worth taking a moment to put this in context: Tanden, a former Obama administration staffer, is the head of one of the largest and most powerful liberal policy institutions in Washington, and she is a leading figure for a top position in a Hillary Clinton administration. She's writing to a group of top Clinton campaign staffers, including Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman and a former president of the Center for American Progress himself, Campaign Manager Robby Mook, and Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, all of whom with intimate knowledge of the liberal policy consensus. And not only does Tanden state that many liberal economists would object to a $15 minimum wage because it would result in job loss, no one else on the thread appears to push back in any way.

What that means is that Clinton's top advisers—and, almost certainly, Clinton herself—know full well that there's essentially no good evidence, even from liberal evidence, to support moving to a $15 federal minimum, and are aware that doing so would likely cost jobs. But Clinton, under pressure from the party's left flank, has indicated that she would nonetheless support $15-an-hour legislation.

In its campaign form, this is purely cynical political pandering. In legislative form, however, it would have real and practical consequences. But for Clinton, the potential loss of millions of American jobs is apparently a small price to pay when compared with her own political future.

NEXT: If Johnson Gets 5 Percent of the Vote, Would the Libertarian Party Take FEC Money?

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. Pfft. Who cares. Trump talked about dicking pussy 10 years ago.

    1. He talked about kissing women whether they liked it or not. That orange hue he radiates doesn’t do anything to turn him into a suave Don Juan Tenorio but more like Gossamer The Monster which can only turn what he may think is an innocent kiss-stealing act into attempted rape in the mind of his intended victim.

      1. Actually, he talked about kissing them, and they liked it, not “whether they liked it or not.”

        1. He also mentioned grabbing them by the pussy. And of course he’s going to say they like it.

          1. And he’s not going to mention the times they didnt.

            1. But do they pay him at least $12 or $15 per hour to grab them by their pussies? Inquiring minds want to know!

      2. Oddly enough, I’ve had more than one female acquaintance mention that while vacationing in South America this happened to them at more than one bar. Thus the real crime Trump is guilty of is cultural appropriation. The. Worst. Crime. Ever.

          1. I was wondering when this would turn up.

    2. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/hhwe4zl

      1. I keep a special collection for folks like you, Ellie…

        http://www.plusaf.com/homepage…..stupid.jpg

    3. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/hhwe4zl

  2. Boy, when all of these leaked e-mails catch the attention of the major press, the public is going to be outraged. Real game changer.

    1. It’s been in the news ad nauseum for 4 years now and has been on the front page of digital editions of the NYTimes numerous times– including today. What are you talking about?

      1. Just curious, but would you say Karl Marx is a hero of y ours? I am just asking because I think you have a lot in common.

        1. You mean do I admire the person who came up with a wholesale critique of capitalistic society, developed theories that said that the rewards for the work that laborers conduct should not be shunted into the pockets of people who sit in offices and do not labor, said that greed should not be the primary driver in society, said that governments should wither away, that wars were a consequence of nations fighting over resources that capitalists control and that average workers shouldn’t fight in such wars to save the profits of people with obscene access to money and power? Yeah, I admire that philosophy.

          1. Troll,
            You just claimed in the Cathy Young article that you were totes a libertarian supporting GayJay.

            1. Well that was then, Bacon.

            2. That’s changed? I’m not a troll. I’m big on that not fighting wars thing.

              1. I’m big on that not fighting wars thing.

                What? You want to declare war on the American people. You love war, as long as you get to be the one holding the gun.

                1. Where did I say that? I’m for this country’s peaceable dissolution. I’ll be happier living in California without having to pay for Tea Partier’s who hate the government in Kansas.

                  1. Good gravy, people… stop feeding it, please.

                  2. I’m for this country’s peaceable dissolution.

                    Since when? You just make shit up. You demand policies be enacted through the Federal government then turn around and say this?

                    All you do is lie.

                    1. “Since when?”

                      Since always. I’m a socialist libertarian revolutionary– not some two-bit right-winger who thinks Black people are stealing their tax dollars and then calls themselves a libertarian. FUCK THEM IN THE EYE!

                    2. a socialist libertarian revolutionary

                      English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

                  3. And you’ll be happy to make those people in Kansas pay for your mortgage too, and for your healthcare, and for your kids’ education, and for your water, and eventually for your food, and so on ad infinitam. And if they don’t want to contribute, you’ll see them sent to prison.

                    Yeah, you’re a real pacifist.

              2. I’m big on that not fighting wars thing.

                Right, because every socialist government has built heaven on earth peacefully.

                1. Who invaded Cuba and bombed North Vietnam?

                  I think you’re right though. Social democracies with large welfare states and small defense budgets don’t go to war with each other. That’s why I’m a social democrat who supports Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare and opposes idiotic wars.

                  1. Social democracies with large welfare states and small defense budgets don’t go to war with each other.

                    Right, they just go to war against all of those icky poor countries.

                    I’m sure Africans are comforted by the notion that the French troops fighting in Africa aren’t going to invade England again any time soon.

                    1. You mean like in 1959? It’s 2016, right?

                    2. Yes, I’m talking about today, you ignorant clod.

                      Figures, you don’t have any idea what’s actually going on in the world.

                    3. 2016, and Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc. are all still egregiously abusing their citizens. France is still bankrupt and its public services still shut down every two weeks because the workers want to go froma 4 day to a 3 day work week, Greece is still on the path to fiscal ruin unless it cuts back on all those social services you love so much, and all the most successful social democracies are salvaging themselves by becoming less ‘social’ (e.g., cutting spending).

          2. The person who came up with a way of deceiving the public into thinking that he didn’t support an oligarchy, developed theories that a person exists solely to serve the interests of the oligarchs that run his country, promoted the nonsensical notion that labor isn’t labor if you use your head instead of your hands to generate income while simultaneously exalting the wise masters of the oligarchy that will make the decisions about which activity will be useful to society, that greed by proles is bad but is OK for Party Members, said that governments should whither away which why we need more government, that wars need to be fought to obtain more resources for the failed soviet system and to distract the public from the failures of their masters, and that average workers should gladly sacrifice their lives so the Party Members can have nice dachas. Yes, you admire that philosophy.

            It explains so much.

            1. not to be a party pooper but didnt the soviet revolt happen after marx was already after the picture? theres a lot of flaws in marx’s rambling, selfcontradictory screeds but i dont think defending the comintern was one of them.

          3. Idiot Espouses Violent Totalitarian Collectivism; Wonders Why Libertarians Pick On Him. No film at 11

            1. you mean I’m not entirely down with state power being able to evict poor people from a house owned by capitalists?

              1. Maybe you should have paid your mortgage, then.

                1. /thread

              2. What if they don’t pay their taxes?

              3. american socialist|10.11.16 @ 3:55PM|#
                “you mean I’m not entirely down with state power being able to evict poor people from a house owned by capitalists?”

                You mean your class envy should allow you to duck your agreements?
                Grow up; mommy isn’t here anymore.

              4. you mean I’m not entirely down with state power being able to evict poor people from a house owned by capitalists?

                I bet you’d be down with state power being able to evict poor people from a house owned by socialists.

              5. So you’d be OK with it if the house was owned by a non-capitalist.

              6. Yeah it’s quite an injustice that you don’t get to live in someone’s house for free indefinitely. next thing you know McDonalds will be allowed to call the cops on you when you try to go into the kitchen and make your own cheese burger with their supplies. Such oppression.

          4. Everyone knows capitalists invented war. There were 0 conflicts in human history before the invention of capitalism. And of course, anti-capitalists never started any wars either.

            1. I’m essentially a1910 libertarian. Skeptical of state power to promote the interests of rich people, skeptical of wars waged against other workers, and for the right of workers to organize and control their workplace, including the ability to toss out their bosses if they are incompetents.

              1. “Skeptical”
                “Apathetic”

                More lies.

              2. Translation: You’re a capitalist pig.

              3. “right of workers to organize”
                read: require workers by law to join unions whether they want to or not.

                “including the ability to toss out their bosses if they are incompetents”
                Does that mean I have the right to take control over the nearby McDonalds franchise from its owner if I feel he is managing it incompetently? In other words, your a libertarian who doesn’t believe in private property?

                “I’m essentially a1910 libertarian”
                Something tells me Eugen B?hm von Bawerk wouldn’t agree with you there.

          5. That isnt what I asked AmSoc.

          6. You’re an idiot.

            And so was Marx.

            His theories were used to kill millions upon millions.

            And you support that. No matter what you tell yourself at night.

          7. AS: yep, that is the standard line all right. Life is unfair because it is so tilted toward those who own and control the capital heights who keep more than they deserve…shareholders, CEOs, brokers and other “middle men” who siphon off proceeds and enrich themselves, while the poor slobs at the bottom of the pyramid barely get by, or certainly get less then they truly deserve…

            So why hasn’t your scheme ever worked out where it has been put into practice? The Soviet Union imploded, all of their client states [with exception of Cuba, what a financial paradise that is] have abandoned it, and China remains politically one party communist while embracing capitalism and enjoying a substantially improved standard of living for many [not all by any means, but many] of its citizens. I guess that leaves N. Korea as a shining example of your Potemkin Village.

            You should go there, comrade, because life in such a society with and economic system as we have is so awful, don’t you think?

            1. Well, at least pot is legal in North Korea.

          8. american socialist|10.11.16 @ 3:26PM|#
            “You mean do I admire the person who came up with a wholesale critique of capitalistic society, developed theories that said that the rewards for the work that laborers conduct should not be shunted into the pockets of people who sit in offices and do not labor, said that greed should not be the primary driver in society, said that governments should wither away, that wars were a consequence of nations fighting over resources that capitalists control and that average workers shouldn’t fight in such wars to save the profits of people with obscene access to money and power? Yeah, I admire that philosophy.”

            No, we mean the one who claimed that was his theory and was promptly shown it was total and complete bullshit:
            “B?hm-Bawerk was also one of the first economists to discuss Karl Marx’s views seriously. He argued that interest does not exist due to exploitation of workers. Workers would get the whole of what they helped produce only if production were instantaneous. But because production is roundabout, he wrote, some of the product that Marx attributed to workers must go to finance this roundaboutness, that is, must go to capital. B?hm-Bawerk noted that interest would have to be paid no matter who owned the capital. ”
            http://www.econlib.org/library…..awerk.html
            Marx, like you, was a simplistic thinker; he sort of forgot there was a value to time.

          9. That “philosophy”, as you call it, is behind the deaths of about 200 million people and counting. Fuck you and fuck the parents who failed to teach you right from wrong.

            -jcr

        2. AmSoc is more of a Stalin type useful idiot.

          1. That’s definitely true. He’s one of the “socialists” who thinks the Scandinavian countries are socialist, a claim that actual socialists roll their eyes at.

                1. Ah, looks like the squirrels awoke.

              1. Let’s see if the squirrels are awake yet ….

                Here’s the Dead Wrong take on that.

      2. Emails that were just leaked have been in the news for four years? I know you’re a troll but are you also a bot?

        1. I know you’re a troll but are you also a bot?

          Nah, just a retard.

  3. This is buried far too deep in the weeds of policy and outcomes to have any impact with an electorate that votes primarily on emotion and cultural affiliation.

  4. Fun OT for those tired of the election:

    SEATTLE – Teaching young boys how to play football as a team can be a challenge for anyone. Coaching when your football field is also a common homeless camp makes it a different kind of contact sport.
    […]

    “We’ve had needles all over our field throughout the season that we’ve had to pick up,” said Whitney. “I’ve been attacked by a group’s dog when I asked them to move off the field, and we’ve had drug use happening right on the edge of our field within five feet of kids practicing. We often have to move around them.”
    […]

    In many cases, the city would be required to begin a 30-day process to notify and offer services to people living in encampments before forcing them to move out. The law would apply to people living in tents, cars and RVs.

    “It’s already been typical enough that we’re becoming a little numb to it,” said Onyon. “But right now, we’re here for the kids.”

    1. That’s fucking terrible

    2. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      The left claws and tears at the fabric of society at every opportunity. They thrive on chaos, misery and despair.

    3. Only sensible solution is to stop inducting children into Concussion Culture.

    4. Fuck that coach, and fuck the parents too. Those shitheads put that council and that mayor in charge of the city, so they deserve to feel the consequences of their decision good and hard.

      1. I was not aware that 100% of the eligible population in Seattle voted in local races, and that the outcome was unanimous.

        1. It’s in the Social Contract, man! It’s a mandate if it has even the barest majority.

  5. Of course they know it’s going to cost jobs. They don’t care, because they know they can use those people out of work to make political points (whether it’s a “better safety net” or “more unemployment benefits” or “we need to crack down on these rich corporations who are screwing over their workers”).

  6. Reverse Citizens United

    Reverse Heller

    Impose $15 federal minimum wage

    Impose Single Payer

    Federal Yes Means Yes

    What’s not to love?

    1. Since HRC has no love for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments, I’m wondering what her position is on the quartering of troops.

      1. She’s probably all for it, if the knife is sharp enough. She’s compassionate that way.

      2. “Since HRC has no love for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments, I’m wondering what her position is on the quartering of troops.”

        Not only does she support it, but she thinks those gun loving, military loving, right wing nuts are hypocrites for objecting to her policy of quartering troops in their houses.

  7. Let’s raise it to $1500.00/hr, and by the time the robots take over we’ll all be rich!

    1. We’ll all be billionaires, but not rich.

      1. Zimbabwe is way ahead of us.

  8. Considering the historical fact that the original arguments for introducing a minimum wage often revolved around keeping low-skilled “undesirables” OUT of the workforce — and those arguments and the minimum wage itself were the brainchild of progressives — why not assume the same today?

    Perhaps the real reason insiders like these want to press ahead with a $15 minimum wage, despite being fully cognizant of the likely effects, is that they view those effects as a feature and not a bug.

    Just like their lefty forebears a century ago wanted to keep minorities from “contaminating” the workforce too much, maybe the modern progs are worried that if too many minorities start landing jobs, increasing their skills, and moving up, they will scream for less free stuff and start looking beyond just promises of handouts when it comes to supporting politicians. And the elites can’t very well have that going on too much, can they?

    1. Ive tried telling people. Its different now. Somehow

    2. I think the most likely scenario will closely track to what happened in California. Despite knowing full well that it’s a terrible idea, they’ll sign it if it miraculously makes it through the Senate and Congress (it won’t) because it’s ‘good for the little guy’ (it isn’t).

      It seems to me that they are just acknowledging that they honestly don’t give a shit what the policy is, as long as it keeps them in office. They have absolutely zero hills they are willing to die on. Everything is up for grabs, anything can change depending on how the political winds blow, and no one and nothing is sacred beyond cash and power.

      I’d say that Hillary sacrificed her conscience for political power, but I’d need a citation that indicates she ever had one to begin with. Then again, living with a guy like Billy Bob would probably drive anyone to madness. Who needs to divine the cause or decent into such a state, all that really matters is that she’s arrived there.

      So when you see her, or someone like her, out there campaigning for something that will literally destroy the country? I don’t think it’s necessarily because they want to destroy the nation, it’s just that they want to be the one driving when it hits the embankment, because they can freely loot the entire time they’re behind the wheel and dive out at the last minute.

    3. It was also racist. Those ‘undesirables’ (you know, your Jews, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese etc.) were seen as a threat to Anglo-Saxons.

      1. You know who else was a threat to the Anglo-Saxon?

        /I want to participate but it is bad form to reply to your own comment.

        1. The Norman French?

        2. The Vikings?

        3. You’re looking for Hitler, right?

        4. Anglo-Saxons?

  9. One of the most remarkable things about the move by Democrats to support a $15 an hour federal minimum wage has been how divorced the idea has been from economic expertise.

    Not remarkable in the least. It’s not their money.

    1. It would be remarkable if they didn’t support rising unemployment/increased dependency. Free shit is their bread and butter.

      1. Appeal to envy and resentment
      2. Promise to punish ‘the rich’
      3. Promise free shit
      4. Win elections

      What is economic reality compared to political reality?

  10. Megan must be visiting her mother this week.

  11. Why is Suderman avoiding PussyGate news? This is all small ‘taters.

    1. As a Serious Man writing Serious Policy Articles, it is beneath his Journalistic Dignity.

      Or it’s become old news.

  12. Seattle unemployment rate at 8-year record low.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/bu…..ght-years/

      1. I’d be an economic libertarian if pet economic theories didn’t slam themselves headlong into empirical evidence.

        From WashPost:
        Middle-class Americans and the poor enjoyed their best year of economic improvement in decades in 2015, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, a spike that broke a years-long streak of disappointment for American workers but did not fully repair the damage inflicted by the Great Recession.

        Real median household income was $56,500 in 2015, the bureau reported, up from $53,700 in 2014. That 5.2 percent increase was the largest, in percentage terms, recorded by the bureau since it began tracking median income statistics in the 1960s.

        In addition, the poverty rate fell by 1.2 percentage points, the steepest decline since 1968. There were 43.1 million Americans in poverty on the year, 3.5 million fewer than in 2014. The share of Americans who lack health insurance continued a years-long decline, falling 1.3 percentage points, to 9.1 percent.

        1. 1. Put everyone on ‘disability’
          2. Put everyone on Medicaid
          3. ???
          4. Profit!

        2. Obamacare was supposed to reduce lack of insurance to zero. Instead, it’s down modestly after six years, mainly due to increasing the Medicaid rolls.

          This is not what success looks like.

          1. What’s the point of having insurance if a person can’t afford to use it.

            You still don’t have access to health care.

            1. Health insurance, unsurprisingly to anyone in the industry or with a brain, is not in fact ‘access’ to healthcare nor is it in any way commiserate with healthcare itself.

              I have personally seen healthcare plans whose copay to see a physician is literally the price charged to people without insurance. Testing is obviously a different story, but to see a Doctor? Not that expensive.

              Bonus points for any mouth breather who’s smart enough to see a low cost M.D. so that they know what they have when they walk into the ‘free’ emergency room, thus driving up costs across the board for everyone else. Nothing like a $1,200 visit to the E.R. because your six kids all have a cough. That’s definitely more expensive than the $120 to see your primary care M.D. and a bottle of Motrin. Good thing they had Medicaid, which again drives up the cost of care to everyone else.

              Hooray, everyone loses.

            2. Nailed it. My deductible went up to $10,000 this year.

              We had a baby, my wife had major surgery, we had well visits for the baby and my two other kids.

              And still we haven’t reached the deductible. It’s all been out of pocket despite our premiums almost doubling.

              It would literally be cheaper for me to pay for my family’s major medical expenses if we didn’t have health insurance.

              1. Frankly, that’s what health insurance should look like. It’s catastrophic health insurance. If everyone were under such a plan, the cost of health insurance in this country would start declining and your actual health insurance premiums would be much cheaper.

        3. Real median household income was $56,500 in 2015

          Real median household income peaked in 1999 and again in 2007, at the apex of 2 different bubbles. Once the current Fed-induced bubble pops, it will crater again.

          1. Any day now. Aren’t you guys the ones forever complaining about lackluster growth?

            1. Growth funded entirely by debt is not real growth. Juicing the numbers is not the same as building lasting wealth.

        4. This has been a historically-weak recovery and you’re promoting that as evidence of rousing success? The recession “officially” ended more than 7 years ago, and we are just now talking about real recovery?

        5. Re: American Stultified,

          I’d be an economic libertarian if pet economic theories didn’t slam themselves headlong into empirical evidence.

          You probably meant you would be a Marxian despite the empirical evidence.

          Your lack of sophistication in economics is telling. What do you think you’re arguing, anyway?

          Seattle unemployment rate at 8-year record low.

          Once again because of your incredible incompetence, you’re making the labor lumping fallacy. Monimum wage laws affect the unskilled and the young most severely. If these stop looking for a job because they can mooch off their parents, then of course the “unemployment rate” is going to look low.

          What does the job environment look like for low-wage jobs in Washington state compared to Seattle? Maybe not so good:

          http://www.aei.org/publication…..-of-state/

          This does NOT mean the minimum wage increase which takes full effect in 4 years is the direct cause of this shift because of the yet too small period, but it is telling that the highest growth in labor contracting happens RIGHT OUTSIDE the borders of the city of Seattle.

        6. Sigh.

          A small fraction (like %% or less) of Seattle’s citizens are min wage employees. What;s more, min. wage employees tend to migrate out of cities with high minimum wages, and if the goods being produced are inelastic, rather than laying off employees, companies simply raise prices. Have prices gone up in Seattle recently? Yep. Much higher than average cost of living.

          Anyhow, for your consumption, amsoc:
          http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti…..b86f074e6c

          http://www.aei.org/publication…..ign=081115

          1. http://conversableeconomist.bl…..early.html

            http://www.cato.org/blog/seatt…..orkers-due

            Now, what were you saying about empirical evidence?

    1. That’s nice.

      What about employment in industries targetted by the minimum wage hike?

      1. It’s ok, he’s ignoring the study that the city itself commissioned which showed the minimum wage hike was at best a wash (benefits of higher wages vs cut hours and/or lost jobs) and most likely a net negative.

    2. They are running low paying jobs out of town. Unemployed and low wage people cant afford to live there. All they have are relatively wealthy people and the homeless. If you don’t count the homeless then of course they have low unemployment.

      Sounds like a proggie paradise.

      1. See also: San Francisco, Washington DC

      2. Yup, exactly. Middle and working class people can’t afford to live there anymore, so median income rises.

        Success!!

        The falling median income of the rest of the state shows this.

        By the way, just as an anecdote, I have this friend from college who is a total granola. She finally gave up this year on Seattle and left, lamenting that it costs too much to live there “because corporations are driving up the cost of living” (this is how they think).

        She moved to Austin. Something tells me she’ll like her new state’s economics despite our friends’ reaction of ZOMG OH NO TEXAASSSS.

      3. Sounds like a proggie paradise.

        Now you’re getting it. Have the poor self-deport, leaving behind the wealthier citizens who can afford it. I believe it’s called gentrification. The main difference is that this has government support.

    3. I hate when the poor get priced out by market forces too, racist.

      1. +1 Cash for Clunkers

    4. Why the 8 year frame?

    5. I love how socialists talk about helping the poor but trumpet statistics that were gamed by excluding the poor.

      1. Like: “All our cities should mimic San Francisco’s policies! It’s such a wealthy city!” not noticing that that’s because only rich people can afford to live in San Fran anymore.

    6. Verbatim from the University of Washington’s “Report on the Impact of Seattle’s Minimum Wage
      Ordinance on Wages, Workers, Jobs, and Establishments Through 2015” (Note that this is just for an increase to $11; The full $15 rate has yet to be phased in):

      “In a region where all low-wage workers, including those in Seattle, have enjoyed access
      to more jobs and more hours, Seattle’s low-wage workers show some preliminary signs
      of lagging behind similar workers in comparison regions.

      “The minimum wage appears to have slightly reduced the employment rate of
      low-wage workers by about one percentage point. It appears that the Minimum
      Wage Ordinance modestly held back Seattle’s employment of low-wage workers
      relative to the level we could have expected.

      “Hours worked among low-wage Seattle workers have lagged behind regional
      trends, by roughly four hours per quarter (nineteen minutes per week), on
      average.

      ***

      “In sum, Seattle’s experience shows that the City’s low-wage workers did relatively well after the
      minimum wage increased, but largely because of the strong regional economy. Seattle’s low
      wage workers would have experienced almost equally positive trends if the minimum wage had
      not increased. Although the minimum wage clearly increased wages for this group, offsetting
      effects on low-wage worker hours and employment muted the impact on labor earnings.”

      1. Yeah, I read that report a while ago. Its conclusions were inconsistent with all the hand-wringing around here about how Leftists hate the poor. You mean poor people are making about the same money while working less hours? The Hurrah… I wonder if some of them might now have enough time to go to school or spend time with their kids. Again: terrible.

        1. Do you always claim victory before the policy you’re talking about has taken effect? It’s ok, I don’t expect you to answer.

        2. Newsflash: the rest of the country is not Seattle.

          1. True. And the bullshit predictions of calamity and SkyNet takeovers flew high and low here at Reason. Why can libertarian economic models never be validated by actual evidence?

            1. Your caricature is not reality.

              The prediction was simple, and it hasn’t been invalidated.

              Those whose labor did not command more than the new minimum wage would not be working (legally) in Seattle.

              Nothing has disproven this claim.

              You can bring in new workers, but that doesn’t help those who were driven out.

              1. Assumes facts not in evidence.

                1. You are the one who made the claims that the MW helped people. You have not proven those claims.

                2. I put the evidence in the links above, which demonstrated that the predictions of disemployment effects were entirely true. I doubt you’ll respond, you’ll probably run away and pretend you won the argument like you always do, but this is an important point we have to keep beating into your head: no one is predicting calamity; quite the opposite, the most ardent anti min wage economists (Don Boudreaux comes to mind) contend that the effects of minimum wage – positive or negative – increases almost always go unnoticed because so few people make minimum wage jobs. This is why the increases are always so modes: politicians know that if they jacked up the minimum wage to $70 an hour, the effects would no longer be negligible, and we would suffer the consequences, and vote them out of office.

                  Essentially, the case for minimum wage makes as much sense as someone pouring a drop of water into a swimming pool, noting that there is no detectable increase in the water level, and thereby concluding that pouring water into the pool does not impact the water level.

            2. They have been validated over and over again in your worker’s paradises. Not to mention the American territories in my link posted below. Meanwhile, the $15 rate hasn’t even been phased in yet in Seattle.

              And let’s not forget the housing bubble, which you Keynesian clowns completely failed to spot, while Austrians were sounding the alarm. While we’re on the subject of Keynesian failure, there’s Japan’s two lost decades, the economic boom which occurred after government spending was slashed post-WWII, the possibility of stagflation, and the Obama Admin’s laughably inaccurate estimation of unemployment after the porkulus passed.

        3. You mean poor people are making about the same money

          Facts not in evidence

          1. “Facts Not In Evidence”

            Sorry. You’re right. They are making more money…

            “Seattle’s lowest-paid workers saw larger-than-usual paychecks in late 2015, but at most, only 25 percent of the observed income gains ? a few dollars a week ? can be attributed to the higher wage.”

            1. Seattle’s (former) lowest-paid workers

              are not working in Seattle any more. The people who make up the “lowest-paid workers” today are not the same as those yesterday.

              You intentionally cut off the bottom of the chart and now are patting yourself on the back for its disappearance.

              So, Seattle grows economically. Shame for the people whose employment was driven out of Seattle. But whatever makes the (cherry picked) numbers look good, right?

        4. You mean poor people are making about the same money while working less hours? The Hurrah… I wonder if some of them might now have enough time to go to school or spend time with their kids. Again: terrible.

          Uh, the point of raising the minimum wage was for them to make MORE money, not the same amount on fewer hours, you imbecile. If you supposedly can’t pay your bills on the previous minimum wage at 40 hours, how are you going to do so making the same amount of money on fewer hours?

        5. If you don’t hate the poor, why do you cheer for the assholes who are grinding Venezuela into starvation?

          -jcr

      2. So basically, a strong economy is going to do well regardless of the minimum wage increases, and a shitty economy isn’t going to be improved by raising it.

        Of course, if inflation hadn’t exponentially increased the CPI over the last 50 years, this would all be moot.

        1. So basically, a strong economy is going to do well regardless of the minimum wage increases

          Not exactly. An economy can survive any regulation if, the cost of the regulation can be successfully hidden/routed around. A loose (but not too loose) monetary policy combined with a loose trade policy allows the American left to pretend that they’re policies have no cost.

          Of course, that also leaves the country increasingly beholden to foreign economies.

    7. The American Experience Of A Too High Minimum Wage: Employment Down By 35%, GDP Down By 23%

      The impact on the economies of American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands was devastating. In American Samoa, by 2009, after only three of the ten scheduled minimum-wage increases, overall employment dropped 30 percent ? 58 percent in the critically important tuna-canning industry. Real per capita GDP in American Samoa fell nearly 10 percent from 2006 levels. In the Northern Mariana Islands, by the end of 2009, employment was down by 35 percent, and real per capita GDP off by 23 percent.

      The law had a similar effect in Puerto Rico where the mandatory increases resulted in a minimum wage that was greater than 75 percent of the Puerto Rican median wage. And the results were predictably catastrophic for the economy. Economic activity declined and Puerto Rican unemployment surged. Between 2007 and 2013, Puerto Rico’s GDP per capita declined by nearly 7 percent, while over the same period it was unchanged nationwide.

  13. And actually, this is small ‘taters compared to the revelations that the State Dept was doing full on Quid Pro Quo for foundation donors and the fact that the Clinton campaign was blatantly coordinating with superpacs.

  14. (The email was obtained through an illegal hack, and published by Wikileaks.)

    Oh, no. This egregious exposure of private communications is a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election. Heads will roll.

    1. “Chinese hackers breached the NSA firewall earlier this morning”

      “Any chance they can fix the wifi?”

      1. I think they might be ethnic Mongolian, actually.

        1. +1 City Mongorian Wok

    2. I’m relatively new here, was there such a disclaimer on Snowden and Manning leaks, too?

  15. In its campaign form, this is purely cynical political pandering. In legislative form, however, it would have real and practical consequences.

    Consequences utterly meaningless, compared to the TRUMPOCALYPSE!

    Thousands of nothing jobs for nobodies in nowheresvile are a small price to pay to avert the Fourth Reich.

  16. RE: Leaked Clinton Emails Reveal that Even Democratic Policy Advisers Worry a $15 Federal Minimum Wage Would Cost Jobs

    There is nothing wrong with having The State forcing people into unemployment, despair, and hopelessness.
    This way, all the little people will eventually run into the welcoming arms of The State and live happily ever.
    History has shown this many times over.

  17. Democrats recognizing the negative effects of a policy and then lying by supporting the policy? Why who ever heard of such shocking behavior? Said no one ever… I’ll admit you can insert the party of your choice in that statement…
    Break left arm? or Break right arm? eenie, meenie, minie, moe…

  18. Who could honestly not be worried about that?

  19. Gosh, does this mean that there might be actual laws of economics that actually apply to the labor market as well? Amazing stuff! Why hasn’t someone told us about these laws?

  20. It’s almost like she has a public position and a private position. Just like Lincoln.

    1. Sadly, all of her public positions decrease liberty and freedom for almost all Americans.

  21. “we have not supported $15?ysou will get a fair number of liberal economists who will say it will lose jobs.”

    This is what happens when you don’t pay your interns $15 an hour.

  22. For an effective democracy, it’s essential to let idiots drive the boat.

  23. But for Clinton, the potential loss of millions of American jobs anything is apparently a small price to pay when compared with her own political future.

    FTFY. There’s literally nothing that cunt wouldn’t do to advance her own political career.

  24. Comrade Sanders says we must hold our nose and vote for the racist war monger Hillary otherwise Trump.

  25. OT. On Monday I happened to be at a business in Gary IN staffed primarily by black folks. On two occasions I overheard conversations wherein I heard a black person say to another “I don’t care who wins. They’re both knuckleheads!”.
    My takeaway is that while black people who vote will undoubtedly support the Ds, a whole lot more are gonna sit this one out, not unlike the rest of us (i’ll be throwing my vote away on the big L guy again because I’m a slow learner). If my anecdotal evidence is indicative of the attitude of blacks in general, it’s very bad news for her highness.

  26. Seems to be a liberal thing, doing things you think are bad but…..

    Jerry Brown Admits $15 Minimum Wage Bad, Signs Anyway: http://www.breitbart.com/calif…..rder-guns/

  27. The stupidity of a $15 minimum wage is basic economics. Falsely inflate the minimum wage and all other wages will rise in response to maintain equilibrium. All it will do is cost jobs by making it too expensive for small businesses to hire people and raise federal poverty level. You will have the same number of poor people, making more money and paying much higher prices so they will actually be even poorer than before the wage was increased.

  28. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  29. And here’s the latest leaked Hillary email:

    “Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating [Donald] Trump,” Brent Budowsky, a political columnist and former political adviser, wrote in a March 2016 email to Podesta and Roy Spence, an ad maker for the campaign. “She has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.

    “Even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me,” Budowsky added.

    Good job, Trumpkins!

  30. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  31. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool… on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it’s certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  32. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  33. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  34. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  35. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.