Bernie Sanders Introduces a Bill To Raise Minimum Wage to $17 by 2028
The proposal would raise the federal minimum wage by 134 percent.

Congressional Democrats have tried numerous times to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Now they're back with an even bigger proposal.
On July 25, a group of 30 Democratic Senators and 150 House members led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D–Va.) introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2023, which would increase the federal minimum wage to $17 by 2028. The bill also removes the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers and youth workers over seven years, and for workers with disabilities over five years.
Proponents of raising the minimum wage tout it as an anti-poverty tool. "The $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage is a starvation wage. It must be raised to a living wage—at least $17 an hour. In the year 2023 a job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," Sanders said in a press release.
As the Economic Policy Institute shows, over 12 percent of workers in 2022 were paid below the poverty level ($13.33 per hour) and 20 states don't have a minimum wage above the federal level ($7.25 per hour). Advocates note that the minimum wage has not tracked productivity growth, in which case it would be $23 an hour since its peak in 1968, and $42.37 if it aligned with the growth of Wall Street bonuses since 1985.
"Due to high inflation, $17 per hour today is roughly equivalent to $15 per hour in late 2019 in terms of its real spending power," explains Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute. "So I see this from Sanders and company as a continuation of the Fight for $15 campaign, albeit with a higher cash wage to reflect the recent burst of inflation."
However, the minimum wage has proven to be a poor tool for reducing poverty because of its impact on employment, especially for younger, less educated, or less skilled workers.
"Raising the federal minimum wage by 134% to $17 per hour would do very little to alleviate poverty and will hurt many of the workers Senator Sanders purports to help," adds Joseph J. Sabia, professor and new chairman of the Economics Department at San Diego State University. For example, raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour in New York City led businesses to cut staff and hours.
A July study on the proposal by the economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University, released by the Employment Policy Institute, finds that raising the minimum wage to $17 per hour would lead to the loss of over 1.2 million jobs nationwide. Notably, they find that 63 percent of the job losses would be borne by workers between 16 and 24 years old and that tipped workers will experience a quarter of the job losses in restaurants and bars, two of the demographics that Sanders' and Scott's bill explicitly aims to help.
"Research has shown that teenagers are affected more by a minimum wage hike," says Even. "One might say maybe we shouldn't worry about that, but there's other research showing that what you do as a teenager has a long-run effect on your labor market opportunities."
There is also the impact of rising prices resulting from the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects poor households. "Jacking up the price of takeaway food, hospitality services, and others clearly means that a minimum wage increase is not an unalloyed good for low-income households," explained Bourne in a 2021 Medium piece.
"If you think about it, fast food restaurants are going to be disproportionately affected. The luxury restaurants are probably paying waiters and waitresses above the minimum wage anyway," notes Even. "And so where the prices are affected more happens to be where low-income people are more likely to buy food."
While some research has found that minimum wage increases do not cause job loss, most scholarship indicates a negative relationship. In a 2022 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists David Neumark of the University of California Irvine and Peter Shirley, director of the Joint Committee on Government and Finance for the West Virginia Legislature, examined "the entire set of published studies in this literature" and find that "there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature."
"Newer research also shows that some firms react in other ways than laying off workers or reducing future hiring. This might be through trimming non-pay benefits, forcing their workers to work harder, replacing low-skilled workers with higher-skilled workers, or altering work schedules in ways less well suited to workers' lives," notes Bourne. "This might reduce the effect on overall employment, but all of these things have downsides for the low-wage workers directly affected. There are big trade-offs."
The minimum wage's effect also depends on where it is implemented. "Minimum wages may have different 'bite' across different regions of the country because of differences in the shares of low-wage workers living (or working) there," explains Sabia. "For instance, in Los Angeles, California, the local minimum wage is $16.78 per hour. A $17 federal minimum wage is likely to have much less impact there than in Oxford, Mississippi, where the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour."
The desire to increase the federal minimum wage may originate from a genuine desire to help workers, but the evidence says it will do real harm.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In the midst of inflation and a credit downgrade, Bernie Sanders doubles down on attempting to destroy any semblance of the American economy.
"Fuck it, no one should have a job or money!"- BS
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
If I were a congresscritter, could it be considered insider trading if I made a huge investment going long on A.I. and robotics stocks the day before I voted for the minimum wage increase?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,900 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,900 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
If you’re a congressthing you don’t have to worry about insider trading.
Why not $117?
In completely unrelated news, I stopped in the dining room area of a fast food place for lunch yesterday, and I noticed that all of the human order-takers have been replaced with self-serve kiosks.
Because unlike politicians, business owners aren't stupid.
They also tend to mess up orders far less frequently.
Well, I have a difficult time arguing with the manager that the kiosk screwed up my order, for certain.
Do the robots spit on your burger?
Did they sprinkle the kiosks with sesame seeds?
I'll see your $17 and raise it to $25 - just deport every illegal in America.
$17 an hour. Is their goal to eliminate the middle class with this shit? $17/hr is about what many professionals make when starting out; $35,360/yr. There is no way a burger flipper is worth as much as a technician starting at an engineering firm.
Then, with $17/hr, you have the inflation in prices, but not wages for others that goes along with it. Anyone making more than $17/hr will effectively be getting a pay cut.
To some degree.
Not as much of one as the people whose work is worth less than $17/hr. They're going to go from $12 or whatever they are making now, to $0.
When cities and states have raised minimum wage in the past, businesses tended to flee or set up shop elsewhere. The ones that are unable to leave are forced to raise prices and hire fewer people, which often results in them going out of business.
Not sure what will happen if the minimum is raised on a national level, because then there’s nowhere for businesses to run.
Here's a thought -
What works for large cities on the coasts might not work for rural areas in the center of the country. One size fits all solutions do more harm than good.
It doesn't "work" in those places. That's my point.
I was agreeing with you.
The federal minimum isn't necessary in places like NYC or San Fran, where no one is going to work for $8 an hour anyway. And it doesn't really work in rural Arkansas, either, not that Bernie Sanders cares.
The new $17 an hour obviously still doesn't work in Seattle, as DR(P) reported, as it's below their current local minimum, and it works even less well in other places than the $8 did.
re: "then there’s nowhere for businesses to run"
Sure, there is. Some businesses will flee overseas, other established businesses will gradually fail and new businesses will be heavily discouraged. We know this because we've seen it happen in other nations.
The goal is to screw over the lower class, making jobs harder to come by, thusly making them more dependent on government, in an effort to make progressive elites feel that they have the right political views, and "those people" should be happy they're looking out for them.
I don't think so. While that is the result, I do not believe it is the intent.
Rather this is a great example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These fools who want to raise minimum wage honestly believe they are punching The Man in the nuts and forcing him to give a well-deserved raise to the underclass of wage slaves whose labor he exploits. They're willfully ignorant of economics and fueled by class envy. They truly believe they're helping the poor.
They truly believe they’re helping the poor.
That's part of what I'm saying. The proglodytes really think they're looking out for the lower class.
I mean they think they're lifting the poor out of poverty by giving them a raise, not creating a permanent underclass of unskilled people on the dole.
The perfect voter.
So, $1.69 LESS than it is in Seattle. Wake me up when he proposes something radical.
"The desire to increase the federal minimum wage may originate from a genuine desire to help workers, but the evidence says it will do real harm."
The desire originates in the innate desire of every fascist to control every aspect of the lives of others.
No one deserves a part time job in school.
No one deserves a part time job to help out with the family finances without abandoning that family.
- B Sanders
If a stupid piece of shit like Bernie Sanders is worth over $100 per hour, there's no telling how much somebody whose sole job isn't simply wasting valuable oxygen might be worth.
HEY!
Bernie also expels carbon dioxide which is vital for plants.
Give him his credit.
And all the hot air he produces could power a generator!
It's a shame he's not entrepreneurial enough to think of that.
“armed-theft” the new well-paid career.
The left makes a living out of pretending government makes ?free? sh*t when the only tool (separates it from any other entity) in it's toolbox is a monopoly of gun-force.
A few things missed in the article and discussion.
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It’s a get-your-foot-in-the-door wage.
Depending on if you count sales and tipped workers, between 1.5% and 3% of the workforce is paid minimum wage. That's it. Maybe 3% at the max.
For the vast majority of that miniscule 1.5% to 3%, it’s either entry level meaning they’re only paid that wage for a short period of time, or it’s a base rate with tips or commission on top.
People aren’t locked into some income quintile. They move through them. So that 12% of workers being paid poverty wages is not some static group. It’s mostly young people and students who, before long, will be earning more than poverty wages and replaced by more young people and students.
^This^
Want to get from lower class to middle class? Get a diploma, and get a job. Do that and time in the workforce usually takes care of the rest.
Or just learn a trade - no diploma needed (maybe some certs as you advance).
There are a lot of skilled trades that pay over $100,000 year now. But you don't get that for a 40-hr week. And you don't get that in your first week in the trade. And often, you don't get that for working in a air-conditioned environment. And you may have to lift over 40 lbs., [unless, of course, you are an affirmative-action hire woman in which case (1) do your male "peers" have to do your lifting for you, or (2) does the company have to hire and bear the expense of a male "helper" plus your wages to do your lifting for you?)]
More indication that unless you are headed towards a profession requiring a terminal degree (M.D., J.D., Ph.D. in something really rarefied like theoretical physics) the cost benefit ratio for a bachelors degree for males is not favorable (and sometimes not even then).
Engineering and other STEM majors are where the bachelors is worth it.
Usually they want a high school diploma (which is what I took for the "Get a diploma" part).
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It’s a get-your-foot-in-the-door wage.
Wages, minimum or otherwise, are not meant to be anything beyond compensation to perform a task. There's no one out there making low paying jobs explicitly to help poor people. Self-interested businesses offer the lowest pay they can to attract the sort of people they need while self-interested workers demand the highest pay they can while still remaining employed. The place where they meet in the middle is how wages get set. Starving artists exist not because the Art Czar hasn't provided sufficient funding for up and coming artists, but because while some people are willing to starve to make art for a living, absolutely no one is willing to starve in order to mow lawns and flip burgers.
Everything else is a distraction by impotent whingers who overvalue themselves who want to use men with guns to get their way.
You missed the whole Keith Ellison co chair of the DNC thing. To Bernie and Ellison, these are career jobs. And really, with 75 percent of rent paid by section eight vouchers, SNAP, cash assistance, water-sewer, energy assistance and Medicaid, this hike would put a family of ten below the *you’re not gonna lose that 80k in welfare transfers* threshold.
proves he's still just a fucking moron and so is most of Vermont.
+1
With zero understanding of the laws of nature of economics. The minimum wage is effectively the standard in our fiat money system. Doesn't matter what you call it, everything else scales to that.
The simple truth is, a hamburger flipper is not worth the same as a skilled tradesman, no matter what you pay him, and Bernie needs to get over it. (And retire, please!)
There’s some free shit going in Vermont. I don’t care to know how many federal grants are transferred, but, if migrants are willing to freeze to death while crossing the Canadian border in winter, you gotta determine the free stuff faucets are flowing.
$17/hr seems like a lot, but you need to keep in mind how much more expensive things are now. If we had a $18/hr minimum wage, people will be able to spend more freely for the things the need and maybe have a bit extra for some "wants" as well. I'm glad Bernie is proposing an increase to $19/hr for minimum wage, that way the average, down-to-earth worker can use their $20/hr wage on things like ordering take-out or starting a new streaming subscription.
In short, things will just be better overall when we have a $21/hr minimum wage.
No, things will not just be better overall with any particular minimum wage. The previous several minimum wage changes 1) lifted NO ONE out of poverty; and 2) made NOTHING better overall for anyone. However, if you imagine that a new higher minimum wage will work, by all means cite the data that you think supports your fantasy here. Perhaps the data from previous increases?
I think this was a joke by super scary see the increase in each sentence 🙂
If we had a $18/hr minimum wage, people will be able to spend more freely for the things the need and maybe have a bit extra for some “wants” as well.
We have an $18+ an hour minimum wage. And it makes things crazy expensive.
lol love this.
It's as if politicians see poor people working low-skilled jobs, and think the way to make them wealthy is to outlaw unskilled labor.
There is no way to call what politicians do "thinking"
It’s as if politicians see poor people
They try not to, but poor people just keep showing up.
"In the year 2023 a job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it"
Bernie, not only will raising the federal minimum wage not lift anyone out of poverty, it will also eliminate some of the jobs you think should be lifting people out of poverty. I know it's pointless to try to educate committed socialists about basic economics, but it's NOT the purpose of jobs to lift people out of poverty in the first place! The purpose of a job is to provide an income for the worker in exchange for labor for the employer. That's it! There is NO other purpose for jobs, no matter what your tortured socialist fantasies might be.
One way to make everyone higher on the ladder is to knock off the bottom rungs. That technically raises the average, doesn't it?
At least for the people already on the upper rungs. For the people on the bottom rungs or who have yet to climb onto the ladder its not so great. But that's what welfare is for, right?
It is ironic that he should decry that something "should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it” when that's pretty much what the entire welfare state is designed to do.
"some research has found that minimum wage increases do not cause job loss"
all of this research goes like this ...
1. pick a place where the cost of living is relatively high and the existing wage floor is far above the minimum wage
2. observe an increase in the minimum wage
3. observe no impact on jobs
4. break your arm patting yourself on the back
What often happens is that existing low-wage businesses stop hiring and new ones set up shop elsewhere. The researchers can point to numbers and say no jobs were lost, even though there would have been more jobs had minimum wage not been increased. An example of Bastiat's seen and the unseen. The jobs not lost are seen, while the jobs not created are unseen.
You should read this if you haven't already.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
3. observe no impact on jobs
LOL, yeah, it's just a fucking coincidence now that the service sector is starting to be overrun with self-serve consoles.
I think you missed Homer's step 1 - and the basic criticism of all the "no effect" research. It's dependent on cherry-picking your study area. Specifically, cherry-picking a jurisdiction where the statutory minimum wage isn't relevant because it's already being exceeded by the market.
Studies that don't cherry-pick their jurisdictions find significant negative impacts on jobs. That's the "most scholarship" mentioned immediately after the part Homer quoted - scholarship that is pointedly ignored by politicians and pundits wanting to score cheap political points.
Not all of it! Some excellent research by the University of Washington found that minimum wage increases caused loss of jobs or reduced hours for part-time workers; was rejected by the city government that commissioned the research; and was replaced by a new sloppy report the city government commissioned from the University of California, Berkeley to prove that raising the minimum wage did not result in job loss. Berkeley socialists didn’t even have to do something as tricky as your four steps! All they had to do was find out what Seattle and King County wanted the report to say, write the report to say that, throwing in random social-sciency sounding jargon to make the word count come out correct and collect their grant money.
$17? What a cheapskate. It's not even his own money.
What did you expect from a millionaire socialist with three homes?
That we know of...
DO IT!
We will soon find out how many jobs really aren’t worth doing.
Reminds me of teachers who think the job is worth $100k. Maybe it is, but if that were the pay, *you* wouldn’t be the one doing the job.
Bullseye!
Commie-Education teachers use 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) to get paid.
It's not like criminals are going to get run out of the market by economic factors until everyone else is dead. Perhaps ensuring Justice is important. Ironically; the Justice Department in this nation is working for the criminals at this point (i.e. Doing the "armed-theft").
What I find interesting is that there are any number of Republicans that agree the Federal Minimum Wage is too low and would raise the wage but not to the level the Democrats want. It would seem to me that a compromise would be a win for Democrats, but they seem to prefer losing. They could likely get a wage of $12 or $13 dollars an hour, but they will hold out for $17, as they did for $15.
There should be no federal minimum wage. Minimum wages, should they exist at all, should only exist at the state level.
Yes. Different states have different economies, industry structure, etc. It's absurd to think that one size fits all.
What I find interesting is that people think Congress should be passing minimum wage laws.
They don't particularly care whether barristas get a living wage or not, they just want to be able to say they fought the good fight to raise the income of barristas. Some of them actually realize that raising the minimum wage won't actually raise the income of barristas so they don't actually want to try too hard! If - surprise! - they accidentally raised the minimum wage to $15 or $17 they would anger a whole lotta barristas who lost their jobs or suffered reduced hours per week as a result. They might even get voted out of their cushy perpetual government positions.
Minimum wage proponents really should look into the history of the policy.
The problem was that blacks and immigrants were willing to work for less money than white, union labor. Raising the minimum cost of labor insured that enough white people applied for the jobs to allow the exclusion of blacks and immigrants. Eugenics was all the rage at the time and welfare didn't exist. So another purpose was to exclude certain "undesirables" from working, resulting in them starving to death before they could reproduce. Yeah, they understood economics quite well and used minimum wage to hurt the most vulnerable.
Now the fools who promote it believe they're helping the very people they harm. Idiots.
+100000000000..... Well said!
This is such a tough issue, as there are valid and persuasive arguments on both sides.
However, I would like more outside the box thinking rather than just setting wages for a nation. Ideas like limiting CEO pay to a certain percentage over the lowest paid employee, or recouping the cost of welfare provision from large corporations who don't pay employees enough to get them off of government subsidies.
It just think there are more innovative and competitive means to increasing minimum pay beyond simply dictating what should be paid.
Dude, you've got so many poor premises in your argument. The average CEO doesn't make millions and only has the job for a few years. The study about Walmart employees all being on welfare has been soundly debunked. Google it. Even if true, it's a problem created by welfare, not corporations. They're just responding to incentives.
Even the concept of "increasing minimum pay" is based upon the premise that those people are some static group. They're not. They're young people and students, or others who are just starting out. The vast majority of them increase their own pay as they are replaced by more newbies to the labor force.
I've never seen a persuasive argument in favor of minimum wage.
Dude! My argument is not filled with false premises. Even this article explains that 12% of people are paid below the poverty line. That is a problem. There are many people working full time who qualify for government benefits, that's a problem. And that does include people working at Walmart.
More importantly, when you object to someone's premises, make sure you accurately reflect the premises. I never even remotely claimed that ALL people at Walmart are on welfare. That's a strawman that you created. I also didn't say anything about average CEOs making millions. That's just another strawman you created.
In the end, I am open to methods to helping make sure people are able to make enough not to be government funded when they work at some place full time. That is not a bizarre standard.
Solution: set the poverty line lower! That fantasy solution will work about as well as your fantasy solution of capping CEO pay. There is no method to make sure people don’t get government funding except nebulous scenarios in your imagination. Just because you think people being paid below the poverty line is “a problem” doesn’t mean it actually is a problem. But if you want to push people from the “paid below the poverty” line category into to the “newly unemployed, no longer being paid at all” category because you wanted to help them, be my guest! I hope you don’t live somewhere where you might be adversely affected by “mostly peaceful” food riots …
"Even this article explains that 12% of people are paid below the poverty line. That is a problem."
As I said, most of those people are students or just starting out. Some are working part time for walking money. They're not a permanent lower class. That would be problem. However the vast majority move out of poverty on their own.
"In the end, I am open to methods to helping make sure people are able to make enough not to be government funded when they work at some place full time. That is not a bizarre standard."
And if we were talking about some static underclass I might be inclined to agree. That's what politicians want you to believe, but it's not true.
re: "as there are valid and persuasive arguments on both sides"
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. The mere fact that some people are poor is not even a remotely persuasive argument that a minimum wage can fix that.
I support out-of-the-box thinking but the proposals you have offered so far have already been tried in various jurisdictions and uniformly failed. Price controls always do.
Actually, there are valid points on both sides, you just don't like one of the sides, therefore you pretend otherwise. Don't worry, this is really common these days to do. It's the finger in the ear while saying la, la, la, la approach so you can avoid actual discussion.
And if you really want a facts not in evidence claim, let's go with: "the proposals you have offered so far have already been tried in various jurisdictions and uniformly failed."
CEOs are competing in a different labor market. Very few people have the requisite combination of skills and dedication and ego and moxie to pull it off, and the good ones can make a huge difference for investors. Their value has zero correlation to what entry level employees make, and trying to tie their compensation to that through some sort of envy-based formula will only serve to distort the market and cause more talented corporate leaders to flee somewhere else.
I have a counter proposal: the US government confiscates all of Bernie's property/wealth and redistributes it to all workers making minimum wage. I'm sure Bernie would agree of course, we all know how he hates "millionaires and billionaires."
If he’s worth 30 million dollars and a living wage is 30 thousand, he could instantly help one thousand poor people have a living wage for a whole year.
Fuck Bernie Sanders.
A national minimum wage is ludicrous (in addition to denying opportunities to potential new workers.) In California employers already have to offer 22 bucks an hour to get employees who can stand up and remember what to do. In Midwestern states, 14 bucks will do the trick.
He. of course, won't be paying his staffers above $12.50/hr and the interns will still work 'for experience'.
Only self-proclaimed [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] can set the price-tag on your creations!!!! /s
...because that's what Nazis do....