TPM
House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) swift rejection of President Obama’s proposal during the State of the Union to raise the federal minimum wage
from $7.25 to $9 has reignited a long running, contentious battle over
the economic consequences of a price floor for labor. Perhaps
predictably the latest skirmish has begun with a salvo of economic
studies from each side.
“[W]hen you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You
get less of it,” Boehner told reporters Wednesday morning during a
Capitol Hill press conference with the House GOP leadership. “And what
happens when you take away the first couple of rungs on the economic
ladder? You make it harder for people to get on the ladder. Our goal is
to get people on the ladder and help them climb that ladder so they can
live the American dream.”
The White House shot back against Boehner’s claim that the policy
would lead to job losses and particularly harm low-skilled workers.
“We have a lot of empirical evidence on this question, and the best
studies consistently find that the minimum wage has no adverse effect on
unemployment,” a senior administration official told TPM on Wednesday
afternoon.
The official said Boehner’s hypothesis is based on the theory
that when the cost of employment goes up, business want to hire fewer
people. But that’s only part of what happens, the official said, arguing
that studies find that it is offset by reduced turnover, more motivated
workers and a more productive workforce. The official said studies find
that the second effect tends to be about the same as the first effect
when it comes to employment.
The official also cited a statistic by the liberal Economic Policy Institute that raising the minimum wage would give some 20 million American workers a raise,
which would substantially improve labor markets and boost consumer
demand. EPI, which has strong ties to the labor movement, has been
pushing for an increase in the minimum wage.
The administration official cited three research papers as the best,
most recent studies that inform the White House’s views: a 2010 paper in
the Review of Economics and Statistics, a 2012 paper in the British Journal of Industrial Relations, and a 2011 paper in Industrial Relations.
To back up Boehner’s argument, spokesman Michael Steel pointed TPM to a 2012 paper by the libertarian Cato Institute, a 2009 paper by the conservative Heritage Foundation,
and two opinion pieces published last year by Michael Saltsman, a
researcher for the industry-backed Employment Policies Institute: a
letter published in the New York Times and an op-ed for the New Jersey Daily Record. Separately, Steel also cited a statement by the National Federation of Independent Business, a Republican-aligned group, and an article in Forbes by NFIB’s chief economist William Dunkelberg.
Obama explained his objective on Tuesday night: “Tonight, let’s
declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works
full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum
wage to $9.00 an hour.”
Slamming the door on a minimum wage increase may be bad politics for the GOP, argues longtime Republican strategist Ed Rogers.
“I worry that being too anti minimum wage plays to the Republican
negative stereotype,” Rogers told TPM in an email. “The commonsensical
appeal of there being a minimum wage and having occasional raises is
powerful. Plus I think we could argue for some good policy, like a youth
exception, if we did something other than just slammed the door.”
No comments:
Post a Comment