PERHAPS THE MOST COMMONLY USED ARGUMENT AGAINST RAISING
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS THAT SUPPOSEDLY IF YOU DO THAT IT
WILL LEAD TO JOB ELIMINATION.
THE IDEA IS YOU ARE TRYING TO
HELP PEOPLE BUT YOU ARE IN FACT GETTING THEM FIRED.
I HEAR THAT
ALL THE TIME, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL CHANGE
THEIR MIND ON THAT BASED ON DATA BEING PRESENTED TO THEM BUT I
WILL TRY ANYWAY, BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW STUDY THAT ANALYZED THE
EFFECT ON JOBS OF NOT JUST ONE TIME THAT THEY RAISED THE
MINIMUM WAGE, IT WAS 137 DIFFERENT CASES WHERE THE
MINIMUM WAGE WAS RAISED, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CHART, WHAT
YOU ARE SEEING THERE IS RIGHT ON THE SIDE OF ZERO TO ONE DOLLARS
AROUND THE NEW MINIMUM WAGE, YOU HAVE JOBS THAT PAY SLIGHTLY LESS
GOING DOWN BY BETWEEN 1 AND 1.5%, IT LOOKS BIG BECAUSE OF
THE SCALE OF THE CHART BUT IT IS 1.5%, AND JOBS THAT PAY MORE
THAN THE NEW MINIMUM WAGE GO UP BY 1.5%.
THE REST OF THOSE BARS
ARE BASICALLY NOTHING, THEY AREN'T STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE THERE
IS --
>>THIS IS 137 DIFFERENT INSTANCES WHERE THEY RAISE THE
MINIMUM WAGE, GIVING US EXPERIENCES IN BOTH CITIES AND
NON-CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY OVER TIME, MANY DIFFERENT
SITUATIONS.
IT DOESN'T KILL JOBS, POLITICIANS AND
CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS WILL CONTINUE TO USE THAT AS AN
EXCUSE TO NOT SET THE MINIMUM WAGE AT A LIVABLE, HUMANE LEVEL,
BUT THE DATA IS SIMPLE ENOUGH THERE.
TAKE IT UP WITH SCIENCE.
>>THE ONE CASE THEY LOVE TO REFER TO IS THE SEATTLE CASE.
THE PERSON WHO PUSHED THROUGH THE HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE IN
SEATTLE, I HAD HER ON REBEL HEADQUARTERS FAIRLY RECENTLY,
YOU CAN CHECK OUT THAT INTERVIEW AT TYT POLITICS, MINIMUM WAGE
WENT UP TO $15.
AND THAT ONE STUDY THEY FOUND OUT THAT IT DID
HURT EMPLOYMENT A LITTLE IN SEATTLE.
NOW, THE PERSONAL
ANALYZED THAT STUDY, THE OUTSIDE PERSON WHO ANALYZED IT, AT THE
TIME SAID THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE STUDY INDICATES AND IT'S
FAIR TO POINT THAT OUT.
THEN, HAVING LOOKED AT THE 137 STUDIES
JOHN IS REFERRING TO, HE WAS LIKE, NEVERMIND.
BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, AND SCIENTISTS KNOW THIS, THEY ARE
GOOD AT MATH, 137 IS LARGER THAN ONE.
EVEN SO, SCIENTISTS LOOK AT
THIS AND SAY I KNOW IT'S EASY TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS AND HOW IT'S
COVERED IN THE NEWS, PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL
BENEFITS, BUT EVEN THESE HAVEN'T BEEN PEER-REVIEWED ENOUGH.
YOU
HAVE TO DO PEER-REVIEWED, AND THEN YOU CAN REACH CONCLUSIONS.
AND THEN ONE OF THE FOLKS INVOLVED IN THE FIRST STUDY, I
BELIEVE, WENT ON TO MAKE AN INTERESTING POINT, WE WILL HAVE
TO SEE IF IT'S BORNE OUT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S TO OUR
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, BUT WE TRY AS HARD AS WE CAN TO NOT COLOR
THE FACTS FOR YOU GUYS, GIVE YOU THE FACTS AND THEN GIVE YOU OUR
OPINIONS.
SO HE SAYS THE REASON WHY SEATTLE EMPLOYMENT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN HURT A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THAT ONE STUDY IS
BECAUSE THE JUMP IN MINIMUM WAGE WAS SO SIGNIFICANT.
HE SAYS THAT
JUMP WAS ABOUT 37% FROM THE PREVIOUS MINIMUM WAGE, AND FOR
THE META STUDY OF 137 CASES WHERE THE MINIMUM WAGE WENT UP,
THE OVERALL JUMP WAS 10%.
MINIMUM WAGE WAS ONLY INCREASED
BY 10% ON AVERAGE, SO WITH THAT INCREASE IT USUALLY DOESN'T LEAD
TO LESS EMPLOYMENT, IN FACT IT LEADS TO SLIGHTLY MORE
EMPLOYMENT AND AT HIGHER WAGES.
AND AGAIN, LET THAT GET
PEER-REVIEWED, ETC., SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THAT
BEFORE THE PEER REVIEWS, MAYBE WE MIGHT NOT WANT A 37% JUMP IN
THE MINIMUM WAGE --
>>ABRUPTLY.
>>AND YOU ARE IRONICALLY PUNISHING THE PLACES THAT HAVE
THE LOWEST MINIMUM WAGE BY NOT INCREASING THEM HIGHER, BUT I
GET IT, IT'S RELEVANT DATA YOU COULD LOOK AT.
SO DON'T GET
COLORED BY YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE, LOOK AT THE FACTS FIRST.
AND IF
IT TURNS OUT THEY LOOKED AT 137 CASES, AND THE MINIMUM NATIONAL
WAGE IS SO LOW THAT LOCATIONS MIGHT CHANGE IT BY
DIFFERENT
AMOUNTS, IT CREATES ALL THESE EXPERIMENTS AND ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
COME UP WITH A LOT MORE STUDIES, THEN PEER-REVIEW THEM, THAT WE
WILL HAVE MORE DEFINITIVE ANSWERS.
WHETHER YOU LIKE THOSE
ANSWERS OR YOU DON'T I THINK THEY ARE INTERESTING AND WILL BE
INDICATIVE OF SOMETHING.
AND I WILL LOOK AT IT AND IF THEY TELL
ME IT TURNS OUT IF YOU JUMP MINIMUM WAGE MORE THAN 25% AT
ONE TIME IT COSTS JOBS, I WILL GO THEN THAT'S WHAT IT DOES SO
LET'S THINK ABOUT HOW TO DO THIS RIGHT.
BECAUSE THE CORRECT
ANSWER ISN'T THE ONE YOU HAD BEFORE THE FACTS, IT'S THE ONE
YOU HAVE AFTER THE FACTS.
>>IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE GRADUAL RAISING OF THE WAGE, AS
OPPOSED TO THE SUDDEN INCREASE -- AND THERE HAS TO BE A
THRESHOLD, THAT IS WHAT CENK IS SAYING, AT SOME POINT WE WILL
KNOW WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS AT LEAST FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE
TIME, IT APPEARS THAT THAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO RAISE
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
BUT THE MINIMUM WAGE CRITICISMS HAVE
BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH FEWER JOBS, AND THIS WOULD SEEM TO SHOOT
THAT OUT OF THE WATER, AND ALSO A DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.
IT COSTS
BUSINESSES MORE, THEY WILL EMPLOY FEWER PEOPLE, AND THAT
HAS BEEN PRETTY WELL DISPROVEN.
IT BECOMES AN ENGINE OF THE
ECONOMY ONCE PEOPLE HAVE MORE MONEY.
THAT GETS MORE MONEY INTO
THE SYSTEM.
SO THERE ARE A FEW CONCLUSIONS TO BE MADE, AND IT'S
TOUGH TO GET THESE PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES NOW BECAUSE THERE IS
SUCH A DEMAND ON INFORMATION.
WHAT IS YOUR STUDY ON MINIMUM
WAGE, WE NEED TO KNOW RIGHT NOW, I NEED TO PUBLISH IT.
SO IT'S
HARDER AND HARDER TO GET THAT RESEARCH OUT THERE, BUT IT
APPEARS AS THOUGH THESE RISES AND INCREASES IN THE MINIMUM
WAGE REALLY DO HELP THE OVERALL ECONOMY AND DO HELP THE
JOBLESSNESS PROBLEM.
>>AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT HELPS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
SUDDENLY MAKING SLIGHTLY MORE MONEY.
>>AN ACTUAL LIVING WAGE.
>>I HOPE THIS IS WIDELY PUBLISHED AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT
THIS, BUT WILL IT CONVINCE PAUL RYAN AND A LOT OF PEOPLE?
NO,
BECAUSE THEY CAN SAY ALL THEY WANT THAT THEY ARE JUST WORRIED
ABOUT JOB LOSSES BUT THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT THAT.
HERE IS
WHAT YOU DON'T NEED A STUDY TO KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECT OF RAISING
THE MINIMUM WAGE, IS YOU HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE MORE.
THAT I KNOW
HAPPENS, AND THEY DON'T WANT THAT.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY
OF THE CONSEQUENCES, THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY YOU.
THEY WOULD PAY YOU ZERO IF THEY COULD.
>>ALL THAT RHETORIC ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE WORKING MAN
AND BEING THE PARTY OF WORKING PEOPLE, IT'S TOTAL B.S.
AS JOHN
SAYS IT'S INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, THEY JUST DON'T WANT
MORE MONEY GOING TO THOSE PEOPLE MAKING MINIMUM WAGE.
>>AND ONE MORE THING ABOUT LOGIC AND FACTS -- CORPORATIONS
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS, THEY HAVE TO
MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
SO WHAT IS ONE WAY LOGICALLY THEY WOULD
MAXIMIZE PROFIT?
IT'S TO SUPPRESS YOUR WAGES, SO EVERY
PENNY YOU MAKE IS UP PENNY OF PROFIT THEY DON'T MAKE.
SO THEY
WILL BRING DOWN YOUR WAGES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE POINT UNTIL
THEY REACH A BREAKING POINT AND PEOPLE WON'T WORK FOR THEM
ANYMORE.
THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
SO
THE SECOND WAY YOU MAKE MONEY IS BUY POLITICIANS ON THE OPEN
MARKET, BECAUSE WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR LEGALIZED
BRIBERY IN AMERICA, BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS WILL THEN MAKE SURE
THE MINIMUM WAGE DOESN'T INCREASE, SO THAT ALL THOSE
EXTRA PENNIES AND DOLLARS STAY IN THE CORPORATIONS AS PROFIT
AND AREN'T PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES.
ALL THIS IS VERY
LOGICAL.
THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU HAVE A STUDY LIKE THE SEATTLE
STUDY, ONE OUT OF THE 137, AND I LOOKED AT THE WASHINGTON POST
STORY, WHO DID THE STUDY?
WAS AT THE KOCH BROTHERS, ETC., IT
WASN'T, IT WAS LEGITIMATE ACTORS AND PROFESSORS, ETC.
-- AND BY
ACTORS I DON'T MEAN TV ACTORS -- HONEST ACTORS AND PROFESSIONALS
WHO DID THIS STUDY, SO IT'S A LEGITIMATE STUDY YOU SHOULD LOOK
AT.
BUT TO JOHN'S POINT, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VESTED
INTEREST IN KEEPING YOUR WAGES LOW TOOK THAT STUDY AND DID
PROPAGANDA TO NO END, NONSTOP TALKING ABOUT IT, AS IF IT'S THE
ONLY STUDY DONE ON MINIMUM WAGES.
>>AND AS IF IT HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT GRADUAL, SMALLER
CHANGES HAPPENING IN PLACES OTHER THAN SEATTLE.
>>SO IT'S LIKELY THE ONLY STUDY YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT OUTSIDE THIS
SHOW IS THE SEATTLE STUDY, BUT IN REALITY THERE ARE 137 STUDIES
AND THEY SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE SEATTLE STUDY SAYS.
OVERALL IT NOT ONLY INCREASES THE NUMBER OF JOBS, BUT DON'T
FORGET, IT ALSO INCREASES YOUR WAGES.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO INCREASE YOUR WAGES THAT ARE NOW
PUBLICIZING THE ONE INSTEAD OF THE 137 STUDIES.