data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c109e/c109e91194be69f936c50a0f63ec313ccc209765" alt=""
I probably spent more time preparing for that appearance than I did studying for the bar exam, largely because I was placed on the show to argue the “pro” side of raising the minimum wage while the extremely distinguished economist Robert McTeer (you can read his blog here: http://taxesandbudget-blog.ncpa.org/) had the “con” side of the argument.
This had all the makings of a classic Joe versus Pro confrontation. In the final event, Professor McTeer wasn’t out to embarrass anybody, or maybe I wasn’t worth the effort of embarrassing, and the hour show passed both quickly and without much in the way of pain, at least to me. I can’t answer for the audience.
One surprising thing Professor McTeer and I ended up agreeing on, however, was that although the raise in the minimum wage would help a few people a little, and perhaps hurt a few people whose jobs got cut, in the end it wouldn’t effect very many people one way or another.
The reason is simple, even after it was raised to its current $7.25 per hour, the minimum wage is still so low that almost everybody working is paid more than the minimum wage. After all, you can only earn $15,000 in year working full-time at that pay rate, and that’s barely enough for a single person to keep body and soul together.
Here is part of the chart I made for that show that shows the effect of the raise in the minimum wage on total wages, depending on how many workers lost their jobs because employers couldn’t afford to pay the higher minimum wage:
No comments:
Post a Comment