Friday, January 31, 2014

Robert Reich: Raising Minimum Wage Boosts Economy

Speaking on Crossfire, Robert Reich responded to conservative host S.E. Cupp's objection to the  minimum wage, namely that it would–heaven forbid–"force employers to raise wages." In the presence of co-host Stephanie Cutter and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), Reich explained that putting more money in the hands of low-wage workers actually boosts the entire economy. Watch:

Cupp: “You would suggest that we force employers to raise wages, force union participation, raise taxes on the top job creators, and force employers to cut off hiring at 50 employees to avoid Obamacare mandates. How is that a job recipe for job creation?”
Robert Reich: “It’s not forcing.”
Cupp: “You want to raise the minimum wage, which would force [employers] to raise wages.”
Reich:  “We’ve had a minimum wage in this country since 1935. Raising the minimum wage is good for the country. It puts more money in the pockets of people. Sixty-five percent of Americans want to raise the minimum wage. Most minimum-wage workers these days are not teenagers; they are breadwinners. If you help them, you are helping the economy overall. And a lot of employers will benefit from a higher minimum wage.”


Michael J. Mand said...

David Brooks, in a recent column on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times claimed that Reich's statistics may be wrong and that most minimum wage employees are indeed teenagers or supplemental earners. I don't know whom to believe, but either way, I see no harm, as a matter of fact, I see much good, in raising the minimum wage. But, then again, as was pointed out when I raised this point on my Facebook page, my position may be more knee-jerk than well-thought out.

Jeff Tone said...

I think that David Brooks' position may be more knee-jerk than well thought out. It wouldn't be the first time. His point contradicts all the recent studies. Would he at least admit that more low-wage workers than ever are older and depend on their job for their main income? He would leave them in a bind. But what does this affluent columnist care? He can keep peddling policies that benefit only the wealthy.