Inane Analysis on 'Who Benefits from a Higher Minimum Wage'
Without any analysis or comment, Barry Ritholtz posted EPI propaganda on "Who Benefits from a Higher Minimum Wage".
Barry, if you are going to post such nonsense, at least comment on it.
I would like you to say how stupid such analysis is. That may be expecting too much.
But if you agree with it, at least say so. Say anything. If you have an opinion, what the hell is it? Here is mine.
- Those who receive a pay hike and keep their job
- Those who are not hired because they are not worth it.
- Those who would have been hired but won't be because fewer stores will open
- Small businesses who are forced to close because they cannot afford higher minimum wages
- Employees of small businesses that close because they cannot afford higher minimum wages
- Consumers, especially those on fixed income who have to pay more for goods because stores hike prices (which in turn causes the likes of the EPI to whine for still more hikes)
- Taxpayers who have to pay inane pension promises when unions demand reciprocal hikes
- Taxpayers who instead of paying the "Walmart Subsidy" that Ritholtz whines about, funds 100% of the benefits
The EPI (and I am 99% positive Ritholtz) only looks at the winners, and even then superficially. What about the losers?
Does the EPI care one iota? Ritholtz? I actually prefer to be wrong about Ritholtz.
Looking for an excellent example of points three and four? If so, please consider Capitalism for Me, Socialism for Thee; Progressive Capitalism?
If the agenda fits, the EPI ignores the problems and trumps up the benefits. Unthinking analysts follow right along.