• 2 hours Dow Scrambles To Avoid Fifth Straight Weekly Loss
  • 20 hours Is This The World’s First Truly Democratic Stock Exchange?
  • 23 hours India’s Wealthiest Set To Hold $23 Trillion By 2028
  • 1 day First Quarter Profits Slip For World's Top Oil Companies
  • 1 day The Yuan May Be China's Biggest Weakness
  • 2 days Hedge Funds Having A Banner Year
  • 2 days Disney Heiress Asks “Is There Such A Thing As Too Much?”
  • 2 days BHP Turns Bullish On EVs
  • 2 days Investors Turn Bullish On America’s Nuclear Decommissioning Business
  • 3 days The $90M Inflatable Rabbit Redefining Modern Art
  • 3 days Huawei’s Fate In The Air
  • 3 days Tesla Slashes Prices Again
  • 3 days The Modern History Of Financial Entropy
  • 4 days Italy’s Central Bank Embraces Sustainable Investing
  • 4 days Trump Lifts Metals Tariffs To Cool Simmering Trade War
  • 4 days Researchers Push To Limit Space Mining
  • 4 days Could China Start Dumping U.S. Treasury Bonds?
  • 5 days Is Winter Coming For HBO?
  • 5 days Rise Of EVs Signals Peak Gasoline
  • 6 days Jeff Bezos Doubles Down On Space Colonization Ambitions
How Millennials Are Reshaping Real Estate

How Millennials Are Reshaping Real Estate

The real estate market is…

Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Earnings season is well underway,…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

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".

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.


  1. Those who receive a pay hike and keep their job


  1. Those who are not hired because they are not worth it.
  2. Those who would have been hired but won't be because fewer stores will open
  3. Small businesses who are forced to close because they cannot afford higher minimum wages
  4. Employees of small businesses that close because they cannot afford higher minimum wages
  5. 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)
  6. Taxpayers who have to pay inane pension promises when unions demand reciprocal hikes
  7. 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.


Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment