On Tuesday, I wrote about the House Democrats passing the minimum wage bill, but it probably is going to get jammed up in the Senate. A couple different people at Drinking Liberally that night suggested that I make fun of Rep. Matt Manweller’s arguments against the bill. I couldn’t find a transcript of the whole thing, but I did find this press release where he highlights what he seems to think is his strongest argument.
I’ve also been told, Mr. Speaker, that if we raise the minimum wage, it will actually have a stimulus effect.
Yes. Because minimum wage earners are more likely to spend it than people in higher income brackets. You can make an argument against it or you can go with some bullshit analogies.
As if somehow, if I take five dollars from the member to my left and I hand it to a member of my right, there is magically more dollars on the House floor.
Well, if the person on your left was going to take the money and put it in their pocket, and the person on the right was going to buy lunch with it in the House cafeteria, then by passing the money along there’s 5 dollars worth of lunch and 5 dollars in the House. So there’s more value in the House. Also, the economy is usually more than 2 people and an intermediary.
[laughter]
I don’t know if he or some member of his staff transcribed this or if it’s from somewhere else. But I’m now thinking of some intern being like, “No, there wasn’t really much laughter… No, I don’t really think it needs it… Fine, I’ll add some laughter to the transcript. Also, please stop asking me to marry you when I turn 18.”
That’s amazing! If you believe that, please go home to someplace that has a pool – dump a bucket of water – dump a bucket in one side of the pool and then empty that bucket in the other side of the pool, and tell me how long you had to do that before you realize there was not more water in the pool.
It’s sort of amazing that an economist doesn’t think it’s possible for economies to grow based on government policy. And taken to its logical extreme, any policy (other than deficit spending or reduction, I guess) would follow the same logic. Why worry about tax increases if it’s all just the same pool? Why worry about solving waste since it’s all just water in the same pool? Is that really the best GOP argument against the minimum wage?
Just water that had moved around.
Someone is really happy with his crappy analogy. It would be kind of adorable, except for all the people whose lives will be harmed if he gets his way.
Also, not for nothing, but if your go-to metaphor is about your swimming pool, what are you even doing talking about a minimum wage?
None of these arguments make intellectual sense.
Maybe actually engage the arguments instead of spending all that time making up those rad pool metaphors.
My favorite was the part where he was comparing human beings to products (“carbon!”) and he accidentally said “I will buy more peo — hire more people!”
Clearly Manweller’s joke is about the value and quality of the BS in Economics he was awarded at Whitman College.
What do you expect from Neanderthals!
The best argument the GOP could make against a theoretic minimum wage increase is to make CBO run numbers with it (yes, I know CBO is federal and this thread is state – doesn’t mean that CBO can’t run the numbers if asked).
What happens to unemployment with minimum wage at $12?
What happens to unemployment with minimum wage at $15?
Now that Elmendorf is no longer there, some of the methodology could change somewhat, perhaps.
In addition to running numbers in a manner identical to what was published
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau.....umWage.pdf
in February of 2014, the CBO could ALSO run numbers after accounting for material changes in family support that they didn’t do last time:
It does not include noncash government transfers, such as
benefits provided through the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, or Medicare, nor
does it reflect the taxes people pay or the tax credits they
receive, such as the earned income tax credit (EITC).
What happens to the effect of minimum wage increases on family income if the CBO accounts for higher income taxes and lower EITC? What happens when some of the other government transfers to these newly higher-paid families are decreased because their incomes rise?
Run the numbers. There’s a reason that people aren’t seriously asking for $15, $18, $20/hr. Look at the difference in the downside between $9.00/hr and $10.10/hr at the federal level using CBO’s numbers. Extrapolate the wage levels upward and those differences may increase somewhat exponentially.
Then take those calculated downside aspects of an increase and publicize them. Poll with it, the way LAT reported in April of last year.
Argue the downside. The downside may be very, very significant in parts of Washington state that are not Seattle.
If the employers in the poorest counties in Washington are forced to pay $12/hr, what is their employees’ downside, compared to the downside to employees if King County employers are forced to pay $12/hr?
Compare/contrast.
There is a downside. Contrary to what some may believe, it’s not a Corporate Lie.
Quantify it. Talk about it.
As long as HA types are going to argue against the use of ill-considered metaphors by others, can this argument extend to the HA types themselves?
Goldy ordered himself a metaphor once:
http://horsesass.org/mcdonalds.....y-notices/
He cherry-picked a price increase in a single McDonald’s menu item and thereby pronounced the effects of a minimum wage increase that hasn’t taken effect yet to be unnoticeable.
That’s a similar rationale to pointing out news of the sale of a hotel building in Seattle as evidence that a minimum wage that hasn’t taken effect yet won’t impact the hotel industry. Same guy.
Although, hey. At least Goldy’s being consistent. Not to mention increasingly predictable.