A new study confirming that government minimum-wage diktats hurt the low-income workers they're supposed to help is especially noteworthy because it comes from a local-level government that's nevertheless forging ahead with a higher minimum wage.Ah, yes. The Trib braintrust writes about a new study that somehow confirms what Republicans already believe. But take a look at the details of the study itself. From its last paragraph:
Ultimately, generalizations on the “overall” impacts of the $15 MWP will depend in large part on the importance of - or weight given to - worker incomes vis -à- vis firm - level profits. With such caveats in mind, our estimates suggest that most workers’ incomes will be improved significantly, firm profits will fall slightly, and job loss will be relatively small. [Emphasis added.]And from its first:
Using our microsimulation model with city - level restricted tax data and publicly available government data, we predict that over 60,000 District residents will be impacted by this policy; residents will observe an average increase of about 20% in wage income, while about 3.4% of District resident workers will experience job loss. We also find that the city’s affected EITC recipients will lose a total of $16.4 million in federal and local EITC payments in 2021 while gaining $56.6 million in additional wages by way of the $15 minimum wage. [Emphasis added.]And yet, this is what we get from the braintrust:
“This study proves what we've known all along,” says Jeremy Adler, communications director for conservative policy group America Rising Squared — that minimum-wage hikes “will hurt the most vulnerable in the District, costing them jobs and important economic opportunities.”The folks at America Rising Squared (and their fellow travelers at the Trib) report nothing but bad news. But where's the part about how the "average increase of about 20% in wage income"? The $56.6 million in additional wages?
Silence about all that stuff. Gee, I wonder why.
America Rising Squared.
From The BridgeProject:
America Rising is a for-profit group which is the unofficial research arm of the Republican Party.But hey, don't take the Bridge Project's word on it. Follow that link. It heads to the Wall Street Journal. Even if you don't have a subscription to the WSJ, the words "unofficial research arm of the Republican party" can be clearly seen in the second paragraph.
But hey (again), what if the Journal were criticizing America Rising? Hey, maybe America Rising doesn't want to be called the "unofficial research arm of the Republican party" howbow dah? Well, the good folks at America Rising actually excerpted the Journal's piece on them at their website - so I am guessing they agree with the description.
Well, how about that, huh?
So here's my question: why didn't the Trib braintrust describe America Rising with the words "unofficial research arm of the Republican party" and why did they fail to discuss the many benefits actually outlined in that new study they're using to bash any rise in the minimum wage?
Because, my friends, they are hiding the truth from you.