“Debunking” the Minimum Wage

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Every now and again the distortions about raising the minimum wage pop up again. A few months ago, Power Line—everyone’s favorite “Blog of the Year”—was trying to take on David Card and Alan Krueger, two respected economists, by citing data peddled by a fast-food industry-funded think tank a few years back. Uh-huh. Alas, a Blog walks everyone through this debate once more today. The sad part is, this comes up every few months, and right-wingers will probably bring it up from now until time immemorial. There are good arguments against raising the minimum wage, but few of them are clear-cut, and most evidence shows that the policy simply doesn’t have a horrendous effect on employment. The Economic Policy Institute—which is hardly an unbiased source, granted—looked at state-by-state evidence, and found that raising the minimum wage has hardly been a disaster anywhere you looked.

By the by, every time the debate over the minimum wage comes up, some conservative will ask, as Powerline does, “Well if you think the hourly minimum needs to be raised to $7, why not $14, or $140?” As if this is some sort of refutation. Conversely, we could ask, if you think a $400 billion deficit is okay, why not $800 billion, or $4 trillion? If you think 15 years is an acceptable prison sentence for manslaughter, why not 50, or the death penalty? If you think 60 Senators are enough to filibuster a law, why not 70, or 100? We could play this game all day and it won’t get any less dumb. For instance, an interesting 1999 survey by the Levy Institute found that over three-fourths of employers wouldn’t change their employment decisions if the federal minimum was raised to $6, but found small effects if it was raised to $7.25. So there are trade-offs here, as always. That’s why most liberals nowadays think a combination of a modest minimum wage hike and a boost in the Earned-Income Tax Credit is the way to go.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend