4 ms·

"Potential job-loss outcomes range from between about zero and 3.7 million workers." Here's the publication: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 https://www.

"Potential job-loss outcomes range from between about zero and 3.7 million workers." Here's the publication: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 Here's the report: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWa... From the report: "In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two- thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million." By 2025, automation should be way ahead than we have here. I wonder how that would help or not help these numbers. Maybe the overdue recession will increase the jobless number. Or the economy will keep trucking on and the number would be close to zero. So many questions, so little answers.

Kye 7y ago
That's quite a range for the article title to make such a certain claim of 1.3M.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I suspect that most of those losses (be they 0 or 3.7m) will be in rural areas. Most wealthier urban areas are already pay within a dollar or two of $15 just for having a pulse. The rural areas are where people are still routinely paid close to minimum so more people will be put out of work in those areas.
mdorazio 7y ago
Better automation tools would almost certainly increase the chance of large-scale job loss in the event of a minimum wage hike. From a business perspective, it's a cost-benefit calculation - when the cost of automating a job is lower than the cost of paying a human to do it, automation will eventually win. If automation cost goes down and human labor cost goes up, the threshold shifts in favor of fewer human workers (although the profits get redistributed to the remaining workers/owners, so you get a continuation of today's inequality push).

Kye 7y ago

That's quite a range for the article title to make such a certain claim of 1.3M.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I suspect that most of those losses (be they 0 or 3.7m) will be in rural areas. Most wealthier urban areas are already pay within a dollar or two of $15 just for having a pulse. The rural areas are where people are still routinely paid close to minimum so more people will be put out of work in those areas.

mdorazio 7y ago

Better automation tools would almost certainly increase the chance of large-scale job loss in the event of a minimum wage hike. From a business perspective, it's a cost-benefit calculation - when the cost of automating a job is lower than the cost of paying a human to do it, automation will eventually win. If automation cost goes down and human labor cost goes up, the threshold shifts in favor of fewer human workers (although the profits get redistributed to the remaining workers/owners, so you get a continuation of today's inequality push).