CBO Defends Its Minimum-Wage Estimate as Democrats Fume

The nonpartisan budget referee rejects White House criticism of a report that finds the minimum-wage hike would reduce the workforce.

National Journal
Catherine Hollander
Feb. 19, 2014, 7:08 a.m.

White House pique not­with­stand­ing, the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice is stand­ing by its es­tim­ate of the job im­pact that a min­im­um-wage hike would cre­ate.

“Our ana­lys­is of the ef­fects of an in­crease in the min­im­um wage is com­pletely con­sist­ent with the latest think­ing in the eco­nom­ics pro­fes­sion,” said CBO Dir­ect­or Douglas El­men­d­orf, dis­put­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s at­temp­ted take­down of his agency’s work.

The White House and con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats tried to paint CBO as out of touch with main­stream eco­nom­ic think­ing after the non­par­tis­an budget agency es­tim­ated rais­ing the min­im­um wage to $10.10 an hour could re­duce the num­ber of work­ers in the labor force by 500,000 in 2016. (It also found that the wage pro­pos­al would lift 900,000 people out of poverty in the same year.) Re­pub­lic­ans seized on the news of job losses as evid­ence a high­er min­im­um wage is bad policy.

El­men­d­orf ar­gued that it’s a little hard to com­pare CBO’s find­ings, which covered both an in­crease in the fed­er­al min­im­um to $10.10 and to $9 from the cur­rent level of $7.25, with oth­er eco­nom­ists’ as­ser­tions on the job im­pact of the min­im­um wage be­cause the lat­ter didn’t ne­ces­sar­ily have to quanti­fy their es­tim­ates. But, he said, CBO ap­pears to line up with what oth­er eco­nom­ists — who have spoken in qual­it­at­ive lan­guage — have found.

The budget-of­fice dir­ect­or poin­ted to a sur­vey of eco­nom­ists con­duc­ted last year by the Uni­versity of Chica­go Booth School of Busi­ness’s Ini­ti­at­ive on Glob­al Mar­kets, which found them about equally di­vided on the ques­tion of wheth­er a hike of the min­im­um wage to $9 would make it “no­tice­ably harder” for low-skilled work­ers to find jobs. “We don’t know ex­actly what the re­spond­ents to that sur­vey meant by ‘no­tice­ably harder,’ ” he said, but CBO’s es­tim­ate might track with that.

He also poin­ted to a let­ter, or­gan­ized by the lib­er­al Eco­nom­ic Policy In­sti­tute, signed by 600 eco­nom­ists in sup­port of rais­ing the min­im­um wage to $10.10. Some sig­nat­or­ies of that let­ter were among those cri­ti­ciz­ing CBO’s re­port Tues­day. But, El­men­d­orf said Wed­nes­day, “I’m not sure we would dis­agree with their state­ment of the evid­ence.” The let­ter said, “The weight of evid­ence now show[s] that in­creases in the min­im­um wage have had little or no neg­at­ive ef­fect on the em­ploy­ment of min­im­um-wage work­ers.” The au­thors didn’t say what “little” meant, El­men­d­orf told re­port­ers at a break­fast hos­ted by the Chris­ti­an Sci­ence Mon­it­or, but “the range we [the CBO] have looks to me like a little re­duc­tion,” he said.

El­men­d­orf did not re­spond dir­ectly to re­marks from the White House Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers’ Jason Fur­man, who said the CBO view was “out­side the con­sensus view of eco­nom­ists when it comes to the im­pact of the min­im­um wage on em­ploy­ment.”

The White House’s cri­ti­cism of the non­par­tis­an budget ref­er­ee was a de­par­ture from its re­sponse two weeks ago, when CBO is­sued an equally con­tro­ver­sial re­port find­ing that Obama­care could re­duce the labor force by the equi­val­ent of 2 mil­lion full-time work­ers in 2017. The White House stepped for­ward to cla­ri­fy those find­ings, which the GOP was hold­ing up as proof the law was a “job-killer,” not to ques­tion them.

“I don’t want to re­spond dir­ectly to what the CEA has said,” El­men­d­orf said Wed­nes­day, re­fer­ring to the min­im­um-wage find­ings. “We try to talk about our ana­lys­is and let oth­er people talk about theirs.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×