Heller: 0.01% trumps Nevada’s 15%

Heller 2As of 2012 there were some 161,317 workers in the state of Nevada who would be directly affected by an increase in the minimum wage, out of a total workforce of approximately 1.068,842.  Of the 161,317 directly affected 139,064 were aged 20 or above.  [EPI pdf] A bit of punching on the plastic brains (read calculator) shows that 15.1% of Nevada’s workforce would be directly affected, and that 86.2% of these workers were NOT teenagers.

So, why would Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) vote to sustain the Republican filibuster of the minimum wage increase bill in the U.S. Senate? [Senate]

Senator Heller offered two explanations: (1) “Heller’s vote was rooted in his belief the minimum wage should be determined by individual states and not the federal government, “and this particular legislation is no exception,” according to his spokeswoman Chandler Smith.” [LVRJ] (2) “Smith added Heller was persuaded by a Congressional Budget Office estimate that the legislation “could cost our economy 500,000 jobs.” [LVRJ]

Let’s take the second part first — Senator Heller seems to have read one half of the report, or one half of the CBO’s conclusions.  The conclusions created a “mixed message:”  A popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.” [NYT]

Evidently, it doesn’t take too much precision to convince Senator Heller to embrace half a report.  He missed the part wherein there were two options ($9.00 and $10.10) and he obviously missed this portion of the text:

In CBO’s assessment, there is a two-thirds chance that the effect of the $9.00 option would be in the range between a very slight increase in the number of jobs and a loss of 200,000 jobs. If employment increased under either option, in CBO’s judgment, it would probably be because increased demand for goods and services (resulting from the shift of income from higher-income to lower-income people) had boosted economic activity and generated more jobs than were lost as a direct result of the increase in the cost of hiring low-wage workers. [CBO pdf]

There’s our old friend “aggregate demand” again, if more workers have more money there will be more demand for goods and services and hence more employment.  Unfortunately, Senator Heller is still locked into his mantra “less regulation, more tax cuts (especially for the 0.01%), “rein in government spending” (unless that means loopholes for corporations), and supporting comprehensive energy policies (read: support the oil and gas giants and the Canadian XL Pipeline).” [Heller]  None of this is substantiated by the conclusion reached in the February 18, 2014 version of the report issued by the CBO. Nor is the conclusion all that solid.

“Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.”

With all due respect to those who toil diligently at the CBO to provide economic analysis, a conclusion that there is a 66% chance of a range of employment displacement from “very slight” to 1 million isn’t all that robust.   However, this seems sufficient to support Senator Heller’s proclivity for hugging his favorite talking points.

At the risk of over-simplifying his position, the core of it is essentially Trickle Down Hoaxsterism with Austerity for All and Prosperity for A Few.   Somehow we are to believe that cutting taxes (especially for the 0.01%) and deregulating Wall Street will “create jobs” … sometime…somewhere.  Meanwhile, social safety net programs are subsidizing the poverty level wages being paid by major corporations. [HuffPo]

Meanwhile back in the real world, and in the state of Nevada — of those 161,317 workers directly affected by an increase in the minimum wage increase 68,247 are non-Hispanic whites, another 54,572 are Hispanic, and 12,957 are African American.  [EPI pdf]

As to the argument that minimum wage jobs tend to be part time, the EPI statistics don’t support that myth either — 81,115 are full time employees.  56,971 are mid-time employment, i.e. from 20 to 34 hours per week, and only 23,230 are actually part time jobs with 20 hours per week or less.    Nor are the people working a minimum wage jobs necessarily “drop outs” — 64,606 are high school graduates, 40,187 have some college or post secondary education, 5,824 have an associate’s degree, 12,051 have bachelor-level degrees; leaving 38,639 with less than a high school diploma or its equivalent.  [EPI pdf]

The notion that when speaking of minimum wage workers we’re talking about teens, females, and drop outs isn’t sustained by the actual numbers, in fact, while there are more Nevada women holding down minimum wage jobs (83,079) there are 78,238 men trying to maintain life on the minimum wage in Nevada. [EPI pdf]

We might summarize by concluding that Senator Heller would far rather support further tax cuts for the 0.01%, and more deregulation of the Wall Street Casino, and yet more “austerity” for those who work for corporations paying below living wages, than he would care to support legislation to support at least 15% of Nevada’s working men and women.

1 Comment

Filed under Economy, Heller, Politics

One response to “Heller: 0.01% trumps Nevada’s 15%