Yesterday, the New York Times editorialized (again) in favor of a higher minimum wage, making the following argument:
“Over all, the argument that a higher wage will kill jobs has been debunked by a range of studies showing that a higher minimum wage boosts pay without measurably reducing employment, while improving productivity. One study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a $1 increase in the minimum wage results, on average, in $2,800 in new spending by affected households in the following year, in large part because the increase helps workers accumulate down payments to buy cars.”
Here’s the funny thing: That Federal Reserve study they cite acknowledges IN THE INTRODUCTION that there’s “compelling” evidence that wage hikes reduce employment for teens. Apparently, the Times just repeated the study verbatim from a talking point sheet.
It’s also worth noting that the editorial board’s ideological stance has flip-flopped over time: In 1987, the Times derided wage hikes and supported the elimination of a minimum wage in an editorial entitled “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.” The laws of economics haven’t changed; what changed at the New York Times?