The CBO has analyzed for the effects of a raise in the minimum wage to $10.10 / hr, and found say 500k low wage jobs would be eliminated. The Republicans say, see, Obamanomics kill jobs. The Democrats say, no, you misunderstand… because you’re Republicans, and you’re dumb.
This is typical. Republicans make some fairly no brainer critiques of Administration claims… ACA won’t save money, won’t reduce premiums, will in fact increase premiums… minimum wage will kill some jobs. And the administration or its sycophants calls them liars and dumb, chortle, chortle.
I wouldn’t claim the GOP is always correct. I think the GOP is often correct, economically. But I’m more amused that the CBO is only credible if it comes to conclusions you agree with. Now, both sides abuse this to some degree, and are hypocrites. But to me it seems the Democrats are more brazen in their hypocrisy, as they really love to play the CBO’s non-partisanship and expertise as a trump card in any statistical argument. Them Dems love their credentials and their non-partisanship baby.
So the Democrats with the minimum wage are on the wrong side of the CBO. Cuz its intuitive and immutable, you make the price of labor higher, and people will buy less of it. I’d grant that the impacts of $10.10 might not be that much. But they’re not nothing. Obtusely or worse, the White House wants to argue its nothing.
This is a lie, as far as that goes. And insofar as a reliable chorus of sycophants can be rounded up to parrot the administrations absurdities most of the time – Klein, Yglessias, Cohn – this is a bit too much. So they’re not on board.
Jonathon Chait is somewhat different from those three. I’ve been trying to put my finger on it. Thing is, where many times Klein, Yglessias, and Cohn can be called on to parrot the Administration talking points, Chait is not quite ike that. Here’s a recent example:
Chait is one of the real brainiacs, and you figure it would pain him to have to argue for any of the Administration’s absurdities. So what Chait does, commonly, as shown in this example, is acknowledge that the Administrations lies. But then moves past that to make the argument that the Administration should or could make were they not captive to political realities. Tradeofffs, blah, blah. Then he goes on to call Republicans mendacious and dumb and stupid, based on his reconstruction of the argument, as if the presence of the Administration lie has no bearing at all.
He’s a better writer and analyzer than those other guys, bu its basically the same brand of obsequious douche-baggery.