Bret Devereaux

But, I mean, let's not fool ourselves. We're not doing minimum wage because it's the smart intervention. It isn't and never was. We're doing minimum wage because the costs with it are politically invisible and fall heavily on marginally politically involved (poor) people.

We *could* raise taxes and do income support, but we're not going to do that because it means raising taxes on the urban professionals who make up part of the core Democratic base.

At this point, I'm pretty open to the idea that a less-than-ideal intervention like raising the minimum wage is better than no intervention. But we need to be honest that the minimum wage is on the table because of a political calculus that is not great.

Minimum wage is on the table because service workers and their unions spent a decade organizing for it. If you think what these people have fought for is to punish themselves to please the professional base of the Democratic party I'm not sure what to say.

"and their unions" being the operative phrase. Remember, economically, unions organize laborers who are employed both to the cost of management (ok, fair), but also of laborers who are not employed. Yes, the higher minimum wage will be great for those who get it.

But awkward for those who get nothing instead. Like I said, at this point, raising the minimum wage is probably better than nothing. But it's not the best intervention here.

It's not a forgone conclusion that jobs will be lost to this intervention in meaningful numbers. It's an assumption. One reason progressives aren't inclined to follow it is that even if this worked perfectly conservatives would still make the same argument against the *next* hike

Sure and again - I am not arguing for 'do nothing' - I want us to do the same thing (raise incomes at the bottom of the distribution) through different means (EITC expansion). I have no brief for the 'do nothing' crowd, I think they are silly.