At a rally for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley in Boston Friday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that corporations and businesses don’t create any jobs, and the minimum wage has.
“Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I’ve been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage, and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better, and more families were more secure. That’s what we wanna see here, and that’s what we wanna see across the country.
“And don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory–trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
Michael Strain, Ph.D, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) based in Washington, D.C., told Western Journalism that Clinton’s remarks were “outside of what the current discussion is among economists.”
“The question is, on net, do increases in the minimum wage reduce employment, or do they really not have much of an effect on employment, and that’s really kind of where the debate is among economists. So I think Mrs. Clinton’s statement is a little bit outside of what the current discussion is among economists.”
When asked for clarification, Strain said, “She’s just arguing that the minimum wage increases jobs. That’s quite unlikely, and the evidence doesn’t support that theory.”
Part of the evidence to which Strain might be referring is data from a piece published this past August in The Wall Street Journal which showed states that raised the minimum wage the most over a one-year time span found the biggest reduction in job growth.
“When looking over the time-span December 2013 through June 2014, at only the 13 states that raised their minimum wage in January, those that raised it the most had, on average, lower job growth than did those that raised it the least.”
Strain argued for a $4 minimum wage in February, writing in Bloomberg,
“Because of the federal minimum wage, the company knows that it has to take at least a $7.25-an-hour chance on a worker. If we knocked the minimum wage down to…$4 an hour, we would significantly mitigate employers’ risk from hiring a long-term unemployed worker. Allowing employers to pay this group of people 45 percent less than other minimum-wage workers provides a strong incentive for businesses to give the long-term unemployed a shot.”
Strain also called the former First Lady’s statement suggesting that corporations and businesses don’t create jobs, “amazing.”
“She was just very vacuous to me. It’s just not a very serious statement. People either work for themselves or they work for an employer and that’s where jobs are, so taken literally, I don’t know what it means to say corporations and businesses don’t create jobs. I don’t know what it has to do with trickle-down economics as it’s commonly understood. I think this is just a political statement.”
In spite of Clinton’s best efforts, the Boston Globe, one of New England’s most renown newspapers, endorsed Coakley’s Republican opponent, Charlie Baker, ahead of next week’s election.
Advertisement - story continues below
h/t Hot Air