WEBVTT

00:01.502 --> 00:03.403
YOU FOR JOINING US.
THE CODE, SILICON VALLEY AND THE

00:03.437 --> 00:04.237
THE CODE, SILICON VALLEY AND THE
REMAKE OF AMERICA.

00:04.238 --> 00:06.272
REMAKE OF AMERICA.
IT IS OUT TODAY AND IT’S A GOOD

00:06.274 --> 00:06.573
IT IS OUT TODAY AND IT’S A GOOD
READ.

00:06.574 --> 00:07.841
READ.
>>> THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

00:07.842 --> 00:09.075
>>> THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE HAS RELEASED PROJECTIONS

00:09.110 --> 00:10.610
OFFICE HAS RELEASED PROJECTIONS
ON A HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD

00:10.645 --> 00:12.746
ON A HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD
INCREASE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE TO

00:12.747 --> 00:14.648
INCREASE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE TO
$15 AN HOUR BY 2025.

00:14.649 --> 00:16.983
$15 AN HOUR BY 2025.
THE CBO SAYS IT WOULD INCREASE

00:17.018 --> 00:18.551
THE CBO SAYS IT WOULD INCREASE
THE PAVE 17 MILLION PEOPLE BUT

00:18.586 --> 00:21.154
THE PAVE 17 MILLION PEOPLE BUT
IT SAYS AN ESTIMATED 1.3 MILLION

00:21.155 --> 00:22.489
IT SAYS AN ESTIMATED 1.3 MILLION
AMERICANS WOULD BE OUT OF WORK.

00:22.490 --> 00:24.291
AMERICANS WOULD BE OUT OF WORK.
IT HAS BEEN TEN YEARS SINCE THE

00:24.292 --> 00:25.492
IT HAS BEEN TEN YEARS SINCE THE
MINIMUM WAGE HAS BEEN RAISE

00:25.527 --> 00:25.826
MINIMUM WAGE HAS BEEN RAISE
DOLLARS.

00:25.860 --> 00:32.899
DOLLARS.
THE CBO WRITES THE $15 OPTION ON

00:32.934 --> 00:34.067
THE CBO WRITES THE $15 OPTION ON
WAGES COULD WOULD -- IT WOULD

00:34.102 --> 00:35.702
WAGES COULD WOULD -- IT WOULD
PLACE IT AT THE 20th PERCENTILE

00:35.704 --> 00:39.406
PLACE IT AT THE 20th PERCENTILE
OF PROJECTED HOURLY WAGES BY

00:39.440 --> 00:40.274
OF PROJECTED HOURLY WAGES BY
2025, HIGHER IN THE WAGE

00:40.308 --> 00:41.708
2025, HIGHER IN THE WAGE
DISTRIBUTION THAN IT HAS BEEN AT

00:41.709 --> 00:43.610
DISTRIBUTION THAN IT HAS BEEN AT
ANY TIME SINCE 1973.

00:43.611 --> 00:46.379
ANY TIME SINCE 1973.
JOINING ME NOW IS HEIDI, SENIOR

00:46.381 --> 00:47.915
JOINING ME NOW IS HEIDI, SENIOR
ECONOMIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE

00:47.916 --> 00:50.517
ECONOMIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE
POLICY AT THE ECONOMIC POLICY

00:50.552 --> 00:50.884
POLICY AT THE ECONOMIC POLICY
INSTITUTE.

00:50.919 --> 00:52.085
INSTITUTE.
HEIDI, SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO

00:52.087 --> 00:53.820
HEIDI, SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO
LOSE THEIR JOBS, 17 MILLION

00:53.821 --> 00:55.322
LOSE THEIR JOBS, 17 MILLION
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE MORE.

00:55.356 --> 00:58.926
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE MORE.
I’D LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE $15 AN

00:58.927 --> 00:59.593
I’D LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE $15 AN
HOUR ROUGHLY COMES OUT TO

00:59.627 --> 01:01.628
HOUR ROUGHLY COMES OUT TO
$31,000 A YEAR IN THE IS NOT

01:01.662 --> 01:03.630
$31,000 A YEAR IN THE IS NOT
SOCIALIST TAKE OVER OF PLERK.

01:03.631 --> 01:04.464
SOCIALIST TAKE OVER OF PLERK.
NET/NET GOOD OR BAD?

01:04.499 --> 01:06.734
NET/NET GOOD OR BAD?
>> IT’S GOOD.

01:06.768 --> 01:08.635
>> IT’S GOOD.
CBO DID WHAT THEY DO, THEY

01:08.637 --> 01:09.970
CBO DID WHAT THEY DO, THEY
WEIGHED THE COST AGAINST A

01:10.004 --> 01:11.204
WEIGHED THE COST AGAINST A
PROPOSE POLICY AND THEY FOUND

01:11.206 --> 01:13.240
PROPOSE POLICY AND THEY FOUND
THAT THE BENEFITS TO LOW-WAGE

01:13.275 --> 01:14.708
THAT THE BENEFITS TO LOW-WAGE
WORKERS VASTLY OUTWEIGH THE

01:14.743 --> 01:15.042
WORKERS VASTLY OUTWEIGH THE
COST.

01:15.043 --> 01:16.343
COST.
YOU TALK ABOUT WAGE INCREASES

01:16.344 --> 01:17.845
YOU TALK ABOUT WAGE INCREASES
FOR MILLIONS OF WORKERS, LOW

01:17.879 --> 01:19.580
FOR MILLIONS OF WORKERS, LOW
INCOME FAMILIES WOULD SEE AN

01:19.614 --> 01:21.915
INCOME FAMILIES WOULD SEE AN
INCREASE OF $22 BILLION, POVERTY

01:21.917 --> 01:24.018
INCREASE OF $22 BILLION, POVERTY
WOULD GO DOWN BY 1.3 MILLION,

01:24.019 --> 01:26.453
WOULD GO DOWN BY 1.3 MILLION,
AND AROUND HALF OF THAT

01:26.488 --> 01:27.220
AND AROUND HALF OF THAT
1.3 MILLION DECLINE IN POVERTY

01:27.255 --> 01:29.857
1.3 MILLION DECLINE IN POVERTY
WOULD BE KIDS BECAUSE THEIR

01:29.858 --> 01:30.524
WOULD BE KIDS BECAUSE THEIR
PARENTS GET A RAISE.

01:30.525 --> 01:31.725
PARENTS GET A RAISE.
THIS WOULD BE A GOOD POLICY.

01:31.726 --> 01:33.160
THIS WOULD BE A GOOD POLICY.
>> THE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE

01:33.194 --> 01:35.529
>> THE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE
OFTEN MAKE WHO SUPPORT A HIGHER

01:35.564 --> 01:37.565
OFTEN MAKE WHO SUPPORT A HIGHER
MINIMUM WAGE IF PEOPLE MAKE MORE

01:37.566 --> 01:39.266
MINIMUM WAGE IF PEOPLE MAKE MORE
MONEY THEY’LL HAVE MORE NON

01:39.301 --> 01:41.135
MONEY THEY’LL HAVE MORE NON
SPEND BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY’VE

01:41.169 --> 01:42.169
SPEND BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY’VE
TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND

01:42.170 --> 01:45.172
TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND
STILL SAYS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE

01:45.173 --> 01:45.773
STILL SAYS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE
WILL BE PUT OW OF WORK?

01:45.774 --> 01:47.641
WILL BE PUT OW OF WORK?
>> THE CBO OVERSTATES THE COST.

01:47.643 --> 01:50.077
>> THE CBO OVERSTATES THE COST.
THEY FIND A LARGE NUMBER OF JOB

01:50.078 --> 01:50.477
THEY FIND A LARGE NUMBER OF JOB
LOSS.

01:50.479 --> 01:52.079
LOSS.
IT’S TRUE THAT EVEN IF YOU TAKE

01:52.081 --> 01:54.281
IT’S TRUE THAT EVEN IF YOU TAKE
THEIR FINDINGS AT FACE VALUE,

01:54.316 --> 01:56.150
THEIR FINDINGS AT FACE VALUE,
THEY FIND THE BENEFITS OF THIS

01:56.184 --> 01:57.585
THEY FIND THE BENEFITS OF THIS
POLICY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.

01:57.619 --> 01:58.820
POLICY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.
I DON’T THINK THEY DID A VERY

01:58.854 --> 02:01.589
I DON’T THINK THEY DID A VERY
GOOD JOB OF ASSESSING THIS VAST

02:01.590 --> 02:03.357
GOOD JOB OF ASSESSING THIS VAST
LITERATURE, ECONOMIC LITERATURE

02:03.358 --> 02:06.260
LITERATURE, ECONOMIC LITERATURE
ON THE EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF THE

02:06.261 --> 02:07.862
ON THE EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE BY WEIGHTING THE

02:07.863 --> 02:09.397
MINIMUM WAGE BY WEIGHTING THE
HIGHEST QUALITY STUDIES HIGHER.

02:09.398 --> 02:11.098
HIGHEST QUALITY STUDIES HIGHER.
BECAUSE THE HIGHEST QUALITY

02:11.100 --> 02:12.499
BECAUSE THE HIGHEST QUALITY
STUDIES SHOW THAT MINIMUM WAGE

02:12.501 --> 02:13.701
STUDIES SHOW THAT MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASES HAVE CAUSED LITTLE TO

02:13.736 --> 02:14.869
INCREASES HAVE CAUSED LITTLE TO
NO JOB LOSS.

02:14.903 --> 02:17.705
NO JOB LOSS.
I THINK -- BUT EVEN IF YOU TAKE

02:17.739 --> 02:20.341
I THINK -- BUT EVEN IF YOU TAKE
THEIR ESTIMATES AT FACE VALUE,

02:20.375 --> 02:21.575
THEIR ESTIMATES AT FACE VALUE,
THE KEY IS THEY STILL FIND THAT

02:21.577 --> 02:23.177
THE KEY IS THEY STILL FIND THAT
THE BENEFITS OF THIS POLICY

02:23.179 --> 02:24.212
THE BENEFITS OF THIS POLICY
VASTLY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.

02:24.246 --> 02:25.180
VASTLY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.
>> ALL RIGHT.

02:25.214 --> 02:26.714
>> ALL RIGHT.
AND IS THERE -- I MEAN, DID THEY

02:26.716 --> 02:29.217
AND IS THERE -- I MEAN, DID THEY
JUST PEG IT TO $15 OR DID THEY

02:29.251 --> 02:30.552
JUST PEG IT TO $15 OR DID THEY
TALK ABOUT IS THE NUMBER

02:30.586 --> 02:32.920
TALK ABOUT IS THE NUMBER
DIFFERENT AT $14 OR $13?

02:32.955 --> 02:33.988
DIFFERENT AT $14 OR $13?
IN THE LAST ELECTION WE WERE

02:34.023 --> 02:35.490
IN THE LAST ELECTION WE WERE
STILL DISCUSSING $12.50?

02:35.491 --> 02:37.191
STILL DISCUSSING $12.50?
IS IT A SLIDING SCALE ISSUE?

02:37.193 --> 02:38.392
IS IT A SLIDING SCALE ISSUE?
>> THE INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH,

02:38.394 --> 02:40.295
>> THE INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH,
THEY DIDN’T JUST DO $15, THEY

02:40.296 --> 02:44.232
THEY DIDN’T JUST DO $15, THEY
ALSO LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF $12

02:44.267 --> 02:46.201
ALSO LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF $12
IN 2025, THE EFFECT OF $10 IN

02:46.235 --> 02:46.534
IN 2025, THE EFFECT OF $10 IN
2025.

02:46.535 --> 02:47.435
2025.
BUT THOSE RESULTS SORT OF SCALE