Research Shows: Raising the Minimum Wage Does Not Spell Job Loss

Posted on by Ed Paisley

(This opinion piece first appeared in Morning Consult on July 9, 2019)

Policymakers opposed to raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 per hour have long argued it would lead to significant job losses. Some of those same opponents will now likely use a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the proposed minimum wage legislation currently before Congress to argue against passing it.

Their claims — and to a large degree, CBO’s analysis — are rooted in flawed theoretical foundations and outdated research. Sophisticated research methods from multiple studies show no job losses, or virtually none, result from raising the minimum wage. These studies also draw from previously unavailable empirical methods, which CBO did not fully account for in its own analysis.

How long has it been since we last increased the minimum wage? Nearly a decade, which is the longest interval without an increase since the minimum wage was created more than 80 years ago.

Coronavirus Recession

Why minimum wages are a critical tool for achieving racial justice in the U.S. labor market

By Ellora Derenoncourt, Claire Montialoux, Kate Bahn,

October 29, 2020

Boosting Wages

Broad structural change is needed to boost wages in a U.S. economy that is more equitable to produce strong, sustainable economic growth

By Kate Bahn, Jesse Rothstein,

January 14, 2021

Boosting Wages

Strategic enforcement and co-enforcement of U.S. labor standards are needed to protect workers through the coronavirus recession

By Janice Fine, Daniel Galvin, Jenn Round, Hana Shepherd,

January 14, 2021

Despite Congress’ inaction, 24 states and the District of Columbia have increased their minimum wage since 2009, when the last federal increase occurred. This has provided an opportunity for researchers to conduct modern, sophisticated empirical analyses to determine the specific impact of these increases on wages, incomes over time and employment. Specifically, researchers have compared individuals over time in states, cities and counties that have increased their minimum wage to those who have not been exposed to a minimum wage increase. Now we can move past guesses about how individuals or businesses might react to policy changes and observe how they actually behave.

In the largest and perhaps most important recent study in 2018, researchers examined six U.S. cities, all of which have minimum wage levels above $10 per hour. The study, which focuses on the food industry because of its high proportion of minimum-wage or near-minimum wage workers, found that low-income workers’ earnings rose significantly following an increase in the minimum wage. In those cities, they observed between a 0.3 percent decrease to a 1.1 percent increase in food industry jobs. This stands in contrast to the CBO finding that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would cost 1.3 million jobs.

In other words, the research finds there is quite a bit of room for wages to rise without causing significant job losses. One reason for this may be monopsony power, where wages are suppressed to a lower level than the value workers contribute, and which employers are able to exploit throughout much of the U.S. economy. Perhaps in part because of this, workers over the past few decades have been receiving a smaller and smaller share of national income. In the case of monopsony, statutorily increased wages correct for a lack of competition.

Another reason is the long economic recovery with the still-tightening labor market — though unemployment remains historically low and corporate profits are high, wages have not kept pace as economists would expect at this point in the recovery. One thing is clear: Businesses can well afford to pay their workers higher wages.

The CBO report confirms that an increase to $15 per hour would raise wages for 27 million workers. Even with the too-high estimate of job losses, the positive effect of boosting wages overpowers any negative effect from job losses for poor households. CBO confirms that families below the poverty line would see a 5.3 increase in income, lifting 1.3 million families out of poverty.

In general, the mere fact of job losses does not disqualify a minimum-wage increase from being a good policy for workers and the economy. Congress needs to balance the overall impact on earnings and family well-being against any effect on jobs. As economist David Howell has written, policymakers must consider all the benefits of a higher minimum wage — not only the increased income for workers and families, but also lower turnover, which leads to higher productivity, for example — with the possible costs. Especially in today’s tight labor market, there is a long way to go before any increase is likely to be accompanied by meaningful job losses.

Low-wage workers deserve to earn a living wage that enables them to support their families. Raising the federal minimum wage would not only help the economic recovery to continue, it would also help address systemic economic inequality at levels not seen since the 1920s. A significant minimum wage increase is past due.

Posted in Uncategorized

Interactive: Comparing wages within and across demographic groups in the United States

Posted on by Austin Clemens

This post originally published Aug. 23, 2016. It was updated July 9, 2019 to incorporate new data.

Hourly wages among U.S. workers vary enormously by gender, race, and education level. This simple interactive tool provides a way to see just how much wages vary within and across demographic groups.

The interactive begins by displaying the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile hourly wages for people of any gender, race or ethnicity, and education level. The 10th percentile worker is a relatively low-wage worker, who earns more than 10 percent of all workers, but less than 90 percent of all workers. The 50th percentile (or median) worker is the worker right in the middle of all earners, making more than the bottom half of all workers and less than the top half of all workers. The 90th percentile worker is a relatively well-paid worker, who earns more than 90 percent of the workforce, but less than the top 10 percent. Over the period 2013-2016, the 10th percentile worker earned $9.11 per hour, the median-wage workers earned $18.22 per hour, and the 90th percentile worker earned $43.87 per hour (all wage rates have been adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2016 dollars).

Average Wages by Demographics
An interactive look at how wages vary within and between demographic groups
Use the dropdown menus to create a demographic group of your choice, and hit the add button to load it into the interactive. By clicking download image, you can save a shareable graphic.
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
Education level

To see how a certain group fares in comparison to all workers, use the dropdown menus to select a gender (all, women, men), race or ethnicity (African American, Asian, Latino, or white), and an education level (less than high school, high school, some college, four-year college degree, advanced degree) and hit the add button to display the data for this group. The interactive can create many different groups by selecting different demographic combinations and hitting add after forming each one.

To compare the earnings of white men with college degrees to Latina women with college degrees, for example, use the dropdown menus to create and add each group. The result: the lowest-paid white men with college diplomas earn $14.12 per hour, which is about 39 percent more than the $10.14 earned by Latina women with a four-year college degree. At the median, white men with a college degree make $30.00 per hour, or approximately 48 percent more than the $20.28 earned by the median college-educated Latina women. For the best paid workers in both groups—those at the 90th percentile—the pay gap is 59 percent, with white, male college graduates receiving $67.90 per hour, compared to $42.61 garnered by top-earning Latina women with college degrees.

To call out an interesting row in any group of comparisons, hover over the row and the option to highlight that row will appear to change its color. Tapping highlight again returns the row to its original color. To remove a row, the hover function also provides the option to delete a group from the chart.

To begin building a new chart from scratch, hit the red start over button

After you’ve created the comparisons, tap the download image button at the top of the interactive to save the chart, and, then, feel free to share it with the world.

Methodology

The data behind this interactive are derived from the Center for Economic and Policy Research extracts of the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group. To reduce problems with small samples, we pooled together the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 CPS survey results. We limited our sample to working-age persons (between the ages of 16 to 64). Finally, our estimates of the 10th, 50th (median), and 90th percentile hourly wage are expressed in 2016 dollars and include earnings from overtime, tips, bonuses, and commissions.

JOLTS Day Graphs: May 2019 Report Edition

Posted on by Raksha Kopparam

Every month the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases data on hiring, firing, and other labor market flows from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, better known as JOLTS. Today, the BLS released the latest data for May 2019. This report doesn’t get as much attention as the monthly Employment Situation Report, but it contains useful information about the state of the U.S. labor market. Below are a few key graphs using data from the report.

1.

The ratio of unemployed workers to job openings remains less than one, with a low level unemployment potentially lending more bargaining power to workers seeking new jobs.

2.

Hires declined by 266,000 in May, reflecting the lower level of payroll employment growth in the May Jobs Report.

3.

The quit rate has remained at 2.3% for one year, with workers voluntarily leaving jobs at a healthy rate.

4.

The Beveridge Curve moved down slightly in May, but remains in an expansionary phase.

Posted in Uncategorized

Equitable Growth’s Jobs Day Graphs: June 2019 Report Edition

Posted on by Raksha Kopparam

On July 5th, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released new data on the U.S. labor market during the month of June. Below are five graphs compiled by Equitable Growth staff highlighting important trends in the data.

1.

The prime-age employment rate has held at at 79.7% since April.

2.

Employment in manufacturing and construction has recovered since the Recession, but remains lower than their levels prior to that.

3.

The unemployment rate for African Americans has trended downward since February, but remains nearly twice that of whites.

4.

While the unemployment rate has changed little in recent months, increasing marginally to 3.7% in June, the broader U-6 measure, that includes marginally attached workers, continues to trend downwards.

5.

The unemployment rate for workers with a high school diploma increased in June from 3.5% to 3.9%, and remains nearly twice as high than that for workers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

Posted in Uncategorized

Factsheet: Minimum wage increases are good for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy

Posted on by Maria Monroe

NEW YORK CITY – APRIL 15 2015: High school students, union activists, and fast food workers marched in Manhattan’s Upper West Side to demand a $15 per hour federal minimum wage.

Overview

The research is clear: Minimum wage increases are good for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy. This overarching fact is important to bear in mind when reading the recently released Congressional Budget Office analysis on the expected impacts of raising the minimum wage.

This factsheet contextualizes the CBO report in light of cutting-edge econometric research on minimum wage increases from economists and other scholars in Equitable Growth’s network. The research papers cited in this factsheet use sophisticated research techniques that show past assumptions about the minimum wage are not correct. These newer research techniques hone in on causality by drawing on improved empirical methodologies, computing power, and previously unavailable detailed administrative data.

Download File
Minimum wage increases are good for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy

Distribution and welfare

  • Minimum wage increases significantly lower the poverty rate, increase earnings for low-wage workers, and decrease public expenditures on welfare programs.1
  • The earnings boost for low-wage workers from higher minimum wages extends beyond the immediate effect of the legal change and instead grows in magnitude for several years thereafter.2
  • A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases wages by 1.3 percent to 2.5 percent for workers in the food and beverage industry, according to a study of six cities with especially high minimum wages.3
  • Minimum wage increases can have some of the largest benefits for disadvantaged ethnic groups. The expansion of the federal minimum wage to cover additional industries in the 1966 Federal Labor Standards Act explained 20 percent of the reduction in the black-white wage gap during the Civil Rights era.4 And the poverty rate for black and Hispanic families would be around 20 percent lower had the minimum wage remained at its 1968 inflation-adjusted level and not been allowed to languish and atrophy for years.5

Jobs and employment

The importance of the latest research methodology

The empirical revolution evident in the research papers cited in this factsheet allow policymakers and economists alike to move past guesses about how individuals or businesses might react to policy changes involving the minimum wage to observe how they actually behave. Three key studies by leading scholars on the minimum wage that exemplify this new data-driven analysis are:

  • An analysis that leverages data from 1979 to 2014 with several empirical strategies to confirm that minimum wage increases have minimal employment effects, while illustrating the key methodological flaws in economics papers alleging large employment losses11
  • A study showing that recent research on the supposed ill-effects of a recent minimum wage increase in Seattle is largely uninformative for policymaking, as it relies on many of the same methodological flaws as previous studies12
  • An expansive study that uses several cutting-edge econometric methods on the most comprehensive dataset in the minimum wage research literature to substantiate large income increases and negligible employment costs in more than 100 state-level minimum wage increases in recent decades13

Conclusion

While some states and cities have increased their minimum wages in recent years, the current federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009. Recent breakthroughs in economic methodology and analysis prove that raising the federal minimum wage would decrease poverty and increase earnings for workers, especially for low-wage workers and people of color. Yet the recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office unjustifiably discounts the new, more empirically rigorous research, leading it to underestimate the benefits and overestimate the harms of raising the minimum wage. As federal legislators consider the Raise the Wage Act, a bill that would gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next five years, it is critical that they have access to the most cutting-edge economic evidence on which to base their decision.

About the authors

Kate Bahn is the director of Labor Market Policy and an economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Will McGrew is a research assistant at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

Posted in Uncategorized

Where does your state’s minimum wage rank against the median wage?

Posted on by David Evans

This post originally published Nov. 5, 2014. It was updated July 8, 2019 to incorporate new data.

Minimum wages and labor markets vary tremendously across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In light of the recent introduction of the “Raise the Wage Act,” the Washington Center for Equitable Growth has updated its analysis on the minimum-to-median wage ratios across states. While state-level differences are often used as a justification for lower minimum wages in certain regions, this interactive demonstrates that a $15 minimum wage would be beneficial in the vast majority of states.

The ratio of a state’s minimum wage to its median wage measures the strength of its minimum wage, after accounting for each state’s distribution of wages. As our interactive graphic below demonstrates, most states had much stronger minimum wages more than 30 years ago than they do today, pointing to the substantial room for increases in the minimum wage across the country.

The average minimum-to-median wage ratio for the United States was 51 percent in 1979, the first year of data included in our interactive. At that time, 29 states had ratios exceeding this mark, but by 2013 the minimum-to-median wage ratios were below 51 percent for all states (with the exception of Oregon and Arizona) as well as the District of Columbia.

Over the past 39 years, the overall minimum-to-median wage ratio in the United States fell to 43 percent in 2018. Indeed, the ratio has fallen even farther but rebounded in the past five years as a result of a recent round of state minimum wage increases.

The minimum-to-median wage ratio is a measure of how much a given minimum wage will affect a specific state’s labor market. Generally, the higher a state’s minimum-to-median wage ratio, the more workers will be affected by an increase in the minimum wage.

Methodology

The state-level minimum-to-median wage ratio is the ratio of the average of the state minimum wage to the state’s median wage in that year. The median wage is the median hourly wage in the Outgoing Rotation Group of the Current Population Survey of earners who work at least 35 hours per week and who are not self-employed. The national minimum-to-median wage ratio is the population-weighted mean of state minimum wages divided by the median national wage.

Resources

 

Brad DeLong: Worthy reads on equitable growth, June 28–July 3, 2019

Posted on by Maria Monroe

Worthy reads from Equitable Growth:

  1. Watch Heather Boushey discuss “How can we better measure growth beyond GDP.”
  2. Equitable Growth’s recent tweet informs me that Oregon is leading on family and medical paid leave: “Congratulation to Oregon for passing one of the most comprehensive paid family and medical leave policies in the nation. To learn more about the implications of paid family leave on American families and employers, check out our factsheet.”
  3. Heather Boushey is walking the walk in her tweet about the new staff union at Equitable Growth: “We believe that having a staff union at Equitable Growth will make us a stronger organization and look forward to working with union members.”
  4. While there has been a lot of noise about the changing short-run U.S. economic outlook over the past year, in actuality very little has changed. The U.S. economy continues to grow slightly above its trend rate of 2 percent per year or so, with no outbreak of inflation and with a roughly 1-in-5 chance of seeing a recession begin within the year. Read my “Weekly Forecasting Update,” in which I write: “It is still the case that: [1] the Trump-McConnell-Ryan tax cut has been a complete failure at boosting the American economy through increased investment in America … [2] U.S. potential economic growth continues to be around 2 percent a year … [3] There are still no signs the United States has entered that phase of the recovery in which inflation is accelerating.”

Worthy reads not from Equitable Growth:

  1. To say that there are now trends for factories to locate close to demand is not an alternative source of regional comparative advantage and disadvantage but rather an amplifier of other sources. Ultimately, customers are located in regions that have regional exports. A region that does not have large regional exports—and the prospect of growing more—will not be attractive to firms making long-run decisions and attempting to locate where their customers will be. It is likely to be a very uphill climb. I do not see this as a “silver lining” at all. Read Rana Foroohar, “Silver Lining for Labour Markets” (subscription required), in which she writes: “Globalisation … bottom of … reasons that labour’s share of national income has declined … The biggest reason … supercycles in areas … which favour capital over labour. … Automation and the speeding up of capital substitution because of technological shifts have hurt traditional industrial areas disproportionately … A mere 25 cities and regions could account for 60 percent of U.S. job growth by 2030 … Tech hubs will benefit, of course, as will commodity-rich areas and tourism centres catering to the wealthy. But so will … regions … capitalis[ing] on a silver lining … being closer to customer demand … Companies such as Nike and Adidas have built highly automated ‘speed-factories’ … to roll out the latest styles faster and more cheaply.”
  2. I do not understand this alternative. Tapping into global markets is great—if you have something to sell. But if low-wage labor is no longer a powerful source of potential comparative advantage, what then do poor countries have to sell that could jump-start development? There is labor, there is capital, there is expertise, there is your natural resource base. Poor counties are poor because they lack capital and expertise. And, as for natural resources, well, the “resource curse” is a phrase often heard for good reason. Read Michael Spence, “The ‘Digital Revolution’ of Wellbeing,” in which he writes: “In the early stages of development … labor-intensive process-oriented manufacturing and assembly has played an indispensable role … Advances in robotics and automation are now eroding the developing world’s traditional source of comparative advantage … E-commerce platforms … [are] the real prize in the global marketplace. Only if digital platforms could be extended to tap into global demand would they suggest an alternative growth model (provided that tariffs and regulatory barriers do not get in the way).”
  3. That Martin Feldstein was certain that we could determine and then agree upon what good public policies were was always heartening and raised my confidence that we could make a better world. Read Larry Summers, “The Economist Who Helped Me Find My Calling,” in which he writes: “Working for [Feldstein], I saw what I had not seen in the classroom: that rigorous and close statistical analysis … can provide better answers to economic questions, and possibly better lives … Marty was a magnet for talent … Marty cared about people’s economic analysis, not their political affiliation. That is why he mentored stars like Jeffrey Sachs and Raj Chetty, who disagreed with him on many questions.”
Posted in Uncategorized

Washington Center for Equitable Growth Unionizes with Nonprofit Professional Employees Union

Posted on by Maria Monroe

Equitable Growth team members, some of whom are pictured here, kicked off the start of union negotiations with a card check.

The Nonprofit Professional Employees Union issued the below press release on July 2, 2019, announcing the Washington Center for Equitable Growth joining the union.

Today, the employees at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth (Equitable Growth), a nonprofit research and grantmaking organization dedicated to advancing evidence-based ideas and policies to promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth, announced they have unionized with the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU). Management at the organization has voluntarily recognized the union.

Equitable Growth employees believe that a staff union complements the organization’s mission, which seeds and elevates research and analysis on how inequality obstructs, distorts and subverts the pathways to economic growth in areas ranging from labor standards, social insurance, and taxation to competition, wages, economic mobility, and innovation.

“In the spirit of advancing evidence-backed ideas that promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth, the research shows that strengthening workers’ voice is a fundamental part of achieving a more prosperous economy,” said Equitable Growth President and CEO Heather Boushey. “We believe that having a staff union at Equitable Growth will make us a stronger organization and look forward to working with union members.”

“We at Equitable Growth are joining together in union to uphold and further improve the good conditions and workplace standards we currently enjoy,” said Equitable Growth employee and NPEU member Delaney Crampton. “From our organization’s work, we know the importance of having a voice in the workplace, and with our union we will be able to live the values we promote every day at Equitable Growth.”

“We are beyond excited that the employees of Equitable Growth have chosen to join our union,” said NPEU President Kayla Blado. “Nonprofit employees continue to join together and use their collective voice to strengthen their organizations. With a union, Equitable Growth employees will have a greater say in their workplace so it continues to thrive.

Equitable Growth management and staff will now work together to create a collective bargaining agreement—also known as a union contract—that sets forth conditions of employment.

About NPEU:

The Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU) represents professionals employed at over a dozen nonprofit organizations, including employees at Economic Policy Institute, the Center for American Progress, and Community Change. With about 250 members in the Washington, D.C.- area, NPEU gives nonprofit employees a voice to strengthen their workplaces and continue to do work that makes a difference in people’s lives.

Posted in Uncategorized

Neither history nor research supports supply-side economics

Posted on by Maria Monroe

The Laffer curve shows a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of government revenue.

President Donald Trump last month awarded Arthur Laffer—father of the Laffer Curve and the godfather of supply-side economics—the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom. Relatively few economists have received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Most of them could also boast a Nobel Prize in economics, and all of them had deep records of distinguished academic work or public service, neither of which pertains to Laffer.

In its announcement, the White House called Laffer “one of the most influential economists in American history.” While it’s true multiple presidents have relied on his theories to defend significant, far-reaching tax legislation all in the name of economic growth, whether he increased public understanding of economics, helped strengthen the nation’s economy, or had a positive impact on the well-being of the American people are all highly dubious.

Laffer’s ideas do contain a grain of truth, in that cutting taxes can lead to more economic activity. He sold the country on the idea that tax cuts were magic. He contended tax cuts would lead to so much investment and economic growth that they would end up generating at least as much government revenue as they cost. In other words, he said tax cuts would pay for themselves.

The magical thinking sold to the American people was that giving tax cuts to the rich would improve the lives of the majority. Laffer’s theory provided a foundation for supply-side economics and was illustrated by the Laffer Curve, which he famously drew on a paper napkin for then-White House Chief of Staff Dick Cheney in the 1970s.

If the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue seems counterintuitive, there’s a good reason: It’s not supported by research. When that idea becomes the basis for government policy, it can have disastrous consequences.

We’ve seen those consequences play out over multiple administrations. President Ronald Reagan accepted the Laffer Curve hook, line, and sinker. He convinced Congress to enact deep tax cuts in 1981, and tax revenue plummeted. Despite the recovery following the recession of 1981–82, tax revenue didn’t recover and, as a result, Congress enacted deep, painful spending cuts, affecting people across the country. In order to avoid even deeper cuts to programs such as supplemental nutrition assistance and Medicaid, Congress (eventually) forced President Reagan to accept tax increases.

The Reagan tax cuts did not pay for themselves. Moreover, they ushered in a period of broad economic inequality that continues to this day.

If supply-side economics were valid, then a reasonable corollary would be that tax increases reduce revenues and increase deficits. Yet the tax policies enacted by President Bill Clinton and Congress in 1993—primarily increases in tax rates for the wealthy, along with modest spending cuts—not only raised revenues but also were followed by an economic boom that led revenues to rise so much that we saw the first federal budget surpluses in a quarter century. Tax increases, not cuts, raise revenues.

After the massive tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush were enacted in 2001, revenue fell, with calls for spending cuts to address a self-created problem. Again, like the Reagan cuts, those tax cuts skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and, again, they didn’t pay for themselves.

Then, in 2012 and 2013, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, inspired by the Laffer Curve, signed tax cuts into law that were among the largest ever enacted by any state, along with significant spending cuts. Laffer was a paid consultant who lobbied hard for the plan. But the “experiment,” as Brownback called it, was an economic disaster. In 2017, the Republican legislature overrode the governor’s veto and rolled back the tax cuts.

It’s no wonder that in an editorial, The Kansas City Star said, “Recognizing Laffer’s scheme cheapens the prestigious presidential award.”

Even as Laffer’s experiment was rejected in Kansas, President Trump doubled-down on the idea. His tax-cut package, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by Congress in 2017, perpetuates Laffer’s magical thinking. Again, the American people were asked to accept Laffer’s promise that deep tax cuts, which mostly go to the wealthy, spur growth and raise revenue so much so that the federal government will not have to make painful cuts. In reality, the legislation added $164 billion to the 2018 budget deficit and will end up adding more than $1 trillion to deficits, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Why do these deficits matter? Two reasons. First, they show that the way to an economy with strong, stable, and broad-based growth does not start with tax cuts for the rich. Second, eventually the piper must be paid. The tax cuts Laffer’s followers put in place skewed to the wealthy, and in every instance, when revenues fell, the American people were told they needed to tighten their belts, cutting investments in people and places that undermine economic security, our nation’s infrastructure, and our efforts to grow our nation’s human capital.

To achieve prosperity for all Americans, and not just those at the top, policymakers need to look to the research. The evidence is not on the side of supply-side economics. A strong middle class with rising wages and the ability to purchase goods and services is the basis of sustainable and broad-based growth. To get there, we need policies that promote higher wages, competition, and the development of human capital, not an increasingly unequal distribution of the economic pie.

Last month’s Medal of Freedom ceremony should mark the end of the supply-side era, and usher in the beginning of a new one, where economic policies are rooted in evidence, not magic.

Posted in Uncategorized