A Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage

Summary

Optimist Economy: Episode Summary – A Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage

Released on July 22, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Optimist Economy, hosts Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi delve deep into the contentious and timely issue of raising the federal minimum wage in the United States. With their characteristic blend of economic insight and optimistic perspective, Kathryn and Robin explore the multifaceted arguments surrounding the minimum wage, its historical roots, current legislative efforts, and its broader societal implications.

---

Retcons and Updates

Timestamp: [00:00 – 02:30]

The episode begins with light-hearted banter as Kathryn introduces important updates and corrections to previous discussions. Notably, Kathryn addresses her earlier remarks on the estate tax, mentioning that Representative Sarah Jacobs has introduced the Legacy Act in Congress. This act aims to raise the estate tax and allocate a portion of its proceeds to a children's trust fund for childcare assistance. She emphasizes, “[02:26] Kathryn: ...it is version of what I had said. It is currently a bill in Congress,” highlighting hope for tangible policy solutions.

Robin adds, “[03:20] Robin: I don't think much will happen with this Congress, but it does mean that change can happen...,” reinforcing the notion that legislative progress is possible, even if challenging.

Kathryn also revisits their discussion on youth unemployment, acknowledging feedback and clarifying the broader implications of labor market disparities. “[05:20] Kathryn: ...the labor market is not always a kind place...,” she reflects, emphasizing the importance of understanding systemic issues rather than isolating specific groups.

---

Raising the Minimum Wage: Historical Context and Current Proposals

Timestamp: [10:23 – 26:04]

The core of the episode centers on the minimum wage, tracing its origins back to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Kathryn shares, “[13:01] Kathryn: So, we first got the minimum wage in the Fair Labor Standards act...,” providing listeners with a foundational understanding of when and why the minimum wage was instituted.

Robin introduces the current legislative landscape, noting the bipartisan efforts to increase the federal minimum wage. “[12:07] Robin: ...a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress to lift the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour...,” he explains, highlighting Senator Josh Hawley’s unexpected support for the proposal. Kathryn adds context, “[12:35] Kathryn: ...Hawley wants to raise the minimum wage everywhere so that Missouri remains competitive...,” shedding light on regional economic competitiveness as a driving factor.

They discuss the fact that 40% of the U.S. population already resides in states with a minimum wage of $15 or higher, primarily benefiting southeastern states that haven't independently raised their wages. “[12:28] Kathryn: That shocks Josh...,” she remarks, noting the irony that a Republican senator is championing a policy largely already implemented in other regions.

---

Economic Arguments: Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage

Timestamp: [27:04 – 37:14]

Kathryn and Robin engage in a nuanced discussion about the economic implications of raising the minimum wage. Kathryn explains the concept of the minimum wage being set in nominal terms, meaning it doesn’t automatically adjust for inflation. “[27:28] Kathryn: Nominal is the actual dollar amount...,” she elaborates, emphasizing that without adjustments, the real value of the minimum wage erodes over time.

Robin references a 2022 study encompassing 70 studies since 1992, which challenges the popular narrative that raising the minimum wage has no effect on employment. “[31:53] Robin: Yeah, the classic prediction of the minimum wage is that it raises the price of labor...,” he notes, underscoring the ongoing debate among economists about the trade-offs involved.

Kathryn offers her perspective, stating, “[30:01] Kathryn: The question of the minimum wage to me comes down to a couple of things...,” she posits that determining the appropriate minimum wage involves balancing the value placed on the lowest earners against potential economic drawbacks like minor job losses or price increases. She argues that the negative consequences are often overstated, “[31:02] Kathryn: The trade offs to having a minimum wage is that we might experience job loss...,” while emphasizing the positive impact on workers' livelihoods.

The hosts also explore the power dynamics in the labor market, suggesting that the minimum wage serves as a tool to empower workers who lack bargaining power. “[35:39] Kathryn: ...it was all there in the economy when the minimum wage was created...,” she explains, linking historical motivations to contemporary issues like wage gaps and worker exploitation.

---

Research Findings and Broader Implications

Timestamp: [37:14 – 45:54]

Delving into empirical evidence, Kathryn discusses how the minimum wage has historically contributed to reducing the black-white wage gap. Referring to legislative changes in the 1960s, she states, “[43:38] Kathryn: ...it was also expanded in coverage...,” highlighting how raising the minimum wage has tangible benefits for marginalized communities.

Robin brings up concerns about price inflation, questioning whether higher wages would lead to increased costs for consumers. Kathryn counters by explaining, “[37:26] Kathryn: A minimum wage increase can increase the price of goods...,” but argues that the impact is typically marginal. She shares observations from states like California, where recent wage hikes have led to only slight price increases in fast food, “[37:50] Kathryn: ...it raised prices at a very marginal amount....”

The conversation shifts to the potential for automation as a response to rising labor costs. Kathryn contends that the push towards automation is inevitable and not solely driven by minimum wage increases. “[38:38] Robin: One, they're going to do that...,” Robin asserts, while Kathryn adds, “[38:52] Kathryn: ...minimum wage, very good fall guy for certain choices...,” suggesting that technological advancements would occur regardless and that blaming the minimum wage oversimplifies the issue.

---

Practical Considerations and Policy Recommendations

Timestamp: [41:20 – 47:08]

Kathryn advocates for indexing the minimum wage to wages or inflation to maintain its real value over time. “[42:16] Kathryn: ...you would take the dollar amount...,” she explains, proposing a systematic approach to adjusting wages in line with economic indicators.

Robin and Kathryn discuss the political feasibility of raising the minimum wage, with Kathryn expressing optimism that political shifts towards populism could pave the way for a federal increase to $15 per hour. “[47:10] Kathryn: ...minimum wage is a gimme...,” she concludes, highlighting the widespread public support for such measures.

They also touch upon the balance between benefiting workers and sustaining small businesses, questioning whether it is more favorable to protect marginal businesses or empower millions of workers. “[46:12] Kathryn: ...protect them or the 15 million people...,” she muses, advocating for prioritizing worker welfare over the survival of struggling businesses.

---

Lighthearted Interlude: Executive Orders

Timestamp: [48:24 – 54:47]

Shifting gears, Kathryn and Robin engage in a humorous segment titled "Executive Orders," where they joke about whimsical policies such as preventing grocery stores from rearranging aisles or requiring moving vans to display clear signage. Robin shares listener suggestions like, “[49:07] Robin: Grocery stores will not be allowed to rearrange the aisles every eight months...,” adding levity to the discussion.

Kathryn introduces a more substantive idea about firms disclosing turnover costs, aiming to increase transparency regarding employer practices. “[50:42] Kathryn: ...you should have to say, how many people quit your company last year...,” she proposes, debating its potential benefits for job seekers and transparency in the labor market.

---

Conclusion: Spiritual Sponsors and Acknowledgments

Timestamp: [55:56 – End]

The episode wraps up with personal anecdotes and acknowledgments of spiritual sponsors. Kathryn enthusiastically recounts her affinity for the 1980s classic "Troop Beverly Hills," while Robin shares his appreciation for Girls' Weekend as his spiritual sponsor. They express gratitude towards their producer team, Andy and Sophie, cementing the episode's warm and community-oriented tone.

---

Notable Quotes

• “[02:30] Robin: All hope is not lost.” – Emphasizing optimism amidst legislative challenges.
• “[13:01] Kathryn: ...we first got the minimum wage in the Fair Labor Standards act...”
• “[27:28] Kathryn: Nominal is the actual dollar amount...”
• “[31:02] Kathryn: The trade offs to having a minimum wage is that we might experience job loss...”
• “[37:26] Kathryn: A minimum wage increase can increase the price of goods...”
• “[47:10] Kathryn: ...minimum wage is a gimme...”

---

Final Thoughts

In A Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage, Kathryn and Robin effectively dissect the complex issue of the minimum wage through historical context, economic theory, and real-world implications. They balance critical analysis with an optimistic outlook, encouraging listeners to consider both the benefits and trade-offs of policy changes. Whether you’re an economics enthusiast or simply interested in understanding how wage policies affect everyday lives, this episode provides a thorough and engaging exploration of a pivotal economic topic.

---

Connect with Optimist Economy

For more insights, show notes, and member discussions, visit optimisteconomy.com. Share your questions or economic concerns at optimist.economymail.com. Support the podcast by becoming a paid member on Substack or Buy Me a Coffee.

Transcript

[Robin]

I just made everything disappear on my screen. Sorry, I don't know where you went.

[Kathryn]

Follow my voice, Robin. Find me.

[Robin]

Where did you go?

[Kathryn]

Hello and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Kathryn.

[Robin]

I'm Robin.

[Kathryn]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better, and we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time. Foreign we have a couple announcements. One is that if you have a fancy podcast consumption platform, we have chapters to the episodes now and you could skip all this.

[Robin]

Just go ahead.

[Kathryn]

Good for you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good for you. Get to the. Get to the meat. I think that's chapter three. Second announcement is that you can find us at optimisteconomy.com you can email [e-mail] and we have two ways for you to donate to the show. You can become become a paid subscriber to our substack, or you can become a regular subscriber through Buy Me a Coffee. You can also drop off my favorite form of being paid, which is a burlap sack with a dollar sign on the side that's filled with gold coins. And we can come up with some kind of drop location. We'll work on that one. In the meantime, substack and Buy Me a Coffee are probably the best ways to go about it.

[Robin]

Probably the safest way to go about that. Yeah. I want to add that we've had two great reviews on Spotify this week that both just tickled us. The first said, give these women so that they can afford their own hotel rooms, pools, and trucks. Related to the first request. And second one said that they would be a paid subscriber to a Robin Talks Taxes spinoff, which I just want to say there is an audience for anything and everything out there, which also leaves me hopeful for our future on this show.

[Kathryn]

Very hopeful for the future. Speaking of which, I have a fantastic retcon, which is our next.

[Robin]

Now Chapter two.

[Kathryn]

Now Chapter two, Redcon. First retcon is that I mentioned in the estate tax episode that this idea of taking the estate tax and dedicating it to children is something I had talked to the staff members of Congress about. Well, Representative Sarah Jacobs from San Diego introduced the Legacy act to Congress, which would in fact raise the estate tax and dedicate a portion of its proceeds to a children's trust fund to help specifically with childcare. So it is a version of what I. I had said. It is currently a bill in Congress.

[Robin]

All hope is not lost.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, all hope is not lost. Y' all like it's? It's an actual thing that's in a real place that has power and it has a backer. And this is all great now. No, I don't think much will happen with this Congress, but it does mean that change can happen and that these aren't just ideas we're talking about, these are solutions. And when we say solutions, we mean solutions. And that's a big lift.

[Robin]

Speaking of this Congress, the other thing to retcon is that we recorded that episode before the final vote on the budget reconciliation bill, which is what I'm going to call it, and that bill did pass. The estate tax exemption level is now set at $15 million per individual, $30 million per married couple. And that is for the future, indexed to inflation. So it will continue to go up.

[Kathryn]

You don't call it the one big beautiful bill.

[Robin]

I don't.

[Kathryn]

So I want them to own that they think it's beautiful so that when it does horrible things, which it will do, sorry, optimist. That we can say like remember your beautiful bill that cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid? You thought it was a beautiful thing to make 12 million more people uninsured in the US like beautiful is a word that they chose. And I was like, that is something I will make you pay for.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

I have an additional retcon about the youth unemployment episode for listeners. As a reminder, we talked about what youth unemployment means in the context of an economy and what happens to youth unemployment when the economy goes up or down. I mentioned right at the start that the focus on young college graduates and raising alarm bells about their unemployment rate reaching six and a half percent was pretty choice given that 1 high school graduates always have higher unemployment rate and 2 even large groups in the population like black people have a higher unemployment rate. Someone dm's me to say that it was used too much as a throwaway line just to bring up black unemployment and it sounded borderline offensive. So heard and apologized. It was not meant to be a throwaway. What I should have said and didn't elaborate fully is that all of these articles, all of this attention on the unemployment rate for college graduates, if you don't correctly diagnose a problem, you will never find a solution. And so if you decide that there is one group that is singularly suffering in the US labor market and it's a bunch of fresh faced college graduates who have a six and a half unemployment rate, you are missing the bigger picture of how our labor market works and who is actually suffering in it. And when you decide that crisis for one group is normal for another. You've essentially normalized the labor market, being poor performing all of the time for a set of people like black people.

[Robin]

Right.

[Kathryn]

And I think that callousness, that worse labor market outcomes for black people is accepted, which we talked about on our very first episode about DEI is a problem. So I should have said more of that. And in general, that episode got a lot of response. So many young people said I was a terrible economist and that I didn't know what I was talking about. Got a couple of stupids in there, which I get to like, add to my little list of the number of people who call me stupid when talking about the economy. And I. Yeah, I think young people who had graduated and are having a hard time finding a job, you know, do not want to hear that they aren't special and do not want to hear that they are actually in a pretty strong position relative to, say, people who don't have a college degree who are their age. And they let me know they thought I was stupid for saying so. The labor market is not always a kind place. But again, if we don't know what the problem is and we pick a victim as opposed to a diagnosis, we'll never get to a better place.

[Robin]

Okay?

[Kathryn]

I mean, the number of people were like, I had to take a job in food service with a college degree. I'm still unemployed. And I was like, sister, no, you are not. And it's not fun taking a job that's beneath your skill set. But it is not the same as being unemployed. And there's actually a big movement right now to reclassify the whole US labor market where people who have jobs that they don't like or who pay little are functionally unemployed. And it. I think what these kids hit on is how disgusting. I think that is, right? That we pursue policies and laws and practices that create a terrible, large, low wage labor market. And then afterwards we're like, and you know what? They don't even have a job. Like, I can't. The disrespect with which we treat certain parts of the labor market, you don't see when you do it, but you do it. And when you look at me and say, well, I have a college degree, I shouldn't be working an hourly retail shift, that's beneath me. You are basically saying that the people who work those jobs don't matter and they're beneath you. And that's not what you meant to say. But that's just what you said, that's what you said. Yeah, that is exactly what you just said. And I think that's what made me so mad, is just the casual disrespect and disregard that we would treat a quarter of workers in the United States. It's offensive to me to have their job. Well, it's offensive to me that their job is so shitty. Okay, I'll take a deep breath and I'll exhale and let's talk about making those jobs better. Wait, we have to do terms of conditions first. You go ahead. Okay, Johnny 5, I am looking at the outline for what it's worth. It's not that it's not there, it's that I'm bad at looking.

[Robin]

I reread the Jonny five review and I posted it again yesterday because it's so good. Just reposted it. Keeping us honest, Johnny Five. Okay, Chapter three, Terms and Conditions. I was trying to remember this word and I didn't have to look far because my mother had sent me this email. You know, one of these, you know, word a kind of things about the term for the paragraph mark that you see in sometimes in fancy typography, you can get it by hitting option 7 on your Mac keyboard. It looks like a backwards P with an extra line on it. It's called a pilcrow. I didn't know there was a word for this. It has a very long, boring history. But there's two things that are kind of happening. One is the evolution of the word pilcrow, and one is the evolution of the actual symbol. But basically in the Middle Ages, in the text, they began putting symbols between lines of text or at the beginning of a line to indicate this was the beginning of a new idea. And then later they got fancy and illustrated and they would be sort of in the margins and red ink and with extra decorative marks and such. Anyway, it's called a pilcrow. It gets used by editors actually a lot to mark a place where there should be a new paragraph break.

[Kathryn]

I looked up the phrase once in future, which is from the TH White novel the Once and Future King.

[Robin]

Once and Future King.

[Kathryn]

King. But I was using it to describe a specific policy. And so I was calling it the Once and Future Policy. And I wanted to see where that came from and see who had said it first. Once and Future King is about King Arthur.

[Robin]

Right.

[Kathryn]

If you've ever watched the animated movie Sword in the Stone, that's about the first third of the book. If you've ever seen the musical Camelot, that's like the middle Third of the book, and then the end's real sad. So no one's done that one kind of camelotted. But the Once and Future King is a King Arthur tale. It was released in the 50s, and it is from the Latin. King Arthur is the king of England once and in the future. It's a really lovely turn of phrase, and I think it applies a lot to the things we talk about in our show about. We have these policies that are in some ways relics of the past but are still necessary for the future. And I just wanted to make sure it wasn't like, I don't know, like some of the Nazis said. Like, I just do a quick check that, like, there was nothing, like, really terrible behind it.

[Robin]

Because is this biblical? Is it?

[Kathryn]

Is this biblical? This is offensive. Is like this something plantation owner used? Like, let's just do a quick gut check. I think these are a really helpful exercise for learning about our history and economy. But it's above board. We get to use it. So I was writing last night about the Once and Future Union, about unionization, and I think it still applies today for the centerpiece topic, which is the Once and Future minimum wage.

[Robin]

Minimum wage.

[Kathryn]

Minimum wage.

[Robin]

So I had suggested we do a minimum. I mean, I know that Katherine is always game to talk about the minimum wage, but I had seen that there had been a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress to lift the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour. And it's getting some attention as a real possibility because it was sponsored in part by Josh Hawley, who's a Republican senator from Missouri. And it's pretty uncommon that a Republican is on board with raising the minimum wage. So there is also another bill in Congress called the Raise the Wage act, which would incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour by the year 2030. So those are both bills that have been introduced. Current betting is on Holly's bill. So the other interesting thing, though, that I found out is that 40% of the population in the US is already living in a state where they've lifted the minimum wage to $15 or higher. And so lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is largely going to benefit the states that have never raised the minimum wage at the state level. And they are concentrated largely, of course, in the southeastern United States.

[Kathryn]

I have respect for Hawley's bill and that it is a bill that would actually affect his constituents.

[Robin]

Actually, it won't, because Missouri is already going to get A minimum wage bump in January. And there is, at least in the articles I read, some suggestion that he wants to raise the minimum wage everywhere so that Missouri remains competitive in terms of labor costs because the legislature went.

[Kathryn]

Around him and voted for a wage increase already.

[Robin]

Right. In Missouri.

[Kathryn]

That shocks Josh.

[Robin]

So he doesn't want to be competing with Arkansas and, I don't know, Louisiana, Mississippi for low cost labor.

[Kathryn]

I swung back to disrespect.

[Robin]

Yeah, okay. Thought you might.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, yeah. Well, the minimum wage.

[Robin]

So when do we first get a minimum wage?

[Kathryn]

We first got the minimum wage in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[Robin]

Oh, of course.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, of course. One of my favorite pieces of legislation. I also have top five pieces of legislation and I'm just going to check that. It was 1938. 38, yep.

[Robin]

It's the only piece of legislation I know from being on this show.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, we got the federal minimum wage in the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938. It was on the heels of the Social Security act and the National Labor Relations act, which both came in 35. And the big difference is that in between those years, the Supreme Court flipped and approved FDR's legislation as opposed to.

[Robin]

Overturned it. Overturned it.

[Kathryn]

Overturned it. Yeah. And I mean, we're going to get into a lot of history, but for you history buffs, FDR's plan to pack the court was over a minimum wage decision, kind of. So basically, as FDR is moving through his agenda in his first term, states are passing minimum wage laws and the Supreme Court overturns a minimum wage law in a state, like it's not a federal minimum wage law. They overturn a state minimum wage law and say that it's not allowed. So FDR and his big federal policy agenda is viewed to be quite tenuous. And in between the recess of the Supreme Court, one of the justices and FDR at this point has announced, like, I will pack this court. This is ridiculous. Like, your rulings are completely at odds with the Constitution, what the economy needs and so on. And in between, they rule on one minimum wage case that has got fdr, you know, mad as hell, very riled up. We need to change the way the Supreme Court is governed. And then when they come back, they rule another minimum wage case and they rule a different way. And the justice always said it was just like, this is what we were going to do anyway. Like, the cases were actually, were really different. And FDR was like, sure they were. Other people have, have, have guessed that. It's because the, you know, the election results were so Incredibly, in favor of fdr, that they realized that they were standing in the way of what was going to happen. But it all hinged on minimum wage cases. And then once that minimum wage case goes through, FDR has what he needs and he can pass a federal minimum wage, which he does in the Fair Labor Standards act, which is why it comes three years after Social Security and reunions.

[Robin]

But what's the impetus for the minimum wage at that point in time? I mean, this is the Depression, and.

[Kathryn]

So this is not agreed upon of the impetus for the minimum wage. And it's certainly a byproduct of the Progressive era, but the progressive era of 100 years ago is not like the Progressive era of today. And how to say this, Maybe like a band aid, Quickly. Real racist, real nativist, pro eugenics. Like, a lot of the social reform movement around progressivism was making sure that we had a better economy, that had the right morals, the right looking skin. And I mean, if you go through the founding of, like, the economics profession and the American Economics association, like, these were like blatant eugenicists, but they said a lot of this policy, and they influenced a lot of this policy. Not. And they weren't all like this, and it wasn't all of them, but, like, it was a very unabashed part of progressive policymaking that we needed to make sure that it was the right people who got these benefits. And in some ways, a lot of the very influential progressive reformers were trying to usurp power and supplant the policy wishes of, like, the union movement. And it was like a lot of intellectuals, and they're at universities and they design policy and, you know, they. They're trying to swoop in and make policy to prevent, like a groundswell of policy coming up from unions and workers themselves or, God forbid, immigrants.

[Robin]

Okay, so why did they. But. But why a minimum wage?

[Kathryn]

Well, the bad guys. It's just easier to call them the bad guys. The bad guys wanted a minimum wage because if you raise the minimum wage high enough, you wouldn't want to employ women or immigrants or black people. And so the minimum wage was like an exclusionary mechanism to keep those people from out of the labor market by making the wage so high you wouldn't want to hire them.

[Robin]

Got it. Sorry I had to make you say it aloud.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, yeah. Like, the good version of this story is that people who are vulnerable in the labor market, they don't have power, they can't bargain if someone's starving, they can't ask for a Higher wage because they need whatever you will give them. And that employers exploit that power. And the role of a minimum wage is to establish a floor so that no one is brought to a level of such deep exploitation. Because women, they wouldn't bargain for themselves if they had children at home and no one else to support them. Immigrants who didn't speak the language didn't have an ability to ask for a higher wage. And that these very vulnerable groups didn't have power. And so the minimum wage needed to be established to get power for them. That's the good version.

[Robin]

Okay. I was gonna say that sounds very opposite from the other version. Okay.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. The other version is we raise the.

[Robin]

Minimum wage, then we'll only want to employ, you know, clean cut white men. Yes, got it.

[Kathryn]

Who are hopefully Nordic.

[Robin]

Who are hopefully.

[Kathryn]

And not Italian. So that version of the minimum wage is allowing wages to go so low gives these like non white men the ability to undercut the wages of the waspy men. If we have a wage floor, it just wouldn't make sense to hire a woman or an immigrant. Like if you have to pay a.

[Robin]

Minimum amount, you have to pay $15 an hour. You might as well hire. Yeah, okay. All right.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, so it's not, I mean, like, I don't think this is a question we'll ever know the answer to, but I think it's, it's interesting to me. 1. Because it's took place so long ago.

[Robin]

Just interesting to you or.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, it's interesting to me because this is like, this is the minimum wage coming out of the slime. But that definitely like colors the minimum wage going forward of like, who is it really for and who does it really advantage? Because you still see the same echoes today of this. Why did they do this in 1938? On the one hand, you'll have progressives and liberals who are saying like, we need better wages in the labor market. Employers take advantage of people. We have to have a higher wage floor. It's to the detriment of our economy. When the conservative argument is basically, if you raise wages, these people won't have.

[Robin]

Jobs, they'll lose jobs.

[Kathryn]

Right, yeah. Which in the 30s was like awesome, but now is not good. But it's still the same mechanism of are you protecting people through a wage.

[Robin]

Floor or are you excluding people, trying.

[Kathryn]

To get them out of the labor market? It's the exact same argument and it was all there in the 30s.

[Robin]

That's really interesting. I was just looking at some of this, the summary of some of the research that's been done since 1992, which I'm sure you're gonna get to. But it's exactly echoing these things that you're saying, like this is the debate about the negative impact on employment of the minimum wage, which I'm also sure we'll get to here very shortly.

[Kathryn]

Yeah.

[Robin]

So the minimum wage hasn't been increased. When was it last increased?

[Kathryn]

The last law was voted on and it was a three year staggered increase. So they voted on it in 2007 and then the increase ended by 2009. So it went up from, I believe it was 5:15 to 7:25. And it did it over three summers.

[Robin]

Got it.

[Kathryn]

So, 0708 and then 09 it was done.

[Robin]

So they voted on it in2007, which is not quite 20 years ago.

[Kathryn]

Oh, y', all. They voted on it before the first iPhone was released.

[Robin]

Wow. We're on the iPhone 16. I guess that would make sense. Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Yeah.

[Robin]

Generations of iPhones. Yeah.

[Kathryn]

We did not have smartphones. That was the world we were in. The last time Congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

[Robin]

And why. And then why do they never go. I mean, that's kind of a long time to never go back at it. It's not like Republicans have controlled Congress that entire time. How come I never got voted on again?

[Kathryn]

I don't have a great answer to the political question. My guess would be that states that had Democratic federal leadership, like Democratic congressional delegation that would fight for a minimum wage, their states raised the wage aggressively. And Democrats who were in states that are less reliably Democratic, like Joe Manchin, it was not a priority. So it just simply didn't have a champion in Congress because the people who would champion it, people who are from, you know, stalwart Democratic states, their own state was taken care of and they didn't champion it in Congress.

[Robin]

I mean, isn't there also an argument to be made that what the minimum wages in California shouldn't necessarily have a bearing on what it's going to be in Mississippi or Georgia or, I don't know, Maine.

[Kathryn]

I would say yes and no. States should have the ability to go higher if they would like to, if that suits their economy. But I also don't think it is good economic policy to leave so much of the country behind.

[Robin]

Yeah, I mean, we've talked about a lot of these policies being a floor which states can go above. And. And maybe it's only now that people feel like the floor really is too low for.

[Kathryn]

Even Florida voted for a $15 an hour minimum wage? Yeah, because their cost of living was so high. And it some ways is reflecting that the minimum wage is less a political issue and more a functional one. And even conservatives in Florida can tell you that I won't make enough money to afford housing in Miami if someone can be hired for $7 an hour.

[Robin]

Right. So where do you think the minimum wage should be now?

[Kathryn]

Yeah, it's an open question. I think the way that I answer it is to think of it as what it truly is, a floor, and come to a, like, logical place of what the floor should reflect. So political bargaining is what it'll probably reflect, but it's not, in fact, what it should reflect. Of, like, I'm going to say 14, you're going to say 19, and then we're just going to, like, switch it off here. The markers that you can look at are the historical relationship between the minimum wage and other wage measures in our labor market. So things like the average wage, the median wage, those you can put, you can express in hourly terms. And then you can go back and say, all right, when the minimum wage was a thing Congress actually did, it was always at around, like, X percent of the median. And so then that gives you a. A basic level of this is what it should be.

[Robin]

Right. Did you do that? Have we done that?

[Kathryn]

Yeah, I've done that before. It's not as instructive as you want it to be because you can basically cherry pick which years of the minimum wage you want to look at. So, like, probably this century is off the table because this is an era in which the minimum wage is artificially low. So it doesn't really make sense to look at it now. The highest it had ever been in real terms was in 1968. I do want to talk about that. You can kind of just. I think you end up with, like, the economic version of political bargaining of like, well, I liked that wage, and so I picked that one. But you can arrive anywhere between almost like 14 and $21, depending on which measure you pick and why.

[Robin]

Right. Which is a big range.

[Kathryn]

Which is a big range. But what I argued. I put this in a Bloomberg column. What I argued is that you should come up with some type of economic justification for what you choose. And. And it should, at a minimum, be this. So you could also look at the relationship between, say, the minimum wage and poverty.

[Robin]

Yeah, I was thinking poverty. I was also thinking, you know, cost of putting a roof over your head. I mean, I think that's one of the things you see again and again. Is how you know, there's plenty of places where you could work full time at the minimum wage in that state. And a one bedroom apartment would cost 177% of all the money you can make in a month.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, it's funny, the housing crisis focuses so much on supply of like we need to build more housing. But you will never build enough housing to make it affordable for someone who's working the minimum wage. Yeah, ever. It won't exist, not anymore. Not with how low the minimum wage is. So I think that these types of practical concerns are important. And in some ways I think we're starting from scratch with the minimum wage. And so it's not about like how much bigger it should be from 7, but what is the right number given our economy today? It's worth noting that before 2007 it also been a long time since the minimum wage had been increased and that was a pretty small increase relative to what advocates had wanted. And so we are living in almost like a 35 year era of a very, very low minimum wage. If we were to move beyond that, we have ways of coming up with a real economically derived number. Yeah, I could cherry pick it to be like 21 if you want.

[Robin]

Yeah, exactly. Did you ever work a minimum wage job? My first job was 435 an hour before it even went up to 515.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, my first job was at 515 an hour. I was a math tutor.

[Robin]

I was a delivery person for my father's law office. I would deliver documents to the banks and the courthouse on foot like it was the 18th century.

[Kathryn]

I was a math tutor and my boss gave me a bump to 555 after I had had a good period of performance. And then I later switched when I went to college to a Christmas break job where I worked at Foley's which doesn't exist anymore. And I did inventory. So you basically have like one of those little scanner guns and you scan every single item in the store after the store closes and they see how much theft there's been.

[Robin]

Good. That's a good job for a college.

[Kathryn]

Student who like doesn't have normal hours working until like 5am on Christmas break. Wasn't the worst. And that one actually paid decent.

[Robin]

Yeah, I remember when I got a job in college I made 10 bucks an hour and I was like, I was. Felt like I was rolling in the dough.

[Kathryn]

It's worth explaining if it's not clear to listeners that the minimum wage goes up is. It's a purely political question. They set the wage in nominal terms, and it doesn't increase based on prices in the economy or spending in the economy or anything like that. It just sits at this nominal level.

[Robin]

Can you explain what you mean by nominal terms and nominal level?

[Kathryn]

Nominal is the actual dollar amount and not its value over time. So I set the wage at 725 in 2009. If prices have increased 40% since then, then the real value of the minimum wage has decreased 40% since then because it's still this nominal amount. So nominal is the number you see, real is the value you experience. We adjust it using inflation.

[Robin]

Usually.

[Kathryn]

Usually the highest value of the minimum wage is on the day it goes into effect. And then immediately it's like a new car.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Drive it off the lot, it's worth less. Same with the minimum wage. We drive that thing off the congressional lot and it's worth less money. And it only goes up when there's enough political will to raise it. It's not on any type of schedule. Now, some state legislatures have set their wage to a schedule where it increases every year based on prices, but not the federal level, which is why it's 725. One comment. I get back a ton when I talk about the minimum wage are people who will say, no one works the minimum wage anymore, Right?

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Which is not true. It's about a million people. Which this just means that you don't think those million people matter. I posted a video on TikTok where I talked about how the minimum wage is a function of power. And a guy responded that, like, his daughters are in high school and they got a job at, like, some food restaurant place making $14 an hour. So, like, the minimum wage doesn't matter if a teenager can. Can make more. And I was trying to explain to him of, like, your daughters are pretty powerful in the labor market compared to, like an immigrant, you know, or someone who doesn't speak English or someone who doesn't have documentation, who needs to find a job. They will not have the power to have 14 an hour. Your daughters will have more. And he. So that didn't work. Actually, the TikTok comments didn't convert him. And I should have known that that was going to happen. But truly, like, I think the disregard that so many people have for the minimum wage is a function of having a disregard for the people who still earn it.

[Robin]

Yeah, I mean, well, and I guess there are people who are just complete, you know, they're free marketers top to bottom, and they just think that everything should be Negotiated every, by every person. On an individual level. They're probably also opposed to unionization. You can respect that as an intellectual position or not. But I think that the minimum wage also has some benefits or some consistency in wage pricing has some benefits just to society.

[Kathryn]

The question of the minimum wage to me comes down to a couple of things. One of them is a value statement of how much do you think the least among us should earn in the labor market, knowing that they are in our economy, in our society, and competing with people for jobs? Do you think there should be a floor? And if so, do you think that floor should be meaningful? And then I think the kind of, the negative consequences of the minimum wage are almost framed as like a. Like those are the trade offs, but they're not necessarily the cost. The cost of having a low minimum wage is having very poor workers in our economy. The trade offs to having a minimum wage is that we might experience job loss, we might experience some small price increases. I think the reason why it always comes down to how you value the people is that economic evidence has, you know, every single minimum wage increase there has been, has been studied by economists to understand its effects and the price effect and the job effect. It's just not there. It's. Or rather it's there, but it's not large. It's not what the predictions would be.

[Robin]

Yeah, this is what I was reading just before we started recording, which was this, this article from 2022. I'm sure you know it better than I do because I just read it, but it was looking at 70 studies done since 1992 on the minimum wage and comparing how they are just sort of popularly summarized or that the research literature in this area is popularly summarized to say that it has no effect on employment. But of course that there are expected to be negative effects on employment. And the question is, and we talk about this on, you talk about this on the show a lot. There are trade offs. And the question is what are you willing to trade off? And is the trade off that you have millions of people who are working full time who cannot lift themselves out of poverty, who are still living below the poverty line?

[Kathryn]

Yeah, the classic prediction of the minimum wage is that it raises the price of labor above its competitive level and therefore you would want less labor, ergo people would lose jobs. The kind of like two dimensional. I've just got supply, I've got demand, they meet in the middle, I put a little bar above it and I can tell you how much job loss the minimum wage should predict. But that number has never been found, quote, unquote, in the wild. And there are still these really large predictions that the minimum wage should eliminate jobs. And this is a very sensical prediction. It's this very sensical prediction, but we've never seen it in real life to the degree that theory would predict. So we do see evidence of some job loss. And it varies across circumstances, across wages, across industries. It varies enough and it's small enough. It's almost as if the prediction is wrong. So this is a great example of being right and wrong at the same time. The minimum wage absolutely destroys jobs because it makes them illegal. You can't employ people at this prior wage anymore. It's now against the law. So technically all those jobs are gone, but they're immediately replaced with a new legal contract. And what we don't see is a ton of layoffs when that occurs. So you keep them, at least in the short run, but maybe you don't replace people as they quit or get fired as quickly. And in the long run, you kind of reorient your production to use that labor less. So the prediction's right, but it's also wrong at the same time. I think this is why the minimum wage can be so fraught a conversation and so controversial when it shouldn't be. It makes a bunch of jobs illegal, there go away. It's a transition to get to that process. But in the long run, we have higher employment and more economic growth. So we don't. It doesn't like, leave a scar in our labor market from which we never recover. It's just one part of this big evolution of the economy moving forward.

[Robin]

I think that that's really helpful, that distinction, because I think these are terms that economists use that are not how the people we use them in the vernacular, in everyday language, employment and jobs is kind of synonymous to the most of us.

[Kathryn]

I mean, a job is a job the way that you mean it. But I think in the context of predicted job loss for the minimum wage, it's really not the job as you mean, it's. You mean employment. You think that the number of people who have a job, AKA the number of people who are employed, it's going to go down if I raise the minimum wage. And if it does, it does a little like it does to a fractional degree, but not to a catastrophic degree. We don't see massive layoffs, and it's not 500,000 or a million people who lose their job right away. But I have eliminated jobs from the economy They've just been immediately replaced by new contracts that meet the legal standards.

[Robin]

And it's not a linear thing. Right. So like if the minimum wage goes from its current rate to $15 an hour, it will more than double. That does not mean that all those new jobs that there will only be half as many. It doesn't operate that way.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, because the other, I mean, okay, yeah, we have supply, demand, prices, a wage floor, you know, boom, employment loss, that doesn't happen. But price and demand and supply, that's only one way to view the economy. It's a very powerful intuition. It's why it's taught in 101 is because the idea of supply and demand clearing at a price explains so much of our world. But it's not the only thing that's going on. And if supply and demand are Econ101, I would say Econ102 is power and the power that individual agents have in bargaining and the power that they have in market and non market situations. We can use economics to express your power in an employment contract, in a marriage, as a player on a soccer team. All of that has power, which we would define by your ability to bargain for the conditions that you want, given your outside options and information. And that is a whole other branch of economics and the other way to view all of these things. And by that kind of lens of thinking about power as opposed to prices, the minimum wage wouldn't necessarily cause job loss or employment declines because the workers who are affected don't have much power and they're being paid below what they're worth because they can't bargain for more. And this goes back to kind of like the original motivation for the minimum wage was to basically remove power from employers to exploit workers who work for them. So even though it took a while for the economics literature to come up with the same type of framework, it was all there in the economy when the minimum wage was created. Some people just don't have enough power. Sometimes employers have a lot. And I think based on what we talked about with the union episode, the idea that employers have a lot of power and workers don't is probably pretty salient though.

[Robin]

People express concern about the minimum wage going up because the thought is that it's going to drive prices up. If you have to pay restaurant servers $15 an hour, food, food prices and restaurants are going to go up. If you have to pay people who work in factories, more price of goods is going to go up. Is there research on that? Does the minimum wage Track with consumer prices.

[Kathryn]

A minimum wage increase can increase the price of goods. The employer would just pass the cost of the minimum wage increase onto consumers. But it's so small it's hard to.

[Robin]

See really because you would just think like labor is such a huge part of a company's overhead.

[Kathryn]

A lot more consumers than workers. Oh, you know, If I have 100 workers and 5,000 customers, even absorbing the full increase in labor cost just doesn't lead to that high of a price increase. And even the more recent fast food wage increase in California, I mean, it raised prices at a very marginal amount of. Again, we talk about so much on this show. It's not that policies are pure good, it's that they have trade offs and you just have to weigh them. The trade off to a higher minimum wage is that there could be declines in employment. We think they're small. There could be price increases, we think they're small. Do you think that's worth having an economy where you and no one you know is competing with someone to make $7 and people who make $7 an hour don't exist in the economy anymore? What are you willing to risk versus what you're willing to gain? I think the other thing to keep in mind is that the kind of the boogeyman of the situation is that if we raise the minimum wage, employers will accelerate automation. And I think it's worth pointing out.

[Robin]

One, they're going to do that.

[Kathryn]

They already do it. Yeah, they're going to do that anyway.

[Robin]

I know.

[Kathryn]

And you don't need to have some kind of like devil's bargain of like, oh, we'll stay at like 1980 wages for as long as you don't adopt an iPad. Like that won't work.

[Robin]

And you don't put a robot in your warehouse.

[Kathryn]

I think that's part one and part two. It makes it seem as if the trade off to the experience of customers in an economy is that people and a robot are the same. And it's just, hey, as soon as a person costs more, I'm switching to robot. And that's the minimum wage is fault and does not take into account that the actual implementation of technological upgrades for an employer isn't seamless and it doesn't always become cost effective. I went to a McDonald's recently when I was driving home from Dallas and you can no longer call McDonald's fast food because it took so long to order on an iPad that was the size of a fridge. There's like four of them. Nobody knows how to Work them. Everybody gets their order wrong. And nobody was happy. And there wasn't even click how the lines worked. And I was like, yeah, is the problem here the minimum wage, which is still $7.25 an hour in Texas, or is it that firms adopt new technology and maybe it's nice to blame the minimum wage for it?

[Robin]

Yeah. It's funny, I recently had that feeling about a job totally disappearing, which was parking lot attendance. In la, we had a lot of parking lots, a lot of parking structures, and you would go in and you would get a ticket and you'd come out and you would pay somebody at the other side. And those jobs disappeared in, like, two years. Everything from, you know, the ability to play with a credit card at the exit, to license plate scanners that could just scan you coming in and out, to pretty reliable machines that would take your payments. And all those jobs went away. And it had nothing to do with the minimum wage.

[Kathryn]

I think there's this assumption of efficiency on the employer side, but as a consumer, you know that that's not right. You know that stores can make horrible decisions regarding staffing. There are several grocery stores in D.C. that are historically referred to as the Soviet Safeway because they never had anything and the lines were so long. Employers make all kinds of staffing decisions all the time that can affect, like, your price and your experience. And I think the minimum wage, again, very good fall guy for certain choices, but isn't what's moving the needle for a lot of it?

[Robin]

But the minimum wage, you were saying, is nominal. It's. Can it be. Could it be indexed?

[Kathryn]

Yes. Could and should? Yes. I actually feel this is a real niche take, because you have to know a lot about indices over historical periods in order for it to make sense. But if you index something to inflation, you would take the dollar amount, say it was $20, and every year you would increase it by the same percentage that prices increase. So if prices increase 3%, the minimum wage goes. Or the dollar amount goes up 3%. And it does that every year with inflation. That's what we do with a lot of prices in our economy. The other way to index it would be to index it to earnings so that if prices go up by 3%, but average wages went up 5%, you raise the minimum wage so that it keeps wages with wages as opposed to prices. The reason why that matters is that, for the most part, wages rise faster than prices.

[Robin]

If you indexed it to inflation, it would still erode, but if you indexed it to wages, it would keep afloat.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, it would keep it at a relevant level. These are really technical issues that can make a huge difference in the long run. So if we were going to do the minimum wage, and I mean do it, we're doing it right.

[Robin]

Okay, so if we were going to do it right, it would be different.

[Kathryn]

Than you would index it to wages and not prices. The calculation that they make to adjust your Social Security, that's indexed to wages. So again, the government knows how to do this when it wants to. It didn't mess up your Social Security. It understood how to calculate the change in wages over time Using a wage measure does not extend that to the minimum wage. So it knows how to do it to make clear how much power is at play in the minimum wage. One way we can end this is by kind of putting the minimum wage in context of who is affected by it. So when the minimum wage passed in 1938, it was required in certain sectors like transportation, finance, manufacturing, wholesale trade. It covered about half of workers at the time. But throughout the the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when the minimum wage was increased, it was also expanded in coverage. New sectors got added, new sectors got added. So one of the last expansions, big expansions to the Fair Labor Standards act minimum wage coverage, was the 1966 increase. And what was very special about it is that they raised the wage and they also expand it to cover industries that are going to bring in a lot of black workers. And in effect, this is the large 60 of the minimum wage that black workers have experienced given the industries that they're in. So a set of researchers, they looked at what was the effect of the 67 increase, and they found that it absolutely raised black wages, but more importantly, it reduced the black white wage gap, which, if you consider 1968 in America, this was a phenomenal progress. The minimum wage can be a tool in making the labor market more remunerative for people who don't have the power to have higher wages, which is really similar to the arguments in 38. And when you think about these types of effects, it puts this like, but we may lose jobs. It puts into a really stark perspective of what people are arguing. The minimum wage right now is always talked about in what it's supposed to do. That's bad. Like, if you raise it, we should lose jobs. If you raise it, we'll see higher prices. But if you go into the economics research and look at what the minimum wage has shown to do, it's done things like raise the wages of people of color, especially relative to white People because they get clustered into the lowest paying jobs. If you were to make the minimum wage discussion about women of color are taken advantage of in our labor market, and so we should have a policy to address that called the minimum wage. It's a very different conversation if you were to say that people are taken advantage of in the labor market by employers and the minimum wage is a way to redress that, which is absolutely. I mean, that's the minimum wage. That's its whole history, that's its whole motivation. Then we have to have a conversation about which employers are taken advantage of and what kind of power employers have. So I've always thought that the employment and price predictions were really convenient because it got you out of the much harder conversations of the problems that the minimum wage solves.

[Robin]

Right. This reminds me actually a lot of the conversation we had a couple months ago about paid sick days. The idea that there are going to be small businesses for whom that there's going to be a burden. But maybe those aren't actually the jobs we want to be sacrificing 20 million people's health and paid sick time to.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, I mean, if you raise the minimum wage, I will say this. If you raise the minimum wage, there are going to be some businesses that go out of business. Absolutely. I don't think that I should pretend as if there's no. Like, I don't think anyone who's a proponent of the minimum wage should pretend as if there's no consequences. There are probably. And because we have 300 million people somewhere, somewhere there is a business that is so marginally, you know, still in business that if you were to raise the minimum wage, they'd fold. That can happen. So do you want to protect them or the 15 million people who would benefit from a minimum wage increase? And which type of economy do you want to live in? The one where we sacrifice everything for a business that's barely making it, or the one where we empower workers with larger incomes and hopefully those businesses get to try again. Because it is worth noting that in the United States, you can fail at business and you get to do it again.

[Robin]

Indeed, you can fail at a lot of things and do it and try it again.

[Kathryn]

You could fail at a lot of things and do it again. That's not to sound callous that if your business failed that I'm like, see, I don't care. Of course I care. But you also are in the US Economy, you get to start again. It's not like you'll be doomed for poverty. For the rest of your life. Whereas someone who works 725 an hour, they will be.

[Robin]

Do you feel optimistic that we're actually going to get a bump in the minimum wage this year?

[Kathryn]

Yes. It probably won't be as high. I don't know if it'll be this year. But the Republican Party has turned towards populism, and that has a lot of consequences. But having both political parties vested in poor people can really only be for the benefit of our economy. It shouldn't be a niche issue. It should be a broad economic issue. And Holly is someone who has said publicly that Republicans don't serve their primary constituency. So Getting a minimum wage 15 is maybe not what I would pick, but, yeah, getting a federal minimum wage of $15, I'm optimistic that they'll go for it because they have yet to enact a public policy that will benefit the people who voted for them. So odds are they got to do at least one.

[Robin]

They got to do at least one.

[Kathryn]

Minimum wage is kind of a gimme.

[Robin]

Exactly.

[Kathryn]

It's incredibly popular. People love voting for it. They love voting on it. They love seeing it go up. They think. I mean, there are people. There's like, a crazy percentage of people who think the minimum wage should be above 25. So if that means Republicans put it to 15, like. Like, I'll take it.

[Robin]

All right. Pilcrow. Executive orders, Pilgrim.

[Kathryn]

Executive orders.

[Robin]

Do you have an executive order?

[Kathryn]

You go first.

[Robin]

Okay, so you guys have been sending us a lot of executive orders. We've got a little backlog, so I put one on our substack. And I just want you to know that grocery stores will not be allowed to rearrange the aisles every eight months. That passed with 88% of the vote of optimists everywhere.

[Kathryn]

I don't think they should change. I mean, they're like, eight years. They should never be allowed to change. Just make it work.

[Robin]

That's so frustrating. This is from another one of our listeners who's been a really great supporter. Troy says moving vans need to have one of those sliding signs, kind of like you have in a dishwasher that says clean and dirty. And it needs to say moving in or moving out, because that's all you want to know when you walk by and you see them on the street. My personal executive order this week in the Republic of Rousey is what? Stores that are permanently closed, take them off the Google Maps and the Apple maps. Don't leave them there and say they're permanently closed. That's not helping anybody.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, Also, where does that end?

[Robin]

Yeah, exactly. Ten years, like two cable stores trying to return a modem that they just weren't even there anymore. Those stores, those are my executive orders.

[Kathryn]

Okay. I have kind of a real one that is not just petty. I think firms should be required to disclose turnover cost. Oh, how much does it cost you to be such a terrible employer? I think public companies in particular would benefit from this. But I was texting with a journalist about Amazon and how they. Their average wage is huge turnover. The average wage is relatively high. But they had this leaked document a few years ago that was an internal report that was like, wow, we're burning through so many workers in some metropolitan areas. There will be no one left to hire. We basically will have hired and have lost, you know, the majority of workers who are of a certain age, of a certain education and will have worked for us. And I was like, okay, well, now everybody tell me you want.

[Robin]

You want this to be part of their. Their, like, SEC documents that they have to file. It will be. And this would be the cost. This isn't just the turnover rate. Turnover rate, I think, would be really instructive.

[Kathryn]

I mean, especially for people who are in the labor market searching for jobs. You should have to say, how many people quit your company last year? So this is my question. I got a debate about this with another labor economist of, like, which do you think firms would hate more? Having to disclose the pay of their current employees or having to disclose their turnover rates? And like, which one benefits job seekers more? Because this is, again, getting to, like, the. Both the deep nerdiness of economists as well as how important power bargaining and information is to the profession that we got in this, like, epic dispute of what would be better for workers bargaining for higher starting wages and assessing a few future employer knowing what they pay or knowing how many people they've lost.

[Robin]

And you thought how many people they.

[Kathryn]

Lost because it was more indicative of working conditions than pay alone.

[Robin]

Yeah, for sure.

[Kathryn]

So, yeah, like, the big fight was that, like, knowing pay would help with wage gaps. So, you know, women wouldn't be in a disadvantage or black people wouldn't be at a disadvantage. They could ask for the right starting wage and that that would be really effective. But then I said it would lead to worse matches because they would be hiding job quality concerns which would show up in turnover but not pay. And so then we got into like.

[Robin]

This kind of like, yeah, especially you have to pay more, but you keep losing people. That's a very, very bad sign.

[Kathryn]

Yes.

[Robin]

Do an Index maybe get both of them.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. Okay. So honestly, por que lo nos dos? We could just have pay and turnover disclose, but I think it was more fun to find about which would be most useful to workers, what would empower workers more, which piece of information. And like that is what PhD labor economists argue about at a bar. And we're a real good time. I will say I think we're fun as hell, but I could get why people would move away from us.

[Robin]

I don't know. I'd lean in. One of my friends said that that she and her husband have a code when they're like out and one of them is eavesdropping on an interesting conversation that they say something to the other one that involves the word lunch, which means stop talking. I'm trying to eavesdrop to this table behind me. So if you just say like, what are we gonna have for lunch on Saturday? That means I'm listening in on this conversation. I would totally lunch your conversation.

[Kathryn]

Oh, my God. Why is this not the term and condition that we started the show with in whatever pilcrow that was to lunch? Something is to. Oh my God, you know. Cause lunch used to be slang for slacking off.

[Robin]

Oh, no.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, like, are you lunching? It's like, yeah, I'm lunching. I'm at my work, but I'm lunching right now. This is great. Again, fully endorsed. Okay, replace I said with what Robin said. Everybody needs to have a code word established at every dinner gathering so that if you needed to eavesdrop, you could.

[Robin]

Yeah, yeah.

[Kathryn]

Okay. Switching from mine to yours. Mine wasn't petty enough, but this is just exact amount of petty.

[Robin]

Okay, final pilcrow Spiritual sponsors.

[Kathryn]

Spiritual sponsors.

[Robin]

My spiritual sponsor is girls Weekends because that's where I get interesting details like how to come up with a code word like lunching, which is from my.

[Kathryn]

Friend, Better life to know that every.

[Robin]

Year my four friends from high school get together and I just have to endorse the idea of just getting away without your spouses and family and being with people that you can are not bored with your stories and troubles and you can bitch about your in laws or your difficulties with your kids or your job and. And it's all new to me. Bring it on. It's great. We had a great time.

[Kathryn]

Okay. My. Oh, did we have a spiritual sponsor? A real spiritual sponsor.

[Robin]

Paul in Kearney, Nebraska came in as a spiritual sponsor and he also said he binged our entire back catalog in two days of tractor work out there in Nebraska, which I just love. I love the image of that. Thank you, Paul. We appreciate it.

[Kathryn]

Thank you so much, Paul. We absolutely appreciate it and need it. My spiritual sponsor is Phyllis Neffler from Troop Beverly Hills.

[Robin]

From What?

[Kathryn]

From the 1980s classic troop Beverly Hills. Phyllis Kneffler is played by Shelley Long. She's a Beverly Hills housewife whose husband leaves her because she never does anything or accomplishes anything, and her only hobby is shopping. And so she takes over her daughter's Wilderness Girls troupe. And, yeah, I mean, a lot of stuff happens. You can imagine what. But it is an absolutely amazing and touching movie, man. One time when I was in college, I found out that a friend of mine hadn't seen it, and I was like, you haven't seen True Beverly Hills? It's such a good movie. We should go rent it. And there was a rental store, like a really cult classic rental store in Austin called I Love Video and I Love Video. It wasn't even arranged alphabetically. It was arranged by, like, auteur's first movie shelf. It was just, like, the most pretentious arrangement of films. And I called them, and I was like, hey, do y' all have Troop Beverly Hills? And this kid was like, oh, I hope not. Hold on. Comes back and he's like, I do have it, actually. And I am pretty disappointed. I'm like, oh, okay, well, I'm gonna come in and pick it up.

[Robin]

Set it aside for me.

[Kathryn]

Can you set it aside for me? And he was like, no. He's like, no one's gonna come in. I'm like, it's a great movie. Someone could come in. And he's like, no, they won't. And when I showed up, I was like, oh, hi. And he's like, you don't have to tell me. You're the girl that called about Troop Beverly Hills. And I was like, yeah, I am.

[Robin]

Did he just give it to you so you could keep it?

[Kathryn]

No. He was like, here you go. Just very begrudging. And I was like, okay, well, I can pick up, like, I don't know, Fellini's eight and a half, if that'll make you feel better. But I'm going to watch True Beverly Hills first, if that's all right with you. Anyway, Phyllis Kneffler has some amazing lines in this movie. The clothes are insane because it's like, 80s wealthy people.

[Robin]

You said the character's name.

[Kathryn]

The character's name is Phyllis.

[Robin]

Okay, great.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to write so much context. But, yeah, it's a deeply deeply silly movie about becoming confident. And she has a lot of great lines. It's very much like almost like east meets West. Like, it's trying to take all these rich girls camping and they're like, there's bugs here. We're not going to stay. Very hilarious. But she is my spiritual sponsor and one of her big quotes is, in the wilderness of life, one can never be too prepared. Which I really love, particularly in the context in which she says it. When they try to go camping and end up at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Have I sold this movie enough?

[Robin]

Boy, I. You know, we need funny things to watch right now. And I will put it on the list. Really.

[Kathryn]

Okay. It all takes place in la. I feel like it should also speak to, like, it is. Making fun of rich people in LA.

[Robin]

Is like a really good sub genre of movies like LA Story. I actually own LA Story. Like, I bought it. Yeah.

[Kathryn]

If you own LA Story, you gotta watch True Beverly Hills. Lots of. There's lots of celebrity cameos. All the girls are hilarious. And actually, if you are a Rilo Kiley music fan, this is one of her. I think this is her first film.

[Robin]

Great.

[Kathryn]

For those of you who are just going to watch True Beverly Hills for the first time, you're welcome. Yeah. We like to end the show by thanking our producers who make this possible. Andy and Sophie.

[Robin]

Yep.

[Kathryn]

Appreciate you.

[Robin]

Thank you.