I did: The claim is bullshit because it computes meaningless numbers ["hourly wage"] for a meaningless group of people ["all workers"].
The NELP paper is misusing that number in its own analysis, by multiplying by the nominal number of work hours to arrive at an annual full time income and then reasoning about that.
Furthermore, if the number meant what the NELP paper implies it means, it completely contradicts their argument for raising the minimum wage to $15/h: if in some sense "40% of workers" already make that much money, then $15/h is a solid, middle-class income, not a sign of poverty.
If you think the number has meaning, why don't you clearly state what that meaning is.
No matter how you slice it, rationalize it and just straight-up bullshit about it, more than 40% of the people who are working are working for less than $15/hr.
then $15/h is a solid, middle-class income, not a sign of poverty.
What part of "40% of the workers make less than $15/hr" do you not get? The "less than" part is kind of important.
The current minimum wage is less than half of your "solid, middle-class income" of $15/hr. And if you add up the incomes of everyone making minimum wage in America it comes to a little more than half as much as the bonuses that get paid out to Wall Street bankers in one year. And we're talking about full-time minimum wage workers ($7.25/hr). And by "Wall Street", they don't include investment bankers in Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, etc etc. We're only talking about the swells that do their business on a few square blocks on Manhattan island. And we're not talking about their entire incomes, but just the bonuses. So they find more money in their Christmas fucking stockings than all the full-time minimum wage workers in the United States put together. And don't forget, Wall Street bankers don't produce a goddamned thing.
http://www.businessinsider.com...