Why Care About Denmark Putting Trump's Offer to Buy Greenland on Ice?

The real estate agent in President Trump came out last week. He made a proposition to buy Greenland from Denmark, much like President Truman attempted in 1946. Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Fredericksen, said that Greenland is not for sale and the idea of doing so is absurd. Trump subsequently cancelled his plans to visit Denmark next month.

While it would be easy to dismiss this sales proposal as "Trump does that wildest things," there might be some rhyme and reason for Trump's move. Although Greenland is sparsely populated, Greenland is abundant in natural resources, especially in rare earth metals. These are the same rare earth metals that act as inputs for computers, smartphones, electric cars, and other electric goods. China already has such a large market share in rare earth metals, and has been mining for more in Greenland through an Australian company. Trump is assumedly trying to position himself in the rare metals market because he is anticipating a drawn-out trade war with China which he should have never started in the first place. And to think there are also copper, zinc, and iron reserves, as well (see Brookings Institution report here).

But Greenland's advantage isn't just about natural resources. Its geographic position combined with the melting polar ice caps allows for maritime travel to be shorter through its shipping lanes more quickly than the Panama or Suez Canals, but that might not transpire for about another century. China will continue to have geopolitical interests in establishing a presence in Greenland. Russia is also interested in Greenland as the major world powers vie for power in the Arctic region.

There are economic and national security interests for the United States to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Something tells me that Denmark is more aware of Greenland's worth than it is letting on. It does signal how a large island that historically was considered all but worthless is now playing an increasingly important role in international politics. While we will not see a purchase of Greenland anytime soon, this is not the last we will hear about Greenland's role in international affairs.

Is Allowing Transgender Women to Compete in Female Sporting Events Unfair?

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has stirred the pot with the transgender community. Last week, the Office for Civil Rights formally launched an investigation in the state of Connecticut's policy to allow transgender high school athletes to compete as the gender with which they identity. This investigation is the consequence of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative nonprofit, filing a complaint with the Department of Education on behalf of three female high school track athletes.

The crux of the complaint is that the three cisgender girls (cisgender being those whose gender identity matches the biological sex) had to compete against two male-to-female (MTF) transgender athletes. Per the complaint, since the two MTF transgender athletes "have male hormone levels and musculature," they have an undue advantage that violates Title IX, which is a federal law that does not allow for discrimination that is based on sex in education programs. Those filing the complaint contend that the alleged violation of Title IX is tantamount to discrimination. Those who are opposed to this complaint contend that siding with the Alliance Defending Freedom would mean further discriminating against transgender athletes.

Before I continue, I want to preface with this. I have more than a feeling that the upcoming nuance in this piece is going to get lost in politics. I have spoken out against the transgender military ban and the transgender bathroom ban. Not only do I believe that transgender individuals should be treated with the same respect and dignity as everyone else because they are human beings, but I also have transgender friends. Anyone who thinks that I am exhibiting transphobia because I am sorting through the details and searching for the truth only lobs that argument because they don't have anything else to stand on. But let's get back to the question of the hour: should MTF transgender athletes be allowed to compete against cisgender female athletes or not?

Gender is more than mere societal construct. Granted, there might not as many differences as certain traditionalists would like to think, but there are still differences between men and women. As Doraine Coleman, a Duke Law Professor that specializes in gender issues and a former 800-meter champion, reminds us:

Compared to females, males have greater lean body mass (more skeletal muscle and less fat), larger hearts (both in absolute terms and scaled to lean body mass), higher cardiac outputs, larger hemoglobin mass, larger VO2 max (i.e., a person's ability to take in oxygen), greater glycogen utilization, and higher anaerobic capacity. 

These differences in physical attributes come from testosterone levels. Women have a range of 0.3-2.4 nanomoles per liter (npl), whereas men have a range of 10-38 npl. If a doctor ignored differences between sexes in their diagnoses, they would have their license revoked. This is not to say that there are not exceptions to norms, but that the general differential between men and women creates a performance gap, typically of 10 to 12 percent. This performance gap is the primary justification for having a woman's category in most competitive sports because without it, there would be very few female victories in athletics.

The next question is whether MTF transgender individuals retain the physical advantages of having been born biologically male. With regards to the Olympics, the International Olympics Committee ruled in 2015 that for a MTF transgender athlete to compete, testosterone has to be below 10 npl vis-à-vis hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) for a year before competing. Disregarding that the Olympics has yet to have an openly transgender athlete compete, it does show an attempt to level the playing field.

Given that women typically range from 0.3 to 2.4 npl, one could argue that 10 npl is enough. As a matter of fact, a recent study from the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) came to that very conclusion (Knox et al., 2019). In spite of having testosterone levels below 10 npl, the MTF transgender subjects did not lose significant muscle mass because their muscles are rebuilt. Since MTF transgender athletes retained muscle mass and strength, the study ultimately concluded that it is an intolerable unfairness.

One option, as the JME offers, is to have everyone compete in the same sporting leagues. This would not only allow for transgender individuals to compete without issue, but it would also include those who do not identify as non-binary. While it would be more inclusive and gender-blind, my concern is that biological males still would have the advantage. To reiterate, the 10 to 12 percent performance gap that biological males have over biological females would all but wipe out any incentive for cisgender females to participate in athletics.

Yes, life is unfair, and it is unreasonable to expect that each athlete have the same exact skills and attributes. Some basketball players are taller than others. A swimmer could have a naturally wider wing span. Caster Semenya is an Olympic-winning runner who is an intersex woman with 46, XY DSD (formerly known as "pseudo-hermaphroditism"). These advantages can and do exist, but these advantages are much more subtle than the clear-cut advantage that higher levels of testosterone provide. On the other hand, there is a strong enough case for these advantages not mattering in certain sports. Wrestling divisions are based in weight categories. For a sport like baseball or softball, these biological advantages seem to have less bearing.

In many things in life, it does not matter what biological sex you were born with. But with something as physically rooted as athletics, it is difficult to deny the differences between being born biologically male versus female. The reality is that males have a biological advantage in most sporting events, which justifies the women's category in most sporting events. This is not bigotry; it is biology. If HRT meant that there was more or less parity between MTF transgender women and cisgender women, I would not care because transgender individuals have it hard enough in life. However, MTF transgender women still hold an undue advantage over cisgender women because they are still biologically male. Until science can catch up with the ethical debate, I conclude that it is not fair for MTF transgender women to compete with cisgender women in most sports.

Parsha Devarim: It's Not a Matter of Whether to Rebuke, but How

Moses did much for the Jewish people. Not only did he help free the Israelites from slavery, but he led them through the desert for forty years. By the beginning of Deuteronomy (in this week's Torah portion, Devarim), we have reached the point in the text where Moses is not long for this world. How does Moses decide to spend the end of his life? Dispensing some not-so-old-fashioned Jewish guilt:

דבר משה אל בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה הי אתו אלהם.

-Moses spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that G-d commanded to them. -Deuteronomy 1:3

According to Rashi, Moses' words at the beginning of Deuteronomy are words of rebuke. Moses starts his long speech after having defeated Sichon and Og in battle (Deuteronomy 1:4). Why after this battle? Because had it been before, he would have been accused of ulterior motives. Since it was done after, his rebuke is a sign of rededication (Sifrei, cited by Rashi). The first important lesson is that timing is everything. Had Moses rebuked before defeating Sichon and Og, his words would have not been taken seriously. Rashi's commentary implies that finding the opportune moment has the potential to affect the outcome of whether the rebuke is heeded (ibid.). 

Going back to Deuteronomy 1:1, we see a list of places. According to the Sifre, the landmarks listed are not places where Moses spoke his final words of rebuke. Rather, they are a list of sins in the form of allusion. "In the desert" refers to when the Israelites complained in Exodus 17:3. "In the Aravah (Plain)" refers to worshipping Ba'al (Numbers 25). "Opposite Suf" is in reference to when the Israelites made trouble by the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 14:11), and "Paran" is regarding the sin of the spies (Numbers 13). There are others, but you get the idea: Moses did not call out the sins by name. He used euphemisms to soften the blow. Why? Because Moses knew his audience, and the content of the rebuke mattered. If he would have said, "What's wrong with you people for committing all these sins? G-d is going to punish you for your stupidity and insolence," odds are that the Israelites would have ignored Moses. If this were Moses' approach, it would have been better to have not said anything because as the Talmud states (Yevamot 65b), "it is a mitzvah to refrain from saying something which will not be listened." Just as important, the content matters because it is important to preserve the honor of those being rebuked (R. Chaim Shmuelevitz).

In Deuteronomy 1:5, Moses began his words of rebuke in the land of Moab. According to Rashi's commentary (1:5), this is when Moses translated his words of rebuke in 70 languages. This is based on the assumption from the Haggadah that the world is made of 70 languages. What this implies is that Moses translated the Torah so everyone had linguistic access. Rashi's commentary teaches us that Moses went through this translation work to make sure that the rebuke is unambiguously understandable. 

Finally, if you are going to rebuke, do it out of love. It is no accident that the command to rebuke (Leviticus 19:17) is juxtaposed with the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself in lieu of taking vengeance or holding a grudge (Leviticus 19:18). Since juxtaposition is a standard hermeneutical tool in Judaism, one could infer that either rebuke leads to love and/or that rebuke should be done with love. As the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 54:3) states, "love unaccompanied by criticism is not love." 

This message about "criticism without love" is very important during the Nine Days. It is commonly taught that the Second Temple fell because of baseless hatred. R. Jonatan Eibeschitz expounded upon the Talmud by saying that the baseless hatred was manifested by a lack of people rebuking. For Eibeschitz, it was not an active hatred that caused the destruction of the Second Temple, but rather the apathy. 

We learn a few things here. Rebuke is not meant to be a sign of hate or disgust, but one of love. The second is that when we rebuke, what we say, how we say it, when and where we say it are all important. If Moses had not been more careful, it could have meant destabilizing the Jewish people to the point of non-existence, which could have had major ramifications for the development of humankind. Fortunately, he was aware of how to rebuke, which also explains why the end of Moses' speech a few Torah portions later ends on a high note, further illustrating the importance of content. Jewish tradition does not teach us to unconditionally accept people for who they are. To err is the human condition, and there are times where we need redirection. What's the moral of the story? When we do point out others' flaws, we do so lovingly and with considerable sensitivity. We might not have the political standing that Moses had, but our words nevertheless have power. By using our words to build up rather than tear down, we can reverse the damage caused centuries ago and bring about an era of peace in our times. 

Financial Transaction Tax: An Oversold Idea That Won't Die

The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries are bringing out a litany of horrible public policy ideas: the wealth tax, baby bonds, expanding national service programs, capping credit card interest rates, and forgiving student debt. I have another one to add to the list: the financial transaction tax (FTT). Back in May, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Kristine Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Inclusive Prosperity Act. This Act sets up a few FTTs: 0.5 percent for stocks, 0.1 percent for bonds, and 0.005 percent for derivatives. The United States is not the only country eyeing the financial transaction tax. Last month, France and Germany set out to persuade other European Union member states to enact a 0.2 percent FTT on equity trades in the EU from 2021.

What exactly is the FTT? It is like it sounds. It is a levy imposed on the buyer or seller of a financial instrument (e.g., stock, bond, FX, derivative, security). There are three common policy justifications: reducing financial market volatility, more tax revenue, and pay for the federal assistance to the institutions that are viewed by some as the source of the financial instability, a.k.a. Wall Street. In the case of Sanders, he would like to take the tax revenue to fund his proposal for free college tuition and erasure of college student debt. Sanders hopes that such a tax would generate up to $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Sanders would like to mitigate income inequality while "sticking it to Wall Street." What could possibly be wrong with a financial transaction tax? Non-rhetorically, I can think of a few reasons.

1. It is not clear as to whether it would mitigate financial volatility. The main argument used is to prevent another financial downturn similar to the Great Recession. However, financial transaction taxes might not work so well. In 2012, the Bank of Canada released a study on FTTs. They concluded there is little evidence that it would mitigate financial volatility. If anything, it would likely "increase volatility and bid-ask spreads and decrease trading volume." Jared Bernstein, the former economic adviser of Vice President Joe Biden, came to a similar conclusion, as did the International Monetary Fund [IMF] (Matheson, 2011; also see Wang and Yau, 2012; Habermeier and Kirilenko, 2001; Hau, 2003).
2. It is a poorly targeted tax. Sanders would like to target the more speculative aspects of Wall Street that supposedly got us into trouble. The problem is that the FTT would indiscriminately target speculative and productive trading, thereby disincentivizing investment. 
3. Revenue Estimates are Too Optimistic. This is not the first time that Sanders proposed a FTT. He previously did so in 2016, and estimated it would bring in $3 trillion over a decade. The left-of-center Tax Policy Center found that Sanders' 2016 version would only bring in $400 billion. This means that Sanders exaggerated by a near ten-fold! The Congressional Budget Office also estimated the tax revenue back in December, and it was only $776 billion over ten years. This phenomenon is not unique to Bernie Sanders. The European Union has come across similar issues with rosy FTT revenue estimates. France and Italy also did not acquire the revenue they anticipated.
4. It would negatively affect retirement savings. As the Tax Policy Center points out, financial transaction costs have lowered since the 1970s. This has made way for such retirement vehicles as the 401(k), mutual funds, and the IRA, which has made retirement more accessible for those who aren't rich. Sanders' FTT would increase transaction costs by ten-fold, which would make retirement more difficult for the working class that Sanders purports to help. This means that the FTT doesn't target Wall Street speculators like Sanders would like because the costs are passed on to the investors. 
5. There would be significant tax avoidance. A paper from an economist at the University of Berkeley outlines how the FTT incentivizes tax avoidance, and uses Italy and France as examples (Coelho, 2016). Some forms of tax avoidance are portfolio substitution, market-making exemptions, platform and derivative shifting, and geographic evasion.
6. This would negatively affect liquidity and price discovery. This might sound like some financial jargon, but ensuring liquidity, or the ability to purchase or sell an asset without causing a drastic change in the asset's price, is important. As the IMF found, a decrease in liquidity increases the price impact of trade, which increases price volatility (Matheson, 2011). This same paper also found that the reduction in liquidity makes it more difficult to "incorporate the effect of new information into asset prices," which only makes it more difficult to prevent asset bubbles. 
7. European Case Studies. While the United States has yet to implement the FTT on the level that Bernie Sanders would like, there have been some European countries that have implemented the FTT. How did it fare?
• Sweden: Sweden introduced a FTT in the 1980s, and it ended up reducing 60 percent of the trading volume (Umlauf, 1993). 
• France: France's attempt at the FTT in 2012 resulted in lower trading volumes and reduced market liquidity (Colliard and Hoffman, 2017). 
• Italy: The Italian government imposed a FTT in 2013. A 2016 report from the European Central Bank found a "reduction in liquidity for the stocks hit by the reform (Cappeletti et al., 2016)." Credit Suisse also estimated that Italy's stock trading fell 34.2 percent two years later as a result of the FTT.
• United Kingdom: To be fair, the United Kingdom has had a stamp tax since 1694 [on stock transactions], and it doesn't seem worse for wear (Burman et al., 2016). On the other hand, a paper from the IMF shows that the market for "contracts for difference" in the U.K. grew rapidly when they were exempted from the stamp tax (Matheson, 2011). The U.K. stamp duty has also been found to depress share prices and distort how investors interpret share prices (Bond et al., 2004; also see 2008 European Commission paper).

Conclusion
In theory, a FTT could be broad-based and low enough where it could minimize damage to investing. What is observable in practice is that the FTT does not create nearly as much tax revenue as estimated. As Professor Moorad Choudhry from the Bank of Scotland points out, "An FTT would actually produce lower government revenue due to falling profits in the financial industry. And that benefits precisely no one." On top of that, the FTT depresses trade volumes, damages savings, incentivizes trading in other countries, and increases transaction costs. The irony is that those who advocate for the FTT do not realize that the FTT increases market volatility, which is the very thing they are trying to avoid. It would behoove the Democrats, and indeed anyone advocating for the FTT, to think twice before trying to enact this atrocity.

50 Years After Moon Landing: A Call for Even Greater Privatization in the Global Space Market

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Those words were uttered by Neil Armstrong fifty years ago on July 20, 1969 when he became the first person to land on the Moon. It was a great day for the United States not only because of what it meant for technological innovation, but it also meant that the United States now had a considerable advantage in the Space Race with the former Soviet Union. This anniversary made me realize something else: we have not been on the Moon since. It is not as if NASA hasn't done anything for fifty years. NASA has had 111 manned missions between 1981 and 2011. There have been space stations since 1969. We even had a rover on the planet Mars. And I'm sure that NASA has conducted research that has resulted in the advancement of space travel and exploration. While there have been accomplishments at NASA since 1969, I would argue that none was as iconic as the Moon Landing. It got me to think of the space exploration market now.

Before I continue, I admit that I am not well-versed in the history or public policy behind aeronautics. I have friends who either work at NASA or have degrees in aerospace engineering, and when it comes to topical expertise on the subject, I would defer to them. At the same time, I would like to take my functional expertise in public policy and market research to examine the global space market to see how NASA and the private space exploration market have been faring.

NASA Budgetary Spending Since the 1960s
Below is a chart of NASA budgetary spending in inflation-adjusted dollars since its founding at the end of 1958. As part of the Space Race, NASA spending increased substantially in the early 1960s, peaked at $34B (in current dollars). It declined to $22.7B (in current dollars) by the year 1969, which is close to the amount that NASA currently has allotted for its budget.  I bring this up in the first place is that I anticipate a counterargument of "We haven't made it to the Moon since 1969 because we didn't invest in NASA like we did in the 1960s." I will address this point momentarily, but first....

Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies

Global Space Market
Looking at general spending on research and development, federal spending plateaued in 2008, whereas private research and development boomed (American Institute of Physics). More specific to space travel, I was surprised to see the market segmentation when it came to funding. In 2018, the global space market was worth $414.75B (Space Foundation). I was more interested to see that 79.3 percent was in the private sector.

Why Privatize the Global Space Market Further
For a number of years, NASA has acted as a de facto monopoly in the U.S. space market, particularly with space travel (not so much with satellites). Maybe it is not a bad thing that the market is shifting to the private sector.

When a single player dominates a market, whether in a strict market or simply has a high market share, there is little incentive to control costs or improve quality. This has been a motif in NASA's history. Let's take a look at the initial Apollo 11 mission that finally landed U.S. astronauts on the moon. As the Cato Institute points out, there were other Apollo missions that were cancelled, aborted, or simply did not make it to the Moon. The pattern continued with Skylab, a space station that only saw three missions before crashing to Earth in 1979.

If you need a more modern example, how about International Space Station? That Station was supposed to be completed in 2002 at the cost of $17B. It ended up costing $64B and was not complete until 2011. The Constellation Program and James Webb Space Telescope are two more examples. In terms of current debacles, the rockets that are supposed to get astronauts to the moon by 2024 are also dealing with delays and cost overruns, according to the Washington Post.

This is not to say that NASA has never succeeded at anything because the Apollo 11 Moon Landing is but one example of NASA's success. This is also not to say that the private sector is not prone to error. In a cost-benefit analysis, it would be about who does a better job. At the same time, NASA has a history of being over-budget and behind schedule.

In recent years, the private sector has made its way into the space marketplace, whether it is Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, or billionaire Richard Branson. While the U.S. government accounts for 11.6 percent of the market, its footprint is a shadow of its former self. The private sector has an incentive to invest in space travel on top of the incentive to create satellites (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University). Moore's Law will only make barrier to entry lower and capital costs cheaper for those who wish to enter the space market.

In summation, NASA already recognized the importance of shifting space travel over to the private sector a while back. Experts in space travel also recognize this reality: that privatization is the wave of the future in this market, and that commercialization will be the way to see this market truly launch.

Warning: Trigger Warnings Are More Than Useless

If you have been in a college classroom these days or see what one of your friends on the Far Left post on Facebook recently, odds are that you have come across a trigger warning. A trigger warning is that prefatory disclaimer letting the reader or listener know that the material has the potential to trigger a post-traumatic stress reaction. Trigger warnings started in the 1990s with feminists writing on Internet message boards in discussions of sexual assault. What was meant to be used for a narrow range of topics, such as sexual assault or mental health (e.g., depression, PTSD), became more ubiquitous and widespread on the Internet and print media.

Before you know it, trigger warnings made their way to college classrooms. Those arguing for trigger warnings in the classroom said that without trigger warnings, students might be made quite uncomfortable with the topics discussed. Conservatives and libertarians argue that trigger warnings in college classrooms coddle students and stifle free speech on college campuses. I agree with that sentiment. Their usage on college campuses illustrates how trigger warnings are like other forms of political correctness in the sense that they are forms of thought and speech control under the guise of making the world a better place. Aside from getting a degree for job marketability, one of the main purposes of college is to expose students to multiple points of view in order to be able to think critically. If you need to silence discomfort with a trigger warning, what kind of person does that make you? But I digress.

There are multiple topics that could potentially trigger someone with PTSD or some other trauma. It is equally true that the triggers are "unpredictable and individually specific." Since they are not rational or universally foreseeable, it is unrealistic to be able to account for all triggers, especially in such a venue as a college campus.

This concept leads to one of the main issues with trigger warnings: they do not have positive effects. Last March, a paper in Clinical Psychological Science found that trigger warnings do not make anyone else worse off, but also that they don't help either (Sanson et al., 2019). Other research has found a negligible impact (e.g., Bridgland et al., 2019).

There has been limited research on the topic, but three Harvard professors released a groundbreaking paper on the effects of trigger warnings last week (Jones et al., 2019). This paper measured the effects of trigger warning on those with PTSD, the very sort of individuals that would theoretically best benefit from a trigger warning. The paper found that trigger warnings are not helpful for trauma survivors. Even worse than that, the authors found "substantial evidence that trigger warnings countertherapeutically reinforce survivors' view of their trauma as central to their identity." The conclusion of the authors was that there is no-evidence based reason to use trigger warnings. This latest study builds on their previous study (which did not focus on those suffering from PTSD) showing that trigger warnings undermine survivors' emotional resilience (Jones et al., 2018), as well as other work (e.g., Bellet et al., 2018; Wells and Kaptchuk, 2012). The 2019 Harvard study was convincing enough where writer Shannon Palus at the Left-leaning Slate changed her mind on the topic.

The best-case scenario for trigger warnings is that they are useless, although there is growing evidence showing that trigger warnings harms those it was intended to protect. Those who advocate for trigger warnings can no longer hide behind trauma survivors. If they want to help, there should be a larger discussion on mental health. In the meantime, trigger warnings should stop being used as a way to silent dissent.

CBO Puts In Its Two Cents in Debate on Federal $15 Minimum Wage

Upon examining the views of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election, we could find a number of differences. There is one issue where there is near unanimity: raising the federal minimum wage to $15. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) brought this issue to the forefront of the news cycle by releasing its analysis on Monday regarding a $15 federal minimum wage and its effects. This is not the first time the CBO has conducted such research. In 2014, it came out with an analysis on what raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would look like (see my analysis of that CBO report here). The federal government has not raised the minimum wage since the last CBO report; it still remains at $7.25 an hour. If passed, this new minimum wage increase would gradually increase to $15 by 2025. What did the new CBO report find with regards to what it would be like to raise the minimum wage?

The condensed version is above, but let's get into some of the details of the report...

• Effects on Income and Wages. By design, a major part of the premise of minimum wage is giving people an increase in their wages. The CBO found that 17 million workers would experience an increase in their wages (p. 1). 
• Per its supplementary data (Figure 4), the average wage increase is 21.2 percent (or $2.68). For those below the poverty threshold, it would mean an annual household income increase of 5.3 percent (p. 15). The discrepancy between the individual wage increase versus the household increase is due to the fact that many low-wage workers are in high-income households. 42 percent of low-wage workers live in households three times or more above the poverty threshold. Only 12 percent live in low-income households (p. 10).
• In net terms (including real income for employees, employers, and consumers), a $15 minimum wage would decrease net income by $8.1 billion annually (p. 3, 15). 
• Effects on Poverty Level. For those who have their wages increased, real income for the household increases, as well. The CBO puts the 2025 poverty level at $20,480 for a family of three, and $26,330 for a family of four.  If the proposed minimum wage increase passes, it would bring 1.3 million people out of poverty (p. 3). 
• Effects on Employment. With every policy comes a tradeoff. For raising the minimum wage, the tradeoff is 1.3 million unemployed, which would translate into a 0.8 percent reduction in overall employment (p. 2), as well as a 7 percent drop in employment for directly affected workers (p. 12).What this means is that for every person who escapes poverty under the minimum wage hike, a low-income individual loses their job and has even greater difficulty finding a job. 
• Effects on Consumer Prices. In response to the increase in labor costs, one of the ways that respond to the costs is by passing the cost of minimum wage to the consumer through higher prices of the good or service (p. 9). 

Yes, minimum wage does help some escape poverty. The CBO estimates that it would be 1.3 million that would escape poverty with a $15 minimum wage. But the CBO also estimates that approximately the same amount of people would lose their jobs, thereby being further trapped in poverty. On top of that, it costs $8.1 billion a year, thereby implying that minimum wage is not a stimulus of economic growth. Additionally, the minimum wage doesn't even properly target low-income households. Ultimately, the CBO report confirms that the minimum wage is far from alleviating poverty in this country, and if anything, causes harm to those who are not lucky to keep their job. We, as a country, can do better in helping the poor.


7-24-2019 Addendum: The Foundation for Freedom Education (FEE) had an interesting article on minimum wage and some empirical evidence on it. It highlights four additional was employers respond to minimum wage laws aside from laying off workers. Another way of saying this is that even if a low-wage worker still keeps their job, they could still either have their hours cut, work their employees harder, cut benefits, or hire less workers and turn to automation.