admin
Rebecca Bennett, the Democratic nominee in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, recently told voters she supports a federal $25 minimum wage. That statement matters because a new Employment Policies Institute study says such a move would cost about 5.01 million jobs nationwide and nearly 59,000 jobs in New Jersey alone. Voters deserve straight answers — not campaign sound bites that ignore the math.
What Bennett said and what the bill would do
Bennett said on the campaign trail she would back the Living Wage For All Act, the bill pushed in the Senate by Senator Chris Murphy and in the House by Representatives Analilia Mejia and Delia Ramirez. The proposal would phase in a $25 hourly floor over several years, eliminate subminimum tipped wages, and tie the floor to a share of the national median wage. Supporters talk about dignity and bigger paychecks. That’s fine in speeches — but policy has trade-offs.
The Employment Policies Institute study: big job-hit numbers
The Arlington-based Employment Policies Institute modeled the proposal and estimates roughly 5.01 million jobs lost over five years if a $25 federal wage became law. Their state table lists New Jersey job losses at about 58,925, which many outlets round to 60,000. The study says the hardest-hit groups would be young workers (16–24 year olds), restaurant staff, tipped workers, and women. Those are not abstract categories; they are your neighbors, kids, and local small businesses.
Why this matters locally in New Jersey
In New Jersey the losses would hit restaurants, schools, supermarkets, construction sites, and teen workers — the very places where entry-level jobs teach work habits and career skills. If you want to help low-income families, you shouldn’t cheer a policy that makes it harder for teens to get jobs or for small restaurants to stay open. That’s the practical reality behind the nice-sounding slogans about “living wages.”
Two competing research stories — and a call for clarity
Not everyone agrees with the EPI estimate. Progressive researchers point to other models that predict large pay gains for millions and smaller employment effects. The difference comes down to modeling choices and assumptions. Still, when a study from a professional policy shop predicts multi-million job losses, a candidate should answer the basic questions: Do you still back this as written? Would you actively push it? How would you protect small businesses and young workers?
Rebecca Bennett owes New Jersey voters clear, on-the-record answers — not vague promises. If she wants to run on a $25 minimum wage, she should explain how she will stop 60,000 Garden State jobs from disappearing. Otherwise Republicans and working voters will treat this as what it is: an expensive campaign promise with dangerous consequences. Voters should demand specifics before they sign off on an experiment with the state’s economy.
