Democrat congressional candidate Rebecca Bennett is backing legislation that a new study says would crush 60,000 jobs in New Jersey alone — and 5 million nationwide.
Bennett, running for Congress in New Jersey’s 7th District, told voters she would support raising the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour. The Living Wage For All Act — championed by New Jersey Democrat Rep. Analilia Mejia — would hike the minimum from $7.25 to $12.00 in the first year, then phase in increases until hitting $25 over several years.
The proposal represents one of the most aggressive minimum wage hikes ever proposed at the federal level. For context, the current federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009, marking the longest period without an increase since the minimum wage was established. The proposed jump to $25 would more than triple the current rate, far exceeding even the most ambitious state-level minimum wages currently in place.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) introduced the Senate version in June.
But a recent Employment Policies Institute study found the proposal would slash 5 million jobs over the next five years. Young workers would be the hardest hit — over half the job losses would fall on workers under 25.
The study’s findings highlight a persistent concern among economists about the employment effects of dramatic wage increases. When labor costs rise significantly, businesses often respond by reducing staff, increasing automation, or cutting hours — particularly in industries with thin profit margins where labor represents a major portion of operating costs.
The restaurant industry would see 1.74 million jobs disappear.
“Fifty-two percent of losses — 2.65 million jobs — would be for workers under the age of 25, with 1.85 million jobs lost for teens alone. Nearly a quarter would be those held by tipped workers — 1.22 million jobs — due to the elimination of the tip credit. Roughly sixty percent would be those held by women.”
The disproportionate impact on young workers raises questions about entry-level employment opportunities. Historically, minimum wage positions have served as crucial first jobs for teenagers and young adults, providing work experience and skill development that lead to higher-paying careers. Critics of aggressive minimum wage increases argue that pricing young, inexperienced workers out of the labor market could have long-term consequences for career development and economic mobility.
Texas would be the hardest-hit state, losing roughly 831,289 jobs. Pennsylvania would lose 295,473 jobs, followed by Georgia at 253,708 and North Carolina at 250,000.
The geographic distribution of projected job losses reflects the varying economic conditions across states. States with lower current costs of living and wages below the proposed federal minimum would face more dramatic adjustments, potentially disrupting regional labor markets that have developed around different economic realities.
New Jersey would face 58,925 job losses under the bill Bennett backs.
Rep. Mejia defended the legislation in a statement:
“Working families are paying more for just about everything. Inflation is at its highest level in three years, while the costs of housing, groceries, and everyday essentials continue to climb. Yet the federal minimum wage has been frozen since 2009. That is outrageous. If you work full time, you should be able to afford to live with dignity.”
The tension between wage growth and employment levels represents a fundamental divide in economic policy debates. Supporters of minimum wage increases emphasize worker dignity and purchasing power, arguing that higher wages stimulate economic growth by putting more money in consumers’ hands. Opponents focus on the potential for job losses and reduced opportunities, particularly for vulnerable populations entering the workforce.
This isn’t the first time Bennett has voted against New Jersey workers. She opposed the Big, Beautiful Bill — which included no tax on tips or overtime and tax relief for seniors — claiming the legislation provided “tax breaks for the wealthiest among us” while ignoring the tax cuts extended to the middle class.
Bennett’s voting pattern suggests a broader economic philosophy that prioritizes wealth redistribution over tax reduction as a means of supporting working families. This approach has become increasingly common among progressive Democrats, who argue that economic inequality requires direct government intervention in wage setting and taxation.
National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Maureen O’Toole fired back:
“Radical Democrat Rebecca Bennett’s pitch to New Jerseyans is quite the deal: A vote for Bennett is a vote to kill nearly 60,000 jobs and against policies that put more money back in workers’ pockets. Bennett can claim she stands with New Jersey families all she wants; voters can do the math on her partisan, economy-crushing agenda.”
The Living Wage For All Act remains in committee. No floor vote has been scheduled.
