One of the key moments of disagreement at the last Democrat debate came over the subject of a federal minimum wage. It’s not that any of them were arguing against a big jump in American labor costs, but rather a fight over precisely how much the minimum should be jacked up. Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders sang the same tune being chanted at liberal protests around the country, echoing the Fight for Fifteen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and propose the much more “reasonable” goal of twelve dollars per hour.

So just how reasonable is that figure and what would the overall impact be on the nation? Bill Mcmorris at the Free Beacon digs into the question this week and finds that Hillary’s labor supporters might be very disappointed with the actual results. A couple of leading economists have long since evaluated the plan and determined that job losses resulting from a sudden jolt to the capitalist infrastructure on that level could add up to some fairly staggering numbers.

Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) introduced the $12 wage as the Raise the Wage Act in March. An analysis conducted by economists William E. Even of Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University found that the bill would eliminate 770,000 jobs. Nearly 85 percent of the estimated job losses will come from those earning less than $100,000 each year. “Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton has argued for a minimum wage increase as part of her policy platform to boost the middle class. But this analysis shows that those with household incomes between $35,000 and up to $100,000 would bear a large portion (43%) of the job loss from this higher minimum wage,” the analysis says.

Nearly half of the lost jobs – 40% – would come from those making less than $35K per year. (The US poverty level for a family of four is currently estimated to be around $24K.) Aren’t these exactly the “regular people being left behind in today’s economy” that Hillary is allegedly fighting for? Her plan would put hundreds of thousands of them on the unemployment line, assuming they even qualified.

During the debate, Clinton wasn’t backed into a corner to comment on this, but Sanders took the question. He was asked what level of job loss he would consider acceptable if the minimum wage jumped up.

“No public policy doesn’t have in some cases negative consequences,” Sanders said.

Well, that’s about as brutally honest as we’ve ever heard Bernie be on the campaign trail. If you’re gonna make an omelet you’re gonna have to break a few eggs, eh Bernie?

A survey was already conducted in Oakland, where the minimum wage is scheduled to be hiked up to $12.25, very close to the figure Clinton was pushing for. Out of 233 businesses polled, 28% said that they were either very likely or somewhat likely to simply close, with all of the jobs they currently support lost. That figure doesn’t take into account the number of businesses who would lay off part of their work force through consolidation or investment in automation.

Can the Democrats really act surprised at this point or attempt to blame Republican “scare tactics” on the issue? Oakland isn’t some isolated example outside the mainstream. Seattle increased the minimum wage for restaurant workers to $15 in April. By August they reported the largest job losses since the height of the great recession in 2009.

According to a report released Sunday by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the $15 minimum wage has caused Seattle restaurants to lose 1,000 jobs — the worst decline since the 2009 Great Recession. “The loss of 1,000 restaurant jobs in May following the minimum wage increase in April was the largest one month job decline since a 1,300 drop in January 2009, again during the Great Recession,” AEI Scholar Mark J. Perry noted in the report.

As long as this was all still theory, liberals could argue against what should be common sense to anyone who has ever managed anything bigger than a lemonade stand. If a business is operating in a competitive environment and running on thin margins and you suddenly jack up their labor costs by as much as a third with no corresponding increase in revenue, what did you think was going to happen? Now we know because it’s been tried. If that’s the price of liberal progress, as Sanders implied at the debate, then they can own the fallout from it.