New study of Seattle's $15 minimum wage says it costs jobs - Polidicks

[quote] Seattle's $15-an-hour [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/issues/minimum-wage.htm"]minimum wage[/URL] law has cost the city jobs, according to a study released Monday that contradicted another new study published last week. A University of Washington team studying the law's effects found that the law has boosted pay in low-wage jobs since it took effect in 2015, but that it also caused a 9 percent reduction in hours worked, The Seattle Times reported ( [URL]https://goo.gl/G1Vr64[/URL] ). For an average low-wage Seattle worker, that's a loss of about $125 per month, the study said. "If you're a low-skilled worker with one of those jobs, $125 a month is a sizable amount of money," said Mark Long, one of the authors. "It can be the difference between being able to pay your rent and not being able to pay your rent." There would be about 5,000 more low-wage jobs in the city without the law, the study estimated.[/quote] [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-seattles-15-minimum-wage-costs-jobs-48282722[/URL] the fact that a place like seattle, which would be one of the best to handle a $15 minimum wage, is having very ambiguous results says magnitudes about the people proposing a national $15.

Extremely low-paying jobs shouldn't exist. Everyone deserves a job that's pays the rent at minimum. If the jobs bad enough to not pay for your existence, then it's a job that should be avoided.

Isn't the problem with small-scale studies of increased wages that the results are being produced in an environment where those wages aren't universal? The establishment of a federal minimum wage wasn't disruptive in the same way as a localized test would be. One establishes a norm, the other creates a disconnect. Even if the economy in one spot can kind of adapt, it's still happening in a larger environment where the minimum wage is, on average, half of what's being offered in Seattle. That's going to cause all kinds of issues that wouldn't happen if it were state or country-wide.

I'm pretty sure that the "minimum wage costs jobs" argument has been around for ages, I've seen this argument being explained with supply and demand charts before. How is this a new thing?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52407129]I'm pretty sure that the "minimum wage costs jobs" argument has been around for ages, I've seen this argument being explained with supply and demand charts before. How is this a new thing?[/QUOTE] The difference here is that we have definitive proof, that it has been tried on a city wide scale and these are the results.

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/"]WaPo also has a story on this study.[/URL] It explains the conclusions of the study, but also includes this criticism of it: [QUOTE]Yet the study will not put an end to the dispute. Experts cautioned that the effects of the minimum wage may vary according to the industries dominant in the cities where they are implemented along with overall economic conditions in the country as a whole. And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual result.[/QUOTE] Large employers like, oh, [I]Amazon[/I]. And maybe Starbucks.

Well, wouldn't you know the source of this study is funded entirely by Conservative interests who're very interested in the Free Market particularly? But surely they're entirely divested from their donors' viewpoints since they're (NBER) a non-profit, right? Despite that being their only source of money? Right. Edit: Also, most of those organizations listed below started up and gained popularity in the 30s and 40s. Surely that's not indicative of their viewpoints either. Edit the second: Sorry, apparently this study was also funded by the NIH and the City of Seattle; by all means feel free to ignore the 16 years and roughly $10 million USD of funding over 74 grants received from the 4 sources below as they're obviously not a probable source for a conflict of interest if you don't believe an organization could develop an interest in particular outcomes over such a long period of time with only particular investors who wanted particular results funding them. (1) Smith/Richardson Foundation [quote]His belief (the founder) in a personal bill of rights was equally strong: a person rightfully owned what his industry brought him, and the free enterprise system permitted the maximum scope for that industry. [...] …the greater the material wealth of the citizen the greater are his obligations to the State and Nation…the obligations to give his time and thought to these public and social problems. The Foundation continues to support programs that are consistent with the vision of its Founder.[/quote] (2) Scaife [quote]After the death of Richard Scaife in 2014, a significant portion of his assets were given to the foundations, increasing their value substantially. In addition, the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundation merged at the end of 2014, making the Sarah Scaife Foundation one of the largest foundations focused on supporting right-wing causes. Its assets were expected to grow to some $800 million in 2015.[/quote] (3) Lyne/Harry Bradley [quote]the Bradley Foundation had given over $500 million to conservative "public-policy experiments" since 2000.[/quote] (4) John M. Olin Foundation [quote]"Accordingly, the general purpose of the John M. Olin Foundation is to provide support for projects that reflect or are intended to strengthen the economic, political and cultural institutions upon which the American heritage of constitutional government and private enterprise is based. The Foundation also seeks to promote a general understanding of these institutions by encouraging the thoughtful study of the connections between economic and political freedoms, and the cultural heritage that sustains them."[/quote]

This shit is so frustrating. I wish there was a way people could get paid a fair wage without incentivising companies to lay people off. I'd say tax the companies to fund basic income, but then they'd probably just pack up and take their business elsewhere.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52407158]The difference here is that we have definitive proof, that it has been tried on a city wide scale and these are the results.[/QUOTE] I disagree with this position. Raising the minimum wage requires infrastructural changes, which cannot happen if the minimum wage change happens in a bubble without respect to the economics of a society overall. As large as Seattle is, it's still a tiny part of this country. It's not self-sufficient. It primarily trades with the rest of the country, where minimum wage is still $7.25. Pick any city, pick any wage hike. No matter where you go, the results of an isolated case will always be different than they would be with a universal increase. These individual studies cannot be extrapolated, the data doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52407158]The difference here is that we have definitive proof, that it has been tried on a city wide scale and these are the results.[/QUOTE] I don't think any sane people actually doubted the theoretical proof anyway. It's hard to doubt something that was proven with supply and demand charts, they are one of the most important tools in economics, I can't find any logical flaws in the proof, and this isn't the first time we have empirical evidence. It doesn't convince me that minimum wage shouldn't exist, though. With automation kicking in fast, low-skilled human labor is going to disappear anyways in the coming decades.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407188]Well, wouldn't you know the source of this study is funded entirely by Conservative interests who're very interested in the Free Market particularly? But surely they're entirely divested from their donors' viewpoints since they're (NBER) a non-profit, right? Despite that being their only source of money? Right. Edit: Also, most of those organizations listed below started up and gained popularity in the 30s and 40s. Surely that's not indicative of their viewpoints either. (1) Smith/Richardson Foundation (2) Scaife (3) Lyne/Harry Bradley (4) John M. Olin Foundation[/QUOTE] lol i love how you immediately go after political views instead of debating any of the info in the study then people bitch about identity politics

[quote]lol i love how you immediately go after political views instead of debating any of the info in the study[/quote] [B]Anyone[/B] can make a study and twist the data they gather from said study to near any conclusion. You should only implicitly trust a study if the people behind it are obviously non-partisan, the methods/results appear legitimate, and the study's issuer/group aren't liable to have a vested interest in the outcome of said study. Not only does this source have a vested interest, the source's only source of funds come from places which would vehemently [I]oppose[/I] a min-wage hike nationwide. The source claims they're non-partisan, but their only source of funding is from sources who'd likely pull their funding if they swung this the other way. Not only are their funding sources explicitly partisan, they have a very vested interest in seeing particular results according to how much they invest themselves in 'following their founder's visions' and so on. So yeah, I think they're compromised and, yeah, I think that means the integrity of this study's suspect. If a study's integrity is in question, debating over its information is a waste of time.

Better have fewer jobs that actually pay a decent living than encourage companies get unreasonably big on the broken backs of the poor who are forever stuck getting paid with dirt and pebbles. I'm unemployed. I'm still looking for a job. But I'm glad to know that no matter what job I eventually get I'll at least be paid 1500€ a month which while not a lot (especially after taxes and whatnot) is better than the literal scraps I'd be getting if that law wasn't in place.

[QUOTE=Whibble;52407202]lol i love how you immediately go after political views instead of debating any of the info in the study then people bitch about identity politics[/QUOTE] Economics is an inherently political field. Most fields that deal with societal change and impact are. Conservative research groups will, generally speaking, create studies that support a conservative worldview. Liberal groups will do the same for their side. It's not wrong to look at where the information comes from, or what influences are imposed upon it. In fact, that's more important now than it has ever been.

[QUOTE=Whibble;52407202]lol i love how you immediately go after political views instead of debating any of the info in the study then people bitch about identity politics[/QUOTE] Cute deflection, but the political leanings of the groups behind the study can be quite important. Conservative think tanks haven't exactly shied away from publishing outright garbage spun in their favour in the past, the same can likely be said of the left leaning think tanks, but compared to right leaning ones they're a non-issue tbh. Much lower representation in general, lesser funding, etc. [t]http://i.imgur.com/XwWzklN.jpg[/t] When the groups who published a "study" have a vested interest in the study proving them right, it's hard to take it at face value.

[QUOTE=Whibble;52407202]lol i love how you immediately go after political views instead of debating any of the info in the study then people bitch about identity politics[/QUOTE] lol i love how you think one study (funded almost purely by people who are for a smaller minimum wage) is a good way to judge reality instead of going to look at citations and scientific consensus

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52407249]lol i love how you think one study (funded almost purely by people who are for a smaller minimum wage) is a good way to judge reality instead of going to look at citations and scientific consensus[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-study-seattle-minimum-wage-hasnt-cut-jobs/2017/06/20/c6480040-55f4-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html]*Especially when other studies released in the past week have a different result[/url]

One might even infer that this study was released as a [I]response[/I] to said result. I wonder [B]why[/B] someone would release [B]this study[/B] in [B]response[/B] to said result? It's truly mystifying!

As far as I'm concerned, If you can't afford to pay a living wage you can't afford to be in business. Id rather have 5 jobs available that paid a wage people could actually survive on that 10 that paid next to nothing. That said, The elements of government over here that support an increase to the minimum wage also suggested stuff like giving smaller businesses tax breaks to compensate. So it's not even as if you have to deal with one absolute or the other when it comes to this sort of thing.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407211][B]Anyone[/B] can make a study and twist the data they gather from said study to near any conclusion. You should only implicitly trust a study if the people behind it are obviously non-partisan, the methods/results appear legitimate, and the study's issuer/group aren't liable to have a vested interest in the outcome of said study. Not only does this source have a vested interest, the source's only source of funds come from places which would vehemently [I]oppose[/I] a min-wage hike nationwide. The source claims they're non-partisan, but their only source of funding is from sources who'd likely pull their funding if they swung this the other way. Not only are their funding sources explicitly partisan, they have a very vested interest in seeing particular results according to how much they invest themselves in 'following their founder's visions' and so on. So yeah, I think they're compromised and, yeah, I think that means the integrity of this study's suspect. If a study's integrity is in question, debating over its information is a waste of time.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring the part about this being the single most comprehensive study on the topic ever. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Also note that they didn't just conclude that jobs were lost, but that the average low wage worker ended up making less money because of cuts in hours. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407276]One might even infer that this study was released as a [I]response[/I] to said result. I wonder [B]why[/B] someone would release [B]this study[/B] in [B]response[/B] to said result? It's truly mystifying![/QUOTE] This is the second result from this study. It showed no real effect from the first increase in minimum wage, and then a negative result for the second increase. Note that the other study in question ONLY looks at restaurants and used survey data while this study looked at all industries with actual hard wage data.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52407129]I'm pretty sure that the "minimum wage costs jobs" argument has been around for ages, I've seen this argument being explained with supply and demand charts before. How is this a new thing?[/QUOTE] In a perfectly competitive market yeah that's how it plays out. We don't live in that world though so things are a bit more complicated. That's why sometimes (rarely) the minimum wage will actually increase employment.

[quote]You're ignoring the part about this being the single most comprehensive study on the topic ever.[/quote] Absolutely. Show me corroborating studies by groups with less stake in said study having a particular outcome and I'll look into it more. More data != better (or even good) data/predictions. If anything, more data can easily lead to buried half-truths.

Yeah, I smell bullshit. Raising the min wage has done no harm throughout the history of capitalism, and should be raised now. And most studies say the exact opposite of this study, so good job spewing Conservative nonsense without checking any other source. The real issue at hand is the fact that automation will destroy low skilled labor and with it the entire working class. And we need a solution to that before it happens.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407314]Absolutely. Show me corroborating studies by groups with less stake in said study having a particular outcome and I'll look into it more. More data != better data.[/QUOTE] Lol, so you're entirely ignoring the study because some people you don't like helped fund it even though it has more comprehensive and solid data. The data came directly from Washington’s Employment Security Department. Also, you forgot to mention that it was funded and supported by groups like the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute.

There's alternatives too if you really want to make sure people can survive. Instead of going full basic income (which is ehh rn) you can expand wage subsidies that we already have so that people can live off of low-paying jobs, or you can promote unionization to a high degree as well. The latter is how a lot of Europe does it, you won't find a national/government minimum wage in quite a few of those countries.

[quote] so you're entirely ignoring the study because some people you don't like helped fund it even though it has more comprehensive and solid data.[/quote] I am, yes. Why do you think that's funny? If a study finds "Women must discard their vaginae or suffer a 30000% increase in Cancer risk" by an institute entirely funded by the 'Women's Discarded Vaginae Reappropriation Association' then absolutely I'm going to not implicitly trust their singular opinion. You shouldn't trust it either. [B][U]Any study[/U][/B] by [B][U]any group[/U][/B] that's funded by entirely partisan interests which are heavily invested in the outcome of said study (or if said group may be left without funding depending on the results of said study) is to be treated as dead-on-arrival until corroborated. It's just sensible; only implicitly trust sources that are from neutral parties, funded by wide-spectrum interests, and who have no vested interest in the outcome of their study. Get me more opinions that agree from less partisan sources. Data can be interpreted in a ridiculously wide spread of ways, including ways that entirely twist the data to fabricate a conclusion that only looks accurate on the surface or is only accurate in very particular situations.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407337]I am, yes. Why do you think that's funny? If a study finds "Women must discard their vaginae or suffer a 30000% increase in Cancer risk" by an institute entirely funded by the 'Women's Discarded Vaginae Reappropriation Association' then absolutely I'm going to not implicitly trust their singular opinion. Get me more opinions that agree from less partisan sources. Data can be interpreted in a ridiculously wide spread of ways, including ways that entirely twist the data to fabricate a conclusion that only looks accurate on the surface or is only accurate in very particular situations.[/QUOTE] It's also funded and supported by the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute. Your claim about it being funded entirely by partisan interests is simply false. How about actually looking at the study and the conclusions being made instead of a sorry attempt at poisoning the well?

They also specifically talk about why there results are different. They got the same results as other studies when only looking at restaurants as all the other studies do.

[quote]How about actually looking at the study and the conclusions being made[/quote] How about actually looking at where the study's coming from and what they potentially have to lose if they announced that it didn't cause any harm? They received funding from explicitly those sources (and [I]only[/I] those sources) I named above for 16 years. To expect there's no bias is ridiculous. To expect there's no vested interest is ridiculous. That you think that I'm being ridiculous is ridiculous. That you think this 'poisons the well' is also ridiculous. I'm saying I'm waiting for additional sources to confirm this because that's what I'm waiting for. Until other less invested sources confirm it why [B]shouldn't[/B] I suspect it?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407355]How about actually looking at where the study's coming from and what they potentially have to lost if they announced that it didn't cause any harm? They received funding from explicitly those sources (and [I]only[/I] those sources) I named above for 16 years. To expect there's no bias is ridiculous. To expect there's no vested interest is ridiculous. That you think that I'm being ridiculous is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] So why have you ignored the funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute twice now? You also seem to be ignoring that they got the same result as other studies when using the same data set as other studies use. Their worse result came about when expanding the data set from just restaurants to all industries.