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

I can't help but be majorly skeptical of this. They say the businesses "have" to cut hours... Why? What was suffering? Where was money being lost that they said "we have to cut down?" I can't help but feel like the people who are taking home $10,000 a week don't want to stop taking home $10,000, so they cut hours. As long as I know people like my own boss (who owns an industrial-grade generator for his house and other extreme luxuries but refuses to pay his managers anything above $11 per hour, refuses to pay to fix our machines, et cetera) exist, I'll feel extremely skeptical of these studies that say "businesses [I]have[/I] to cut hours."

[QUOTE=RB33;52407110]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.[/QUOTE] The epitome of nanny-statism. Who are you to decide what's best for other people?

The discarding of NBER as a shit conservative thinktank that's not to be trusted is probably the best thing that'll come out of this thread.

[quote]So have you ignored the funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute twice now?[/quote] Have you ignored the roughly 10 million USD in funding NBER has obtained from 73 grants from those four organizations over 16 years? How much did they fund it for and why does that [I]absolve[/I] the study-maker from that point I've already pointed out many times now? [quote]Who are you to decide what's best for other people?[/quote] Would you argue about the necessity for tracking whether people can or can't live on any job that they obtain? Do you think it acceptable that there are jobs which literally can not provide for a person's needs no matter how many hours worked? EDIT: [quote]The discarding of NBER as a shit conservative thinktank that's not to be trusted[/quote] And where did I say that? I said that I heavily suspect bias, not that it's impossible that they don't have a good study. I just want confirmation of this interpretation from less biased sources. Just because they're Conservative-owned/operated doesn't [B]implicitly[/B] mean they're untrustworthy and doesn't [B]implicitly[/B] mean their results are distorted/untruthful. But it is enough that they shouldn't be taken at face value.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407368]Have you ignored the roughly 10 million USD in funding NBER has obtained from 73 grants from those four organizations over 16 years? How much did they fund it for and why does that [I]absolve[/I] the study-maker from that point I've already pointed out many times now?[/QUOTE] What does NBER have to do with the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute (NICHD) funding? You're being a conspiracy theorist at this point by dismissing the entirety of NBER.

the results seem realistic enough to me. it doesn't seem unreasonable at all for business owners to cut hours in response to a minimum wage hike, not because they need to but because they want to.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52407066]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.[/QUOTE] lol it fucking says this right in the study dude [quote]One cannot assume our specific findings generalize to minimum wage policies set by other localities or at the federal or state level. The impacts of minimum wage policies established by other local governments likely depend on the industrial structure, characteristics of the local labor force, and other features of the local and regional economy.[/quote]

[QUOTE=RB33;52407110]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.[/QUOTE] "Should be avoided," yes. But it can't. You can go around and try to find decent jobs, but you'll find the only ones available to you are jobs that pay sub-rent.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407370]What does NBER have to do with the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute (NICHD) funding? You're being a conspiracy theorist at this point by dismissing the entirety of NBER.[/QUOTE] Did you even read what I wrote? NBER is the one who compiled this study. And show me [B]where[/B] I'm 'dismissing the entirety of NBER'. I'm disputing [I]this[/I] study's bias.

i personally know some people who noticed a drop in their hours when the statewide $11/hour minimum wage kicked in at the beginning of the year, i imagine the same shit probably happened in seattle as well

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52407374]lol it fucking says this right in the study dude[/QUOTE] Which doesn't exactly go against what I say but okay. (key word: generalize)

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407368]Would you argue about the necessity for tracking whether people can or can't live on any job that they obtain? Do you think it acceptable that there are jobs which literally can not provide for a person's needs no matter how many hours worked?[/QUOTE] I think that it is up for each person to decide what they think their labor is worth and how much they are willing to sell it for. If anyone is hoping to live off of skill-less burger-flipping jobs in their 30s, then they clearly don't get that the only reason these jobs exist is for teenagers to get some work experience under their belt and supplement their allowance.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407377]Did you even read what I wrote? NBER is the one who compiled this study. And show me [B]where[/B] I'm 'dismissing the entirety of NBER'. I'm disputing [I]this[/I] study's bias.[/QUOTE] So, again, why aren't you responding to the funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute? Are they conservative partisan interests? How do they fit into your claim that the entirety of the study is funded by conservative partisans? About NBER: It's obvious to everyone what you said. I don't need to clarify. Your attack was against the entirety of NBER.

[quote]I think that it is up for each person to decide what they think their labor is worth and how much they are willing to sell it for.[/quote] That only works if each person gets to set their own wages and/or do not [I]need[/I] money to live. (Or if their employer would actually suffer from them refusing to take said job, which also never happens because there's always someone able to take said job at lower rungs of training/skill requirement) They don't. End of that train of thought. [quote]So, again, why aren't you responding to the funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute? Are they conservative partisan interests? [/quote] No? I wouldn't expect them to be. Why do you think that they got some funding from the City and the NHI means that they can't possibly be partisan on this issue? "This dude is funded entirely by Russian interests and has put out a paper titled 'Russia is great.'" "Dude, they got like $1,000 from a non-Russian guy, they're totally unbiased." Why do you keep banging on that drum? It's irrelevant to what I'm discussing here; I'll admit, sure, I should've said 'was' rather than 'is' - but it still speaks to conflict of interest. [quote]Your attack was against the entirety of NBER.[/quote] Oh, well let me qualify that with: [B]It wasn't[/B]. Who said it was an attack anyway? I'm pointing out a possible conflict of interest on a group that has a possible conflict of interest; that possible conflict of interest means that this study's results may not be entirely without bias and thus should be substantiated by other organizations less invested in seeing a particular outcome. I'm, personally, only interested in information that's been verified and to me information is only verified if it comes from an unbiased source or has been confirmed by multiple sources over a broad spectrum of political leanings if necessary. Why is that an 'attack'?! Why is it even [B]controversial[/B] to you? That's just basic fact checking and source vetting!

[QUOTE=RB33;52407110]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.[/QUOTE] This is an incredibly idealistic thing to say though. Maybe it's not a job you should take but if it's all you can get then what choice do you have exactly?

Well no shit, just because we get a higher minimum wage doesn't mean business owners will stop taking as much money as they possibly can [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Maybe a maximum wage/income would be ;)

i love how free market boosting babies who scream about bootstraps and how "weak businesses" should die also scream about how raising the minimum wage will kill businesses. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] im p gosh dang socialist (damn near commie) but i honestly believe if your business model is outright unsustainable and unprofitable then it should fail rather than be kept on life-support by subsidies. i have no remorse for large-scale businesses that are in a failure state. american corn/milk subsidies continue to make my skin crawl.

There you go, sgman91. Is my original statement now up to code or will you want to dispute that as well?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407395]That only works if each person gets to set their own wages and/or do not [I]need[/I] money to live. (Or if their employer would actually suffer from them refusing to take said job, which also never happens because there's always someone able to take said job at lower rungs of training/skill requirement) They don't. End of that train of thought. No? I wouldn't expect them to be. Why do you think that they got some funding from the City and the NHI means that they can't possibly be partisan on this issue? "This dude is funded entirely by Russian interests and has put out a paper titled 'Russia is great.'" "Dude, they got like $1,000 from a non-Russian guy, they're totally unbiased." Why do you keep banging on that drum? It's irrelevant to what I'm discussing here; I'll admit, sure, I should've said 'was' rather than 'is' - but it still speaks to conflict of interest. Oh, well let me qualify that with: [B]It wasn't[/B]. Who said it was an attack anyway? I'm pointing out a possible conflict of interest on a group that has a possible conflict of interest; that possible conflict of interest means that this study's results may not be entirely without bias and thus should be substantiated by other organizations less invested in seeing a particular outcome. I'm, personally, only interested in information that's been verified and to me information is only verified if it comes from an unbiased source or has been confirmed by multiple sources over a broad spectrum of political leanings if necessary. Why is that an 'attack'?! Why is it even [B]controversial[/B] to you? That's just basic fact checking and source vetting![/QUOTE] You are massively moving goalposts. You went from: "Any study by any group 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." Now you're saying that it doesn't matter that they got funding from non-partisan sources all the while you make up numbers as if you know how much came from each group. For all we know, the vast majority of the funding came from government sources. I'll go ahead and leave the NBER argument alone. Your arguments are conspiratorial at best, trying to draw random connections between these massive and reputable groups, like NBER, to poison the well as best you can.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52407421]i love how free market boosting babies who scream about bootstraps and how "weak businesses" should die also scream about how raising the minimum wage will kill businesses. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] im p gosh dang socialist (damn near commie) but i honestly believe if your business model is outright unsustainable and unprofitable then it should fail rather than be kept on life-support by subsidies. i have no remorse for large-scale businesses that are in a failure state. american corn/milk subsidies continue to make my skin crawl.[/QUOTE] You're right, when you think about it we are literally tip toeing around the fragile gluttonous ego of the wealthy while the people who actually generate that wealth get paid fuck all. If only the workers would rise up and... Seize... The means of production

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407431]You are massively moving goalposts. You went from: "Any study by any group 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." Now you're saying that it doesn't matter that they got funding from non-partisan sources all the while you make up numbers as if you know how much came from each group. For all we know, the vast majority of the funding came from government sources. I'll go ahead and leave the NBER argument alone. Your arguments are conspiratorial at best, trying to draw random connections between these massive and reputable groups, like NBER, to poison the well as best you can.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a "massive movement", stating that there's still plenty of cause to presume a conflict of interest. What only matters is what they're funded with for this study; ignore the roughly 16 years of their history where they'd definitely be punished for publishing a study that said the opposite of this one. You think I don't have sources for my numbers after railing about the importance of good sourcing? By all means, feel free to eat your hat: [url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/url]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407441]Yeah, that's a "massive movement", stating that there's still plenty of cause to presume a conflict of interest. What only matters is what they're funded with for this study. You think I don't have sources for my numbers after railing about the importance of good sourcing? By all means, feel free to eat your hat: [URL]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm talking about the funding for the study. About the goalpost moving: You tried to make an exaggerate point, were shown to be full of bullshit, and are trying to backpedal as hard as you can.

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407436]You're right, when you think about it we are literally tip toeing around the fragile gluttonous ego of the wealthy while the people who actually generate that wealth get paid fuck all. If only the workers would rise up and... Seize... The means of production[/QUOTE] if you're taking the piss then you should probably do it in a way that isn't completely agreeable lol

[quote]I'm talking about the funding for the study.[/quote] And I'm talking about the people who ran and compiled the study. Never the two shall meet? [quote]You tried to make an exaggerate point, were shows to be full of bullshit, and are trying to backpedal as hard as you can.[/quote] And now you're just trolling. My point wasn't exaggerated, it wasn't bullshit (there's my sources right up there), and I'm not backpedaling. I even edited my own post to admit to what you stated. My opinion has been that there's a large potential conflict of interest and there remains a large potential conflict of interest. The damn thing is run by Reagan's Chief Economic Adviser for crying out loud.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407452]And I'm talking about the people who ran and compiled the study. Never the two shall meet?[/QUOTE] What? NBER didn't "run" the study. They published it for peer review. The University of Washington ran the study.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52407451]if you're taking the piss then you should probably do it in a way that isn't completely agreeable lol[/QUOTE] I'm serious, sorry if it came off as a joke because of the end but that is what I really believe.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407441]Yeah, that's a "massive movement", stating that there's still plenty of cause to presume a conflict of interest. What only matters is what they're funded with for this study; ignore the roughly 16 years of their history where they'd definitely be punished for publishing a study that said the opposite of this one. You think I don't have sources for my numbers after railing about the importance of good sourcing? By all means, feel free to eat your hat: [URL]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL][/QUOTE] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy#Funding[/URL] i mean if you can throw out an entire organization and what they publish and do merely because it receives some funding from certain groups get a load of this Soros-funded progressive thinktank you posted. The horror! /s

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52407461][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy#Funding[/URL] i mean if you can throw out an entire organization and what they publish and do merely because it receives some funding from certain groups get a load of this Soros-funded progressive thinktank you posted. The horror![/QUOTE] Where's this thing that I'm throwing out an entire organization? What the crap? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm specifically disputing this study. [B]This[/B] study. I'll repeat it again since y'all seem to be having a hard time reading what I'm writing: THIS study's potential conflict of interest. I've said throughout that if it gets corroborated I'll be absolutely fine with accepting it as legitimate. As is, I see large potential conflicts of interest and so I'm not trusting it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407395]That only works if each person gets to set their own wages and/or do not [I]need[/I] money to live. (Or if their employer would actually suffer from them refusing to take said job, which also never happens because there's always someone able to take said job at lower rungs of training/skill requirement) They don't. End of that train of thought.[/QUOTE] You do set your wage. You decide how much your time is worth to you, and if you aren't worth that much in skills, experience and responsibility to the employer, you don't work there. In the free market, wages move towards the equilibrium between what workers are worth and what employers gain from employing them. A minimum wage just rearranges the pieces so fewer people get more money, since work that isn't worth the minimum wage vanishes. Again, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be careers you live off of. They exist for broken teens to supplement their beer cash, and any push to make them livable will just accelerate their automation. This whole notion that the government can somehow ignore economic reality and artificially inflate living standards [I]if only we give it more power that it totally won't abuse[/I] has to die before it does more damage. [QUOTE=Pissfuck;52407421]i love how free market boosting babies who scream about bootstraps and how "weak businesses" should die also scream about how raising the minimum wage will kill businesses. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] im p gosh dang socialist (damn near commie) but i honestly believe if your business model is outright unsustainable and unprofitable then it should fail rather than be kept on life-support by subsidies. i have no remorse for large-scale businesses that are in a failure state. american corn/milk subsidies continue to make my skin crawl.[/QUOTE] Who even brought subsidies into this? Most real free market type will chant along with you when corporate welfare dies. Raising minimum wage won't kill businesses, it will kill jobs that aren't worth the minimum wage. Unless you are some gourmet chef who can make compost taste like grilled beef, flipping burgers isn't worth $15 per hour.

If the study doesn't mention that the job losses are as a result of business owners not being willing to make less money themselves then the study is unusably biased.