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

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407476]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.[/QUOTE] Not relevant for this study. Its goal was to look at the effects of the minimum wage, and that's what it has attempted. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407468]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] Your "big" citations of bias seemed to be targeted at NBER specifically though and not this study? And hell you literally started off by conspiracy-mongering about this being released a week after the one that was positive on a small scale.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;52407472]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. 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.[/QUOTE] Lol, then pray tell, how is making a business and letting your workers do everything for you worth 100's of thousands of dollars a year? It's not, they just get to have it because they're at the top and they're extremely greedy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407324]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.[/QUOTE] No-one's ignoring the study, the point is that one study does not consensus make and you're painfully ignorant of science if you think that. And even if you did, there's still the massively glaring fact that [B]this paper is not peer reviewed[/B] as they admit. I doubt you have anything to say about their model for calculating elasticities having a 95% confidence interval between -2.8 and +0.3, how previous papers don't include monopsony or how they use two-way fixed effect OLS regression for identifying the relevant labour market which is being improved recently by using local area controls, such as division-period fixed effects or a border discontinuity approach. I have no idea what most of that means, and probably neither do you, so how about we let this one outlier get peer reviewed by people who actually know what they're talking about instead of trying to argue mass market dynamics as if you or I know anything about this subject. [img]http://i.imgur.com/qu1G5Yq.png[/img]

[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.[/quote] I think my time's worth $90/hr. No employers will hire me. I get OK with $12/hr. Employer's see desperation, they give me minimum wage. I decide I'd rather be paid something than nothing. I still can't pay my bills. My agency meant nothing. You aren't worth anything to any employer who can find someone else to fill your spot. Given the status of the present market, that's darn near everyone who isn't manager level or above. [quote]Again, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be careers you live off of. [/quote] That is absolutely what they were established to be. The Minimum Wage was created to ensure that jobs that were offered were jobs that could be lived on. That is exactly why we created the minimum wage because factory jobs and so forth would hurl people down a pit of medical liability and injury over wages that couldn't cover hardly anything - it was effectively slavery. If you don't own the agency to decide who you want to work for, you don't own the agency of determining what you're worth. Additionally, you [I]also[/I] don't get to decide what things [I]cost[/I] you. [quote]And hell you literally started off by conspiracy-mongering about this being released a week after the one that was positive on a small scale.[/quote] It's not conspiracy mongering? It was [B]literally released[/B] a week after the one that was positive on a small scale. If you refuse to see any possibility there that this was published explicitly to downplay/discredit that study, you're not paying much attention to politics, especially as regards the publishing of economic studies.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407468]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] I'm sorry, but your argument is incoherent. First you said the study was funded entirely by partisan groups. That was just plain false. It also received funding from non-partisan groups. You then said that NBER gets some funding by conservative groups. So the study might be biased because NBER ran the study, but somehow this only applies to this study and not every study by NBER. NBER running the study was also just plain false. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52407487]No-one's ignoring the study, the point is that one study does not consensus make and you're painfully ignorant of science if you think that. And even if you did, there's still the massively glaring fact that [B]this paper is not peer reviewed[/B] as they admit. I doubt you have anything to say about their model for calculating elasticities having a 95% confidence interval between -2.8 and +0.3, how previous papers don't include monopsony or how they use two-way fixed effect OLS regression for identifying the relevant labour market which is being improved recently by using local area controls, such as division-period fixed effects or a border discontinuity approach. I have no idea what most of that means, and probably neither do you, so how about we let this one outlier get peer reviewed by people who actually know what they're talking about instead of trying to argue mass market dynamics as if you or I know anything about this subject. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qu1G5Yq.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] What are you arguing against? I'm fine with waiting until peer review for confirmation. I'm arguing against the conspiratorial claims being made in this thread that NBER ran this study and might be biased because they get some funding from conservative groups. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407485]Lol, then pray tell, how is making a business and letting your workers do everything for you worth 100's of thousands of dollars a year? It's not, they just get to have it because they're at the top and they're extremely greedy.[/QUOTE] They also took the risk of destroying their livelihood and have the rare skills required to effectively run a business.

[quote]You then said that NBER gets some funding by conservative groups. [/quote] I stated that they were [B]wholly[/B] funded by conservative groups with particular interests in the free market - because they were. [quote]but somehow this only applies to this study and not every study by NBER. NBER running the study was also just plain false[/quote] Yes? If they compiled/presented a study about the rise/fall of unemployment that would have far less potential bias in it than 'literally the thing we were being paid to fight against' for 16 years. Am I not allowed to have a nuanced opinion or allow for nuance? I can both recognize that this group likely is biased towards presenting things that paint the free market in a positive light [B]and[/B] still accept what they put out -- so long as those results are substantiated by interests who are less likely to be or are unbiased about the free market.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407489]It's not conspiracy mongering? It was [B]literally released[/B] a week after the one that was positive on a small scale. If you refuse to see any possibility there that this was published explicitly to downplay/discredit that study, you're not paying much attention to politics, especially as regards the publishing of economic studies.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that a study that has been ongoing for years was done in response to a study that came out a week ago?

[quote]That is absolutely what they were established to be. The Minimum Wage was created to ensure that jobs that were offered were jobs that could be lived on. That is exactly why we created the minimum wage because factory jobs and so forth would hurl people down a pit of medical liability and injury over wages that couldn't cover hardly anything - it was effectively slavery. If you don't own the agency to decide who you want to work for, you don't own the agency of determining what you're worth. Additionally, you [I]also[/I] don't get to decide what things [I]cost[/I] you.[/quote] the first minimum wages were actually to stop women and children being exploited. although thats me being a pedantic cunt since the NIRA did kind of have the living wage goal (in FDR speeches he mentioned that) [quote] It's not conspiracy mongering? It was [B]literally released[/B] a week after the one that was positive on a small scale. If you refuse to see any possibility there that this was published explicitly to downplay/discredit that study, you're not paying much attention to politics, especially as regards the publishing of economic studies.[/quote] gosh i wonder if it's possible that multiple organizations would be conducting research concurrently on a very hotly debated and important topic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407512]So you're saying that a study that has been ongoing for years was done in response to a study that came out a week ago?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that it was possibly [B]released[/B] in response. This study could've been released at any time. [quote]i wonder if it's possible that multiple organizations would be conducting research concurrently on a very hotly debated and important topic.[/quote] So we're on the same wavelength then? That this may be possibly have been released specifically because they want to potentially debate/downplay/discredit the results of the other study? Great. Glad to have that behind us.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407490] They also took the risk of destroying their livelihood and have the rare skills required to effectively run a business.[/QUOTE] Is that why police officers and soldiers get paid a shit load? Construction workers in risky environments get paid 7 figures? 8 figures? 9, 10 figures? No. Lol

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407490] What are you arguing against? I'm fine with waiting until peer review for confirmation. I'm arguing against the conspiratorial claims being made in this thread that NBER ran this study and might be biased because they get some funding from conservative groups. [/QUOTE] Sorry I get heated when science is involved. In any case, funding for scientific papers should always be pointed out and scrutinized, in the same way that newspaper articles have to point out conflict of interest.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407489]It's not conspiracy mongering? It was [B]literally released[/B] a week after the one that was positive on a small scale. If you refuse to see any possibility there that this was published explicitly to downplay/discredit that study, you're not paying much attention to politics, especially as regards the publishing of economic studies.[/QUOTE] It's sgman so it's not a matter of not paying attention. it's a matter of bending it to fit his agenda. And I think people are overlooking something regardless of the validity of this one particular study. As far as I recall there's almost always (but not quite 100% of the time) a slump in jobs and hours in the first six months to a year or so after a minimum wage hike then after that it picks back up.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52407523]Sorry I get heated when science is involved. In any case, funding for scientific papers should always be pointed out and scrutinized, in the same way that newspaper articles have to point out conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] This. And also, people should accept the results of said groups (even if they're from a source you'd still want to initially distrust) so long as said results are confirmed. If the evidence bears out, there's no good reason to dismiss a source just for its bias.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407516] So we're on the same wavelength then? That this may be possibly have been released specifically because they want to potentially debate/downplay/discredit the results of the other study?[/QUOTE] It's really hard to prove a negative and unless you have some evidence I'm gonna be happy discarding that theory. It's especially hard to believe that they made this in less than a [B]week[/B] and got publishing all done.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;52407472]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] Oh, man, I fucking [I]hate[/I] it when people try this mindset. It's so mind numbing. Just because you're an adult living on your own, doesn't mean you can just go and get a $15+ per hour job. So, you start out at minimum wage. People say you're supposed to work up from that. Alright, so you work your way up to a job that pays more. ...Which takes months (and even that is blazing fast). Alright, then, what're you trying to do during those months? [I]Live.[/I] Pay bills, buy groceries to eat, pay rent, et cetera. Oh, wait, your wage can't cover that? Well, shit. Everyone who says "flipping burgers isn't worth $15 an hour" has never worked in a McDonalds, because working in a place like that is a living [I]hell.[/I] Conditions for current minimum wage jobs are, for what you're paid, disgustingly atrocious. The stress and expectations aren't worth $10 an hour, and sure as hell aren't worth $7.25 per hour. The only issue here is the incredibly wealthy want to stay incredibly wealthy, at the expense of the people doing the actual work that they need done at minimum wage. If a job isn't willing to pay a wage that [I]a person can not survive at,[/I] then it's too low. Full stop. Saying "you're not supposed to survive on it" is basically looking a worker in the face, and telling them "you don't deserve to survive." It's [I]incredibly[/I] ignorant of the scenario in which they're in, and people who keep stating such refuse to consider otherwise.

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407517]Is that why police officers and soldiers get paid a shit load? Construction workers in risky environments get paid 7 figures? 8 figures? 9, 10 figures? No. Lol[/QUOTE] 50% of businesses fail in the first 5 years. There are about 6.5 million construction workers in the US (in 2015) and 937 construction deaths in the US (in 2015). That means construction workers had a 0.01% chance to die. That's why. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52407523]Sorry I get heated when science is involved. In any case, funding for scientific papers should always be pointed out and scrutinized, in the same way that newspaper articles have to point out conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] He's not talking about funding for the study. He's talking about funding for NBER, the largest economics research non-profit group in the US, that published it for peer review. Well, he did try and make claims about the study, but they were bullshit. It was funded by the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52407529]It's really hard to prove a negative and unless you have some evidence I'm gonna be happy discarding that theory. It's especially hard to believe that they made this in less than a [B]week[/B] and got publishing all done.[/QUOTE] Where did I say that it was made in less than a week? WTF? Read my posts more carefully? I said they released it now in response, not that they [B]made it now in response[/B]. Obviously that should imply that it's been some time in the making.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407543]Where did I say that it was made in less than a week? WTF? Read my posts more carefully? I said they released it now in response, not that they [B]made it now in response[/B]. Obviously that should imply that it's been some time in the making.[/QUOTE] So you're claiming they waited to release it until another study came out? Can you back that up or is it nothing more than conspiracy?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407543]Where did I say that it was made in less than a week? WTF? Read my posts more carefully? I said they released it now in response, not that they [B]made it now in response[/B]. Obviously that should imply that it's been some time in the making.[/QUOTE] So if the other study didn't exist.. what? they would have just shelfed it?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407490]They also took the risk of destroying their livelihood and have the rare skills required to effectively run a business.[/QUOTE] That doesn't excuse their greed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be due more than I am, it's just how exponentially [I]more[/I] they get, and refuse to budge from there. It's them saying "I like driving my McClaren and I don't want to downgrade to this Lamborghini, so I'm going to have to cut hours."

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407531]50% of businesses fail in the first 5 years. There are about 6.5 million construction workers in the US (in 2015) and 937 construction deaths in the US (in 2015). That means construction workers had a 0.01% chance to die. That's why. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] He's not talking about funding for the study. He's talking about funding for NBER, the largest economics research non-profit group in the US, that published it for peer review. Well, he did try and make claims about the study, but they were bullshit. It was funded by the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute.[/QUOTE] K, enjoy getting fucked on by business owners, at least you can live in an infinite stupor of thinking their time is inherently more valuable than yours by ridiculous magnitudes.

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407549]K, enjoy getting fucked on by business owners, at least you can live in an infinite stupor of thinking their time is inherently more valuable than yours by ridiculous magnitudes.[/QUOTE] More goes into what you're paid than your time and before you imply that i like being fucked by businesses I do support high tax rates, govt. spending, and strong regulations lol

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407549]K, enjoy getting fucked on by business owners, at least you can live in an infinite stupor of thinking their time is inherently more valuable than yours by ridiculous magnitudes.[/QUOTE] OK. Have fun with those emotional appeals. I'll have fun enjoying the massive value created by business owners.

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407485]Lol, then pray tell, how is making a business and letting your workers do everything for you worth 16 million a year? It's not, they just get to have it because they're at the top and they're extremely greedy.[/QUOTE] [B]Every single human being is greedy.[/B] It is hardwired into our brain to want more of something, and money is the easiest way to get anything material. Accusing employers of being greedy is like accusing them of breathing, it's nonsensical and is only used to paint them in a negative light. Trust me, if you put a burger-flipper in charge of McDonalds for a day, the first thing they would do would be to liquidate all assets and jump on the next private jet to Hawaii. What those CEOs are worth is not for me to decide, but for the people who pay them. They are employees that answer to a board of investors, and the investors believe that the work the CEO does brings them more in profits than the '16 million' you claim they get - most of which is usually in stock. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407489]I think my time's worth $90/hr. No employers will hire me. I get OK with $12/hr. Employer's see desperation, they give me minimum wage. I decide I'd rather be paid something than nothing. I still can't pay my bills. My agency meant nothing. You aren't worth anything to any employer who can find someone else to fill your spot. Given the status of the present market, that's darn near everyone who isn't manager level or above.[/quote] If you would rather be paid something than nothing, then your time isn't worth $90 to you, it's worth more than $0. You have the illusion that only the employer sets the wages, but in reality, they are determined by supply and demand. Flipping burgers (the simplest example) is very simple work that even a trained monkey could do, and the market has determined through constant bargaining that it isn't worth $15 per hour. Plus, if you are so easily replaceable, that's nobody else's fault, that's just poor planning on your behalf. There are plenty of specialized job markets with shortages. [quote]That is absolutely what they were established to be. The Minimum Wage was created to ensure that jobs that were offered were jobs that could be lived on. That is exactly why we created the minimum wage because factory jobs and so forth would hurl people down a pit of medical liability and injury over wages that couldn't cover hardly anything - it was effectively slavery.[/quote] The minimum wage was established because whites didn't want to have to compete against the blacks that undercut them. It was a fundamentally racist institution that could be advertised as having good intentions, and it still disproportionally affects blacks and hispanics.

[quote]Can you back that up or is it nothing more than conspiracy?[/quote] Why is it a conspiracy? Do you think groups like this don't intentionally hold these sorts of 'long gathered data over time' researches to specifically fight against other political interests? They knew the other study was being worked on, they might have an interest in attempting to prove something different. If two movies come out at roughly the same time with roughly the same plot, do you think that it's a conspiracy? Hollywood studios literally try to find out what other studios are making and then make their own films specifically to try and trounce the other studio's releases. This happens [I]all the time[/I]. When it happens it's not a conspiracy - it's just the business market playing rough business. Why would policy research centers on such a politically divided topic as the economy not engage in much the same? Isn't it better for discourse anyway if there's multiple groups from different parts of the spectrum researching a particular topic from different angles anyway? Please tell me where the tinfoil hattery starts because in my mind if it smacks of politics, it talks like politics, and it has to describe itself as partisan/apartisan, it's politics - and in politics backstabbery and underhanded distractions/discredits is the rule and not the exception. [quote]It was a fundamentally racist institution that could be advertised as having good intentions, and it still disproportionally affects blacks and hispanics.[/quote] I was going to respond to your post with thoughtful commentary about how employers control both the supply and the demand as goes business, that that doesn't apply to workers and so on, and then encountered this particular line. Now I don't know what to say to you at all except that I no longer feel like discussing... well, anything with you.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;52407563]The minimum wage was established because whites didn't want to have to compete against the blacks that undercut them. [B]It was a fundamentally racist institution[/B] that could be advertised as having good intentions, and it still disproportionally affects blacks and hispanics.[/QUOTE] Okay now you're just trolling, this can't be serious

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407558]OK. Have fun with those emotional appeals. I'll have fun enjoying the massive value created by business owners.[/QUOTE] What massive value? You mean their employees that do most things for them? I agree they should get more but it's a little out of control at the moment as to the disparity between the top and bottom.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407570]Why is it a conspiracy? Do you think groups like this don't intentionally hold these sorts of 'long gathered data over time' researches to specifically fight against other political interests? They knew the other study was being worked on, they might have an interest in attempting to prove something different. If two movies come out at roughly the same time with roughly the same plot, do you think that it's not a conspiracy? Hollywood studios literally try to find out what other studios are making and then make their own films specifically to try and trounce the other studio's releases. This happens [I]all the time[/I]. Why would policy research centers on such a politically divided topic as the economy not engage in much the same? Isn't it better for discourse anyway if there's multiple groups from different parts of the spectrum researching a particular topic from different angles anyway? Please tell me where the tinfoil hattery starts because in my mind if it smacks of politics, it talks like politics, and it has to describe itself as partisan/apartisan, it's politics - and in politics backstabbery and underhanded distractions/discredits is the rule and not the exception. I was going to respond to your post with thoughtful commentary about how employers control both the supply and the demand as goes business, that that doesn't apply to workers and so on, and then encountered this particular line. Now I don't know what to say to you at all except that I no longer feel like discussing... well, anything with you.[/QUOTE] It's a conspiracy because you have zero evidence of it. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52407577]What massive value? You mean their employees that do most things for them? I agree they should get more but it's a little out of control at the moment as to the disparity between the top and bottom.[/QUOTE] The fact that the business exists at all is a result of the business owner. Yes, the workers provide a small amount of value individually, but the business owner is responsible for organizing all that value into a single entity that can service the community at large. Our ability to access the value created by workers is a direct consequence of the skills of the business owner. They were and are instrumental in the entirety of the value within a business.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;52407563][B]Every single human being is greedy.[/B] It is hardwired into our brain to want more of something, and money is the easiest way to get anything material. Accusing employers of being greedy is like accusing them of breathing, it's nonsensical and is only used to paint them in a negative light. Trust me, if you put a burger-flipper in charge of McDonalds for a day, the first thing they would do would be to liquidate all assets and jump on the next private jet to Hawaii. .[/QUOTE] Lol you can't be serious? You're literally using appeal to futility and appeal to tradition and you still post it publicly as part of a serious discussion.

[quote]It's a conspiracy because you have zero evidence of it.[/quote] Except that it did come out at roughly the same time when they could've actually published it any time. They chose to publish it now, and thus it's a possible reason for why they have done so. Additionally, it makes sense that they would because as a more conservative-leaning organization I imagine that they [I]would[/I] want to show an opposing voice to a more democratic/liberal-leaning organization's study.