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

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52407574]Okay now you're just trolling, this can't be serious[/QUOTE] He's not wrong at all. The first minimum wage laws were in response to black construction workers undercutting the white workers. The white workers created the minimum wage on the local and state level to block out the black workers. Obviously they've changed purpose since then. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407585]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.[/QUOTE] EVIDENCE. That's what you need. Demonstrate that they had the study completed previously, but decided to wait. Demonstrate that they released it strategically. Provide some evidence. If you don't have any, then you're just spouting conspiracies. It's perfectly reasonable to think that two studies looking at the same thing would come out at a similar time.

[quote]He's not wrong at all.[/quote] Regardless of how not wrong it is to state it, it's still an asshole-stance to take. The issue was much larger than blacks vs whites. Compressing it down to that is disingenuous and dismisses/downplays a lot of the supplementing realities of economy and living back then that caused all that to come to a head and produce the minimum wage. [quote]Demonstrate that they had the study completed previously, but decided to wait. Demonstrate that they released it strategically. Provide some evidence.[/quote] Please correct me if I'm wrong but if you're studying the resulting impact of a thing you can just continue to observe the results of a thing for however long you like until you wish to announce your results. Surely, the impact that the policy has had will continue to ripple even into the future. I'm not saying it's unreasonable they came out at the same time. I'm just saying there may be another explanation for it, especially if that explanation is about as equally likely.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52407574]Okay now you're just trolling, this can't be serious[/QUOTE] You may not like the notion, but there is a lot of evidence in favor of it, and it is an idea that several progressives have supported. You should check the work of Thomas Leonard, a self-described progressive economist from Princeton, who I will quote: [quote]For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their jobs. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opposed a proposal to subsidize the wages of poor workers for this reason. Meeker preferred a wage floor because it would disemploy unfit workers and thereby enable their culling from the work force. “It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work,” argued Thomas C. Leonard 213 Meeker (1910, p. 554). “Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.” A. B. Wolfe (1917, p. 278), an American progressive economist who would later become president of the AEA in 1943, also argued for the eugenic virtues of removing from employment those who “are a burden on society.”[/quote] You can see the whole paper here: [url]https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407594]Please correct me if I'm wrong but if you're studying the results of a thing you can just continue to observe the results of a thing for however long you like until you wish to announce your results.[/QUOTE] No, that's not how studies are done. You have a set of data and work with that set. You don't just continually collect data and stop arbitrarily.

Yes, however, let's point out that it is no longer 1910 and additionally, in your own quote you've got dudes arguing for eugenics which is not a healthy thing to go for in any society that has the [I]ability[/I] to provide for all its citizens but chooses [I]not[/I] to. You're in a way arguing for survival of the fittest and shrugging your shoulders at those that might die as a result. That's an intolerable position in today's society. [quote]You have a set of data and work with that set. You don't just continually collect data and stop arbitrarily.[/quote] If that data is continuously being provided, and provides continuously unique data, and the data continues providing new insights, when you decide to stop would be somewhat arbitrary I'd argue. If I'm watching Bob to see if he develops Cancer as a result from X injection I can stop fairly much whenever I like; when I stop is just however much data I want to collect or what range I'm testing for. Additionally, you can spend as much time as you like sorting the data, writing up your analysis and so on. You just risk irrelevance and being 'beaten to market' the longer you hold.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407594]Regardless of how not wrong it is to state it, it's still an asshole-stance to take. The issue was much larger than blacks vs whites. Compressing it down to that is disingenuous and dismisses/downplays a lot of the supplementing realities of economy and living back then that caused all that to come to a head and produce the minimum wage. Please correct me if I'm wrong but if you're studying the resulting impact of a thing you can just continue to observe the results of a thing for however long you like until you wish to announce your results. Surely, the impact that the policy has had will continue to ripple even into the future. I'm not saying it's unreasonable they came out at the same time. I'm just saying there may be another explanation for it, especially if that explanation is about as equally likely.[/QUOTE] No, it's not equally likely that a bunch of researchers from a reputable organization, who were working alongside lots of other people from reputable organizations (including the City of Seattle who gave them the data), entered into a conspiracy to discount other minimum wage studies. Thinking that that is equally as likely, with zero evidence, to the two studies just coming out around the same time is insane.

I don't think expecting politically-charged study matter to behave like politically-charged study matter is insane. If you think it is then I guess we're at an impasse. Also why would the City and the NIH necessarily have to be involved in when this study was published if all they did was provide data/funding?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407629]I don't think expecting politically-charged study matter to behave like politically-charged study matter is insane. If you think it is then I guess we're at an impasse. Also why would the City and the NIH necessarily have to be involved in when this study was published if all they did was provide data/funding?[/QUOTE] ... So coming up with any result that one side doesn't like means that we can automatically assume that everyone involved is acting in bad faith? What? There's nothing politically charged about the actual study. The results are just controversial. Also, the study got the data from the City. So if they were continually collecting data from the city for an unspecified amount of time, something that goes against any normal methodology, then the City would know about it and ask questions.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407612]Yes, however, let's point out that it is no longer 1910 and additionally, in your own quote you've got dudes arguing for eugenics which is not a healthy thing to go for in any society that has the [I]ability[/I] to provide for all its citizens but chooses [I]not[/I] to. You're in a way arguing for survival of the fittest and shrugging your shoulders at those that might die as a result. That's an intolerable position in today's society.[/QUOTE] I was responding to your absurd statement that minimum wage was created as some grand plan of salvation from the loving state, which wanted to save us from the clutches of evil capitalists. Instead, the ones who came up with the disaster that is minimum wage just wanted to legislate eugenics, and minimum wage was a comfortable vehicle to stomp on minorities. Regardless of how you feel about minimum wage, absolving it of its racist past does nothing but conceal the power it has to inch the most vulnerable in society out of the workforce. It is a weapon, and it should be treated as such. Today, massive corporate entities that want to get rid of their smaller competition would [I]love[/I] another minimum wage hike. McDonalds and Burger King can afford to automate, or even absorb the cost of the workers if need be, but small mom-and-pop stores can't. All of the progressives that claim to be fighting for the good of the common man can't see that the state they so adore is literally under the thumb of the corporations they protest against. I want everyone to have a job. I want everyone to be able to afford food, and water, and healthcare, and trips to Hawaii and gigantic golden dicks in their backyard. But you can't legislate poverty away, and centuries of failed government initiatives and backfiring legislation has proven that. It was the free market and unlegislated innovation that pulled the west from the dark pit of disease and despair that was the pre-industrial world, not the state.

No, a study being produced about a subject matter that was produced by a group who has had past explicit vested interest in that same subject matter should be treated as potentially biased/misleading and needing further corroboration. That the results are controversial just even further confirms that neither study should be trusted until further data is produced and either or both sides confirmed, which I'm suspecting may have been one of the reasons why it was released at this particular time. [quote] There's nothing politically charged about the actual study[/quote] It's the economy. I dare you to find me something about the broader economy that's [I]not[/I] politically charged just by its very nature. The economy is one of the most politically charged areas there is, right up next to taxes. [quote]Regardless of how you feel about minimum wage, absolving it of its racist past does nothing but conceal the power it has to inch the most vulnerable in society out of the workforce. It is a weapon, and it should be treated as such.[/quote] Christ. [quote]McDonalds and Burger King can afford to automate, or even absorb the cost of the workers if need be, but small mom-and-pop stores can't.[/quote] They will automate [B]regardless[/B] of whether minimum wage increases or not. If it's cheaper for the business, they'll do it. [quote]But you can't legislate poverty away[/quote] A universal basic income would literally legislate poverty away. It would also create lots of potential economic disruption but it would nonetheless guarantee every citizen the ability to at least live.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407663]No, a study being produced about a subject matter that was produced by a group who has had past explicit vested interest in that same subject matter should be treated as potentially biased/misleading and needing further corroboration. That the results are controversial just even further confirms that neither study should be trusted until further data is produced and either or both sides confirmed, which I'm suspecting may have been one of the reasons why it was released at this particular time. It's the economy. I dare you to find me something about the broader economy that's [I]not[/I] politically charged just by its very nature. The economy is one of the most politically charged areas there is, right up next to taxes.[/QUOTE] [B]NBER DIDN'T CREATE THE STUDY.[/B] Let me say it again. [B]NBER DIDN'T CREATE THE STUDY.[/B] All NBER did was publish it for peer review. Even if it was as potentially biased as you think it is, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the study or it's results.

[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] Yes, because you wouldn't find a reason to distrust a study done by any group of liberals This isn't a personal attack before you jump to that, I've just literally seen you do that before.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407685]Yes, because you wouldn't find a reason to distrust a study done by any group of liberals This isn't a personal attack before you jump to that, I've just literally seen you do that before.[/QUOTE] This study wasn't done by a group of conservatives. That's the point. It was done by the University of Washington with funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute. If it were done by some conservative group, then I would be right with you, but that's not the case. Also, I always try to show how the actual methodology is misleading. I don't just point to the group and say you can't trust it.

And if this study is true, does that mean we just give up on living wages and let people drown in debt? Debts good for rich people but it's not for the average person, so what's the answer? It seems that there is no answer that satisfies anyone but the company owners.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407694]And if this study is true, does that mean we just give up on living wages and let people drown in debt? Debts good for rich people but it's not for the average person, so what's the answer? It seems that there is no answer that satisfies anyone but the company owners.[/QUOTE] If it's true, then it means we can't assume that higher minimum wages actually lead to higher wages for poor people. It's data. It can't tell anyone would we ought or ought not do.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407697]If it's true, then it means we can't assume that higher minimum wages actually lead to higher wages for poor people.[/QUOTE] Okay, so then what's the options available?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407699]Okay, so then what's the options available?[/QUOTE] That's the question, isn't it? I'm not going to pretend to have some easy answer. At most, this study will help us narrow what choices are useful and which aren't.

But as you literally just said, the data says we can't assume that works, so we can't use higher wages to justify anything, so what do we do? How do people react to this? All I've seen since the day I started working is a trend of "People actually should get paid less, to do more", that's just how it's going, so I ask you, if we can't raise the wages, what are we talking about then? You once said in a thread a long time ago "If you don't have any suggestions on how to make this better than all you're doing is complaining" so, I ask you very much the same thing

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407708]But as you literally just said, the data says we can't assume that works, so we can't use higher wages to justify anything, so what do we do? How do people react to this? All I've seen since the day I started working is a trend of "People actually should get paid less, to do more", that's just how it's going, so I ask you, if we can't raise the wages, what are we talking about then? You once said in a thread a long time ago "If you don't have any suggestions on how to make this better than all you're doing is complaining" so, I ask you very much the same thing[/QUOTE] I mean, if this study is true, then my initial suggestion would be to stop raising the minimum wage beyond the point of hurting wages. That would be the clear policy indication. About your quote of me: I do agree with that. You shouldn't call a policy bad unless you have a better alternative. All policy is relative.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407703]That's the question, isn't it? I'm not going to pretend to have some easy answer. At most, this study will help us narrow what choices are useful and which aren't.[/QUOTE] What are the options though? What other variables and factors can we tweak? This isn't impossible to figure out. There's a certain number of variables, what ones can we change? Wages is one that's easily targetable, what can we target that won't generate a huge "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" From the right wing stalling all change? The status quo HAS to change, and it has to change fucking soon. I know, as a conservative, your whole ideology is to minimize change and only allow the proper change through at slow increments. That time? Long past. Something needs to change very soon. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52407710]I mean, if this study is true, then my initial suggestion would be to stop raising the minimum wage beyond the point of hurting wages. That would be the clear policy indication.[/QUOTE] But people still aren't at a living wage, I assume that's entirely okay with you?

Welp, the democrats have failed. Rev up your Oliver Twist it's time for the conservatives' turn to try.

Do people even deserve a living wage? Do people even deserve to live? It seems like when your existence is tied to financials that are always going to be up to someone else, that your life is really just someone elses product

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407711]What are the options though? What other variables and factors can we tweak? This isn't impossible to figure out. There's a certain number of variables, what ones can we change? Wages is one that's easily targetable, what can we target that won't generate a huge "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" From the right wing stalling all change? The status quo HAS to change, and it has to change fucking soon. I know, as a conservative, your whole ideology is to minimize change and only allow the proper change through at slow increments. That time? Long past. Something needs to change very soon. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] But people still aren't at a living wage, I assume that's entirely okay with you?[/QUOTE] I would much rather go with a sort of negative income tax, as proposed by Milton Friedman, as a replacement for minimum wage and welfare. The problem is that it would never work in our society. Too many people would blow the money and still end up in the same state of poverty as before, requirement more help from the government. We would end up in a similar place we are now, but with a massive addition of monetary payouts. So I don't see it as politically viable. I don't think there's a solution that gets rid of poverty. I think we need to instead focus on making it as easy as possible for people to gain the skills necessary to move up instead of focusing on making the lowest jobs pay enough to live on.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407688]This study wasn't done by a group of conservatives. That's the point. It was done by the University of Washington with funding from the City of Seattle and the National Health Institute.[/QUOTE] [quote]All NBER did was publish it for peer review[/quote] I wouldn't find it out of order for them to have basically said to Evans: "We're looking for studies on this minimum wage hike, specifically to see if it's harming businesses in the area, please forward us applications of students who're either doing research on the topic or are interested in pursuing it - we'd like to facilitate them". Pick the researchers and you can somewhat manipulate the result. Just saying this isn't an independent think-tank or whatever that came up with this and so their bias very well could have rubbed off on the research and thus biased the study. Does that presume things? Sure. Do I think it'd be out of turn? No. There's been lots of studies that have been tainted by the organizer/publisher being selective on who'd be involved in the study, which results they'd include in the final publishing, and so forth, and there's plenty of room for selective bias if they get to pick what to publish and what not to. [quote]I think we need to instead focus on making it as easy as possible for people to gain the skills necessary to move up instead of focusing on making the lowest jobs pay enough to live on.[/quote] You're proposing that the state provide for its citizens food, medicine, living expenses, and free tuition then for anyone who wants to enroll in school. That's the only route that makes it 'as easy as possible'. It'll also massively devalue degrees and whatnot, which are already massively devalued, so I don't think that'd have much a political chance either right now.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407736]I wouldn't find it out of order for them to have basically said to Evans: "We're looking for studies on this minimum wage hike, specifically to see if it's harming businesses in the area, please forward us applications of students who're either doing research on the topic or are interested in pursuing it - we'd like to facilitate them". Pick the researchers and you can somewhat manipulate the result.[/QUOTE] Again, that's a conspiracy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407727]I would much rather go with a sort of negative income tax, as proposed by Milton Friedman, as a replacement for minimum wage and welfare. The problem is that it would never work in our society. Too many people would blow the money and still end up in the same state of poverty as before, requirement more help from the government. We would end up in a similar place we are now, but with a massive addition of monetary payouts. So I don't see it as politically viable. I don't think there's a solution that gets rid of poverty. I think we need to instead focus on making it as easy as possible for people to gain the skills necessary to move up instead of focusing on making the lowest jobs pay enough to live on.[/QUOTE] But that's getting harder as it is now as well Gaining skills right now is going to be harder, and more expensive than it ever has been before. Yes, I can go on skillshare and learn something and genuinely have a new skill, but a company doesn't care. I don't have an accreddited diploma, so that value doesn't exist, and no ones going to go get a diploma for a dollar per hour increase, and from my experience, companies generally hate to pay for your training. So, wage slaves it is for as long as that's sustainable for the business owners it is then. Sounds good.

[quote]Again, that's a conspiracy.[/quote] And there have been conspiracies of the same sort. I'm just being cautious about this being another one of them. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407743]But that's getting harder as it is now as well Gaining skills right now is going to be harder, and more expensive than it ever has been before. Yes, I can go on skillshare and learn something and genuinely have a new skill, but a company doesn't care. I don't have an accreddited diploma, so that value doesn't exist, and no ones going to go get a diploma for a dollar per hour increase, and from my experience, companies generally hate to pay for your training. So, wage slaves it is for as long as that's sustainable for the business owners it is then. Sounds good.[/QUOTE] That's the real trouble ultimately, anyway. "Entry level job: Requires 5 years experience" If you can convince businesses to stop that, you've gone a long way to solving the problem. Unfortunately, they're not inclined at all to stop doing so.

I just think if you're doing a job, you deserve to be alive. People in my city who make minimum wage? They require a second job, and a handful of room mates to live in a tiny, tiny flat. The city of vancouver is paying the living wage to it's employees, 23.00$ an hour is their starting wage now. If you aren't making that much, you aren't at a living wage. I know for many ideologically different people than myself that sounds like "Fuck yeah, people have to earn that "living wage"" but to myself that sounds like a "We're not actually people, we're simply numbers on a page for some rich fuck to make money off of"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407743]But that's getting harder as it is now as well Gaining skills right now is going to be harder, and more expensive than it ever has been before. Yes, I can go on skillshare and learn something and genuinely have a new skill, but a company doesn't care. I don't have an accreddited diploma, so that value doesn't exist, and no ones going to go get a diploma for a dollar per hour increase, and from my experience, companies generally hate to pay for your training. So, wage slaves it is for as long as that's sustainable for the business owners it is then. Sounds good.[/QUOTE] I do think we've screwed ourselves some by encouraging everyone into college and making it free for huge numbers of people through government grants. It's caused a college degree to lose a ton of value for jobs that shouldn't really need one. MANY mid to upper level managment jobs that used to be filled with people who moved up through the company now require a degree, or even a masters. It's the exact same job. Why? Because they can. There's such a glut of college degrees that they don't even need to look elsewhere. The way I see, every time we try to fix things, beyond the basics, we end up screwing up more in the long term. I don't think there is an easy answer for us now. We have some hard decisions to make that are going to hurt a lot of people, no matter what.

[quote]I do think we've screwed ourselves some by encouraging everyone into college and making it free for huge numbers of people through government grants. [/quote] But what made that necessary to begin with was people finding it difficult to get well-paying jobs due to, ultimately, job shrinkage and unskilled (!!livable-wage!!) field shrinkage. I think if you want to balance out the folks who feel like they [I]have[/I] to go to college to get a job (because they do) then you [I]have[/I] to make unskilled labor something the state protects and more or less guarantees you can both live off of and qualify for in some respect. If you can't do either the only sensible thing to do is give everyone a universal basic income.