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

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52407998]sorry, canada isn't dying out at all norway isn't dying out sweden isn't dying out again, what supports your conjectures [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Like please, drop your american exceptionalism for one minute and realize there are whole countries doing pretty well to pretty great without an overfocus on religion, and with a focus on healthcare[/QUOTE] But Human Abyss those countries are different. Because melting pot and stuff. Also illegals. We're the only nation that has those, and especially in these numbers! Also we're geographically bigger and stuff.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407922]What do you mean by "that will never happen." I probably have a lower view of it than you do. That's why conservatives want to take central control away from the education system. They want to let individual communities decide what is best for their kids instead of some federal, corporate sponsored, ideology forcing everyone into the same boat.[/QUOTE] Okay, you saying that is one thing the actions of republicans in office does another it moves it firmly into the camp of corporations which is far more dangerous than letting the government manage it [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] You may support it, but your electred representatives support privatizing it and pushing it towards companies like pearson, sure, vote with your wallet, but when pearson or another company can offer you cheap education, that's the goal isn't it? Saving tax dollars, not getting effective education for that You're either going to pay for it out the ass, like my country does, or you're going to have poor education, like your country currently does outside of it's ivory tower colleges and the like.

[QUOTE=geel9;52408004]It's also pretty fucking absurd to state that without religion there is no community. It's fascinating how many Christians hold that absolutely ridiculous view that seems almost engineered to enforce the idea that without Christianity, there can't be much good in the world.[/QUOTE] It's funny, my family is pretty much Atheist and pretty left-wing and we get along swimmingly. Meanwhile I have a conservative friend with a highly religious family who goes on about how much left wingers hate children and the destruction of the community and blah-blah-blah but he's the one whose mother in law apparently lied to his dad about him assaulting her and got him kicked out of the house, from which he had to live in his grandparents' shed for like several months. I dunno I'll take my godless fucking commie family over almost ANY religious family I've known of because the half of them are fucking psychos nowadays.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52407969]Plumbers: Can be robotized. Linesmen: Already being robotized. Mechanics: This one's probably stable for a little while longer, but if the industry starts agree to more standardized/universal blueprints? Robotized. (And it's already pretty shit right now anyway) Welders: Can be robotized. Don't expect the jobs here today to still be there 'tomorrow'. Those jobs that don't require a degree are going to be among the first jobs that're gonna get mechanized.[/QUOTE] going to have to disagree that jobs that don't require a degree will be the first to become automated. if anything, some jobs that previously required degrees are massively outclassed by artificial intelligence. anything that has to do with data analysis, something that people went through years of university to learn how to do, is now done far better, and far faster, by computers. yes, they'll still need some engineers to build these systems, but we're making incredibly quick strides in creating computer systems that can teach themselves. this technology can, and already is, applied to anything design related, with computers able to create designs as good as if not better than what a human can do in shorter periods of time. much of the finance sector is already automated. customer service positions are getting pretty damn automated as well. most desk jobs will be able to be replaced by computer systems far quicker than something like plumbers or electricians because they're frankly less complex jobs for a computer system to do. they don't need specialized hardware beyond a server farm. something like plumbing is more complex for a computer system because it faces a far greater array of problems and set ups in addition to needing to actually be able to maneuver around the site itself. it would need to not only diagnose the issue and determine the best course of action to repair it, but deal with the idiosyncrasies of older homes' plumbing and pipe setups, deal with customers, get into potentially unexpectedly tight spaces, and handle unexpected issues, all while just trying to get to the place where it can do its work. you're looking at a machine that is potentially quite expensive to both acquire and maintain. perhaps some outfits located in large, rich cities will be able to acquire such a robot, but smaller cities and towns won't be seeing that kind of automation for some time, likely enough time where people looking for jobs today won't have to be concerned with a robot taking their job within their working lifetime. of course, jobs like mcdonalds and supermarkets will likely be automated in short order, but i can see it taking some time before some of the trades become fully automated. i can see technicians running robots on site long before i see robots completely taking those industries over

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;52407116]If you could enlighten me about what this says about people who support a higher minimum wage please do.[/QUOTE] [quote]The University of Washington report excludes "multisite businesses," such as large corporations, restaurants and retail stores that own their branches directly. Single-site businesses, though — which are counted in the report — could include franchise locations that are owned separately from their corporate headquarters. Reich said multisite businesses employ a large percentage of Seattle's low-paid workers. That meant workers who left single-site businesses to work at multisite businesses were counted as job losses, not job gains in the UW study, he said. [/quote] no, but i can enlighten you on how people who instantly share articles which support their worldviews don't know how to read

Can I just say I find it weird how often this guy brings his religion into unrelated conversations? [QUOTE=geel9;52408004]It's also pretty fucking absurd to state that without religion there is no community. It's fascinating how many Christians hold that absolutely ridiculous view that seems almost engineered to enforce the idea that without Christianity, there can't be much good in the world.[/QUOTE] I can understand why this viewpoint might make sense to a Christian living in America. If you live in a place where Christianity has been forced into basically every aspect of society- Where people push to have the faith taught as fact to all children in school, where elected officials must at least pretend to be Christians to have a shot at getting elected, where every scrap of money endorses one particular religion etc- I can see how it would be possible to associate society itself with the religion. Whereas from where I'm standing It's such a weird view for someone to hold. My country is fairly secular, to the point where I'm actually surprised when I hear god or Jesus mentioned on TV or the radio around Christmas time. Religious people exist and they are visible in the community, but they keep to themselves and more often than not they simply aren't interested in trying to have their views dominate society in the way some American Christians seem to be. Anyone who is like that isn't taken at all seriously- they often end up in their own little isolated communities living frankly miserable lives. People in positions of power will also quickly start to raise eyebrows if they start bringing their religion up all the time. It's just not that big of a deal over here. Some people believe stuff, some people believe other stuff, some people don't believe any of it. The only religion even mentioned in the media these days outside of religious holidays- is Islam, and only because Anti-Muslim rhetoric sells papers.

[QUOTE=geel9;52408004]It's also pretty fucking absurd to state that without religion there is no community. It's fascinating how many Christians hold [b]that absolutely ridiculous view that seems almost engineered to enforce the idea that without Christianity, there can't be much good in the world[/b].[/QUOTE] That's exactly what it's engineered for. They peddle it among their community so as to enforce elitism and a fellowship spirit. "We've got the answers and are enlightened. We know what we know, and nobody is going to convince us otherwise. There's no other way but ours, and we've got a holy book that proves it as far as we're concerned. The rest of the world is terrible and full of immorality and sin. We're on a path of righteousness and salvation, so we're better than everybody else whether we come right out and claim it or not. We've got to stick together and not let anybody undermine us." Or at least that's been a personal observation of mine. And for a lot of these people, it's not even intentional. They genuinely believe it because they've been born into that sort of life and have been raised to believe in it. You have no shortage of shysters who use it as a tool to control people and to make them into what they want them to be, but a lot of them are also just plain ignorant of the rest of the world and don't know any better. As far as they're concerned, nothing else but their way and their beliefs make sense-- regardless of whether they've actually investigated other religions (or have a thorough understanding of their own religion, for that matter) or not. If you fit the mold, congratulations, life will be great. You'll fit in with everybody else, and they'll be more than happy to accommodate you. If you don't or if you start to stray away from them, then you're going to be reminded that you're not one of them or that you're a traitor to them [i]all the fucking time[/i]. They'll arrogantly judge you and preach to you, ignoring their own failures as human beings and unworthiness. People are perfectly capable of sustaining themselves without fanatically or substantially basing their entire existence around religion. If individuals and families are able to, then it's absolutely possible for entire societies to as well. Atheists and atheistic communities don't just magically fail because they lack belief in a God and don't follow religious traditions lol.

[quote]The University of Washington report excludes "multisite businesses," such as large corporations, restaurants and retail stores that own their branches directly[/quote] So..... the study excludes the majority of jobs then, basically?

[QUOTE=geel9;52408004]It's also pretty fucking absurd to state that without religion there is no community. It's fascinating how many Christians hold that absolutely ridiculous view that seems almost engineered to enforce the idea that without Christianity, there can't be much good in the world.[/QUOTE] Well I mean when many rural communities are far too often centered around everyone being devoutly religious it [I]does[/I] tend to remove your sense of community when you're not also religious. You're far more likely to get treated as an untrustworthy outsider so you really can't be a part of the community. Though in that case it's still religion that's the source of the issue.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52407200]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] You can't prove the effects of a change in a complex system with a supply and demand chart. Maybe you can make an educated guess as to the effect, but you are ignoring a whole lot of variables

When the poor have nothing to eat, they will eat the rich.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52409931]Good luck getting near their private islands without getting shot. As someone that is decently skilled that can't even land a unskilled minimum wage job for almost a decade (don't worry filled most with school shit until recent years) now some of the posts here are just fucking delusional and hilarious.[/QUOTE] A lot of that is probably due to employers becoming increasingly picky. Things like gaps in employment history can put you on the back burner, which is of course only exacerbated by employers not hiring you. There are also some, I've noticed, with fairly vague questions on their hiring forms (not forms per-se, but a sort of "personality test" I think) that ask you things like "How many days are acceptable to call in sick?". Of course they want you to answer "none" or as low as possible because they don't want people to call in sick, but you can't see the future, and people have differing medical histories, complications, etc.

Holy shit this study is hilarious, they specifically left out certain businesses in for no real reason. You start to understand why when you notice how conservative the source is. [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] Because it's nonsense. In the few cases where the minimum wage was raised in the US in the last few decades (out of the recent stuff), there was no real change in jobs. Also, the minimum wage isn't here to create jobs, it's here to prevent employers from taking advantage of people in poor conditions. I don't understand what is so hard about this to comprehend for a lot of people.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52410192]Holy shit this study is hilarious, they specifically left out certain businesses in for no real reason. You start to understand why when you notice how conservative the source is.[/QUOTE] Do you know that every other minimum wage study used even less of a data set, generally only restaurants? It you have a problem with this study based on leaving out certain business, then I have some bad news for you.

[QUOTE=Thaggers;52407195]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] i think we do a decent job of it here, however our minimum wage is fucking huge (possibly one of the highest in the world) and has been for a long time. low income workers receive government pensions and additional support, such as free dental and other specialist services, discounted prescriptions (heavily discounted), rent assist, low income housing and shit loads more. [editline]29th June 2017[/editline] pretty much every uni student here who doesn't have rich parents gets support from centrelink.

I skipped like the last 3 pages of this argument but the clear answer derived from this study: Is to lower the minimum wage by 3/4ths and cut all worker benefits. You will now have millions of jobs and workers will die so those jobs taken up will free up for other Americans. Checkmate commiescum and homeless people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52407922]What do you mean by "that will never happen." I probably have a lower view of it than you do. That's why conservatives want to take central control away from the education system. They want to let individual communities decide what is best for their kids instead of some federal, corporate sponsored, ideology forcing everyone into the same boat.[/QUOTE] this is the single most retarded thing i have ever read in my life. go ahead and give the texas state board and its individual communities free reign over biology and history textbooks, see how many hours it takes before jesus bullshit takes over chemistry and physics classes. standardization based on proper science is the only way, seeing as how more than a quarter of americans believe in a young earth. [editline]29th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52410802]Do you know that every other minimum wage study used even less of a data set, generally only restaurants? It you have a problem with this study based on leaving out certain business, then I have some bad news for you.[/QUOTE] and it seems like you're still trying to tout this as even somewhat definitive before its even gone through peer review

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52414778]and it seems like you're still trying to tout this as even somewhat definitive before its even gone through peer review[/QUOTE] I'm touting it as definitive by directly responding to false criticisms?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52414817]I'm touting it as definitive by directly responding to false criticisms?[/QUOTE] By over-stating its importance or impact (or even truthfulness, since it aint peer reviewed).

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52414942]By over-stating its importance or impact (or even truthfulness, since it aint peer reviewed).[/QUOTE] You know it not being peer reviewed yet doesn't make it impossible to look at or consider? There have been multiple reputable economists, who are quoted in articles, saying that's it's a good study. There's absolutely zero reason to think it won't get through peer review. The fact still remains that it has the most comprehensive data set of any study of it's kind. How have I overstated it's importance? Throughout this thread I've been responding to incorrect criticisms. For example, ForgottenKane criticised it for not having certain large businesses in it's data set, but he clearly didn't know that every other study includes even LESS of a range of businesses. It's a false and meaningless criticism if you understand what other studies have looked like. You respond by saying that I'm touting it as definitive. Can you clarify how that has any relevance to me responding to his criticism?

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/27/seattles-higher-minimum-wage-is-actually-working-just-fine/"]This is an opinion column instead of straight reporting, but the analysis picks at what's wrong with the study.[/URL] [QUOTE]Using confidential payroll data from the Washington Employment Security Department, the researchers compare employment, hours and wages of workers in Seattle and various other parts of Washington both before and after Seattle began raising its minimum wage. They argue that Seattle’s minimum wage increase reduced the total hours worked by Seattle’s low-wage workforce by about 9 percent. They also contend that the increase raised low-wage workers’ wages by only about 3 percent, implying that the costs of this wage hike outweighed its benefits for these workers. But the idea that raising the minimum wage has a much larger effect on hours than on wages strains credulity, especially since, as economists Ben Zipperer and John Schmitt have noted, Seattle’s increase “is within the range of increases that other research has found to have had little to no effect on employment.” The study also finds that the minimum wage caused large employment and hours gains in higher-wage jobs, which suggests that its “methodology fails to account properly for the booming Seattle labor market during the period studied.” It’s not entirely clear why the University of Washington team gets such a weird result — since their data isn’t public, we can’t check it — but it’s worth noting at least two important issues with their study. [B]First, their data exclude workers at businesses that have more than one location; in other words, while workers at a standalone mom-and-pop restaurant show up in their results, workers at Starbucks and McDonald’s don’t. Almost 40 percent of workers in Washington state work at multi-location businesses, and since Seattle’s minimum wage increase has been larger at large businesses than at small ones — right now, a worker at a company with more than 500 employees is guaranteed $13.50 an hour, while a worker at a company with fewer than 500 employees is guaranteed only $11 an hour — these workers’ exclusion from the study’s results is an especially germane problem (note that low-wage workers in Seattle have had an incentive to switch from small firms to large firms since the minimum wage started rising). In earlier work, in fact, the University of Washington team’s results were different depending on whether these workers were included in their analysis; including them made the effects of the minimum wage look more positive.[/B] Second, the University of Washington team does not present enough data for us to assess the validity of its “synthetic control” in Washington — that is, the set of areas to which they compare the results they observe in Seattle. The Seattle labor market is not necessarily comparable to other labor markets in the state, and given some of the researchers’ implausible results, it’s hard to believe the comparison group they chose is an appropriate one.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52423578][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/27/seattles-higher-minimum-wage-is-actually-working-just-fine/"]This is an opinion column instead of straight reporting, but the analysis picks at what's wrong with the study.[/URL][/QUOTE] So the study intentionally leaves out massive amounts of data from where most of the Seattle workforce comes from? Who the fuck at UW approved the conclusion of this study? EDIT: Also are people actually surprised that workers under a higher minimum wage would get less hours? More people are eager to work when they're getting paid more, resulting in more competition for hours. Ideally, the higher wage would offset losses from less hours, but it's hard to tell from the lack of accurate data in the study.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52423578][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/27/seattles-higher-minimum-wage-is-actually-working-just-fine/"]This is an opinion column instead of straight reporting, but the analysis picks at what's wrong with the study.[/URL][/QUOTE] The authors of the study have already spoken about this. They didn't include multi-site businesses because the data doesn't specify where they're working, only the company they're working for. So including those numbers would have introduced a lot of unknown variables. With that said, they did a random survey of 500 multi-site businesses and found a larger decrease in hours than they found in single-site businesses. These types also make up around 38% of workers and would need massive gains to offset the drops in the other 62%. The author of this blog seems to ignore than every study on this topic has deficiencies. Most every other minimum wage study, for example, looks at the entire restaurant industry. So they inadvertently include lots of non-minimum wage workers who work at higher end restaurants. When the UW study looked at this same data, they found the same results as those studies. They only saw their new results by restricting their data to only workers who are actually making minimum wage.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52424238]The authors of the study have already spoken about this. They didn't include multi-site businesses because the data doesn't specify where they're working, only the company they're working for. So including those numbers would have introduced a lot of unknown variables. With that said, they did a random survey of 500 multi-site businesses and found a larger decrease in hours than they found in single-site businesses. These types also make up around 38% of workers and would need massive gains to offset the drops in the other 62%. The author of this blog seems to ignore than every study on this topic has deficiencies. Most every other minimum wage study, for example, looks at the entire restaurant industry. So they inadvertently include lots of non-minimum wage workers who work at higher end restaurants. When the UW study looked at this same data, they found the same results as those studies. They only saw their new results by restricting their data to only workers who are actually making minimum wage.[/QUOTE] And yet, [I]some-fucking-how[/I], the economy of Seattle is doing just fucking fine. There are some anecdotal stories of places closing down because of this hike: but that pales in comparison to the body of evidence from [I]numerous[/I] other universities, cities, and even goddamn countries speaking of the positive effects of a healthy minimum wage. Its damn near the climate-change debate at this point: the body of evidence saying that minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect but can increase productivity, worker happiness, and slightly increase earned wages is growing rather largely. Most of the studies speaking sharply against minimum wage hikes have critical flaws, and the one posted in the OP is no exception. Hell, I'd argue its one of the [I]worst[/I] studies to try and dismiss the minimum wage hike that I've seen, tbh.

[QUOTE=paindoc;52426816]And yet, [I]some-fucking-how[/I], the economy of Seattle is doing just fucking fine. There are some anecdotal stories of places closing down because of this hike: but that pales in comparison to the body of evidence from [I]numerous[/I] other universities, cities, and even goddamn countries speaking of the positive effects of a healthy minimum wage. Its damn near the climate-change debate at this point: the body of evidence saying that minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect but can increase productivity, worker happiness, and slightly increase earned wages is growing rather largely. Most of the studies speaking sharply against minimum wage hikes have critical flaws, and the one posted in the OP is no exception. Hell, I'd argue its one of the [I]worst[/I] studies to try and dismiss the minimum wage hike that I've seen, tbh.[/QUOTE] Do you know how those other studies have been done? They have looked at groups such as the entire restaurant industry or all teenagers and looked at the effects of minimum wage on those groups. In none of these studies did they have actual wage data. They included all the non-minimum wage employees because they had no way to separate out those making more money, like everyone working at higher than base level restaurants who make more than minimum wage. This study by UW is the first to have real wage data and to look at every industry. As far as I can tell, the comprehensiveness of it's data is unprecedented. The fact that you totally dismiss this study over real limitations in available data, but totally and completely ignore the issues with other studies based on limited data is crazy. The fact that this study found the same results as those other studies when using the same data as those studies, only finding differing results when using the more accurate data that they have access to, goes pretty far in showing how those methodologies are deficient. [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] The big difference is that those other minimum wage studies looked at the effect of increased minimum wage on an industry, like the restaurant industry, while this study looked at the effect on people actually making minimum wage across all industries.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52426862]Do you know how those other studies have been done? They have looked at groups such as the entire restaurant industry or all teenagers and looked at the effects of minimum wage on those groups. In none of these studies did they have actual wage data. They included all the non-minimum wage employees because they had no way to separate out those making more money, like everyone working at higher than base level restaurants who make more than minimum wage. This study by UW is the first to have real wage data and to look at every industry. As far as I can tell, the comprehensiveness of it's data is unprecedented. The fact that you totally dismiss this study over real limitations in available data, but totally and completely ignore the issues with other studies based on limited data is crazy. The fact that this study found the same results as those other studies when using the same data as those studies, only finding differing results when using the more accurate data that they have access to, goes pretty far in showing how those methodologies are deficient. [editline]2nd July 2017[/editline] The big difference is that those other minimum wage studies looked at the effect of increased minimum wage on an industry, like the restaurant industry, while this study looked at the effect on people actually making minimum wage across all industries.[/QUOTE] Except the industry it accounts for is solely single location small(er) businesses - it doesn't account for where most of Seattle's min. wage workforce actually comes from; companies like McDonald's, Starbucks, etc. Also - these smaller businesses likely [B]aren't[/B] paying the $15/hr minimum wage. If your business in Seattle has less than 500 employees then minimum wage is $11 - $13 depending on whether or not you offer medical benefits.

[QUOTE=nulls;52427116]Except the industry it accounts for is solely single location small(er) businesses - it doesn't account for where most of Seattle's min. wage workforce actually comes from; companies like McDonald's, Starbucks, etc. Also - these smaller businesses likely [B]aren't[/B] paying the $15/hr minimum wage. If your business in Seattle has less than 500 employees then minimum wage is $11 - $13 depending on whether or not you offer medical benefits.[/QUOTE] The businesses they looked at included 62% of minimum wage workers. So, yes, it was the majority. I also specified a few posts up why they did that and how they checked to see whether those multi-site businesses would break the trend.