Slashdot Mirror
Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage May Be Hurting Workers, Report Finds (usatoday.com)
As companies look for ways to cut costs, Seattle's $15 minimum wage law may be hurting hourly workers instead of helping them, according to a new report. From a USA Today article: A report (PDF) from the University of Washington (UW), found that when wages increased to $13 in 2016, some companies may have responded by cutting low-wage workers' hours. The study, which was funded in part by the city of Seattle, found that workers clocked 9 percent fewer hours on average, and earned $125 less each month after the most recent increase. "If you're a low-skilled worker with one of those jobs, $125 a month is a sizable amount of money," Mark Long, a UW public-policy professor and an author of the report told the Seattle Times. "It can be the difference between being able to pay your rent and not being able to pay your rent."
They aren't just working more hours, many have been laid off altogether while many small employers just closed and moved outside the city limits. For the restaurant/service industry there's also been an increase in the number of illegals hired and paid even less than before under the table.
The UCB study was paid for by the Mayor after he saw an early draft of the UW post. Check the Seattle Weekly article on the topic. The UCB report is pure BS.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/seattle-is-getting-an-object-lesson-in-weaponized-data/
The UW study is a BS. Instead of just looking into the actual data (it's not compatible with the aim of the study as it shows improvements in wages and jobs) they created a "fantasy Seattle". Then they compared the growth of wages and employments in this "fantasy Seattle" with the reality. Then they tweaked the model to produce the numbers they want - they omitted minimum-wage workers from chain franchises.
And lo and behold! The model shows slightly more growth than the real Seattle.
The solution is obvious to pay workers nothing, thus guaranteeing infinite work.
No one said food. Childhood poverty, education performance, and crime later on in life are a whole mess that is not my field, but it does seem plausible that if you let one in five kids grow up poor, as we appear to be doing now, you might get a lot more criminals later on. You're going to be paying for their food, sure, but that's among the least of the costs of law enforcement and prisons that you as a taxpayer will be paying for.
We don't let poor, old, and/or sick people die in the street. They won't have preventative care or retirement, but they'll get emergency treatment for their medical emergencies. If they skip out on the bill or go bankrupt, the hospital pays it, passes it onto insurance companies who pass it onto you.
Or you could potentially pay more now in terms of welfare and maybe higher minimum wages, both of which have potential other benefits, like more people with money = healthier economy for everyone else since they can buy stuff.
I dunno, but I do know "MONEY MINE! NO TAXES!" is not a very sound economic theory.
One thing I've learned in social science is never trust research -- or at least give it a good read before making any comments. In fact, I actually left the econ PhD a decade ago after seeing that pretty much all research done in this field is a giant form of confirmation bias: "Keep working on it until it makes sense", they'd tell me. Or "Make sure the results are in line with what you'd expect and consistent with literature" and so on. I have yet to see someone confirm someone else's economic theories -- only their own. And it wasn't my school either: I wish I could remember the details, but I recall reading a paper way back when from Princeton that had methodological errors in it that I was amazed it was even taken seriously, much less published.
Personally, The reason that I like Hayek and Sowell is that it's based on logic and reasoning. Then again, I am biased, so there's that...
How many of them have these things? Go on, give me a percentage of people living in economic poverty who have these items. Surely you must have an actual statistic, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be making it up for effect, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Absolutely conclusive evidence until you read the rebuttals. Like the fact that his data excluded all restaurants (almost 35% of minimum wage jobs), excluded any business with more than one location, etc, etc, etc. Just remember, figures never lie but liers can figure.
The data set the researcher used was substandard at best, someone might even argue the data set was cooked to extract the desired result.On top of that he refuses to provide the data to outside users and reviewers making his "research" a fucking black box. But he was at least honest and listed all the problems with the data, just didn't include why excluding more than a 1/3rd of low wage jobs in the study area was a good idea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...