Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Minimum Wage Study Has Serious Flaws (washingtonpost.com)
"Remember the story from last week about how the new Seattle minimum wage law was hurting workers?" writes Slashdot reader PopeRatzo. "Well, it turns out that there are some problems with the study's methodology." The Washington Post reports:
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. 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.
Suggesting Seattle's booming labor market may have skewed the study's results, two nonpartisan economists concluded it "suffers from a number of data and methodological problems that bias the study in the direction of finding job loss, even where there may have been no job loss at all." And the Washington Post also notes the researchers' findings are suspiciously "out of step with a large body of research," including another study from U.C. Berkeley researchers [PDF] which determined Seattle's wage increase "is having its intended effect."
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. 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.
Suggesting Seattle's booming labor market may have skewed the study's results, two nonpartisan economists concluded it "suffers from a number of data and methodological problems that bias the study in the direction of finding job loss, even where there may have been no job loss at all." And the Washington Post also notes the researchers' findings are suspiciously "out of step with a large body of research," including another study from U.C. Berkeley researchers [PDF] which determined Seattle's wage increase "is having its intended effect."
...This is taught in introductory economics courses...
...and makes intuitive sense...
... to some people it makes intuitive sense that the earth is flat but gut feelings are not a scientific method.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
So reading between the lines, the study's results were largely correct when talking about small businesses, higher minimum wage hurts small business. But it doesn't matter, according to these idiots because McDonalds isn't affected by it as much as true small businesses. Since when are we vouching for McDonalds and Wal-Mart as good corporate citizens?
You can't lump in McD and Starbucks because even though they do employ minimum wage, they will employ minimum wage regardless of the cost. They are large enough enterprises with high enough profit margins to absorb these costs and in the process drive out any competition from small business, which is exactly what McD and Walmart do when they're coming to a new market anyway, they operate at a loss until all the competition has starved out.
I'm surprised actually that McD, Starbucks and Walmart don't actively drive minimum wages up just so they can completely drive out every other local business. If I were an 'evil CEO', I'd do that and then when I have 90% of a market, I'd lobby to get it reduced again or even just to get my company excluded.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Imposing a minimum wage that's greater than what results from an efficient market should result in higher pay but fewer workers.
This is where things get muddled. There's a difference between an optimally efficient market and an optimally efficient organization. An optimally efficient organization may do things like pay workers the least amount possible, avoid paying corporate taxes by moving assets to offshore accounts, and automating many jobs. Now, if many workers are give poverty wages, that may pad employment statistics but it certainly doesn't provide the market as a whole with an optimal solution. When people don't have much of a discretionary income they can't buy many things and they certainly can't take out loans (if you want an optimally efficient marketplace, you want people to be able to take out loans because loans are what create more money).
The problem with companies relocating money into offshore accounts to avoid taxes compounds this problem because their poverty-wage workers need welfare to provide them with healthcare, food supplements, and other aid such as childcare that they can't afford with their job. This problem is further compounded by the hoarding of liquid assets by executives. Without a strong progressive tax system (and all the many loopholes that allow one to avoid the intentions of our weak progressive tax system), those who make the most have such a surplus of liquid assets that most of them just sit in a bank account. While this looks good on paper, as the interest they gain increases the money supply, this surplus of money doesn't help the economy because it's not being exchanged on the marketplace. This is the problem with wage disparity. If executives made less and low-wage workers made more, then more money would be exchanged in the economy and it would create more wealth. It's a fallacy to assume that corporations and millionaires reinvest their excess profits. At some point one has all they need/want and excess wealth just gets hoarded in bank accounts.
Finally, when it comes to automating new jobs, this rarely (if ever) results in the remaining jobs reaping the benefits of the increased efficiency. The money saved goes to the top, to those executives who are already hoarding more money than they come close to spending.
The problem with a lot of the formulas you learn in introductory economics is they are based off assumptions. Furthermore, economics can make an abstraction of human life. What may look good on paper can be a miserable existence for many. I find economics to be an extremely interesting field that provides tools for evaluating systems that cannot be adequately assessed using science, but perspective is necessary when applying these ideas. Too often we can't see the forest for the trees.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
The problem is that these are not "entry positions". They are the only jobs available for people trying to support a family. They don't pay enough for one person to live on and certainly not enough to support a family.
Funny... "simply look for the next job and find one that pays more"
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
This is actually a known and well understood problem in engineering disciplines. The optimum for an entire process is NOT the same as the optimum for each part of a process. Usually the two are not even related. That is why we have things like Whole Process Optimization. This was a basic part of my classes for chemical engineering and drilled home in quite a number of assignments and projects.
What I don't get is why is this a surprise to people in other fields or in economics. If you want a system to work efficiently you have to optimize for the entire system not just tiny parts of it. With society that is a very complex problem and requires a lot of analysis so you do have to simplify to some extent but the more variables you take into account and MEASURE the more likely the system is to work.
Right now I see companies doing what is best for them and then trying to justify that it means it is also best for the system. This is a losing proposition and without some kind of external correction the system will end up tearing itself apart.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
This is basically what Ford did in his production plant back when the Model T was the craze. He paid an insanely high wage, which led to very few sick days and near perfect retention, because people would have rather killed themselves than losing a job that paid about twice of what they could otherwise earn. This in turn led to very high productivity because people knew what they were doing, which also led to much higher product quality and very low waste.
Higher wages will make people move to the area if possible, and they will also want to keep their jobs. And people with money spend it, and spend it locally which in turn drives the economy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How is the UW study to be considered flawed for excluding multi-site businesses while the UCB study ONLY looks at restaurants, where in many of which, minimum wage doesn't even apply?
The discussion is about giving people enough money to afford food and shelter, not limiting their potential earnings.[...]
Minimum wage has nothing to do with 'Giving' money(except for campaign contributions).
Employment is about earning money by exchanging services for compensation, and only makes sense when those services provide more value to the employer than the cost of the compensation.
Minimum wage is about creating a minimum level of productivity, below which a person becomes unemployable.
(it also affects a number of union negotiated contracts, and reduces competition, but that is a different argument)
Minimum wage does nothing for the person who does a great job, who the employer is afraid of losing to the competition.
Minimum wage makes people who are not able to provide enough added-value unemployable.
Minimum wage raises the minimum price point of human labor so that automation is more competitive for more jobs.
Minimum wage also increases the risk to the employer when hiring(they lose more money if the new hire cannot do the job effectively)
When a given task is only worth a certain amount, anyone hired to do that task must complete it more quickly to be cost-effective when minimum wage goes up.(and if it cannot be done more quickly, then it is just not cost-effective to have it done, eliminating the job entirely)
The *only* reason minimum wage even sounds like a good idea, is the belief that employers are sitting on huge piles of cash that they *could* give to their employees but choose not to. While this may be true in a few rare cases(see Apple), the vast majority of employers invest in growing their company with every spare nickle they can scrounge.
That doesn't work any more thanks to entitlements. The reality is that making twice of minimum wage isn't worth it. All it does is reduce your government assistance.
Yes, that's just another argument in favor of MGI. If everyone gets it, not only do we not need a minimum wage at all, but people aren't motivated not to do work so that they can keep their assistance. They won't lose it if they make some money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"