Slashdot Mirror
Higher Minimum Wages Bring Automation and Job Losses, Study Suggests (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report via email: As of the start of the year, 19 U.S. states had raised minimum wages, dramatizing a long simmering debate: Do minimum wages kill jobs, and make the working class worse off in the end? Or do they simply make them a little richer, with little or no loss to overall employment? In a new paper, economists Grace Lordan of the London School of Economics and David Neumark of UC Irvine parse 35 years of census data and come down on the worse-off side: For lower-skill jobs like bookkeepers and assembly-line workers, they say, higher minimum wages encourage employers to automate -- according to their calculations, a $1 increase can cost tens of thousands of jobs nationally.
I wish my 15 year old daughter could get a part time job for $8/hr. It would teach her responsibility, she'd learn a little about business, and she would have money of her own she's earned. It would be anything but demeaning. Unfortunately those types of jobs don't exist anymore.
The rate at which automation eliminates jobs is not at all tied to increases in minimum wage, but rather in efficiencies gained by automation.
If I can automate a process, and save (eliminate jobs) labor costs, then that is what will happen. The wages are just function of that formula (as are other costs).
This is why you're seeing cashiers removed and kiosks being setup for things like ... burger joints. Raising the min wage just speeds up the process of automation, by making the break even point easier to reach.
Basic Economics isn't hard. What makes it hard are all the non-economic value judgement we place on things like ... employment. It is really hard to remove the emotional element.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I can recall from my school days that is exactly what "science fair" projects mostly teach. Come up with a "hypotheses" and then find or manufacture data to support your conclusion. Do you have any idea how many science fair projects I have seen where ethanol had more energy density (BTUs/gallon) than gasoline? That's what the kids believe based on the green energy marketing and that's what teachers should be verifying... But no, these projects routinely get evaluated well for whatever reason and end up at the state level where some judges actually know what they are talking about and ask simple questions about background research into the subject matter.
Even worse, pretty much every science fair project has to have a conclusion to get anywhere. Teachers don't let kids run an experiment where the conclusion is that the test didn't have any findings that support accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. That is not only a perfectly acceptable result in science, but a very good one to find. I encouraged this behavior in projects where kids "concluded" something invalid by running statistical analysis they didn't understand. Excel will give you a trend line even if there is no trend. It's hard to tell a kid their science project found nothing, but in science, that's how most experiments should end up.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?