Slashdot Mirror
Authors of Controversial 'Seattle Minimum Wage' Study Revise Their Conclusions (bloombergquint.com)
Seattle's increase in the minimum wage "brought benefits to many workers employed at the time, while leaving few employed workers worse off," reports the New York Times -- citing a new study by the same researchers who'd claimed last year that workers were hurt by the wage increase.
"The dire warnings about minimum-wage increases keep proving to be wrong," argues a Bloomberg columnist, in an article shared by gollum123: The authors behind an earlier study predicting a negative impact have all-but recanted their initial conclusions. However, the authors still seem perplexed about why they went awry in the first place.... The increase was an "economic death wish" that was going to tank the expansion and kill jobs, according to the sages at conservative think tanks... Despite their dire forecasts, not only were new restaurants not closing, they were in fact opening; employment in food services and drinking establishments has soared...
As we noted in 2017, the study's fatal flaw was that its analysis excluded large multistate businesses with more than one location. When thinking about the impact of raising minimum wages, one can't simply omit most of the biggest minimum-wage employers in the region, such as McDonald's and other fast-food chains, or Wal-Mart and other major retailers... There were two other glaring defects in the first study that are worth mentioning. The first is that its findings contradicted the vast majority research on minimum wages. As was demonstrated back in 1994 by economists Alan Krueger and David Card, modest, gradual wage increases have not been shown to reduce employment or hours worked in any significant way. Ignoring that body of research without a very good reason made the initial University of Washington study questionable at best. Second, there potentially is a problem with having a lead researcher -- economist Jacob Vigdor, whose affiliations among others include the right-leaning Manhattan Institute -- whose impartiality is open to question. Long-time Slashdot reader Martin S. writes that "When the UK introduced the minimum wage we had the same doom and gloom scenarios," adding that "the reality was very different." He argues that increasing the minimum wage "increased productivity so business did not suffer, reduced government spending on benefits, and increased the the velocity of money improving the overall economy.
"It had no measurable effect on unemployment."
"The dire warnings about minimum-wage increases keep proving to be wrong," argues a Bloomberg columnist, in an article shared by gollum123: The authors behind an earlier study predicting a negative impact have all-but recanted their initial conclusions. However, the authors still seem perplexed about why they went awry in the first place.... The increase was an "economic death wish" that was going to tank the expansion and kill jobs, according to the sages at conservative think tanks... Despite their dire forecasts, not only were new restaurants not closing, they were in fact opening; employment in food services and drinking establishments has soared...
As we noted in 2017, the study's fatal flaw was that its analysis excluded large multistate businesses with more than one location. When thinking about the impact of raising minimum wages, one can't simply omit most of the biggest minimum-wage employers in the region, such as McDonald's and other fast-food chains, or Wal-Mart and other major retailers... There were two other glaring defects in the first study that are worth mentioning. The first is that its findings contradicted the vast majority research on minimum wages. As was demonstrated back in 1994 by economists Alan Krueger and David Card, modest, gradual wage increases have not been shown to reduce employment or hours worked in any significant way. Ignoring that body of research without a very good reason made the initial University of Washington study questionable at best. Second, there potentially is a problem with having a lead researcher -- economist Jacob Vigdor, whose affiliations among others include the right-leaning Manhattan Institute -- whose impartiality is open to question. Long-time Slashdot reader Martin S. writes that "When the UK introduced the minimum wage we had the same doom and gloom scenarios," adding that "the reality was very different." He argues that increasing the minimum wage "increased productivity so business did not suffer, reduced government spending on benefits, and increased the the velocity of money improving the overall economy.
"It had no measurable effect on unemployment."
Either way. Why would you expect the effect of a minimum wage increase to always do the same thing, regardless of the size of the increase or other circumstances in the economy? I'd expect depending on the size and circumstance that the effects would vary.
It's kind of like how I feel about government spending. Politicians tighten the public belt when there's a recession and spend like crazy when times are good. They should do exactly the opposite. When times are good they're taking money out of an economy that's doing well at turning dollars to jobs. When times are bad they're keeping dollars in an economy that's not converting dollars to jobs very well.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's the core of Keynesian Econoics, which most mainstream economists these days consider voodoo,;as you can't write up a nice, neat, overly clever set of equations to describe; but which is the only economics which has been proven to work in the real world.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Fifty years ago in the US, even 25 years ago, that might have been a problem for the general economy. However for the last 20 years (at least) productivity gains and real wage gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 10% of income, and the wealth gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 1% (or even 0.5%) in wealth. So if general prices rise by 25% today that money is not going to be extracted from the pockets of those in the 80% range because they don't have it - it will mostly be paid by those in the 10% and then transferred down. Which is what our personal and corporate income tax bracket structure and reasonable dead-people-are-not-citizens inheritance taxes accomplished prior to 1980.
And yet Seattle is still doing better than Portland. Portland only had a larger recovery because it was worse off.
Your logic suggests that if you stub your toe, you should break your femur with a hammer so you can have a bigger recovery./
Fuzzy headed thinking like that would be really really funny except that it needlessly increases suffering in the world.
Profits today benefit owners today. That's all.
If you expect any loyalty from a company where you have sold your soul, you are very naive.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?