Does Raising the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?

[SassySue]

Of course, a more careful analysis is required before drawing final conclusions. But broad declarations that the policy change had no consequence are plainly premature, particularly in light of an EPI survey of 163 restaurants in San Jose, 45 percent of which cut employee hours and 42 percent of which reduced staffing in response to the hike.


Five Decades of Middle Class Wages: June 2016 Update


Still doesn't change the fact that consumers pumped more profits into small businesses due to increased spending. Naturally, the business owners had to cut down on staffing to compensate for the increase in wages. You are just twisting the facts and figures around to suit your point of view. Take a look at these figures showing wages in comparison to inflation over the years. They are not keeping up. Your dollar just doesn't go as far as it used to. $10 is not a living wage, even working full time. In Bernie Sanders' speech, he stated he had an interview with a young single Mother making $10 per hour, working full time and trying to support her two children on that wage. She was in tears, worrying everyday about how she was going to make it. Reminds me of the years when my daughter was younger and I was making about the same amount, except it was 16 years ago!

Latest Hypothetical Annual Earnings: $36,137, Down 13.5% from 44 Years Ago

If we multiply the hypothetical weekly earnings by 50, we get an annual figure of $36,137. That's a 13.5% decline from the similarly calculated real peak in October 1972. In the charts above, we've highlighted the presidencies during this timeframe. Our purpose is not necessarily to suggest political responsibility, but rather to offer some food for thought. We will point out that the so-called supply-side economics popularized during the Reagan administration (aka "trickle-down" economics), wasn't very friendly to production and nonsupervisory employees.

Here is the chart.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/d...urs-since-1964

The 99 percent know their dollar doesn't match the cost of inflation; they live it every single day.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Naturally, the business owners had to cut down on staffing to compensate for the increase in wages....

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER! SASSY POO FINALLY TAPS OUT!!!


"Naturally, the business owners had to cut down on staffing to compensate for the increase in wages...."


Naturally, this means raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for low-skilled workers.

Naturally, you just answered the question in your thread title.... the answer is YES!

Naturally, you just admitted the author of your OP link is a clueless and dishonest hack.

Naturally, you just conceded all your previous denials were wrong.

Naturally, you just acknowledged that all those libtards who claim a big MW hike won't reduce low-skill employment are being intellectually dishonest.

So be suspicious next time someone tells you "you can have your cake and eat it too"!


OH, AND CONGRATULATIONS SASSY POO-POO! AN OVERWHELMING 85% OF ECONOMISTS AGREE WITH YOU!

[Rey Lengua]

:weepin g:

[dilbert firestorm]

wow. I think Sassy got real quiet after those 2 comments.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by lustylad

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER! SASSY POO FINALLY TAPS OUT!!!


"Naturally, the business owners had to cut down on staffing to compensate for the increase in wages...."


Naturally, this means raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for low-skilled workers.

Naturally, you just answered the question in your thread title.... the answer is YES!

Naturally, you just admitted the author of your OP link is a clueless and dishonest hack.

Naturally, you just conceded all your previous denials were wrong.

Naturally, you just acknowledged that all those libtards who claim a big MW hike won't reduce low-skill employment are being intellectually dishonest.

So be suspicious next time someone tells you "you can have your cake and eat it too"!


OH, AND CONGRATULATIONS SASSY POO-POO! AN OVERWHELMING 85% OF ECONOMISTS AGREE WITH YOU!

That's only one small part of the equation and you know it. As usual, you take one small piece of information and twist it to suit your point of view. It doesn't account for the fact that due to increased spending, some of the larger chain restaurants and other businesses probably did more hiring due to increased spending. It all evens out. Gotcha!

[Texas Contrarian]

Arguments in favor of a higher federally-mandated minimum wage seem to be every bit as suffused with disingenuous demagoguery as progressives' zeal for big hikes in the capital gains tax. It's all about expedient politics, not sound economics.

Aggressive attempts to intervene in markets always tend to produce adverse unintended consequences. Remember Nixon's wage and price controls of the early 1970s? "Don't like inflation? Not to worry. We'll just outlaw it!" (That really worked great, didn't it?)

You should start by learning about concepts such as "marginal utility" and "marginal revenue product" of a unit of labor. Then you would understand that legislated minimum wage increases can have an obvious and axiomatic effect on the job market for low-skilled individuals.

Also note that $15/hour is not quite the same thing in, say, New York City as it is in Oklahoma City or Omaha. Thus the very idea of a federally mandated minimum wage is ridiculous on its face.

And you really need to step back and ponder the following statement for just a moment:

Originally Posted by SassySue

Here's a study that UC Berkeley did. They did a hypothetical where minimum wage was raised to $15 in Santa Clara County, California to $15 per hour, on January 1, 2017. After 2 years, January 1, 2019, here's the results.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...y-of-san-jose/

Is any of that based in any way on empirical evidence? No, of course not. It was produced bu a few U.C. Berkeley labor economists who created a "structural labor market model" specifically to analyze the effects of a proposed $15 minimum wage, and they even stated outright that they did so pursuant to a request by the city of San Jose! (You don't suppose their conclusion was preordained, do you?) This is head-shakingly ridiculous. Anyone should be able to see that the Berkeley professors were eager to tell San Jose city officials what they wanted to hear. You just can't make this stuff up!

People need to understand a thing or two about mathematical models produced by economists who seek to undergird arguments in favor of various public policy initiatives. Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi claimed a few years ago that a big boost in food stamp dispensation would be a great "jobs program," because it would produce a fiscal multiplier of about 1.73? She cited a model commissioned or cited by Mark Zandi, which further made a rather fanciful claim of the number of new jobs that would be produced. This is also reminiscent of the wild claims made on behalf of the ARRA, which some zealous supporters said would create or "save" more then 3 million jobs. Why? Because a model produced by a couple of economists said so, that's why! (One can easily write a model that's beautiful and appears to be cloaked with rigorousness, and tells you just about anything you want to believe!)

Originally Posted by SassySue

That's only one small part of the equation and you know it. As usual, you take one small piece of information and twist it to suit your point of view. It doesn't account for the fact that due to increased spending, some of the larger chain restaurants and other businesses probably did more hiring due to increased spending. It all evens out. Gotcha!

Oh, my! Can you not see the obvious circularity in your "logic?"

Here's another suggestion for you. Before you act in a triumphal manner and say "gotcha," it's a pretty good idea to demonstrate that you've made at least a rudimentary effort to understand the topic under discussion.

Instead of spamming this forum with countless threads, many of them redundant, you would do well to spend some time reading and learning.
.

[Rey Lengua]

But if she were to spend time " reading and learning " , it would get in the way of her spam-for-pay deal with the DNC and Soros. Then SHE wouldn't be getting HER $ 15.00 per hour !

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

But if she were to spend time " reading and learning " , it would get in the way of her spam-for-pay deal with the DNC and Soros. Then SHE wouldn't be getting HER $ 15.00 per hour !

Don't think I have spent time reading and learning? This study sees a positive effect of raising the minimum wage in New York to $15 an hour! Gotcha!!!

Among the other key findings:

About 37 percent of the New York workforce will benefit from increased earnings.

For those receiving higher wages, annual pay will increase $4,900 a year on average (in 2015 dollars), boosting consumer spending.

Three industries account for nearly half of the workers getting increases: retail (18 percent), health care and social assistance (16 percent) and restaurants (14 percent).

Overall payroll costs in the state will increase by only 3.2 percent, since many businesses already pay over $15 and many workers getting a raise already earn over $9, the state’s current minimum wage. Also, labor costs average one-fourth of business operating costs.

Businesses will experience lower employee turnover, generating savings in recruitment and retention costs that will offset about one-eighth of the higher payroll costs. Worker productivity will also increase.


Do you want to keep denying these positive studies or what? New York is a blue state and minimum wage is going to be raised. They will see less poverty and less gap between the rich and poor. Texas refuses to raise the minimum wage and that is why they have one of the largest gaps between the rich and poor and it continues to grow.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/...to-15-an-hour/

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Don't think I have spent time reading and learning? You may have spent some time reading, but unfortunately you wasted it and haven't actually learned anything. Seriously, you need to have a huddle with yourself and take a reasoned look at the sources you rely upon for "information." This study sees a positive effect of raising the minimum wage in New York to $15 an hour! Gotcha!!! Uh-huh. Suuuuuure you did!

Among the other key findings:

About 37 percent of the New York workforce will benefit from increased earnings.

For those receiving higher wages, annual pay will increase $4,900 a year on average (in 2015 dollars), boosting consumer spending.

Three industries account for nearly half of the workers getting increases: retail (18 percent), health care and social assistance (16 percent) and restaurants (14 percent).

Overall payroll costs in the state will increase by only 3.2 percent, since many businesses already pay over $15 and many workers getting a raise already earn over $9, the state’s current minimum wage. Also, labor costs average one-fourth of business operating costs.

Businesses will experience lower employee turnover, generating savings in recruitment and retention costs that will offset about one-eighth of the higher payroll costs. Worker productivity will also increase.

Do you want to keep denying these positive studies or what? LOL! New York is a blue state and minimum wage is going to be raised. They will see less poverty and less gap between the rich and poor. Texas refuses to raise the minimum wage and that is why they have one of the largest gaps between the rich and poor and it continues to grow.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/...to-15-an-hour/

Good Lord!

Could you possibly be more obtuse?

After I noted the rather obvious fatuousness of attempting to bolster your argument with a ridiculous, bullshit-laden "study" produced by left-wing U.C. Berkeley labor economists, you responded with ...

... yet another ridiculous, bullshit-laden study produced by left-wing U.C. Berkeley labor economists!
.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

That's only one small part of the equation and you know it. As usual, you take one small piece of information and twist it to suit your point of view. It doesn't account for the fact that due to increased spending, some of the larger chain restaurants and other businesses probably did more hiring due to increased spending. It all evens out. Gotcha!

Sassy Poo-poo.... think before you post!

The “larger chain restaurants and other businesses” in San Jose hire from the same pool of less-skilled workers as the small shops do. Go back and re-read my post #60. Unemployment in that young, low-skilled demographic jumped by SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS to 20% from 14% following the MW hike. Evidently for those job-seekers, things didn't “even out”. It became harder for them to find and keep employment. How do you explain that?

Libtards always complain that supply-side economic theory is full of baloney when it promises that tax cuts will “pay for themselves” by unleashing stronger economic growth resulting in higher tax revenues. Then those same libtards turn around – as you are doing – and say that raising the minimum wage will “pay for itself” because workers who receive a raise will spend it, stimulating the economy so much that businesses will hire more and “it all evens out.”

That's poppycock! There is no empirical evidence to support such wishful thinking. Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true. You're just speculating and that's why you said "probably". The truth is the impacts are not equal (or even close to being equal), nor is there any reason to think they would fall evenly across job-seekers with different skill levels. But I will stop now because I fear my comments are already way over your head!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Do you want to keep denying these positive studies or what?

Your “positive studies” only look positive because they over-hype the benefits and ignore the costs. That is not being honest or objective or unbiased. If you are one of those people lucky enough to hang on to your full-time minimum-wage job, it is a positive (although you may have to work a lot harder due to staff reductions). Not so much if you're someone who is laid off or forced to work reduced hours. Or an unskilled job-seeker who has to look harder and longer to find work.

Originally Posted by SassySue

New York is a blue state and minimum wage is going to be raised. They will see less poverty and less gap between the rich and poor.

Hey Sassy, I already pointed out to you that raising the MW is an inefficient way to reduce income inequality. Did you not hear me? For one thing, not having a job is the biggest contributor to poverty of all. For another thing, the benefits of an increased MW don't flow to the lowest income strata.

Go back to the Neumark slideshow I handed to you. Check out slide #22 again. What does it tell you? Over one-third of all MW workers belong to households in the top half of family income distribution. Are those the folks in need of help?

http://uccs.ucdavis.edu/copy2_of_Neumark.pdf

Originally Posted by SassySue

Texas refuses to raise the minimum wage and that is why they have one of the largest gaps between the rich and poor and it continues to grow

Got a link, Sassy Poo?

I haven't seen any data about Texas income distribution, but I have seen their employment data. Their unemployment rate has been at or below the national average for the past 114 consecutive months.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Arguments in favor of a higher federally-mandated minimum wage seem to be every bit as suffused with disingenuous demagoguery as progressives' zeal for big hikes in the capital gains tax. It's all about expedient politics, not sound economics....

Here's another suggestion for you. Before you act in a triumphal manner and say "gotcha," it's a pretty good idea to demonstrate that you've made at least a rudimentary effort to understand the topic under discussion.

Instead of spamming this forum with countless threads, many of them redundant, you would do well to spend some time reading and learning.

Uh-oh, Sassy Poo! The Cap'n is here. Better run, you're way out of your league now!

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Good Lord!

Could you possibly be more obtuse?

After I noted the rather obvious fatuousness of attempting to bolster your argument with a ridiculous, bullshit-laden "study" produced by left-wing U.C. Berkeley labor economists, you responded with ...

... yet another ridiculous, bullshit-laden study produced by left-wing U.C. Berkeley labor economists!
.

The reason you don't like these articles is because they prove you may be wrong. There have been pros and cons on this matter for eons. As I said before, most economists believe there are more benefits than drawbacks in raising the minimum wage. No need to revert to name calling and cyber bullying just because I don't agree with you and post a different point of view.

I posted a thread about the widening gap in Texas between the rich and the poor awhile back. I don't know about unemployment there. Check these links for several recent articles about the subject.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/c...uality-too.ece

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/st...le3844307.html

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opin...me-segregation

Texas is among the worst for income segregation.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by SassySue

The reason you don't like these articles is because they prove you may be wrong. No, the reason I don't "like" them is that they're nothing more than biased bullshit. No intelligent, well-informed person would buy that ridiculous nonsense for a minute. There have been pros and cons on this matter for eons. As I said before, most economists believe there are more benefits than drawbacks in raising the minimum wage. No, they don't. No need to revert to name calling and cyber bullying just because I don't agree with you and post a different point of view. Knock off the whining about "cyber-bullying," you ignorant ditz. (See below.)

I posted a thread about the widening gap in Texas between the rich and the poor awhile back. I don't know about unemployment there. Check these links for several recent articles about the subject.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/c...uality-too.ece

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/st...le3844307.html

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opin...me-segregation

Texas is among the worst for income segregation.

Before you whine about "cyber-bullying" again, you should review the comments you made in the following post. At the time, you were posting under the handle "SeekingTruth" (a misnomer if there ever was one).

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=48

My reply:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=49

Yeah, I know it's not exactly de rigueur in this forum, but you really ought to try to understand what the hell you're talking about before popping off with a statement that someone needs to "do their homework." You'll embarrass yourself much less often that way, as I pointed out to you at the time. But of course, as usual, you learned nothing.
.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

The reason you don't like these articles is because they prove you may be wrong. There have been pros and cons on this matter for eons. As I said before, most economists believe there are more benefits than drawbacks in raising the minimum wage.

Er, Sassy Poopoo - that's NOT what you said. You started this thread with a very specific question - "Will Raising the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?" We said "yes" but you didn't like the answer. You kept insisting the answer is "no". YOU are the one who was proven wrong. And you finally admitted it:

Originally Posted by SassySue

Naturally, the business owners had to cut down on staffing to compensate for the increase in wages....

Now you are struggling to save face by claiming you were carefully weighing the pros versus the cons. That's being disingenuous. You started out by denying one of the cons. You said "most economists" agreed with you. I showed that 85% of them didn't.

Under the circumstances, I don't think it's a good idea for you to presume to speak for "most economists" anytime, anywhere, on any topic. Ok?