Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#161

Post by Veelox »

dragonwriter wrote: post #117
Veelox wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make sure I understand you, you are advocating counting long-term capital gains as ordinary income?

I'm explaining what it is likely the upthread poster was referring to when talking about closing the capital gains tax loophole, not advocating anything. (I have advocated better aligning the treatment of capital, labor, and generic other income, but the details involve more than just counting long-term capital gains as ordinary income.)

I missed that you were filling in for someone else, thank you for the explanation.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#162

Post by clavalle »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #91
clavalle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a person is desperate, 'voluntary' starts to lose all meaning. If you are dead broke and half starved and I offered you a take it or leave it offer to work carrying rocks for $2 an hour so you can get a sandwich and you agree, is that really voluntary? I do agree with you about teenagers and other people that don't need the money in order to live. For dependents and people that agree not to get public assistance…

Yes, that is voluntary. It stops being voluntary when you make it a long term contract.

A long-term contract isn't necessary; only a continued razor thin margin of financial error that can devolve, more or less immediately, into desperation again.

/Tens of Millions/ of Americans live their lives there.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#163

Post by zeteo »

tptacek wrote: post #116
zeteo wrote: post #95

> raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015 and to $13 per hour in 2016. > we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs [...] while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Sounds like some pretty intense statistical manipulation. The second wage increase was ~18% ($2/$11) not 3%. So they've fished for a larger pool that only had a 3% increase…

That's the point of the study: the real increase in wages to workers isn't the nominal statutory increase. For example, many people in the low-wage labor market in Seattle were already making more than the minimum wage.

Sure, but when the nominal increase is 18% and the selected group only shows 3% there's a big question about group selection. If you can cherry pick groups and variables then you can use phenomena like Simpson's paradox to prove pretty much anything with statistics.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#164

Post by falcolas »

thehardsphere wrote: post #132
falcolas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Germany does have is a better social safety net so such minimums are not required to pay for basic needs. A minimum wage worker in the US is likely working 2-3 such jobs to cover food, rent, and other such necessities.

Minimums weren't imposed help people to meet basic needs. They were imposed to keep Chinese immigrants from participating in the labor market.

I would be super curious to look at the source on that. And, for whatever reason they were imposed, they are currently used to help people meet those basic needs. Should there be another mechanism to help people meet those needs? I think so, but that's another discussion topic entirely.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#165

Post by greggyb »

clavalle wrote: post #159
greggyb wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's much better to prevent any employment opportunity for that person. Situation A: I can choose between no employment (bad), and exploitative employment (slightly less bad). Situation B: With the benevolent intention of a minimum wage legislated into existence, I can "choose" no employment (same bad as before). You don't make someone worse off by increasing the number of options. You don't make people better o…

This all assumes that time is worthless. The actual equation is [80 hours usable time] vs. [40 hours useable time + some small amount of money]. If I can use that 40 hours to find a better job or train for the future, I would be better off.

I didn't say that the person should take the exploitative job.

The term you're looking for is opportunity cost. And yes, the opportunity cost of A is !B. Similarly the opportunity cost for B is !A. We could come up with all sorts of stuff that happens in the time that would otherwise be devoted to the exploitative job, but that wouldn't clarify the point being made here.

We are in adversarial agreement.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#166

Post by [deleted] »

surfmike wrote: post #94
harimau777 wrote: post #76

This seems like an interesting study, but I'm not sure its conclusion makes sense to me. Am I understanding the facts correctly: 1. Employment stayed about the same. 2. Employees overall were payed a lot more. 3. The number of low wage employees (which I assume means those making the new minimum wage) dropped. However employees overall were payed more. My understanding is that this means that employers switched to pa…

I think your assumption (1) is incorrect. Quote from article: "They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."

[deleted]

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#167

Post by coldpie »

rhino369 wrote: post #129
coldpie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, the minimum wage definitely benefits middle class teenagers on their first jobs (if they can get a job), and has questionable benefit for millennial humanities college grads who have yet to start a career. This is the problem. Everyone working 40 hours per week deserves a living wage, whether they're fresh out of high school or 8 years into a humanities degree. There's this weird sense out there…

Whether they deserve or it or not doesn't change whether the market will support it. Some people making 10 dollars an hour might get a raise to 13, but some might just get fired. So law decides that someone whose labor is only worth 10 dollars to the market is better off banned from working.

I'm willing to entertain other ideas. If the living wage is X and the minimum wage is Y < X, then someone has to make up the difference. Two methods to make up the gap that make sense to me are taxation and redistribution, or raising the minimum wage. How do you suggest to make up the gap?

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#168

Post by brador »

greggyb wrote: post #96
clavalle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a person is desperate, 'voluntary' starts to lose all meaning. If you are dead broke and half starved and I offered you a take it or leave it offer to work carrying rocks for $2 an hour so you can get a sandwich and you agree, is that really voluntary? I do agree with you about teenagers and other people that don't need the money in order to live. For dependents and people that agree not to get public assistance…

Yes, it's much better to prevent any employment opportunity for that person. Situation A: I can choose between no employment (bad), and exploitative employment (slightly less bad). Situation B: With the benevolent intention of a minimum wage legislated into existence, I can "choose" no employment (same bad as before). You don't make someone worse off by increasing the number of options. You don't make people better o…

Higher minimum wage means the robotics revolution happens faster.

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#169

Post by SamReidHughes »

clavalle wrote: post #162
SamReidHughes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is voluntary. It stops being voluntary when you make it a long term contract.

A long-term contract isn't necessary; only a continued razor thin margin of financial error that can devolve, more or less immediately, into desperation again. /Tens of Millions/ of Americans live their lives there.

You have to remember that the guy's other option in this example is not working at all, and getting no money. He demonstrably prefers the working situation, by doing it. It's of no risk to him and he can back out at any time.

Edit: I also think your expectations of relative difficulty in finding new work and doing it might be the result of minimum wage and other legally imposed on boarding costs. There would, for example, be a much more fluid market of sign spinning jobs with no minimum wage or employment regulations which for some reason want to designate people "employees" with "rights."

Re: A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news

#170

Post by clavalle »

greggyb wrote: post #165
clavalle wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all assumes that time is worthless. The actual equation is [80 hours usable time] vs. [40 hours useable time + some small amount of money]. If I can use that 40 hours to find a better job or train for the future, I would be better off.

I didn't say that the person should take the exploitative job. The term you're looking for is opportunity cost. And yes, the opportunity cost of A is !B. Similarly the opportunity cost for B is !A. We could come up with all sorts of stuff that happens in the time that would otherwise be devoted to the exploitative job, but that wouldn't clarify the point being made here. We are in adversarial agreement.

Exploitative employment can be defined as one being paid much less than one's time is worth. So the 'slightly less bad' assessment of the exploitative employment is incorrect because having all of the time at full value is better than selling some for lesser value.
Post reply on HN