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

Post by noodle » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 8:13 PM UTC

thehardsphere wrote: post #118

noodle wrote: post #35

So low wage workers are getting cut but unemployment is still at 3.2%? Which is ~1.5% lower than the national average? Kind of sounds like this study might be looking at only half the story.

The unemployment rate only counts people looking for work. If they quit the labor force completely, they're no longer counted as unemployed. Minimum wage workers are usually the lowest skilled workers in the economy. When they're displaced they have the fewest alternative jobs available to them, so they tend to drop out of the labor force. Either temporarily, while they go and learn new skills, or permanently.

Post by kasey_junk » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 8:20 PM UTC

turtleofdeath wrote: post #174

tptacek wrote: post #43

I really dislike this framing. By any contemporary definition I'm a "liberal": * I support higher taxes, particularly on higher income people, almost for its own sake. * I oppose almost all military intervention abroad. * I believe the federal government needs to intervene with local governments to prevent police abuses. * I strongly support public schools and oppose public-funded charters. ... and I could go on and…

I know this is unrelated to the post but I am genuinely/respectfully curious (since you left it as a bullet) as to the chain of logic that makes it okay to tax higher income people more. I've never understood that. Full disclosure: if it were up to me, we would go with either a flat tax or something more sensible that an economist has proposed (i.e. Friedman's negative income tax). But that would, of course, largely…

Post by gbacon » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

clavalle wrote: post #82

lend000 wrote: post #42

The problem I have with the minimum wage is that it transfers wealth from the very poorest to the mid-working class/lower middle class. Who am I to tell a homeless person that she is legally forbidden to engage in a voluntary, hourly employment contract for less than $15/hr? I would effectively be guaranteeing that she stays unemployed/homeless. Regardless of practical effects (which are ambiguous at best), it's wron…

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…

Post by atemerev » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #190

atemerev wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explicit endorsement?

All you're saying is "there are libertarian economists who like libertarian-leaning pop science". Sure, that's true.

Post by taeric » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

lend000 wrote: post #188

taeric wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. Do we need to solve homelessness? Absolutely. We do not do this by propping up businesses and properties that rely on below livable wages. I can buy some level of slippery slope at play here. But, by and large, this frames it in a way that allows sub-livable wages. So, you can think my "side" is framing this in a way to justify it. This d…

> This line of thinking leads to allowing people to sell themselves into slavery. I think there is a fundamental difference between selling labor and selling legal rights. You might say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto given some rights to their employer, but coercion is always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is likely to seek legal help is another story). > So, you can think my "side" i…

    I think there is a fundamental difference between
    selling labor and selling legal rights. You might
    say that someone so financially desperate has de-facto
    given some rights to their employer, but coercion is 
    always illegal (whether or not this kind of person is
    likely to seek legal help is another story).

    Sounds like you dislike exploitative businesses more than
    you care about the homeless. That isn't necessarily right
    or wrong, but I think it explains your inclination on the
    issue.