You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour • Hacker News Board

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#91

Post by labcomputer » Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #81

renewiltord wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we’re not making general statements. This one is.

Sure, in general, that would be something to take into consideration - but in this specific case, the maximum is not an outlier. Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier, and that this false generality applies here.

> Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier

Visually, 1968 sure looks like an outlier to me: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4

But let's check my intuition. The federal minimum wage was raised 10 times from 1960 through 1980. The raises have the following indexed values:

* 1961: 137

* 1963: 145

* 1967: 151

* 1968: 167

* 1974: 146

* 1975: 143

* 1976: 147

* 1978: 150

* 1979: 151

* 1980: 141

So mean = 148, st.dev = 8.1. That puts 1968 at 2.4 standard deviations above the mean.

If you just want to make the pedantic point that the maximum is not in general an outlier, we are in agreement. But, in this particular case, the maximum is clearly an outlier.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#92

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #91

mannykannot wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in general, that would be something to take into consideration - but in this specific case, the maximum is not an outlier. Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier, and that this false generality applies here.

> Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier Visually, 1968 sure looks like an outlier to me: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4 But let's check my intuition. The federal minimum wage was raised 10 times from 1960 through 1980. The raises have the following indexed values: * 1961: 137 * 1963: 145 * 1967: 151 * 1968: 167 * 1974: 146 * 1975: 143…

I appreciate the work you put into this, but when I look at the data, I see a nonstationary (humped) time series, where I am not sure that 2.4 standard deviations above the mean is a reliable identifier of outliers.

Furthermore, I think the data still supports janandonly's point (though not quite as starkly) even if we throw out the maximum.

It would indeed be pedantic of me to now make an issue of the maximum not in general being an outlier, but at the time I wrote that, I was replying to a post in which the only justification given for considering 1968 to be an outlier was the fact that it was the maximum.

Re: You’re Lucky Workers Are Only Asking for $15 an Hour

#93

Post by nfw2 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #36

nfw2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The positive effect is that some workers will earn higher wages. One obviously wouldn't expect it to affect unemployment in a positive way. It also wouldn't affect poverty in a positive way if the affected workers weren't below the poverty line to begin with.

>The positive effect is that some workers will earn higher wages. Right. And other workers are hurt by it. Leading to net negative outcome, or a wash.

My claim wasn't that the net outcome is positive. I was countering the claim that there weren't any arguments in favor of minimum wage. I don't think a strong argument can be made about the net outcome without real data.