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

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

#131

Post by Joe-Z » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

Aron wrote: post #81

Joe-Z wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Someone who hasn't unterstood minimun wage fully? Minimum wage covers exactly this situation: You will have to pay at least that amount, even if the person you're employing happens to be homeless at the moment. If an employer is not willing to pay that, than that's not an issue…

If someone says 'my labor isn't worth 15$ and I know you won't hire me at that rate so I want to work for 10$' they are legally forbidden from this, right?

>If someone says 'my labor isn't worth 15$

But that's what I think is good about it!: It sets a baseline for what human labour is worth. Nobody has to say how much (or rather how little) his or her labour is worth. If an employer thinks someone should earn less than that - fully knowing that this wage will never enable this other person to get on in life - than she'd rather not employ anyone.

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

#132

Post by thehardsphere » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #100

gaius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor does Germany with some of the best working conditions in the world...

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.

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

#133

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #92

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…

Can I get you to briefly outline why you don't believe in raising the minimum wage? I can't say that I agree with you, but you're generally a thoughtful guy and I would appreciate getting another perspective on the issue. (Also, curious: is the word "national" operative there -- eg, do your beliefs differ between a national minimum wage and a local one like the Seattle measure?)

I'd just say that it's not settled whether sharp or nationwide increases in the minimum wage accomplish any clear public policy objectives. I could be convinced either way, but my perception is that it's not at all clear in the data that "$15 nationwide minimum wage" is a fight worth fighting.

I definitely don't oppose the minimum wage! There's no libertarianism creeping into my perspective here. :)

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

#134

Post by Shikadi » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #92

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…

Can I get you to briefly outline why you don't believe in raising the minimum wage? I can't say that I agree with you, but you're generally a thoughtful guy and I would appreciate getting another perspective on the issue. (Also, curious: is the word "national" operative there -- eg, do your beliefs differ between a national minimum wage and a local one like the Seattle measure?)

Although the question wasn't directed towards me, my problem with raising the minimum wage is that everyone else's wages (for the most part) have been stagnant while inflation continues. It basically pulls the rest of the middle class down while the upper class continues to go higher. Sure, some of the wages will trickle up because of competition, but not by as much as it should. I can't think of any better solutions though unfortunately

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

#135

Post by taeric » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

lend000 wrote: post #74

taeric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't telling the homeless person that they are legally forbidden from working in cheap labor. You are telling businesses that they are not solvent if they rely on ultra cheap labor.

Perhaps minimum wage proponents need to frame it like that to justify it, but in reality, it goes both ways . You ARE legally forbidding a homeless person from working at a price of their choosing, just as much as you are forbidding a business from purchasing labor below a certain price.

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 does little more than convince me your "side" is just trying to justify keeping ill earned wealth.

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

#136

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

Shikadi wrote: post #134

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get you to briefly outline why you don't believe in raising the minimum wage? I can't say that I agree with you, but you're generally a thoughtful guy and I would appreciate getting another perspective on the issue. (Also, curious: is the word "national" operative there -- eg, do your beliefs differ between a national minimum wage and a local one like the Seattle measure?)

Although the question wasn't directed towards me, my problem with raising the minimum wage is that everyone else's wages (for the most part) have been stagnant while inflation continues. It basically pulls the rest of the middle class down while the upper class continues to go higher. Sure, some of the wages will trickle up because of competition, but not by as much as it should. I can't think of any better solutions…

That is definitely not my concern with increasing the minimum wage.

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

#137

Post by thehardsphere » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:40 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #69

It sounds like the study doesn't take into account cost of living. Even for a minimum wage employee, time is money. Assume for the sake of argument that this study accurately describes wage losses. [1] Assume that the average minimum wage worker was working 2 different jobs for a total of 40 hours a week with no benefits. That's a total of 160 hours a month, or $1440. A loss of $125/month equates to $1315, or 102 hou…

Oh, I see, so, the poor people who work to live should be thankful that they can do their own childcare now that they've been comdemned to never be employed again because nobody wants to pay them $15/hour.

Do you realize how privileged you sound saying this? Do you really think these people made enough money to pay for child care to "enjoy" the cost savings now that they're sitting around at home? What does America look like from inside your limousine? Do you have any Grey Poupon?

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

#138

Post by dreta » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:40 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #83

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…

> 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…

>Everyone working 40 hours per week deserves a living wage (...)

You can earn a living wage for 40 hours a week doing anything in the US. You just can't afford a new iPhone. All the minimum wage does is makes it impossible to employ low-skill workers. So while before the minimum wage you could make a living, now you either can't make a living or you're effectively in the lower middle class.

Ask your dad or granddad what they had to go through to get you to a position where you think 15$ an hour is merely a "living wage".

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

#139

Post by rsync » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

"Why am I meant to feel like my "team" lost something when a study confirms something that most economists have been saying for decades?"

Because that "team" did, in fact, lose something - at least in relation to the very cynical (and probably correct) charge that minimum wage increases are vote-buying.

Also, I think it's worth considering that the very sound and considerable notion that "a wage price floor causes all other prices to catch up" is probably lumped right in with "the government collects the same amount of revenue at this point on the curve as on this point of the curve"[1][2]. Since that "team" is vehemently opposed to the Laffer Curve it's not surprising that they'd be vehemently opposed to other "voo doo economics".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA (jump to :37)

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

#140

Post by andrewla » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

kevinnk wrote: post #79

andrewla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't seem to find the underlying paper, but statistics can be deceiving -- if the pool of "low-wage" workers was reduced because some of them, due to the boost provided by the minimum wage increase, became "medium-wage" workers, then this statement might not have a negative meaning. It does not appear that the survey involved has the degree of resolution to make the statement that "the individuals comprising the p…

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu... Total payroll fell, so your explanation is not consistent with the data.

Thanks -- that was enough information to lead me to [1], which is one of the author's PDF of the paper to avoid the paywall.

Here's the initial justification for the $19 bucket:

> While the preponderance of evidence suggests that a low-wage threshold slightly above the statutory minimum poses little risk of miscoding jobs as lost when they have really been promoted to higher wage levels, in our preferred specifications we report findings based on a relatively conservative $19 threshold. The $19 threshold is roughly twice the initial value of the minimum wage, a level beyond which cascading effects are less likely to occur.

And here's the payroll falling statement (from the abstract):

> Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

Table 3 contains more of the breakdown, but does not refute my point -- the assumption about the threshold and mobility around that is not obvious, and the "reduction in payroll" only makes sense if we restrict the payroll changes to just $19 and hour or lower, the exact thing that I am pointing out as potentially a bad assumption. Under the alternative model, payroll reduced for that group of jobs (less that $19/hour) because that payroll was still spent (potentially on the same people) but at a higher wage class.

[1] https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...