# Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there. An event that causes 10% of minimum wage workers to lose their jobs in one month is completely undetectable via unemployment data. Spread over time (minimum wage rates are typically raised in good economic conditions, the effects would be hidden for a while) even substantially bigger changes would be undetectable.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there. An event that causes 10% of minimum wage workers to lose their jobs in one month is completely undetectable via unemployment data. Spread over time (minimum wage rates are typically raised in good economic conditions, the effects would be hidden for a while) even substantially bigger changes would be undetectable.
Congratulations, your argument also shows God exists.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."
I'm not saying what it is. I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero--and I'm showing that we can't even show it's anything close to zero.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."
I'm not saying what it is. I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero--and I'm showing that we can't even show it's anything close to zero.
Which means you are saying IT IS negative.

I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero
The thread title says “does not cause inflation”, not “the effect is zero”. The effect may lie below the level of detection, but absent the single irrelevant example you keep bringing up, chances are imo, that the effect of any is anti- inflationary. There is no reason for a person to conclude that raises in MW cause inflation. It should therefore not be a consideration opposed to the many tangible reasons for keeping the minimum wage at a living wage level.
The argument against it sounds to me like “if we disincentivize criminal behavior, it will put tens of thousands of cops out of work”.

I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
I've already explained this before--that's a crap argument for gods or ghosts, and it remains a crap argument for literally anything else, too.

I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
I've already explained this before--that's a crap argument for gods or ghosts, and it remains a crap argument for literally anything else, too.
Totally, obviously, blatantly TRUE.
The inability to measure it means the effect is either very minimal or non-existent. People who make their decisions based on fear of unobservable effects, can be expected to achieve undesirable outcomes.

I just watched an interesting John Oliver episode.

I've never been in a Dollar store, but some of the scenes shown are unbelievable. One store manager can't put away the fresh milk that just arrived, because the path to the storage room refrigerator is completely blocked with boxes. Another store has only one employee working: the customers end up helping the employee operate the store. Birds infest a third store and shit on merchandise; upper management tells the store to ignore the problem "because the birds aren't stealing anything." It would be easy to watch and think "So badly managed; surely they're on a path to bankruptcy." Yet in fact, the two Dollar store companies make several billions in annual profits!

I'm not sure what thread is best to post this interesting YouTube, but it relates to the growing disparity between rich America and poor America, which is a theme of this thread.

I've never been in a Dollar store, but some of the scenes shown are unbelievable. One store manager can't put away the fresh milk that just arrived, because the path to the storage room refrigerator is completely blocked with boxes. Another store has only one employee working: the customers end up helping the employee operate the store. Birds infest a third store and shit on merchandise; upper management tells the store to ignore the problem "because the birds aren't stealing anything." It would be easy to watch and think "So badly managed; surely they're on a path to bankruptcy." Yet in fact, the two Dollar store companies make several billions in annual profits!

I'm not sure what thread is best to post this interesting YouTube, but it relates to the growing disparity between rich America and poor America, which is a theme of this thread.
I have been in dollar stores. The description above accurate.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."
I'm not saying what it is. I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero--and I'm showing that we can't even show it's anything close to zero.
Which means you are saying IT IS negative.
I am saying it's indeterminate.

I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero
The thread title says “does not cause inflation”, not “the effect is zero”. The effect may lie below the level of detection, but absent the single irrelevant example you keep bringing up, chances are imo, that the effect of any is anti- inflationary. There is no reason for a person to conclude that raises in MW cause inflation. It should therefore not be a consideration opposed to the many tangible reasons for keeping the minimum wage at a living wage level.
The argument against it sounds to me like “if we disincentivize criminal behavior, it will put tens of thousands of cops out of work”.

The inflationary aspect of minimum wage is a separate issue and normally small enough not to matter as we aim to maintain a small inflation rate anyway.

I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
I've already explained this before--that's a crap argument for gods or ghosts, and it remains a crap argument for literally anything else, too.
Except we have one "ghost" in the can: American Samoa. They clearly exist.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."
I'm not saying what it is. I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero--and I'm showing that we can't even show it's anything close to zero.
Which means you are saying IT IS negative.
I am saying it's indeterminate.
So, you agree that it in a particular situation, a specific increase in the minimum wage might increase employment?

I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
I've already explained this before--that's a crap argument for gods or ghosts, and it remains a crap argument for literally anything else, too.
Except we have one "ghost" in the can: American Samoa. They clearly exist.
… and A.S. is a real close analog to the American economy, because?

Question, Loren: what percent of AmSam workers became due for raises when the minimum wage was “imposed”?

Last edited:
I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero
The thread title says “does not cause inflation”, not “the effect is zero”. The effect may lie below the level of detection, but absent the single irrelevant example you keep bringing up, chances are imo, that the effect of any is anti- inflationary. There is no reason for a person to conclude that raises in MW cause inflation. It should therefore not be a consideration opposed to the many tangible reasons for keeping the minimum wage at a living wage level.
The argument against it sounds to me like “if we disincentivize criminal behavior, it will put tens of thousands of cops out of work”.

The inflationary aspect of minimum wage is a separate issue and normally small enough not to matter as we aim to maintain a small inflation rate anyway.

It's interesting that there is such anquish and angst over a modest rise in income for those on the lowest of pay, 'the economy will collapse,' 'unemployment will rise,' yet the sky is the limit for CEO's and executives who enjoy astronomical incomes.

What kind of a world do we live in?

I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero
The thread title says “does not cause inflation”, not “the effect is zero”. The effect may lie below the level of detection, but absent the single irrelevant example you keep bringing up, chances are imo, that the effect of any is anti- inflationary. There is no reason for a person to conclude that raises in MW cause inflation. It should therefore not be a consideration opposed to the many tangible reasons for keeping the minimum wage at a living wage level.
The argument against it sounds to me like “if we disincentivize criminal behavior, it will put tens of thousands of cops out of work”.

The inflationary aspect of minimum wage is a separate issue and normally small enough not to matter as we aim to maintain a small inflation rate anyway.

It's interesting that there is such anquish and angst over a modest rise in income for those on the lowest of pay, 'the economy will collapse,' 'unemployment will rise,' yet the sky is the limit for CEO's and executives who enjoy astronomical incomes.

What kind of a world do we live in?
A world where you get really mad if your burger cost 45 cents more.

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.
Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?
Clearly you do not grasp the compelling logic behind "The effect is not measurable so it must be what I say it is."
I'm not saying what it is. I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero--and I'm showing that we can't even show it's anything close to zero.
Which means you are saying IT IS negative.
I am saying it's indeterminate.
Yet, for some reason, you're not here insisting that Minimum Wage creates jobs (albeit to an undetectable degree), despite that conclusion beingexactly as well supported by the data as your assertion of the opposite...

I've already explained this before--the inability to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
I've already explained this before--that's a crap argument for gods or ghosts, and it remains a crap argument for literally anything else, too.
Except we have one "ghost" in the can: American Samoa. They clearly exist.
Except that we have strong evidence presented in this thread (in which you were an active participant) that American Samoa is NOT an example of minimum wage leading to job losses.

Re the American Samoa tuna cannery, the firms in question aver that:

"Chicken of the Sea (headquarters in El Segundo, California)According to Chicken of the Sea officials, limited tuna supply was key factor in the decision to close the cannery. The American Samoa minimum wage increases were a minor factor, but not as significant as other factors related to tuna supply, labor availability, logistics, and utility costs in contributing to the cannery’s closure.(...)Tri Marine (headquarters in Bellevue, Washington)Tri Marine explained that the American Samoa minimum wage increases were a minor factor—not as significant as rising price competition and high production costs, such as for utilities—in contributing to Samoa Tuna Processors’ closure. "
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-467.pdf

In both cases, operations were relocated - some to Thailand and the Solomon Islands (lower wages); some to the US state of Georgia (higher wages, better situated) - i.e. no aggregate increase in unemployment.

..not that you can generalise from some little island with a single industry anyway
Despite this, you continue to insist that American Samoa is a case of job losses due to Minimum Wage, because you're unprepared to accept that your sole datum is, demonstrably, nonexistent.

Last edited:
I'm saying that the thread title is saying the value is zero
The thread title says “does not cause inflation”, not “the effect is zero”. The effect may lie below the level of detection, but absent the single irrelevant example you keep bringing up, chances are imo, that the effect of any is anti- inflationary. There is no reason for a person to conclude that raises in MW cause inflation. It should therefore not be a consideration opposed to the many tangible reasons for keeping the minimum wage at a living wage level.
The argument against it sounds to me like “if we disincentivize criminal behavior, it will put tens of thousands of cops out of work”.