Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. Yes you are. Or are you going to pretend that you haven't seen this:

LP, do you acknowledge the relatively well accepted economic fact that more money in the hands of people at lower income scales have an economic impact >1? In some cases significantly so.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

You're pretending the world will remain static and employers simply give the workers more money.

That discounts the workers replaced by automation and that discounts the businesses that close because they're no longer economic.

But you said raising minimum wage has no measurable effect on any of that?

What DOES it have a measurable effect on? The money in people's pockets.

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

If it can't be measured because the signal is too low, how in the flopping heck can it cause inflation?!

 

[Elixir]

Long ago in this thread

“Long long ago in a galaxy far far away”?
You detected the undetectable via mathematical inference?

I remember the guys who proved that bumblebees couldn’t fly, that same way.

 

[Rhea]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

 

[Elixir]

NO ONE NOTICES???????

Yes, the effect would only be noticeable* if you “do the math”.
Having”done the math” (a long time ago), Loren is in a position to proclaim that the loss of HALF of all MW workers would pass utterly undetected by anyone who hasn’t “done the math”.
It’s a magical thing, that math. “Do” it once and you’re set for life, armed to detect the undetectable and to pronounce its profound effects.


*disclaimer: the effect might be noticed in Santa Monica

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it can't be measured because the signal is too low, how in the flopping heck can it cause inflation?!

Continuing to ignore what I'm saying doesn't make it go away.

The problem is with our lack of ability to detect even large effects.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

 

[bilby]

If it can't be measured because the signal is too low, how in the flopping heck can it cause inflation?!

Continuing to ignore what I'm saying doesn't make it go away.

The problem is with our lack of ability to detect even large effects.

The problem is with your insistence that if we can't detect any effects, they must be there.

Continuing to say what you are saying doesn't make it real.

There's nothing to "make go away" until you provide it, and you admit that you can't - that we lack the ability.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

If it can't be seen in the data it is not meaningfully in the data.

And you're being a little harsh--while we do not have two solid digits we have more than one.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

If it can't be seen in the data it is not meaningfully in the data.

The number of people who are unemployed is reported every month. The number of unemployed is also reported by various demographic and age categories.

Your premise is factually incorrect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

If it can't be seen in the data it is not meaningfully in the data.

The number of people who are unemployed is reported every month. The number of unemployed is also reported by various demographic and age categories.

Your premise is factually incorrect.

You acknowledge that the unemployment rate is only reported to one significant digit (a point I somewhat disagree on--it's a bit over one digit of precision, but less than two) but you seem to think they have more accurate data. If they actually had it why are they not reporting it??? And by noting how often they revise the last digit of the unemployment rate it should be clear that digit isn't precisely known.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

If it can't be seen in the data it is not meaningfully in the data.

The number of people who are unemployed is reported every month. The number of unemployed is also reported by various demographic and age categories.

Your premise is factually incorrect.

You acknowledge that the unemployment rate is only reported to one significant digit (a point I somewhat disagree on--it's a bit over one digit of precision, but less than two) but you seem to think they have more accurate data. If they actually had it why are they not reporting it??? And by noting how often they revise the last digit of the unemployment rate it should be clear that digit isn't precisely known.

The BLS reports the underlying data that is used to compute unemployment rates. Google BLS and you can find sll sorts of data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

Wait, let’s read that again.

If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

You’re saying. That if HALF THE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, just after a national wage hike.

NO ONE NOTICES???????

The unemployment data won't see it.

That is factually incorrect. The unemployment data will reflect it. The reported unemployment rate will not because it is only reported to one significant digit.

If it can't be seen in the data it is not meaningfully in the data.

The number of people who are unemployed is reported every month. The number of unemployed is also reported by various demographic and age categories.

Your premise is factually incorrect.

You acknowledge that the unemployment rate is only reported to one significant digit (a point I somewhat disagree on--it's a bit over one digit of precision, but less than two) but you seem to think they have more accurate data. If they actually had it why are they not reporting it??? And by noting how often they revise the last digit of the unemployment rate it should be clear that digit isn't precisely known.

The BLS reports the underlying data that is used to compute unemployment rates. Google BLS and you can find sll sorts of data.

And that data is precisely accurate?!?! From what source does that information come? You get a bunch of it from unemployment applications but people can be without work without having an unemployment application. Nothing enumerates the unemployed, thus we only have approximate data.

Normal data standards say that you report the precision you have. We see one digit past the decimal place--that's all they have and it's not perfectly solid as evidenced by how often it's revised later.

 

[DBT]

Fair market share for the input and profits that workers help generate is not unreasonable. Multimillion dollar packages for the CEO and board, with perhaps a mere $18 per hour or so for many of its employees is hardly reasonable compensation for their time, skill and effort in helping to run a company.

 

[laughing dog]

And that data is precisely accurate?!?! From what source does that information come? You get a bunch of it from unemployment applications but people can be without work without having an unemployment application. Nothing enumerates the unemployed, thus we only have approximate data.

Normal data standards say that you report the precision you have. We see one digit past the decimal place--that's all they have and it's not perfectly solid as evidenced by how often it's revised later.

Educate yourself - How is unemployment data collected? - because you are unsuprisingly misinformed.

Your obsession with significant digits is fascinating because it misses the point - the actual of number of unemployed is estimated. It is accepted as the one of the best labor force estimates on the planet in terms of methodology.

 

[Rhea]

And by noting how often they revise the last digit of the unemployment rate it should be clear that digit isn't precisely known.

They revise the monthly rate with subsequently reported data. This is comon they describe it on the news frequently. “This revision is due to the always-later sector of BBB or this revision is due to the normal figures of CCC which become clearer once the DDD data is received.”

It’s not because it isn’t precisely known ever, it’s because it is known more precisely after the report is due. That revision always happens. We know that and expect it.


As for why they don’t report to 6 digits and only say 1, it’s quite reasonable to consider that the people reading the ews don’t care about 6 digits and are confused by it so the purpose of that report has a different audience than the much more precise data (pending next quarter updates) that people in the industry will use.

We don’t think that people using unemployment data to manage businesses will actually use the same report that shows up on “Morning Edition’s Marketplace Report,” do we? There’s the layperson’s report and there’s the professionals report. The deeper data is there and always has been.

 

[laughing dog]

An interesting piece of trivia is why gov’t statistics are usually reported to tenths ( one digit to the right of the decimal) is historical printing oractice.

Under typesetting, the convention was tenths for free, any more places cost extra to print. It’s why gov’t indices ( price indices and industrial production indices) were multiplied by 100 for reporting to save printing costs. The unemployment rate of 3.7% is realky 0.037 of the labor force.

That convention has been kept even though the cost reason disappeared.

 

[Elixir]

That convention has been kept even though the cost reason disappeared.

Wut?
You think electrons grow on trees?

 

[bilby]

That convention has been kept even though the cost reason disappeared.

Wut?
You think electrons grow on trees?

Yes.

The electrons must travel through special proteins stuck in the thylakoid membrane. They go through the first special protein (the photosystem II protein) and down the electron transport chain. Then they pass through a second special protein (photosystem I protein).

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/photosynthesis

 

[Elixir]

That convention has been kept even though the cost reason disappeared.

Wut?
You think electrons grow on trees?

Yes.

The electrons must travel through special proteins stuck in the thylakoid membrane. They go through the first special protein (the photosystem II protein) and down the electron transport chain. Then they pass through a second special protein (photosystem I protein).

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/photosynthesis

Pedant … you wanna be like that? Okay…

That’s not where they originated. So there.