Minimum Wage Study - No Loss In Jobs

[Trausti]

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers? Worse, though, is how many of its readers just swallowed the misinformation without checking the source on their own?

 

[laughing dog]

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers? Worse, though, is how many of its readers just swallowed the misinformation without checking the source on their own?

Do you have any evidence that Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of the cited study or is your post intended as an example of basing skepticism on the politics of the presenter?

 

[Bomb#20]

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers? Worse, though, is how many of its readers just swallowed the misinformation without checking the source on their own?

Do you have any evidence that Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of the cited study or is your post intended as an example of basing skepticism on the politics of the presenter?

Well, let's take Alternet's opening sentence: "A new study on the minimum wage confirms previous research that found the policy raises wages for low-income workers without reducing total employment."

Can you point out anywhere the study says a MW rise doesn't reduce total employment?

(Moreover, even if Alternet's opinion is correct about what previous research shows, the way they phrased it is misleading, in that readers are likely to read "total employment" as "total employment of low-income workers". The charts in the cited study show some evidence that employers respond to minimum wage hikes by substituting semiskilled workers for unskilled workers, exactly as economic theory would predict.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers? Worse, though, is how many of its readers just swallowed the misinformation without checking the source on their own?

Alternet only reported on the study and supplied a link to the original study. Attacking the messenger? The right has long claimed raising minimum wage causes higher unemployment. This study suggest the facts are that that is not so. The conservatives peddle that claim, and it is dangerous myth.

https://www.alec.org/publication/minimum-wage/

ALEC has been peddling the claim MW causes unemployment for years now, and sells that idea to clueless legislators all over America.
Alternet is not the problem. ALEC is a problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, let's take Alternet's opening sentence: "A new study on the minimum wage confirms previous research that found the policy raises wages for low-income workers without reducing total employment."

Can you point out anywhere the study says a MW rise doesn't reduce total employment?

I don't have to do anything. It is up to the claimant that there is misrepresentation to present evidence to support their claim.

I have no idea how the study was done nor what the authors concluded or wrote. But I am not going to claim a website is misleading about a linked and accessible article because I don't like the viewpoint of the website.

(Moreover, even if Alternet's opinion is correct about what previous research shows, the way they phrased it is misleading, in that readers are likely to read "total employment" as "total employment of low-income workers".

It is misleading because you feel that some readers might not read the words carefully?

 

[Bomb#20]

Alternet only reported on the study and supplied a link to the original study. Attacking the messenger?

No, they didn't "only" do that. They also claimed the study confirmed that it doesn't reduce employment. I read the study. It doesn't confirm that.

Incidentally, why are you defending Alternet? If the misstating isn't on them then it's on you.

The right has long claimed raising minimum wage causes higher unemployment. This study suggest the facts are that that is not so.

I read the study. It doesn't say the facts are that that is not so. Feel free to point out what it does say that you think "suggest" it.

The conservatives peddle that claim, and it is dangerous myth.

https://www.alec.org/publication/minimum-wage/

That link doesn't claim raising minimum wage causes higher unemployment. It says "As these employers cope with the increased costs of a mandated wage raise, they often respond by cutting the jobs available to less-experienced and less-educated employees. The result is that these individuals, who already have few employment options, find it more difficult to get a job." That's neutral on whether MW causes different individuals to find it easier to get a job. As noted earlier, employers who are ordered to pay skilled-work rates for unskilled work may well choose to hire skilled workers instead of unskilled workers.

ALEC has been peddling the claim MW causes unemployment for years now, and sells that idea to clueless legislators all over America.
Alternet is not the problem. ALEC is a problem.

Pretty much every Econ-101 class in Western civilization has been peddling the claim MW causes unemployment for years -- anybody who learns how to read a supply-and-demand graph can figure out for herself that MW causes unemployment. The notion that legislators believe it because they're clueless dupes of ALEC, rather than because they're familiar with an idea that everybody who knows anything at all about economics is familiar with, is beyond ridiculous. ALEC is not your myth meme's "problem". The "problem" is people not taking supply-and-demand denialists' word for it that it's a myth. You might as well blame the prevalence of round-earth beliefs on peddling by NASA.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, let's take Alternet's opening sentence: "A new study on the minimum wage confirms previous research that found the policy raises wages for low-income workers without reducing total employment."

Can you point out anywhere the study says a MW rise doesn't reduce total employment?

I don't have to do anything.

Nobody said you have to; I merely asked if you could. I'll take that as a "no".

It is up to the claimant that there is misrepresentation to present evidence to support their claim.

It isn't if I volunteer to do it for him. I read the study. It doesn't confirm what Alternet claimed it confirmed. Sure looks like a misrepresentation to me. If you don't regard my word on what I read as evidence, feel free to read the study yourself. It's not that long.

I have no idea how the study was done nor what the authors concluded or wrote. But I am not going to claim a website is misleading about a linked and accessible article because I don't like the viewpoint of the website.

Go you. But if you're insinuating that I or Trausti claimed it was misleading for that reason, get a clue. I know Alternet misinformed readers because I read the study. Trausti said it misinformed readers either because he read the study too or because he took my word for it. Neither of those is "because he doesn't like the viewpoint of the website".

(Moreover, even if Alternet's opinion is correct about what previous research shows, the way they phrased it is misleading, in that readers are likely to read "total employment" as "total employment of low-income workers".

It is misleading because you feel that some readers might not read the words carefully?

What's your criterion for "misleading"? Nothing that isn't literally false will mislead anybody who reads sufficiently carefully.

 

[laughing dog]

But if you're insinuating that I or Trausti claimed it was misleading for that reason, get a clue.

I insinuated Trausti made that claim for that reason. If you look at the initial post, there is no mention of you nor any quote from you.

Trausti said it misinformed readers either because he read the study too or because he took my word for it.

Your assumptions are not consistent with his actual post. Below is the relevant part

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers?

I think it is obvious from Trausti's characterization of Alternet that its politics that is driving his skepticism. There would be nor reason for him to state "If Alternet misinformed its readers" if he had actually read the study or truly believed your word.

While it is possible that Trausti was sloppy in his argument, I see no reason to presume sloppiness at this point.

What's your criterion for "misleading"?

In my view, "misleading" implies some intent to deceive.

 

[Bomb#20]

I insinuated Trausti made that claim for that reason. If you look at the initial post, there is no mention of you nor any quote from you.

So? People often assume their readers have read the same posts they have. A quarter of the responses in this thread didn't name or quote anybody else, one of them from you.

Your assumptions are not consistent with his actual post. Below is the relevant part

This thread is an example of why it's good to check your source before making an argument premised on that source. Alternet is an echo chamber for the wacky left. High skepticism should be deployed to what you read there. If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers?

I think it is obvious from Trausti's characterization of Alternet that its politics that is driving his skepticism. There would be nor reason for him to state "If Alternet misinformed its readers" if he had actually read the study or truly believed your word.

Is English perhaps not your first language? "If" has a number of uses apart from expressing uncertainty. He appears to me to have been offering up "If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers?" as an inference rule for his readers to consider adopting.

But reading Trausti's mind is a silly thing for us to argue about. Hey Trausti, did you write post #21 because of what I'd said about the study?

What's your criterion for "misleading"?

In my view, "misleading" implies some intent to deceive.

Well, that's idiolects for you. I see some of the synonyms the dictionary offers for it involve deception and some don't.

 

[laughing dog]

So? People often assume their readers have read the same posts they have. A quarter of the responses in this thread didn't name or quote anybody else, one of them from you.

The post that prompted your reply was a direct response to Trausti with no mention of you. Apparently you have difficulty reading within context.

Is English perhaps not your first language? "If" has a number of uses apart from expressing uncertainty. He appears to me to have been offering up "If Alternet misinformed its readers on the actual conclusions of this cited study, what other misinformation has it spread to its readers?" as an inference rule for his readers to consider adopting.

I see, you still having difficult reading within context. I find your first question rather ironic, since your "inference rule" as stated can still depends on the unsupported claim by Trausti of misleading.

But reading Trausti's mind is a silly thing for us to argue about.

I simply read the actual words in the post.

Hey Trausti, did you write post #21 because of what I'd said about the study?

Doesn't matter if that was the alleged basis. There is no reason to suppose you are an infallible interpreter of studies.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Only very poorly done studies show anything like that. better studies do not show that at all.

So you claim that the Census Bureau study you linked is a very poorly done study, do you? Your authors are perfectly upfront about the fact that raising minimum wages causes job losses. They even attempt to quantify it (though some data is unavailable and what they have is noisy and the error bars are large.)

When we measure earnings growth by taking the difference in log earnings between the base year and some
year in the future, this potential response would be reflected in our measure as long as an individual has
positive earnings in both years. However, some individuals do go entire years without any wage or salary
earnings, and to the extent that they do so because of changes in the minimum wage, we would want our
estimates to incorporate that response as well. Because the natural logarithm is not defined at zero, our
baseline specification excludes individuals who have zero earnings in either the base year or the year we use
to measure earnings growth and do not capture earnings changes due to full-year non-employment induced
by changes in the minimum wage.

In order to capture earnings changes arising from full years of non-employment, we re-estimate our
baseline specification with the change in earnings calculated using the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation
instead of the log transformation. The percent difference approximation associated with differences in logged
values also holds for the inverse hyperbolic sine, but the inverse hyperbolic sine has the additional benefit
of being defined at zero.
...
We also consider how increases in the minimum wage might differentially affect the probability of having
no wage and salary earnings in the years we use to assess earnings growth for people with base year earnings
at different points in the distribution. Figure 13 shows changes in the probability of having zero wage and
salary earnings one year ahead, while Figure 14 reports analogous estimates looking five years ahead. Most
of these estimates are not statistically significant, especially five years ahead, and they are relatively small in
magnitude once contextualized as in Section 4.3, but the point estimates align with the baseline and inverse
hyperbolic sine estimates in intuitive ways. Regions of the distribution in which the inverse hyperbolic
sine estimates (which incorporate observations with zero earnings for the full year) are more negative/less
positive than the baseline estimates (which do not) also tend to have higher probabilities of having no wage
and salary earnings, and vice versa.

What we have here are professional economist who present proof that MW does not create job losses. And right winged economists and out fits like the restaurant industry presenting poorly done alarmist claims. But this study demonstrates that the alarmists and conservative claims that raising MW causes job losses are false. But we knew that years ago.

What do we do when we have duelling claims like this? One looks at the results of raising MW to see what happens when we do raise MW.

The "dozens of studies" you refer to show no such thing and are not worth the paper they are written on. They amount to partisan <expletives deleted> This new study is another study that demonstrates that MW does not kill jobs.

See figures 13 & 14. Your professional economists presented quantitative evidence that MW creates lob losses. That's what having more gray below the zero line than above it in the leftmost 15% on the "Base Year Earnings Percentile" scale means. (And, as noted above, this doesn't even count the people who lose their jobs and drop permanently out of the labor force. Also, "job losses" underestimates the magnitude of the problem because it doesn't count the teenagers prevented from getting a job in the first place.)

Your own linked study demonstrates that the alarmists and conservative claims that raising MW causes job losses are true. But we knew that years ago.

The greater point is not that the buggy whip manufacturers are going to lose their jobs, but that the net impact of 'some' job loss on overall earnings growth and mobility is immaterial - particularly on the bottom 25% of earners.

It is clear from the study that increasing the minimum wage is a net positive to society and particularly the poorest in society. Is anyone going to address that or are we just going to pick at straw?

aa

 

[Bomb#20]

The greater point is not that the buggy whip manufacturers are going to lose their jobs,

That analogy is adding insult to injury. Buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs because no one was willing to buy their services. Losing your customers because you can't keep up with their evolving needs is on you. Losing your customers because the transaction was outlawed by a third party is not on you.

but that the net impact of 'some' job loss on overall earnings growth and mobility is immaterial - particularly on the bottom 25% of earners.

No. It's immaterial to some members of the bottom 25% of earners. It's highly material to other members of the bottom 25% of earners. And it's especially material to the non-earners who are poorer than the bottom 25% of earners and would like an opportunity to move up in the world by becoming part of the bottom 25% of earners.

It is clear from the study that increasing the minimum wage is a net positive to society

Who is "society"? When one and the same policy is a negative for some members of society and a positive for different members of society, who is in charge of defining whether the harm to some is outweighed by the benefit to others? Do you have some objective measurement of outweighing in mind? Or by "It is clear from the study", are you merely expressing a subjective feeling that you care more about what was done to the beneficiaries than about what was done to the victims?

and particularly the poorest in society. Is anyone going to address that

Been there, done that. You are wrong. The study says jack all about whether it's a net positive particularly to the poorest in society. There are two reasons its methods are intrinsically unable to address that issue at all. First, the results it's reporting are statistics about aggregates. The authors calculate that the Nth percentile collectively got X more money because of a minimum wage hike. That necessarily lumps together people who got Y less money with different people who got X+Y more money, for a net gain of X. It does not and cannot provide a reason to think "the poorest in society" are in the "X+Y more" subset rather than the "Y less" subset.

And second, as I noted earlier, the authors excluded from their analysis both first-time job seekers and people who lost their jobs because of the minimum wage hike and were never able to get new jobs. The study does not and cannot provide a reason to think "the poorest in society" are not in either of those groups, because it didn't look at them.

(The authors didn't give a reason for the exclusion; but presumably they excluded first-time job seekers because they weren't in the database at all, and excluded permanent job-losers because their database couldn't distinguish them from those who died, or became disabled, or left the country, or became stay-at-home moms, or...)

or are we just going to pick at straw?

Is "straw" what you call pointing out that the specific claims people have made about the study are false?

What the study provides is prima facie evidence that minimum wage hikes in the time period studied usually delivered more money to their beneficiaries than they stripped from their victims. If that had been what Alternet and CC said it showed, I wouldn't be picking. You got a problem with that?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Citing an 11 year review of the literature is not terribly convincing for two reasons. First, it necessarily ignores the literature after 2007 which is when the use of more sophisticated techniques, better research design and better data which shows the negligible effects of minimum wages. Second, even the cited blurb is not helpful since it admits that the negative effects are not always statistically significant. If minimum wage increases were as necessarily harmful as conservatives claim, one would expect strong statistically significant negative effects.

Also, we have lots of actual data showing many conservative economic and social policies have a horrendous effect on the economy, but that clearly doesn't seem to bother them, or they ignore the evidence anyway.

So basically, they once again prove they are more interested in personal profit, GOP ideology (as inconsistent as that is!) and don't really give a shit about the economy in general.

 

[bilby]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

 

[Trausti]

Raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. That's just common sense. The CBO did a study in 2014 on anticipated jobs losses for two different minimum wage increases.

While advocating an increase in the minimum wage is not unreasonable, suggesting that a jump up to $15/hr would be harmless is inexcusable ignorance. It's one of those instances where the proponents would actually be hurting those they claim to want to help. Virtue signaling uber alles.

 

[dismal]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

In every economics course I ever took supply and demand curves were continuous curves. There were no kinks or plateaus where changes had no effect.

But I can ask you the same question that went unanswered before: do you think this logic applies to all demand curves, or is there just some unknown force that makes it apply to the demand for unskilled labor?

And if, if small changes in price do not affect demand, why would any ruthless greedy business owner ever set his price at X? For any good and any price X, why wouldn't he set his price at X+(a little more)?

If I can sell just as many bananas at $1 as $1.05 why wouldn't any banana seller charge $1.05? And if I can sell just as many bananas at $1.10 as $1.05 why isn't the price $1.10? And $1.15? And $1.20? And $1.25? And eventually, why not $11,113,345,343,222.05?

 

[bilby]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

In every economics course I ever took supply and demand curves were continuous curves. There were no kinks or plateaus where changes had no effect.

But I can ask you the same question that went unanswered before: do you think this logic applies to all demand curves, or is there just some unknown force that makes it apply to the demand for unskilled labor?

And if, if small changes in price do not affect demand, why would any ruthless greedy business owner ever set his price at X? For any good and any price X, why wouldn't he set his price at X+(a little more)?

If I can sell just as many bananas at $1 as $1.05 why wouldn't any banana seller charge $1.05? And if I can sell just as many bananas at $1.10 as $1.05 why isn't the price $1.10? And $1.15? And $1.20? And $1.25? And eventually, why not $11,113,345,343,222.05?

What does this have to do with proving that someone who cannot drink Lake Superior isn't going to benefit from a glass of water, to a greater degree than the rest of us will suffer if it is provided to him?

 

[dismal]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

In every economics course I ever took supply and demand curves were continuous curves. There were no kinks or plateaus where changes had no effect.

But I can ask you the same question that went unanswered before: do you think this logic applies to all demand curves, or is there just some unknown force that makes it apply to the demand for unskilled labor?

And if, if small changes in price do not affect demand, why would any ruthless greedy business owner ever set his price at X? For any good and any price X, why wouldn't he set his price at X+(a little more)?

If I can sell just as many bananas at $1 as $1.05 why wouldn't any banana seller charge $1.05? And if I can sell just as many bananas at $1.10 as $1.05 why isn't the price $1.10? And $1.15? And $1.20? And $1.25? And eventually, why not $11,113,345,343,222.05?

What does this have to do with proving that someone who cannot drink Lake Superior isn't going to benefit from a glass of water, to a greater degree than the rest of us will suffer if it is provided to him?

Perhaps you are not familiar with economics, so allow me to introduce you to an illustration employing actual economic principles:



Note there is no reference to "Lake Superior". What there is a downward sloping demand curve that slopes downward at every point.

This is the way demand curves tend to be drawn for most everything.

You, perhaps without knowing it do to your extreme ignorance of economics, are arguing there is a kink in that curve that makes it go vertical for small increments right at the spot where the curves originally intersect (E).

That seems like one hell of a case of magickal thinking to me.

 

[bilby]

What does this have to do with proving that someone who cannot drink Lake Superior isn't going to benefit from a glass of water, to a greater degree than the rest of us will suffer if it is provided to him?

Perhaps you are not familiar with economics, so allow me to introduce you to an illustration employing actual economic principles:

View attachment 15303

Note there is no reference to "Lake Superior". What there is a downward sloping demand curve that slopes downward at every point.

This is the way demand curves tend to be drawn for most everything.

You, perhaps without knowing it do to your extreme ignorance of economics, are arguing there is a kink in that curve that makes it go vertical for small increments right at the spot where the curves originally intersect (E).

That seems like one hell of a case of magickal thinking to me.

You appear to imagine that you are somehow replying to my post; and yet you yourself admit that there is no reference in your 'reply' to what I said.

That's just weird.

 

[dismal]

What does this have to do with proving that someone who cannot drink Lake Superior isn't going to benefit from a glass of water, to a greater degree than the rest of us will suffer if it is provided to him?

Perhaps you are not familiar with economics, so allow me to introduce you to an illustration employing actual economic principles:

View attachment 15303

Note there is no reference to "Lake Superior". What there is a downward sloping demand curve that slopes downward at every point.

This is the way demand curves tend to be drawn for most everything.

You, perhaps without knowing it do to your extreme ignorance of economics, are arguing there is a kink in that curve that makes it go vertical for small increments right at the spot where the curves originally intersect (E).

That seems like one hell of a case of magickal thinking to me.

You appear to imagine that you are somehow replying to my post; and yet you yourself admit that there is no reference in your 'reply' to what I said.

That's just weird.

Got it. You prefer to remain ignorant and indulge in your biases and are willing to put in the effort.