One chart shows the employment impact of Seattle minimum wage increase

[Jimmy Higgins]

The April gain of nearly 4,000 is clearly an outlier, and it would be reasonable to expect the following months to show a decline as a result.

Just by eye, it seems that the long-term mean is between 1,000 and 2,000 per month outside recessions; the May and June figures are entirely consistent with the correction of the outlier in May. There is nothing about the June figure that needs to be explained by factors other than those presented directly in the graph itself.

Check that graph again.

Translated from Loren Completely Unhelpful Speak™, you should understand that to mean, "What you think is 'April' is actually the year '2013'".

 

[ksen]

Yes, this is a really dumb argument, but typical for someone who never got beyond "basic economics".

I took graduate school economics and they never reversed that whole "when something costs more people use less of it" rule.

Your graduate school economics never covered Veblen goods?

 

[dismal]

I took graduate school economics and they never reversed that whole "when something costs more people use less of it" rule.

Your graduate school economics never covered Veblen goods?

Most basic undergrad courses would cover the rare exceptions and when they apply. That way one doesn't look like a fool trying to pretend as if they have some relevance in a discussion like this.

 

[Togo]

Your graduate school economics never covered Veblen goods?

Most basic undergrad courses would cover the rare exceptions and when they apply. That way one doesn't look like a fool trying to pretend as if they have some relevance in a discussion like this.

Wouldn't such exceptions be exactly what Nice Squirrel was talking about when you disagreed with him?

 

[dismal]

Most basic undergrad courses would cover the rare exceptions and when they apply. That way one doesn't look like a fool trying to pretend as if they have some relevance in a discussion like this.

Wouldn't such exceptions be exactly what Nice Squirrel was talking about when you disagreed with him?

If someone wants to argue fry cooks and waiters are a Veblen good feel free to give it a shot. I have never actually seen an economist of any kind make this claim. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it.

 

[Togo]

Wouldn't such exceptions be exactly what Nice Squirrel was talking about when you disagreed with him?

If someone wants to argue fry cooks and waiters are a Veblen good feel free to give it a shot.

Why would we need to? The evidence provided by Athena already shows that the job losses were mainly in other areas, if they occurred at all.

It seemed like you were talking about a basic law of economics, which, as Nice Squirrel pointed out, is an oversimplification. You then said you'd never seen the law reversed, and so were shown just such a reversal. On the basis of this, you're calling people fools?

 

[ksen]

Your graduate school economics never covered Veblen goods?

Most basic undergrad courses would cover the rare exceptions and when they apply. That way one doesn't look like a fool trying to pretend as if they have some relevance in a discussion like this.

You said this economic law is never reversed. I provided a well known example of just such reversals.

Maybe you should get a partial refund for your graduate courses since they seem to have been incomplete.

 

[dismal]

If someone wants to argue fry cooks and waiters are a Veblen good feel free to give it a shot.

Why would we need to? The evidence provided by Athena already shows that the job losses were mainly in other areas, if they occurred at all.

It seemed like you were talking about a basic law of economics, which, as Nice Squirrel pointed out, is an oversimplification. You then said you'd never seen the law reversed, and so were shown just such a reversal. On the basis of this, you're calling people fools?

Again I ask: would you like to attempt an argument that this exception applies to the current topic or should we create a separate topic for those who wish to engage in irrelevant and pointless pedantic douchebaggery?

- - - Updated - - -

Most basic undergrad courses would cover the rare exceptions and when they apply. That way one doesn't look like a fool trying to pretend as if they have some relevance in a discussion like this.

You said this economic law is never reversed. I provided a well known example of just such reversals.

Maybe you should get a partial refund for your graduate courses since they seem to have been incomplete.

I'll count that as one vote for pedantry.

 

[Togo]

Why would we need to? The evidence provided by Athena already shows that the job losses were mainly in other areas, if they occurred at all.

It seemed like you were talking about a basic law of economics, which, as Nice Squirrel pointed out, is an oversimplification. You then said you'd never seen the law reversed, and so were shown just such a reversal. On the basis of this, you're calling people fools?

Again I ask: would you like to attempt an argument that this exception applies to the current topic or should we create a separate topic for those who wish to engage in irrelevant and pointless pedantic douchebaggery?

I don't think your comments on basic laws of economics, and how they're never reversed, is pointless pedantic douchebaggery, even if they were clearly about economics in general rather than this particular case. It was just hyperbole on your part. No need to make a big fuss and call people names.

What you're arguing seems clear enough. That people using less of something as it gets more expensive is a general theme in economics, even if it's not universal. You feel that it must apply to wages, and several other people here don't. No doubt you have examples to illustrate your point. Swedish doctors and bus drivers earn far more than their Pakistani counterparts, so obviously Sweden must have fewer doctors and bus drivers per head of population than Pakistan? Or maybe large companies that pay their senior managers much higher wages, will have fewer senior executives per employee than their smaller, cheaper counterparts? I suspect what people are really looking for is evidence that, given increasing wages, companies will forgo profit in order to hire fewer people, because that behaviour, although in line with the principal you're talking about, seems quite counter-intuitive.

 

[dismal]

You feel that it must apply to wages, and several other people here don't.

Let's do a quick survey: is there anyone here who thinks that the cost of labor has literally no effect on the demand for labor?

Like, you would get just as many people willing to pay to have their yard mowed if the government fixed the price of 1 hour of lawn mowing labor at $1 or $1000?

 

[Horatio Parker]

You feel that it must apply to wages, and several other people here don't.

Let's do a quick survey: is there anyone here who thinks that the cost of labor has literally no effect on the demand for labor?

Like, you would get just as many people willing to pay to have their yard mowed if the government fixed the price of 1 hour of lawn mowing labor at $1 or $1000?

Wouldn't you need a range more like $9-15/hr?

Someone working in the West for $1/hr is effectively unemployed.

 

[dismal]

Let's do a quick survey: is there anyone here who thinks that the cost of labor has literally no effect on the demand for labor?

Like, you would get just as many people willing to pay to have their yard mowed if the government fixed the price of 1 hour of lawn mowing labor at $1 or $1000?

Wouldn't you need a range more like $9-15/hr?

Why? Does the law of demand apply to ranges outside of $9-15 but get suspended within?

Someone working in the West for $1/hr is effectively unemployed.

What does this have to do with whether someone would have more demand for the lawn mowing service or less?

If we were talking about willingness of people to supply lawn mowing service I believe you are right. Fewer people would be willing to supply it if the government fixed the price per hour for labor at $1 than $1000

 

[ksen]

Why would we need to? The evidence provided by Athena already shows that the job losses were mainly in other areas, if they occurred at all.

It seemed like you were talking about a basic law of economics, which, as Nice Squirrel pointed out, is an oversimplification. You then said you'd never seen the law reversed, and so were shown just such a reversal. On the basis of this, you're calling people fools?

Again I ask: would you like to attempt an argument that this exception applies to the current topic or should we create a separate topic for those who wish to engage in irrelevant and pointless pedantic douchebaggery?

While I admit that a thread made up entirely of your posts would be fun to read I'm not sure how useful it would actually be.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Wouldn't you need a range more like $9-15/hr?

Why? Does the law of demand apply to ranges outside of $9-15 but get suspended within?

Someone working in the West for $1/hr is effectively unemployed.

What does this have to do with whether someone would have more demand for the lawn mowing service or less?

If we were talking about willingness of people to supply lawn mowing service I believe you are right. Fewer people would be willing to supply it if the government fixed the price per hour for labor at $1 than $1000

The situation in Seattle is in this universe, not a fantasy world of your own construction.

And the effectively employed point is highly relevant. Businesses that pay less than a living wage are offloading their expenses onto the state. That's an issue that concerns everybody.

 

[dismal]

Why? Does the law of demand apply to ranges outside of $9-15 but get suspended within?

Someone working in the West for $1/hr is effectively unemployed.

What does this have to do with whether someone would have more demand for the lawn mowing service or less?

If we were talking about willingness of people to supply lawn mowing service I believe you are right. Fewer people would be willing to supply it if the government fixed the price per hour for labor at $1 than $1000

The situation in Seattle is in this universe, not a fantasy world of your own construction.

And the effectively employed point is highly relevant. Businesses that pay less than a living wage are offloading their expenses onto the state. That's an issue that concerns everybody.

So your position is the law of demand does not apply in the real world but only in fictional universes?

Have you ever been in a store and decided not to buy something because you thought the price was too high or is that the sort of thing that only happens in fictional universes too?

- - - Updated - - -

Again I ask: would you like to attempt an argument that this exception applies to the current topic or should we create a separate topic for those who wish to engage in irrelevant and pointless pedantic douchebaggery?

While I admit that a thread made up entirely of your posts would be fun to read I'm not sure how useful it would actually be.

Oooh, burn.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, this is a really dumb argument, but typical for someone who never got beyond "basic economics".

I took graduate school economics and they never reversed that whole "when something costs more people use less of it" rule.

I've priced products for retail sales (some limited wholesale) and have been in marketing a good chunk of my life and would like to know how you would like to explain value-based pricing and premium pricing (as well at these other pricing strategies) and why it is not only widely used but breaks the above rule. Please explain this phenomenon and remember to resolve the paradox that higher cost will always result in lower sales except when it clearly doesn't.

 

[ksen]

Oooh, burn.

I'm here all week.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I took graduate school economics and they never reversed that whole "when something costs more people use less of it" rule.

I've priced products for retail sales (some limited wholesale) and have been in marketing a good chunk of my life and would like to know how you would like to explain value-based pricing and premium pricing (as well at these other pricing strategies) and why it is not only widely used but breaks the above rule. Please explain this phenomenon and remember to resolve the paradox that higher cost will always result in lower sales except when it clearly doesn't.

I can think of two examples.

1) Apple
2) Peanut butter M&Ms

It costs less to make PB M&M's yet they charge more for them, Marketplace had a good story on that. And of course, Apple is more expensive than other alternatives, yet people will pay more for Apple... because it is Apple.

 

[dismal]

I've priced products for retail sales (some limited wholesale) and have been in marketing a good chunk of my life and would like to know how you would like to explain value-based pricing and premium pricing (as well at these other pricing strategies) and why it is not only widely used but breaks the above rule. Please explain this phenomenon and remember to resolve the paradox that higher cost will always result in lower sales except when it clearly doesn't.

I can think of two examples.

1) Apple
2) Peanut butter M&Ms

It costs less to make PB M&M's yet they charge more for them, Marketplace had a good story on that. And of course, Apple is more expensive than other alternatives, yet people will pay more for Apple... because it is Apple.

Erm, are you arguing that the price of peanut butter m&m's has no effect on the demand for them?

If they charge $1000 per bag they will sell as many as if they charge $.02?

Cause, you know the law of demand is about the relationship between price and quantity demanded...

- - - Updated - - -

I took graduate school economics and they never reversed that whole "when something costs more people use less of it" rule.

I've priced products for retail sales (some limited wholesale) and have been in marketing a good chunk of my life and would like to know how you would like to explain value-based pricing and premium pricing (as well at these other pricing strategies) and why it is not only widely used but breaks the above rule. Please explain this phenomenon and remember to resolve the paradox that higher cost will always result in lower sales except when it clearly doesn't.

Marketing strategies for a product not equal microeconomics.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've priced products for retail sales (some limited wholesale) and have been in marketing a good chunk of my life and would like to know how you would like to explain value-based pricing and premium pricing (as well at these other pricing strategies) and why it is not only widely used but breaks the above rule. Please explain this phenomenon and remember to resolve the paradox that higher cost will always result in lower sales except when it clearly doesn't.

I can think of two examples.

1) Apple
2) Peanut butter M&Ms

It costs less to make PB M&M's yet they charge more for them, Marketplace had a good story on that. And of course, Apple is more expensive than other alternatives, yet people will pay more for Apple... because it is Apple.

My classic example is bleach in two different labels. The one that said "household bleach" was $0.79, the one that said "deck wash" was $7.99. People still bought a greater number of bottles labeled "deck wash" for ten times the price even after being told both on the label and side-by-side demonstrations that both bottles contained the same product. Somehow the "deck wash" was better and worth the larger expense.

I've also had a couple of pallets of closeout lawn-chairs we were told to get rid at the end-of-season. We marked them down to $5. Sales trickled. So we slashed the price to $2. Sales dried up. We then marked them "$20* Now $10!" and they were gone within a few days. (The original price: $7.50)

*Legal in my state.