UC San Diego - New Study Finds Minimum Wage Reduces Employment

[untermensche]

So, that's a "yes"? We do have to ignore basic economics, math and logic?

Where is "basic economics" operating in the real world?

And there is nothing logical about "basic economics". It is an elaborate justification for taking the fruits of labor from labor, nothing more.

I will concede to you, operating a system run on human greed is a horrible way to run a system. Trying to do good in the face of those who want everything for themselves is difficult.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually it is because the study takes place during the Great Recession which akin to studying the effects of global warming on ocean levels.... during a hurricane. There is way too much noise to filter out.

An honest look at the numbers seems to indicate that increase in company cost will not lead to a 1 to 1 increase in service prices.

Didn't all 50 states go through the "Great Recession"? Why would the "noise" systematically affect only those that were directly affected by the federal increase?

And, if it only affects those states, is it really "noise"?

Uh, yes. If businesses are replacing higher paying jobs across the board with lower costing employees, those states which already had in place drivers for lowest wages would be least impacted by a surge in such activity. That is states with higher minimum ages for jobs relating to federally mandated minimum rates would be disparately impacted in those federal impacted states as wages outside the mandate in those sates dropped.

 

[dismal]

Whaaa?

Figure 2 in the report.

I mean, I know you are required to ignore basic economics in this thread but must we ignore basic math and logic as well?

I'm just going by what the report shows. Unbounded states generally saw increases between '06 and '08. These increases don't particularly appear on the employment plots in Figure 3.

I'm having trouble following your argument. Have you switched from "ZMOFG Great Recession!!11!!" to "Hey, these guys got the sign wrong on their conclusion, a higher minimum wage resulted in increased employment versus the baseline"?

 

[dismal]

Didn't all 50 states go through the "Great Recession"? Why would the "noise" systematically affect only those that were directly affected by the federal increase?

And, if it only affects those states, is it really "noise"?

Uh, yes. If businesses are replacing higher paying jobs across the board with lower costing employees, those states which already had in place drivers for lowest wages would be least impacted by a surge in such activity. That is states with higher minimum ages for jobs relating to federally mandated minimum rates would be disparately impacted in those federal impacted states as wages outside the mandate in those sates dropped.

You're going to have to explain that in smaller pieces.

Let's start with a world where some states have a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage and some do not. The feds raise the minimum wage, which has the direct effect of raising the cost of labor in those states that did not have a minimum wage above the fed level beforehand, and not much direct effect at all on those states which were already above.

What do you expect to see happening to employment in the two groups of states? How does a great recession change the answer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Figure 2 in the report.

I mean, I know you are required to ignore basic economics in this thread but must we ignore basic math and logic as well?

I'm just going by what the report shows. Unbounded states generally saw increases between '06 and '08. These increases don't particularly appear on the employment plots in Figure 3.

I'm having trouble following your argument.

That much is apparent.

 

[dismal]

Figure 2 in the report.

I mean, I know you are required to ignore basic economics in this thread but must we ignore basic math and logic as well?

I'm just going by what the report shows. Unbounded states generally saw increases between '06 and '08. These increases don't particularly appear on the employment plots in Figure 3.

I'm having trouble following your argument.

That much is apparent.

Do you have any idea what your argument is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If an activity necessitates wage slavery and worker abuse, if it necessitates not paying workers 40/hours*living wage, or necessitates (total hours between jobs < 40), then there is no ethical justification for it. It is literally saying 'well, it's ok to enslave or rob people if it gives us IPhones!'

No. If it can't be done by you ethically, then you have no right to do it anyway.

NASA has detected a dinosaur killer 2 years out. The intercept missions must be launched as quickly as possible. Anyone with useful skills is going to be working 80 hr/wk or more and it's going to be a one-way mission for the crews.

By your standards it's better to die.

 

[Jarhyn]

One: you will find people willing to do work, since not everyone is as lazy or foolish as you seem to think. Two, if there's a space rock headed for us in two years as we stand now, we've already failed the falling problem.

You can't force people to work for nothing, and then expect them to step into a grave. You can't allow some people to not work and still give them access to resources because they're special (hint: they're not). you can't get around the fact that if there is work available and someone is doing it, that they deserve at least the resources to live. Paying them less isn't justified. I'd rather help the world burn than resort to global slave labor and throwing people in a meat grinder for my own benefit.

 

[fromderinside]

You're going to have to explain that in smaller pieces.

Let's start with a world where some states have a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage and some do not. The feds raise the minimum wage, which has the direct effect of raising the cost of labor in those states that did not have a minimum wage above the fed level beforehand, and not much direct effect at all on those states which were already above.

What do you expect to see happening to employment in the two groups of states? How does a great recession change the answer?

Uh, yes. If businesses are replacing higher paying jobs across the board with lower costing employees, those states which already had in place drivers for lowest wages would be least impacted by a surge in such activity. States with higher minimum wages for jobs because of federally mandated minimum rates would be disparately impacted as wages outside federal mandates in those states dropped. States with no mandates categories would have lower paying jobs initially as federal statistics show. Those states with no mandates would have wages closer to the actual minimum than would states with mandates because of job competition would force those employers outside the mandate have to increase offers to attract the best low wage employees.

Consequently competition pressure for lower wages is coupled with increased low wage job supply as companies adjust to bad conditions by replacing higher earners with lower earning ones. As the study seems to show the states with no mandate would drop less than those in the mandate states because there would be, in both cases, more supply than demand. There would also be less competition with those in mandated positions as the supply of openings increases for lower paying jobs exceeds supply of low job applicants.

Its quite simple really. Just take into account the dynamics associated with a shrinking economy with the need for businesses to remain profitable which the researcher failed to do.

 

[fromderinside]

You can't force people to work for nothing, and then expect them to step into a grave.

Yes you can. Yes you can. yes you can yest you can. First off, two kinds of slavery, social servant and laborer and fighter, put lie to both your initial contentions.

Economies only work for freed men and even then its not very likely your stated constrains apply.

Even freed men have differences in expectations, abilities, and desires. To sustain a supply of workers one needs to take into account those young working age persons as potential job fodder so societies do pay them to express their non economic aspirations and inhibitions. BTW some of them are special.

Worker don't deserve anything just because they are workers. Workers deserve to get what they accept for their work. It is often not enough to sustain one as depressions demonstrate every few years.

Your druthers are worth what you can do about them which seems, from my perspective, almost nothing.

When push comes to shove and we, as a species, are tested we'll survive because some of us have the stuff to survive and it's not druthers or righteousness that will be the stuff that gets us there.

 

[dismal]

You're going to have to explain that in smaller pieces.

Let's start with a world where some states have a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage and some do not. The feds raise the minimum wage, which has the direct effect of raising the cost of labor in those states that did not have a minimum wage above the fed level beforehand, and not much direct effect at all on those states which were already above.

What do you expect to see happening to employment in the two groups of states? How does a great recession change the answer?

Uh, yes. If businesses are replacing higher paying jobs across the board with lower costing employees, those states which already had in place drivers for lowest wages would be least impacted by a surge in such activity. States with higher minimum wages for jobs because of federally mandated minimum rates would be disparately impacted as wages outside federal mandates in those states dropped. States with no mandates categories would have lower paying jobs initially as federal statistics show. Those states with no mandates would have wages closer to the actual minimum than would states with mandates because of job competition would force those employers outside the mandate have to increase offers to attract the best low wage employees.

Consequently competition pressure for lower wages is coupled with increased low wage job supply as companies adjust to bad conditions by replacing higher earners with lower earning ones. As the study seems to show the states with no mandate would drop less than those in the mandate states because there would be, in both cases, more supply than demand. There would also be less competition with those in mandated positions as the supply of openings increases for lower paying jobs exceeds supply of low job applicants.

Its quite simple really. Just take into account the dynamics associated with a shrinking economy with the need for businesses to remain profitable which the researcher failed to do.

Huh?

Does anyone here understand this?

The researcher here compared job losses among low income employees in states that did not have a state minimum wage above the federal rate to states that did.

 

[fromderinside]

Uh, yes. If businesses are replacing higher paying jobs across the board with lower costing employees, those states which already had in place drivers for lowest wages would be least impacted by a surge in such activity. States with higher minimum wages for jobs because of federally mandated minimum rates would be disparately impacted as wages outside federal mandates in those states dropped. States with no mandates categories would have lower paying jobs initially as federal statistics show. Those states with no mandates would have wages closer to the actual minimum than would states with mandates because of job competition would force those employers outside the mandate have to increase offers to attract the best low wage employees.

Consequently competition pressure for lower wages is coupled with increased low wage job supply as companies adjust to bad conditions by replacing higher earners with lower earning ones. As the study seems to show the states with no mandate would drop less than those in the mandate states because there would be, in both cases, more supply than demand. There would also be less competition with those in mandated positions as the supply of openings increases for lower paying jobs exceeds supply of low job applicants.

Its quite simple really. Just take into account the dynamics associated with a shrinking economy with the need for businesses to remain profitable which the researcher failed to do.

Huh?

Does anyone here understand this?

The researcher here compared job losses among low income employees in states that did not have a state minimum wage above the federal rate to states that did.

There are both federally mandated and federally competitive minimum wages then. The same arguments apply. Those states that choose to not have or have a rally low minimum wage, one below the federal mandate have minimum wages nearer that which would occur when number of low wage jobs increase do to corporate downsizing job adjustments. That being so they will show less wage impact than will states who find this increase in low wage job supply decreasing employer competition for personnel like those in jobs mandated at a fixed wage. Also states in both categories will find that the jobs outside those mandated to a minimum wage will increase and wages will decrease from the mandated rates except those in lower mandated rate states will decrease less than those in higher mandated state rates. Most of this will be because of job substitution by companies cutting costs while maintaining manpower.

I see no other way to explain the increase in the availability and number of people employed (reduced joblessness rates) in low paying jobs as overall joblessness increases of 700,000 a month as the study reflects.

Its a terrible study taken at the worst time to take such measures. The study fails to control for expected transitions in the workplace relative to job category. The derivative nature of their correlation data is really suspect as others point out. I could comment on this. Since I find structural problems with the study, wage control as cost saving measure during business stress, I don't need to descend into bad statistics.

 

[dismal]

Huh?

Does anyone here understand this?

The researcher here compared job losses among low income employees in states that did not have a state minimum wage above the federal rate to states that did.

There are both federally mandated and federally competitive minimum wages then. The same arguments apply. Those states that choose to not have or have a rally low minimum wage, one below the federal mandate have minimum wages nearer that which would occur when number of low wage jobs increase do to corporate downsizing job adjustments. That being so they will show less wage impact than will states who find this increase in low wage job supply decreasing employer competition for personnel like those in jobs mandated at a fixed wage. Also states in both categories will find that the jobs outside those mandated to a minimum wage will increase and wages will decrease from the mandated rates except those in lower mandated rate states will decrease less than those in higher mandated state rates. Most of this will be because of job substitution by companies cutting costs while maintaining manpower.

I see no other way to explain the increase in the availability and number of people employed (reduced joblessness rates) in low paying jobs as overall joblessness increases of 700,000 a month as the study reflects.

Its a terrible study taken at the worst time to take such measures. The study fails to control for expected transitions in the workplace relative to job category. The derivative nature of their correlation data is really suspect as others point out. I could comment on this. Since I find structural problems with the study, wage control as cost saving measure during business stress, I don't need to descend into bad statistics.

A state can't choose to have a wage below the federal level. A state can choose to have a minimum wage above it.

This study compares the effect of increasing the federal minimum wage on employment for low income earners in the states that did not have a minimum wage above the federal level to ones that did. Both groups of states were going through the "great recession" at the time. One group of states was largely unaffected by the minimum wage increase because they already had established a higher minimum wage. The other group was affected by the minimum wage law as it took effect.

 

[fromderinside]

The researcher here compared job losses among low income employees in states that did not have a state minimum wage above the federal rate to states that did.

I'm sensing your questions are related to your inability to answer why the study fails to account for the flaws I find in the study rather than your inability to comprehend my arguments.

Why should low income job numbers improve when overall job numbers collapse?
Why should states with low minimum wages show less wage loss than states with high minimum wages?
Is there a reduction in competition for desirable employees found in high minimum wage categories in states with high minimum wage categories and with federally mandated high minimum wage categories?
Does this competition exist in states with few federal mandate jobs and low minimum wage standards?

Do you find any of these questions addressed in the study?

Why not - don't be flip?

 

[fromderinside]

There are both federally mandated and federally competitive minimum wages then. The same arguments apply. Those states that choose to not have or have a rally low minimum wage, one below the federal mandate have minimum wages nearer that which would occur when number of low wage jobs increase do to corporate downsizing job adjustments. That being so they will show less wage impact than will states who find this increase in low wage job supply decreasing employer competition for personnel like those in jobs mandated at a fixed wage. Also states in both categories will find that the jobs outside those mandated to a minimum wage will increase and wages will decrease from the mandated rates except those in lower mandated rate states will decrease less than those in higher mandated state rates. Most of this will be because of job substitution by companies cutting costs while maintaining manpower.

I see no other way to explain the increase in the availability and number of people employed (reduced joblessness rates) in low paying jobs as overall joblessness increases of 700,000 a month as the study reflects.

Its a terrible study taken at the worst time to take such measures. The study fails to control for expected transitions in the workplace relative to job category. The derivative nature of their correlation data is really suspect as others point out. I could comment on this. Since I find structural problems with the study, wage control as cost saving measure during business stress, I don't need to descend into bad statistics.

A state can't choose to have a wage below the federal level. A state can choose to have a minimum wage above it.

This study compares the effect of increasing the federal minimum wage on employment for low income earners in the states that did not have a minimum wage above the federal level to ones that did. Both groups of states were going through the "great recession" at the time. One group of states was largely unaffected by the minimum wage increase because they already had established a higher minimum wage. The other group was affected by the minimum wage law as it took effect.

The federal minimum wage only applies to federal jobs in the state. State that have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage generally have that wage for a broad number of categories beyond those mandated by federal statute. Still minimum wage is very limited even for the job categories covered by states. For instance companies with fewer than 50 employees, restaurant service employees, part time employees, employees under age 18, etc. are not covered in most states. In all we are talking about no more than 20% of minimum wage employees in low minimum wage states and no more than 40% of minimum wage employees in high minimum wage states.

You still need to address my concerns with the study as well as with the relatively higher proportion of employees covered in high minimum wage states.

Every time you spin your dreidel I find more problems with the study.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A state can't choose to have a wage below the federal level. A state can choose to have a minimum wage above it.

This study compares the effect of increasing the federal minimum wage on employment for low income earners in the states that did not have a minimum wage above the federal level to ones that did. Both groups of states were going through the "great recession" at the time. One group of states was largely unaffected by the minimum wage increase because they already had established a higher minimum wage. The other group was affected by the minimum wage law as it took effect.

The federal minimum wage only applies to federal jobs in the state. State that have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage generally have that wage for a broad number of categories beyond those mandated by federal statute. Still minimum wage is very limited even for the job categories covered by states. For instance companies with fewer than 50 employees, restaurant service employees, part time employees, employees under age 18, etc. are not covered in most states. In all we are talking about no more than 20% of minimum wage employees in low minimum wage states and no more than 40% of minimum wage employees in high minimum wage states.

You still need to address my concerns with the study as well as with the relatively higher proportion of employees covered in high minimum wage states.

Every time you spin your dreidel I find more problems with the study.

Huh about your first sentence? The federal minimum wage applies to any job unless it meets certain exceptions.

 

[KeepTalking]

A state can't choose to have a wage below the federal level. A state can choose to have a minimum wage above it.

This study compares the effect of increasing the federal minimum wage on employment for low income earners in the states that did not have a minimum wage above the federal level to ones that did. Both groups of states were going through the "great recession" at the time. One group of states was largely unaffected by the minimum wage increase because they already had established a higher minimum wage. The other group was affected by the minimum wage law as it took effect.

The federal minimum wage only applies to federal jobs in the state.

This is incorrect. The federal minimum wage applies to all jobs, with some exceptions.

 

[dismal]

The researcher here compared job losses among low income employees in states that did not have a state minimum wage above the federal rate to states that did.

I'm sensing your questions are related to your inability to answer why the study fails to account for the flaws I find in the study rather than your inability to comprehend my arguments.

Why should low income job numbers improve when overall job numbers collapse?
Why should states with low minimum wages show less wage loss than states with high minimum wages?
Is there a reduction in competition for desirable employees found in high minimum wage categories in states with high minimum wage categories and with federally mandated high minimum wage categories?
Does this competition exist in states with few federal mandate jobs and low minimum wage standards?

Do you find any of these questions addressed in the study?

Why not - don't be flip?

The are comparing the unemployment in the states that were affected by the increase in minimum wage to the ones that weren't over the same period. It is not an absolute study, it is a relative study. Unemployment in one group of states versus the other.

The states not affected by the minimum wage are effectively the control group.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm sensing your questions are related to your inability to answer why the study fails to account for the flaws I find in the study rather than your inability to comprehend my arguments.

Why should low income job numbers improve when overall job numbers collapse?
Why should states with low minimum wages show less wage loss than states with high minimum wages?
Is there a reduction in competition for desirable employees found in high minimum wage categories in states with high minimum wage categories and with federally mandated high minimum wage categories?
Does this competition exist in states with few federal mandate jobs and low minimum wage standards?

Do you find any of these questions addressed in the study?

Why not - don't be flip?

The are comparing the unemployment in the states that were affected by the increase in minimum wage to the ones that weren't over the same period. It is not an absolute study, it is a relative study. Unemployment in one group of states versus the other.

The states not affected by the minimum wage are effectively the control group.

From my issues above a really bad control group. Different parameters for wage movement; taken during time when stability of group can't be assumed. This is getting tiresome. If you continue to repeat yourself nothing will be forthcoming.

 

[dismal]

The are comparing the unemployment in the states that were affected by the increase in minimum wage to the ones that weren't over the same period. It is not an absolute study, it is a relative study. Unemployment in one group of states versus the other.

The states not affected by the minimum wage are effectively the control group.

From my issues above a really bad control group. Different parameters for wage movement; taken during time when stability of group can't be assumed. This is getting tiresome. If you continue to repeat yourself nothing will be forthcoming.

I repeat myself because you don't appear to understand what this study is about (or how minimum wage laws work in this country) and it seem relatively pointless to have a discussion about them until we establish the basics.

In any case, the study found that in states where the new federal minimum wage law was binding (i.e., those states that did not already have a minimum wage above the law) the increase in the minimum wage decreased low wage employment by about (edit) 6% versus those that already had a minimum wage in effect above the federal level.

I'm not sure if any of your objections have any bearing on that.

We next estimate the minimum wage’s effects on employment. We find that increases
in the minimum wage significantly reduced the employment of low-skilled workers.
By the second year following the $7.25 minimum’s implementation, we estimate that
targeted workers’ employment rates had fallen by 6 percentage points (8 percent) more
in bound states than in unbound states.