Seattle continues efforts to kill jobs...

Oh does it? Please post the relevant section from the study.

I'll wait.

To save you some time:

Specifically, though the actual number of hours worked by low-wage restaurant workers in Seattle increased a slight 0.1 percent from the second quarters of 2014 to 2016, the researchers’ “synthetic Seattle” model showed that if the minimum wage law hadn’t been in effect, there would have been an 11.1 percent increase in hours for those workers.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

I like dogs.

I really liked that they set Phraiser in Seattle, it was a nice change from Boston.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

That's the same article I posted earlier today.

I know, but certain individuals seem to not have noticed.

Interesting.

On the whole the working paper seems to have a couple flaws (that I'm sure will come up once it is peer reviewed).

First is methodology, only looking at small single location establishments. The majority of the low skilled labor force for restaurant work is fast food type establishments so not including them doesn't give you the full picture.

Second is more fundamental. It makes the same mistake as the teams earlier report in treating low wage work as an inherent good to be maximized. While there was less of an increase in hours* for those making less than $19/h working in single establishment restaraunts compared to 'Synthetic Seattle' the increase in those making over $19/h was higher. In general that is a good thing. Question is if that is due to replacing lower skilled and paid positions with higher killed and paid or if paying lower skilled workers more. The former can be a problem (from a labor standpoint) if there aren't alternatives for workers to gain skills. Which is why a comprehensive look that considers larger firms would be useful.

*The $125 in 'lost wages' was not an actual decrease in wages for those working in single establishment restaurants making less than $19/h. In fact take home pay increased. It's just that the authors hypothesize that these workers could have made even more in 'synthetic Seattle'.

Specifically, though the actual number of hours worked by low-wage restaurant workers in Seattle increased a slight 0.1 percent from the second quarters of 2014 to 2016, the researchers’ “synthetic Seattle” model showed that if the minimum wage law hadn’t been in effect, there would have been an 11.1 percent increase in hours for those workers.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

I think that is the heart of the matter, and it is also the point where both sides have to stop pointing to studies to make their point: Because they disagree on what outcome they want, not just on what the outcome of a minimum wage will be.

538's take on it.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that.

Any sane person wants the lowest unemployment rate possible and the most number of people having the dignity of a job as possible. Anc is the only one claiming low skilled people are better off unemployed then employed.

No, Anc is not the only person claiming that. Why are we better off with unemployed people having fake jobs that don't support them financially? Why should social support systems pay the difference between the money needed to finance a McDonald employee and the smaller sum that McDonald is prepared to pay for the service they receive? Why is it better for the unemployed person to put in eight hours a day in a back-breaking non-job for which they are paid less than they need to live, rather than receive full rather than partial support from a support system that allows them to train and get a real job instead?

Yes, I would indeed say any job is better than no job especially as low paid jobs tend to be a stepping stone to better paying jobs. Killing those jobs by government fiat just harms the lowest skilled people namely teenagers and recent immigrants.

Most of them don't even stay in those entry level jobs, they just get experience, improve their job skills, get referrences and then move up to better paying jobs. You are essentially making teens and recent immigrants unemployable and that is a horribly damaging thing just so you can foolishly feel good about yourself. Do you ever stop to wonder why so much of the EU has 20%-40% youth unemployment? Or why there are so many 30 year old "youths" who have never had a single fucking job in their entire lives? Your model is a model of failure.

Evidence needed.

I have no problem with a provision for a beginning wage, or a wage for a training position, to be lower than a general minimum wage, if the position is definitely limited and, if it's about training there is a true obligation on the employer to train. But that isn't the reality of anyone trying to survive on a low-paying job.

A person earning less than they need to survive is a person financed by the community. Who should have the benefit of the community's charity? I say let that person benefit, get some actual training, and start earning actual wages. Allowing for sub-minimum jobs means that McDonald's is financed by the community. I see no reason for that -- either they are viable at actual cost or not. Businesses that aren't can be done away with; they aren't people.

Okay, so you are agreeing that the minimum wage should be lower than what the current popular figure says? To be clear, the minimum wage IS the beginning wage, or the wage for a training position. You're making a meaningless distinction.

No, I am saying I think a law that would give the distinction meaning would be an improvement.

Yup. And I'd like to some evidence to back my belief up, and for that we need to test it out properly. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I want to see some empirical evidence of it.

As things stand automation is going to destroy jobs quicker than be created some point in the next few decades. And you can either find a way to make the economy work in that world, or watch it all burn down.

And currently minimum wages feed into high youth unemployment on this side of the Atlantic, again due easier immigration from nations with lower living standards, and is going to cause trouble at some point.

I have marked preference to walking around shit as opposed to stepping in it and then spending the next 10 minutes getting it off my shoes.

Remember that garbage hit piece defending the minimum wage increase that caused worker pay to actually go down? A certain ginger haored pister kept linking to it. Yeah, it is a completely manufactured political piece of garbage designed to muddy the waters and won't hold up for shit.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/...-leaders-worked-undermine-minimum-wage-study/

Basically, the real economic researchers at UW gave a prerelease copy to the Seattle city government and progressives who support deminished wages and opportunities for workers cooked that piece of hog wash up and rushed it out the door in an attempt to counter real research.

For the third time, pay for those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments didn't decline. Hours for those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments in real Seattle didn't increase as much as hours for those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments in 'synthetic Seattle' did.

Read the damn study.

And when you are done, please point out this counter study I've supposedly been posting a lot about.

It most certainly would have been much higher without it. More hours and more people working. Stop pretending there is no cost to this nonsense.

While I agree with what you are saying that wasn't what I was saying.

Compared to 'synthetic Seattle' the hours of those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments in real Seattle didn't increase as much as the hours for those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments in 'synthetic Seattle' did. The disparity between the increase in hours was enough that the increase in pay wasn't enough to make up the difference. So the pay for those making less than $19h working in single premise establishments in real Seattle increased $125 less than the pay for those making $19h working in single premise establishments in 'synthetic Seattle'.

HOWEVER for restaurant workers making OVER $19h working in single premise establishments in real Seattle that is flipped. Those workers saw their wages increase compared to 'synthetic Seattle'.

So less workers in single establishment restaurants making less than $19h but more workers making more than $19h. In general that is a good thing. Question is if it is due to replacing lower skilled and paid positions with higher killed and paid or if paying lower skilled workers more. The former can be a problem (from a labor standpoint) if there aren't alternatives for lower skilled workers to gain those skills. Which is why a comprehensive look that considers larger firms would be useful.

It'll be interesting reading when the article is peer reviewed and actually published. So far no one has seen it except in draft form is my guess.

Any study will have a hard time controlling for just effects on minimum wage earners. I think interviews with subjects before and after the increase would yield better data (completely subjective of course). I can't imagine UW isn't doing these for publication.

It seems the data is mixed, at best, on the effectiveness of these large minimum wage hikes.

Universal basic income FTW.

If means tested and it replaces all other welfare programs.

Not always true.

What's better: Working a backbreaking, dead-end job that leaves you with no time or energy to pursue further education or try to advance? Or putting those same hours into getting an education that will allow you to get a better job?

A sensible welfare policy would provide for the second option.

I'm sold on UBI if it's means tested and replaces all other entitlement programs.

I'm not adverse to that.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-minimum-wage-los-angeles-20170701-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/opinions/americas-jobs-problem-sachs/index.html

Another solid study on the effects of the minimum wage rise in Seattle and our poor ginger optimist will probably feel like crying. The previous studies Anc loved to quote have been torn apart as shoddy and filled with bad data. The corrected studies?

Bad, pretty much all bad with MW opponents feeling vindicated. Sorry, Anc but there really are no free rides not even in Seattle.