Seattle continues efforts to kill jobs...

That opinion piece simple cites the UW working paper.

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/

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/weird-twist-seattle-minimum-wage-experiment.html/

Much of it just repeats what we already knew, that real academic research shows the minimum wage has resulted in fewer jobs and less hours worked than would otherwise be the case, but some of the new info is how the qctivist controlled City Council in Seattle revoled funding for the UW study the second the results weren't what they wanted to here and how they forum shopped for "studies" which would give them the results they wanted even if those supposed studies could not pass academic review.

And then there's this.

When the real study told them what they didn't want to hear it was time for a fake rigged "study" to muddy the waters. But the Ancs of the world eat it up.

Why is the Berkley study rigged and the UW working paper real?

Please cite your issues with the Berkley study. Below are some issues with the UW one.

Please counter them when you have a moment.

On the whole the UW 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/

Read the link. They specifically ahopped to a person with a history of giving people the results they request.

What specifically do you object to about the actual Berkley study (aside from the results)?

For example, here are my thoughts on the UW working paper:

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/

Now, you go do something like that for the Berkley study and/or explain what I get wrong in my critique.

for those interested, here's the forbes article that FreeBeacon references. This links to a zip file download with the "smoking" emails and Berkeley study (it's not that hot). Here is the direct link:
https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Seattle-FOIA.zip

From the report's title page: "This report was prepared at the request of the Office of the Mayor of Seattle."

Here is the abstract from Berkeley:

Without dropping into partisan bickering, I think it is still premature to draw any conclusions from the UW study or the Berkeley report.

Interesting, that Ankles "Thank You!"ed this, given how quick he was to draw conclusions from the Berkeley report.

[edited for brevity and clarity. ]

This is where I point out that Forbes Sites is their open blogging platform. Nothing on that page is an actual Forbes article. The author of that 'smoking gun' (which as you say was much ado about nothing) blog post was the head of an anti-minimum wage think tank.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Policies_Institute

Over the past decade, Seattle has added 220,000 jobs, an increase of nearly 15 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...e-handle-its-success/546053/?utm_source=atltw

Is @Ancalagon still lying and pretending he cannot read links even after thry have been posted over and over and over again by multiple posters?

Why are you so stupid? We are talking about how changes in the minimum wage effect people who work for low wages. Your libk has nothing to do with that. Yeah, it is nice lots of tech workers got jobs but they earn well above the minimum wage and so are not the ones who saw their hours cut, numb nuts.

The very fact that you keep posting red herrings show you know you were wrong but are such a tiny man you are unable to admit it despite clear evidence.

But restaurateurs now face a real wage-related crisis: a shortage of workers, here and nationwide. Job sites like Poached are sellers’ markets, with hundreds of openings — sometimes in desperate all-caps — for bartenders, line cooks, dishwashers and more. Some local chefs report that to even have a chance of hiring someone, starting wages must exceed the minimum.
....
These chefs aren’t delusional: By the measure of the state Employment Security Department, the demand for food-service workers in Seattle-King County exceeded the supply by an alarming 3,357 jobs in August.

https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/seattles-crazy-restaurant-boom/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-gone-too-far/

And yet when introduced the average monthly earnings and hours worked by those workers effected actually declined. Look, it is nice that a strong tech sector, which is not effected by the minimum wage hike, can help the over all economy but there is no question that the hike in MW harmed worker's earnings and number of hours worked. Today, total employment, the number of hours worked, and toral earnings are lower than they other wise would have been. Fact.

No.

No. For literally the eighth fucking time you fucking moron earnings and hours went up.

Read. The. Fucking. Working. Paper. Before. Posting. Yet. Another. Article. Referencing. It.

Again:

The $125 in 'lost wages' was not an actual decrease in wages for those making less than $19/h working in single establishment restaurants. 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/

Now that simulation was just that, a simulation. We have actual facts on the ground that show actual wages for new hires in restaurants have increased above the minimum wage and even then there is a worker shortage of >3k.

Try and wrap your alcohol pickled mind around that. Above minimum wage. Worker shortage.

How could there be more hours out there in a simulated Seattle when there aren't enough workers to work the hours in this one?

Liar. I have posted links to actual studies and all you have posted is wishful thinking, moron.

Yes, the creation of high paying tech jobs did, eventually, increase total demand but you are STILL lower than it other wise would be. Also the claim of a shortage is a joke when total work place participation is still down. Yes, without question total demand is lower than it would be without the MW increase, fewer total hours are being worked then otherwise would be the case, and there are fewer total jobs. Facts, and no amount of your lies will change those facts.

Damn, you are stupid. Truly stupid and in denial. You know when you have to resort to lying that you are lost. You are lost and that would just be pathetic if you were not harming the very people you claimed to be helping. Hint: You are not helping them.

No.

No.

No.

You haven't linked to a 'study'. You have linked to about 9 different blogs and articles that used the UW Minimum Wage Study's 2016 working paper as a source. And you then misinterpreted the data. Your booze addled mind can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the 'loss' of hours was only in comparison with a synthetic Seattle. Here's the link to the Seattle times I've shared with you already.

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'll help you out and give you an example of linking to an actual source. Here is a link to the actual working paper.

https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/w23532.pdf
(notice the URL and how it isn't to Billy Bob's Blog)

Go to Table 3: Employment Statistics for Seattle’s Locatable Establishments on page 41
On the X Axis go over to Total Hours (thousands), Hourly Wage Rates, Under $19
On the Y Axis scroll down to Panel B: Food and Drinking Places (NAICS 722)
Compare 2014.3 to 2016.3

2014.3: 7,229
2016.3: 7,236

Now please Mr. Big Brain, tell us which is bigger: 7,229 or 7,236?

Common Core math says 7,229.

Poor, @Ancalagon. He has had a complete break from reality and is now barking at the moon. Someone should lock him in a padded cell.

I count not less than four times the study has been linked by not less than three posters. The shit stain @Ancalagon is so stupid and delusional he keeps lying thinking that might help him. Just stop lying already, you dumb ass, it is pathetic and transparent.

Y'know, the fact that @Ancalagon actually lives in Seattle and you, @Dinner, live in bumfuck (ha!*) San Diego, I'd wager that Anc knows the situation in Seattle better than you. Looking at it from a Portlander's perspective, Seattle has a lot going for it, to the point that Portland wishes it were Seattle outside of the sales tax (because fuck sales tax) and the Sounders (fuck the Sounders -- Timbers are where it's at!!!**).
Seattle adopts a $15/hr min wage? Shit, Oregon's gonna get on that -- it's going to $15/hr in the metro areas and $12.50 in rural Oregon by what, 2019? something like that, because I can't recall the specifics. Point is, Oregon was moreless leading the show, then Seattle stepped up and showed us all how it's done and got Oregon's panties in a twist so we're stepping up our game in response.
And here's the thing -- If I'm making $13.50 at 40 hrs/week at one then get a job at $15/hr, why the fuck would I work 40/hrs a week when I can work 30 hrs /week and take home the same pay, thus maintaining the same lifestyle I had at my previous job? Sure, I could work 40 hrs/week and take home more money, but is it worth it when the details of the job sucks more -- AND I can take city mandated sick pay when the bs gets near a boiling point?
It comes down to this: Seattle is not in the dire position that everyone outside of Seattle wants it to be in. It turns out that paying something closer to living wages benefits everyone as a whole, save for the employers who are suddenly finding themselves with unfilled positions as opposed to hours not being filled by corporate mandate to 'save money'***.

*Honestly, San Diego sounds like an awesome place to live, climate wise.
**Seattle has an NBA team, right? I mean, I can't remember who they are, despite the Trail Blazers not having a great year since the Sabonis-Pippen-Stoudamire run way back when...
***Fred Meyer (read: Kroger) has the idea that if they cut back on hours, their employees will work harder. Well, in Portland, there's mandated sick pay. The employees can effectively tell Corporate to fuck themselves this way, while making shit harder for coworkers and customers. Truly, Corporate are run by absolute morons.

I'm guessing you're waking up and cursing life right about now. Take two Excedrin and chug a Pedialite. Then shuffle down to brunch and get some hair in ya.

Must have been closed-one-eye-to-read-screen blotto last night. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the above post.

Once you've done that, read the below and tell me which of the following you aren't able to grasp and then I'll break it down using more but smaller words:

1) The 'study' is a multi-year multi-faceted program run under the UW's Evans School of Public Policy. Here is the link to its page:
https://evans.uw.edu/policy-impact/minimum-wage-study

2) What you keep calling 'the study' and have posted multiple blog posts and articles referencing is actually a Working Paper produced as part of the above Minimum Wage Study called:
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES, WAGES, AND LOW-WAGE EMPLOYMENT: EVIDENCE FROM SEATTLE
Ekaterina Jardim Mark C. Long Robert Plotnick Emma van Inwegen Jacob Vigdor Hilary Wething
Working Paper 23532 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 June 2017

3) That if you go to the working paper, on page 41 there is a table labeled Table 3: Employment Statistics for Seattle’s Locatable Establishments

4) That on the X Axis under Total Hours (thousands), Hourly Wage Rates, Under $19
and on the Y Axis down to Panel B: Food and Drinking Places (NAICS 722) the 2014.3 and 2016.3 numbers are 7,229 and 7,236 respectfully

5) That Q3 2014 is before Q3 2016

6) That 7,229 < 7,236

Which one or more of the above is your hangover clouded little mind having a hard wrapping itself around?

No, I didn't drink anything, thank you, and you acting like a cunt won't change the fact that you are still fucking wrong. Yes, there are indeed fewer low paid jobs, less hours worked, and less wages earned then otherwise would be the case if there was no minimum wage increase.

That is just reality. Try to accept it.

Totally a side note, but it is fitting that this kind of evidence based deep dive is being conducted under Evans' name.

Dan Evans was the last Republican Governor to be reelected in Washington State. He is widely respected by both parties and was one of the last of the actual 'better government' Republicans. In the 70s he reformed the State's public employee (used by local gov as well) pension system which is why we are one of the most fiscally sound states in the nation. He also established our Community College system (all areas of the state should have access to higher ed) and our Department of Ecology. The later was used by WA Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson as the basis for his legislation establishing the Federal EPA. It's weird that Nixon gets credit when it was passed with veto proof majorities in both houses. Not like he had much of a choice.

HEY!

A breakthrough!

Okay, so we agree that based on the evidence in the working paper, workers in single establishment restaurants making less than $19 saw both their wages and hours increase during the period studied?

Once we've established that we can agree on the basic facts we can move on to other issues, but I really can't go any further as long as you think you are entitled to your own facts because you 'feel' they are correct.

What part of "than they otherwise would be if the minimum wage had not been raised" is giving you trouble? Tell us where your major malfunction is occuring.

Are you denying that at 1:38 p.m. yesterday you stated:

And yet when introduced the average monthly earnings and hours worked by those workers effected actually declined.

I just want to be clear that you agree the above statement is wrong. If you can't acknowledge reality when presented with facts and data then it isn't worth my time to continue to try and help you.