3 ms·

The data is not conclusive. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early-returns-from-seattle-s-minimum-wage-experiment https://www.bloomberg.com/vi

by vaadu 10y ago

The data is not conclusive. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early-returns-from-seattle-s-minimum-wage-experiment https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early-ret... "The best guess is that workers who remained employed saw a quarterly increase in earnings of about $184. If you live in a low-income household, $736 a year is a substantial sum. On the other hand, if you live in a low-income household, “no wages at all” is catastrophic. Of course, these effects are likely to increase as the higher wages phase in. The earnings increases will grow, but so will the number of people who see their hours reduced or who can’t find work at all, or who have to take on a new and less attractive commute because they can no longer find a job in Seattle. We will have to wait to see whether the costs and benefits rise together, or one eclipses the other."

Argothair 10y ago
The data's not conclusive, but it's also not neutral -- the data shows that, on average, workers gained about $680 per year, even after factoring in the extra risk of unemployment. That's a much, much better result than Bloomberg and the WSJ and mainstream economists were predicting. If you ask a neoliberal economist what the effects of a minimum wage hike will be, they'll tell you that, on average, the hike will destroy wealth. So far, on average, this hike has been creating wealth. Does it make sense to wait for more than 18 months of data before rolling out a nationwide wage hike? Sure. But the results so far are good, and they support extending the wage hike to a dozen more cities so that we can collect the best data possible.