3 ms·

"employment overall did not change" "The number of workers making over $19 an hour increased abruptly" This is the bad news.

rayiner 9y ago
No, this is the bad news: > 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.
- blacksqr 9y ago
  "Congratulations, you now have a much greater opportunity to increase your wages if you improve your skills!" "No thanks, I prefer to keep my skills low, so the politicians have screwed me."
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > were commissioned by the city. We'll see if the city ever commissions them again!
Shivetya 9y ago
the number of hours worked is dropping, that is bad. plus the need for low wage skill sets is dropping, that is bad too. total payrolls have fallen to where some are impacted more than a hundred dollars a month, loss.
kevinnk 9y ago
"the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum." This is the bad news.
- soperj 9y ago
  But they worked significantly less hours. No telling if they were able to then get a second job and make significantly more, or if they were fine with the $125 a month less and just got to use their time not at work for what they wanted to do.
- andrewla 9y ago
  I can't seem to find the underlying paper, but statistics can be deceiving -- if the pool of "low-wage" workers was reduced because some of them, due to the boost provided by the minimum wage increase, became "medium-wage" workers, then this statement might not have a negative meaning. It does not appear that the survey involved has the degree of resolution to make the statement that "the individuals comprising the pool of low-wage workers earned $125/month less on average after the change", then it is problematic, but it is far from clear that this is what the study says. The GP's quote seems to capture the only hard data given -- that employers employed as many people at higher wages as they unemployed at the lower wage, meaning a net increase in wages paid by employers given that unemployment did not change.
  - kevinnk 9y ago
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu... Total payroll fell, so your explanation is not consistent with the data.
    - andrewla 9y ago
      Thanks -- that was enough information to lead me to [1], which is one of the author's PDF of the paper to avoid the paywall. Here's the initial justification for the $19 bucket: > While the preponderance of evidence suggests that a low-wage threshold slightly above the statutory minimum poses little risk of miscoding jobs as lost when they have really been promoted to higher wage levels, in our preferred specifications we report findings based on a relatively conservative $19 threshold. The $19 threshold is roughly twice the initial value of the minimum wage, a level beyond which cascading effects are less likely to occur. And here's the payroll falling statement (from the abstract): > Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. Table 3 contains more of the breakdown, but does not refute my point -- the assumption about the threshold and mobility around that is not obvious, and the "reduction in payroll" only makes sense if we restrict the payroll changes to just $19 and hour or lower, the exact thing that I am pointing out as potentially a bad assumption. Under the alternative model, payroll reduced for that group of jobs (less that $19/hour) because that payroll was still spent (potentially on the same people) but at a higher wage class. [1] https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...

rayiner 9y ago

No, this is the bad news: > 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.

blacksqr 9y ago
"Congratulations, you now have a much greater opportunity to increase your wages if you improve your skills!" "No thanks, I prefer to keep my skills low, so the politicians have screwed me."
WalterBright 9y ago
> were commissioned by the city. We'll see if the city ever commissions them again!

Shivetya 9y ago

the number of hours worked is dropping, that is bad. plus the need for low wage skill sets is dropping, that is bad too. total payrolls have fallen to where some are impacted more than a hundred dollars a month, loss.

kevinnk 9y ago

"the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum." This is the bad news.

soperj 9y ago
But they worked significantly less hours. No telling if they were able to then get a second job and make significantly more, or if they were fine with the $125 a month less and just got to use their time not at work for what they wanted to do.
andrewla 9y ago
I can't seem to find the underlying paper, but statistics can be deceiving -- if the pool of "low-wage" workers was reduced because some of them, due to the boost provided by the minimum wage increase, became "medium-wage" workers, then this statement might not have a negative meaning. It does not appear that the survey involved has the degree of resolution to make the statement that "the individuals comprising the pool of low-wage workers earned $125/month less on average after the change", then it is problematic, but it is far from clear that this is what the study says. The GP's quote seems to capture the only hard data given -- that employers employed as many people at higher wages as they unemployed at the lower wage, meaning a net increase in wages paid by employers given that unemployment did not change.
- kevinnk 9y ago
  http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu... Total payroll fell, so your explanation is not consistent with the data.
  - andrewla 9y ago
    Thanks -- that was enough information to lead me to [1], which is one of the author's PDF of the paper to avoid the paywall. Here's the initial justification for the $19 bucket: > While the preponderance of evidence suggests that a low-wage threshold slightly above the statutory minimum poses little risk of miscoding jobs as lost when they have really been promoted to higher wage levels, in our preferred specifications we report findings based on a relatively conservative $19 threshold. The $19 threshold is roughly twice the initial value of the minimum wage, a level beyond which cascading effects are less likely to occur. And here's the payroll falling statement (from the abstract): > Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. Table 3 contains more of the breakdown, but does not refute my point -- the assumption about the threshold and mobility around that is not obvious, and the "reduction in payroll" only makes sense if we restrict the payroll changes to just $19 and hour or lower, the exact thing that I am pointing out as potentially a bad assumption. Under the alternative model, payroll reduced for that group of jobs (less that $19/hour) because that payroll was still spent (potentially on the same people) but at a higher wage class. [1] https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...