3 ms·
> raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015 and to $13 per hour in 2016. > we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours work
by zeteo 9y ago
> raised the minimum wage from $9.47 to $11 per hour in 2015 and to $13 per hour in 2016.
> we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs [...] while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent.
Sounds like some pretty intense statistical manipulation. The second wage increase was ~18% ($2/$11) not 3%. So they've fished for a larger pool that only had a 3% increase in wage and arbitrarily designated these as "low-wage jobs". Also very conveniently they've chosen to highlight only the second wage increase; it sounds like no data massaging could make the first one look bad. If they were honestly aiming at statistical significance the best approach was of course to bundle the two increases together. An overall 37% change in minimum wage should have much clearer effects than its individual halves.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 9y agoThat's the point of the study: the real increase in wages to workers isn't the nominal statutory increase. For example, many people in the low-wage labor market in Seattle were already making more than the minimum wage.
- zeteo 9y agoSure, but when the nominal increase is 18% and the selected group only shows 3% there's a big question about group selection. If you can cherry pick groups and variables then you can use phenomena like Simpson's paradox to prove pretty much anything with statistics.