17 ms·

Convenient of this article to ignore that the Berkley study only looked at food service workers while the UW study looked at a much wider range of jobs than pre

by ared38 9y ago

Convenient of this article to ignore that the Berkley study only looked at food service workers while the UW study looked at a much wider range of jobs than previous studies. I'm sickened by my "pro science" party rushing to ignore results that don't agree with our ideological intuitions. Obviously the UW study has flaws. Let's give economists a little time to figure out WHY the results are so different from previous studies before we draw any conclusions.

peterjlee 9y ago
*Berkeley
ender7 9y ago
If both studies are so flawed, it seems indefensible to draw _any_ conclusions right now.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Maybe if you limit your scope to this single event. There is a large body of prior evidence and theory to suggest that disemployment was likely to occur from such a large increase in the minimum wage, so I don't think it's really proper to act as though two studies represents our entire universe of human knowledge about these sorts of policy changes.
  - surfmike 9y ago
    The studies on that are mixed (see Card/Kreuger). But it's worth noting that the UW study was able to explain the results of previous studies that showed no effect on employment: those studies did not have access to info about hourly wages and hours/week.
cwyers 9y ago
The UW study was actually able to duplicate the results of previous studies, and had an explanation of why the results were different -- previous studies haven't actually known what wages people were getting and what hours they were working. This study did. Much better data gives you the ability to ask better questions. There are still possible flaws with the UW study, but the UW study addresses many criticisms in advance, and is much more worth a read than this WaPo article.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  will be curious is this pro article gets flagged off as fast as the previous story which wasn't supportive. last i checked the UW was requested by the city and journalist and .gov email addressed users all have access to the study, so this claim that its not available is the first indication the WAPO article is nothing more than predisposed piece, meaning they had an outcome and went searching for support of it. the ideology of WAPO is well known so any other result than this could not occur
  - rory096 9y ago
    WaPo posted a descriptive article on the UW study days ago.[0] The OP is an op-ed by a member of a left-leaning think tank in a section called "PostEverything Perspective," described as "Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences." Let's not make accusations of media bias without any basis at all. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.cded324bd79c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-s...
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      It isn't media bias, it is bay area hacker news "I'll flag articles that don't agree with my worldview and upvote those that do" bias.
  - Aron 9y ago
    I have the same question. The WaPo article that described the results of the study (not good for minimum wage progressives) got flagged rapidly. Articles since attempting to counter the story happily remain.
    - cwyers 9y ago
      Do you still have the link to that thread? I'm curious to see how the discussion went before the thread got flagged.
downandout 9y ago
Agreed. The facts borne out by the University of Washington study are what they are. The counterpoints in this article appear weak, and designed to support a specific political point of view held by the Washington Post and many of its readers. They are essentially saying that the Berkley study used a different methodology, and that they like the Berkley methodology better (because it produced results they agree with). Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism, and it is irresponsible. It's done by both sides, and has helped create the dismal state of political discourse in the US.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  > Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism This is in the opinion section.
  - downandout 9y ago
    True, but it's interesting that the headline doesn't say "Opinion:..." like most publications of this stature do. This author made a statement of fact in his headline, and proceeds to justify it with an incredibly biased opinion.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      Mouse over "Perspective" at the top of the page and you will see: "Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - downandout 9y ago
        Again, how many people are doing this? Most people read the article and headline and move on with their day. WaPo allowed this guy to make a statement of fact in his headline with zero indication that it was an opinion.
        9y ago
crdoconnor 9y ago
>I'm sickened by my "pro science" party rushing to ignore results that don't agree with our ideological intuitions. It's possible it's valid, just as it was possible that all those studies that cast doubt on global warming were valid. Both are, of course, are very profit friendly results.
redthrowaway 9y ago
>Convenient of this article to ignore that the Berkley study only looked at food service workers while the UW study looked at a much wider range of jobs than previous studies. And the UW study was consistent with the Berkley study--for food service workers. It appears food service workers really weren't hurt by the increase, but non food service workers were.
lend000 9y ago
Exactly -- economics is a science. I don't pretend that the world is perfectly modeled by classical macroeconomic laws, but the burden of proof is on the pro-minimum wage camp to disprove the laws of supply and demand in this situation (labor market), rather than the other way around. If you are not familiar with what classical economic laws would suggest about a minimum price control on labor (minimum wage), it would 1. reduce the demand for labor 2. create deadweight loss (net value changing hands decreases) The politicization and down-voting of ideas that people (particularly liberals, in this case) disagree with has a chilling effect. As Warren Buffett says, the human mind is best at interpreting all information such that prior conclusions remains intact.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  I agree with your point about burden of proof, but economics is not a science. Setting aside economics and science, common sense demands the burden of proof go to those who say raising wages won't decrease demand.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    Maybe, or maybe common sense says the burden of proof go to those who say increased consumer purchasing power won't increase demand. Maybe common sense demands thats businesses won't pay for more employee hours than they have to in the first place and thus demand only decreases if overall revenue decreases. I mean just saying "common sense" is as usual a way of pretending that your own biases are obviously correct.
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  Not sure why you're being down-voted. It's of course disingenuous (and insane) to say that raising the minimum wage will not cause deadweight loss. Everyone needs to understand that raising prices of almost anything will reduce the amount of that thing demanded. When price goes up, people buy less. Wages are just price and labor is a thing that people buy. The more complicated issue, which democrats and republicans both ignore, is the elasticity of demand. Democrats love saying "Minimum wage increases are good, and they've been proven not to affect the demand for low-wage labor!" and republicans say "Minimum wage increases are bad, and they've been proven to increase unemployment!" The real question is not if demand for labor will decrease (it will), the question is how much less low-wage labor will be purchased with a certain increase in the minimum wage, and whether policymakers consider this tradeoff good. http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf
nemo44x 9y ago
> I'm sickened by my "pro science" party They aren't any more "pro-science" as any other party. For instance, it's notable how the science of biology has been excluded from women's and gender studies university programs for many years now. Like any other political group they will use what they can to advance an agenda with whatever tools are out there. If they need science for one argument they'll use it while conveniently avoiding it for others. If you need "morality" for one you use it when convenient and avoid when not. It's all politics that do this unfortunatly.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  The "the science of biology" is also excludes from physics, computer science, languages, classics, English, political science, etc. What's your point? Are you implying that an academic field that studies the gender constructs of society is somehow intrinsically anti-science?
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    I'm just saying social constructionism isn't science but portrays itself as science. Biology is _specifically_ left out of the conversation on purpose because it conflicts with the theory. The theories found in a women's or gender studies course would be more valuable if they included relevant hard science instead of purposefully avoiding it. Just like how an EE program utilizes relevant sciences. Or linguists for another example. I'm not a disgruntled person crack-potting here. This is a complaint of many highly regarded people who spend considerable time studying and critiquing these disciplines. Camille Paglia comes to mind.
    - ch4s3 9y ago
      Paglia mostly seems to argue that the current state of the field is too abstract, which strikes me as being similar to Computer Scientists complaining about the lack of focus on electrical engineering. She also seems to spend a lot of time and words just calling people smug. I'm not really up on the literature, but I don't see an inherent problem in focusing on abstract and high level ideas. I'm also not sure that biology offers much insight into the way society constructs gender roles. Even Paglia who you cite only seems to use biology to describe a theory for the underlying causes of sexual coercion.
monocasa 9y ago
I at least am skeptical of their claims mainly because there's a very well established case of publication bias in the space of the effects of minimum wage increases. [PDF Warning] https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lweab/Doucougliagos%20&%20Stanley%20Publication%20Selection%20Bias%20in%20Min%20Wage%20Research-A%20Metaregression%20Analysis.pdf https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lweab/Doucougliagos%20&%20Stan...
jjtheblunt 9y ago
which party is "pro science"?
bsder 9y ago
If your data isn't available, you're going to get these kinds of critiques. With the data available, people could see how strong the various effects are and how much "p-hacking" it is susceptible to.
MaysonL 9y ago
See, for example, this: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-market-and-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-increase-data-limitations-and-methodological-problems-bias-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/ http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-m...

by ared38 9y ago

peterjlee 9y ago

*Berkeley

ender7 9y ago

If both studies are so flawed, it seems indefensible to draw _any_ conclusions right now.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Maybe if you limit your scope to this single event. There is a large body of prior evidence and theory to suggest that disemployment was likely to occur from such a large increase in the minimum wage, so I don't think it's really proper to act as though two studies represents our entire universe of human knowledge about these sorts of policy changes.
- surfmike 9y ago
  The studies on that are mixed (see Card/Kreuger). But it's worth noting that the UW study was able to explain the results of previous studies that showed no effect on employment: those studies did not have access to info about hourly wages and hours/week.

cwyers 9y ago

The UW study was actually able to duplicate the results of previous studies, and had an explanation of why the results were different -- previous studies haven't actually known what wages people were getting and what hours they were working. This study did. Much better data gives you the ability to ask better questions. There are still possible flaws with the UW study, but the UW study addresses many criticisms in advance, and is much more worth a read than this WaPo article.

Shivetya 9y ago
will be curious is this pro article gets flagged off as fast as the previous story which wasn't supportive. last i checked the UW was requested by the city and journalist and .gov email addressed users all have access to the study, so this claim that its not available is the first indication the WAPO article is nothing more than predisposed piece, meaning they had an outcome and went searching for support of it. the ideology of WAPO is well known so any other result than this could not occur
- rory096 9y ago
  WaPo posted a descriptive article on the UW study days ago.[0] The OP is an op-ed by a member of a left-leaning think tank in a section called "PostEverything Perspective," described as "Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences." Let's not make accusations of media bias without any basis at all. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.cded324bd79c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-s...
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    It isn't media bias, it is bay area hacker news "I'll flag articles that don't agree with my worldview and upvote those that do" bias.
- Aron 9y ago
  I have the same question. The WaPo article that described the results of the study (not good for minimum wage progressives) got flagged rapidly. Articles since attempting to counter the story happily remain.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    Do you still have the link to that thread? I'm curious to see how the discussion went before the thread got flagged.

downandout 9y ago

Agreed. The facts borne out by the University of Washington study are what they are. The counterpoints in this article appear weak, and designed to support a specific political point of view held by the Washington Post and many of its readers. They are essentially saying that the Berkley study used a different methodology, and that they like the Berkley methodology better (because it produced results they agree with). Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism, and it is irresponsible. It's done by both sides, and has helped create the dismal state of political discourse in the US.

tanderson92 9y ago
> Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism This is in the opinion section.
- downandout 9y ago
  True, but it's interesting that the headline doesn't say "Opinion:..." like most publications of this stature do. This author made a statement of fact in his headline, and proceeds to justify it with an incredibly biased opinion.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    Mouse over "Perspective" at the top of the page and you will see: "Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - downandout 9y ago
      Again, how many people are doing this? Most people read the article and headline and move on with their day. WaPo allowed this guy to make a statement of fact in his headline with zero indication that it was an opinion.
      - 9y ago

crdoconnor 9y ago

>I'm sickened by my "pro science" party rushing to ignore results that don't agree with our ideological intuitions. It's possible it's valid, just as it was possible that all those studies that cast doubt on global warming were valid. Both are, of course, are very profit friendly results.

redthrowaway 9y ago

>Convenient of this article to ignore that the Berkley study only looked at food service workers while the UW study looked at a much wider range of jobs than previous studies. And the UW study was consistent with the Berkley study--for food service workers. It appears food service workers really weren't hurt by the increase, but non food service workers were.

lend000 9y ago

Exactly -- economics is a science. I don't pretend that the world is perfectly modeled by classical macroeconomic laws, but the burden of proof is on the pro-minimum wage camp to disprove the laws of supply and demand in this situation (labor market), rather than the other way around. If you are not familiar with what classical economic laws would suggest about a minimum price control on labor (minimum wage), it would 1. reduce the demand for labor 2. create deadweight loss (net value changing hands decreases) The politicization and down-voting of ideas that people (particularly liberals, in this case) disagree with has a chilling effect. As Warren Buffett says, the human mind is best at interpreting all information such that prior conclusions remains intact.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
I agree with your point about burden of proof, but economics is not a science. Setting aside economics and science, common sense demands the burden of proof go to those who say raising wages won't decrease demand.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Maybe, or maybe common sense says the burden of proof go to those who say increased consumer purchasing power won't increase demand. Maybe common sense demands thats businesses won't pay for more employee hours than they have to in the first place and thus demand only decreases if overall revenue decreases. I mean just saying "common sense" is as usual a way of pretending that your own biases are obviously correct.
tuna-piano 9y ago
Not sure why you're being down-voted. It's of course disingenuous (and insane) to say that raising the minimum wage will not cause deadweight loss. Everyone needs to understand that raising prices of almost anything will reduce the amount of that thing demanded. When price goes up, people buy less. Wages are just price and labor is a thing that people buy. The more complicated issue, which democrats and republicans both ignore, is the elasticity of demand. Democrats love saying "Minimum wage increases are good, and they've been proven not to affect the demand for low-wage labor!" and republicans say "Minimum wage increases are bad, and they've been proven to increase unemployment!" The real question is not if demand for labor will decrease (it will), the question is how much less low-wage labor will be purchased with a certain increase in the minimum wage, and whether policymakers consider this tradeoff good. http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf

nemo44x 9y ago

> I'm sickened by my "pro science" party They aren't any more "pro-science" as any other party. For instance, it's notable how the science of biology has been excluded from women's and gender studies university programs for many years now. Like any other political group they will use what they can to advance an agenda with whatever tools are out there. If they need science for one argument they'll use it while conveniently avoiding it for others. If you need "morality" for one you use it when convenient and avoid when not. It's all politics that do this unfortunatly.

ch4s3 9y ago
The "the science of biology" is also excludes from physics, computer science, languages, classics, English, political science, etc. What's your point? Are you implying that an academic field that studies the gender constructs of society is somehow intrinsically anti-science?
- nemo44x 9y ago
  I'm just saying social constructionism isn't science but portrays itself as science. Biology is _specifically_ left out of the conversation on purpose because it conflicts with the theory. The theories found in a women's or gender studies course would be more valuable if they included relevant hard science instead of purposefully avoiding it. Just like how an EE program utilizes relevant sciences. Or linguists for another example. I'm not a disgruntled person crack-potting here. This is a complaint of many highly regarded people who spend considerable time studying and critiquing these disciplines. Camille Paglia comes to mind.
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    Paglia mostly seems to argue that the current state of the field is too abstract, which strikes me as being similar to Computer Scientists complaining about the lack of focus on electrical engineering. She also seems to spend a lot of time and words just calling people smug. I'm not really up on the literature, but I don't see an inherent problem in focusing on abstract and high level ideas. I'm also not sure that biology offers much insight into the way society constructs gender roles. Even Paglia who you cite only seems to use biology to describe a theory for the underlying causes of sexual coercion.

monocasa 9y ago

I at least am skeptical of their claims mainly because there's a very well established case of publication bias in the space of the effects of minimum wage increases. [PDF Warning] https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lweab/Doucougliagos%20&%20Stanley%20Publication%20Selection%20Bias%20in%20Min%20Wage%20Research-A%20Metaregression%20Analysis.pdf https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lweab/Doucougliagos%20&%20Stan...

jjtheblunt 9y ago

which party is "pro science"?

bsder 9y ago

If your data isn't available, you're going to get these kinds of critiques. With the data available, people could see how strong the various effects are and how much "p-hacking" it is susceptible to.

MaysonL 9y ago

See, for example, this: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-market-and-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-increase-data-limitations-and-methodological-problems-bias-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/ http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-m...