3 ms·
> Really if I'm going to be honest, I think the UW study reaffirms your pre-existing views so you're unlikely to admit that it's a bad study but come on. I cou
by cwyers 9y ago
> Really if I'm going to be honest, I think the UW study reaffirms your pre-existing views so you're unlikely to admit that it's a bad study but come on.
I could say the obverse about about you, but it doesn't really move the discussion forward.
You said you thought it was a bad study because of the multi-site issue. I responded why I didn't believe that to be the case. You responded that it was a bad study because of the $19 cut-off. Do you still think the multi-site issue is a problem, given my response?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoYes. The multi-site issue combined with the $19/hr problem prevent the study from being very useful. Given this quote: This pattern of average higher pay and more employment appears also in food services: a decline of about 150 jobs paying under $19 from 2014 to 2016 and a simultaneous increase of about 4,500 jobs in all pay levels at single-site food service establishments. Would you concede the possibility that in Seattle's restaurant sector a higher minimum wage did not have negative employment effects? (NOTE: I edited this question)
- cwyers 9y agoI've never not conceded that possibility! From the abstract of the UW study: > We estimate an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels, comparable to many prior studies.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]