Fair enough. For the record I'm generally opposed to government induced market distortions (but understand they may sometimes be necessary). Not for ideologica

Fair enough. For the record I'm generally opposed to government induced market distortions (but understand they may sometimes be necessary). Not for ideological reasons but because practical reality and unforeseen side effects and the cure being worse than the disease and all. Municipalities dictating a minimum wage I'd think to be probably a bad idea. Still, excluding nearly half the workers in question from a specific segment leaves the study much less credible than it could be otherwise. Most Dominos, WalMarts etc. have been honed for labor efficiency for decades. I suspect they can't cut staff or hours much more while continuing to operate in which case workers are (temporarily at least until wage pain causes someone to invent a pizza store machine) better off. Maybe not so much "looser" mom and pop type businesses who this will cause to tighten up. A final point is the value of extra time. So workers are $125 less well off at the end of the month. But they are working many less hours and no matter how you slice it they are making more money per hour. With more free hours they can take part time jobs, pursue education or training which increases future value, save money by doing things like cooking and their own childcare etc. etc. So the loss of $125 per month is at least partially offset by a certain amount of value.