5 ms·
I have not read the new paper, but the NYT article that Bloomberg links to summarizes it rather differently. > A research team including economists from the Un
by hyperpape 8y ago
I have not read the new paper, but the NYT article that Bloomberg links to summarizes it rather differently.
> A research team including economists from the University of Washington has put out a paper showing that Seattle’s recent minimum-wage increases brought benefits to many workers employed at the time, while leaving few employed workers worse off. (NYT)
> The workers who worked the most ahead of the minimum-wage increase appeared to do the best....The workers who worked less in the months before the minimum-wage increase saw almost no improvement in overall pay — $4 a month on average over the same period, although the result was not statistically significant. While their hourly wage increased, their hours fell substantially....It’s the final group of workers — the potential new entrants who were not employed at the time of the first minimum-wage increase — that Mr. Vigdor and his colleagues believe fared the worst. They note that, at the time of the first increase, the growth rate in new workers in Seattle making less than $15 an hour flattened out and was lagging behind the growth rate in new workers making less than $15 outside Seattle’s county. This suggests that the minimum wage had priced some workers out of the labor market, according to the authors. (NYT)
In addition, the Bloomberg article claims that the original research contradicts "the vast majority research on minimum wages" which holds that "modest, gradual wage increases have not been shown to reduce employment or hours worked in any significant way", which is irrelevant, because Seattle raised its minimum wage by 37% in one year--neither modest nor gradual.
In short, this is not a summary to be trusted.
- Pfhreak 8y ago> Seattle raised its minimum wage by 37% in one year This is objectively false. There is no one year period in which Seattle raised it's minimum wage 37%. The most aggressive increase I can see was 18%, and it only applied to large employers in 2011-2012. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/LaborStandards/OLS-MW-multiyearChart2019FINAL10118(1).pdf https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/LaborStandards...
- hyperpape 8y agoI got the number from the NYT article, which said $9.47 to $11.00 in April 2015, then $11.00 to $13.00 in January 2016. That is a one year period, and a 37% increase. Here is another source that mentions $9.32. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/seattle-minimum-wage-increases-go-effect-april-2015 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/seattle-minimum-wage-in... I'm not sure why there are two different numbers, but it was extremely rapid. I'd be happy to leave it using the more conservative figures from your table that they increased it by 36% in two years, as that's still neither modest nor gradual.
- Pfhreak 8y agoFor businesses with 500 or more employees and who do not pay towards their employees' medical benefits, the change was 9.47 (2014) -> 11 (2015) -> 13 (2016). For businesses with fewer than 500 employees and earn tips the change was 9.47 (2014) -> 10 (2015) -> 10.50 (2016) and is currently $12/hr. It's important not to mischaracterize the increases as a monolithic uniform increase, because for many, many businesses the increases have been gradual and modest.
- hyperpape 8y agoIf one increase went into effect in April 2015, and another went into effect in January 2016, that means you have employees whose minimum wage was $9.47 one day, and $13 less than 365 days later. Arguably, writing it as three separate years makes it appear more gradual than it was.
- pxue 8y agopolitics and math. they don't mix :)
- cannonedhamster 8y agoSo, where does the transition from 2014 to 2016 add up to less than 365 days? I'm confused by your numbers. In 2015 the minimum was was $11 and 2016 it was $13. Not sure where you're getting your gripe from.
- AJ007 8y agoIt’s also worth pointing out that this is Bloomberg Opinion, which is basically junk. Very disappointing what happened over there, it went from a news source I read daily and enjoyed to a url which I use to discount headlines I read elsewhere.
- oasisbob 8y ago> Seattle raised its minimum wage by 37% in one year--neither modest nor gradual. How did you come up with this number? Even for large employers which don't provide health benefits (the group affected with the most aggressive wage increase), the minimum wage increased from $11 to $15 an hour over the course of three years. Small employers with less than 500 employees can still use tips and health benefits to reach $15 / hour.
- blindwatchmaker 8y agoI thought the summary was pretty good. The objections you're presenting here are nitpicky, the NYT article is just one of the links provided and the thrust of the article that ideologically motivated opposition to minimum wage hikes was proven to be incorrect, and that is right.
- hyperpape 8y agoIt's not nitpicky to say that 1. the second study claimed a significant negative impact, when the Bloomberg article omits that 2. the first study did not contradict economic orthodoxy, when the Bloomberg article claimed it did The first is an essential claim of the article. The second is also likely to mislead.
- thatoneuser 8y agoLooks like a lotta people here are too ideologically entrenched in supporting wage increases to listen to reason...
- cannonedhamster 8y agoOr the opinions being presented against minimum wage increases aren't compelling.
- jjtheblunt 8y agoWhat from Bloomberg IS to be trusted?