8 ms·

Target Employees Won the 'Fight for $15' but Weren't Ready for the Trade-Offs

• wahern 7y ago
  Alternatively, Target decided to hike wages because they were already planning to cut insurance benefit outlays, softening the blow.
  • RickJWagner 7y ago
    An interesting theory, but there's no proof of it, is there?
    • wahern 7y ago
      No, there isn't. It's as much conjecture as the thesis of the article. You can't say the extent to which or even whether a $15 minimum wage would depress hours or benefits without an analysis of the elasticities of the supply & demand curves at Target. The article makes it sounds like such changes[1] are the inevitable consequence of any hike in wages, which is both not only strictly wrong as a matter of Econ 101 (elasticities matter) but also a notoriously contentious area of debate with substantially[2] conflicting empirical data. [1] Presuming the characterizations are correct; they're based on 23 anecdotal employee interviews. [2] That is, there's good, solid, empirical data (not just numbers-pulled-out-of-butt partisan retorts) for both sides. Which isn't all too surprising because, again, elasticities matter and are by their nature context dependent.