3 ms·
Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it? The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as wor
by walexander 15y ago
Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it?
The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as worsening the effect. This blogger decides to focus on 55+ employment, which he already wrote about. How is one pre-conceived narrative and the other not?
- jbooth 15y agoThey provide zero evidence for their contention that wage increases "worsen the effect", and their phrasing implies that everything would be peachy keen if not for a minimum wage increase which caused this unemployment. Meanwhile, if you look at the graph, you see a straight line downward which flattens in 'ok' economies, and plunges during recession. Was flat through 2007, when the minimum wage increase was enacted. No mention of the fact that this phenomenon of jobless recoveries has applied to most jobs at most payscales over the time period they're highlighting. No mention of the fact that the minimum wage was higher in real terms for most of the 20th century, and teen employment was higher then (not that the one is likely to cause the other). I'll admit that they did include the graph. Reading the article does not make the author sound more honest or truth-seeking, though. Check out some of the applause lines.