Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 402
Thanks Tree78Thanks

Thread: Seattle's new minimum wage hasn't raised retail prices

  1. #31
    You just made the list! Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    80,583
    Thanks
    20779

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Please quote from the study, referring directly to the $125 claim. Cheers!
    Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that
    the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per
    month in 2016.
    https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/f...ng%20Paper.pdf

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    32,982
    Thanks
    20550

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    It was a serious question.

    Why 15 bucks an hour and not 20?

    There must be a reason so what is it?
    Why not $5. An hour

  3. #33
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,757
    Thanks
    1367

    You're misapplying the analysis. They focus on loss in hours as an overall employment measure, particularly in decomposing across any cascading effects across wage thresholds. The average found cannot be used to indicate a reduction in well-being, given heterogeneity in worker experience:

    "Some workers may well have experienced significant wage increases with no reduction in hours; others may have encountered significantly greater difficulty in securing any work at all. From a welfare perspective, it is critical to understand how this heterogeneity plays out across low-skilled workers in varying life circumstances"

    Without controlling for any labour supply effects you haven't got a net well-being measure.

  4. #34
    You just made the list! Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    80,583
    Thanks
    20779

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    You're misapplying the analysis. They focus on loss in hours as an overall employment measure, particularly in decomposing across any cascading effects across wage thresholds. The average found cannot be used to indicate a reduction in well-being, given heterogeneity in worker experience:

    "Some workers may well have experienced significant wage increases with no reduction in hours; others may have encountered significantly greater difficulty in securing any work at all. From a welfare perspective, it is critical to understand how this heterogeneity plays out across low-skilled workers in varying life circumstances"

    Without controlling for any labour supply effects you haven't got a net well-being measure.
    Maybe someone else can explain to you what the word "average" means.

  5. #35
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,757
    Thanks
    1367

    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Maybe someone else can explain to you what the word "average" means.
    An inane response! The average isn't useful for well-being analysis, as illustrated by backward bending labour supply curves (which inform us of hours reductions and well-being increases).

  6. #36
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,875
    Thanks
    2136

    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    An inane response! The average isn't useful for well-being analysis, as illustrated by backward bending labour supply curves (which inform us of hours reductions and well-being increases).
    If I can make $125 less per month, but I work 10 less hours, obviously I get those 10 hours. Some people might find that to be a great trade-off. Some people might use those 10 hours to save themselves way more than $125/month. If your hours put you just over some threshold of childcare, for example, and you can now cut back to just under that threshold and childcare costs you much less because you can pick your kid up 30 minutes earlier, so you're in the lower price tier. Or you have other requirements in your life that you may have had to pay for previously, because you didn't have the time. Now you can fix your own house. Now you can change your own oil. Now you can get a little more sleep, which might mean you get sick less.

    Obviously the complications in life that tell us what it is worth to get our time back can't fit into a blog post. But you get the idea. Collecting $125/month less might mean spending a lot less. Or it might just mean more time spent hanging out with your people and not minding one bit.
    Thanks from Æthelfrith

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9,519
    Thanks
    2507

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    If I can make $125 less per month, but I work 10 less hours, obviously I get those 10 hours. Some people might find that to be a great trade-off. Some people might use those 10 hours to save themselves way more than $125/month. If your hours put you just over some threshold of childcare, for example, and you can now cut back to just under that threshold and childcare costs you much less because you can pick your kid up 30 minutes earlier, so you're in the lower price tier. Or you have other requirements in your life that you may have had to pay for previously, because you didn't have the time. Now you can fix your own house. Now you can change your own oil. Now you can get a little more sleep, which might mean you get sick less.

    Obviously the complications in life that tell us what it is worth to get our time back can't fit into a blog post. But you get the idea. Collecting $125/month less might mean spending a lot less. Or it might just mean more time spent hanging out with your people and not minding one bit.
    Mr. splansing,

    Yeah, people on minimum wage would likely love to have 10 less hours of work a month to go and hit the links, maybe take a three day weekend, look for a smaller apartment because they can't afford the one they have now, dumpster dive to make up for the cash they no longer have in their pockets...

    LOL, see how silly you sound when you put what you said in perspective?

  8. #38
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,757
    Thanks
    1367

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    If I can make $125 less per month, but I work 10 less hours, obviously I get those 10 hours. Some people might find that to be a great trade-off. Some people might use those 10 hours to save themselves way more than $125/month. If your hours put you just over some threshold of childcare, for example, and you can now cut back to just under that threshold and childcare costs you much less because you can pick your kid up 30 minutes earlier, so you're in the lower price tier. Or you have other requirements in your life that you may have had to pay for previously, because you didn't have the time. Now you can fix your own house. Now you can change your own oil. Now you can get a little more sleep, which might mean you get sick less.

    Obviously the complications in life that tell us what it is worth to get our time back can't fit into a blog post. But you get the idea. Collecting $125/month less might mean spending a lot less. Or it might just mean more time spent hanging out with your people and not minding one bit.
    Yep. Typically the focus is more on disemployment (i.e. trying to focus on restrictions in labour demand, thus avoiding the complexities associated with labour supply effects).

    Personally I think the focus is way too much on employment concerns. First, we know that firms have wage making power (and therefore employment effects are ambiguous). Second, there is arguably more pertinent analysis in looking at poverty and/or deprivation analysis (e.g. looking at how minimum wages and welfare benefits can limit well-being effects)

  9. #39
    You just made the list! Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    80,583
    Thanks
    20779

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    An inane response! The average isn't useful for well-being analysis, as illustrated by backward bending labour supply curves (which inform us of hours reductions and well-being increases).
    Sorry that the evidence ruined your theory. The real world is not obligated to bend to left wing economic theory.

  10. #40
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,757
    Thanks
    1367

    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Sorry that the evidence ruined your theory. The real world is not obligated to bend to left wing economic theory.
    Can you ever respond to comments that you quote? It is not possible to use 'averages' in a well-being context. This is just common sense.

    Love the idea that stuff like monopsony and backward bending labour supply cures is 'left wing economic theory'. Its basic neoclassical economics. The problem is you refuse to eliminate your knowledge deficiency regarding basic economics

Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 14th November 2015, 12:22 PM
  2. Seattle’s minimum wage increase ‘shuttering’ businesses
    By meridian5455 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 232
    Last Post: 20th March 2015, 08:28 AM
  3. Seattle eateries closing as $15 minimum wage approaches
    By timslash in forum Current Events
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 17th March 2015, 02:03 PM
  4. Job Growth Grows in States that raised minimum wage.
    By Michele in forum Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24th October 2014, 05:38 AM
  5. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 14th July 2014, 11:02 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed