That's a massive pivot, and you missed the point of the paper, and why it was cited. The only thing that paper was used to prove was the abundance of data available from peer reviewed sources that indicate just what I'm saying in this thread, to which you all seem inexplicably unaware of. Just go look at the bibliography to find your peer reviewed sources that support the contentions I'm making.

Show me the pretty pictures first.

The study was incorrectly cited as showing a particular result.

When you claim pointing that out is a pivot it is you who are pivoting.

What a tool.

What? Cupee wants peer reviewed research supporting my contentions. John21 posted a article that has an entire bibliography of peer reviewed research supporting my contentions. The papers authors conclusions are irrelevant to what Cupee was asking for. The paper was a study of peer reviewed research on the issue. It's conclusions about those studies are tangential to what Cupee wanted.

Are you and Cupee seriously denying the existence of an enormous amount of peer reviewed literature indicating minimum wage lessens demand for labor?

No, it was cited to provide examples of empirical studies showing negative elasticities. So sure you can dismiss the author's methodology or conclusion on how the balance of those studies leans or even challenge their validity but I doubt many would accept the conclusion that opposing studies don't exist. In fact I'd say it's widely accepted that that they do:


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/seat...ut-so-far.html

Don't waiters in Europe and Australia make like $20hr?
How's that working for them?

To be clear, since you are not being that, I explicitly said tons of material exists on both sides of this debate and what i asked for was real world examples tied to a minimum wage raise and actual job losses across the board within that segment.

I said I had seen and could show many such examples where it was raised and the job market grew but could not find examples of the opposite so I asked you to cite them so I could review.

I will review your citations here in the next couple hours. I hope that is what they show.

This was the claim

I don't think the fact that there are peer reviewed studies was ever in question.

There are peer reviewed studies that show smoking isn't bad for your health too.

We're trying to see if there's any reasonable support for IHIV's claim. Right ?

I'm ignorant of the existence of anything that supports your claim that raising the MW forces employers cut the same amount of hours over more employees.

OK IHIV, maybe I missed it, as i hate reading these things on my phone, so please point me to the correct sections if I did.

What I am reading seems to agree exactly with what i said. And that is that the 'proof' of MW reducing jobs is theoretical or based on projections, especially around things like 'job elasticity' and 'comparisons of neighbouring jurisdictions', where they are calculating that 'if not for the MW increase jobs would have grown QUICKER'.

Meaning that there was job growth PRIOR and it continued AFTER a MW increase but they are saying the MW slowed that growth. Is that it?


Because that is what I said also. I am aware there are all sorts of studies saying that and just as many who use the same data and counter that. There is lots of 'both sides' on this issue and I am not in denial.

What I asked (and again maybe I missed it) was if there was any proof of a MW being implemented where actual jobs in the MW segment, in the region shrank. There were X jobs before the MW went in and then X-minus after? As there are tons of examples of X jobs prior and X-plus jobs after.

And again I get that you could say without the MW increase that might be X-plus-plus-plus instead as a theoretical counter so please don't.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...532/w23532.pdf

The problem with the way you're framing this is that the sort of granular big data required to establish anything constituting proof simply doesn't exist. And that cuts both ways. Sure, you can point to studies that e.g. show no effect with restaurant workers in NY but you can't conclude from there that a restaurant equipment supply company in TX employing minimum wage workers won't be impacted. Likewise with the other side of the debate: we don't know if the low-wage employees getting replaced by robots didn't then get jobs building robots or went to trade school and found employment in some other occupation.

That's not cutting hours, that's cutting the job.

Just sayin'.

And of course there are studies critiquing that one.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-...mum-wage-incr/

Not sure what you are saying here.

Up until 1980 the MW was raised every 5 years or so. You can look at job growth across all categories in that time frame both Nationally and by State and we see growth in all categories generally including that which is in the MW segment.

That is the data I am suggesting.


Now, a potential counter to that is, as I mentioned, 'ya it was growing all through that period but without the MW being raised it would have grown MORE.'

Do a search of the of the terms "force" or "forces" together with my username...

Only on this forum do you have to explain how a reduction of hours is one of the many possible outcomes when when demand for labor drops.

The demand for labor didn't drop, the cost went up.

It's possible from the one study that the demand for inexperienced labor dropped a bit after a large increase was put in over a short period of time. But that wasn't verified across multiple studies.

The bottom line is, the economy in Seattle is growing and the MW didn't stop that growth or cause companies that want to profit from that growth to leave.

It's left you guys pretending to care about the inexperienced HS kids.
Which is always cute, like when you 'care' about the blacks and the poors.

More likely, it did harm some, and helped others. One of the reasons this issue has no real consensus (among those who engage in political discourse about it) is people like you say stuff like this, but the results you are so proud of are significantly more complicated, and not as clear cut as your portray here.


You all present this **** like it's (i.e. minimum wage, etc) a silver bullet and argue against very real drawbacks that exist with your magic pills for society. It's not that you don't contend with them, you deny the very existence of drawbacks, then gas light people for bringing them up (i.e. call them crazy).

Ah, the ad hominem, attack on motivations that you portend to know better than the person you are discussing things with. That is, and always will be weak. I'm an hourly worker, are you?

LOL

A roofer gets the job of a lifetime. He'll need to hire 3 new teams to do it.
The MW goes up. So now he doesn't do the job because.....economics.

Look, it's well established that a reasonable MW is better for the economy than not having one.

If you want to argue that child labor laws hurt our competitiveness you can do that also. But modern, civilized people think the trade off is worth it.

There is no magic bullet. But there are certain things that make for a stronger middle class. If you have no interest in a middle class and prefer a landed gentry and a serf class, that's fine. But don't pretend you're looking out for the good of the people in your class or below.

If you're an hourly worker and you're reading web sites funded by the people who are exploiting your labor you're not going to get very far.

IHIV do you accept any of the studies and data that investing in building the middle class has been one of the most historical beneficial ways to build the economy for all?


I am not asking with regards to any time frame specifically, and am just asking if you think that is true in principle.

Is there a real example where capitalism provides an environment where no people get screwed over? Seems like either way there is just gonna be slaves or a ton of poor people doing all the work. I'm not a socialist, I just see the flaws and see that **** rolls down hill and there will always be people that get **** on until there is a more scientific economic plan.

It seems from the math of things, there will always need to be a class of people that get paid peasant wages until robots come in play in so many sectors that even DRs will be replaced. I don't think capitalism will ever really work for a lot of people regardless of minimum wage laws. It comes from a horrifically flawed time. The pull yourself up by the boot straps argument is comical when metaphorically some people don't even have feet to support themselves. Arguing about MW seems like a waste of time, energy, resources. How do we create a better economic reality seems the better question.

Cuepee, given your views on moral hazard, I'm curious what your view is on this bailout.

Have they said any cutoff dates for this stimulus? My income in 2019 cut my previous stimulus money down but my 2020 income would qualify. I filed on Feb 21st, it was accepted the next day but it’s still currently processing.