Scholarship table
Krugman made an incorrect stock market forecast two years ago, ergo someone else's study about the minimum wage impact in Seattle is wrong.#logicAs for the economy ... duh. When an economic downturn happens, labor costs will be shed, regardless of where the minimum wage sits. Going back through this thread is a feast for @OldTakesExposed. So many very wrong predictions of doom.
1. I already explained the Harvard study. It didn't say what you claimed it said. You haven't provided the UCLA story for me to explain.2. Because it's not economically feasible and can't be tied to any actual benchmark (such as growth in personal income, adjustment for inflation, etc.).And if that's the best argument you've got at this point, you should stop posting rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.
Which was exactly my point earlier, I provided a study from Harvard....you say it is stupid. Exactly exactly exactly what I said would happen. Both sides bring "studies" and "data", the other sides shout it down, say how discredited it is, etc. Exactly what I said happens, and you proved it out.So why is either side bothering? Seriously, why get all hopped on it? The UCLA study says exactly what I said....nobody knows. There is no consensus. Economics is not an absolute science, so all the blathering by Krugman, or lefties that it works, and all the blather by righties that it doesn't....no consensus. There are arguments for and against. Does that help SoCal?http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty-and-research/anderson-review/minimum-wage-primer-leamer"Here, we attempt to explain why there is still no consensus on this single question that economists have grappled with for half a century, and the most populated cities and states in America now find critical to their futures. In this primer, we bring forward the most pertinent and promising research on the minimum wage and employment to show the facts both determined and alleged. And we describe the limits of data sets, flaws in control group designs and political influences on both camps that keep the debate raging."
Incorrect? He made one of the most unstable predictions in stock market history. It's one thing to say the market is going down, he said it would NEVER RECOVER, that's how much TPS the man has.
You should have addressed this to PBR, chickadee, as I obviously don't know. I hope he reads it and answers.
That's what I trying to do.
I already explained how you are grossly misrepresenting what Krugman said. You are still wrong.
Unlike Tugg/Heisey/Smuggles or chicos/Cheeks/hoopaloop/WarriorDad, I am not suffering from multiple personality disorder!
And like the Harvard study, the UCLA study doesn't say what you claimed it says. In fact, the UCLA study isn't really a study, and really doesn't say anything. It simply rehashes what other studies have found and critiques them. If you're going to cite studies to defend your arguments, you should at least make sure the studies defend your argument.
How am I misrepresenting what he said? It was so bad, his words....that he had to issue an apology to give him any face saving. That's how ridiculous it was.
I haven't yet linked to a UCLA study, I linked a UCLA commentary by their business school regarding the debate, which includes their studies and others. They determined fewer hours going to employees despite higher wages, which meant a net of lower wages or no change at all. Employers hire more workers, but at fewer hours per. Is that a good thing?https://www.labor.ucla.edu/new-ucla-study-shows-la-retail-workers-face-hours-crisis/https://abc7.com/business/ucla-study-finds-problems-with-unpredictable-hours-of-retail-workers/3217088/An older study, is here from 2015https://dailybruin.com/2015/11/25/qa-ucla-professor-talks-new-study-on-las-minimum-wage-increase/Says raising wages will help some, hurt others, hurt some businesses....in other words, mixed results...hmm.
And the "older study" you link isn't a study at all ... it's a Q&A with a professor talking about a study he is going to be working on. That study won't be complete until 2021. (FWIW, the professor here is a guy who's been on record as being opposed to a minimum wage hike years before he started this study ... hope that doesn't shade his findings).
Again, please read your links before you post them. This is getting embarrassing.The first study is concerning unstable work hours, and in no way links them to the minimum wage, and certainly doesn't claim inconsistent schedules are a result of a minimum wage hike. In fact, it was a study of all retail workers - not just minimum wage workers. It is simply irrelevant.
I explained it already. I have no dog in this fight. Out of my area of expertise. I only commented because you misrepresented what was said.
Same old, same old.Chicos and Heisy showing their stupidity by trying to prove they are smarter than everyone here.
I'm definitely not smarter than anyone here, can admit that easily.
Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.
chicos, don't be discouraged, Smuggles ain't so hard to understand. chicos, if you try now, I know that you can lend a helping hand. Because there's good in everyone And a new day has begun You can see the morning sun if you try. And I know, things will be better Oh yes they will for chicos and Smuggles, man.
Minimum Wages jobs are meant to be for people in transition, first time members of the workplace, seasonal workers, those who have other primary interests etc. They are not meant to be for those seeking a full time career etc. A no minimum wage environment would be tremendously beneficial for this country and maximize those being employed . Employers seek the best employees they can find and the market would determine appropriate wages. The most critical item for those entering the work force is experience. New entrants to the work force who gain experience are worth a lot to a future employer. More employees and more experience creates a bigger economy for all. Also smart companies will not pay bottom dollar. For example, the $15 dollar an hour wage is now all the rage . Yet, in my company we put that $15 wage in place over 30 years ago for our clerical types. This was way above market at the time , but it resulted in our getting a steady stream of people who were top quality working their way to higher and better jobs. We were able to compete with huge corporations because we had top talent up and down the company. If there was a no minimum wage environment , our company would significantly increase employment and would groom the best of those workers for very good jobs down the road. The total net compensation dollars we would pay would likely go up. For example , we could afford to put a helper on every truck that goes out. Our drivers would be more efficient and the helpers would learn the basics of the business . People would likely not stay helpers for long, as they would go on to more skilled roles.