minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[Cheeks]

Krugman made an incorrect stock market forecast two years ago, ergo someone else's study about the minimum wage impact in Seattle is wrong.
#logic

As 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.

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.

[Cheeks]

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."

[GGGG]

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."

For someone who is so concerned about people wasting their time, you certain are typing a lot of tripe to waste people's time.

[forgetful]

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.

I already explained how you are grossly misrepresenting what Krugman said.  You are still wrong.

[Pakuni]

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."

Funny.
In earlier instances in this thread, plenty of people (most of whom have been wise enough to have hightailed it out of this discussion for now) had no problem forecasting doom for places where the minimum wage was hiked. It was simple economics, we were told. Now that it hasn't happened, you come here claiming nobody could possibly know the true impacts of increasing the minimum wage.
I wonder what changed?

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.

[jesmu84]

Beyond even studies or theories or speculation about what a $45 minimum wage would do to a government/economy/corporation, the real reason that isn't done is because too much money would have to come down from the 1%. And those are the ones with power/control.

So unless it was in their best economic interest (it wouldn't be, at least in the short term), it wouldn't happen, regardless of what any study demonstrated.

[warriorchick]

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. 

[MU82]

That's what I trying to do. 

Unlike Tugg/Heisey/Smuggles or chicos/Cheeks/hoopaloop/WarriorDad, I am not suffering from multiple personality disorder!

[Cheeks]

I already explained how you are grossly misrepresenting what Krugman said.  You are still wrong.

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.

[Cheeks]

Unlike Tugg/Heisey/Smuggles or chicos/Cheeks/hoopaloop/WarriorDad, I am not suffering from multiple personality disorder!

Not WarriorDad, I would be happy to go back to Chicosbailbonds....will mods let me reclaim it?  I guess up to them.

[Cheeks]

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.

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 2015

https://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.

[forgetful]

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 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.

[Pakuni]

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 2015

https://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.

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.

Here's what the study actually finds:
The unpredictability is fueled by the growing popularity of “just-in-time scheduling” software that predicts consumer demand to generate shifts. That helps stores efficiently match work hours to busy and slow periods, but can make it difficult for workers to plan their lives or attain full-time employment.

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).

[Cheeks]

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).

LOL.  Hmm, so any climate scientists that already on record of their position before the study, sure hope it doesn't shade their findings.  Any pro minimum wage economists that support Min Wage hike, their studies also should be questioned because their findings might be shaded.....this is the new rationale? Or it is that those folks have integrity because they align with your position, but others don't have integrity because they are against it?  Again, back to what I've said...both sides...discrediting studies, etc.   And yes, it was actually a study.   I linked the Q&A, but it was based on a study they did.  Leamer was just hired in November by the city of Pasadena along with a Berkeley prof to analyze min wage increase impacts on their city.  Results expected in 2019, hopefully nothing is "shaded" in their results. 

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.

Indeed it is embarrassing....because all you had to do was read this in the summary:

"The report notes that recent local and statewide strengthening of workers’ rights protections, such as the minimum wage increase and paid sick time, are rendered irrelevant for many retail workers due to their unstable work schedules."

Yes, minimum wage is not only RELEVANT to the discussion and specifically CALLED OUT BY UCLA, but the study suggests the Min Wage increases have done no good because more people hired, less hours for all.  Now, why would corporations do this?  TO SAVE MONEY.  You can pretend that the corporations aren't doing this all you wish, but that would be for the naive to state the obvious.  Corporations save MONEY by having less full time employees they don't have to schedule and pay at the full wage.  UCLA calls out that the wage increase has been essentially made void by this practice....now why on earth would a corporation do this? Hmmm. 

[Cheeks]

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.

Krugman's other beauties:  "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than that of fax machines."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/


How can I misrepresent someone when I put his words on display, not mine?

He said it about the stock market after the election.  Global crisis, NEVER coming back.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055


He then admitted he used his own political bias to make the outlandish remarks and had a "mea culpa" for his absurdity months later. I guess he had no choice because of the fool he was made to look.  About as bad as his takes on certain policy issues that were completely opposite of his utterances in his OWN BOOKS he authored. 

[Jockey]

Same old, same old.

Chicos and Heisy showing their stupidity by trying to prove they are smarter than everyone here.

[Cheeks]

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. I find you to be one of the smartest guys, but that's why I'm curious, when declaring you don't care for the USA currently...your words... why not advocate for Mexico instead? Why is it that everyone that claims they are moving to Canada never advocates moving to Mexico?  Weird. 

But you are definitely smarter than me and I'd nominate you as smartest guy on Scoop....definitely one of the top 5.

[GGGG]

I'm definitely not smarter than anyone here, can admit that easily.

Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.

[Cheeks]

Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.

Yup, that's why you are in the top 5, too.  On that pedestal. 

[MU82]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

Not discouraged, thanks for the helping hand.  We've all made mistakes, right caveman? 

Happy New Year

[Babybluejeans]

People in my Republican Party have to admit that the U.S. economy was saved from the brink by Obama, rallied for nearly a decade straight under Obama. And we admit Trump enjoyed the bounce of 8 years of strong economic policy under Barry O. But now that Trump’s own non-Republican policies have come to bear we get...a looming recession. Krugman shmugman, WarriorDad, if you put your often misplaced anger in the right place, you’d be thanking our cheesedick president with a single finger.

[Jockey]

Nothing to admit. It’s pretty f*cking obvious.

I wonder who we should put in the Top 5 with us. Maybe we should just keep  it as the Top 2 and anyone else can slot in below.

[Herman Cain]

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.

[dgies9156]

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.

While I don't completely agree with Brother Herm, some of his points are incredibly interesting.

There are parts of Wisconsin, for example, where a minimum wage salary would be laughed at. There are more jobs than there are workers. Anyone want to guess how equilibrium is achieved?

Point: a robust economy with full employment cure social ills. More importantly, if there is considerable opportunity, the minimum wage will be largely irrelevant. It would be needed for grocery sackers, pool attendants, and other jobs filled by 16-18 year olds.