Another failed libby scheme

by silvermani Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:06 pm

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. 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

by Idéfix Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:04 pm

http://irle.berkeley.edu/seattles-minimum-wage-experience-2015-16/

Our results show that wages in food services did increase—indicating the policy achieved its goal—and our estimates of the wage increases are in line with the lion’s share of results in previous credible minimum wage studies. Wages increased much less among full-service restaurants, indicating that employers made use of the tip credit component of the law. Employment in food service, however, was not affected, even among the limited-service restaurants, many of them franchisees, for whom the policy was most binding.

Opponents of the minimum wage increase we predicting doom and gloom, that lots of jobs would be lost, etc. When that didn't come to pass, now they are trying other tactics.

It is possible that the minimum wage they chose in Seattle is too high. But the federal minimum wage is way too low right now. It hasn't been raised in a long time.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:06 am

On Bloomberg today:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/seattle-s-painful-lesson-on-the-road-to-a-15-minimum-wage wrote:This morning's data gives ammunition to the mayor's opposition. The University of Washington released its second study, this one covering the increase from $11 an hour to $13. And this study found huge effects: For every 1 percent increase in their hourly wage, low-wage workers saw a 3 percent reduction in the number of hours worked. As a result, they lost about $125 in earnings a month, clawing back the entire gain from the earlier hike and more.
Mayor Murray did not have an infographic ready to go for this study. Instead, he simply retweeted the infographic from the old one.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:16 am

Hellsangel wrote:On Bloomberg today:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/seattle-s-painful-lesson-on-the-road-to-a-15-minimum-wage wrote:This morning's data gives ammunition to the mayor's opposition. The University of Washington released its second study, this one covering the increase from $11 an hour to $13. And this study found huge effects: For every 1 percent increase in their hourly wage, low-wage workers saw a 3 percent reduction in the number of hours worked. As a result, they lost about $125 in earnings a month, clawing back the entire gain from the earlier hike and more.
Mayor Murray did not have an infographic ready to go for this study. Instead, he simply retweeted the infographic from the old one.

From the same article, it shows that the previous increase to $11 generated. Like I said above, $13 may be too high for that market, while $11 was likely less than optimal. The federal minimum is $7.25.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:22 am

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:On Bloomberg today:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/seattle-s-painful-lesson-on-the-road-to-a-15-minimum-wage wrote:This morning's data gives ammunition to the mayor's opposition. The University of Washington released its second study, this one covering the increase from $11 an hour to $13. And this study found huge effects: For every 1 percent increase in their hourly wage, low-wage workers saw a 3 percent reduction in the number of hours worked. As a result, they lost about $125 in earnings a month, clawing back the entire gain from the earlier hike and more.
Mayor Murray did not have an infographic ready to go for this study. Instead, he simply retweeted the infographic from the old one.

From the same article, it shows that the previous increase to $11 generated. Like I said above, $13 may be too high for that market, while $11 was likely less than optimal. The federal minimum is $7.25.

So Seattle will now claw back their law from $15 to $12?

by Idéfix Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:23 am

That's a possibility, if there is clear evidence that the level is too high and therefore hurting the poor.

by Sponsored content

Another failed libby scheme

Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme

Re: Another failed libby scheme