Does Raising the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?

Sassy Sue I like you. LOL

SissySuckers Crap came from the 0zombie King... https://www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage

Here you go, Sassy Poo-Poo....

This is a slideshow of a presentation by UC-Irvine economist David Neumark of his findings. He also noted that raising the minimum wage is NOT an efficient way to reduce income inequality.

http://uccs.ucdavis.edu/copy2_of_Neumark.pdf

The reason? Because over one-third (34%) of minimum-wage workers belong to households that are already in the top half of family income distribution (see slide 22).

I wonder how many are middle-class kids who take minimum-wage jobs to help defray the soaring cost of their college education, which is unaffordable because the universities over-pay people like Elizabeth Warren $350,000 a year to teach a single course!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008...50851967388198

I recall in the beginning of the Clinton recession in 2000 there was a manufacturing plant (family owned) in West Texas that was in tough times like a lot of small businesses. The owners called all the employees into a meeting and asked them if they would all agree to a reduction in wages, keep their jobs, and work through the financial problems until times got better. They all agreed. They kept their jobs, worked through the recession, and came out better with increased wages after production/sales had increased. They thought, rightfully so, that having a job with reduced wages was better than no job at all with an opportunity to increase income down the line. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think the business owner did well in negotiating with his workers. If more small business owners (and corporations for that matter) negotiated with their employees in this matter, the world would be a better place. What is different about this situation is the owner actually gave them raises when business got better. It's too bad other companies (and corporations) don't adhere to this principle.

I do a lot of research and please do not call me stupid. Originally Posted by SassySue

I never called you stupid. Let's just say your "research" leaves a lot to be desired. Starting a thread on a topic that has been exhaustively researched by economists - 85% of whom reached the opposite conclusion as the unidentified hack in your OP link to a frivolous website - doesn't work in any forum.

Think about that before you start your next thread.

Ok, Sassy Poo-poo... here is a little insight for you. As I mentioned when you started this thread, this is one of the most well-researched topics in economics. Among economists who have studied the matter, there is a lopsided consensus.

The answer to your original thread question "Does raising the minimum wage increase unemployment?" is a resounding YES.

University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He reports that 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." .... The only significant debate about the minimum wage is the magnitude of its effect. Some studies argue that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage will cause a 1 percent increase in unemployment, whereas others predict a higher increase.

https://www.creators.com/read/walter...d-minimum-wage Originally Posted by lustylad

The only economists who say raising the minimum wage will hurt our economy are greedy capitalists who only care about their bottom line. They are trying convince the rest of us that it will somehow cause more unemployment and less jobs, even more poverty. As I said before, I don't agree with you. You can believe whatever you want. Most studies (and statistics, which I believe more than articles) prove that raising minimum wage has little to no affect on the economy and actually boosts the economy in many cases.

Here's a study that UC Berkeley did. They did a hypothetical where minimum wage was raised to $15 in Santa Clara County, California to $15 per hour, on January 1, 2017. After 2 years, January 1, 2019, here's the results.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...y-of-san-jose/

Also, read this article:

San Jose Minimum Wage: A Year Old Success Story

The unemployment rate dropped in the San Jose metro area from 7.6 percent in February, 2013 to 5.8 percent in December, the last month available. Part of the reason for this almost two-point drop in unemployment is that the 40,000 minimum wage workers in San Jose have pumped more than $100 million into the local economy this past year, stimulating the economic growth of Silicon Valley.


http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...-success-story

Back on ignore this 0zombie, went!

The only economists who say raising the minimum wage will hurt our economy are greedy capitalists who only care about their bottom line. Wow! You're worse than stupid - you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT! 85% of all economists who did research on your OP question came up with a conclusion you don't like - so you dismiss them all as "greedy capitalists" lol? Your mind is obviously closed and impervious to reason. They are trying convince the rest of us that it will somehow cause more unemployment and less jobs, even more poverty. They conducted studies of what actually happened in the past after raising the MW. Those are empirical studies based on actual economic data. Too bad you can't understand them or critique their methodologies. Where did you study economics again? As I said before, I don't agree with you. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own unsubstantiated "facts". 85% of all economists disagree with you, and they have supported their conclusions with empirical data. You can believe whatever you want. Most studies (and statistics, which I believe more than articles) prove that raising minimum wage has little to no affect on the economy and actually boosts the economy in many cases. What kind of an idiot would claim 15% constitutes "most studies"? You really need to STFU now. You are clearly irrational.

Here's a study that UC Berkeley did. They did a hypothetical where minimum wage was raised to $15 in Santa Clara County, California to $15 per hour, on January 1, 2017. After 2 years, January 1, 2019, here's the results.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...y-of-san-jose/ Originally Posted by SassySue

Re. the UC-Berkeley "study", do you have a time capsule now? Did you examine the study's methodology or just pluck it out because you like the conclusion? UC-Davis economist Neumark looked at over 100 studies. They were all based on ACTUAL DATA from the past, not future speculation. If your UC-Berkeley study, er I mean forecast, turns out to be wrong, will the authors compensate all the low-skilled workers who don't get hired over the next two years?

0zombie speak... Feelings!

Re. the UC-Berkeley study, do you have a time capsule now? Did you examine the study's methodology or just pluck it out because you like the conclusion? UC-Davis economist Neumark looked at over 100 studies. They were all based on ACTUAL DATA from the past, not future speculation. If your UC-Berkeley study, er I mean forecast, turns out to be wrong, will the authors compensate all the low-skilled workers who don't get hired over the next two years? Originally Posted by lustylad

Silly Suzy Simpleton is what Eric Hoffer calls a "True Believer," a person who feels personally inadequate and dissatisfied with their present circumstances; so, they hang their hat on intangible promises -- spouted by smarmy little demagogues -- that they will find their just reward in some delusional future world that will never dawn. To them the factual and tangible is irrelevant: it's all about "promises."

What is most annoying about Sassy Poo-poo's desperate efforts to "prove" a MW increase won't hurt employment is the way it contradicts all the theory and evidence libtards apply to other ideological crusades, such as reducing cigarette smoking and energy consumption.

From page 8 of the Neumark slideshow:

When something becomes more expensive, we use less of it:

- Gasoline
- Cigarette taxes
- Subsidies for green technology
- Responses don’t surprise us at all


Libtards argue CORRECTLY that if we raise taxes on cigarettes and gasoline, people will use less of them. If we offer subsidies for solar panels in the home, people will install more of them. And yet, when it comes to the cost of labor, libtards suddenly want us to believe that the normal laws of economics are suspended - i.e., if the cost of labor increases, we won't use less of it!

This is an example of letting ideology overrule common sense AND empirical evidence.

I can respect anyone who argues in favor of raising the minimum wage DESPITE the negative impacts on certain segments of the work force and the economy. But I have no patience for ideological lemmings who claim there will be NO negative impacts. That's akin to pushing voodoo economics or snake oil.

Re. the UC-Berkeley "study", do you have a time capsule now? Did you examine the study's methodology or just pluck it out because you like the conclusion? UC-Davis economist Neumark looked at over 100 studies. They were all based on ACTUAL DATA from the past, not future speculation. If your UC-Berkeley study, er I mean forecast, turns out to be wrong, will the authors compensate all the low-skilled workers who don't get hired over the next two years? Originally Posted by lustylad

You didn't read the second article about the success story in San Jose, California, after they raised the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. Those are actual results over time. Most studies I have seen (with statistics that are unbiased) show that raising minimum wage has little to no effect on unemployment or small businesses. You are probably plucking articles from Forbes or other biased capitalist writers. A lot of articles I post contain government statistics from the Department of Labor. You cannot possibly dispute statistics over time. And no way are statistics biased. By the way, where did your "Neumark" actual data come from? The San Jose results are actual results over the span of almost one year. These statistics go all the way through 2014 and are unbiased (from the Department of Labor Statistics):

http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-conten...mployment1.jpg

http://www.factandmyth.com/minimum-w...oyment-economy

Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would give working families, and the overall economy, a much-needed boost


http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357...wage-increase/

When consumers make more, they spend more; therefore, the whole economy gets a boost, including business owners, in the form of increased profits. That's the big picture.

0zombie speak... Feelings!


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Yeah, too bad you don't have any feelings. What a sad empty life you must live.

New evidence suggests that Seattle’s ‘radical experiment’ might be a model for the rest of the nation not to follow

Early evidence from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Seattle’s monthly employment, the number of unemployed workers, and the city’s unemployment rate through December 2015 suggest that since last April when the first minimum wage hike took effect: a) the city’s employment has fallen by more than 11,000, b) the number of unemployed workers has risen by nearly 5,000, and c) the city’s jobless rate has increased by more than 1 percentage point (all based on BLS’s “not seasonally adjusted basis”).







(aie.org)

.

You didn't read the second article about the success story in San Jose, California, after they raised the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. Those are actual results over time.... The San Jose results are actual results over the span of almost one year. Originally Posted by SassySue

Hey Sassy Poo-poo, I've got an idea! Instead of retiring in Puerte Vallarta, why not move to San Jose and open a new bistro now that the restaurant industry is booming there?

Here is a revealing article from the very same publication you linked (the Mercury News):


Minimum wage dissent: San Jose's law resulted in lost jobs

By Michael Saltsman

Special to the Mercury News

Posted: 12/09/2014 10:00:00 AM PST

Is the city of San Jose living proof that a higher minimum wage doesn't harm jobs?

This year, proponents and reporters have pointed to the city's falling unemployment rate and overall job growth as proof that the $10 wage floor caused no harm. Scott Myers-Lipton, the San Jose State professor whose sociology class spearheaded the law's passage, boasted in the Mercury News that "the number of businesses grew" after the wage hike was approved. One CBS affiliate ran a story with this headline: "Data Shows Unemployment Down, Growth Robust after San Jose Adopts $10 Minimum Wage."

It's a pleasant-sounding conclusion that other Bay Area cities have used as justification to boost their own wage floors.

But San Jose's economy is not a minimum wage economy. In fact, it's classified as one of the country's wealthiest metro areas, due in no small part to the high-skilled opportunities available in the tech industry. Looking for the impact of a higher minimum wage by studying overall employment including people earning six-figure salaries is a fools' errand at best and, at worst, a campaign to mislead observers.

Common sense and economic precedent tell us that less-skilled employees more likely to earn the minimum wage, such as 16- to 24-year-olds with a high school degree or less, would see the greatest impact of a wage hike. And a topline analysis of employment trends for this group in the San Jose metro area suggests the city's wage hike was less than benign.

San Jose's new minimum wage took effect on March 13, 2013, although employers had the previous three months to prepare for the increase. That year, the unemployment rate for young adults in the San Jose metro area jumped sharply by six percentage points -- from 14 percent in 2012 to 20 percent in 2013 -- according to data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. Meanwhile, the overall unemployment rate in the same area fell by nearly two percentage points, suggesting that young adults suffered while others did quite well.

Of course, a more careful analysis is required before drawing final conclusions. But broad declarations that the policy change had no consequence are plainly premature, particularly in light of an EPI survey of 163 restaurants in San Jose, 45 percent of which cut employee hours and 42 percent of which reduced staffing in response to the hike.

These are not tech giants like Google but rather local restaurants like the Brittania Arms Pub, whose owner is Thomas Caughe.

"I am struggling mightily. I've had to cut staff," Caughe said. "I've personally had to work my own kitchen and my own bar a lot more than I need to, instead of spending the time ... to promote my business and pay my bills and do paperwork."

The city's oldest restaurant, Original Joe's, also has cut back on staff and employee hours. Co-owner Matt Rocca told USA Today that the hike cost his restaurant $90,000 a year, forcing him to lay off five of his 67 employees and shift closing time up to 11 p.m.

It doesn't take a labor economist to understand that the effect of a minimum wage hike shouldn't be judged by equating employment of tech experts at Google with busboys at Original Joe's.

Perhaps it's time for a new conventional wisdom: San Jose's economy is a great model for other cities in the nation to follow; its minimum wage, not so much.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...-resulted-lost

http://badideaca.com/media/san-jose-...wage-study.pdf

http://badideaca.com/