even the LW Wa PO is noticing that massive min. wage hikes are bad economics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.1062c783ebb7


The Post's View Opinion
Sobering news for $15 minimum-wage boosters

Supporters of a $15 minimum wage in Montgomery County. (Patricia Sullivan/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board August 1

EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING is a hot concept in government these days, but politicians still often draft legislation or propose regulations based on what they think voters will like — not the public interest as demonstrated by objective data.

A notable exception has been the recent response of Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) with regard to efforts by members of the County Council to raise the county’s minimum wage from the current $11.50 per hour to $15 per hour. In January, Mr. Leggett vetoed a bill, passed on a 5-to-4 vote, that would have raised the minimum to $15 by 2020. He cited cost increases to the county government and the likely negative impact on the county’s economic competitiveness. However, advocates of a $15 minimum are trying again, with Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) recently introducing a bill slightly adjusted to address some of Mr. Leggett’s objections.

Wisely, Mr. Leggett’s veto message called for an objective economic study of the probable consequences, intended and unintended, of the proposed hike — which would leave Montgomery as the highest-minimum-wage jurisdiction in the area except for the District. Proponents of the increase should have waited for the results of this study; they’ve just come in, and they vindicate Mr. Leggett’s caution.
s

According to the 146-page report by Philadelphia-based consulting group PFM, the proposed higher wage would indeed yield benefits for low-wage workers who received it, in the form of reduced stress, greater food security and better mental health. Employers, in turn, could benefit from their workers’ improved morale, in the form of higher productivity. However, there would be offsetting costs and they could be substantial: a loss of almost 47,000 jobs and $396.5 million in total income by 2022, due to workers’ being priced out of the job market by the higher minimum wage. This would spell a reduction of nearly $41 million in expected county tax revenue between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2022; meanwhile, the county government’s payroll costs would go up $10 million.

The results of similar experiments elsewhere in the country should also give boosters of $15 per hour in Montgomery more pause than it apparently does. A team of economists at the University of Washington recently found that low-income workers across all businesses in Seattle lost an average of $125 a month because of reduced hours or job loss after that city enacted a $15 minimum

Oh, so the basic law of supply and demand DOES apply...( surprise face).

KLATTU said:

Oh, so the basic law of supply and demand DOES apply...( surprise face).

Click to expand...

Just going to keep regurgitation your one debunked study huh? Have fun.

Study after study has proven unequivocally that small increases in the minimum wage show no negative impact on jobs or hours. Now a large increase particularly targeted around a very small area is still questionable, but sorry this study isn't telling us ****.

Nothing about raising the minimum wage contradicts supply and demand. What people like yourself like to conveniently forget about(assuming you ever learned it) is that there's something called the Elasticity of Demand which shows us that for many things raising or lowering the price has little or no impact on how much of the good is purchased because a certain amount, and only a certain amount is needed.

Employees are one of them. A good business manager isn't hiring any more employees than they absolutely need to begin with. If you need a certain number of employees to run your business you can't simply fire people and continue to produce at the same level. If it was possible to do that you should have already done it.

KLATTU said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.1062c783ebb7.

Click to expand...

Paywalled articles are useless.

After 5 minutes of Googling ...

How could a county with a population of 1.04 million people (and less than 500,000 employed between the ages of 16-65), lose 47,000 jobs due to a minimum wage hike?

Nationally, only about 3% of workers earn minimum wage. How is Montgomery going to be caused to shed nearly 10% of its workforce due to an increase in minimum wage? This could only happen if everyone earning less than $15 was fired, instead of being given a raise.

MrWonka said:

Just going to keep regurgitation your one debunked study huh? Have fun.

Study after study has proven unequivocally that small increases in the minimum wage show no negative impact on jobs or hours. Now a large increase particularly targeted around a very small area is still questionable, but sorry this study isn't telling us ****.

Nothing about raising the minimum wage contradicts supply and demand. What people like yourself like to conveniently forget about(assuming you ever learned it) is that there's something called the Elasticity of Demand which shows us that for many things raising or lowering the price has little or no impact on how much of the good is purchased because a certain amount, and only a certain amount is needed.

Employees are one of them. A good business manager isn't hiring any more employees than they absolutely need to begin with. If you need a certain number of employees to run your business you can't simply fire people and continue to produce at the same level. If it was possible to do that you should have already done it.

Click to expand...

a loss of almost 47,000 jobs and $396.5 million in total income by 2022, due to workers’ being priced out of the job market by the higher minimum wage. This would spell a reduction of nearly $41 million in expected county tax revenue between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2022; meanwhile, the county government’s payroll costs would go up $10 million.

yea no impact please read again. that is a huge impact.

Critter7r said:

After 5 minutes of Googling ...

How could a county with a population of 1.04 million people (and less than 700,000 between the ages of 18-65), lose 47,000 jobs due to a minimum wage hike?

Nationally, only about 3% of workers earn minimum wage. How is Montgomery going to be caused to shed 6.5% of its workforce due to an increase in minimum wage?

Click to expand...

losses include jobs not created.

meaning a business owner that needs to expand or wants to expand to another 5 employee's now doesn't because he can't afford to pay 15 an hour.
it also means that people wanting that job will now have to already know how to do it or have experience in doing it before they are hired.

ludin said:

losses include jobs not created.

Click to expand...

See edit ...

I updated the numbers to account for the 30% of the population over 16 not in the workforce.

meaning a business owner that needs to expand or wants to expand to another 5 employee's now doesn't because he can't afford to pay 15 an hour.

Click to expand...

If he can't afford to add $150 more per day in expenses onto the $450 he was already planning to spend for those 5 new employees, then he doesn't need 5 new employees.

it also means that people wanting that job will now have to already know how to do it or have experience in doing it before they are hired.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the same argument has been being made since MW was a quarter. "NOW" they'll already have to know how to do the job before anyone will hire them.

The kicker here is that $15 Min/Wage was always a risky experiment lightly supported with evidence, but it was sold as a sure thing. It sounded good and those selling it said in effect "Of course it sounds good, it is good, the reason we have not had it till now is because the working poor have been victimized".

Which was a lie, at least in part.

Now we see.

Critter7r said:

See edit ...
I updated the numbers to account for the 30% of the population over 16 not in the workforce.

Click to expand...

I will go with the study vs internet poster.

If he can't afford to add $150 more per day in expenses onto the $450 he already planning to spend for those 5 new employees, then he doesn't need 5 new employees.

Click to expand...

You realize that it costs him more than just the base wage increase right? there are other taxes that go up as well that he has to pay on.
at 11 dollars an hour it is costing him roughly 14 or 15 in taxes and other businesses expenses. at 15 an hour for everyone it jumps to 17 or 18 maybe 19 an hour
. while he could afford 5 more people at 11.45 he can't afford those same people at 15. You guys really need to get a better understanding of how business works.
I suggest taking a business management class and your local community college.

I'm sure the same argument has been being made since MW was a quarter. "NOW" they'll already have to know how to do the job before anyone will hire them.

Click to expand...

yep and if you look at job descriptions we are correct. businesses have greatly tightened up on how much you need to know before you can even get an interview.

MrWonka said:

Just
Study after study has proven unequivocally that small increases in the minimum wage show no negative impact on jobs or hours. N
Nothin.

Click to expand...

3 Pinnochios.

even BEFORE the recent trend towards massive increases, only an economic illiterate would claim studies showed anything unequivocally.

David Neumark did an excellent study of the studies and the results were anything but unequivocal.

"How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested. "
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...cember/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

*MIC DROP*

ludin said:

a loss of almost 47,000 jobs and $396.5 million in total income by 2022, due to workers’ being priced out of the job market by the higher minimum wage. This would spell a reduction of nearly $41 million in expected county tax revenue between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2022; meanwhile, the county government’s payroll costs would go up $10 million.

yea no impact please read again. that is a huge impact.

Click to expand...

Except this study has already been pretty thoroughly debunked so it's irrelevant.

KLATTU said:

David Neumark did an excellent study of the studies and the results were anything but unequivocal.

"How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested. "
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco |

only an economic illiterate would claim studies showed anything unequivocally.

Click to expand...

Really? That's funny because even the paragraph you just cited supports exactly what I said. There's no evidence of overall job losses. There are studies that claim to show some, but there are just as many studies that show none, and there are a bunch that actually show growth. When you combine that overall the studies tell us that while it may impact low skill workers, you're still guessing at what impact it might have. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a negative impact. All you have is the scientific equivalent of he said she said.

MrWonka said:

Except this study has already been pretty thoroughly debunked so it's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

( this from somebody who thought studies " unequivocally ' showed min wage increase have no effect on employment.{snicker} )

Liberal speak. 'Thoroughly debunked ' means we don't want to hear it.

MrWonka said:

Really? That's funny because even the paragraph you just cited supports exactly what I said. There's no evidence of overall job losses. There are studies that claim to show some, but there are just as many studies that show none, and there are a bunch that actually show growth. When you combine that overall the studies tell us that while it may impact low skill workers, you're still guessing at what impact it might have. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a negative impact. All you have is the scientific equivalent of he said she said.

Click to expand...

****GOAL POST MOVING ALERT *****

First the studies were unequivocal.
"
Now it's not so clear..." There's no evidence of overall job losses. There are studies that claim to show some, but there are just as many studies that show none"

ludin said:

meaning a business owner that needs to expand or wants to expand to another 5 employee's now doesn't because he can't afford to pay 15 an hour.

Click to expand...

Which is a load of crap because employees generate wealth to make up for their salary. Employees are not just consumable products that you purchase and use with no returned value. They literally generate their own paycheck.

KLATTU said:

****GOAL POST MOVING ALERT *****

First the studies were unequivocal.
"
Now it's not so clear..." There's no evidence of overall job losses. There are studies that claim to show some, but there are just as many studies that show none"

Click to expand...

Yes, that is unequivocal. It shows us that you have no evidence of job loss which cannot be countered with evidence of job gains, and evidence of no change.


If three people measured the change in temperature over the last hour, one said the temp went down 2 degrees, one said it hadn't changed, and the other said it had went up 2 degrees. What could we conclude about the change in temperature over the last hour? Answer: Not much. There probably wasn't a change, and if there was it certainly wasn't definitively measurable. Best you can do is keep measuring, or find a different thermometer.

MrWonka said:

Yes, that is unequivocal. It shows us that you have no evidence of job loss which cannot be countered with evidence of job gains, and evidence of no change.
er.

Click to expand...

But that not waht you said. You Said was" " Study after study has proven unequivocally that small increases in the minimum wage show no negative impact on jobs or hours"

Then a few posts later you said: "." There's no evidence of overall job losses. There are studies that claim to show some, but there are just as many studies that show none"

{Of course the second half of that sentence contradict the first, but hey , when does that ever stop a liberal . LAFFRIOT}

The minimum wage issue is a good one for exposing some of he myths we are taught in economics. In neo-classical economics, we are told that an employer will hire a worker, provided the marginal cost for hiring the worker is at least equal to the marginal revenue the worker produces. Now, this sounds great, but this is not even remotely true. The reason is simple: It's virtually impossible for an employer to calculate marginal revenue. A person stocking the shelves at a grocery store? How in the world can an employer calculate what contribution that specific employee adds to the bottom line? It's impossible. People are employed if they are needed to get the job done, and if the employer can make a profit at the end of the day, then these people still have jobs.

Employees are basically paid according to how easy they are to replace. This is why less-skilled workers are paid little, because they are easy to replace. Despite their low pay, however, they may be adding a lot of value to the bottom line. This is why a slight increase in the minimum wage does not always cause unemployment to rise, because the employers still make plenty of profit. However, a large enough increase will definitely cause unemployment to rise, and there are also moral issues --- should the government be able to force employers to pay their workers more, which may also cause people to pay more for goods and services, etc.? That is a value judgment, however, having nothing to do with economic "science."

Those who believe in the neo-classical explanation for wage rates can never grasp the fact that the empirical evidence does not show a clear increase in unemployment when the minimum wage is increased. Those of us who do not accept that myth, however, can easily explain why the empirical evidence cuts against this theory -- the theory is a myth.

ludin said:

I will go with the study vs internet poster.

Click to expand...

Except when the internet poster posts a study you agree with.

You realize that it costs him more than just the base wage increase right? there are other taxes that go up as well that he has to pay on.
at 11 dollars an hour it is costing him roughly 14 or 15 in taxes and other businesses expenses. at 15 an hour for everyone it jumps to 17 or 18 maybe 19 an hour

Click to expand...

You realize jumping from $14 or $15 including taxes up to $19 is no different than jumping from $11 to $15, right? The concept is still the same. In fact, percentage-wise, it's better.

Would you have conceded if I had said, "If he can't afford to add $160 more per day in expenses (I used $19 to factor in other employee costs) onto the $600 he was already planning to spend for those 5 new employees, then he doesn't need 5 new employees". No, of course you wouldn't have.

($19hr x 8 hrs x 5 employees = $760)
($15hr x 8 hrs x 5 employees = $600)

while he could afford 5 more people at 11.45 he can't afford those same people at 15. You guys really need to get a better understanding of how business works.
I suggest taking a business management class and your local community college.

yep and if you look at job descriptions we are correct. businesses have greatly tightened up on how much you need to know before you can even get an interview.

Click to expand...

My visit to a greater Chicago-land fast food joint yesterday says otherwise.

Wisdom said:

Th
Those who believe in the neo-classical explanation for wage rates can never grasp the fact that the empirical evidence does not show a clear increase in unemployment when the minimum wage is increased. h.

Click to expand...

...Oh except for the study in the OP. But I guess that one doesn't count.

Prior to a couple years ago , almost all ( probably all) min. wage studies dealt with small increases. It is only recently that
HUGE increases have come into effect. the research is starting to confirm the obvious. HUGE increases in the cost of labor are going to lesen the chances of employers bearing that cost with no adverse effect .
To belive otherwise is akin to beliving in unicorns ( speaking of myths)

KLATTU said:

...Oh except for the study in the OP. But I guess that one doesn't count.

Prior to a couple years ago , almost all ( probably all) min. wage studies dealt with small increases. It is only recently that
HUGE increases have come into effect. the research is starting to confirm the obvious. HUGE increases in the cost of labor are going to lesen the chances of employers bearing that cost with no adverse effect .
To belive otherwise is akin to beliving in unicorns ( speaking of myths)

Click to expand...

Two points -- 1. an increase to $15.00 dollars an hour is a rather large one, and 2. that study was speculative as hell. There is simply no way to calculate the amount of jobs that will be lost years from now due to a minimum wage increase today. These studies get done al the time, but it's not real science. The main cause of unemployment has never been such things as the minimum wage, but rather the business cycle. People get unemployed when an economy collapses, and during a boom, they get employed, despite the rate of the minimum wage, or import tariffs, etc. Any study that tries to assess unemployment rates by avoiding the business cycle as the main factor is flawed from the start.

Tell me, did this study even mention the likelihood of a recession two years from now, and what impact that will have on unemployment? I'm willing to bet it didn't. The thing is most neo-classical models do not even have an option for a recession, it is simply assumed out of existence as a possibility. That's why so many economists fail to predict collapses, their models assume collapses never occur. That's not science, but mythical thinking.

KLATTU said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.1062c783ebb7


The Post's View Opinion
Sobering news for $15 minimum-wage boosters

Supporters of a $15 minimum wage in Montgomery County. (Patricia Sullivan/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board August 1

EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING is a hot concept in government these days, but politicians still often draft legislation or propose regulations based on what they think voters will like — not the public interest as demonstrated by objective data.

A notable exception has been the recent response of Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) with regard to efforts by members of the County Council to raise the county’s minimum wage from the current $11.50 per hour to $15 per hour. In January, Mr. Leggett vetoed a bill, passed on a 5-to-4 vote, that would have raised the minimum to $15 by 2020. He cited cost increases to the county government and the likely negative impact on the county’s economic competitiveness. However, advocates of a $15 minimum are trying again, with Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) recently introducing a bill slightly adjusted to address some of Mr. Leggett’s objections.

Wisely, Mr. Leggett’s veto message called for an objective economic study of the probable consequences, intended and unintended, of the proposed hike — which would leave Montgomery as the highest-minimum-wage jurisdiction in the area except for the District. Proponents of the increase should have waited for the results of this study; they’ve just come in, and they vindicate Mr. Leggett’s caution.
s

According to the 146-page report by Philadelphia-based consulting group PFM, the proposed higher wage would indeed yield benefits for low-wage workers who received it, in the form of reduced stress, greater food security and better mental health. Employers, in turn, could benefit from their workers’ improved morale, in the form of higher productivity. However, there would be offsetting costs and they could be substantial: a loss of almost 47,000 jobs and $396.5 million in total income by 2022, due to workers’ being priced out of the job market by the higher minimum wage. This would spell a reduction of nearly $41 million in expected county tax revenue between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2022; meanwhile, the county government’s payroll costs would go up $10 million.

The results of similar experiments elsewhere in the country should also give boosters of $15 per hour in Montgomery more pause than it apparently does. A team of economists at the University of Washington recently found that low-income workers across all businesses in Seattle lost an average of $125 a month because of reduced hours or job loss after that city enacted a $15 minimum

Oh, so the basic law of supply and demand DOES apply...( surprise face).

Click to expand...

selective information always means crap posts.

MrWonka said:

Except this study has already been pretty thoroughly debunked so it's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

no it hasn't it just came out.
LOL you say so sorry this is the 2nd study that has come out that says the hike at 15 is costing people jobs and money.
the last one did the same thing on seattle minimum wage increase.

katzgar said:

selective information always means crap posts.

Click to expand...

EXCELLENT rebuttal!
{snciker}

MrWonka said:

Which is a load of crap because employees generate wealth to make up for their salary. Employees are not just consumable products that you purchase and use with no returned value. They literally generate their own paycheck.

Click to expand...

yes what you said was a load of crap. an employee can only make so many burgers in an hour and only some many people are going to order X amount of burgers in that hour.
some do others don't. you seriously need to take a business class. you really don't know what you are talking about.

however the other issue is that i have employee's already making 15 an hour that have gotten raises or promoted. they will want raises as well.
so now my payroll is scaling larger than minimum wage.