Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck United States Politics

States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth 778

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Department of Labor has released data that some proponents of raising minimum wage are touting as evidence that higher minimum wage promotes job growth. While the data doesn't actually establish cause and effect, it does "run counter to a Congressional Budget Office report in February that said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as the White House supports, would cost 500,000 jobs." The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't. Other factors likely contributed to this outcome, but some economists are simply relieved that the higher wage factor didn't have a dramatically negative effect in general.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:37AM (#47493475)

    So the federal government staying out of the way lets local laws be different and we can see if the changes are good or not? Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

    Its almost as if the whole system was set up like this so only the obvious non-controversial laws should be at the federal level and everything else should be local.
    Screw that, its too hard to force your views on others in every location, they should just force eveything on a federal level without Congress so those people who don't agree with me don't get a say.

    • by BlueMonk (101716) <BlueMonkMN@gmail.com> on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:44AM (#47493495) Homepage
      Moving to the state whose laws work best for you may work for people who can move, but I expect the people affected by these laws are pretty closely representative of the set of people who can't move.
      • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Sunday July 20, 2014 @09:53AM (#47494171) Journal

        Moving to the state whose laws work best for you may work for people who can move, but I expect the people affected by these laws are pretty closely representative of the set of people who can't move.

        Even when people are supposedly more mobile, moving is a big thing for most people so they do not do it.

        Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference because while these sort of exceeding rich people might threaten to take their family somewhere else, but then when they talk to their wife and she refuses to move more than a 20 minute drive from her family and refuses to move the kids out of school and away from their friends.

        A few years ago I wanted to move to the states as there were few companies that I could have worked for that might have appreciated a few niche skills I had picked up in their field. Although I would have been a ton financially better off in the states and we could have bought a much bigger house to start a family in than the 3 bedroom London house we have now, my wife would not have moved that far away from the family support. I could have explained how the US tax code would have benefited us until I was blue in the face but she simple wouldn't have cared enough to pay attention.

        The idea that people will move is just a scare story that the rich use to try and maintain the ability to pay less in taxes or employers use to justify being able to pay as little in wages as possible.

        • by ray-auch (454705)

          Even when people are supposedly more mobile, moving is a big thing for most people so they do not do it.

          Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference because while these sort of exceeding rich people might threaten to take their family somewhere else, but then when they talk to their wife and she refuses to move more than a 20 minute drive from her family and refuses to move the kids out of school and away from their friends.

          as well as moving, people at that level can move their income elsewhere, pension it, or defer it to avoid the tax. Avoidance is not illegal (evasion is).

          Key issue with the 50% rate is - did it raise 20% more money than the 40%, for incomes over 100k ? If not, then people _did_ move either themselves or their income, and the country's finances got less benefit.

          HMRC reckons the income moved - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2... [hmrc.gov.uk] - chart on P28 is very interesting, 25% fall in total declared income over 150k, o

    • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:54AM (#47493541) Homepage

      Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

      For one, not everyone wants to move. Many of the people who call for a hands-off federal government would be quick to emphasize the value of family and stable local communities. Conservatives everywhere deplore the brain-drain and family disruption that comes with people migrating away from an area for better work elsewhere.

      But even when people want to move, there's a general expectation that things work more or less the same everywhere. Sure, there are still some cultural differences between large regions, but the US isn't 13 distinct colonies any more. If the American Revolution happened today in our hyper-connected world, there definitely wouldn't be the same call for devolution and autonomy as in the days of the Founding Fathers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

        Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

        For one, not everyone wants to move. Many of the people who call for a hands-off federal government would be quick to emphasize the value of family and stable local communities. Conservatives everywhere deplore the brain-drain and family disruption that comes with people migrating away from an area for better work elsewhere

        Why one could just believe that they are selfish pricks, who just find everything in life as an example of something that affirms their beliefs.

        It's usually hypocritical though, and seen through the eye of a pig.

        First off, in their "we will only be wealthy when you are as poor as possible" outlook, where a minimum wage doesn't exist, giving any employee any raise immediately causes the economy to fail, and causes employers to throuw up their hands in defeat, and close their food stand, and we all starve

        • by BarC0d3z (825670) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @10:21AM (#47494341)
          The outlook that states the pie is only so large - if I get rich someone else has to get poorer - is a fallacy perpetuated by progressives to justify redistribution. It's simply not how our economy works. But it is an economic reality that increasing the minimum wage decreases profits which increases costs to the consumer. That being said, if we are going to have a minimum wage at all, it should be reasonable with adjustments for inflation.

          I have no idea how you came up with the number 80% of Wal-Mart employees are on government assistance, but a report Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story, by Jason Furman - Obama's own advisor, states that the number of employees on public assistance is "in line" with other companies of its size.

          During the depression there was a continual migration of low-income workers as they looked for work. My grandfather in any given week was a hard-laborer, shoe repairman, piano tuner, and musician at night traveling around the Midwest, gone for weeks at a time. He'd go where he could find work. Choosing to live in places with insane home prices or property / sales taxes when you're out of work should be motivation to relocate to a place that can support you and work is plentiful.

          As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.
          • by sjames (1099)

            Actually no. Progressives generally believe that if we raise wages for the poor, the stimulus to the economy will make everyone richer. It is the GOP that believes that moving money from employer to employee will bring the world to a screeching halt and make everyone poor.

            Note that the Dems are coming to closely resemble the GOP. Few seem to be actually progressive these days.

          • by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @09:16PM (#47497721)

            The outlook that states the pie is only so large - if I get rich someone else has to get poorer - is a fallacy perpetuated by progressives to justify redistribution. It's simply not how our economy works. But it is an economic reality that increasing the minimum wage decreases profits which increases costs to the consumer. That being said, if we are going to have a minimum wage at all, it should be reasonable with adjustments for inflation

            Henry Ford thaought that the employees should be able to but th product.

            Today, that is apprantly no longer true. The employee must be paid as absolutely little as possible, so that the sharholders are served.

            But what happens when no one buys the product any more?

            Here is the http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl... [forbes.com]

            Although WalMart points to a 2005 report to invalidate those socialists at Forbes. I know WalMart employees who haven't had a raise since then.

            McDonald's cost's us 1.2 billion dollars in Government support.

            THere is even more data, but I figured you would just say that Huffpost and Daily Kos were tools of the liberal elite. You can Google it if you like

            Now that we are here, I would like to talk about how my Tax dollars and yours are going to support the low wages that these companies say they have to pay their workers?

            I thought that Government was inefficient, and spends the money poorly. So why should we subsidize McDonalds and WalMart so that they can pay their employees less? Would it not make sense to pay the employees directly? 6.2 Billion dollars is one fucking gobsmack of a tax break for WalMart. And it's semi hidden, allowing them to act like the free market superstars while they are secretly socialist redistribution of your money and mine to thos epoor people w e've been trained to know are the source of all their problems.

            As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

            Those fucking lazy poor people really frost my cupcakes too. Skiiled trades. Let us talk about them.

            Because the person who is laid off at say 50, is going to spend 4 years leaning a new trade, to apply for a job they won't get hired for because they are "too old"? Because the person laid off from their factory job will just become an investment broker or open a machine shop?

            I like Mike Rowe a lot, and agree with his idea that the blue collar workers don't get the respect they deserve.

            But there is an elephant in this room.

            You are not going to just plug in anyone anywhere. Isn't going to happen. Some people can make fundamental shifts in what they do, others cannot. I can and have. I've been a lifeguard, a cable TV technician, a linesman, a printed circuit manufacturer, a Digital programmer, a photographer, a videographer, and computer support to Suits. I'm the person who shifts careers as need be.

            My better half, who is every bit as smart as I am, doesn't adapt as well - she's pretty much been stable in her work life.

            I'd say 80 percent of people retrain only under great duress, and with very mixed success.

            Thern there are the other people. Whether we want to admit it or not, a whole lot of people are just not cut out to do much that is complicated. They just aren't. But they need to support themselves.

            Unless you want to support them through socialist programs, or remove them from the food chain, that is.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2014 @10:24AM (#47494363)

          in their [conservative] "we will only be wealthy when you are as poor as possible" outlook,

          The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.

          Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?

          giving any employee any raise immediately causes the economy to fail,

          Conservatives don't oppose giving employees raises. They oppose govt mandates that force businesses to pay employees above labor market rates.

          and causes employers to throuw up their hands in defeat, and close their food stand, and we all starve to death.

          Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

          If you don't believe 2), then consider what would happen if the govt required all McDonald's employees to be paid at least $300/hr. How much would fries and a burger cost at McD's if every one of their employees were paid that much? Would you buy a McD's burger if it cost > $15? Of course, you wouldn't and no one else would either and so a $300/hr. minimum wage would kill businesses and jobs. A less extreme minimum wage would have the same effect although the magnitude would be smaller.

          But then there's that little thing of places like McDonald's giving employees directions on how to apply for food stamps and other Government assistance. ... Sounds kind of like business based socialism to me.

          The usual terms for this are "corporatism" and "crony capitalism", but, yes, you seem to have recognized a problem, although you have drawn the wrong conclusions. Govt creates the problem by setting up all kinds of handout programs and then taxes the snot out of companies in order to pay for the programs. Then you come along and complain that the same companies that are getting shafted with taxes and burdensome regulations shift some of their labor costs by paying their workers less and telling them to sign up for govt handouts. (Obamacare is by far the worst example of this, by the way, as everyone will see once it is fully in place and every company has dumped its employee health insurance plans.)

          In a world of greater economic freedom, the govt would dramatically decrease regulations and taxes and roll back handout programs, the economy would thrive, more companies would be created, jobs would be plentiful and wages would be bid upward as companies competed for workers by offering higher pay. Sadly, the statists have control of the political system and the country is getting f***ed up because of it.

          ... WalMart, ... WalMart ...

          WalMart is a great company and its employees are generally satisfied working there. Why the hate?

          • by sjames (1099) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @01:53PM (#47495555) Homepage

            Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?

            If the shoe fits...

            Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

            So why didn't it cost jobs in the 13 states that tried it? Did you RTFA? Your theory is shot to hell.

            As for the rest, nobody has contemplated a law forcing one particular employer to pay higher wages. Your imagined outcome doesn't happen when everyone is equally required to pay a fair wage. You're also breaking the argument by analogy by insisting on an unrealistic starting condition. Nobody has suggested $300/hr or anything close to it. The effect of $15/hr would increase the cost of a Big Mac by $0.20. Meanwhile, a bunch of people could actually afford things, which means sales and hiring staff to serve them.

    • by sjames (1099)

      Once you have established that something works well on multiple test systems, shouldn't it then be deployed to the production system? Now that the test states have proven the effectiveness of the measure, any remaining 'controversy' is political in nature and likely driven by a metric that would end a political career if voiced honestly.

      Many people have no desire to live like gypsies and move constantly.

  • Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:38AM (#47493479)

    Economic activity is increased by more people having more money to spend ?

    Inconceivable !

    • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr D from 63 (3395377) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:51AM (#47493531)
      States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.

      Inconceivable.
      • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Informative)

        by ranton (36917) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @10:43AM (#47494471)

        States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.
        Inconceivable.

        Well, it should be noted that only 5 of the states that raised the minimum wage this year have a Gross State Product per person above the national average (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado). The other 8 have below average economies, but are still gaining jobs at a faster rate. Also if you look at the job growth in 2013, these 13 states may have outperformed the average by 0.065% but they are on track to beat the average by 0.3554% this year.

        So it looks like these states do not have the healthiest job situations, but still performed better than those who did not raise the minimum wage (by this ridiculous metric that is).

        A better metric is comparing how job growth is growing or stalling. The four states with the highest minimum wages are California, D.C., Oregon, and Washington, who all have minimum wages about $9 per hour. Of those four areas, job growth has slowed by 27% on average year over year (comparing June 2013 - May 2014 to June 2012 - May 2013). If you look at the four states with the lowest minimum wage (Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Wyoming), their job growth has grown by 26% on average year over year. So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

        source [senate.gov]

        • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday July 20, 2014 @11:03AM (#47494579) Homepage Journal

          So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

          What kind of jobs are being created? Are they minimum-wage jobs that you can't actually live on?

          • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ranton (36917) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @12:40PM (#47495171)

            So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

            What kind of jobs are being created? Are they minimum-wage jobs that you can't actually live on?

            They are almost certainly not good jobs. They are probably some of the worst and lowest paid jobs in the country. But that just points out why job growth is a stupid metric to look at anyway. I would like to see an alternative employment figure of "households that make at least twice the poverty level" alongside any unemployment figures.

            Growth in median wages would also be a statistic that is more meaningful for most people than job growth. Most people who complain about not being able to find a job could find one if they were willing to work for minimum wage. When people complain about an economy they usually are complaining because they can't keep up whatever standard of living they are familiar with.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by roman_mir (125474)

      Nonsense and propaganda. You cannot state anything until those increases actually kick in and are in effect for some time. About 5% of workers are on minimum wage in the first place, out of those 5%, some will not be rehired, and once the wage is in effect fewer new businesses will be created. The money will come from somewhere, higher consumer prices and fewer minimum wage jobs. Fewer minimum wage jobs does not mean "people will have more money to spend" but it will slow down growth of new positions

      • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Informative)

        by Overzeetop (214511) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @08:35AM (#47493747) Journal

        So the $600 pre-refund of taxes that Bush2 put in place (which made a negligible increase in per paycheck take-home) and the SS 2% rebate by Obama (which had a similar result) were useless? No, they weren't, they were identified as having an impact on the economy, even though the money wasn't even in consumers hands when it was announced/started.

        Minimum wage has nothing to do with minimum ability. It sets a price floor for labor. The people who lose out are those just above the minimum wage floor who see their less skilled/experienced/tenured coworkers elevated to a higher wage while theirs remains stagnant. (This happened to me, btw, and it sowed a short period of discord in that company)

        For businesses with very small margins, the costs will be transferred pretty much one for one. As the margin of the business increases, the cost will be passed on in a proportionally smaller magnitude. People are (almost) never hired because they're "cheap" but because work needs to be done to meet demand. Just as nobody hires people if their taxes go down, or fire people if taxes rise. Might it delay hiring? In some instances it makes greater efficiency more valuable, with businesses investing in machines (which are built by people) instead of people. However most of the time it's just a cost of production. If you need to make more silk shirts and the cost of silk goes up, you don't buy less silk - you buy as much as you need to meet demand.

        • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by countach74 (2484150) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @11:12AM (#47494639)

          So the $600 pre-refund of taxes that Bush2 put in place (which made a negligible increase in per paycheck take-home) and the SS 2% rebate by Obama (which had a similar result) were useless? No, they weren't, they were identified as having an impact on the economy, even though the money wasn't even in consumers hands when it was announced/started.

          That's a straw man's argument. Reducing taxes is not even remotely close to having the same sort of economic impacts as setting a minimum wage. The first puts more control of the economy back into the hands of consuming public, while the latter makes it difficult or impossible for those who cannot bring in enough productivity to justify the wage to find a job.

          Minimum wage has nothing to do with minimum ability. It sets a price floor for labor. The people who lose out are those just above the minimum wage floor who see their less skilled/experienced/tenured coworkers elevated to a higher wage while theirs remains stagnant. (This happened to me, btw, and it sowed a short period of discord in that company)

          I think you've just successfully argued against yourself.

          For businesses with very small margins, the costs will be transferred pretty much one for one. As the margin of the business increases, the cost will be passed on in a proportionally smaller magnitude. People are (almost) never hired because they're "cheap" but because work needs to be done to meet demand. Just as nobody hires people if their taxes go down, or fire people if taxes rise. Might it delay hiring? In some instances it makes greater efficiency more valuable, with businesses investing in machines (which are built by people) instead of people. However most of the time it's just a cost of production. If you need to make more silk shirts and the cost of silk goes up, you don't buy less silk - you buy as much as you need to meet demand.

          You're making so many assumptions here, I'm not really sure where to start. I guess I'll start with the law of supply and demand. Raise a price, ceteris paribus, the demand decreases. This is visible throughout the economy, although possibly it is easiest to see when looking at the supply side of the equation. For instance, look at doctors and lawyers: these fields have artificial barriers to entry, reducing supply and increasing prices. If you want to look at the demand side, I highly suggest reading upon Thomas Sowell's work, where he very often points out that the young black male worker used to be on par with his white counterpart in terms of percentage employed. With the introduction of the minimum wage, however, young black male unemployment skyrocketed. Why? Because that people group is generally not as educated and brings in less productivity (that's not to say that young black males are inherently worse than their white counterparts, but rather that they're at a societal disadvantage and that laws like the minimum wage make that worse).

          Regarding people not being hired because they're "cheap," you're only looking at half of the equation. You're right in that work needs to be done, but how the work gets done is hardly as simple as you make it sound. For example, if labor is very expensive, it becomes more advantageous for the business owner to invest in capital goods to offset the high labor costs; this generally comes at the cost of how many laborers he will hire. For example, consider a fast food business where most of the employees are burger flippers. They cost $7/hour to hire (40 hrs a week for each); 10 of them must be employed to produce 5,000,000 burgers annually, which is the business's target. Let's say that the minimum wage is raised to $12/hour, thus drastically increasing the employer's labor costs. What cost him $145,600 before will now cost him $249,600. As it turns out, an automated burger flipper, which can do all of the basic flipping that the employees did, has been developed that costs $150,000. The employer realizes that he can let 8

      • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Sunday July 20, 2014 @08:38AM (#47493755)

        Nonsense and propaganda. You cannot state anything until those increases actually kick in and are in effect for some time.

        Actually I feel pretty confident stating that if more people have more money, economic activity will increase.

        Minimum wage is actually minimum ability.

        No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.

        It cannot extract non-existing money from small business, but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs.

        If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle.

        • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by wierd_w (1375923) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @11:56AM (#47494927)

          If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle.

          More like this...

          If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle, while exceeding existing shareholder expectations.

      • by MrL0G1C (867445)

        About 5% of workers are on minimum wage in the first place, out of those 5%, some will not be rehired

        That doesn't make any sense, businesses don't hire people on a whim, they hire people because they have roles that need doing, minimum wage doesn't change that. Many European countries have a minimum wage, I've seen no evidence showing that is has a detrimental effect, including where I live where it was put in place over a decade ago.

        Any business that doesn't hire the people it needs is cutting off it's no

      • Just as importantly, you can't look at overall job growth and determine the effect on minimum wage earners, in fact, doing so is such a bad idea it seems almost intentionally deceptive. Most people don't make minimum wage, and most jobs were unaffected by this change.

        If you want to know the effect of the minimum wage, you need to look at the people who are effected by the change, which is low income workers, not the overall job market. This seems fairly obvious but people see to be missing it.
      • by microbox (704317)

        once the wage is in effect fewer new businesses will be created.

        Just because you believe it doesn't mean that it is true. Even professional economists can't agree on such a simple statement, since the details are so complex. But whatever floats your boat Mr Dunning Kruger.

    • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ichijo (607641) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @09:02AM (#47493893) Homepage Journal
      Economic activity is increased when wealth is transferred from people who "hoard" money to people who put it right back into the economy as soon as they receive it.
      • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Informative)

        by swb (14022) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @09:15AM (#47493973)

        I heard it argued recently that capitalists aren't interested in increased economic activity, only in increasing their share of economic activity. Suppressing labor markets and high unemployment helps.

    • Minimum wage is actually not the big of a deal.
      Most Companies do not pay their employers minimum wage they pay them higher.
      Minimum wage usually will go the the Teens first job, And other part time work.
      For people who are working full time, they get paid above the minimum wage.
      The exception is for Tip workers. Where these laws do not effect as much anyways.

      Most of the growth activity is actually in areas that don't pay minimum wage anyways.

      In short minimum wage laws do the following.
      For the Democrats it make

  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:39AM (#47493481)

    That is because the additional money goes back into the local economy and not into an offshore account.

  • Short-Lived? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by craigminah (1885846) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:41AM (#47493491)
    I bet jobs growth has increased because the delta between minimum wage in those regions and unemployment is great enough to motivate folks to get jobs. This will stabilize in a short time and I think jobs growth will stall and stagnate.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Imrik (148191)

      People don't need more motivation to get jobs, they need available jobs.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by gnasher719 (869701)

      I bet jobs growth has increased because the delta between minimum wage in those regions and unemployment is great enough to motivate folks to get jobs. This will stabilize in a short time and I think jobs growth will stall and stagnate.

      That may be true, but there is a difference between jobs and job growth. Job growth in one year means there are more jobs. Forever.

      • Job growth in one year means there are more jobs. Forever.

        What an intriguing theory you have.

        Note that if self-driving trucks were to become available, truck driver jobs would all disappear...forever. In other words, new technology sometimes makes jobs disappear.

        And job growth last year doesn't guarantee the existence of jobs next year. Otherwise, the Great Depression would never have happened.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr D from 63 (3395377)
      Maybe long lived, but not because of Min Wage;

      The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't

      Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states? It appears not. Drawing conclusions without historical context is a common stupidity these days.

      • Re:Short-Lived? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ardyvee (2447206) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @08:03AM (#47493593)

        If you read the rest of the summary, they do make the note that while they can't say that that growth is the result of increasing the minimum wage, it doesn't negatively affect it either.

      • One would kind of hope that the states are doing their own economic analyses. The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't. Given how much cost of living and average income vary across the nation, it's hardly surprising that some places would want a different minimum wage than others.

  • Economists (Score:5, Funny)

    by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:46AM (#47493505)

    It's a bit baffling how "some economists" weren't fully cognisant of what would happen when the minimum wage was raised. I mean it's not as though it's the first time it has happened, the effects should be well known by now. Kind of reminds me of the old joke:

    A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

    The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathemetician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

    Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

    Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

    • by roman_mir (125474)

      It is true that the entire field of "mainstream economics" is exactly what you joke it is. If you repeat lies and propaganda long enough, people will no longer understand the truth, many will lose the ability to differentiate the reality from fiction. Government needs these "economists" to turn the population into economic illiterates. The waters are muddied enough that even logic is no longer understood or followed. Simple logic: rising prices reduce demand, wages are also prices, price controls do not

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mdfst13 (664665)

      It's a bit baffling how "some economists" weren't fully cognisant of what would happen when the minimum wage was raised. I mean it's not as though it's the first time it has happened, the effects should be well known by now.

      The problem is that it's not clear what happens when the minimum wage increases. It's also not clear whether something different happens when a city or state does it versus a national change.

      Case in point: thirteen states increase the minimum wage and employment increases faster (on average) in those states than in those that do not increase the minimum wage. The presumption in the post is that the causality is that increasing the minimum wage causes employment increases. What if the causality goes the

  • Automation and/or skyrocketing inequality will soon bring capitalism as we know it today crashing down. This is just sticking your finger in the dam.

    The only way forward that doesn't involve revolution and bloodshed starts with mincome.

  • 10.10 per hour (Score:5, Informative)

    by rmdingler (1955220) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:49AM (#47493515)
    Although it still sounds a bit low for subsistence living, it's still better than what we have now.

    Depending on where you live (state taxes?), that's at best a cool $350-$365 after payroll taxes (259-270 Euros) per week for a family of two to four.

    After necessities like food, rent, electricity, phone, transportation, clothing, and so on, it's going to take some wicked budgeting skills to have any disposable income at all. Get it together Washington.

    • After necessities like food, rent, electricity, phone, transportation, clothing, and so on, it's going to take some wicked budgeting skills to have any disposable income at all.

      So? It sucks to be poor. It's *always* sucked to be poor. It always *will* suck to be poor. You can't legislate that away.

      Lack of living wage jobs is a problem. But so are the excessive expectations, created in part by our material culture and in part by the belief (created from whole cloth) that nobody should ever suffer becaus

  • by tomhath (637240) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:51AM (#47493527)

    Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation

    In other words, in most states there was no increase. The minimum wage wage boost followed the economic growth.

    • Inflation != growth.

      In fact if you were a few decades older you'd probably remember a time when we had massive inflation, but no growth, which meant you'd get a 10% raise every year and still lose ground. As a direct result of stagflation the fed as been on an unofficial no inflation policy for decades (officially they want 2% inflation, but they much prefer 1.9% to 2.1%).

      IMO we would probably have more economic growth if we had more inflation, which is one reason I really like policy that automatically inc

  • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:53AM (#47493539) Journal

    Um, yeah, talk about misleading.

    "Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states - Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island - approved legislation mandating the increase"

    Correlation really does not indicate causality when you read the entire article. North Dakota has an oil boom, which is spiking employment. Ohio still grew, despite a MW of $7.95. The whole complaint by the CBO was that jobs would be lost if MW was increased to $10.10 across the ENTIRE COUNTRY. In these 13 states, most are no where close to $10.10/hr.

  • by trout007 (975317) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:55AM (#47493555)

    The best performer is Florida which only raised it's minimum wage to keep pace with inflation by 14 cents/hr.

    "The number of jobs in Florida has risen 1.6 percent this year, the most of the 13 states with higher minimums. Its minimum rose to $7.93 an hour from $7.79 last year."

    In reality inflation is much worse for low income people in Florida so in real terms the minimum wage decreased for those people.

  • if you're going to use reality as an indicator. Who does that?
  • So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2014 @08:07AM (#47493611)

    In Germany the unemployment rate used to be higher 20 years ago, with industry-wide minimum wages, several protections against unfair dismissals and no short-term contracts. Unemployed people had generous allowances, that's also why companies had to offer decent wages for them to accept to work.

    Now, after the neoliberal Hartz "reforms", the unemployment rate has decreased, but also the average real salaries for the newly employed, factory workers and employees. And workers' rights have dramatically decreased too. In general, the lower/middle classes' life quality has dramatically worsened.

    People and the media must stop watching metrics like GDP, you need to look at its distribution instead, with the Gini Coefficient for example. I prefer a country with a GDP increase of 1% a year evenly distributed than one with a 3% GDP increase with the first tenth of the population having a 30% income increase and zero for the remaining 90%.

    Give us back protectionism, big state-owned companies, the welfare state and "socialism", please. We don't like this alleged new "freedom" (of the rich from the poor).

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke

Working...