That's common sense, no link needed...
We have increased min wage and that has never happened. So you are just wrong.
You dumbasses keep telling us this, despite the proof that it DOES happen. So I have to think the real problem is just that you refuse to believe it, no matter what the evidence, and you think if you shout your lies loud enough and long enough, other people will believe them.
Minimum Wage Leads to Benefit Cuts, Unemployment
Yes, Minimum Wages Still Increase Unemployment
I don't see any proof there it has happened. Seattle is fine.
I know you don't see any proof it has happened. This is because every time someone offers you proof, you immediately close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout, "Seattle did it yesterday, and it's fine today! Lalalala!" There are two links right there in the post you're responding to, and what's the first thing out of your mouth? "I don't see any proof." You can't make it any more obvious that the problem isn't a lack of evidence; the problem is you.
The fact that you think economics change on a dime and economic impact can be measured within days of a change happening is the surest indication that you're a fucking moron who should never be listened to on economic issues.
Your links were filled with theory. We don't need theory as it is being done now and has been done before. Stop the silly scare tactics already.
Nice try, but no. My links were filled with studies and statistics, and I would bet hard money you didn't even click on them, let alone read them. All you want to hear is that someone gave you a talking point - "Seattle did it and it's WONDERFUL!" - that agrees with you.
Stop being a poltroon already.
A 2007 study by economists David Neumark and William Wascher analyzed 100 minimum wage studies, finding that two-thirds of the studies showed negative effects of the wage on employment. Most damage was to low-skilled workers and the young. Just one-eighth of the studies found positive effects.
A study by professor Aspen Gorry showed how the minimum wage impacts youth because it affects a worker's ability to gain job experience. He found that the 2007 federal minimum wage increase raised unemployment generally by 0.8 percentage points but unemployment for 15- to 24-year-olds by nearly 3 percentage points.
France has a minimum wage of $12 per hour and a youth unemployment rate of 24 percent -- twice the rate in the United States. According to Gorry, the difference is entirely due to France's wage rate.
Third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the first link, but it's "just theory, and we need to look at what's actually been done".
What's it like, having a fleshy patch where your dick ought to be, coward?
And as for Seattle, your shining point of "see, we TOLD you it would be wonderful because the city hasn't fallen into the sea in the five minutes since it passed", well . . . that's mentioned too, which you would know, had you actually looked at the link instead of just pretending to so you could offer an airy-fairy dismissal.
The loss of fringe benefits is one that NCPA Senior Fellow Richard McKenzie analyzed in a recent study. He explained that, while many minimum wage advocates will claim there are relatively few job losses from minimum wage hikes, the hikes have effects in other areas: the nonmonetary fringe benefits that employers offer their employees. Indeed, Murray explains that the loss of benefits is exactly what has happened in SeaTac, Washington, which recently raised its minimum wage to $15 per hour:
The Northwest Asian Weekly reports that one hotel cleaning lady in SeaTac said of the wage, "It sounds good, but it's not good." Since the increase, she has lost her 401(k), employer health insurance, paid holidays and vacations. And while her employer previously fed her and covered her parking costs, she is now responsible for both of those expenses.
One SeaTac waitress reported similar effects. Not only have her tips decreased, but her employer quit covering her parking and food costs.
This is what we keep telling you, and you refuse to hear through the fingers in your ears: economic change does not happen in a vacuum, where you fiddle with one lever here, and everything else remains static. Human beings REACT to the changes you make, and everything else changes right along with your tinkering, and then we experience the Law of Unintended Consequences, which are always a huge shock to leftists, despite the fact that everyone else called the ball and pocket from the start.
Now, let's discuss the "theory" you rejected in the OTHER link you never clicked on at all, shall we?
In this article, we find a link to a re-evaluation of the uber-famous pro-MW hike study in 1994 which studied NJ fast food workers versus Pennsylvania fast food workers after NJ raised its minimum wage.
We re-evaluate the evidence from Card and Krueger's (1994) New Jersey-Pennsylvania minimum wage experiment, using new data based on actual payroll records from 230 Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, and Roy Rogers restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. We compare results using these payroll data to those using CK's data, which were collected by telephone surveys.
Payroll records versus telephone surveys. Who's dealing in fact and who's dealing in theory, hmmm?
For comparable sets of restaurants, differences-in-differences estimates using CK's data imply that the New Jersey minimum wage increase (of 18.8 percent) resulted in an employment increase of 17.6 percent relative to the Pennsylvania control group, an elasticity of 0.93. In contrast, estimates based on the payroll data suggest that the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania control group. This decrease is statistically significant at the five-percent level and implies an elasticity of employment with respect to the minimum wage of -0.24.
Oh, damn. That's gonna feel good when it quits hurting.
Let's go on, shall we?
It should also be noted that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only “4.3 percent of all hourly paid workers” work at or below the minimum wage and “… workers under the age of 25 … made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less.”
But . . . we've been told that minimum wage workers are all trying to support families and that's the best job they can get. THIS suggests that those entry-level jobs are . . . actually entry-level.
Indeed, even the Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will cost 500,000 jobs.
Oh, but the CBO is bullshit theory unless they're saying what leftists want to hear, right?
I can go on, and almost certainly will in later posts, but for the moment, I think I've conclusively demonstrated that there IS evidence that you're wrong, that you didn't LOOK at the evidence that you're wrong, because you don't give a fuck about reality. You just want your way, like every other spoiled, tantrum-throwing brat on the planet.
So go ahead. Give us another glib wave of the hand and say, "Your links were filled with theory. We don't need theory as it is being done now and has been done before. Stop the silly scare tactics already." Show us all what a big, empty bag of hot air you really are.
Or stop the happymouthing and sack up. Your choice.
