[frgtpsswrdlame]

1) Looking at other industries doesn't invalidate the multi-site critique.

2) The problem here is they narrowly looked at only a small band; they don't even consider jobs which make more than $19/hr. Consider a hypothetical world where when the minimum wage goes from $12/hr to $13/hr, the people who were already making $13 get raised to $14, those making $14 get a bump to $15 and so on with zero effect on the number of people employed, essentially everyone gets a $1 raise. (Note: I am not saying this is our world.) What would the UW study show? It would show a decrease in labor equal to amount of people previously making between $18.01 and $19.00. All these people have been raised above the $19 boundary and so no longer are counted. So even in a situation with no change in the amount of jobs and only positive wage effects, the UW study will show negative employment effects.

This is actually where the difference between Berkeley's positive effect and UW's zero effect comes in, from the pdf I linked previously:

This pattern of average higher pay and more employment appears also in food services: a decline of about 150 jobs paying under $19 from 2014 to 2016 and a simultaneous increase of about 4,500 jobs in all pay levels at single-site food service establishments.

This actually brings me to one of the biggest problems, also from the pdf above:

The UW report nonetheless finds an unprecedented impact of wage increases on jobs, ten times higher than the average in 942 published minimum wage and non-minimum wage estimates, and triple that of minimum wage critic David Neumark.7 There is no reason why Seattle's low-paid employers should be so much more sensitive to wage increases than employers elsewhere.

Incredible results demand incredible proof and the UW study does not do a good job at all of providing that proof.

EDIT: 3) Whether it's number of jobs or hours of work, both are affected by the $19/hr cap so the difference is inconsequential.

[cwyers]

"The UW report nonetheless finds an unprecedented impact of wage increases on jobs, ten times higher than the average in 942 published minimum wage and non-minimum wage estimates, and triple that of minimum wage critic David Neumark. There is no reason why Seattle's low-paid employers should be so much more sensitive to wage increases than employers elsewhere."

Except that's not the claim. Nobody's saying Seattle is more sensitive, just that there's better data there.

So, we start off with talking about the multi-site critique, I respond to that, and you... switch topics to the $19 cut-off? Is this Calvinball?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>So, we start off with talking about the multi-site critique, I respond to that, and you... switch topics to the $19 cut-off? Is this Calvinball?

I'm sorry, is that not kosher? There are multiple things wrong with this study you know... Besides you pointed out something that wouldn't be affected by the multi-site problem so I pointed out that it was affected by the $19/hr problem, that's just a normal back and forth. Really if I'm going to be honest, I think the UW study reaffirms your pre-existing views so you're unlikely to admit that it's a bad study but come on. If people want to make the point that increases in the minimum wage are bad for workers and they want that point to hold up to reasoned critique then I suggest they find something other than this study. It's not good, no matter your political beliefs about the subject.

[cwyers]

> Really if I'm going to be honest, I think the UW study reaffirms your pre-existing views so you're unlikely to admit that it's a bad study but come on.

I could say the obverse about about you, but it doesn't really move the discussion forward.

You said you thought it was a bad study because of the multi-site issue. I responded why I didn't believe that to be the case. You responded that it was a bad study because of the $19 cut-off. Do you still think the multi-site issue is a problem, given my response?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Yes. The multi-site issue combined with the $19/hr problem prevent the study from being very useful.

Given this quote:

This pattern of average higher pay and more employment appears also in food services: a decline of about 150 jobs paying under $19 from 2014 to 2016 and a simultaneous increase of about 4,500 jobs in all pay levels at single-site food service establishments.

Would you concede the possibility that in Seattle's restaurant sector a higher minimum wage did not have negative employment effects? (NOTE: I edited this question)

[cwyers]

I've never not conceded that possibility! From the abstract of the UW study:

> We estimate an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels, comparable to many prior studies.

[mattmcknight]

Since the raise in Seattle was higher than in previous empirical studies, one would expect a larger observable effect.