Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. Job Growth

[1prophet]

Let us ignore that Washington state already had a high level of high paying jobs, especially in the tech sector. Let us also ignore that Washington state has no personal or corporate income tax and a relatively low tax rate which does and would effect the level of job creation and unemployment rates compared to other states which impose a high personal and especially corporate taxes.

Let us also ignore that very few people making 15 dollars an hour can actually live in Seattle proper or other surrounding areas with similar high minimum wages. Let alone that those few that do actually own property in that city. And lastly lets not even consider where the bulk of job growth is actually occurring which is fueling this circle jerk....I mean increase of employment state by this cobbled together article. Also nevermind looking at the states population demographics Because what works in Washington state would work in George or Mississippi right? Instead lets just focus on one specific statistical number and pretend that it is the end all be all with no need toward any other in actual depth analysis which basically sums up this article.

You mean correlation does not imply causation?D:

 

[Jimzz]

Based on this map there are 10 states that have a higher poverty rate and based on colors on the map showing percentage there are many that are close to the same level.

http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-map-state/#

They are ranked around 5th to 10th worse depending where you look. That and the ones worse on your link (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, etc...) also have very low Min wages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

 

[BoberFett]

They are ranked around 5th to 10th worse depending where you look. That and the ones worse on your link (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, etc...) also have very low Min wages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

This thread is about job growth, not poverty.

And let's pick some examples from your own chart:

California, $8/hr min wage, 17th in poverty

New York, $8/hr min wage,14th in poverty

Arizona, $7.90/hr min wage, 10th in poverty

Washington DC, $8.25/hr min wage, #1 in poverty

Clearly there's more at play than simply minimum wage.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They are ranked around 5th to 10th worse depending where you look. That and the ones worse on your link (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, etc...) also have very low Min wages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

You may want to scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the dates fof the data.

 

[Jimzz]

This thread is about job growth, not poverty.

And let's pick some examples from your own chart:

California, $8/hr min wage, 17th in poverty

New York, $8/hr min wage,14th in poverty

Arizona, $7.90/hr min wage, 10th in poverty

Washington DC, $8.25/hr min wage, #1 in poverty

Clearly there's more at play than simply minimum wage.

DC is not a state and has very little control over its affairs.

The rest seem to show that the better the Min wage rate the less poverty is. Those worse have lower min wage.

 

[Jimzz]

You may want to scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the dates fof the data.

Here are several current poverty maps from different sources...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html

Look at that states with lower min wage are worse off on average. What a shocker.

 

[rudder]

Clearly there's more at play than simply minimum wage.

Most of these threads come after people reading an article where one data point was cherry picked and polished.

What about Washington states other statistics? Like median income in the state is about $3000 less than in 2000. Or how about the 185,000 more people livnig in p0verty now than before the recession.

And what about Washington state having one of the highest unemployment rates for teens?

http://www.minimumwage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Apr2012_Teen-Analysis.pdf

 

[BoberFett]

DC is not a state and has very little control over its affairs.

The rest seem to show that the better the Min wage rate the less poverty is. Those worse have lower min wage.

If you want to lie to yourself, I can't stop you.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Neuroscience has shown that the conservative brain is susceptible to altered reality, bubble world programming owing to a fear of nonconformity and loss of face. The colloquial term for it is the conservative trait of circling the wagons. You will see denial and counterattack. The Indians are at fault for attacking us for settling on their land. They deny all cause and effect. It looks externally as if they were brain dead or stupid, rather than the aggressive vicious destroyers of 'the other' that they really are. They destroy by projecting their own evil out there and attacking it via rationalization and truthiness certainty that their own evil isn't within but out there.

This capacity to see the world as hideous and despicable, makes them into what they fear. They actually become, themselves, hideous and despicable.

I like chocolate pudding.

 

[fskimospy]

And in Washington? Were there other factors involved in their job growth? How much of this growth is due to increased minimum wage vs growth in specific industries not generally affected by minimum wage, such as tech?

How many people earn minimum wage in Washington? What is the aggregate increase in yearly income due to the higher minimum wage (employees_earning_minimum_wage * $2/hr) and does that amount support the theory that the increased economic activity of those earners resulted in higher than average job growth?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but because that information is left out. The article is sparse on details, and intended to leave the reader thinking that higher minimum wage = higher job growth, when reality is more complex.

Yes, there are tons of other factors. There's actually a lot of scholarship on the minimum wage and the general consensus is that it has either no net effect on unemployment or a modest negative effect (slightly more unemployment). It does seem to be quite effective at reducing poverty, however, as since the wage increase is considerable and the negative employment effects are small.

 

[glenn1]

They are ranked around 5th to 10th worse depending where you look. That and the ones worse on your link (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, etc...) also have very low Min wages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

The far right-hand column at that link contains the most relevant numbers since they include an adjustment for the relative cost of living, something the headline poverty rate omits since it's a comparison against the national income distributions. It would be completely ridiculous to deny that someone making "poverty income" in Manhattan, Kansas isn't hugely better off than someone making the same wages in Manhattan, New York.

That being said, I think that all minimum wage laws should both be (1) determined at the state/local level, not federal, and (2) separate minimum wage rules for teenagers/students and adults. The "living wage" argument is complete nonsense when you're attempting to apply it to the 16 year old living at home.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, there are tons of other factors. There's actually a lot of scholarship on the minimum wage and the general consensus is that it has either no net effect on unemployment or a modest negative effect (slightly more unemployment). It does seem to be quite effective at reducing poverty, however, as since the wage increase is considerable and the negative employment effects are small.

There's obviously winners and losers anytime the minimum wage is changed. When the wage goes up, those remaining employed at the higher wage are better off while anyone who loses their job because their position is no longer viable at the higher wage are worse off. The converse would also be true if you reduced the minimum wage; some additional people would likely find employment but the remainder of that (larger) wage group would have reduced wages. In both cases, the greatest impact is to the most marginal workers and their ability to find employment at whatever minimum wage is decided upon.

It's a valid argument on either side; who do we place greater value on making things better for? Neither side should just dismiss out of hand the concerns of the other. Those who support raising minimum wage can't ignore those who it might put into effectively permanent unemployment and onto the welfare rolls, or never allow them to "get their foot in the door" of an entry level job because they can no longer offer an attractive value proposition to an employer at the boosted min wage. Those who oppose raising the minimum wage can't ignore those who may never be able to "work their way up from the bottom with hard work" and need to support a family on career arc that will never let them go much beyond minimum wage positions.

 

[fskimospy]

There's obviously winners and losers anytime the minimum wage is changed. When the wage goes up, those remaining employed at the higher wage are better off while anyone who loses their job because their position is no longer viable at the higher wage are worse off. The converse would also be true if you reduced the minimum wage; some additional people would likely find employment but the remainder of that (larger) wage group would have reduced wages. In both cases, the greatest impact is to the most marginal workers and their ability to find employment at whatever minimum wage is decided upon.

It's a valid argument on either side; who do we place greater value on making things better for? Neither side should just dismiss out of hand the concerns of the other. Those who support raising minimum wage can't ignore those who it might put into effectively permanent unemployment and onto the welfare rolls, or never allow them to "get their foot in the door" of an entry level job because they can no longer offer an attractive value proposition to an employer at the boosted min wage. Those who oppose raising the minimum wage can't ignore those who may never be able to "work their way up from the bottom with hard work" and need to support a family on career arc that will never let them go much beyond minimum wage positions.

I would say that the general measure of if a policy is effective or not is the ratio of winners to losers.

 

[glenn1]

I would say that the general measure of if a policy is effective or not is the ratio of winners to losers.

Of course the "greatest good" method works. But another fair way to measure (BTW not uncommonly employed by those on the political left) is to consider how much worse off the "loser" is comparatively. How much more do the winners need to get in their paycheck to justify someone else losing their job altogether or now being forced to rely on welfare? Is $20/month enough? $50? $100? Is any amount at all enough, or conversely is no amount worth it?