LogFAQs > #876917743

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Let's check in on Seattle raising its minimum wage
Balrog0 04/10/17 1:41:49 PM #21:	Questionmarktarius posted... ...oops. If anything, this suggests that employers are finally last-strawed out the the suburbs, then suddenly realize their costs are drastically lower because all the other municipal bullshit has vanished as well. idk it's hard to say because the data isn't granular enough Questionmarktarius posted... The real answer is probably much more insidious. When you have to pay everyone $15, only the people who are worth $15 will keep their jobs. The aggregate employment numbers may not change much, or at least likely won't decrease (until the robots move in), but the fuckups and misfortunates are weeded out pretty quickly. Someone whose car broke town is tossed right alongside the guy who showed up hungover ten minutes late. yeah I suspect something like this is more the case this could happen either by drawing people at the margins of the labor market in (like, early or recent retirees, affluent young adults in school) or drawing in people from other areas. In either case the people who would get crowded out of the market would be people who firms deem higher risk, which is like people with criminal backgrounds, the long-term unemployed, and black people, more or less in that order automation makes it particularly problematic; even if there aren't short-term spikes in unemployment, it could reduce labor market participation: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2016/Volume36/EB-16-V36-I4-P222.pdf --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:876917743] in Let's chec... [t:75215298]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>...oops. If anything, this suggests that employers are finally last-strawed out the the suburbs, then suddenly realize their costs are drastically lower because all the other municipal bullshit has vanished as well.</quote> idk it's hard to say because the data isn't granular enough <cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The real answer is probably much more insidious. When you have to pay everyone $15, only the people who are worth $15 will keep their jobs. The aggregate employment numbers may not change much, or at least likely won't decrease (until the robots move in), but the fuckups and misfortunates are weeded out pretty quickly. Someone whose car broke town is tossed right alongside the guy who showed up hungover ten minutes late.</quote> yeah I suspect something like this is more the case this could happen either by drawing people at the margins of the labor market in (like, early or recent retirees, affluent young adults in school) or drawing in people from other areas. In either case the people who would get crowded out of the market would be people who firms deem higher risk, which is like people with criminal backgrounds, the long-term unemployed, and black people, more or less in that order automation makes it particularly problematic; even if there aren't short-term spikes in unemployment, it could reduce labor market participation: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2016/Volume36/EB-16-V36-I4-P222.pdf --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1