The NEW minimum wage for those unemployed is ZERO.
I love academia, this is real simple go to, Seattle talk to the restaurant people end of discussion ...
The stat you’d need to look at is how many people are making minimum wage.
Unemployment would correlate across all income levels. The better the economy, the lower unemployment overall, and the more likely a commie will want to increase minimum wage.
Not all employment is created equal. This study should have segregated employment for wage earners and salaried employees.
The context of this paper is flawed.
If the minimum suddenly wage went to $1000 they’d certainly see a correlation.
I think the proper way to state the outcome of this study is to say there is little correlation based on historical minimum wage changes and the state of the economy at that time.
Unfortunately this article is 3 years old, so it doesn’t figure in the unemployment rate under Trump.
Assuming this study applies to unemployment of low wage earners, some demand is inelastic, meaning it takes time for price increase to affect demand. For example, increase in cigarette prices wont immediately affect demand but over time it will. Also gas prices.
An increase in minimum wage will not have immediate affect. Employers need time to make adjustments.
I dunno man.
I STOPPED going to fast food places on Staten Island because the waits have become UNBEARABLY long since higher wages have kicked in.
Coincidence? Maybe. I don’t much believe in coincidences.
On the plus side, I’m a fat #### so the long lines repelling me from going are a good thing :)
Simply would not believe any analysis of data done by tenured left wing faculty at Syracuse University. Did you expect they would arrive at a conclusion that ran contrary to the current “progressive” narrative? “Academia” is badly compromised.
Did the study consider the minimum wage after inflation? A correlation will most certainly develop if the minimum wage increases enough in constant dollars. No matter what the leftist academics at SU claim, your local Starbucks will go out of business if the minimum wage increases to $30/hour. If it increases a lesser amount, there may not be layoffs, but consumers will suffer price increases, and pension funds holding Starbucks stock will be hurt. There’s no socialist free lunch.
What does the law of supply and demand mean?
The law of supply states that the quantity of a good supplied (i.e., the amount owners or producers offer for sale) rises as the market price rises, and falls as the price falls. Conversely, the law of demand (see demand) says that the quantity of a good demanded falls as the price rises, and vice versa.
But the correlation to consider is not the overall unemployment rate since most categories of employment are not at or close to minimum wage. In addition, in markets where entry level jobs already pay more than minimum wage the statutory minimum wage is irrelevant to employment, or even the choice of who gets employed.
So having picked the wrong data to analyze it isn't surprising that the results are inconclusive. It isn't really a surprise that overall unemployment rates aren't correlated with a factor which in any circumstance would only affect a small minority of the population.
The effects of setting a statutory minimum wage occur when the market price for labor for those entry level tasks is lower than the statutory minimum, or when the statutory minimum wage is high enough that it results in strategy changes by the employers.
I don't think anyone thinks that there is no correlation between a statutory minimum wage and employment levels for the kind of jobs where the minimum wage is relevant. There would be no point in having a statutory minimum wage if there was not a belief that employers would pay less, and employees would take jobs at prices below the proposed statutory minimum. On the other side, I think there is widespread agreement that a statutory minimum wage of say, $200 per hour would result in many businesses either being unable to afford to hire a worker, or replacing the entry level employees with someone much more highly skilled, or a machine.
So the correlation obviously exists. The policy debate is around how much of an effect minor changes in the statutory minimum wage cause. In good economic times those effects tend to be masked by the market prices being above the statutory minimum for many entry level job providers.
A more interesting question is how we can get back to the circumstances in the late 1960s and early 1970s where even fairly unskilled jobs were far more profitable than they are now, and living expenses, particularly real estate costs and bank interest costs were far less.
I think the claim has been that raising the minimum wage shuts out those who would normally be entering the job field for the first time and low skilled workers. Those who have the greatest need for a first step into employment. So it is not so much an unemployment problem but a who will be unemployed problem.
This is fake news and really corrupt scholarship.
If there is no correlation Between unemployment and the minimum wage, if the minimum wage were moved to $500/hour, there should be no change in the unemployment rate. Does anyone think that it would be the case?
I am not surprised at all by this. I do not think that Capitalism requires peonage to work. But, cheap labor does help some people! The people paying them. The rest of us - not so much.
If that were truly the case then why not make the minimum wage 50.00 per hour?
Context, context, context.
What was not factored in was regardless of the official “unemployment” rate, what was the GDP doing - was the economy growing or not. The unemployment rate falls, regardless of minimum wage if the economy grows so that labor demand increases. Unemployment rate grows, regardless of minimum wage, if the economy is contracting and labor demand falls.
You CANNOT compare the real impact of the minimum wage if you are only comparing it with the unemployment rate. That is NOT a complete economic context for the minimum wage.