- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
UCI study: Higher minimum wages increase poverty in poor neighborhoods
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:16 pm
This study was done by one of the most prominent labor economist in America.
LINK
So much for the retarded talking point that "raising the minimum wage makes walmart stop using public assistance to keep pay low"
quote:
The study, led by the University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark finds that, over the course of decades, higher minimum wages don’t reduce poverty in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Rather, the analysis finds that a $1 increase in the minimum wage raises poverty rates and government dependency by about 3 percent.
quote:
The report also finds evidence that cash welfare fails to lower poverty.
“The clear evidence here is that the minimum wage doesn’t deliver long-run gains and welfare doesn’t deliver long-run gains,” Neumark said.
Neumark, the director of the Economic Self-Sufficiency Policy Research Institute at the university, is a top expert on the minimum wage, having co-authored a book on its effects and published related research over many years, as well as engaging in academic debates.
The new study, which hasn’t undergone peer review, differs from past research on the minimum wage in that it studies the effects of the minimum wage based on location and over long periods of time.
LINK
So much for the retarded talking point that "raising the minimum wage makes walmart stop using public assistance to keep pay low"
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:19 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Honestly, it takes a person who can't think through an issue at all to not know this without even having to study it.
It's fricking self explanatory.
It's fricking self explanatory.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:20 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
University of California, Irvine
I could be completely wrong about this, but didn't this guy get hired by Portland and as soon as they saw his conclusion they basically fired him and went with some SJW type who would give them the conclusion they wanted?
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:27 pm to ShortyRob
Exactly. That is why lack of peer review does not bother me.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:28 pm to BaylorTiger
quote:It was a UW study of Seattle's minimum wage hikes. The mayor (resigned due to child molestation) ordered the study scrapped after finding negative results. He then commissioned some propaganda study finding opposite
I could be completely wrong about this, but didn't this guy get hired by Portland and as soon as they saw his conclusion they basically fired him and went with some SJW type who would give them the conclusion they wanted?
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:35 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Unbelievable that an article can cite a study without showing ANY part of the study, or even what evidence the study used to draw it's conclusion and someone somewhere will jump up and say "aha this study proves I was right" This article literally does not reference one thing from the study it's discussing, not one. The reader honestly doesn't have any idea what the study says, or how it came to its conclusion.
Come on...........
As for common sense, well anyone with a lick of common sense would realize that giving the working poor a raise results in them being less poor. Now, they may waste their money on shite , but that doesn't change the fact that their income is higher.
Blah blah blah "raising wages means higher prices" no shite , it doesn't take an economist to realize that prices have risen WAY higher that wages which means they are independent of each other.
Come on...........
As for common sense, well anyone with a lick of common sense would realize that giving the working poor a raise results in them being less poor. Now, they may waste their money on shite , but that doesn't change the fact that their income is higher.
Blah blah blah "raising wages means higher prices" no shite , it doesn't take an economist to realize that prices have risen WAY higher that wages which means they are independent of each other.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:38 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Um.............wow. You didn't think it through, did you.
As for common sense, well anyone with a lick of common sense would realize that giving the working poor a raise results in them being less poor. Now, they may waste their money on shite , but that doesn't change the fact that their income is higher.
quote:That's not actually why the conclusion is true.
Blah blah blah "raising wages means higher prices" no shite
Did you just say, "frick it, in one post I'm going to demonstrate I don't know the first thing about business"?
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:40 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Did you just say, "frick it, in one post I'm going to demonstrate I don't know the first thing about business"?
Rob you just cited a study that you haven't even seen as proof that you are right, think about that for a moment LOL
And what do you mean about business? If someone is earning $15,000 a year and they get a $1000 a year raise, they are now making more than they were. This is called common sense.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The new study, which hasn’t undergone peer review
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:49 pm to brian_wilson
peer review is vastly overrated and you know it. There have been literal HOAX PAPERS that have gotten through peer review. Besides, professor Neumark is one of the most respected labor economists in America. I trust his findings.
More important point is that his findings not only back up his decades of past research, they confirm an innumerable amount of other min wage studies.
The UW study that seattle mayor scrapped was peer reviewed and showed heavy loss of hours and monthly wages for seattle laborers.
More important point is that his findings not only back up his decades of past research, they confirm an innumerable amount of other min wage studies.
The UW study that seattle mayor scrapped was peer reviewed and showed heavy loss of hours and monthly wages for seattle laborers.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:49 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Actually I didn't cite anything. Go back and read and tell me I cited something.
Rob you just cited a study that you haven't even seen
quote:
If someone is earning $15,000 a year and they get a $1000 a year raise, they are now making more than they were. This is called common sense.
That's great and all but you should read better because the conclusion was
quote:Bolded to help you.
higher minimum wages don’t reduce poverty in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
You see. Any person halfway knowledgeable could tell you this because:
1. Poor neighborhoods are going to have a higher proportion of businesses that pay only minimum wage.
2. Such businesses are often the ones with the least margin for error.
3. As such, just as has been seen in several places that have raised the minimum wage, many of those businesses fold.
4. This reduces the total number of actual jobs in said poorer neighborhoods.
5. THUS......while it is absolutely true to say that the person who got the raise is better off, the CONCLUSION was that poverty went up in the NEIGHBORHOODS
6. Which makes perfect fricking sense because if you have 20 min wage workers across 5 businesses making $10 an hour and tomorrow, you have 16 workers across 4 businesses making $15 an hour, you have INCREASED poverty among that NEIGHBORHOOD.
7. You see. That's because while your total income among those workers go from $200 to $240........the businesses are GONE and not ALL of the workers at those businesses were minimum wage.
And all that was being kind and assuming that the only jobs lost were in the businesses that totally folded and that there weren't drawdowns in others.
I can only hold your hand so much. Let me know if you need more help.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:52 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
As for common sense, well anyone with a lick of common sense would realize that giving the working poor a raise results in them being less poor. Now, they may waste their money on shite , but that doesn't change the fact that their income is higher.
Many companies saw Employees request lower hours after min wage hike. Why? Fear of losing subsidies. So yes, they are being paid more, but after cut hours at their request, not making more. Government Dependency.
OH and keep reading what Shorty Rob posted
This post was edited on 6/11/18 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:53 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I can only hold your hand so much. Let me know if you need more help.
A) I didnt' argue any of the points you made, I merely argued that paying someone higher wages resulted in a higher income for them. YOU retorted to that.
B) You most certainly did cite this study, and claimed "well yes this study just says what is common sense" when the reality is you really don't know what this study says because as I pointed out, the article doesn't actually go into the study at all. It merely draws a conclusion.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:55 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
A) I didnt' argue any of the points you made, I merely argued that paying someone higher wages resulted in a higher income for them. YOU retorted to that.
You were rebutting a point not even made. No one in the thread, nor did the study.......claim that the actual individual getting a min-wage increase was worse off.
quote:
B) You most certainly did cite this study, and claimed "well yes this study just says what is common sense" when the reality is you really don't know
I know what it's conclusion was..........which is common sense because I possess the requisite knowledge to know that conclusion to be true.
I'm sorry you don't. Can't help ya there.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 12:56 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
I merely argued that paying someone higher wages resulted in a higher income for them. YOU retorted to that.
It did?
Posted on 6/11/18 at 1:03 pm to beerJeep
The fact there is no link in the article doesn't exude much confidence in the findings.
Posted on 6/11/18 at 1:04 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I know what it's conclusion was..........which is common sense because I possess the requisite knowledge to know that conclusion to be true.
It isn't common sense, it's simply what you want to believe so you identify with a study that says that, even though you haven't even SEEN the study.
Myself, I have enough common sense to want to see an actual study before I say "they are right you know"
Sorry you don't
Posted on 6/11/18 at 1:06 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
someone is earning $15,000 a year and they get a $1000 a year raise, they are now making more than they were. This is called common sense.
Ok. Try to follow along. I’ll hold your hand.
You have a business. You have different pay tiers depending on job.
Min wage- a little over= for your low wage basic labor.
A few bucks more than that you have your low tier shift managers.
A few bucks more than that, you have your store manager.
And last you have your district manager
Ok. So, you bump up your pay for your lowest rung. Right? Sounds good and all.
But wait.... now your shift managers are like wtf. I have more responsibility and duty and I’m making the same as the people I’m managing? I want a raise! So you bump them up.
But wait! Now they’re making what your store manager makes. So he’s all. frick this, pay me more or I quit. So you pay him more.
But wait! Now he’s making what the district manager makes... so, you guessed it. HE GETS A RAISE!
So. Now you’ve effectively raised EVERYONES pay in tandem, meaning the lowest rung still makes the lowest amount. Same as before when you compare him to those above him.
Now, how do you afford to pay them more? You up the price of goods, and you lay off those who are easiest to lay off. (Aka min wage workers) and you end all overtime and start cutting hours of your employees.
So now your lowest rung worker is working less, making the same amount relative to those above him, and his purchasing power is decreased because the cost of goods increased.
Congratulations. You just got economicd
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News