UCI study: Higher minimum wages increase poverty in poor neighborhoods

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.

Exactly. That is why lack of peer review does not bother me.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Rob you just cited a study that you haven't even seen

---

Actually I didn't cite anything. Go back and read and tell me I cited something.

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:

---

higher minimum wages don’t reduce poverty in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

---

Bolded to help you.

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.

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.

quote:

---

I merely argued that paying someone higher wages resulted in a higher income for them. YOU retorted to that.

---

It did?

The fact there is no link in the article doesn't exude much confidence in the findings.

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