'Fight for $15'


Do you support the fight for a $15 dollar minimum wage?


Would the effect on employment be too great, or would there be little or no change in unemployment?


I support the base cause behind it but i know it can have relatively disgenic effects behind it under capitalism.


Yes, however like most cities I would increment it up, and I would keep it adjusted to the CPI.

I don’t think there would be too large a change in unemployment, business don’t magically decide ooh look wages are low, lets waste money and hire someone.


Sure. But they do factor in costs, and may decide that paying someone double their wage for exactly the same job isn’t worth it.

What would your estimate be of “not too large a change”?


Is it really worth it having them doing that job then, if society has to compensate for their labor being used?

Like if taxpayer dollars have to goto a person just because his/her/their employer can’t afford to pay them enough to basically live, why should they be doing that job?

I don’t have an exact number, but I don’t think we will be seeing a drastic amount of jobs lost, like nothing that would make the employment number drop during regular economic growth.


I didn’t realised people earning $7.50/$8 got tax credits?

I’m not asking for an exact number. What about the effects that this might have on underemployment?


If you have a kid you do. Not to mention your tax rate at that income level is still pretty low, cause you aren’t making much anyways.

It might increase it a little bit, however looking at all the other places that have raised minimum wage I would expect its impact to be minimal.


I’m not sure what the tax rate has got to do with anything? Some people shouldn’t pay tax because they earn less than others, doesn’t mean they are a drain on society. I would rather they not get taxed than get taxed and then get it back in welfare. We shouldn’t be taxing the less well off anyway.




They provide a list of studies.

They’re not a drain on society, I agree with you on that, and they shouldn’t be taxed.

However, if they were to be paid more, it would save on welfare costs.


Rather than looking at a biased campaign website, which it clearly is, why not look at independent meta-analysis?

Possibly, it might save some on welfare costs. Money doesn’t come out of thin air, so we have to think about what consequences that might have on other areas. I doubt that it would mean a net gain on the treasury as they would receive less money in tax revenue. The wealthy pay most of our tax already.

The problem with minimum wages is that it can be difficult to measure the effects, due to the fact that it is very possible that it may not lead to huge losses but it may lead to a loss in job potential. It’s incredibly difficult to feel/see/understand the effects of a loss in potential.


Yes, but that money would just be spent without having to go through the government.


No, but the point being that the overall money being saved from not paying welfare is unlikely to make a net gain for the government. They are likely to lose money overall due to tax etc. That means less public investment as a whole, and part time workers and some ex-full time workers having to rely on the government ever more with hours being cut and jobs being lost. Not even looking at total number of jobs lost, but how many hours are cut to jobs after a hike in the minimum wage?

You haven’t commented on the meta-analysis.


Welfare’s “income multiplier” isn’t large enough to bring in more than it costs? Like it is definitely a good stimulus, but why would the cost reduction in welfare net lose the government money?

“From the research findings cited earlier, one can roughly translate these minimum wage increases into the overall job count. Among the studies that find job loss effects, estimated employment elasticities of −0.1 to −0.2 are at the lower range but are more defensible than the estimates of no employment effects. Some of the larger estimates are from studies that are likely to receive more scrutiny in the future.”

That’s not really a huge impact, compared to how many people it would help.


Thus, allowing for the possibility of larger job loss effects, based on other studies, and possible job losses among older low-skilled adults, a reasonable estimate based on the evidence is that current minimum wages have directly reduced the number of jobs nationally by about 100,000 to 200,000, relative to the period just before the Great Recession.

I don’t think you understand the seriousness of a -0.2 elasticity. That means for an increase of the minimum wage of 10% = 2% job loss. For many states the $15 dollar minimum wage is double the current minimum wage. That means a 100% minimum wage increase = 20% job loss. Even looking at the lower boundary of -0.1 leads to a 10% job loss. Those are very high figures if you ask me.

Do you really think some cornershop struggling to stay alive can suddenly pay double employee costs? Highly unlikely.

We’ve already established that people on minimum wage are unlikely to receive welfare unless they have children - and possibly not even then if both partners are working. So imagine instead that many people are losing their jobs, while some people are just gaining a few extra pounds - what do you think would cost more? But more importantly - the real hitter - decrease in tax revenue. These employees won’t pay tax and overall take revenue would decrease.


This would cause extra wage rigidity for the lowest-paid.