dreamdancer 0 #1 December 31, 2011 interesting evidence... QuoteOn January 1, the minimum wage in San Francisco will cross the psychological threshold of $10 an hour. An automatic cost-of-living adjustment built into city law will raise the wage floor 3.2 percent, from its current $9.92 to $10.24. Predictably, employers have been warning that the increase will cost jobs. In fact, a great deal of economic evidence suggests otherwise. Last March, my CEPR colleague, David Rosnick, and I finished a detailed study of the employment impact of the first three years of the San Francisco minimum wage. Back in early 2004, San Francisco established a city-wide minimum wage of $8.50 --25 percent higher than the $6.75 California state minimum wage at the time and 65 percent higher than the prevailing federal minimum of $5.15. We analyzed employment patterns in a range of industries with a high share of low-wage workers, including fast food and retail. We compared trends in wages and employment in San Francisco before and after the increase with trends over the same period in San Francisco's adjacent suburbs and, separately, in nearby Oakland, two areas where the minimum wage was unchanged. To rule out statistical flukes, we looked at the impact after one year, then two years, then three years. We also examined the impact on low-wage employers, regardless of industry, and we isolated the impact on small employers (fewer than 10 employees and 10 to 24 employees). We consistently found that the minimum-increased boosted wages, but had no discernible impact on employment. http://www.alternet.org/economy/153620/san_francisco_becomes_first_in_nation_with_%2410_minimum_wage_%28and_the_sky_isn%27t_going_to_fall%29/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #2 December 31, 2011 I'd have to question the difference between causation and correlation here.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 December 31, 2011 Why not raise it to $50. per hour? Imagine how great life would be if every kid working at McDonalds was making $50. per hour. $100.000 per year plus overtime, medical insurance, dental and a retirement plan. Wouldn't that be a utopian wetdream? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #4 December 31, 2011 QuoteI'd have to question the difference between causation and correlation here. +1 Let's hear from some SF denizens. A city that has finite boundaries, and a river of people who live elsewhere flowing in and out daily. How does the SF study compare, or contrast with NYC? What about Oakland? If the study focused strictly on proving that raising the min. wage was harmless, then that would be easy enough to prove or disprove. "Figures don't lie, but liars know how to figure." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 896 #5 December 31, 2011 Right up to the $49.99 meal deal anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 December 31, 2011 QuoteRight up to the $49.99 meal deal anyway. No problem there. Just pass a law setting price limits on what MacDonalds can charge for a Big Mac. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #7 December 31, 2011 ...and stuff is proportionately more expensive in SFO. It's not really a gain for anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 896 #8 December 31, 2011 Sweet. I had not realized the magic behind the mindset of Obamanomics until now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #9 December 31, 2011 Ahhhhh... the good life! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #10 December 31, 2011 makes sense - people aren't machines... QuoteA higher wage floor draws more workers into the labor force, helping with recruitment. Higher wages frequently have the effect of increasing workers' identification with and motivation on the job, increasing productivity. Higher wages also lower turnover, reducing the cost of recruiting and training new workers. The standard "competitive" labor-market model doesn't take these off-setting cost-savings of higher wages into account. The data for San Francisco --and nationally-- suggest that these cost-savings could well be large since we consistently find little or no impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage. http://www.alternet.org/economy/153620/san_francisco_becomes_first_in_nation_with_%2410_minimum_wage_%28and_the_sky_isn%27t_going_to_fall%29/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #11 December 31, 2011 Quote makes sense - people aren't machines... Quote A higher wage floor draws more workers into the labor force, helping with recruitment. Higher wages frequently have the effect of increasing workers' identification with and motivation on the job, increasing productivity. Higher wages also lower turnover, reducing the cost of recruiting and training new workers. The standard "competitive" labor-market model doesn't take these off-setting cost-savings of higher wages into account. The data for San Francisco --and nationally-- suggest that these cost-savings could well be large since we consistently find little or no impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage. http://www.alternet.org/economy/153620/san_francisco_becomes_first_in_nation_with_%2410_minimum_wage_%28and_the_sky_isn%27t_going_to_fall%29/ The model ignores the surrounding economy, and overhead for the employer. That the economic environment would remain static is turning a blind eye to an inflationary spiral that is an absolute sureity to keep pace with the wages. We're back to Keyes and his non- working theory of government intervention. TARP, Freddie mac and Fannie Mae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #12 December 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteinteresting evidence... ***On January 1, the minimum wage in San Francisco will cross the psychological threshold of $10 an hour. An automatic cost-of-living adjustment built into city law will raise the wage floor 3.2 percent, from its current $9.92 to $10.24. Predictably, employers have been warning that the increase will cost jobs. In fact, a great deal of economic evidence suggests otherwise. Last March, my CEPR colleague, David Rosnick, and I finished a detailed study of the employment impact of the first three years of the San Francisco minimum wage. Back in early 2004, San Francisco established a city-wide minimum wage of $8.50 --25 percent higher than the $6.75 California state minimum wage at the time and 65 percent higher than the prevailing federal minimum of $5.15. We analyzed employment patterns in a range of industries with a high share of low-wage workers, including fast food and retail. We compared trends in wages and employment in San Francisco before and after the increase with trends over the same period in San Francisco's adjacent suburbs and, separately, in nearby Oakland, two areas where the minimum wage was unchanged. To rule out statistical flukes, we looked at the impact after one year, then two years, then three years. We also examined the impact on low-wage employers, regardless of industry, and we isolated the impact on small employers (fewer than 10 employees and 10 to 24 employees). We consistently found that the minimum-increased boosted wages, but had no discernible impact on employment. http://www.alternet.org/economy/153620/san_francisco_becomes_first_in_nation_with_%2410_minimum_wage_%28and_the_sky_isn%27t_going_to_fall%29/ No no no... the sky fell when all companies inside the city limits were required to provide sick pay. http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=419 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #13 December 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteinteresting evidence... ***On January 1, the minimum wage in San Francisco will cross the psychological threshold of $10 an hour. An automatic cost-of-living adjustment built into city law will raise the wage floor 3.2 percent, from its current $9.92 to $10.24. Predictably, employers have been warning that the increase will cost jobs. In fact, a great deal of economic evidence suggests otherwise. Last March, my CEPR colleague, David Rosnick, and I finished a detailed study of the employment impact of the first three years of the San Francisco minimum wage. Back in early 2004, San Francisco established a city-wide minimum wage of $8.50 --25 percent higher than the $6.75 California state minimum wage at the time and 65 percent higher than the prevailing federal minimum of $5.15. We analyzed employment patterns in a range of industries with a high share of low-wage workers, including fast food and retail. We compared trends in wages and employment in San Francisco before and after the increase with trends over the same period in San Francisco's adjacent suburbs and, separately, in nearby Oakland, two areas where the minimum wage was unchanged. To rule out statistical flukes, we looked at the impact after one year, then two years, then three years. We also examined the impact on low-wage employers, regardless of industry, and we isolated the impact on small employers (fewer than 10 employees and 10 to 24 employees). We consistently found that the minimum-increased boosted wages, but had no discernible impact on employment. http://www.alternet.org/economy/153620/san_francisco_becomes_first_in_nation_with_%2410_minimum_wage_%28and_the_sky_isn%27t_going_to_fall%29/ QuoteNo no no... the sky fell when all companies inside the city limits were required to provide sick pay. http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=419 On second thought, the sky may have fallen when the city required anyone working more than 8 hours a week to have health insurance. http://www.ehow.com/facts_5035578_health-insurance-laws-san-francisco.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 December 31, 2011 Quote The model ignores the surrounding economy, and overhead for the employer. That the economic environment would remain static is turning a blind eye to an inflationary spiral that is an absolute sureity to keep pace with the wages. We're back to Keyes and his non- working theory of government intervention. TARP, Freddie mac and Fannie Mae. No problem there either. Once the surrounding communities see how well this works in SF, their workers/taxpayers will demand the same. Economics is so simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #15 December 31, 2011 Uh Oh........ There's a waiver in the law....! There goes your base line. SEC 12r.8. All or any portion of the applicable requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to Employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such requirements are expressly waived in the collective bargaining agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #16 December 31, 2011 Quote Quote The model ignores the surrounding economy, and overhead for the employer. That the economic environment would remain static is turning a blind eye to an inflationary spiral that is an absolute sureity to keep pace with the wages. We're back to Keyes and his non- working theory of government intervention. TARP, Freddie mac and Fannie Mae. No problem there either. Once the surrounding communities see how well this works in SF, their workers/taxpayers will demand the same. Economics is so simple. OH Yeah...... Outside of SF, and unbound by the law, their profit margins increase. Inflation, right out of the text book. You betcha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #17 December 31, 2011 It is a different "test" now though. The economy is worse than when they did their study. Businesses have already come out and said they froze hiring in preparation of the higher min wage. SFO will slowly legislate it self in to further dispair. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #18 December 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt is a different "test" now though. The economy is worse than when they did their study. Businesses have already come out and said they froze hiring in preparation of the higher min wage. SFO will slowly legislate it self in to further dispair. Matt The unemployment rate is a point lower in San Francisco than the national average. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/sanf$pds.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #19 December 31, 2011 Is it lower per SFO's averages? There are many cities in the country that have a lower UE average, but it is higher than the cities average of the past. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 December 31, 2011 Because the ever increasing minimum wage has done so well at ending poverty in the US. Considering the increases in poverty we've seen since the inception of the welfare state, there must be a reason for people to increase the breadth and depth of the policies that have done nothing to stop it and probably are a key cause of it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #21 December 31, 2011 Quoteinteresting evidence... Although I bet that minimum wage employees currently earning $9.92 prefer that to the $0.00 that goes with no job. When the cost of labor exceeds its value companies find ways to make do with fewer more productive employees and market alternatives. The new Fresh and Easy grocery store down the street from me has no butchers. All meat and sea food packaging is done in a central location where they can keep fewer butchers busy all day instead of having ones in each store stand around waiting for customers. It has no cash registers or cashiers. They've all been replaced by self-service lanes. Employees get paged to check IDs for alcohol sales or handle problems with the automation. Usually there's an employee or two near the checkout area so that happens quickly although I couldn't say whether that's actually a full-time position or just where they end up when they don't need to stock or do other things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 December 31, 2011 Quote The unemployment rate is a point lower in San Francisco than the national average. not very surprising - with the cost of living*, anyone who is unemployed for very long has to get out of dodge. My rent is over 1800, and is a bit on the low side as I've been here for 8 years. I wonder how the homeless and the Occupiers are counted in this unemployment rate. I'm going to venture: not. *one consequence of the min wage and the mandated sick leave and heath care coverage is seen in the price at lunch. The floor for lunch is 8-9$, and it's very easy to get in the 10-15 range for a a sandwich, drink, bag of chips equivalent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 December 31, 2011 QuoteThe floor for lunch is 8-9$, and it's very easy to get in the 10-15 range for a a sandwich, drink, bag of chips equivalent. Ouch!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #24 December 31, 2011 QuoteQuote The unemployment rate is a point lower in San Francisco than the national average. not very surprising - with the cost of living*, anyone who is unemployed for very long has to get out of dodge. My rent is over 1800, and is a bit on the low side as I've been here for 8 years. I wonder how the homeless and the Occupiers are counted in this unemployment rate. I'm going to venture: not. *one consequence of the min wage and the mandated sick leave and heath care coverage is seen in the price at lunch. The floor for lunch is 8-9$, and it's very easy to get in the 10-15 range for a a sandwich, drink, bag of chips equivalent. Like i said, add a Zero to the minimum wage,(increase by a factor of 10) and the cost of everything will similarly jump 10x... You might be making $20/hr, but a 20oz Soda is now $5. Have fun w/that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #25 December 31, 2011 >You might be making $20/hr, but a 20oz Soda is now $5. Well, just raising the minimum wage again would fix that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
