New Study Out On Effects Of New Minimum Wages-Not Pretty

[Kathianne]

I know we've all watched the price of fast food stocks rising with the new robotics taking the positions of MW earners. Now comes a study that has even more impact of the workers:


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-26/seattle-s-painful-lesson-on-the-road-to-a-15-minimum-wage


Seattle's Painful Lesson on the Road to a $15 Minimum Wage

The experiment has hurt low-wage workers, cutting their earnings by $125 a month.
<address class="lede-text-only__byline" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 3px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; font-family: supriasans-regular-web, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: normal; color: rgb(78, 78, 92); text-transform: capitalize;">By Megan McArdle
</address>


<time class="article-timestamp" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2017-06-26T20:21:07.262Z" data-type="updated" data-status="localized" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">June 26, 2017, 1:21 PM GMT-7</time> <time class="article-timestamp" itemprop="dateModified" datetime="2017-06-26T22:17:53.279Z" data-type="corrected" data-status="localized" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">June 26, 2017, 3:17 PM GMT-7

</time><time class="article-timestamp" itemprop="dateModified" datetime="2017-06-26T22:17:53.279Z" data-type="corrected" data-status="localized" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">
</time>



<figure class="lede-media-image lede figure-expandable" style="margin: 30px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: inherit; font-family: Tinos; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">

</figure>...

Links to the study within the article, but this summarizes nicely.

[jimnyc]

The funny part about all of this, is that SO much of everything that's happening as a result of raising minimum wages and forcing owners to increase wage, is exactly what we all stated from the get go, and so many scoffed at us.

[Kathianne]

The funny part about all of this, is that SO much of everything that's happening as a result of raising minimum wages and forcing owners to increase wage, is exactly what we all stated from the get go, and so many scoffed at us.

Anyone that took Econ 100 would know, those on the left though, they are the ones with the Flying Spaghetti god. ;)

[pete311]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewed

[jimnyc]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewed

If you fall down and land on your head, it hurts. I don't believe I've seen a peer reviewed study on that either. It's kinda common sense.

If a company needs to make money, and their goal is to be a profitable company, and many reporting to shareholders - then if change is forced upon them, they too will make changes/adjustments to help their bottom dollar. In this case, they force the higher wages. To help meet their financial goals, as a result they have employees working less hours, and even some places looking towards automation.

[pete311]

If you fall down and land on your head, it hurts. I don't believe I've seen a peer reviewed study on that either. It's kinda common sense.

If a company needs to make money, and their goal is to be a profitable company, and many reporting to shareholders - then if change is forced upon them, they too will make changes/adjustments to help their bottom dollar. In this case, they force the higher wages. To help meet their financial goals, as a result they have employees working less hours, and even some places looking towards automation.

Thanks for the high school economics lesson. Peer review is important. If not, I'll write up a study in a few minutes and you'll take it as fact right? btw, automation is inevitable. Nothing will stop it.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the high school economics lesson.

I gave my opinion. You can continue being an ass, adios and speak to yourself, you're turning into more and more of a waste of time to even attempt to discuss things with.

[pete311]

I gave my opinion. You can continue being an ass, adios and speak to yourself, you're turning into more and more of a waste of time to even attempt to discuss things with.

Sorry my views don't fit into your clique. I missed the loyalty pledge requirement when signing up.

[Black Diamond]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewed
Economists agree price floors and price ceilings cause Surpluses and shortages respectively. Interview 100 Phd economists 98 will tell you that and the other two are owned by politicians.

[jimnyc]

Sorry my views don't fit into your clique. I missed the loyalty pledge requirement when signing up.

I have no problem with your views, everyone is entitled to their views here. I have an issue with you being a fucking douche at times, when I often give you respect. I said this many times before, treat folks as they treat you.

[Kathianne]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewed

Granted that, however it does appear from the methodology of year-to-year, it's pretty solid. From what can be gleaned, no f'ing with the numbers and the data is public accessed. Unlike the cherry picked 'peer-reviewed' climate you treat us with quite often.

[pete311]

Economists agree price floors and price ceilings cause Surpluses and shortages respectively. Interview 100 Phd economists 98 will tell you that and the other two are owned by politicians.

If only you used this logic with climate science.

[Black Diamond]

If only you used this logic with climate science.
It can be shown graphically. The free market allocates resources far more effectively than the government.

[pete311]

It can be shown graphically. The free market allocates resources far more effectively than the government.

Where did I argue otherwise?

[NightTrain]

Where did I argue otherwise?

Do you not trumpet socialized healthcare from the mountain tops?

[pete311]

Do you not trumpet socialized healthcare from the mountain tops?

All I did was mention this study was not peer reviewed.

[Gunny]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewedDoesn't need to be. If the idiots think raising minimum wage across the board isn't a catastrophe sure as Hell ain't MY peer.

[aboutime]

Note the study has not yet been peer reviewed


What you didn't say in your suggestion about Not being peer reviewed petey is: The DNC, and Democrats in Congress haven't changed their minds about LURING Americans into their corner by promising RAISES in Minimum Wages....designed to continue LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT support at the Polls for 2018.

You should become a small business owner to find out how Terrible it would be to be required to pay employee's $15.00 per hour to do nothing but complain about needing more money for less work.

[Gunny]

What you didn't say in your suggestion about Not being peer reviewed petey is: The DNC, and Democrats in Congress haven't changed their minds about LURING Americans into their corner by promising RAISES in Minimum Wages....designed to continue LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT support at the Polls for 2018.

You should become a small business owner to find out how Terrible it would be to be required to pay employee's $15.00 per hour to do nothing but complain about needing more money for less work.

Not only bad for the owner but bad for everyone making more than $15 an hour now for their skills. Going to double my hourly pay too? No. A 7 years old can serve burgers.

[darin]

All I did was mention this study was not peer reviewed.

It has not been bear-reviewed either. Nor has it been folded into a paper airplane. Nor has it been Canonized. Nor has it been used to generate heat for a small cabin.



Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.


Slow and expensive:

The cost of peer review has become important because of the open access movement, which hopes to make research freely available to everybody. With the current publishing model peer review is usually `free' to authors, and publishers make their money by charging institutions to access the material. One open access model is that authors will pay for peer review and the cost of posting their article on a website. So those offering or proposing this system have had to come up with a figure—which is currently between $500-$2500 per article.

Inconsistent:

Sometimes the inconsistency can be laughable. Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.
Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits'
Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.

This—perhaps inevitable—inconsistency can make peer review something of a lottery. You submit a study to a journal. It enters a system that is effectively a black box, and then a more or less sensible answer comes out at the other end. The black box is like the roulette wheel, and the prizes and the losses can be big. For an academic, publication in a major journal like Nature or Cell is to win the jackpot.


Bias:

The editorial peer review process has been strongly biased against `negative studies', i.e. studies that find an intervention does not work. It is also clear that authors often do not even bother to write up such studies. This matters because it biases the information base of medicine. It is easy to see why journals would be biased against negative studies. Journalistic values come into play. Who wants to read that a new treatment does not work? That's boring.


Abuse of peer review:

There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for review to Vijay Soman.9 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/#ref9) Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine.

[pete311]

It has not been bear-reviewed either. Nor has it been folded into a paper airplane. Nor has it been Canonized. Nor has it been used to generate heat for a small cabin.

Oh my! Your desperation is outstanding. Arguing against qualified people reviewing a technical studying is pretty impressive. Anything to advance your agenda.

[darin]

Oh my! Your desperation is outstanding. Arguing against qualified people reviewing a technical studying is pretty impressive. Anything to advance your agenda.

Oh my! Your desperation is outstanding. Arguing against qualified people describing the fallacy of peer review is pretty impressive. Anything to advance your agenda of keeping the poor, poor. Anything to advance your agenda - and the agenda of the politicians in Seattle - of staying in 'power' by selling the poor and gullible on bad policy. Your heart ain't right, bro.

Qualified does not mean 'capable'. For instance, Hitler was qualified to be president/chancellor of Germany. Yup. He sure was. Having somebody qualified but deranged review things like 'how NOT to commit genocide' would be awful.

So these 'qualified' folks reviewing shit - their completely subjective opinions on truth doesnt make the truth less potent.

[pete311]

Oh my! Your desperation is outstanding. Arguing against qualified people describing the fallacy of peer review is pretty impressive. Anything to advance your agenda of keeping the poor, poor. Anything to advance your agenda - and the agenda of the politicians in Seattle - of staying in 'power' by selling the poor and gullible on bad policy. Your heart ain't right, bro.

How do you know they are qualified? Only someone qualified can make that judgement. Do you have an expertise in research processes and methods?

[darin]

How do you know they are qualified? Only someone qualified can make that judgement. Do you have an expertise in research processes and methods?

Read the link. If you can dispute their conclusions do so.

[Kathianne]

When those picking which studies will be used for 'peer review' cherry picking becomes a problem.

It's pretty obvious that Pete would like the reviewing process to only include those who want one result, now imagine if he was on the panel choosing which studies would be used? That has been the problem with climate science, the publications that 'count'-meaning generating more money to be spent on 'remedies' to an already 'settled' problem.

It's not just in climate science either:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

[pete311]

Read the link. If you can dispute their conclusions do so.

I can't because I'm not an expert in research methods and neither are you. When was the last time you were in a research position or published a paper? Let me grab a research paper on positron annihilation and see if you can figure out if it's credible. Oh you can't because you're not a physicist. That is the whole point of peer review.

[darin]

I can't because I'm not an expert in research methods and neither are you. When was the last time you were in a research position or published a paper? Let me grab a research paper on positron annihilation and see if you can figure out if it's credible. Oh you can't because you're not a physicist. That is the whole point of peer review.

I mean read the link to the problem with peer review as litmus test for validity.

[pete311]

When those picking which studies will be used for 'peer review' cherry picking becomes a problem.

It's pretty obvious that Pete would like the reviewing process to only include those who want one result, now imagine if he was on the panel choosing which studies would be used? That has been the problem with climate science, the publications that 'count'-meaning generating more money to be spent on 'remedies' to an already 'settled' problem.

It's not just in climate science either:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

Sure, nothing is perfect, but guess what happened when peer review systems were implemented at the turn of the previous century? Life advanced quite a freakin bit.

[Kathianne]

Sure, nothing is perfect, but guess what happened when peer review systems were implemented at the turn of the previous century? Life advanced quite a freakin bit.

Here, try another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Pay particular attention to the 'bias' part, maybe you'll reflect?

[pete311]

Here, try another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Pay particular attention to the 'bias' part, maybe you'll reflect?

As long as humans exist, bias is an issue. You can't eliminate it. Again, look at when science implemented peer review and you'll see an amazing advancement curve. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment. What is your alternative. Studies published without any review?

[Kathianne]

As long as humans exist, bias is an issue. You can't eliminate it. Again, look at when science implemented peer review and you'll see an amazing advancement curve. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment. What is your alternative. Studies published without any review?


I'm betting you didn't read it, right?

[pete311]

I'm betting you didn't read it, right?

Didn't need to. In the conclusion he claims there is little evidence that peer review works. Lol, look at the last 100 years of scientific advancement. Why do you trust the author of this paper? Do you know who he is?

He has a yahoo email account listed and did you check his other papers on the site. Obviously he has some kind of agenda himself. He's written dozens of similar papers. He's a jaded crackpot. Likely had his papers rejected from real journals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Smith%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=16574968

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here, try another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Pay particular attention to the 'bias' part, maybe you'll reflect?

I have now, just finished reading the linked article and found it revealed exactly what I had long suspected--established and systematic bias ,same as exists in so many other so-called expert or studied sanctioned approval of political/economic and expediency driven policies/laws, actions and/or scientific decrees.
No greater example exists in modern times that the so-called - scientific peer-reviewed climate change scam..
Just as so many of us , not gullible as hell, have long maintained.-Tyr

[pete311]

I have now, just finished reading the linked article and found it revealed exactly what I had long suspected--established and systematic bias ,same as exists in so many other so-called expert or studied sanctioned approval of political/economic and expediency driven policies/laws, actions and/or scientific decrees.
No greater example exists in modern times that the so-called - scientific peer-reviewed climate change scam..
Just as so many of us , not gullible as hell, have long maintained.-Tyr

The author actually supports peer review. What's a better alternative to peer review?