# The virtues of a $10/hour minimum wage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021 "2016-04-24T20:40:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/141 "2016-04-27T13:29:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > … 35+ years ago, minimum wage was a living wage (outside of maybe New York City) and I didn’t need to rely on assistance, either. These days…inflation has risen more rapidly in those years than the minimum wage. The graph at the top of [this article from 2014](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/) does show that during most of the period from about 1965 through 1982, the inflation-adjusted Federal MW was higher than today’s. But not by much. And today’s MW compares well with the average of the past 75 years. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/142 "2016-04-27T13:35:15Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > How is “full time” defined? BLS defines it as 35 hours > [@Broomstick](#): > > 30 hours a week at Federal minimum wage is right at the Federal poverty line for an individual. If that person is supporting more than themselves (a child, disabled relative, etc.) then the household is definitely below poverty. And if they work 70 hours per week, it isn’t. Everyone understands this. > [@Broomstick](#): > > You have to work 39-40 hours a week at Federal minimum wage before a two person household squeaks over the the two-person poverty level. So, if you have a “full time” job (according to the employer) of 35 hours per week and two people who have to live on that you’ll be officially poor, but will you be captured by the people doing the stats? That you’re even asking this question is…telling. BLS and USCB capture data that allow this distinction. A couple making $35k with ten kids counts as poor. Now, EPI has done apiss poor job before (see their wage/productivity gap study), but I’m not going to accuse them of high school stats student levels of incompetency. If you don’t like the cite, I’d love to read a better one from you. Really. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Children and the disabled shouldn’t be counted in a discussion like this. How many able-bodied adult poor are working? That’s real question. And how many of those people are also supporting one or more other people who can’t work? Did you read the EPI link? It’s only like 150 words. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/143 "2016-04-27T14:38:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A large majority of MW earners do not live in poor households ([cite](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/typical-minimum-wage-earners-arent-poor-but-theyre-not-quite-middle-class/)), and most MW earners are not supporting themselves or anyone else ([cite](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents)). But for those who ARE in a poor household or who ARE supporting themselves or someone else it would be quite a boost - is there some minimum number of people living in poverty required before anything is done about it? Your first link states that there are about 1.6 million supporting themselves (or attempting to) on minimum wage. Isn’t that a worthy number of people to help? If you still don’t want to raise their wages what _else_ should be done to lift these people out of poverty? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/144 "2016-04-27T14:43:46Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Did you read the EPI link? It’s only like 150 words. The link I quoted states that most poor people eligible to work do, in fact work. 2/3 of them. The rest of the questions I was directing towards you concerned how things like “full time” are defined. See, it works this way - you make a claim and provide a cite. I read your cite. I am then allowed to ask questions about the site and/or methodology. I am not required to do your homework for you. If you link to a cite then you should be able to answer questions about it. Although, the fact you declared it to be a _garbage_ cite makes me wonder why you linked to it at all. Couldn’t you find one that isn’t garbage to support your position? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/145 "2016-04-27T15:02:45Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The link I quoted states that most poor people eligible to work do, in fact work. 2/3 of them. The rest of the questions I was directing towards you concerned how things like “full time” are defined. > > See, it works this way - you make a claim and provide a cite. I read your cite. I am then allowed to ask questions about the site and/or methodology. I am not required to do your homework for you. If you link to a cite then you should be able to answer questions about it. > > Although, the fact you declared it to be a _garbage_ cite makes me wonder why you linked to it at all. Couldn’t you find one that isn’t garbage to support your position? I provided the cite you asked for, which you wouldn’t have needed had you done the barest minimum of research prior to participating in the conversation. If you have a cite that counters it, I’m all ears. If you want to be educated about U.S. demographics, GQ is over there. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/146 "2016-04-27T15:36:18Z")
In other words, the cite you picked either doesn’t support your position, or does so only weakly, so it’s the reader’s fault. Got it. Heaven forbid anyone ask questions in Great Debates. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/147 "2016-04-27T16:03:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No we can’t - most of those earning MW are not in poverty. The above statement doesn’t at all contradict what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/148 "2016-04-27T16:04:20Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > But for those who ARE in a poor household or who ARE supporting themselves or someone else it would be quite a boost… And for the half-million or so who lose their jobs, it wouldn’t be much of a boost at all. And the large majority of MW earners are not in a poor household, and are not supporting themselve or others. > [@](#): > > If you still don’t want to raise their wages what else should be done to lift these people out of poverty? In most cases, we don’t need to do anything at all - most MW earners graduate into higher income jobs. > [@](#): > > Your first link states that there are about 1.6 million supporting themselves (or attempting to) on minimum wage. Isn’t that a worthy number of people to help? So you want to help them by throwing about a half-million of them out of work, and by giving a raise to the majority of MW earners who aren’t poor in the first place. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/149 "2016-04-27T16:06:35Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > The above statement doesn’t at all contradict what I said. Was that another hypothetical statement that doesn’t apply to the real world? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/150 "2016-04-27T16:11:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you want to help them by throwing about a half-million of them out of work, and by giving a raise to the majority of MW earners who aren’t poor in the first place. Nothing would delight me more this find spring morning than for you to propose a more viable and humane option. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/151 "2016-04-27T16:36:33Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > No one has denied that. You are simply arguing something for the sake of arguing. The point is that employers in many cases are not so price sensitive as to make automation a better value proposition given increased wages. Some will opt to eat the costs, some will raise prices, others will cut hours, etc. That is the debate. People have and do argue that minimum wages don’t lead to higher unemployment. If you are not one of them then that comment was not directed at you. > [@](#): > > It depends. More importantly, society doesn’t always benefit from having more people employed at worse jobs, so it’s not just a matter of the number of people doing x as the only relevant part of the calculus. People who want to work but are unable to find jobs is always a bad thing. Society loses out on their production. They have to turn to welfare or crime. That is bad for society. > [@](#): > > But your example is largely divorced from reality. We are not going from $5 to $10, and we are not doing overnight. I could just as easily construct an example that going from $5 to $5.05 which would almost certainly not create any aggregate behavioral changes. Yes, the existence of a minimum wage will cost some jobs, and radical, sudden increases in the MW would also likely cost jobs, but neither point really factors in at increasing to around $10/hour from current levels AFAICT. If you have some data from places that contradicts this, feel free to cite it. The larger the change the larger the displacement. The optimal displacement and the optimal unemployment rate after adjusting for search friction is zero. > [@](#): > > Because sudden changes do not give enough time for businesses to adjust. This is a fairly obvious point. Increased CAFE standards are good too, but mandating they be done immediately is not really fair. Even bad things are often phased out gradually (eg. leaded gas). Not really sure what you hoped to gain with such a stupid rhetorical point. What do adjustments mean? CAFE standards mean that companies have to engineer cars that have different gas mileage. That is a complicated process involving weight, safety, and power tradeoffs. Raising a wage is just a matter of changing a number on a spreadsheet. It could be done in two weeks. What adjustment actually means is changing their business models to use less cheap labor. Yet politicians deny that it means less cheap labor being used, while at the same time crafting the legislation to allow business owners time to adjust. It shows that those who claim that minimum wages do not cost jobs are arguing in bad faith. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Again, it’s not clear that such a proposal will cost jobs. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think broad economic policy should always be crafted with deference to a particular group. By that logic, we’d have enormous tariffs and few international trade agreements; two things I think most economists generally agree on. The aim of policy should be helping the most and hurting the least. Trade policy helps the economy as a whole through the law of comparative advantage. Minimum wage increases help some people by hurting other people and do not help the overall economy at all. > [@](#): > > What are YOU talking about? Look at the state minimum [wages](http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/minimum-wage-state) across the country. They generally aren’t $10, and many are not nice, round numbers. I was not looking for data on $10 to the exclusion of any other number. I’d just love some data demonstrating the parades of horribles one side assumes will come when the MW is increased AT ALL. As I said, the data seems to be mixed. Yes, we can all obviously acknowledge that a one cent increase will yield almost no changes, and a $20 increase would cost jobs, but what happens when we have relatively modest, gradual increases like much of what is being proposed? I am not sure anyone can say with any confidence. I am talking about the proposal to change the national minimum wage to $10/hr. The reasoning behind that number is not economic but entirely political. If we can acknowledge that small changes mean small effects and big changes make big effects than we know what relatively modest gradual increases mean. They mean modest gradual effects. These effects are poor, vulnerable people being thrown out of their jobs even though people would like to hire them. These poor people are then effectively locked out of the economy. The ideal number of people who are unemployed even though people would like to hire them is zero. The more people are like that the worse it is for the economy as a whole and the worse it is for the country as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/152 "2016-04-27T16:41:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you want to help them by throwing about a half-million of them out of work You keep throwing that half-million number around. Do you have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/153 "2016-04-27T17:11:09Z")
Just speculating here, but this issue just seems to be a way for politicians to claim that they are “fighting income inequality”. But what would it actually accomplish? Mandating $10 mw would probably cause employers to eliminate the incremental merit-based pay raises that have existed ($15 surely would). Employers will expect one person to do the work of two or three, but the lack of opportunity for pay advancement will actually depress productivity, and there will be even greater competition for better jobs that pay a bit more. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/154 "2016-04-27T17:32:53Z")
> [@Mithrander](#): > > You keep throwing that half-million number around. Do you have a cite for that? Please see post #41. It is from the Congressional Budget Office, and refers to an increase in MW to $10.10. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/155 "2016-04-27T18:50:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The minimum wage is something that can be done by legislative fiat. A strong labor movement cannot be created that way, it requires on-the-ground organizing and a lot of it. There are laws that specifically undermine the ability to unionize. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/156 "2016-04-27T19:17:45Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Just speculating here, but this issue just seems to be a way for politicians to claim that they are “fighting income inequality”. But what would it actually accomplish? > > Mandating $10 mw would probably cause employers to eliminate the incremental merit-based pay raises that have existed ($15 surely would). Employers will expect one person to do the work of two or three, but the lack of opportunity for pay advancement will actually depress productivity, and there will be even greater competition for better jobs that pay a bit more. [Here is a chart](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/) showing the inflation adjusted MW since 1940. The peak wage was 1968. You can see that it rose steadily through the prosperous '50s and '60s. I think it would be tough to correlate it with employment. It fell during the Bush years with good employment, but rose just before the boom in the Clinton years. ---
**Author:** ![ziper1221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a183cd/32.png) [@ziper1221](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ziper1221)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/157 "2016-04-27T19:28:35Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Nothing would delight me more this find spring morning than for you to propose a more viable and humane option. Universal Basic Income. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/158 "2016-04-27T20:05:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Was that another hypothetical statement that doesn’t apply to the real world? Is there some reason you think I should have to answer for your reading comprehension problems? > [@puddleglum](#): > > People have and do argue that minimum wages don’t lead to higher unemployment. If you are not one of them then that comment was not directed at you. Then why did you quote me as if you were responding with something relevent to what I said? > [@puddleglum](#): > > People who want to work but are unable to find jobs is always a bad thing. Society loses out on their production. They have to turn to welfare or crime. That is bad for society. Well, not they don’t HAVE to turn to welfare or crime. The vast majority don’t AFAICT. Some lean on savings or spouses, others collect unemployment (which isn’t welfare), some just borrow or figure out how to manage. It goes without saying that people not being able to find jobs is an issue. It doesn’t stand to reason however that society is better off with more people in crappy jobs. > [@puddleglum](#): > > What do adjustments mean? CAFE standards mean that companies have to engineer cars that have different gas mileage. That is a complicated process involving weight, safety, and power tradeoffs. Raising a wage is just a matter of changing a number on a spreadsheet. It could be done in two weeks. Do you really need this explained to you? Many businesses will manage the increased costs via legislation in many ways. For example, some will raise prices necessitating new menus and/or supplies. Some will invest or borrow to allow existing employees to become more efficient. Some will take other measures to manage the costs. Those things take time because the real world doesn’t exist on a spreadsheet. > [@puddleglum](#): > > What adjustment actually means is changing their business models to use less cheap labor. But in reality, it actually doesn’t in many cases. See the multiple studies cited in my last link. Yes, it might mean that if the changes are so stark that one has no other choice, but, again, it doesn’t seem $10/hour is prompting those adjustments en masse. > [@puddleglum](#): > > Yet politicians deny that it means less cheap labor being used, while at the same time crafting the legislation to allow business owners time to adjust. It shows that those who claim that minimum wages do not cost jobs are arguing in bad faith. No it doesn’t. You are arguing for one outcome (fewer jobs) of such legislation to the exclusion of the myriad results that have actually been measured when similar policies have been enacted. This is completely independent of whether a policy is crafted to begin immediately. Many, if not most sweeping policies are phased in. I gave you multiple examples of policies that seek to manage good and bad things that have been phased in. That is how these things work because some people cannot. change overnight > [@puddleglum](#): > > The aim of policy should be helping the most and hurting the least. Trade policy helps the economy as a whole through the law of comparative advantage. Minimum wage increases help some people by hurting other people and do not help the overall economy at all. Again, that is your opinion and it’s not actually based by much empirical evidence. People against trade policy make the same EXACT bad argument that you are making. > [@puddleglum](#): > > I am talking about the proposal to change the national minimum wage to $10/hr. The reasoning behind that number is not economic but entirely political. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is something being political de facto evidence of it being bad policy. > [@puddleglum](#): > > If we can acknowledge that small changes mean small effects and big changes make big effects… But we know it’s not a smooth, linear correlation, so just acknowledging that there are two extremes is meaningless. > [@puddleglum](#): > > These effects are poor, vulnerable people being thrown out of their jobs even though people would like to hire them. These poor people are then effectively locked out of the economy. So why do multiple studies measuring the _actual_ effect of the minimum wage being increased not bear this out? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/159 "2016-04-27T20:38:32Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Is there some reason you think I should have to answer for your reading comprehension problems? I don’t have any such problems. Did you mean what you said, or was it a “hypothetical” with no particular meaning? > [@](#): > > So why do multiple studies measuring the _actual_ effect of the minimum wage being increased not bear this out? They do bear it out - you are merely wrong. > [@](#): > > However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups. [Cite](http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663). > [@](#): > > The 2006 Neumark and Wascher review found the literature “as largely solidifying the conventional view that minimum wages reduce employment among low-skilled workers.” >  A 2012 analysis of the New York State minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour found a “20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals.” >  A 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks found: “the latest round of minimum wage increases” account “for roughly 550,000 fewer part-time jobs,” including “roughly 310,000 fewer teenagers working part-time.” [Cite - pdf](http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/four_reasons_not_to_raise_the_minimum_wage.pdf). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021/160 "2016-04-27T21:11:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t have any such problems. Did you mean what you said, or was it a “hypothetical” with no particular meaning?They do bear it out - you are merely wrong. And yet, you once again demonstrate your inability to comprehend what you read. Here is what I said, which you quoted: > [@](#): > > So why do multiple studies measuring the actual effect of the minimum wage being increased not bear this out? Note that I did not say there are no studies which come to different conclusions. As I linked to before, here is an article [citing](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whos-right-minimum-wage-debate) what I said. To quote them: > [@](#): > > The most influential of these studies, by economists David Card (Berkeley) and Alan Krueger (Princeton, and until recently chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers), appeared in 1994. Card and Krueger surveyed 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey, which raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05, and eastern Pennsylvania, which kept its state minimum wage at $4.25. The Gospel according to Stigler dictated that New Jersey’s 19% minimum-wage hike ought to have put fast food employees out of work. But no job loss was observed. Indeed, relative to eastern Pennsylvania, fast-food jobs increased slightly. > > This bolstered earlier research by Card, Krueger, and Harvard’s Lawrence Katz that similarly found no job loss among teenage and fast food workers in California and Texas after the federal government raised the minimum wage 25%, from $3.80 to $4.75, in 1990 and 1991. > > Why didn’t these minimum wage increases kill jobs? Partly because fast food joints raised prices to cover the increased cost of hiring; partly because a higher minimum wage meant less turnover, and therefore fewer resources diverted to hiring; and partly because a higher minimum attracted better employees (or perhaps motivated the same employees to become better). And now before you respond with your typical snark and disingenuous nonsense, let me further quote the article: > [@](#): > > Does that mean a minimum-wage increase will never eliminate jobs? Of course not, says Katz. If the minimum were raised as high as $15 per hour–as fast food protesters are currently demanding–“I would very strongly worry that there would be really large displacement effects.” (Not that these workers can be faulted for seeking $15; in politics, ask for $15 and you’ll maybe get $10 or $12.) Again, no one is saying minimum wage increases will never cost jobs. What is in question is the reflexive axiomatic notion that that they will always cost a significant number of jobs in the real world. That clearly is not true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-virtues-of-a-10-hour-minimum-wage/753021.md?page=9)