Originally Posted by
Canadian Visitor
As per request.
I read the entire UW study w/footnotes and explainers.
I also read the Berkley study; and noted differences in methodology.
Then I consulted source materials.
I reviewed, the labour-force participation rates for Seattle/Washington and the United States.
As well as unemployment rates for same.
My observations are as follows:
1) Within the context of the two studies in question, they both drew the same conclusion on restaurant employment [[including full-service and fast food) which showed no material change in employment level in the aggregate.
2)The UW study, while comprehensive in many senses and I heretofore state I am not accusing the authors of any bias, does have a couple of very clear shortcomings.
The most glaring, as I read it from their own notes was that employment data was only considered through Q1 2016.
This is a glaring problem, which the authors acknowledge in their notes, because retail employment traditionally peaks in Q4 with Thanksgiving/Christmas sales season, and traditionally dips w/layoffs/reductions in January/Q1 as its low-point.
Any data that fails to include all 4 quarters of a year where much employment is seasonally variable is going to be highly problematic. [[as would be the case if Q4 were included but not Q1).
3) The Berkley study only looked at the restaurant sector arguing it was the best proxy for minimum wage impact. I think there is a very strong case for that, while conceding that including a range of other employers will show variable impacts. I offer it here to point out one way in which the studies differed.
4)The Seattle minimum wage is not currently universally $13 or higher and wasn't on Jan 1, 2016. Seattle created 4 different classifications based on employer size and based on whether benefits were provided. There are arguments for against this but it does make studying the impact more complex. So far as I can tell, the UW study didn't separately track employers with or without benefits.
5) The overall unemployment rate in Seattle is actually down in 2017 vs 2016 and is below 4% and at historic lows. At first blush this would seem to indicate no adverse impact on employment.
6) In fairness, one should consider the labour-force participation rate as workers who vanished from actively seeking work might skew the above. So...
The LFPR for Seattle is just over 72%, at a record high, 5 points above the all-time national high for the U.S. and 10 points above the current U.S. national LFPR of 62.5%
Conclusion:
While there is certainly a need to gather more evidence and review it carefully, the flaws in the UW study are troublesome and preclude it from being considered definitive at the very least.
This work may be amended as the team conducting the study is doing on-going research and I look forward to updated results.
The Berkley study can only be applied to one-sector for now [[Food service) but can be said to support past min. wage related studies and is in fact corroborated by the UW study in respect of that specific sector.
Objective, raw-source employment data does not show ANY evidence of a downturn in overall employment, and shows no material evidence of underemployment when compared with historic norms or current national U.S. statistics.
It also shows no evidence of significant inflationary impacts.
***
Something I haven't found yet, perhaps someone could point me to a good source. I'd like to see what SNAP benefit #s looking like Washington over the affected period.
I think they might be a good marker to consider as rising incomes disqualify those who previously received said benefit.
Couldn't find a source for that applied to Seattle.