That's exactly what you are supposed to think.
They did not 'ignore' large employers. They decided that large-employer data hurt the results, since they were less location-specific, I believe.
They did a survey of large employers, and found that they reported MORE hour reductions that small employers, so if anything the exclusion strengthens, not weakens the study.
True.
The jump to $13 was last year.
As you said, every study is problematic. What's notable here is that they had access to both hours and wages. All previous studies only looked at aggregate wages. Never hours. With hours, and the ability to segment income by rate-of-pay, they were awfully close to worker-by-worker. Past studies were much cruder, but they had the advantage of agreeing with the 'feel-good' idea of higher MW.
I'm not an economist, but I've read the study. You should do so. Its not junk science. They explain things clearly. They clearly see that individual income went DOWN for low-wage workers because hours went down. Hourly wages did go UP. Just for fewer hours. And for the next step up the ladder [[$19ish), total compensation did increase. I suggest you read the study before discounting it because of what you've read. Or UofW's governance school's page on it.
This is such an important issue. We've got to push aside the partisan lines and do what's best for everyone. MW is a curse on the low-wage earner.
Bookmarks