According to a report issued in July of 2004 by the non-partisan Fiscal Policy Institute there is no evidence that a higher minimum wage would be harmful to New York's economy. It noted that the 2004 minimum wage was 71 percent lower than it was at its peak in 1970 when adjusted for inflation ($8.83 compared to $5.15). It determined that when fully phased in by 2007 the increase will directly benefit 740,000 New Yorkers, with most (58 percent) of the benefit going to workers in low wage families.
Moreover, the Institute concluded that an increase would actually benefit New York's economy. It found that in the 12 states that had a higher minimum wage than the federal base, from 1998 to 2004 job growth was greater than the level seen in states with the federal minimum (6.1 percent to 4.8 percent). Even when you take into account the ancillary business costs potentially resulting from the legislation, the Institute determined that for small businesses the number of businesses and rate of employment grew faster in the 12 higher wage states than in those where the federal minimum prevailed. It should be noted that the twelve higher wage states were not in the burgeoning economies of the south or southwest, but in the allegedly faltering economies of the northeast and west.
This analysis would seem to be confirmed by the 1999 annual report of the President's Council of Economic Advisers that concluded that the 1996 and 1997 federal minimum wage increase resulted in no adverse employment effects.
Furthermore, an increase in the minimum wage may provide additional positive impacts on other less quantifiable, yet important social and economic issues. For example, the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued a report which found that a 1997 increase in Oregon's minimum wage above the federal minimum corresponded with a drop in participants in the state's welfare program, i.e., more welfare recipients went back to work because of the greater earning potential. Thus, the minimum wage increase could positively impact New York's economy by promoting the return to work of some welfare recipients, which in turn cuts welfare costs and increases the tax base.
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/...editorial2.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Fe's minimum-wage ordinance hasn't affected overall employment levels in the city, a University of New Mexico study has concluded.
Some industries saw jobs decline after the ordinance took effect about two years ago, the report said. But the author says those decreases were in step with, or less severe than, a similar trend in Albuquerque, which didn't have such an ordinance at the time of the study.
``If you look at the changing levels (of employment) in Santa Fe and changing levels in Albuquerque, Santa Fe actually did a little better than Albuquerque did overall,'' said Nicholas Potter, a researcher with the university's Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
The Santa Fe City Council commissioned the study after adopting the highest minimum-wage requirement of its kind in the country.
The law's advocates greeted the results as further evidence that members of the Santa Fe business community who mounted political and legal challenges were wrong in predicting gloomy consequences.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/47669.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexican Virtual Tours
A preliminary analysis released late last year, which wage-law backers used in an unsuccessful effort to lobby the New Mexico Legislature to raise the statewide minimum, also had reported no strong evidence of damage to the local economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issue ... nwagefacts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law, the authors surveyed 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania before and after the rise. Comparisons of employment growth at stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant) provide simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. The authors also compare employment changes at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (above $5.00) to the changes at lower-wage stores. They find no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.
http://tinyurl.com/2jp6sx
Economics 101
gulliver said:
"(the) rate of employment grew faster in the 12 higher wage states than in those where the federal minimum prevailed"
I still don't think this proves cause and effect. I think this proves the economy in these states was stronger than believed.
"a 1997 increase in Oregon's minimum wage above the federal minimum corresponded with a drop in participants in the state's welfare program, i.e., more welfare recipients went back to work because of the greater earning potential. Thus, the minimum wage increase could positively impact New York's economy by promoting the return to work of some welfare recipients, which in turn cuts welfare costs and increases the tax base. "
This is cool. Incentivize work, not welfare. Probably an unintended consequence (though a positive one!) of the law. I think that positive unintended consequences of legislation are rarer than rare.
One important point, if the going rate for unskilled labor in a particular market is $9.00 an hour and you raise the minimum wage to $7.50, all you've done is feel good legislation. You haven't helped anyone, and more importantly you haven't hurt anyone. Raise the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour and many jobs will simply go away, or go somewhere else.
"(the) rate of employment grew faster in the 12 higher wage states than in those where the federal minimum prevailed"
I still don't think this proves cause and effect. I think this proves the economy in these states was stronger than believed.
"a 1997 increase in Oregon's minimum wage above the federal minimum corresponded with a drop in participants in the state's welfare program, i.e., more welfare recipients went back to work because of the greater earning potential. Thus, the minimum wage increase could positively impact New York's economy by promoting the return to work of some welfare recipients, which in turn cuts welfare costs and increases the tax base. "
This is cool. Incentivize work, not welfare. Probably an unintended consequence (though a positive one!) of the law. I think that positive unintended consequences of legislation are rarer than rare.
One important point, if the going rate for unskilled labor in a particular market is $9.00 an hour and you raise the minimum wage to $7.50, all you've done is feel good legislation. You haven't helped anyone, and more importantly you haven't hurt anyone. Raise the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour and many jobs will simply go away, or go somewhere else.
The U.S. has the best combination of economic growth and low unemployment of any major industrialized nation. Taxe rates are down, tax receipts are up, job growth is vigorous, home ownership is at an all time high, disposable income is up.
Life ain't ever easy, but the economy is cranking, and record numbers of people are getting a slice of the pie.
In the meantime, democrats and the very news media that applauded this kind of news during the Clinton administration tell us (with a straight face) that our economy is in shambles and we're on a one way trip to hell. All because we have a republican president. This is one reason I'm not as liberal as I used to be. I'm not believing the lies.
Life ain't ever easy, but the economy is cranking, and record numbers of people are getting a slice of the pie.
In the meantime, democrats and the very news media that applauded this kind of news during the Clinton administration tell us (with a straight face) that our economy is in shambles and we're on a one way trip to hell. All because we have a republican president. This is one reason I'm not as liberal as I used to be. I'm not believing the lies.
It's truly not that simple.L K Day wrote:The U.S. has the best combination of economic growth and low unemployment of any major industrialized nation. Taxe rates are down, tax receipts are up, job growth is vigorous, home ownership is at an all time high, disposable income is up.
Life ain't ever easy, but the economy is cranking, and record numbers of people are getting a slice of the pie.
Well , I was listening.L K Day wrote:In the meantime, democrats and the very news media that applauded this kind of news during the Clinton administration tell us (with a straight face) that our economy is in shambles and we're on a one way trip to hell. All because we have a republican president. This is one reason I'm not as liberal as I used to be. I'm not believing the lies.
I haven't heard that, except in instances like this.Personal saving is down.
Personal debt is at an all time high.
National debt at looking too sweet either.
The gap between the rich and poor is growing and wages have been basically stagnant for 10 years.
And, oh, LK Day, the free¨market is big fucking lie.
There is no such thing. It is all bound up in rules. The EPA, the SEC, the world bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, is all a huge set of rules designed to dictate how people move capital, (or how capital moves people).
Let´s make sure when you get on your free market schtick you take on the subsidies for Agribusiness, OIL, and the autocompanies and not just the welfare state.
The minimum wage is the least of your worries.
This whole economy was built on a manipulated market: from set interest rates, to the railroad.
Be straight about it.
Personal debt is at an all time high.
National debt at looking too sweet either.
The gap between the rich and poor is growing and wages have been basically stagnant for 10 years.
And, oh, LK Day, the free¨market is big fucking lie.
There is no such thing. It is all bound up in rules. The EPA, the SEC, the world bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, is all a huge set of rules designed to dictate how people move capital, (or how capital moves people).
Let´s make sure when you get on your free market schtick you take on the subsidies for Agribusiness, OIL, and the autocompanies and not just the welfare state.
The minimum wage is the least of your worries.
This whole economy was built on a manipulated market: from set interest rates, to the railroad.
Be straight about it.
Well, it's certainly not laissez faire capitalism, nor should it be, but we don't live in a command economy, and as a result, we enjoy an uncommonly robust, and dynamic economic system. This very dynamism, unfortunately, is the thing that scares us the most. Everybody wants to enjoy the fruits of capitalism but few are comfortable with the inherent risks. The future belongs to those that can prosper in the face of constant change. Those that inherit this earth will be creative, adaptable, hard working, and self reliant. Maybe they will be Americans, maybe Chinese. Almost certainly they won't be Europeans of any stripe, Islamic or otherwise.