View original postUgh. The biggest obstacle to my UW degree has been the commute, by far. (But that's what I get for refusing to live in the metro area.)
You're at U-Dub? Awesome. That's where I got my degree. Going back to the Jackson School for an advanced degree is an idea I kick around once in a while. What are you working on?
View original postAnyway, yep. I do think it's worth noting that the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, which means it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, even if a lone economist describes it as credible. We will see what happens with the peer review and publishing process.
Yeah, Tuesday's edition of the LA Times had a better article on the study than the one in the WP. More questions than answers since the the full study hasn't been released, but interesting even so.
View original postAt this point I'm thinking it may wind up being a useful caution for certain types of economies: if there are too many moderately skilled workers relative to entry-level types, and not enough employers who see potential future dividends from supporting the entry-level workers, then the leftist strategy could certainly backfire and increase poverty among the less skilled.
Or housing prices will drive them out of the area, along with the jobs. No break for renters, either. Not at two grand a month.
View original postBut I am not at all convinced that Seattle fits that mold. As you were alluding to, Vodalus, massive corporate employers are a HUGE factor here, and they often see a reason (and can afford) to employ the entry-level types, even if the small restaurants do not. So this -
View original post"And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results."
The other study did a bit of a better job at providing some details for this. The minimum wage actually ranges from $11/hour to $15/hour, depending on the size of the company and whether or not employees receive tips. However, I didn't so much as have questions about their methodology as I simply disliked it. The Berkley study gave me the impression of being designed to bolster a political statement rather than providing an objective analysis.
View original postThis excludes Microsoft and Amazon, two of our biggest players. And that automatically renders the study suspect for Seattle, as they go on to explain in the article.
View original postAnd yeah, just as someone else who lives here, the "damage liberalism can do" is a hilarious and bizarre thing to say about our economy. The unemployment rate is 3.1%. Our house has nearly doubled in value in less than four years. There are too many fucking people. Etc.
I know, right? But I will say that having no state income tax makes things a bit weird here.
View original postSide note, I really wish they had managed to pass the basic income referendum in Switzerland, since I think that is a much more promising solution. It still would have been a severely limited experiment, given how small and homogenous the country is, but it would have been so interesting to read the follow-up studies.
I believe Finland enacted some sort of pilot program this year, albeit with a much more modest amount of money per month for recipients. Something like just $700? It's been half a year since I read the article, sorry. Still, might prove an interesting read for you at some point. Oh, and it's nice to see you posting again.