Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (770643)	2/22/2014 1:24:56 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1574711

A million jobs .. wow!

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (770643)	2/22/2014 1:38:54 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574711

>> Wrong......they said between 0 and 1 million taking the average 500K. Wrong. That is the MSNBC/NYT interpretation. Far better to read what they actually said. Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income. Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects. As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers. So, as even you can see, CBO puts the chance at 66% that there will be SOME reduction in jobs up to 1,000,000. And there is a 1/3 chance it could be higher or lower than that figure (they state this on page 13 of the report). Nowhere in the report does it suggest a "zero" increase in unemployment, either for the $9.00 option or for the $10.10 option. These are liberal lies (perhaps mistakes, as we know liberals are devoid of arithmetic skills). The only mention of zero was in the context of considering the distribution about the mean, which obviously has a left tail that can't go below zero on the x-axis. Clearly, that value is far out under the left tail of the normal curve and might equate to some kind of unusual event like a resurgence in employment when they are predicting an ever-decreasing labor force participation rate. Translation: Not happening. The mean estimate of 500K was chosen because it was their view of the most likely outcome. According to their methodology, the probability of "zero" is just as likely as a much higher value, perhaps over the 1,000,000 figure. They further state in footnote 12 that under the $9.00 option, a little further detail on their regression parameters -- a 10% increase in minimum wage would result in a 3/4% increase in unemployment among teens. This is clearly in line with the research on the subject, which suggest that teens and African Americans are hit hardest by minimum wage increases. (It is worth considering that CBO used a linear model to predict these elasticities, which surely isn't ideal, but it is simple enough even for people who can't do arithmetic to understand).