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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (10500)	2/12/2017 12:31:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365008

First I said you had not pointed to anyone or any group, not that there was no way anyone could possibly be impacted. You spouted nonsense about Kansas being exempt when it wasn't. And never provided any evidence of anyone being impacted until you mentioned the 19k figure Also remember your point was that after the state increase Kansas "did ok" so it shows that minimum wage increases aren't harmful. That argument falls apart for multiple reasons, the biggest being "does ok" (or even "does very well") doesn't mean that no harm was caused, and that a subset of a subset of 19,000 people isn't a large enough group to have a huge impact on the whole state's economy. Even if it was 19k people actually getting a $4.60/h raise because of the new law (and its more likely to be 19 than 19,000, see below), it would be far to insignificant to support the point you were trying to make. Now we are up to 19,000. No we aren't. $19k were making under $7.25. That doesn't mean 19k (or even 1, although there probably were some) got a raise because the state increase. Both before and after the state increase there were exemptions in federal and state law that allowed for employees to be paid less than $7.25. Also its likely that some people lost their jobs or had their hours cut. We don't have any real figure about how many people got a raise. And for whatever X number of people got a raise (if any, but now we have a plausible reason to think it wasn't zero which we didn't have before) most of them probably got raises much smaller than the increase in the state minimum. Someone making say $6.75, who happened to not fall under any exemption or lower wage rate under state or federal law, who kept their job, and didn't get their hours cut, got a 50 cent an hour increase, not a $4.60 increase. Its likely that considering all the factors I've mentioned (and perhaps more that I've missed) the number of people getting a $4.60 increase per hour, with no reduction in hours, because of the law was close to zero.