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 (10514)	2/12/2017 4:05:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365066

Well, according to that article, all of those 19k were making less than the federal minimum wage. Which says nothing about how many got a useful raise, vs how many lost their jobs, how many lost hours to make up for the higher pay per hour, and how many kept making under $7.25 because they fit under one of the categories where employers didn't have to pay $7.25 before and after the state raise (mostly tip-credit workers but also others). There is very little chance it was zero that got a raise, but its even less likely that it was the full 19k. Even the 19k is far too small to support the argument you were making, and is the maximum in terms of how many people directly got their wage boosted by the state increase. Basically raises in state level minimums to amounts per hour that aren't higher than the federal minimum have almost no impact. All the data in the conversation from either of us has supported that point, including the 19k you posted about.