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: TimF who wrote (10588)	2/12/2017 9:12:31 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365141

Its only 19k if no one lost their job, or had noticeable cut in hours. The only reason to suspect that is under your theory that labor costs are totally inelastic. And there is no reason to believe it is. It certainly isn't in places like Seattle. Also if no one of those 19k was tipped employees Tipped employees are a different job category. Very clearly excluded in that article. Since it had, as a premise, that those 19k were affected by the increase in minimum wage. Like I said, hand waving. And guesswork. I mean, federal training wage? We are talking about employees who already have a job, not new hires. You don't have have the specific real number to know that almost certainly some people fall under one or more of those categories. Yeah, actually you do. Most of those categories don't apply at all.