HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Activism » Socialist Progressives (Group) » Want to read some anti-mi...

Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:55 PM

Want to read some anti-minimum wage worker/anti-union crap???


Have at it. X post in Labor & GD

Union Interests Work Against Low-Wage Workers: http://www.economics21.org/commentary/union-interests-work-against-low-wage-workers-2014-12-09

Diana Furchtgott-Roth | 12/09/2014



This article originally appeared in RealClearMarkets.

A few days after the latest round of fast food demonstrations, when the Service Employees International Union tried to get workers all over the country to go out on strike to demand $15 an hour, a newly published National Bureau of Economic Research paper confirms what most of us already know: minimum wage increases harm the earnings and job mobility of low-skill workers.

University of California (San Diego) economics professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither looked at the effects of changing the federal minimum wage from 2007 to 2009. During that period, the wage rose in three installments from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. During the same period, the percent of the population that was employed, known as the employment-population ratio, declined by 4 percentage points among adults aged 25 to 44 and by 8 percentage points among those aged 15 to 24.

The average worker faced a 30 percent minimum wage increase. This is far less than the more than 100 percent increase that the SEIU is seeking for fast food workers. The SEIU proposed wage increase to $15 would cause far greater damage.

The SEIU and its affiliates, Fast Food Forward, also known as Fight for 15, called for $15 an hour wages and a union. Although the SEIU was trying to organize strikes, the fast food workers had not voted for the SEIU, or any other union, to represent them. The SEIU and Fast Food Forward were self-appointed and self-anointed. The SEIU was after not only the 2 percent to 4 percent dues payments, but also the $40 to $50 dollar initiation fees for joining the union.

FULL story at link.

3 replies, 1576 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Want to read some anti-minimum wage worker/anti-union crap??? (Original post)
Omaha Steve Dec 2014 OP
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #1
yallerdawg Dec 2014 #2
TexasTowelie Dec 2014 #3

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 9, 2014, 03:45 PM

1. LOL ...

 

University of California (San Diego) economics professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither looked at the effects of changing the federal minimum wage from 2007 to 2009. During that period, the wage rose in three installments from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. During the same period, the percent of the population that was employed, known as the employment-population ratio, declined by 4 percentage points among adults aged 25 to 44 and by 8 percentage points among those aged 15 to 24.

The average worker faced a 30 percent minimum wage increase.


Gee, Professors Clemens and Wither ... what else was happening in the U.S. during that 2007-2009 timeframe?

Stupid research leads to stupid conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 9, 2014, 06:35 PM

2. Interesting how facts work.

They can support a variety of conclusions, and never come close to the truth.

How to lie with statistics, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Dec 10, 2014, 02:15 AM

3. Quoting from Wikipedia:

"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."

"The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread