Friends on Facebook are discussing “A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals” (Washington Post). Of course, like most things in the U.S. media, this starts off with a lie (the minimum wage in Seattle is $13/hour, not $15/hour). But let’s look at the rest of the article…
With labor more expensive, employers are getting rid of their lowest-skilled employees (certainly those for whom the market wage would be less than the minimum legal wage). Okay, that’s Econ 101. But is it “bad news for liberals”?
Suppose that the goal of a liberal is to live in a city without too many unsightly low-skilled people (see Tyler Cowen explains why rich white Democrats freely express love for immigrants and people of color for how liberals already have segregated themselves away from dark-skinned Americans and immigrants).
Can the liberal make it illegal for anyone without a college degree to live in his or her city? Probably not. Can the liberal make it illegal for anyone without a college degree to work in his or her city? Sure! That’s the minimum wage.
With a minimum wage much higher than other parts of the U.S., a city can limit its residents to (1) folks with high-paying jobs or pensions, (2) Official Poor who are already established in public housing and other welfare systems (mostly funded by state and federal taxpayers), and (3) divorce or custody plaintiffs who collected a free house, child support, and/or alimony through the family law system.
Low-skilled immigrants don’t fit into any of these categories. By definition they can’t have high-paying jobs (since they are “low-skill”). They would have to survive in the city for 5-10 years on a waiting list before they get their free apartment and they don’t have sufficient family connections to do this. Immigrants are unaware that having sex with a high-income American will yield the spending power of a medium-to-upper-income American and/or they have religious or social scruples that prevent them from having sex with an already-married dermatologist.
What do readers think? Instead of building a wall or aggressively preventing 8 low-wage people from sharing a 2-bedroom apartment, a city simply puts in a high minimum wage. With no jobs available for undesirable/Deplorable people, the city is left with the sought-after “creative class” plus some folks on Welfare who vote for Democrats and make the city wealthier by pulling in Federal Medicaid, food stamp, and housing dollars. If you’re a Democrat on the city council or in the mayor’s office, what’s not to like about that outcome?
Related:
- Can Puerto Rico be a laboratory for the future of the rest of the U.S.? (Puerto Rico already has the equivalent of a $15/hour minimum wage)
Update: A Facebooker commented on the above with “To illustrate that point, Singapore enforces a minimum wage on immigrant labor, but not on its own citizens. Does anybody believe a government would pass a law to treat foreigners worse than its own citizens?” (this post from a law firm suggests that it the minimum wage is about $2,660 per month)
This has obviously been the whole point for some time. In high cost regions what effectively happens is that adult low wage employees are being subsidized by tax payers at a multiple of their wage, with public housing and free education and policing and social services and so forth. The employer is making a profit by shoving the negative social externalities of his employees on the community and tax payers. The schools and budgets get ruined by his cheap employees and their spawn. In a lot of places the minimum wage needs to be up towards $30 per hour.
Cowen completely misses the point. White urban liberals love hispanic and asian immigration because it’s an ethnic cleansing program against blacks. Blacks have much higher crime rates, and much higher overall friction with effete urban SWPLs. High cost cities are being steadily cleansed of blacks, to the benefit of property values. The immigrants are being used as shock troops.
Suppose that the goal of a liberal is to live in a city without too many unsightly low-skilled people
There are two big problems with this supposition. First, a noteworthy portion of all liberals are low income (poor or near poor). The term low-skilled, when you think about it, is not very specific.
Also, these prosperous city slickers, in the standard stereotype, love their coffee shops and restaurants run by immigrants. These require the presence of low income workers.
Also, I doubt that there’s any evidence for this:
White urban liberals love hispanic and asian immigration because it’s an ethnic cleansing program against blacks. Blacks have much higher crime rates, and much higher overall friction with effete urban SWPLs
If it’s true, is it any less true for white urban Republicans, like Donald Trump?
> If it’s true, is it any less true for white urban Republicans, like Donald Trump?
Trump’s black employees love him. But that’s not really very relevant. It’s the broader picture, where “racists” will laugh it up and down beers and gumbo with blacks, but be frank about wanting separate neighborhoods and schools. Whereas northern urban SWPLs will be personally close with zero blacks and take every political measure available to ethnically cleanse them from their neighborhoods, while professing tolerance.
That’s a non-answer to the question about white urban Republicans. It doesn’t sound like it makes much sense either. These “racists” socialize with people of another race, but don’t want their kids to do the same at school. And what’s the point of putting the word in quotes? Are they racists or not?
Also, doesn’t SWPL stand for Stuff White People Like? That’s a rather odd term to describe people.
This also brings back memories of last year’s presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton was widely criticized in the right wing media for describing half of Donald Trump’s supporters as being deplorable, meaning bigoted. (Polls later showed that the portion was 60%, so she underestimated.) Somehow, it’s perfectly reasonable for conservatives and Republicans to accuse white liberals of being bigots.
I suspect that for most liberals any adverse effects from minimum wage laws on low wage/low skill workers are unintended consequences.
Liberals love sanctuary city policies because it’s black ethnic cleansing. It’s not unintended.
>With labor more expensive,
>employers are getting rid of their
>lowest-skilled employees.
>Okay, that’s Econ 101.
It isn’t really Econ 101. Whether or not this effect is significant depends on the particular shape of the supply and demand curves which in turn depends in a complex way on the specific economic conditions all of which is very much beyond the scope of any Econ 101 class. That said, it seems in places like Seattle we are now setting the minimum wage to relatively high levels (compared with the last few decades), raising it relatively quickly (compared with the last few decades), and raising it locally (compared with setting it state wide or nationally during the last few decades). Therefore, the experiences of the last few decades (as described by previous economic studies) may not be a good guide for predicting the effects of these new policies.
> Suppose that the goal of a liberal is to live in a city without too many unsightly low-skilled people
This hearkens back to the late 1800s when liberal elites tried to ban Chinese immigrants from San Francisco. Ultimately the Supreme Court said “you can’t do that”, so instead they did the next best thing: criminalizing opium. Up until then opium use was viewed as a nuisance, but it was very common among Chinese immigrants. And thus began the war on
libertydrugs…Grab em by the pussy!
@billg:One doesn’t need to go back to the 1800s. Members of the “liberal elites” like Bull Connor were doing similar within living memory.
Alternatively, it could be seen as a boost to illegal immigrants in a sanctuary city. Why pay a white teenager $15 an hour when you can pay an illegal under the table for $10.
Anonymous: Anyone who has worked in the U.S. can sue for back wages, overtime, etc. See http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2013/02/04/Employment-Law/Are-Illegal-Immigrants-Protected-By-Labor-And-Employment-Laws_bl6663.htm for how “In sum, illegal immigrants must be paid proper minimum wages and overtime for all work they actually perform, and they may bring actions in federal or state court to recover unpaid wages, even though they are not authorized to work in this country.”
Add to comment #7: The low skill high value add jobs which are more resistant to “employers are getting rid of their lowest-skilled employees” are now more readily automated than in the past few decades and likely make up a smaller fraction of the job market than they have in the past.
philg: Interesting observation! However, from the same article:
“Lastly, it must be emphasized that, even if illegal immigrants are covered by employment laws, this does not mean that they cannot be detained, prosecuted, and/or deported by federal immigration authorities. This factor must be considered very seriously when deciding whether or not to file an employment lawsuit on behalf of an illegal immigrant.”
I would imagine not many illegal immigrants would risk deportation and sue their employer.
Alexey: What if they are already on their way home? A lot of undocumented workers come to the U.S. for a period of time with the objective of returning home with a nest egg. See http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/12/12/the-latest-book-dreamland/ for example for how “farm boys from Xalisco County” [in Mexico] would come to the U.S. to work for a few years. Why not retain a lawyer on one’s last day in the U.S. and get 5 years of back pay? So they are back in their home country, but they have a lawyer on contingent fee working on their behalf here in the U.S.
[As it happens, I know of at least one such lawsuit. A physician hired a nanny from Mexico in exchange for a weekly cash payment. When the child entered government daycare (a.k.a. K-12), the nanny was terminated. The nanny hired a lawyer to sue for several years of back pay, arguing that the physician had agreed to pay her $X/week and had only paid $X/2 (so the nanny kept working, week after week, year after year, despite having been short-changed). Apparently the nanny was unconcerned about being deported. Certainly she did not have the right to work in the U.S. (You might ask how the lawsuit worked out… the lawyers on both sides got paid about as much as the nanny. Then the parties settled.]
So they are back in their home country, but they have a lawyer on contingent fee working on their behalf here in the U.S.
This assumes that the plaintiff’s presence is not required for depositions or whatever.
Vince: From the same article http://warshawskylawfirm.com/lawyer/2013/02/04/Employment-Law/Are-Illegal-Immigrants-Protected-By-Labor-And-Employment-Laws_bl6663.htm:
“… the court … ruled that the plaintiff, who had returned to his home country, would be permitted to appear remotely (via videoconference) for his deposition and for trial — thus making it possible for him to pursue his lawsuit from outside the United States.”
Now that I’ve read Philip’s story about the nanny, I would want those lawyers to tell the whole stories. For example: “at least we are sure you would pay us – the lawyers – a lot. For example, there was a nanny who sued her employer and spent… etc. etc.”
That’s interesting. That law firm website also reminds the reader that hiring an illegal alien is illegal. So if President Trump is serious about enforcing immigration law, we should large numbers of people like Philip’s physician friend (unclear why her occupation is relevant) being arrested by federal agents and charged with the relevant crimes.
Also, the Seattle is very flawed. Among other issues, it ignored ~40% of the city’s workforce.
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-high-road-seattle-labor-market-and-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-increase-data-limitations-and-methodological-problems-bias-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/