Minimum Wage

New Study: Large Minimum Wage Hikes Especially Disadvantage Younger, Less Educated Workers

Taking advantage of variations in state minimum wage hikes, researchers find strong effects for bigger hikes, not much for smaller ones.


Younger, less-well-educated workers have been especially harmed by recent state-level minimum wage hikes, according to a study issued today by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The paper was written by economists Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California, San Diego, and Michael R. Strain of the American Enterprise Institute.

The supply-demand analysis at the heart of economics suggests that raising the price of labor would lead to lower demand for it, other things being equal. The past decade has provided particularly useful empirical data against which to test this notion.

"After the Great Recession [of the late 2000s], there was a pause in both state and federal efforts to increase minimum wages," the authors note. "This pause created a baseline (or 'pre-period') for empirical purposes. It was followed by considerable divergence in states' minimum wage policies. A number of states legislated and began to enact minimum wage changes that varied substantially in their magnitude. From January 2011 to January 2019, for example, Washington, D.C., California, and New York had increased their minimum wages by 61, 50, and 53 percent, respectively. Wage floors rose more moderately in an additional 24 states and were unchanged in the remainder." The past decade thus gave researchers a chance to compare the employment effects of "moderate minimum wage changes and historically large minimum wage changes" across U.S. states.

They found that "over the short and medium run, relatively large increases in minimum wages have reduced employment rates among individuals with low levels of experience and education by just over 2.5 percentage points." By contrast, smaller increases, or ones resulting from indexing inflation to wages, have effects that are "variable and centered on zero."

The data also offers "evidence that the medium-run effects of large minimum wage changes are larger and more negative than their short-run effects," so we will often need time to unfold before we see those bad employment effects blossom.

The changes the study analyzes were historically much larger than usual for state minimum wages, for both the small- and large-change states. Among their findings: By one data measure, "employment among individuals ages 16 to 25 with less than a completed high school education…expanded 4.0 percentage points less by 2019 in states that enacted large minimum wage changes than in states that enacted no minimum wage change." By another measure, it was 3.2 percentage points less.

In a series of tweets on his research, co-author Clemens notes that "relative declines are…particularly pronounced for our samples of individuals ages 16 to 25 with less than a completed high school education, but also present across all individuals ages 16 to 21."

While not claiming causation, the researchers did find that "the housing recovery following the Great Recession was quite strong in states that enacted relatively large minimum wage increases. Median house prices rose by roughly 49 percent in this group of states from the 2011–2013 base period through 2019….Across states that did not increase their minimum wage rates, house prices rose roughly 36 percent, and in states that enacted small minimum wage increases, median house prices rose by an average of roughly 31 percent." Meanwhile, "per capita incomes grew roughly $7,600 more in states that enacted relatively large minimum wage changes than in states that enacted no minimum wage changes."

But those macro outcomes in high-wage-hike states did not end up trickling down to low-skilled workers. Clemens believes, as per a tweet, that "growth in overall income, house prices, and high-skilled employment would have led you to predict larger employment gains for low-skilled individuals in the states that enacted large minimum wage increases. Instead, they experienced relative declines."

When it comes to minimum wage hikes designed to not harm younger workers with less education, then, larger definitely seems substantially worse than smaller.

NEXT: San Francisco Mayor London Breed Is Right: It's Crazy To Force Vaccinated Patrons To Mask Inside Bars!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.GEc Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

    Here………… Pays24

    1. This is very informatie and interesting article.I have enjoyed reading your post and have come to the conclusion that you are a proffesional writer.
      Real Relax Massage Chairs

      1. I have come to the conclusion you need to go back to school to learn how to spell.

        1. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.VCs Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start today………………… IncomeOpportunities

          1. Looking for a life?
            Better luck next time.
            Jump out a window.

            1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Hax Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

              Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE
              VISIT HERE

    2. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online.m this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now……………… Visit Here

  2. These laws wage economic war on disadvantaged workers as well as consumers.

    1. I find it quite taxing.

      1. Perturbing, at a minimum.

    2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.GRf Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

      Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

  3. Of course, when the democrats eliminate wages, who will care about this?

    1. No no. Being a fry cook should be a career path in a democrats view of the world.

      1. You can rent a half million dollar Airbnb for the kind of scratch a fry cook pulls.

  4. Well now they are claiming it should be $26/hr minimum.

    There’s no fucking clue on the left how this works, they don’t care, they want inflation and economy to crash.

    You voted for democrats, you are part of the problem

    1. I’m still clamoring for $1000 / hr. Anything else is just insulting.

    2. I want to solve the problem. By reducing the number of democrats.

      We have far too many, and it’s killing us.

    3. “There’s no fucking clue on the left how this works, they don’t care, they want inflation and economy to crash.”

      They care. They are getting their desired result. The Left is sucking up to it’s Union masters and pandering to the low end voters who only see the Left giving them more money. Why do you think the Left has trashed our educational system? All these clowns see is a bigger number in their paychecks (those who get paychecks). They don’t see the added costs because of raising the minimum wage. The Left wants them to believe that the “Evil Businesses and Corporations” are raising prices because they want to, not because their expenses are going up. For the Morons here who will whine about how much a business or corporation made last year, think about this, who owns them? Scrooge McDuck isn’t diving into piles of money. That’s more bullshit put out there by the Left and the Unions.

    4. Democrats understand perfectly: The more people that their increased minimum wages put out of a job, the more destitute people there will be, and we all know that destitute people gravitate to the Democrats. You know, the party that understands their plight and will save them.

    5. Democrat politicians know how it works. No one is compelled to pay a minimum wage. Raising it simply outlaws starter jobs people need for on the job learning. With no starter jobs people stay dependent on welfare and vote Democrat.

  5. Minimum wage increases also notoriously hurt people like Charles Koch, the billionaire who funds


    1. You got it all backwards. Charles Koch loves the minimum wage, since he doesn’t have to pay it for the illegals he brings in over the border. Get with the program, OBL!

  6. Libertarians should agree with the sign they are carrying:
    “Minimum Wage is a Modern Slavery.” So true; no worker should be forced to remain unemployed if he wants to work for less than some politicians demand an employer pay him.

    1. “Minimum Wage LAWS Are A Modern Slavery!” Fixed That For Them, both factually and grammatically.

  7. Well duh. Put a floor on the legally allowable wage and it hurts everyone who would fall under that floor.

    1. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

      Don’t start talking economics!

      Don’t introduce people to Bastiat!


      1. Don’t check out Don Bodreaux on minimum wage!

        Keep your hand away from the mouse! Step away from the keyboard!

          1. Super sad when a numpty arriviste tries to be an intellectual.

      2. Do you think random Bastian quotes prove you dont lean left or something? Congrats. You and Jeff have very slight overlap with libertarians. It doesn’t excuse all your other bullshit.

        You do also know libertarian philosophy has advanced since him right? We know you disparage mises and Rothbard as an example. Would be good of you read your second libertarian book at some point.

        1. You really need to get a refund from whoever taught you to read minds. They did a terrible job.

          1. Lol. You write everything for the public to see then deny it. Sorry you are self unaware.

            And yes. You have dismissed both multiple times trying to attack me. You didn’t know who the quotes were from lol.

            1. Dont argue with that dummy,
              just mock him.

              1. I Geraldo just beat up on idiots like Sarc and Jeffy.

        2. Do you think “I criticized Trump once” means that you aren’t actually a Team Red shill?

          And I would love to hear what your definition of what constitutes “leans left” in your world, particularly as applied to the following issues:

          – Abortion
          – Taxes and spending
          – Gun control
          – Privacy and the Fourth Amendment
          – Minimum wage
          – Regulations
          – Environment and climate change

          On these issues, what do you think are the positions that constitutes “lean left”, and how do you think sarcasmic and/or myself satisfy those criteria? Be specific and provide quotes if you can.

          1. He has never and will never articulate any examples of you showing what he says you believe. That’s his game. Accuse, get the girls to join pile on, and demand you provide proof. It’s textbook playground bullying.

            1. “Mastah chemjeff, mastah chemjeff, let me pick the best of the Gunga dins for you, mastah chemjeff, mastah chemjeff, sarcasmic am here to do your bidding, mastah, mastah, I be your Ba Ba Black sheep.”

              Won’t you be his friend Jeff? He wants to please you so desperately.

            2. Lol. I lost your quotes all the fucking time you gold fish memory having alcoholic.

            3. You’re so full of shit. You two faggots should go fuck each other and quit threadshitting here.

          2. Okay you paid DNC shill, let me try and guess:

            Abortion – “no basic human rights for kid. rip it to shreds. a cLuMP oF cELLs”
            Taxes and spending – “I support Pelosi and Schumer’s take on what’s needed”
            Gun control – “common-sense gun control. Nobody needs an assault rifle. Were not going to steal you’re Grandpa’s shotgun”
            Privacy and the Fourth Amendment – “It’s okay if governments use private companies to skirt privacy and free speech laws. As long as they’re not doing it directly. The Forth Amendment shouldn’t apply to emergency Covid measures”.
            Regulations – “Regulations like 203 aren’t special protections”
            Environment and climate change – “climate change is a serious threat and governments need to address it. Trump was a monster for pulling us out of the Paris Accord”.

            1. Abortion – “no basic human rights for kid. rip it to shreds. a cLuMP oF cELLs”

              I don’t support this position.

              Taxes and spending – “I support Pelosi and Schumer’s take on what’s needed”

              I don’t support this position.

              Gun control – “common-sense gun control. Nobody needs an assault rifle. Were not going to steal you’re Grandpa’s shotgun”

              I don’t support this position.

              Privacy and the Fourth Amendment – “It’s okay if governments use private companies to skirt privacy and free speech laws. As long as they’re not doing it directly.

              I think there is a much deeper discussion to be had about what actually constitutes when government “skirts” privacy and free speech laws. I do not buy into the assumption that any word uttered by any politician constitutes a ‘threat’ intended to ‘skirt’ the law. Sometimes words are just words and not threats. BUT, if it were proven to my satisfaction that government really was attempting to “skirt the law” to violate people’s privacy rights then I would not be in favor of it.

              The Forth Amendment shouldn’t apply to emergency Covid measures”.

              Of course it does. I don’t support this position.

              Regulations – “Regulations like 203 aren’t special protections”

              You mean Section 230? I don’t think that is a fair representation of a ‘leans left’ position. The ‘leans left’ position IMO should be something closer to the idea that Section 230 doesn’t protect tech companies from promoting ‘misinformation’. I don’t support that position. Whether Section 230 constitutes a ‘special protection’ or not is a largely immaterial debate.

              Environment and climate change – “climate change is a serious threat and governments need to address it. Trump was a monster for pulling us out of the Paris Accord”.

              Climate change is a serious threat, governments do need to address it, but NOT with ridiculous AOC Green New Deal ideas like banning cows or tearing down every building. Trump wasn’t a “monster” for pulling out of the Paris Accord, since it was mainly symbolic anyway.

              So, that is a pretty poor record of my supposed “leans left” tendencies. So why don’t you just admit what you all really mean when you call someone a “leftie”: it is just a general insult, like “doodyhead”.

              1. Instead of just saying no, maybe it would help for you to actually articulate your positions in response.

                1. What he means is that he doesn’t technically, literally support those positions; he just supports positions that are ever so slightly different but can be made to sound more benign.

          3. We already know you’re a socialist jeff.

            1. Pretty much. Md he’s an open borders nut too. He even said that we have no right to stop known child rapists from entering our country.

            2. This is where you try to will a lie into the truth by repeating it often enough, right Jesse?

              I never once claimed to be a socialist. You are simply lying.

              But, like the Great Big Election Lie, you think that if you can repeat it often enough, it becomes “truth” to enough people.

              1. He didn’t lie. He’s saying you ARE a socialist. Not that you SAID you’re a socialist. And yes, you ARE a socialist with some small overlap on libertarian positions.

                Bit of course you had to distort his words, as you have no real counter to his assertion.

          4. “ Do you think “I criticized Trump once” means that you aren’t actually a Team Red shill?.”

            You’ve been posting the same crap since Trump started his run in the Republican primaries in 2015. You made these same snide and dismissive comments about Trump and his supporters at Ace of Spades HQ until Ace kicked your stupid ass off his site personally. You bring nothing new to the conversation. You fancy yourself some type of radical intellectual individual, when the truth is you are like a bitchy old lady who all the kids don’t take seriously.

            1. Oh boo hoo. Yes Ace decided to abandon any pretense of principle in the pursuit of power. He votes Republican because he hates Democrats, plain and simple, and he’s attracted a following of people who believe likewise. I fundamentally disagree with that position.

              You bring nothing new to the conversation.

              Who among the right-wingers around here ever discuss IDEAS that they FAVOR? It is once in a blue moon. 99% of the time they are bitching and moaning and complaining and griping and sometimes making violent threats about Democrats. What is intellectual about that? What is novel about that? And their definition of “lefty”, like yours, is simply one who does not join in with their bitchfest. Unless one is willing to declare that Democrats hate America, then one is a “lefty”. That was the point of my challenge above. Neither sarc nor I agree with any “lefty” positions on the major issues. The ONLY reason we are called “lefties” is because we don’t join in with the circlejerk of hatred against Team Blue. That’s it.

              And Ace’s place, now, is NOTHING BUT one giant circlejerk of enmity against Team Blue. I am glad that I am no longer there.

              For once I would actually love Jesse, or ML, or Nardz, or Sevo, or any of the other right-wingers around here say “this is what I support, these are my reasons for supporting it, and I’m willing to have a discussion about this issue on the merits without petty insults or obvious fallacies or other rhetorical bullshit”. But don’t hold your breath, that time won’t come.

              1. Lol. A simple “Yes, you are right” would have done Jeff. No need to expand upon my argument. No denying you’re a leftist/Democrat shill now Jeffy.

              2. We say what we support all the time you lying fucktard. This kind of shit is one of many, many reasons you are despised here.

            2. “You made these same snide and dismissive comments about Trump and his supporters at Ace of Spades HQ until Ace kicked your stupid ass off his site personally…”


          5. You’re no individualist, as you’ve proven in your defense of ridiculous CRT theories, or the idea that disparate outcomes proves racism.

            I think you’re a lefty who has a econ 101 understanding of economic theory and at some level disagrees with a price floor.

            1. I agree except for one thing. I don’t think he even has a high school level understanding of economics.

        3. Why do you believe Mises and Rothbard should be considered the standard-bearers of modern libertarian thought?

          Why not Friedman? Why not Ayn Rand? Why not Hayek?

          1. Because Ayn Rand hated libertarians?

            1. So what. Doesnt’ mean you dont’ have something to learn from her.

              1. I learned plenty from her various books and writings, thanks. But I’m not sure I would call her a “standard-bearer of modern libertarian thought”, mostly because of her hatred towards libertarians.

                This isn’t hard to follow.

                1. It is when you’re shit faced all the time like sarc.

            2. Don’t confuse Jeff with objectivism. He isnt intelligent.

              1. Or honest. He’s like an annoying college freshman who just had his first week of philosophy class. Completely sophist, and always sea lioning.

          2. You say Friedman and Hayek, but you constantly push the ideas of Marcuse, Adorno, Foucault, Butler and Derrida instead.

            (Hey sarcasmic, you probably want to white knight for Jeff, but don’t know who those names are. They’re old timey movie actors).

          3. Where did I say they were the standard bearers retard? I said they were more recent.

            Holy shit you are fucking dumb.

      3. Yeah, nobody here understands economics or price floors or Bastiat. Jesus H Science.

        1. Anyone who talks about it is met with hostility. Libertarian ideas are not welcome here.

          1. Yeah, everyone here but sarcasmic and a handful of fifty-centers aren’t true libertarians. Nothings more libertarian than government mandated CRT, abortion and Covid masking laws.

            This guy…

          2. Lol. No they aren’t. Strawman sarcasmic attack!

          3. That is simply not true.

  8. A new study says this? I’m glad to see that it agrees with all the old studies.

    1. Meet the new boss

    2. I hear they’re working on a controversial new study to see if water is wet. The envelope of obvious is being pushed so hard here.

  9. At least socialism is it will eliminate the wage floor, and everyone will work for nothing. Lateral slavery.

        1. And diagonal and vertical and horizontal.

          1. And interdimensional?

            1. Only the cable service.

  10. OT: So, are we in the US going to get splattered with these Chinese land investment companies starting to take it in the shorts? Sinic losing 87 percent of value in HK trading, Evergrande not being able to service its 300 billion USD debt? See,

    I guess it’s causing Euro markets to swoon a bit.

    Most importantly, is this portending a wider collapse, a la Lehman and Bear Stearns getting the party started in 2008?

    1. Why is the nationality of the property owner important?

      1. Someone else please explain it to dim-bulb here; not me.

        1. Yes. Please.

          1. Please educate yourself on the last 2 decades of GDP growth in China and how deeply that industry is linked to modern stocks and hedges.

          2. Because the Chinese property market has, with Chinese government subsidy, been underpinning the massive increase of the Chinese economy through a Chinese property bubble

            With said Chinese property bubble bursting, the the Chinese economy is in danger of collapsing.

            And since we’re talking about the Chinese government, Chinese propert companies, and the Chinese economy, that is why the nationality of the owner is important here.

            1. What Aga said. It’s not important Chinese qua Chinese necessarily; it’s really important if the Chinese economy collapses. Collapsing economies lead their leaders to do really stupid shit to prevent it, and the last stupid thing the Chinese did on a global scale was (accidentally) release a lab-tailored virus that’s killing millions of people.

              Care for a leadership cadre that thinks the only thing keeping them from being ripped apart from an angry mass of newly-broke Chinese, is releasing a bug that only eats non-Han?

          3. Communism dummy.

      2. It is probably very important as the Bloomberg article notes, because the fate of these Chinese companies is inextricably tied to the policy of China. It’s like talking about Fannie Mae back during the financiapocalypse without mentioning that they are sponsored by the US Government.

        1. The property isn’t going anywhere. Who cares who owns it?

          1. This has less to do with the property and more to do with the giant real estate investment firms that are looking to go bust right now. They are chinese companies. Understanding that they are chinese helps you understand that this will have ramifications for the chinese government.

            For fucks sake, the Bloomberg article literally talks about how this is a Chinese Government problem in the very first line.

            1. There is a shit ton of foreign investment in the Chinese growth underwritten largely by the real estate development. But 2009 is so far back in history that people with drinking problems probably don’t remember.

            2. “For fucks sake, the Bloomberg article literally talks about how this is a Chinese Government problem in the very first line.”

              A giant Chinese investment company—backed by the CCP, maybe—that also has counterparty exposure in the US and Europe (from what I’ve read about emergent market funds) maybe going tits up, sounds like it might cause some ripples here. That could be bad.

              What could be really bad, is if this evaporates the wealth of a bunch of formerly-influential Chinese, who decide to take it out on Pooh Bear. Not that I think that will happen, but I can’t discount it. Or Pooh Bear’s attempts to assuage them.

              1. Who should the owner be? What actions should the government take?

                1. Lol. Jeff like sophistry detected.

                  1. Was it Bastiat that presented the idea that the socialist thinks that if you are against the government doing something, you must obviously want it to not get done?

                    Sarc’s post are like the inverse of that: if you’re complaining about something, you must want the government to intervene.

                    1. You’ve applied too much thought into what sarc’s pickle brained thoughts mean IRL.

                      He’s not really thinking about the when and where’s of government. He’s thinking about poop, and where to throw it.

                    2. It’s shallow partisan logic designed to cast honest engagement as shallow partisanship.

                2. Yes, as a leftist you can’t imagine anything other than government cation. Typical of your kind.

          2. Double down, sarc! You’re rep is only getting better!
            Hint: It’s not the assets.

          3. Is tonight a mescal night? Did you eat the worm? Or are you really this ignorant?

            1. He doesn’t know what tequila is. As foreign as a Cuban sandwich.

            2. I wish I could find mescal. Haven’t eaten a worm in years.

              1. I bet you have.

          4. Actually, the Chinese are blowing up some of it.

            Part of it though is that there is a huge amount of paper wealth in these firms. They have a massive stock bubble, with billionaire shysters having made out like bandits. There have been bubbles for centuries, at least since the tulip one in Holland. We have them here, too, of course. Our markets are mature enough that the biggest crooks often end up in prison here.

            The Chinese bubble dwarfs probably even ours. And a big piece of it involves these real estate development companies that, among other things, built millions of apartments for their massively growing middle class. Except that much of what has has been built is ready to fall down they day that it is finished. It looked good on paper, the insiders made their millions, but it was rotten to the core. We have safety rails for this sort of thing. They don’t.

            East Asians are inveterate gamblers. Yes, stereotyping, but anyone who has been around the gaming industry can attest to this. Part of this went into their stock market. They had hundreds of millions of newly middle class sinking their life’s savings into their stock market, getting rich quickly. Or so they thought. They figured that they couldn’t lose with the tens of millions of apartments being built. Until they started falling down. So, the Chinese government is potentially facing a hundred million or more of their middle class citizenry being wiped out financially, when the bubble bursts. How does their government, that allowed this survive?

            Then there is the problem that the Chinese government has been funding governments around the world, including ours, by buying their debt. What happens, when they have to sell (or not buy when it has to be turned over, as it does periodically)? Why would they have to sell? Because the hundred million or so newly minted Chinese middle class with pitch forks running after them. Cost of borrowing, around the world goes up, led by the cost of sovereign debt. And with the cost of borrowing money increasing sharply, around the world, companies start failing, and their governments cannot afford to bail them out.

            1. “Actually, the Chinese are blowing up some of it.”

              +15 imploding high-rises on Youtube.

              “Part of it though is that there is a huge amount of paper wealth in these firms. They have a massive stock bubble, with billionaire shysters having made out like bandits. There have been bubbles for centuries, at least since the tulip one in Holland. We have them here, too, of course. Our markets are mature enough that the biggest crooks often end up in prison here…”

              Cue the Awkward Look Monkey Puppet meme… We used to put our largest market fraud specialists in jail. Think Boesky or Milken are annoyed at people like Corzine got to skate on his rehypothecation deal?

              You’re right that it’s a bad sign when, as corrupt and fragile as American high finance is, the Chinese equivalent is still worse. Great post.

      3. Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because the particular companies at the center of any crisis might have pretty dramatic implications for investor behavior and capital flows? And maybe because the relation of that particular company to other companies across the world might have implications for the degree of contagion that may or may not result from the resulting distress?

        Nah! Couldn’t be any of those things. It has to be racism.

        1. But I thought it was a mere flu. Except when it isn’t, right?

          You guys are like bicyclists. Cars or pedestrians when convenient.

          1. I don’t think anyone is saying that a property company is a flu. I don’t think anyone has said that a financial default is a flu.

            You’re making even less sense than usual.

          2. Sarc- you seem to be trying really hard to find offense.

            Bill is clearly using “contagion” in the sense of a “financial contagion” where a company going bad on its debts causes its debtors to default causing a spread of defaults- like a contagion.

            1. He doesnt have a random Bastiat quote to go to in this situation. So not worth helping.

            2. Misunderstanding. They happen.

              1. Yeah they do, especially when you’re trying way too hard to be a “pithy” contrarian and have no actual understanding of the subject matter.

                1. Someone is looking for a fight! Ooooohhh!

                  1. And he persists. Lol.

                  2. Even Inquisitive Squirrel’s had enough of sarcasmic’s drunken bullshit, but instead of an apology, sarc persists.

              2. Lol. It wasn’t a misunderstanding. You were trying to attack people you thought were conservative and exposed your ignorance. This happens daily here.

          3. Lol. You think the real estate mirage in China is about covid. Holy shit. Prove you dont understand economics without saying you dont understand economics.

          4. I don’t think you quite understand what is going on here with this subject matter.

            1. I guarantee that he doesn’t. But he’s drunk and feeling cunty.

              Tomorrow he’ll claim that he was hacked by Tulpa again.

              1. I can’t imagine being in a room with Sarc or Jeffy for more than a few minutes without being overcome with an overwhelming desire to beat them both.

      4. Holy fucking shit have you turned out to be retarded in the last year or two. What the fuck happened to you?

        That they are Chinese is important because it’s one of the largest markets in the world, you dumb shit. And it’s a market and country with significant ties to the United States.

        Jesus fucking wept. I knew there was a reason I muted you.

        1. So Chinese investors owning stuff in America is bad because China is one of the largest markets in the world and I’m a dumb shit.

          Got it. Makes total sense.

          1. No sarc. Chinese investors owning stuff in America and going tits up could have far reaching ramifications here and abroad. Because Chinese investment companies are extensions of the CCP.

            1. So what? Who would the better owner be? Someone in Dubai? The French government?

              1. Are you being serious?

                1. No. He is being ignorant.

              2. Any person or company who isn’t basically an extension of a government (looking at you Frankie and Freddie). Especially a communist government who has no compunctions about literally liquidating their own citizens.

              3. He didn’t say it was bad, he said it was significant.

                Goddamn broken, drunk idiot.

    2. Most importantly, is this portending a wider collapse, a la Lehman and Bear Stearns getting the party started in 2008?

      Lacking an in-depth knowledge of the subject, and basing this solely on the performance to date of the Biden administration, I’m going to say yes.

    3. Great picture in that article of Winnie being grateful for hunny.

  11. In the most difficult, complicated moments, it is good to receive the warmth of those who love you because it ends up being a spectacular incentive to move forward.

    1. “Book him, Dano!”

  12. Thomas Sowell’s comments illustrate an economic reality that is frequently overlooked: Workers compete against other workers (not employers) to find jobs and get the highest wages. Employers compete against other employers to find the best workers. In other words, low-skilled workers compete against high-skilled workers in the labor market. Low-skilled workers who would be employable at a low wage become unemployable at an artificially higher wage. And that explains the perverse cruelty of minimum wage laws: it inflicts the greatest harm on the very workers it is allegedly designed to help.

    minimum wage laws should be eliminated.

    1. Sevo’s law:
      When a third party sticks its nose in a transaction between two parties involved in a trade, at least one, and likely both, lose.

      1. You said something other than “Die leftist scum!”

        Are you sober?

        1. He wasn’t replying to you, screetch. That’s why.

          1. Sevo is the inspiration for Abe Simpson.

            1. sarc is a steaming pile of lefty shit.

              1. Sevo is the crazy old man singing “Old Grey Mare…”


                1. sarc is a steaming pile of lefty shit with YT links to make sure you know he’s abysmally stupid besides.

                  1. “Aint what she used to be…”

                    1. As stupid as sarc continues to be, steaming pile of lefty shit.

                    2. Note that the steaming pile of lefty shit sarc has yet to address any comment which I’ve made. Instead, the steaming pile of lefty shit who seems to have suffered arrested development at 15 or so has attempted to make my age and experience an issue; typical of adolescent assholes, no?

                    3. What comment have you made other than “DIE LEFTISTS!!!! DIEEEEEE!”

                    4. “What comment have you made other than “DIE LEFTISTS!!!! DIEEEEEE!””

                      Infantile piece of shit should stop licking the diaper long enough to read.

        2. sarcasmic
          September.20.2021 at 7:37 pm
          Flag Comment Mute User
          Someone is looking for a fight! Ooooohhh!

          How pathetic.

          1. You still have him unmuted?

            There’s a tool for that. Golly.

        3. Fuck off, asshole.

          1. “Liiiiibruuuuls!” *shakes a stick* “Liiiib” *cough cough* “Liibruuuls!”

            1. Seek psychiatric help.

              1. It wouldn’t help. Requires long term self analysis for people to change. And he refuses. Gets in the way of being drunk.

            2. fuck off, asshole.

            3. And it’s revealing that the best he can do is attempt to mock me for the number of years I’ve spent learning and therefore recognize what a stupid, steaming pile of lefty shit sarc is.
              Likely the result of development arrested at the 10th-grade level, wouldn’t you think?

              1. Ok, come on Sarc, tell me Sevo isn’t a lot of fun. I genuinely enjoy him.

                1. Logged into the wrong sock account again?

                2. Hey, commie shit! Scott Adams got your numbwer, asshole:

                  1. Wally probably pays his mortgage.

                3. Oh, and I genuinely despise you.

              2. *snort*

                Says Mister “Die Lefty Shit.” You’re soooo sophisticated. Like school at 5am. No class.

                1. Asshole, did you have a point other than to confirm your arested development?
                  Go whine to your momma, adolescent piece of (uneducated) shit.

                  1. Now I’m uneducated? Guess I should take that degree off the wall.

                    1. “Being a faggot” is not a real degree.

                  2. And his retorts are just awful, but you can tell he thinks they’re really good. Poor Sarc, so drunk, so broken, so witless.

                2. They’re all right. You are a troll.

    2. Every progressive I know, when presented with evidence that minimum wage increases don’t work and simple explanations for why that is: But at least the increases *do something*! To progressives, *doing something* is always better than doing nothing, even when, as here, it objectively isn’t better at all. I’ve never found a way to dislodge any progressive from this stance.

      1. The “do something” crowd is by far one of the biggest issues we have in this country.

  13. Can’t figure out where else to put this, so…just what is there to complain about Xi Jinping? How’s he running the country compared to what could reasonably be expected instead of him? Couldn’t we just accept that the guy is sensitive but not bad for people as long as they don’t pick on him? Or is there something actually bad about him?

    1. Social Credit Score. Just a light appetizer before the main course of awfulness.

    2. He runs a technologically-levered, autocratic dictatorship, that is responsible for such things as forced vivisection, abortion, and other ethnic cleansing. He oversees a government that has no shit concentration camps, which we’re just fine with, so long as Apple keeps hitting their earnings per share marks, and we get the next iPhone. He’s also the leader of an astonishingly (for Western mores) racist culture, that is just this close to deciding that a world of only Han is preferable to the present one, and is devoting considerable resources to making that a reality.

      The Confucian virtues in Chinese culture were largely burned away in the Cultural Revolution. Those who survived, did so by turning away from them. Moreover, those who are starting to take the reins in China are only children, from the one child campaigns of the 70s, and have had their asses kissed from the time they were born. Comparisons to the pugnaciousness and idiocy of Kaiser Wilhelm II aren’t far off the mark, IMHO.

      There’s plenty to complain about for Xi Jinping.

      1. I don’t disagree with anything written above, but I think the question is would any non-Xi party elder behave differently given that environment? I think the answer is yes, but I can be convinced otherwise.

        1. Hua Guofeng didn’t do a bad job after Mao died and he was released from the camp; others did well also.
          It seems to me that Xi is about as bad an apple as they could have found.

      2. But how does he compare to his significant competitors? The people likely to take his job.

        1. Considering that he consolidated power – violently – and then got himself appointed Dictator-for-Life – the alternatives look a hell of a lot better.

    3. Parties in uniparty states have wings, too, and Xi is a Maoist’s Maoist. His turning to hard-line communism at home and nationalism abroad is bad for us and bad for them.

      After a long period of engagement, China now seeks selectively to decouple its economy from the West and present itself as a strategic rival. In 2019 Mr. Xi began talking about a period of “protracted struggle” with America that would extend through midcentury. Lately Mr. Xi’s language of struggle has grown more intense. He has called on cadres to “discard wishful thinking, be willing to fight, and refuse to give way” in preserving Chinese interests.

      The forces of ideology, demographics and decoupling have come together in what Mr. Xi now calls his “New Development Concept”—the economic mantra combining an emphasis on greater equality through common prosperity, reduced vulnerability to the outside world and greater state intervention in the economy. A “dual circulation economy” seeks to reduce dependency on exports by making Chinese domestic consumer demand the main driver of growth, while leveraging the powerful gravitational pull of China’s domestic market to maintain international influence. Underpinning this logic is the recent resuscitation of an older Maoist notion of national self-reliance. It reflects Mr. Xi’s determination for Beijing to develop firm domestic control over the technologies that are key to future economic and military power, all supported by independent and controllable supply chains.

      1. I’m surprised that Jack Ma is still breathing. His disappearance couldn’t have been fun.

        One of the world’s richest men, and Xi squashed him like a bug.

      2. How did they get such a guy?

        1. Dunno what you’ve read as regards commie dictatorships, but they get *that* guy since he’s best at log rolling, and they are not in any way encumbered with any hint of a constitution.
          THEY didn’t get HIM; HE got THEM.

        2. Because the Chinese are too stupid and timid to challenge their government. Communism has made them soft and lazy and ignorant.

          Instead of taking up arms against their oppressors, the inventors of gunpowder have become grateful sheep.

          1. It really is interesting that the advent of the longbow, crossbow and then the firearm in the West ultimately led to the democratization of those countries. And yet in the east, they had Crossbows and then gunpowder far longer than the west, and they still have largely relied on one emperor or another to run their lives for 2200 years, save for a couple brief interludes.

            1. My gut-take is that it gives some credence to all your (our?) hand-wringing over political philosophy.

              One thing that has always confused me as an outsider is how such a cosmopolitan geography has managed to convince itself that it is and should be a monocultural ethnostate. It’s like the Germans and Spanish up and declaring, “oh, we’re all just Europeans and we speak the same language: European” except it’s not a new development.

              Maybe a better parallel would be the future state of the Arab world.

            2. The ‘smoke a bowl in our dorm suite at 2AM’ explanation for it, I’d thought, was that it’s a water culture. Growing rice takes a greater proportionally collective effort, involving building works to manipulate water and land, than other crops. Individuals aren’t going to succeed. Just too much water and labor to coordinate. The collective effort of villages can do it though, and quite well.

              Building on that, since rice cultivation is absolutely dependent upon a steady, movable water supply, interfere with the water—which is far easier to do than setting it up in the first place—and people starve. Two provinces giving you lip? Take the water from one, and give it to the other. The first one starves, and gets sold off into (further) bondage. The second one should start singing your praises.

              Rinse, if you’ll pardon the pun, repeat for recorded history, and you have coastal Han culture.

  14. “New Study: Large Minimum Wage Hikes Especially Disadvantage Younger, Less Educated Workers”

    We have known this for literally centuries. Modern economists have been studying the effects of price floors on wages since the mid to late 1800’s. Thomas Sowell and Friedman were making these exact same points against the minimum wage in the 60’s and 70’s.

    The problem isn’t that we lack data or that we lack studies or that his particular study tells us anything new or novel. The problem is that Liberals simply NEVER LISTEN to the evidence, no matter how many times it’s presented, because the Left’s position on minimum wage isn’t based on economics or data or evidence and never has been – the Left’s position is entirely ‘morality’ based. “We should raise the minimum wage because it feels right. It’s just the right thing to do.” There is no way to actually reason with people like this, and all the studies in the world will only fall on deaf ears.

    1. The problem is that liberals- especially those on the long March through institutions have continuously dissembled and obfuscated this basic fact. Go to a liberal board and show this study and you will get a dozen liberal studies thrown back at you in disagreement.

      This argument cannot be just about pragmatism but about the moral case for letting an employer and employee contract without interference. The alternative is cede the ground to left run academia.

    2. Agree with the beginning of your post, but I absolutely think that libertarians SHOULD be making a moral argument against minimum wage.

    3. It’s emotionalism from people who think only their emotions matter.

  15. Did I miss the part of the article about the federal government not really having the authority to set a minimum wage at all or has Reason given up on that perspective?

    1. From what I have concluded, a major purpose of this magazine is to present libertarian ideas to a mainstream audience. IMO the intended audience of this publication really isn’t us, the already converted, it is for the libertarian-curious out there who are dissatisfied with existing Team Red/Team Blue bullshit and who are looking for an alternative. Libertarians already have a bit of a reputation as being a bunch of kooks and nutters, so making doctrinaire libertarian arguments, no matter how truthful, tend to perpetuate that stereotype. No one outside of purist libertarians is going to be convinced to oppose the minimum wage on doctrinaire ideological grounds. They might be convinced, however, by empirical arguments like this one. And if that opens the door to a more libertarian way of looking at things, then that is fine as well.

      1. Nobody read this rag, fatty. It had some influence pre 21st century, and those days are over.

        There will be no libertarian moment. Nobody cares.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist
        September.20.2021 at 9:38 :
        “… a pile of shit attempting to self justify jeff’s bullshit…”
        Thanks, lefty shit pile; please fuck off and die.

      3. How about do both?

        1. Seriously, if Reason threw in a paragraph from a true libertarian perspective on a topic as many times as they’ve thrown in a to be sure/both sides/Orange Man Bad paragraph they’d be a real libertarian publication.

    2. Honestly, at this point, what difference does it make?

  16. These fuckers. Why do they *deserve* $15 – or $26 – an hour?

    Drive through – gets order wrong 2/5ths the time during *non-rush hour* times when I’m the only one in line.

    At work, the waste disposal company – despite working with these people for 30 years – keeps screwing up the waste container pulls because dispatch doesn’t pay any goddamned attention to what you tell them when you call for a pickup and replacement.

  17. Sigh.

    I’m glad you got around to noting that they didn’t prove causation. I seem to recall employment rates swinging wildly among all age groups, and almost all of it having to do with macroeconomic conditions like global recessions or pandemics.

    But also, you are taking implicit the idea that it’s a benefit to tweens to be employed at some shitty burger factory. How about we do one better on the minimum wage and give them the money they need to spend their youth getting educated, like civilized people do?

    The fact that all the data in the world has only shown completely unimportant minor correlations for the employment rate of teenagers is not a point in favor of your ideology. It opens the door to all sorts of directed interventions, actually.

    1. Work experience is superior to education in preparing teens for real life and responsibilities.

      College is wasted on the young, who have neither the experience or maturity to learn effectively.

      If all teens took a job from 18 to 20, then went to college, they’d be much better off, have less debt, and come out better educated.

      Look at veterans that come off a 3-4 year enlistment after high school, then go to college. Their grades are better, they surpass the achievements of teens that went straight to college, and they’re debt-free.

      Even for younger teens, 14-17, having a job means greater independence and confidence. Having pocket money and gaining life skills is amazing for a teenager, especially if they don’t come from wealth or a two-parent household where they can delay adulthood until 25.

      There’s a respect and pride younger teens earn by working that can’t be duplicated by an internship or their government high school.

      I always recommend to younger family members to skip all school extracurricular activities and just work, then work until 20, then go to college.

      1. “Work experience is superior to education in preparing teens for real life and responsibilities.”

        I don’t know about superior, but I can see the argument that it’s useful as well.

        “College is wasted on the young, who have neither the experience or maturity to learn effectively.”

        College is specifically for the young, who are graduated to adulthood at “commencement.” College professors are well aware that they’re teaching innocent babes. But I totally agree that we should never stop learning, hopefully using some of the critical thinking tools we picked up in college.

        There are many fine proposals for adding forms of labor to the youth experience. Few things are more socialisty, of course, and I’m tempted to inject some of my libertarian utopianism at this point and imagine a world where labor is something poor saps in the past had to do before the robots got opposable thumbs too.

    2. The causation is well known – significantly raising the minimum wage prices the lowest tier of workers out of the lowest tier of jobs. This has been well known in Economics for a long time. It doesn’t force companies to pay their most marginal workers more, but rather to (effectively) fire them.

      Workers have marginal utility. Different employees have different utility to a company. For example, an employee at a cash register who can make change is more valuable to them than one who can’t. Engineers are typically more valuable than general laborers. Etc. A company can be profitable, and grow, by increasing hiring until their marginal cost equals their marginal utility to the company. Hiring after that means losing money.

      Employers have multiple alternatives to rising labor costs, forced by increases in the minimum wage. They can just cut back sales. In the restaurants in town here, that means being open fewer hours. Or they can hire illegal aliens. Or they can automate, replacing their lowest tier workers, no longer profitable, with machines. The thing that they cannot do, long term, is pay their increased labor prices out of their own pockets, because if they do, the owners of the company won’t be able to pay their own mortgage loans, send their kids to college, etc. Businesses that ignore this axiom inevitably, by necessity, fail.

      The correlations are not minor. Rather, the numbers involved are the marginal employment numbers, and are, thus, the numbers on the margins.

      1. Nothing has been “well known in economics” for a long time, especially messy correlations like this, but I’ll grant for the sake of argument that the data show some small impact on teenage labor. Of course, nobody ever promised that raising the minimum wage was 100% unicorns and blowjobs and no measurable negative effect. And nobody said we couldn’t have subminimum wages for teenagers, if that’s something we want.

        The philosophy behind a minimum wage implies that if you can’t run a profit without paying workers the minimum, then you don’t deserve to make a profit. Call it capitalism plus. It’s supposed to urge the market into the sorts of sectors that pay higher wages.

        1. “Nothing has been “well known in economics” for a long time,…”


        2. You’re such an ignorant, weak, yet arrogant fool. You should really look past your delusions, then you will see that your life has no value, and you should end it.

    3. How about we do one better on the minimum wage and give them the money they need to spend their youth getting educated, like civilized people do?

      This has been the unstated official policy in a nutshell for half a century, and somehow it’s been counterproductive. Why, it’s almost like being handed things makes one not appreciate the value in them.

      1. Counterproductive in what way? I don’t know any student in a sufficiently rigorous education system who thinks anything was handed to him. I seem to recall it being a shit ton of work.

    4. Go ahead. Give them the money. No one’s stopping you. You sound like you must have a money tree growing in your backyard.

      1. I used to, then they legalized it.

  18. Tony

    Fuck off, shitstain, you are not competent to comment.
    Fuck off and die. Make your family proud, the world a better place, and (if you would be so kind as to tell your dog where you’ll be buried) your dog happy with your death and pleased to shit upon your remains.

    1. Strangely enough, today I visited the grave of my cat for the first time. I say visited, but I looked at it from a window. I had cut a deal; you brought cats into my life against my will, you must deal with the inevitable duties. I cope with death in a way that seems strange to my loved ones, privately, inside my own head, a product of some primal trauma, no doubt, that generates not an extraordinary fear of death, but of showing emotion. It’s the one toxically masculine habit I can’t shake, even as I embrace the genderless gregariousness of my peers in all the other ways. But one man’s toxicity is another’s dignity, a state you no doubt have pondered as you read Ishiguro.

      1. “Ha. Gaayyyyyy!”

  19. Due to panademic our economy is completely shake. We must also get ready for more foreigner’s influx do to our ignorant foreign policy. Today’s youth is completely broke due to panademic. Last thing everyone wants is injustice with pay hike. Kombucha

  20. The minimum wage is always $0. The only thing minimum wage laws do is outlaw work between $0.01 and whatever the number is. You are outlawing jobs mainly held by the poorest and most vulnerable. Nothing about that sounds progressive at all.

    1. It sounds incredibly progressive, once you realize progressive means racist authoritarian.

  21. So, large minimum wage hikes priced low-skilled workers out of hte economy, but increased the wages of skilled workers who were already making more than minimum wage and could demand increased compensation to stay above minimum wage. Meanwhile, the price of housing increased because the people who could afford to buy houses could now afford to spend more on houses.

    So minimum wage hikes are ultimately a subsidy for the real estate industry?

  22. And in other news the sky is blue.

  23. Like it took economic analysts to come to this conclusion. High minimum wages HURT unskilled workers keeping young people out of the work force, keep companies from hiring as many people, and drive up costs for the consumers.

    Milton Freedman said long ago that there should be no minimum wage and he was right. Wages should be determined by a company based on the skill needed to do a job and the skills of the people applying for that job. No one is going to work for $1 an hour or even close so the market would drive what is paid.

    Just one more example of the naiveite of democrats and their supposed caring for low income people. Their actions hurt more poor people and middle income people than anything else. Love him or hate him, under Trump more people were lifted out of poverty than any president in the last 70 years and people of color saw the lowest unemployment and highest wages in history.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.