How Tim Pool Doesn't Understand What He Is Reading.

in life •  last month 

Tim Pool is an American YouTube commentator who talks about many topics particularly involving politics. I believe he considers himself a centrist and is proud of the fact he has formed his opinions based on experience vs academics. While I listen to him often, I never agree with his opinions about minimum wage legislation. I generally don't agree with most people when they talk about economics because they tend to have a too simplified view of what is going on. A short time ago he released this response to an article from the Daily Caller in which they comment about how the $15.00 minimum wage that was introduced in New York taken effect Dec. 31, 2018. Previously it had been $9.60. Unlike regurgitating the facts presented in the article (which was showing the responses to a wage increase in 2017), I will show the data from the actual survey found here.
The results were predictable.

The businesses responded to the increase in prices the way any good business would. The majority increased their prices, and cut costs.

“What it forces you to do is make sure that nobody works more than 40 hours,” Susannah Koteen, owner of Lido Restaurant in Harlem, told Fox News. “You can only cut back so many people before the service starts to suffer.”

When I was a working student, I used to work for a construction supply company for 54 hours per week ... part-time. I was never paid for overtime even though I was working for over 40 hours per week, but the "part-time" designation precluded me from being eligible. I suspect that this owner didn't pay overtime either. However, if she did, overtime pay would have been a significant cost. It would make sense to hire additional workers in that case. The argument that people wanting to work overtime and not being able to be is a bit of conjecture. What about the breakdown as far as the workers went.

Fifty percent (35.3+15.7 percent) had no change in staff or it increased. Some (5.9%) cut staff and lowered their costs while a significant number cut staff (40.2%) but the payroll remained the same. What does this mean? Remember the majority of companies increased their prices. In 15.7% of the restaurants, they had a sufficient increase in revenue it caused them to employ more staff. In 35.3% the staff received the benefit of the price increases a possibly this was reflected in the bottom line of the company. What about the companies that cut staff? If their payroll was the same or less, and they had increased their revenue ... they had a much better bottom line than before. In Ontario, Canada many of the hospitality businesses had the best bottom lines they had seen in years after the minimum wage was increased.

Finally his comments about agriculture.

While it is true many market garden crops have a higher human requirement most other commodities don't employ "minimum wage" employees. Field crops like corn, wheat and soybeans require capital intensive equipment. Livestock and dairy products are not maintained by minimum wage employees.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!