On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 07:52:18 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 9:21:32 AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

Graph reading isn't the problem. The chart shows GDP reduction (not
increase) at the same time as increases in minimum wage. The cause is
of course political, not economics: Congress raises the minimum wage
only during hard times, to show that they are doing something, at last.
The subsequent rise is simply the general recovery from recession, and
is not a result of raising the minimum wage.

The minimum wage in Mass is $9/hr, or $3/hr with at least $20 per month
of tips, as of 1 Jan 2015. It was $8/hr before.

In the Boston area, Dunkin Donuts is offering $10/hr plus tips
(according to a sign out front), and has been for some time now, long
before the recent increase. Now one would assume that Dunkin Donuts
knows from long experience exactly how much they must offer to attract
the desired number and quality of employees.

As long as the minimum wage is less than the market-clearing wage for
low-skill jobs, the minimum wage will have no effect.

It would be useful to plot minimum wage and the earning quartiles or
deciles together. That should tell the tale.

Joe Gwinn

Ed sometime has problems with reading graphs when they do not agree with what he wants them to show.

No. You just can't read that one. That's why I suggested using the
data instead of the graphs. I think it's available on the same pages
as the graphs themselves. Look for a button or a tab.

You may have forgotten the relationship between GDP and recessions. I
note that you were using the gray bars, rather than the GDP curves, in
your last post.

Or you're messing up the timing of relationships. Consistently,
shortly after the minimum wage is increased, the recession ends. That
would not be possible if the increased wages actually put a damper on
the economy.

--
Ed Huntress

Dan