Originally Posted By: tonyc
And I'm calling a foul on that, because it takes us out of things that are at least notionally connected to the economy we live in. Engaging with that argument allows you to take shots at unprovable theoretical problems at the outer reaches of the debate instead of the debate we're actually having about potentially raising the minimum wage to $10 or $15.


I would argue that a jump to, for example $15/hour, is a much larger jump than past jumps, and suggesting that what happened in the past is not necessarily predictive. I also argue that the study merely shows that no *measurable* correlation *has* existed for past changes. It seems entirely reasonable to me, especially given a distressed economy like we have now, that the American Samoa situation could arise if a big enough jump were made. The biggest theoretical difference between our economy and the Samoan "micro economy", is that a much higher percentage of workers in Samoa were affected by the change to the minimum wage. The bigger the jump, the more workers are affected. The study does not find, and you can not rationally conclude, that the large increases being proposed or enacted today (like in Seatac), will have no measurable affect simply because previous increases did not.