Twitter | Search | |
Tim Worstall Apr 5
Sadly, that doesn't tell us anything interesting about the effect of the minimum wage
Reply Retweet Like
Brandon Apr 5
Nothing to do with AMZN growth or MSFT or SBUX or COST or JWN or BA or DATA or Alaska Airlines etc...
Reply Retweet Like
Nick Hanauer Apr 5
Tim, what it tells us unambiguously is that you can increase the min wage to $15 and none of the bad shit you predicted happens.
Reply Retweet Like
Invictus Apr 5
Please, Tim. Stop. The dire forecasts have not come to pass. Own it.
Reply Retweet Like
Nick Hanauer Apr 5
First, seattle was going to collapse. Then, our growth would slow, now we might have grown faster, next it would not have rained so much
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
But I never made a dire forecast, Check it. I said less low end employment than in the absence of the minimum wage.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
How so? Isn't it still $11 for small employers? We can divine the effect of $15 before it happens? Like, forecast, as I did, correctly?
Reply Retweet Like
Invictus Apr 5
"We would...expect to see REASONABLY LARGE UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS." - YOU June 3, 2014 Own it, Tim.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
The $11 so far is having effects as I said. When all are at $15 then the effects will be larger. That's how it works.
Reply Retweet Like
Sam Schinke Apr 5
So unemployment is down because people are getting more higher-end jobs? Good!
Reply Retweet Like
Mrs Rochester Apr 5
Wanna know how poverty works? Try living on less than $15 an hour
Reply Retweet Like
apinthehouse Apr 5
Tim, the condescending tone of your opinion piece tells me that you will never admit you are wrong even if the evidence is your face.
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
Nonsense. International definition of poverty is $1,90 a day. At American prices. $15 an hour is top 1.1% of global incomes. Ain't poverty
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
I condescend to Hanauer's lackeys because some people are worth condescending to....
Reply Retweet Like
Invictus Apr 5
It's beneath you to muddy the waters by making this a discussion about international labor dynamics. You're better than that. Aren't you?
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
There're 160 million US workers, global population is 7 billion. 1% of 7b is 70m. Impossible for all US workers to be in top 1%, no?
Reply Retweet Like
Tim Worstall Apr 5
It's not beneath me to point out that you're like Barbie, finding that math is hard.
Reply Retweet Like
Invictus Apr 5
Shame on the naysayers for not recognizing the effect of those companies. Sorry, that's a big, fat fail.
Reply Retweet Like