These are the EXACT same arguments that have always been used against minimum wage increases. The data you "cited" shows that you are wrong. You are using economic theory. The economic data does not support your claims. Sure, $30 is a big number, but there's evidence that your theories are wrong.
You're stuck in a loop. I already explained that all these harmless mw increases studied are just *inflation adjustments* and not relevant to Mamdani's proposal. What happens when a city pushes far past inflation? A great example is Seattle's 2013-2016 increase of $9.47-$13, not even that high.
While there were some good effects, the job loss in low wage jobs was so severe the total amount of money earned by this group of workers actually *dropped*. This paper gives a pretty good overview. www.nber.org/system/files... Again, this was not close to the aggressiveness Mamdani is proposing.
The paper says there was a drop of $74 per month per job in 2016. What those workers got in exchange was a 37% pay raise OR free time INCREASE. That's huge. (13/9.47=1.37) Each job pays $74 less by the end of the month, but you work significantly fewer days per job! Big W for the worker IMO.
What? No, that's AVERAGE impact across all low-wage workers, including all the ones who could no longer work because their jobs had been price controlled out of the marketplace. The -$75 shows that while some benefited, MW was a net wealth transfer away from the poorest. Big L for the worker IMO.
".. lowered the amount paid to workers in low-wage jobs by an average of $74 per month per job in 2016." On average, each job pays $74 less per month. $13/$9.47=~1.37 The hours required to hit equivalent pay was reduced by ~37%. Hours per job was reduced to hit that -$74. What am I missing?
What is the ideal scenario for you? On average, per pay period, per job they bring home $37 fewer dollars. They also work 37% less! These people have more time for another job, skilling, contract work, or relaxing. Help me understand what makes this data look bad for minimum wage increases?
The scenario you're imagining, where people are paid dramatically more per hour, wasn't what was happening. The abstract says pay per hour went up just 3% among low-wage jobs but hours dropped 6-7%. And that net decrease in hours is largely layoffs. But hey, they can just go skiing, right?
Now if you still feel compelled to say this isn't that bad (despite the fact it's a net loss), consider that $13 in 2016 will probably only be around $20 in 2030. Zohran wants $30, yet at $10 (2030) below that mark, we're already seeing a net wealth transfer away from the poorest workers.
Also, this thing about people who are getting de-houred having free time to get another job. We know that wasn't happening because if it was, it would have shown up in the data as a net pay increase!!