>3. Although not entirely conclusive, the data from the largest increases does seem to show spikes in the minimum wage. For example, the University of Washington released their study on the impact of Seattle raising their minimum wage from $11 to $13 per hour, and found that the reduction in hours was 3 times higher than the increase in wages, meaning minimum wage workers lost $125 per month in earnings[1]. By contrast, the best studies which show no effect covered smaller increases or increases to a lower level (as a % of median wages).
The study is highly flawed. Among those flaws is that large businesses in Seattle have their minimum wage increase faster than small businesses. The UW study excludes multi-site businesses, many of which are classified as large and which contain basically half of the low paid work force. This means the UW study sees a totally expected shift of low paid workers from small businesses to large as a total decrease in employment among those low paid workers.
So are you saying that the article reports workers moving to higher-paying jobs is counted in the study as a reduction in employment? That is a serious flaw.
The study doesn't count workers moving to higher-paying jobs in general as a reduction in employment.
However:
1) The study excludes multi-site businesses because their payroll data is harder to interpret (they report all payroll as being aggregated in their headquarters).
2. Multi-site businesses are counted as large businesses for the purpose of the Seattle law, and large businesses saw their minimum wage increase faster than small businesses.
3. Some workers will have migrated from small businesses to large businesses to pursue higher minimum wages that weren't yet mandated for small businesses.
4. Some of those small businesses losing workers will just...sit there and not raise wages to compete or hire more workers to replace their losses.
5. Some of those large businesses will actually be multi-site businesses, excluded from the study.
So put it together, and there will be some workers who leave small businesses who have chosen not to raise wages, and join multi-site businesses which are paying higher wages, who will be missed by the study. At the same time, some workers will have moved the other way, which will have balanced things out somewhat, but it's plausible to think that more workers were "lost" than "gained" due to flows between multi-site and single-site businesses.
Now, the study did try to control for this factor by surveying multi-site businesses, but critics have pointed out that these efforts may be flawed, and may not have fully captured the actual flows, in which case the study may slightly overstated the negative impact on hours worked.
Yes, this letter[0] by Michael Reich (author of a competing study also analyzing Seattle's minimum wage) really digs into the UW study to find its flaws. I think the one I mentioned is the most damning.
The study is highly flawed. Among those flaws is that large businesses in Seattle have their minimum wage increase faster than small businesses. The UW study excludes multi-site businesses, many of which are classified as large and which contain basically half of the low paid work force. This means the UW study sees a totally expected shift of low paid workers from small businesses to large as a total decrease in employment among those low paid workers.