Minimum wage dissent: San Jose's law resulted in lost jobs

Is the city of San Jose living proof that a higher minimum wage doesn't harm jobs?

This year, proponents and reporters have pointed to the city's falling unemployment rate and overall job growth as proof that the $10 wage floor caused no harm. Scott Myers-Lipton, the San Jose State professor whose sociology class spearheaded the law's passage, boasted in the Mercury News that "the number of businesses grew" after the wage hike was approved. One CBS affiliate ran a story with this headline: "Data Shows Unemployment Down, Growth Robust after San Jose Adopts $10 Minimum Wage."

It's a pleasant-sounding conclusion that other Bay Area cities have used as justification to boost their own wage floors.

But San Jose's economy is not a minimum wage economy. In fact, it's classified as one of the country's wealthiest metro areas, due in no small part to the high-skilled opportunities available in the tech industry. Looking for the impact of a higher minimum wage by studying overall employment including people earning six-figure salaries is a fools' errand at best and, at worst, a campaign to mislead observers.

Common sense and economic precedent tell us that less-skilled employees more likely to earn the minimum wage, such as 16- to 24-year-olds with a high school degree or less, would see the greatest impact of a wage hike. And a topline analysis of employment trends for this group in the San Jose metro area suggests the city's wage hike was less than benign.


http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27094248/minimum-wage-dissent-san-joses-law-resulted-lost?source=infinite