
Target Employees Won the 'Fight for $15' but Weren't Ready for the Trade-Offs - RickJWagner
https://reason.com/2019/10/21/target-15-bucks-per-hour-didnt-work-out/
======
wahern
Alternatively, Target decided to hike wages _because_ they were already
planning to cut insurance benefit outlays, softening the blow.

~~~
RickJWagner
An interesting theory, but there's no proof of it, is there?

~~~
wahern
No, there isn't. It's as much conjecture as the thesis of the article.

You can't say the extent to which or even whether a $15 minimum wage would
depress hours or benefits without an analysis of the elasticities of the
supply & demand curves at Target. The article makes it sounds like such
changes[1] are the inevitable consequence of any hike in wages, which is both
not only strictly wrong as a matter of Econ 101 (elasticities matter) but also
a notoriously contentious area of debate with substantially[2] _conflicting_
_empirical_ _data_.

[1] Presuming the characterizations are correct; they're based on 23 anecdotal
employee interviews.

[2] That is, there's _good_ , _solid_ , empirical data (not just numbers-
pulled-out-of-butt partisan retorts) for both sides. Which isn't all too
surprising because, again, elasticities matter and are by their nature context
dependent.

