23rd July 2024

@TBPInvictus right here

In case you’re uninterested in California-minimum-wage-and-its-impact-on-limited-service-restaurant-employment tales, I perceive. Go away this web page instantly. I’m uninterested in it, too, however some tales are so factually challenged that they demand a response. So, enable me to handle a scorching mess of a narrative that appeared lately within the California Globe. Within the curiosity of your time and my sanity, I’m going to attempt to confine myself to the worst of the story’s atrocities. Strap in.

Proper up high, we have now the lede:

Earlier in June, the Globe reported that California has misplaced just below 10,000 quick meals jobs for the reason that new $20 minimal wage for quick meals staff was first signed into regulation late final yr, in accordance with the California Enterprise and Industrial Alliance (CABIA).

CABIA cited knowledge and a report from the Hoover Establishment at Stanford College.

The “earlier in June” report was fatally flawed. That was detailed by us right here and, subsequently, by Michael Hiltzik right here. In actual fact, the creator on the Hoover Establishment – Lee Ohanian – recanted upon studying that the information within the Wall St. Journal on which he’d relied was not seasonally adjusted.

To date, there’s no follow-up for the badly-mistaken, relying-on-recanted-evidence, uncorrected Globe story.  However wait, there’s extra:

The Globe spoke with Rebekah Paxton Friday morning concerning the Bureau of Labor Statistics studies, for clarification.

“Yesterday, they put out a press launch claiming that California’s quick meals trade has added each month this yr,” Paxton stated. “The fact is that California misplaced over 2,500 quick meals jobs since January 2024, when seasonally adjusted knowledge.

Ms. Paxton, to her nice credit score (/sarc), apparently has enough smarts to know that seasonally adjusted knowledge needs to be the main focus. Child steps.

On to the alleged proof of Newsom’s catastrophe:

Month Variety of Jobs Change in Jobs
Jan 2024 742,326 1,050
Feb 2024 741,822 -503
Mar 2024 739,792 -2,031
Apr 2024 739,850 59
Could 2024 739,804 -46

When utilizing January 2024 as a substitute of January 2023, there’s certainly a lack of over 2,500 jobs in simply that 5 month interval.

For starters, January looks like a considerably random start line — the regulation was signed final September and took impact this April. So, January to Could feels a bit arbitrary, however hey, its when the yr began.

However right here’s the query: Have “over 2,500 jobs in simply that 5-month interval” been misplaced? No, pricey reader. They haven’t. The Globe, amazingly, can’t even sum a column of 5 small numbers.

We have now precisely two prints for the reason that regulation took impact — April and Could. They present a web achieve of a statistically insignificant 13 jobs added. There have been 2k shed in March. Was that associated to the minimal wage? We merely have no idea; there are all the time myriad elements at play in our dynamic labor market. What ought to occur right here — however received’t — is that we wait, patiently, and gather lots of extra knowledge from which we are able to – perhaps – make some inferences.

We transfer on to:

Paxton advised the Globe that the true job losses started the day the Legislature handed the $20 minimal wage hike invoice. That might clarify why the Hoover Establishment compiled the 10,000 quick meals job losses.

Why would anybody fireplace a employee in September to keep away from a wage improve 7 months later? This makes little sense.

What occurred as a substitute is the top of the summer season begins the seasonally weakest interval EVERY YEAR. The Hoover Establishment’s since-retracted declare that the creator relied on, and extrapolated from, was merely a foul quantity that appeared within the WSJ in March. (“Ohanian acknowledged by electronic mail that “if the information usually are not seasonally adjusted, then no conclusions might be drawn from these knowledge concerning AB 1228,” aka the minimal wage regulation.”)

Gov. Newsom and his workers together with Brandon, are choosing numbers and months to serve Newsom’s personal false narrative.

That is straight-up fiction. Newsom and his workers tried to set the file straight. It was the Journal, then Hoover, then CABIA, that did the entire cherry-picking, and used a foul set of numbers to do it.

A bit out of sequence, however price mentioning: The Globe took a gratuitous swipe at LA Instances columnist Michael Hiltzik, who’d adopted our work right here with a bit of his personal, citing a few tweets on the matter (mixed right here):

Only one drawback right here, Gavin: The @latimes acquired its knowledge combined up. You despatched reporter Michael Hiltzik knowledge from 2023 to point out that fast-food employment is up. The wage hike came about Apr 1 2024. That’s not even math. That’s simply having the ability to learn a calendar. @GovPressOffice. The @latimes‘ Michael Hiltzik is among the many worst reporters in California, and proves it once more right here: Cites knowledge from final yr to show that fast-food employment is up this yr, regardless of @GavinNewsom‘s wage hike. His numbers aren’t faux, simply flawed yr. May occur to anybody with the title “Michael Hiltzik.” @GovPressOffice

Hiltzik (who had been despatched nothing from Newsom) had — fairly appropriately, for the reason that knowledge weren’t seasonally adjusted — appeared on the numbers on a year-over-year foundation and concluded:

As of April, employment within the limited-service restaurant sector that features fast-food institutions was increased by practically 7,000 jobs than it was in April 2023, months earlier than Newsom signed the minimal wage invoice.

Michael was a Could classic of not seasonally adjusted knowledge when he wrote his June 12 piece, and the year-over-year achieve at the moment was, in truth, “practically 7,000 jobs.”

Now, you may count on a good media outlet to make a number of corrections or pull the piece completely. However you’ll word I used the phrase “respected,” so don’t maintain your breath.

On a associated word, I had an electronic mail trade with a Tony Lima (who on a facet word undoubtedly desires you to know that he acquired a Ph.D. from Stanford) a few piece he posted right here. He tried — and failed miserably — to take Michael Hiltzik to job for his current column: “There are three issues with Hiltzik’s evaluation.” [Narrator: There weren’t]. I conveyed that to Professor Physician Lima in painstaking element. He then invited me to have the talk in public (whereas semi-obsessing about my id):

I took Physician Professor Lima up on his supply, and posted my correct critique of his work on Twitter, instantly after which this occurred:

So, Professor Lima, PhD, simply know that I’m round – you realize my Twitter deal with and have my electronic mail tackle – when you ever wish to proceed our dialogue.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.