San Francisco residents voted last November to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour over the course of three years, but one expert is now saying that decision might have been made based on a biased study from researchers at the University of California Berkeley.
The study, “San Francisco’s Proposed City Minimum Wage Law: A Prospective Impact Study,” was released in August before the vote, and only laid out positive impacts of the law. It focused solely on the benefits to workers and was greatly touted by supporters during get out the vote efforts.
But Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, told the Daily Caller that this study was biased.
“Drawing on a variety of government data sources, we estimate that 140,000 workers would benefit from the proposed minimum wage law, with the average worker earning an additional $2,800 a year (once the law is fully implemented),” the study read. “Our analysis of the existing economic research literature suggests that businesses will adjust to modest increases in operating costs mainly through reduced employee turnover costs, improved work performance, and a small, one-time increase in restaurant prices.”
Saltsman said this isn’t true and said that Berkeley researchers didn’t take into account the full picture.
“These are the comforting studies they can turn to. It creates stories that say you can raise the minimum wage without consequences,” Saltsman told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “If you look at the methodology. Basically they didn’t take into account the fact it could have a negative impact on employment.”
He argues that the faulty study and subsequent quick passage of the wage increase has even helped lead to the closing of several businesses in the Bay Area.
But, he noted, given the advocacy background of many of these researchers it’s not surprising.
“The problem at UC Berkeley is they are presenting themselves as unbiased economists,” Saltsman told the DC. “This is the sort of thing you expect from an advocacy group.”
