Republic of Russ

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Prep

Westbrook kneels at 1 yard line

As in Dungeons and Dragons, fantasy football is not much more than random rolls of the dice. Amongst injuries, suspensions, dog houses (Ridley), poor performances, kneeling at 1 yard line (Westbrook), early TD celebrations (D-Jax), garbage time statistics, and on and on and on. No one knows with what will happen in fantasy football.

2013 Exampes: Ray Rice, Doug Martin, C.J. Spiller, Trent Richardson, Josh Gordon, Zac Stacey, Alshon Jeffrey, Julius Thomas, Keenan Allen

How do we navigate a minefield filled with gems? With knowledge, a plan, and intentionality. Similar to Draft Prep 2013 and Draft Prep 2012, I will outline:

General strategy

Goals

League Overviews and Plan

Player Valuations

tldr

General Strategy

Unless otherwise noted, I assume a 10 or 12 team

league with standard roster sizes and scoring systems.

Quarterbacks

I find myself waiting to draft a QB until greater than overall pick 100

I see little difference between QB 4 and QB 14 (Rivers). I want to draft the 10-14th QB off the board, not the 5-7th.

I will take a top 3 QB after my top 3 WRs and 5 RBs

Thus, the earliest I would take a QB would be pick 9.

Tight Ends

Unless you have more confidence than me on a breakout TE, I suggest waiting on a TE

I am confident starting Zach Erzt, Dennis Pitta, Greg Olsen, and Heath Miller as late round TEs leading me to wait even further to draft a TE

After Graham and Thomas, I have no idea what the rest of the TE ranks will be at the end of the season
Graham is a stud and I rank him after my top 5 RBs, top 3 WRs and top 3 QBs in a non-ppr, 6 point passing TD league (earliest being 12th overall). In a ppr league or 4 point per passing TD leagues, I suggest taking Graham before the big 3 QBs (or as early as 9th overall).

Rational

I like J. Thomas with Decker leaving. However it is difficult for me to warrant getting him around 30th overall. I would be more excited to get him around pick 50.
I am not touching Gronk unless it’s the 50th+ pick. Even if he does play please remember he is coming off of an ACL tear in week 14.

Running Backs

I rarely like my mock drafts unless I have a clear #1 RB. My last #1 RB is Le’Veon Bell being drafted at #18 overall. Morris or Martin my be a low end #1, however I am not excited about these two.
There are a lot of RB fliers, but the last RB I would be comfortable starting week 1 is Rashad Jennings/Gerhart being drafted at 55 overall on CBS ADP

This means I plan to get RBs early and often

Other potential backs are Joique Bell, Richardson, Ben Tate, Steven Jackson, Pierre Thomas

All backs I forsee being startable by midseason. I am not confident at this time to start them week 1 though (exception being Tate who is a ticking time bomb with injuries)

Wide Receivers

I want one of my top 8 (ending with Brown), followed by 2 more in the top 60. The last WR I am excited about starting in week 1 is Michael Floyd being drafted at 62 overall.
There are a lot of WRs I am excited about between picks 70 and 110, but I prefer to watch and wait on these rather than start them week 1.

Torrey Smith, Colston, Tate, Maclin, Kendall Wright, Terrance Williams, Eric Decker, Riley Cooper, Reuben Randle

Positional Recap

I want at least 3 RBs and 3 WRs in the first 60 overall picks. I also like the values of WRs between picks 70 and 110. Therefore, I find myself ignoring QBs/TEs and drafting A LOT of RBs/WRs.

In my last mock draft, my first 10 picks were RBs/WRs. I then took Romo and Ertz with my next 2 picks. I have no regrets rounding out my team with Romo and Ertz and love the rest of my team.

I minimize risk early and gradually increase my risk tolerance as the draft progress

I believe as Matthew Berry states, "You can’t win your draft in the first few round but you can definitely lose it."
I stick with safety early and shoot for high risk, high reward in the middle and end of the draft

Flexibility

There is a balance between having flexibility and taking the best value player.
I prefer to keep as balanced as roster as possible. It is frustrating when a great value RB falls to you in the 5th round, but you have taken 3 RBs and 1 WR.

Know what positions you can get where

I know RB falls off a cliff after pick 55. I love the top 8 WRs, however I believe there is good value at WR in the 50-60 range (Cruz, White, Floyd, Garcon) and good flier WRs between 70-110
After pick 25 there is a notable falloff in both RB and WR safe picks. IMO there are safe QB and TE picks much later (> pick 100)
As is common, I will select a DST and K in last two rounds of my draft

Goals

Make playoffs in all leagues

Have a 59% overall win rate amongst all leagues (16-11 combined regular season record for 2 leagues)

Finish in the top half of each league with median total weekly points

Head to head leagues favor consistency more than extreme highs and lows. Median is a better measure of consistency than mean.

League Overviews and Detailed Plans -

LDF Warhawks: 12 team, 2 keeper, standard scoring (6 points per passing TD) with 8 teams making playoffs; low competition

Due to the low competition I am more willing to take fliers on late season bloomers (Gronk and Gordon last year). This year I probably value Sankey, Monte Ball, Ray Rice, Lamar Miller. Basically anyone that may start slow but end strong.

Ended last year winning the regular season at 9-4

Many good players with Megatron, Demaryius, Josh Gordon, Zac Stacey, and Monte Ball
Traded D. Thomas to move up 30 draft picks ranging from 85 overall to 55 overall
Traded Zac Stacey to move from 36 to 33 and 66 to 57

Draft picks: 33, 37, 55, 57, 60, 79, 108, 109, 132, 133, 156, 157, 180, 181

33 – Best Case: Antonio Brown; 2nd: Andre Ellington; 3rd: Alshon Jeffery
37 – Best: Andre Ellington; 2nd: Patterson; 3rd: Andre Johnson

I value Patterson higher due to receiving 1 point for every 25 kickoff return yards (Patterson had 1300+ last year), keeper potential, and liking the WRs with my 3 picks at 55, 57, and 60

55, 57, 60 – Best Case: Jennings/Gerhart/Vereen, Floyd, White

Need a 3/4 or 4/3 split of RBs/WRs

79 – Terrance Williams, Golden Tate
108, 109 – Best: Romo/Ryan/Brady and TE (Olsen, Ertz)

If Health Miller and Zach Ertz are both on the board, I may hurt myself here and wait on a TE by grabbing Rueban Randle

Last 4 picks: RB and WR Fliers: Cooks, Cooper, Greene, Bryce Brown, Doug Baldwin, Kelvin Benjamin, Boykin, Hunter

Concluding Thoughts -

I need to leave my flex open for my 3 picks between 55 and 60 (which will likely decide the outcome of my year). I will be hoping to get Andre Ellington at 33 or 37 and take a WR with my other pick. This will leave me a 2/2 split of RBs/WRs allowing me great flexibility for my 55, 57, and 60 picks.
At 79 I may be looking Pitta if no one else is available (Williams, Tate) and then at 108 going QB and Rueben Randle.

Bemidji: 8 team, 1 ppr, 2 QB (4 points per passing TD) with 4 teams making playoffs; 6/10 competition

Starting Rosters: 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE; I will not know my pick until ~15 minutes prior to draft
I originally had 2 Flex positions to further increase the value of RB/WR, however this was voted down to 1 Flex position which additionally decreases RB values

General Notes -

RBs have very depressed value with 8 less starting week and ppr adding viable backs in Vereen, Pierre Thomas, CJ0k, and potentially Joique Bell, Sproles, Spiller, Jennings, Gerhart

I plan to have 1 solid starter ending with Ellington

QB values go up marginally overall compared to standard leagues. Due to their consistency I bump them up further than their actual value increase. There are 16 QBs I feel comfortable starting week 1 and Palmer is my #17 QB. I plan to have 3 of my top 17 QBs.
General Draft Strategy

Early Rounds: After 4 picks I want as many difference makers (top 3 RBs, 3 QBs, 1 TE, 8 WRs) as possible and a RB no worse than Ellington (see rankings below)
RB: 1 early, 2nd once RBs start thinning out (typically around pick 40), 3rd and 4th I will wait as long as possible before ending with Pierre Thomas, Rashad Jennings, Toby Gerhart, Spiller, Richardson, Ray Rice (typically very late, around pick 85)

I have 30 RBs I am comfortable starting and need minimum of 3 with hope to have 4

WR: I plan to get 2 of my top 8 WRs then grab as many as possible after I secure my 2nd RB and 2 QBs (typically after pick 55 through the end of the draft)
QBs: Depending on how fast QBs are taken, I anticipate getting my 2nd QB between picks 50 and 60.

I plan to have Brady, Romo, Ryan as my QB2

TE: Unless I get Graham I do not plan to draft a TE until after pick 120

Early Rankings -

Final Plan -

Draft Position: 5 (5, 12, 21, 28, 37, 44, ect.)

Randomly drew the 3rd position. I did not want to take a RB with first pick. I hastily made the first trade of the season by swapping draft orders with the 5th overall pick.

Initial Plan

Follow rankings above. I anticipate I will end up with Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant at 5 and then I will be in agony hoping a player outside my top 11 is taken to guarantee me a 2nd stud (top 3 RBs, 3 WRs, 1 TE, and 3 QBs).
If I don't get a QB at the 12th overall pick I will be looking for 1 more WR and my first RB. After that it's all about value :)

Player Valuations -

Highly subjective. These are based on a 10-12 team league standard league with 6 points per passing TD. Notes have been made for ppr. I initially reviewed the ADP charts of ESPN and CBS on 8/12/14. My rankings reflect this. Of note I believe CBS rankings as of this posting are excellent.

2013 Review -

Undervalued:

Hit on 5, missed on 7, wash on 1 (Sanders)

Overvalued

Hit on 8, missed on 1, wash on 1 (Witten)

Sleepers

Hit on 2, missed on 8

As I only have 1 year of data, I am unsure of how successful to consider my 2013 player valuations. On the surface it appears I am very good at identifying overvalued players, decent at discovering undervalued players, and middle of the road at finding sleepers.

2014 Valuations (8/12/14) -

Format:

Player Name (CBS/ESPN Average Draft Position (##/##)

Notes
I would take ahead/behind: ____________

Overvalued -

Undervalued -

Sleepers -

tldr: Have a flexible plan. Know your draft board including who to target where and what positions are available at various points in the draft. Assume everyone knows everything. Find your edge managing risk, taking value when it falls to you, and made every pick provide value.

Have a great year of enjoying America's favorite sport and check back in two weeks when I recap my drafts.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Book Review IV: The Tragedy of American Compassion

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Estimated Reading Time: 8 hours (244 pages, ~2 minutes/page)

Why I choose to read -

I enjoy learning and writing about public assistance programs
I feel America’s public assistance programs can be improved, but I am unsure how

Background -

Author: Marvin Olasky
First Edition: 1992
Cultural Context: Not particularly important as book deals with wide range of historical years

Author Details -

Born 6/12/50 in Boston, Massachusetts
Engaged in journalism, editorship, speech writing
Wikipedia Biography
World Magazine

Video series detailing Olasky’s life and thought progression. I did not view these videos, however they appear to be very detailed.

Reflections -

What I appreciated:

Olasky attempted to remain unbiased while detailing what he believes
Author makes a strong case of the need to alleviate more than just physical suffering to break destructive cycles
Very detailed historical foundation of how government came in position of providing the majority of social services

Shortcomings:

Vague and limited on proposed solutions. Focuses on here is where we are and here are examples of what has worked before. This allows Olasky to have less bias, but results in a lack of specific suggestions for change.
Published in 1992, thus 20+ additional years of poverty alleviation efforts with limited results have elapsed. It would be ideal if an updated version was released.

Key Messages -

Culture constructs systems of charity in the image of the god(s) they worship

America:

Money – We throw money at problems
Independence – We do not want to become personally involved. We would rather give money than become personally involved.
Comfort – We largely believe no one should suffer, regardless of the circumstances leading to their suffering.

Feed and forget model

Current public assistance and charities are designed more for givers than receivers. They are designed to make people feel as if they are doing something and no longer responsible or inconvenienced by the needs of the poor.

Nothing is more demoralizing to the struggling poor than successes of the indolent or vicious

Indolent: wanting to avoid activity or exertion; lazy

Author asks: “If social universalists believe money will create goodness, then why does the wealthiest nation in the world suffer from high levels of crime, despair, and depression?”

(My thought) Increased wealth only makes us more of who we are

Author greatly supports affiliation/bonding through personal relationships, work tests, and is vehemently against indiscriminate giving.

Bad charities drive out good charities

Bad charities: Defined as those who give aid indiscriminately to relieve solely physical needs
Good charities: Defined as those engaging in:

discriminate giving to the worthy poor
alleviation of psychological, emotional, social, and physical needs
modifying the underlying behavior of why individuals are currently in poverty

Discriminate giving to the worthy and unworthy poor

Author supports there are those in poverty who are worthy of assistance and those who are unworthy. Olasky goes on to describe how discriminate giving is needed in such situations. Unfortunately large scale public assistance efforts are unable to engage in discriminate giving. Rather it must use impersonal mathematical formulas and flowcharts. (Food Assistance, Unemployment Insurance)

Charities found some individuals needed to suffer in order to be willing to change

Similar to a person needing to hit “rock bottom” before change can occur
Difficult and unpopular belief in America. We are often too impatient with relieving suffering, likely due to idolizing comfort
Suffering aside, cited charities supported not allowing anyone to starve regardless of the cause
Litmus test: Do we care for the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are suffering or just their bodies (physical)?

Welfare often creates an appetite which is more harmful than the pain it is intended to relieve
AICP (Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor) stressed all relief should be temporary

AICP found chronic, unexpiring relief bred huge problems in both the recipients of aid and in the resulting compassion fatigue of workers who felt disheartened, exhausted, and ineffective.

Read When Helping Hurts for more on compassion fatigue

By concentrating on the millions (federal public assistance programs), we lose compassion for individuals (local assistance)
S. Humphreys Gurteen with Buffalo COS (charitable organization society) implemented work test and used loans (rather than free handouts) with impressive results

Work tests allowed dispensing of aid while retaining dignity
One of the key psychological and social factors to poverty is the need to restore a person’s dignity. Work tests enabled those receiving aid to begin the restorative process.

Philanthropy has become as cold as the payment of taxes - mostly because it is the payment of taxes
Federal Emergency Relief Administration on direct relief (1934):

“Direct relief has little to commend it. While at the present time it may happen to be the cheapest way of meeting the problem, in the end . . . it probably will prove the most expensive”

Direct relief being meeting only individual’s immediate physical needs rather than going further to meet emotional, psychological, knowledge, and skill needs/gaps

(My thought) It is humorous to read public assistance proponents demand federal leadership to solve poverty and enact wealth distribution. They are equating “leadership of federal government” with progressive taxes and redistribution of resources.

As I place a high value on freedom (My Voting Issues), I would error on leaving the level of public assistance up to the people. If they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken.
If the federal government was a charity, how much (if any) would you choose to donate?

There is no right or wrong answer. Your answer simply reflects how effective you believe the federal government is at alleviating poverty/hardship.

I disagree with author’s suggestion of using tax deductions and credits to lower economic barrier to funding private charities.

Again, leave it up to the people, if they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken. Subsidizing certain organizations only distorts people’s true preferences.

Many charities found people needed to be able to freely come and leave poor houses (personal choice)

Individual choices are the means to end poverty
Difficult, if not impossible, to help those who do not want to be helped

Again, see When Helping Hurts

Historically, most aid given was actual materials, not money

Actual materials, rather than money, restrict recipients choice of how to utilize aid (loss of freedom)

Author believes aid should come at an expense of freedom

Could argue a black market would emerge, but efficiency is lost by selling/bartering actual materials (food stamps, ect.)

In addition, a well organized, local charity participating in discriminate giving would likely be informed of aid abuses and no longer provide aid to such individuals. Unfortunately large government charities are slow/unable to discriminate in such a way.

Charles Brace – “the best politics and the most complete form of government are nothing if the individual morality be not there

Brace found a combination of personal, theological, and economic incentives moved families to care for impoverished children

Josiah Quincy (1821 chairman of Massachusetts legislative committee) on pauper laws concluded:

“There must always exist, so many circumstances of age, sex, previous habits, muscular, or mental strength, to be taken into the account, that society is absolutely incapable to fix any standard, or to prescribe any [universal] rule by which the claim of right to the benefit (public assistance) of the public provision shall absolutely be determined.”

Paraphrased: Universal, mathematical formulas would be unable to determine level of need or qualifications for aid

To who would I recommend reading?

Anyone frustrated with current poverty alleviation efforts
Anyone currently affiliated or considering participating in any form of poverty alleviation effort (public or private systems)

To who would I not recommend reading?

If you have no interest in public assistance programs

The Tragedy of American Compassion succeeds in detailing a history of poverty alleviation efforts. While lacking in proposed solutions, it shines in providing hope and encouragement efforts can be improved.

For me, overcoming poverty in America and the world seems overwhelming. Olasky stated, "by concentrating on the millions, we lose compassion for individuals." I believe it is important to start small, one person/family at a time.

How do you eliminate poverty in one's lifetime? I start today and remove the poverty label from just 1 person this year (lets assume you were this person). Next, you and me in the second year remove the poverty label from 1 person each (2 total). In the third year, the 4 of us snowball our efforts and each remove 1 person from poverty in year 3 (8 total out of poverty label). Even though after 34 years, I personally would have only removed the poverty label from 34 individuals, everyone's efforts combined would purge the entire world of poverty (8.5 billion total persons). Astounding.

Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Prep

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Minimum Wage Part IV: Uncle Rico, Buzz Lightyear, and Questionable Claims

We have all experienced it. Someone has exaggerated the greatness of something or someone.

Uncle Rico (Napoleon Dynamite) throwing a football

Last month, I detailed cited effects I believe are caused by minimum wage legislation. Today, I will detail cited effects I would refute or find unreliable to be caused by minimum wage, much as I believe we all find the claims of Uncle Rico and Buzz Lightyear to be unreliable at best :).

Cited effects I would refute –

1. Increases productivity

As Governor Peter Shulmin, Governor Dan Malloy, and Mike Konczal have stated (Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects), higher earnings encourage employees to work harder and when workers have more to lose, they do their jobs better leading to productivity increases. Unfortunately none of these authors cited the studies they referenced.
I agree as minimum wage increases, average worker productivity increases. However, I would suggest this occurs as individuals and businesses are forced to find ways to increase average worker productivity to cover increased employee costs. Unfortunately productivity increases often come in the form of automation, outsourcing (China, India), consumer effort (self checkout lines), labor-labor substitution (replacing less productive workers with higher productive workers), and/or increasing prices. All of which primarily affect the least productive workers.
Much like the price of an item does not affect its function, productivity capacity is not connected to wages. Paying twice as much for the same item does not increase the function or productivity of the higher priced product.

An artificial wage floor may increase average worker productivity, however it decreases total economic productivity as some workers are priced out of employment. As detailed last month, it is unfortunate those workers most in need are often the ones who find it increasingly difficult to acquire and maintain employment.

2. We should support it because it is popular

We have all seen it. Just because something is popular does not make it good or truthful.

I disagree we should pass legislation simply because a majority wants it. Rather, policies should be considered on the basis of sound theory/logic and available empirical evidence demonstrating a measure accomplishes our core desires.
Enough said, just don’t support something on the sole basis others do. We don’t need to follow the fool’s parade.

Cited effects I find unreliable -

1. Boosts economy

A general consensus states low income earners spend a greater proportion of their income than they save. The opposite is said of higher income earners who tend to save and invest rather than spend. Subsequently, it is proposed by raising minimum wage, money will be transferred into low income households who will in turn spend their earnings immediately providing an economic boost.
Many authors cite a study by Daniel Aaronson and Eric French from the Chicago Federal Reserve estimating raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour would create a $28 billion boost in 2012 GDP.
I agree with the general consensus and the results found by the Chicago Federal Reserve. However, as stated in Aaronson and French’s conclusion (below), I find the effect of an economic boost unreliable as it depends on what time frame you assess. It is likely a short term economic boost is seen with minimum wage increases. Unfortunately this effect appears unsustainable and potentially detrimental to sustainable economic growth, a core desire of mine (Minimum Wage Part I)
Aaronson and French conclusion

“Finally, it’s important to stress that the aggregate household spending response discussed in this article is relevant for only the first few quarters after a minimum wage hike. Beyond that time frame, households must pay off debt they incurred in the short run by spending less. Thus, a minimum wage hike provides stimulus for a year or so, but serves as a drag on the economy beyond that.”

2. Pulls people out of poverty

A popular cited effect of minimum wage legislation is raising the wages of the lowest income earners will raise people out of poverty through increased incomes. With countless variables affecting the poverty rate, it is difficult to determine the true effect of minimum wage legislation on the nation's poverty rate. Hence I consider it an unreliable cited effect as:

Due to efforts to increase average worker productivity (automation, outsourcing, etc.), minimum wage increases the difficulty of workers most likely living in poverty acquiring and maintaining employment, the exact population minimum wage is intended to help.
It may push as many people down into poverty as it raises out. Middle class gets a double whammy by paying all the costs of minimum wages (increased prices) while receiving none of the benefits (income is not increased).
From 1959 to 2012, in the year of and year after minimum wage was increased, average poverty rates increased 0.9% while in all other years the poverty rate decreased 2.3%.

Not strong enough data to make a sound judgment, however the data does trend towards minimum wage failing to pull people out of poverty.
Data Source: United States Census Bureau

Minimum Wage Effect on Poverty Rate and Welfare Expenditures

3. Reduces use of public assistance programs

Similar to pulling people out of poverty, it is cited raising the wages of low income earners will decrease public assistance expenditures. Determining the utilization of public assistance programs has innumerable variables leading me to label this effect as unreliable. I have these concerns why this effect may be unsound:

Welfare expenditures increased an average of 9.2% in the 2 years following a minimum wage increase while welfare expenditures decreased an average of 1.2% in other years.
Again, if automation, labor-labor substitution, increased prices, outsourcing, and increased consumer effort (self checkout lines) increase, more workers will find themselves in search of work (CBO study) and therefore utilizing public assistance programs.
If prices rise, some will be pulled down into poverty who have their expenses increase without a subsequent rise in income (middle class especially).

67% in poverty have not worked in last year

As James Sherk writes, wages are not the primary barrier to higher incomes, obtaining employment is. 67% of individuals living below the poverty line did not work during the last year.
Does not account for those who would have earned raises by increasing productivity through experience/training. James Sherk cites an Employment Policies Institute (EPI) study which found 2 out of 3 minimum wage workers received an average raise of 24% within 1 year.
Of minor note, I consider minimum wage a subsidized wage. It is an indirect form of public assistance that is paid for by private individuals rather than directly by government expenditures (which are also paid for by they public through taxes).

All things considered, I believe minimum wage will lift some out of poverty, but largely at the expense of the least productive workers being replaced/not hired and higher prices placing an added burden on all, especially low and middle income households. With cost of living rising, more people will find themselves in poverty rather than out of poverty. A trend supported by the subsequent increases in both public assistance program expenditures and the poverty rate in those years following a minimum wage increase.

4. Reduces gender and income inequality

I am for equal compensation across all demographics (Minimum Wage Part I). I find implementing policies on the basis it favors certain demographics more than others a slippery slope. I believe the means to accomplishing the end of reduced gender and income inequality do matter. Attempting to cater public policy to favor certain demographics over others may reduce quantitative inequality, however I fear it may be detrimental. Rather than giving equal treatment to all, it attempts to favor disadvantaged groups perpetuating the cycle of favoritism.

While I oppose prospective favoritism to rectify past injustices, I do support retrospective litigation to compensate workers who experienced past injustices.

In addition, if gender and income inequality exists because of differences in productivity, the least productive workers will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain employment in a world of automation, outsourcing, consumer effort (self-checkout lines), and labor-labor substitution. Thus, minimum wage legislation may actually worsen inequality by enacting a policy that is prohibitive of the lowest productive workers to acquiring employment. Referring again back to James Sherk, 67% of workers living in poverty have not worked in the last year. Thus, employment is a bigger problem than wages.

5. Morally just

Workers should be paid fair wages and not unjustly employed. However, I believe this should ideally come from generosity, not forced payments (see Private Charities).
We should desire to care and meet one another’s needs, however I believe this is more effectively and efficiently accomplished by individuals and private charities rather than impersonal public assistance programs.
I am unconvinced you can force morals upon people. I believe pandering "good morals" will at best change some outward behavior while producing inward bitterness and resentment.

$15 Minimum wage signed into law (Seattle, WA)

Many states and cities have taken action apart from the federal government to raise minimum wage in its jurisdiction. Most notably, Seattle has passed legislation to raise minimum wage to $15. Seventeen months after President Obama proposed a higher minimum wage in his January 2013 State of the Union Address, minimum wage has remained a prominent topic in the news media.

With a myriad of potential effects, who benefits from minimum wage legislation? My next minimum wage series post will detail who I believe benefits and is harmed by minimum wage. Lastly I will explore viable alternatives to minimum wage and determine which, if any, may more effectively accomplish my original desires.

Next Post Topic: Book Review