Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[OMGeverynameistaken]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/12/1861361/michigan-democrats-introduce-bill-to-increase-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/



It'll be interesting to see the effects of this bill if it passes, although I doubt it will.

Okay, let's think about this as if I was a large corporation that produces marshmallows in Michigan. I have 500 employees who make minimum wage. All of a sudden, I am required to pay them $2.60 more. If the average employee works 30 hours a week, that's about 2 million dollars more that I'm spending a year on wages. To maintain profit (let's be honest, that's what these companies are concerned with) I can either lay off employees or increase prices on my marshmallows, or do both. Either way, the guys who apparently benefited from a pay raise are hurt.

I don't think this will pass, and I hope it doesn't.

[Or you could turn the situation to your advantage and hire more people because of the sudden influx of workers who are going to come into the state. Maybe take out a loan to build an new marshmallow production facility. A slight increase in the price of your product may be necessary, but I'm sure the public will understand, what with their incessant craving for inflated corn syrup.

Also, a lot of factory labor jobs these days don't pay minimum wage anyway. A quick skim of the Craigslist manufacturing jobs reveals that $9/hr is a low-end starting wage. A lot of people offer $10-12/hr.

Huzzah for capitalism!

[Alien Space Bats]

Okay, let's think about this as if I was a large corporation that produces marshmallows in Michigan. I have 500 employees who make minimum wage. All of a sudden, I am required to pay them $2.60 more. If the average employee works 30 hours a week, that's about 2 million dollars more that I'm spending a year on wages. To maintain profit (let's be honest, that's what these companies are concerned with) I can either lay off employees or increase prices on my marshmallows, or do both. Either way, the guys who apparently benefited from a pay raise are hurt.

I don't think this will pass, and I hope it doesn't.

Except the vast majority of minimum wage employers in Michigan aren't manufacturing firms. They're service firms for whom location matters.

I mean, let's be honest: This same marshmallow manufacturing firm could move to China and pay its workers less than $200/month; no American, even in the absence of any kind of Federal, State, or local minimum wage, could possibly afford to work for $200/month; they'd end up dying of exposure while starving to death on the street. So for all intents and purposes, we can ignore simple cases where firms are interested only in the wage they pay and enjoy no geographical benefit from doing business in Michigan, the United States, North America, or any place else around here. Those business are lost to us and will forever be lost to us until or unless we decide to lower ourselves to the level of a UDC.

Most Michigan firms that pay a minimum wage are either in the hospitality business, the recreation business, or the retail business. We're talking hotels and restaurants, marinas, resorts, gas stations, bait shops, grocery stores, warehouse outlets, department stores, and other such businesses. A restaurant owner who decides that he doesn't want to pay his bus staff $10/hour can move his business to Texas — but then he can't use his shiny new Texas restaurant to serve customers in Michigan any more, now can he? For all of these kinds of businesses, moving means abandoning the market, which may not be optimal for the business in question.

Combine this with my earlier assertion — that the overwhelming majority of Michigan workers already earn more than $10/hour — and what we end up with is a picture in which very, very few jobs are potentially at risk. In essence, the only jobs that would likely be lost from such a move would be those in which the business in question is already marginal and can no longer operate in the event that it must pay its workers more than the bare minimum. For everybody else, the likely effect will be either non-existent (the business already pays its workers more than $10/hour) or will involve an effort by the business to squeeze greater productivity out of each worker (where the business is affected by the minimum wage but cannot relocate because doing so would, in essence, mean losing a business opportunity that is still essentially profitable, even at the new higher wage).

[Obamacult]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Minimum_wage

Yeah, so I conducted a linear regression for the data set they presented, and while there is technically a positive correlation between the two from just looking at the regression itself, if we calculate the correlation coefficient (coming in at 0.36), which they conspicuously omitted, and then derive the coefficient of determination from that (which indicates the 'goodness of fit' of a regression model), which is just 0.13, there a very limited statistical correlation between minimum wage and unemployment. It's a weak relationship, and because it is so weak, the door is wide open for other factors that more accurately explain the variation in unemployment in those states. That data set isn't a strong supporting argument.

For some perspective, a coefficient of determination of 0.13 indicates that the predictor 'minumum wage' accounts for very little of the variance in unemployment. That's quite a dishonest website.

This is an image of the scatter plot, too:

Let me make this easy for you.

It is difficult at best to establish absolute correlation and causation with any economic problem when a near infinite number of indeterminable independent variables of unknown quantity and quality exist. Hence, we use logic when math fails.

When considering the effects of the MW or raising the costs of labor on the demand for that labor --- it is a priori knowledge that there is a negative correlation between the MW level and employment (at least anarchists, conservatives and libertarians recognize the logic). Of course, this effect is reduced or zero when the prevailing unskilled wage rate is above the MW level or the supply of labor is significantly less than the demand, or the cost of living is high relative to any MW increase, or labor is entrenched by other political machinations, etc...

Moreover, your hybrid highly subjective and ideologically jaded argument above is interspersed with very, 'technically', conspicuously, very limited, quite a dishonest website, very little, weak relationship, so weak, etc. that is not indicative of an objective mathematics based rebut.

hence, it is obvious where YOUR bias lies. Moreover, it is equally obvious looking at the data in the chart provided that a clear correlation exists between MW level and unemployment, your subjective and wordy diatribe notwithstanding, that you yourself somewhat grudgingly admit.

But the bottom line is that raising the minimum wage in an economic climate of high youth unemployment is a dangerous powder keg both economically and socially and must be resisted.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

holy shit guys

But seriously, no. No fourteen year old doing his first summer job busing needs ten bucks an hour.

[United Kingdom of Muffins]

holy shit guys

But seriously, no. No fourteen year old doing his first summer job busing needs ten bucks an hour.

Your right. 15 it is!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

holy shit guys

But seriously, no. No fourteen year old doing his first summer job busing needs ten bucks an hour.

Your right. 15 it is!

Are you serious? Or fourteen yourself?

[United Kingdom of Muffins]

Your right. 15 it is!

Are you serious? Or fourteen yourself?

Yup. Nope. Minimum wage is called minimum wage for a reason. You don't gain citizenship rights with your age, you gain them for being a citizen.

[Frisivisia]

holy shit guys

But seriously, no. No fourteen year old doing his first summer job busing needs ten bucks an hour.

This isn't who it would affect most. 9/10 beneficiaries of a higher minimum wage would be over 21.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341-raising-federal-minimum-wage/

[Mr Bananagrabber]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Minimum_wage

Yeah, so I conducted a linear regression for the data set they presented, and while there is technically a positive correlation between the two from just looking at the regression itself, if we calculate the correlation coefficient (coming in at 0.36), which they conspicuously omitted, and then derive the coefficient of determination from that (which indicates the 'goodness of fit' of a regression model), which is just 0.13, there a very limited statistical correlation between minimum wage and unemployment. It's a weak relationship, and because it is so weak, the door is wide open for other factors that more accurately explain the variation in unemployment in those states. That data set isn't a strong supporting argument.

For some perspective, a coefficient of determination of 0.13 indicates that the predictor 'minumum wage' accounts for very little of the variance in unemployment. That's quite a dishonest website.

This is an image of the scatter plot, too:

Be careful with this. We want to know about the marginal impact of the minimum wage on unemployment, right? We want to know what happens to unemployment if we raise the minimum wage by x, holding everything else equal.

So the correlation coefficient doesn't matter. That tells us about how well the total variation in Y is explained by variation in X. We don't care about total variation in Y. We're not trying to come up with a model for predicting the unemployment rate, so we don't need goodness of fit. We're just trying to get the marginal impact of the minimum wage.

So what do we want to look at? Just the parameter on minimum wage in the regression and its t-statistic. But remember that we need to satisfy the assumptions of OLS regression, the key one being that the error term is uncorrelated with regressors. So to get an unbiased estimator on MW, you need to throw into the regression anything that would significantly correlate with movements in the minimum wage. That's gonna take some thinking.

[Agymnum]

holy shit guys

But seriously, no. No fourteen year old doing his first summer job busing needs ten bucks an hour.

This isn't who it would affect most. 9/10 beneficiaries of a higher minimum wage would be over 21.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341-raising-federal-minimum-wage/

Hey, look guys, the government's doing something right for once!

That, sadly, is a rare sentence.

[Norcroft]

meanwhile in Canada....

$10.25

[Agymnum]

meanwhile in Canada....

$10.25

Australia takes you $10.25 and ups you 15.96 AUD.

That's $16.41 US, by the way.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Yeah, so I conducted a linear regression for the data set they presented, and while there is technically a positive correlation between the two from just looking at the regression itself, if we calculate the correlation coefficient (coming in at 0.36), which they conspicuously omitted, and then derive the coefficient of determination from that (which indicates the 'goodness of fit' of a regression model), which is just 0.13, there a very limited statistical correlation between minimum wage and unemployment. It's a weak relationship, and because it is so weak, the door is wide open for other factors that more accurately explain the variation in unemployment in those states. That data set isn't a strong supporting argument.

For some perspective, a coefficient of determination of 0.13 indicates that the predictor 'minumum wage' accounts for very little of the variance in unemployment. That's quite a dishonest website.

This is an image of the scatter plot, too:
(Image)

Be careful with this. We want to know about the marginal impact of the minimum wage on unemployment, right? We want to know what happens to unemployment if we raise the minimum wage by x, holding everything else equal.

So the correlation coefficient doesn't matter. That tells us about how well the total variation in Y is explained by variation in X. We don't care about total variation in Y. We're not trying to come up with a model for predicting the unemployment rate, so we don't need goodness of fit. We're just trying to get the marginal impact of the minimum wage.

So what do we want to look at? Just the parameter on minimum wage in the regression and its t-statistic. But remember that we need to satisfy the assumptions of OLS regression, the key one being that the error term is uncorrelated with regressors. So to get an unbiased estimator on MW, you need to throw into the regression anything that would significantly correlate with movements in the minimum wage. That's gonna take some thinking.

Well, I'm not going to go into that much detail. I really just wanted to demonstrate that there is really quite a weak relationship between the two sets of data presented on that specific website, and that we should be very careful about drawing conclusions from that alone.

I obviously can't go much deeper than that without more information.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Be careful with this. We want to know about the marginal impact of the minimum wage on unemployment, right? We want to know what happens to unemployment if we raise the minimum wage by x, holding everything else equal.

So the correlation coefficient doesn't matter. That tells us about how well the total variation in Y is explained by variation in X. We don't care about total variation in Y. We're not trying to come up with a model for predicting the unemployment rate, so we don't need goodness of fit. We're just trying to get the marginal impact of the minimum wage.

So what do we want to look at? Just the parameter on minimum wage in the regression and its t-statistic. But remember that we need to satisfy the assumptions of OLS regression, the key one being that the error term is uncorrelated with regressors. So to get an unbiased estimator on MW, you need to throw into the regression anything that would significantly correlate with movements in the minimum wage. That's gonna take some thinking.

Well, I'm not going to go into that much detail. I really just wanted to demonstrate that there is really quite a weak relationship between the two sets of data, and that we should be very careful about drawing conclusions from that alone.

Yeah okay. In that case, rather than the correlation coefficient you'd report the parameter value from your simple linear regression and whether or not it's statistically significant (which I doubt it would be since the sample is so small).

Then if it's statistically significant, you can comment on whether or not the size of the parameter is economically significant.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Yeah, so I conducted a linear regression for the data set they presented, and while there is technically a positive correlation between the two from just looking at the regression itself, if we calculate the correlation coefficient (coming in at 0.36), which they conspicuously omitted, and then derive the coefficient of determination from that (which indicates the 'goodness of fit' of a regression model), which is just 0.13, there a very limited statistical correlation between minimum wage and unemployment. It's a weak relationship, and because it is so weak, the door is wide open for other factors that more accurately explain the variation in unemployment in those states. That data set isn't a strong supporting argument.

For some perspective, a coefficient of determination of 0.13 indicates that the predictor 'minumum wage' accounts for very little of the variance in unemployment. That's quite a dishonest website.

This is an image of the scatter plot, too:
(Image)

Let me make this easy for you.

It is difficult at best to establish absolute correlation and causation with any economic problem when a near infinite number of indeterminable independent variables of unknown quantity and quality exist. Hence, we use logic when math fails.

When considering the effects of the MW or raising the costs of labor on the demand for that labor --- it is a priori knowledge that there is a negative correlation between the MW level and employment (at least anarchists, conservatives and libertarians recognize the logic). Of course, this effect is reduced or zero when the prevailing unskilled wage rate is above the MW level or the supply of labor is significantly less than the demand, or the cost of living is high relative to any MW increase, or labor is entrenched by other political machinations, etc...

Moreover, your hybrid highly subjective and ideologically jaded argument above is interspersed with very, 'technically', conspicuously, very limited, quite a dishonest website, very little, weak relationship, so weak, etc. that is not indicative of an objective mathematics based rebut.

hence, it is obvious where YOUR bias lies. Moreover, it is equally obvious looking at the data in the chart provided that a clear correlation exists between MW level and unemployment, your subjective and wordy diatribe notwithstanding, that you yourself somewhat grudgingly admit.

But the bottom line is that raising the minimum wage in an economic climate of high youth unemployment is a dangerous powder keg both economically and socially and must be resisted.

Yeah okay. In that case, rather than the correlation coefficient you'd report the parameter value from your simple linear regression and whether or not it's statistically significant (which I doubt it would be since the sample is so small).

Then if it's statistically significant, you can comment on whether or not the size of the parameter is economically significant.

We can conduct a hypothesis test for the slope of the regression line β₁, where the null hypothesis H₀ is β₁ = 0, which indicates that minumum wage does not correlate with unemployment, and the hypothesis H₁ where β₁ ≠ 0, indicating that minumum wage correlates with unemployment in some capacity. It's intuitive since, if the actual slope of the line is zero, any X will predict the same Y (holding all else equal, of course), so none of the variation in the dependent variable Y can be attributed to the regressor X.

So, since we have n = 51, the degrees of freedom is df = 49. And we'll say that the test will be conducted at significance level α = 0.01, which indicates it's with 99% confidence. Using the t-table, we get t at df = 49 and α = 0.005 to be 2.68, and t = 2.667278 for the coefficient, which means we do not reject the null hypothesis that β₁ = 0 (since 2.667278 < 2.68), implying that there is no correlation. If we reduce the significance to 95%, I calculated that we would reject the null hypothesis (which is good for your argument). That said, when I input the data into this website to double-check, it did not reject H₀ at α = 0.05, so I may have made a mistake, in which case the parameter is not statistically significant.

Either way, the point is that the data presented on that website is somewhat misleading. The correlation is statistically insignificant, and if not, it's weak. I'd intuitively think that there would be a correlation between the minumum wage and unemployment, and perhaps there is, but we really can't derive it from that data alone. Although, as Mr Bananagrabber pointed out, the OVB inherent in analysing this data set on its own would largely invalidate any conclusions we might be able to draw, since the parameter might be over- or under-estimated. The data on that website is basically not, in itself, statistically useful.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

meanwhile in Canada....

$10.25

Australia takes you $10.25 and ups you 15.96 AUD.

That's $16.41 US, by the way.

unholyfuckingsocialism

[Agymnum]

Australia takes you $10.25 and ups you 15.96 AUD.

That's $16.41 US, by the way.

unholyfuckingsocialism

Australia hasn't collapsed yet.

You don't see me walking around the US going "OH NOES UNHOLYFUCKINGCAPITALISM!"

[New Chalcedon]

Australia takes you $10.25 and ups you 15.96 AUD.

That's $16.41 US, by the way.

unholyfuckingsocialism

And yet our rich are richer than your rich, our poor are much richer than your poor, and our middle class is both bigger and richer than yours too!

If that's the result of "socialism", then why the fuck aren't more countries "socialist"?

[Alien Space Bats]

inb4freedom

[YellowApple]

inb4freedom

Too late.

[Saiwania]

And yet our rich are richer than your rich, our poor are much richer than your poor, and our middle class is both bigger and richer than yours too! If that's the result of "socialism", then why the fuck aren't more countries "socialist"?

Can you prove that the poor in Australia really are better off, or is it that the cost of living in Australia is higher than what it would be in the US and their economically disadvantaged are more or less near the same level so far as standard of living goes?

[DogDoo 7]

And yet our rich are richer than your rich, our poor are much richer than your poor, and our middle class is both bigger and richer than yours too! If that's the result of "socialism", then why the fuck aren't more countries "socialist"?

Can you prove that the poor in Australia really are better off, or is it that the cost of living in Australia is higher than what it would be in the US and their economically disadvantaged are more or less near the same level so far as standard of living goes?

Bananas and alcohol costs a shitload, but there's no way 16USD in Australia is equivalent to 8USD in the US.

[New Chalcedon]

And yet our rich are richer than your rich, our poor are much richer than your poor, and our middle class is both bigger and richer than yours too! If that's the result of "socialism", then why the fuck aren't more countries "socialist"?

Can you prove that the poor in Australia really are better off, or is it that the cost of living in Australia is higher than what it would be in the US and their economically disadvantaged are more or less near the same level so far as standard of living goes?

Speaking as someone who is poor in Australia: yes, I can prove that the poor here are better off. But to use some empirical data (c/o the inimitable Possum Comitatus):


This is the percentage of various nations' population that are in the top 10% of the global population for wealth:


This is the median (middle-household, not mean - and therefore not subject to distortion by a few ultra-wealthy families) net worth of various national households, in USD:


This is the rate at which income in the bottom (lowest-income) tenth of the population grew from 1987-2007:


This is various nations' minimum wage at purchasing power parity (i.e., the purchasing power of the minimum wage):



The US is at $7.25/hour on this graph, just above New Zealand. Australia's at just over $9.00/hour - on the same terms by which the USA is at $7.25/hour.

Australia is also more economically-mobile than the USA:

"Mobility in earnings across pairs of fathers and sons is particularly low in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, while mobility is higher in the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada."

And all of this ignores the fact that Australia has free basic health-care for every citizen - we (poor people like me) don't live in fear that a sudden medical emergency will cost us thousands of dollars in bills. Not to mention that private health insurance in Australia is sufficiently affordable that I can get it as a single male for ~$80/month (for top-level hospital cover, no less!) - I'm considering it, in fact - and I'm on unemployment benefits! And our health insurance companies are sufficiently regulated that they cannot screw us over without us having effective legal recourse (I should know - my disabled housemate was able to get insurance, and then was able to threaten his health insurer that he'd send a letter to the Ombudsman if they didn't stop dicking him around, and they backed down at once) and they still make healthy profits.

Face the reality: since 1981, the US has run its economy to the exclusive benefit of the ultra-rich, and it's screwed not only the working poor, but the whole economy over. You're a basket-case, economically-speaking, with nowhere to go but down unless you change something fast. You've hollowed out your entire economy so that a few at the top can make vast piles of money, and you're nearing the end of the period in which you can change this without violent revolution or a permanent redefinition of the American Dream.

Australia's not perfect, but in comparison, we're paradise on Earth. And that's because our politicians - even our right-wing politicians - understand at a visceral level that the very wealthy can generally look after themselves. They simply disagree on the level to which it's appropriate for the government to look out for the interests of the lower classes.

[Obamacult]

Can you prove that the poor in Australia really are better off, or is it that the cost of living in Australia is higher than what it would be in the US and their economically disadvantaged are more or less near the same level so far as standard of living goes?

Speaking as someone who is poor in Australia: yes, I can prove that the poor here are better off. But to use some empirical data (c/o the inimitable Possum Comitatus):


This is the percentage of various nations' population that are in the top 10% of the global population for wealth:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/fi ... 10.pngThis is the median (middle-household, not mean - and therefore not subject to distortion by a few ultra-wealthy families) net worth of various national households, in USD:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/fi ... wealth.png
This is the rate at which income in the bottom (lowest-income) tenth of the population grew from 1987-2007:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/fi ... lected.png
This is various nations' minimum wage at purchasing power parity (i.e., the purchasing power of the minimum wage):



The US is at $7.25/hour on this graph, just above New Zealand. Australia's at just over $9.00/hour - on the same terms by which the USA is at $7.25/hour.

Australia is also more economically-mobile than the USA:

"Mobility in earnings across pairs of fathers and sons is particularly low in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, while mobility is higher in the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada."

And all of this ignores the fact that Australia has free basic health-care for every citizen - we (poor people like me) don't live in fear that a sudden medical emergency will cost us thousands of dollars in bills. Not to mention that private health insurance in Australia is sufficiently affordable that I can get it as a single male for ~$80/month (for top-level hospital cover, no less!) - I'm considering it, in fact - and I'm on unemployment benefits! And our health insurance companies are sufficiently regulated that they cannot screw us over without us having effective legal recourse (I should know - my disabled housemate was able to get insurance, and then was able to threaten his health insurer that he'd send a letter to the Ombudsman if they didn't stop dicking him around, and they backed down at once) and they still make healthy profits.

Face the reality: since 1981, the US has run its economy to the exclusive benefit of the ultra-rich, and it's screwed not only the working poor, but the whole economy over. You're a basket-case, economically-speaking, with nowhere to go but down unless you change something fast. You've hollowed out your entire economy so that a few at the top can make vast piles of money, and you're nearing the end of the period in which you can change this without violent revolution or a permanent redefinition of the American Dream.

Australia's not perfect, but in comparison, we're paradise on Earth. And that's because our politicians - even our right-wing politicians - understand at a visceral level that the very wealthy can generally look after themselves. They simply disagree on the level to which it's appropriate for the government to look out for the interests of the lower classes.

Your right that Australia has a stronger economy than the USA, but your wrong to assert that it is because of socialist policies.

Not surprising considering that Australia is rated significantly higher (Free) than the Obamonomics dominated USA (Mostly Free) in the Index of Economic Freedom by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

In sum, govt. is the mechanism by which politically connected groups (either large special interest voting blocs or rich campaign contributors) redistribute wealth from productive, economically sustainable, peaceful and voluntary sectors of the economy to inefficient, corrupt, wasteful and coercive politically connected sectors of the economy.

Your dingo don't bark.

[Obamacult]

Let me make this easy for you.

It is difficult at best to establish absolute correlation and causation with any economic problem when a near infinite number of indeterminable independent variables of unknown quantity and quality exist. Hence, we use logic when math fails.

When considering the effects of the MW or raising the costs of labor on the demand for that labor --- it is a priori knowledge that there is a negative correlation between the MW level and employment (at least anarchists, conservatives and libertarians recognize the logic). Of course, this effect is reduced or zero when the prevailing unskilled wage rate is above the MW level or the supply of labor is significantly less than the demand, or the cost of living is high relative to any MW increase, or labor is entrenched by other political machinations, etc...

Moreover, your hybrid highly subjective and ideologically jaded argument above is interspersed with very, 'technically', conspicuously, very limited, quite a dishonest website, very little, weak relationship, so weak, etc. that is not indicative of an objective mathematics based rebut.

hence, it is obvious where YOUR bias lies. Moreover, it is equally obvious looking at the data in the chart provided that a clear correlation exists between MW level and unemployment, your subjective and wordy diatribe notwithstanding, that you yourself somewhat grudgingly admit.

But the bottom line is that raising the minimum wage in an economic climate of high youth unemployment is a dangerous powder keg both economically and socially and must be resisted.

Yeah okay. In that case, rather than the correlation coefficient you'd report the parameter value from your simple linear regression and whether or not it's statistically significant (which I doubt it would be since the sample is so small).

Then if it's statistically significant, you can comment on whether or not the size of the parameter is economically significant.

We can conduct a hypothesis test for the slope of the regression line β₁, where the null hypothesis H₀ is β₁ = 0, which indicates that minumum wage does not correlate with unemployment, and the hypothesis H₁ where β₁ ≠ 0, indicating that minumum wage correlates with unemployment in some capacity. It's intuitive since, if the actual slope of the line is zero, any X will predict the same Y (holding all else equal, of course), so none of the variation in the dependent variable Y can be attributed to the regressor X.

So, since we have n = 51, the degrees of freedom is df = 49. And we'll say that the test will be conducted at significance level α = 0.01, which indicates it's with 99% confidence. Using the t-table, we get t at df = 49 and α = 0.005 to be 2.68, and t = 2.667278 for the coefficient, which means we do not reject the null hypothesis that β₁ = 0 (since 2.667278 < 2.68), implying that there is no correlation. If we reduce the significance to 95%, I calculated that we would reject the null hypothesis (which is good for your argument). That said, when I input the data into this website to double-check, it did not reject H₀ at α = 0.05, so I may have made a mistake, in which case the parameter is not statistically significant.

Either way, the point is that the data presented on that website is somewhat misleading. The correlation is statistically insignificant, and if not, it's weak. I'd intuitively think that there would be a correlation between the minumum wage and unemployment, and perhaps there is, but we really can't derive it from that data alone. Although, as Mr Bananagrabber pointed out, the OVB inherent in analysing this data set on its own would largely invalidate any conclusions we might be able to draw, since the parameter might be over- or under-estimated. The data on that website is basically not, in itself, statistically useful.

Cool website.