What is a decent minimum wage?

[stinkcat_14]

Quoted here:

From the article you cited:

This wide range of estimates makes it difficult for us to draw broad generalizations about the implications of the new minimum wage research. Clearly, no consensus now exists about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that this recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. The studies surveyed in this paper lead to 91 entries in our summary tables (in some cases covering more than one paper). Of these, by our reckoning nearly two-thirds give a relatively consistent (although by no means always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages—where we sometimes focus on results for the least-skilled—and fewer than 10 give a relatively consistent indication of positive employment effects.

and

Of course, as we have argued elsewhere, the effects of the minimum wage on employment represents only one piece of the analysis necessary to assess whether minimum wages are a useful policy tool for improving the economic position of those at the bottom of the income distribution—which we believe is the ultimate goal of minimum wage policy.** In particular, a more comprehensive review that includes the implications of the minimum wage for the levels and distributions of wages, employment, incomes, and human capital accumulation, as well as consideration of alternative policies, is ultimately needed to assess whether raising the minimum wage is good economic policy.**

Notice, I never said that the minimum wage was a good thing, all I have maintained is that the evidence on the minimum wage is mixed.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You’re terribly inconsistent, and what is quoted above is splendid proof of how little you understand economics.

You posit a scenario where someone has a $0.00 opportunity cost, which is truly high fantasy, then bemoan the $0.01/hr your very scenario invites.

Truth is, anyone with an open mind has been presented with more than enough evidence to disagree with MW laws in this thread. But the entire liberal position is one of appeals to emotion and obfuscation.

While you are accusing others of creation of a “fantasy land” you are guilty of the same.

You are forced to create circumstances to force a .01 wage to conflict with the catechism. This alone means that your blanket statement that it is “inconsistent with the catechism” simply false.

There are many real world scenarios at our disposal that make a .01 wage (or even a 0.00 wage perfectly acceptable.

Well, I have some good company in 1998 The Noble Peace Prize was awarded to Amartya Kumar Sen for his work on poverty. Now his award was based on real work success of his theories. The easiest read is: "Banker To The Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty". It contains many interesting things; one which really struck me hard was how he watched people starve to death while teaching Economics. He had an epiphany about why his text book economics would not prevent these people literally dying by simply taking a job. I’ll let your read about the rest. But please take special notice of the woman who makes bead jewelry (best I remember). This was particular interesting to me because if you look at a place as Mexico, and simultaneously listen to “right-wing” (supply side only) economics you would believe US citizens should flock to Mexico for business opportunities. But they don’t in fact it is opposite, Mexicans come to the more regulated US to do business!! So the preaching about all regulation is bad does not seem to hold up in the real world.

Surely you are accounting for 95% of the people living outside the US (right)?

Oh, one other thing - You do know less than 50% of the population “works” (right)? In the US one in three works, two of three do not.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The guy who rejects any study he disagrees with as some sort of right wing propaganda wants us to accept a laudatory link about Keynes from his own website? That’s rich.

I would like to offer you and education though this may be too much in such a short window. The only realistic opposition to Keynes theories I have ever heard involves the strain on capital. The theory is when the government spends to stimulate, it thus borrows excessive capital and thus increases lending rates to non government borrowing. Of course if you know of a realistic opposition to Keynes’s theories I would love to hear it. On the opposing side I allowed students for extra credit to do independent reports on “Say’s Law ” I require these students to include the date of Jean Says’ death because of the relationship of that date to today.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It would have to be at least $85-$100 per hour in order to allow the level of leasure and pleasure that most people would like. Anything less is a violation of Social Justice!

Your thinking too small.

Everyone should be the same. Legislate a minimum of 500k every year to everyone’s bank account.
That should allow for the cars, boats, and vacations that we all have a right to.

looks like some more credibility bits the dust

 

[vz71]

Your thinking too small.

Everyone should be the same. Legislate a minimum of 500k every year to everyone’s bank account.
That should allow for the cars, boats, and vacations that we all have a right to.

looks like some more credibility bits the dust

Apologies if the sarcasm written into the post went unnoticed.

I figured the impossibly high number of 500k per year for a minimum wage would have been noted for the sarcasm it was.

Oh well. The fact that the sarcasm went unnoticed tells me a great deal of the mentality on the other side of the argument.

 

[vz71]

Well, I have some good company…

I am sure you feel that way.
Fortunately fact is not dictated by popular opinion.

 

[tjm190]

I would like to offer you and education though this may be too much in such a short window. The only realistic opposition to Keynes theories I have ever heard involves the strain on capital. The theory is when the government spends to stimulate, it thus borrows excessive capital and thus increases lending rates to non government borrowing.

Is there any doubt that this occurs? I mean, when the entity with the best credit rating on Earth (USA! USA!) eats up a bunch of the capital supply, the supply that private entities have to work with is lessened- so you get higher interest rates and reduced output. This of course doesn’t mean all government borrowing is bad- just that there are negative consequences for the private arena.

 

[Darkbloom]

A couple of things here:

1. I never suggested from my response about Keynes that I thought this piece indicated anything more than Keynes seemed to have a good investment record. I never suggested anything beyond this. I would not generalize anything beyond that for the same reason that I reject CPA2’s evidence. It is clearly anecdotal. And I said as much in my next sentence:

Immaterial. Anyone with the notion can review this thread and see how you have poo-pooed more than one of my links because you accused the source of somehow not being trustworthy. But this link is clearly more suspect, but we are suppose to accept it according to you.

Anyone with the notion can also review this thread and see how I’ve called you out for being inconsistent, asking more of your interlocutors than yourself. This is another example. Regardless of what you were trying to prove, the link comes from a site obviously predisposed to present a favorable picture of Keynes.

1. Second, if you knew anything about Keynes, you would know that he was dead long before Al Gore invented the internet. It is possible that someone fabricated the data. If you have evidence that the data I provided is false, then by all means provide it and we will discuss the data quality issue.

I’m not questioning the data, it really has zero relevance to MW. What I am doing is showing the blatant double standards you’re forced to propagate in order to win an argument.

First, you offer proof my earlier link are untrustworthy.

 

[Darkbloom]

Notice, I never said that the minimum wage was a good thing, all I have maintained is that the evidence on the minimum wage is mixed.

Not so. Allow me to reiterate: “However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect.”

Yes, there is not an absolute consensus about every aspect of MW laws. But, and here is the key point which no honest person can deny, there is no serious dispute that MW laws lead to unemployment for those least able to afford loosing a job.

So, I’ll ask again. Is it moral to raise unemployment for the working poor? Would it not be much better to find alternatives to the problems of the working poor (like those I quoted above) than to continue to push a theory that clearly doesn’t work?

 

[Darkbloom]

I would like to offer you and education though this may be too much in such a short window. The only realistic opposition to Keynes theories I have ever heard involves the strain on capital. The theory is when the government spends to stimulate, it thus borrows excessive capital and thus increases lending rates to non government borrowing. Of course if you know of a realistic opposition to Keynes’s theories I would love to hear it. On the opposing side I allowed students for extra credit to do independent reports on “Say’s Law ” I require these students to include the date of Jean Says’ death because of the relationship of that date to today.

I’d say the the history of the Anglo-American world is clearly an argument against Keynes.

I’d also say the work of people such Adam Smith, Edwin Von Miens, Fredrick Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Lott, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, or mainstream price theory is a very powerful argument against Keynes.

I’d say the history of the Great Depression in the US and the failure of the Keynesian style respone of FDR, or even the much more recent Obama policy of economic bailouts that were suppose to keep unemployment at or below 8% - a threshold we are still well above with a current rate of 9.5% - all do much damage to Keynesian economics.

And that doesn’t even go into the many of the moral arguments, like those of the Catholic Church, against socialistic economic systems, of which Keynesian economics is a subset.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Quoted here:

“William Wascher of the Federal Reserve System asked, “If it benefits some and hurts others, should we still do it?” An extensive literature review suggests that a minimum wage hike would have limited positive effects and may even increase poverty, he said.”

“Some concerns were voiced about whether raising the minimum wage could curb the already limited resources spent on training workers. Likewise, would the higher salaries squeeze important worker benefits?”

Those who want to help the working poor, but understand economics, have long sought ways to structure tax law to help. This is a good idea:

“Elaine Maag, also of the Urban Institute, said that a minimum wage hike should be considered with other proposals that would ease the squeeze on the nation’s poorest families. The earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, which target families with children, could be changed to better meet low earners’ needs. A slight modification to the child credit, for instance, could help families earning near the minimum wage offset a declining child credit each year.”

Quoted here:
“However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect.”

“First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.”

I have tried to review the links but I get neither, the upper link has MP3s listed, maybe at home I can down load them, maybe it is a system security issue. The lower one requires the paper be purchased.Have your reviewed either in their entirety?

Not so. Allow me to reiterate: “However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect.”

Yes, there is not an absolute consensus about every aspect of MW laws. But, and here is the key point which no honest person can deny, there is no serious dispute that MW laws lead to unemployment for those least able to afford loosing a job.

So, I’ll ask again. Is it moral to raise unemployment for the working poor? Would it not be much better to find alternatives to the problems of the working poor (like those I quoted above) than to continue to push a theory that clearly doesn’t work?

These statements are not correct. We once allowed horrible working conditions and yes elimination of those conditions was an overall good even when it created job loss. In those days employers did not even pay for job related deaths or injuries. The records even show cases of employers killing employees, and yes some murder trials were held. At the core of these statements is a misunderstanding all actions create jobs, and all action cause job losses to believe any effect is void of the other is a terrible mistake.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’d say the the history of the Anglo-American world is clearly an argument against Keynes.

I’d also say the work of people such Adam Smith, Edwin Von Miens, Fredrick Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Lott, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, or mainstream price theory is a very powerful argument against Keynes.

I’d say the history of the Great Depression in the US and the failure of the Keynesian style respone of FDR, or even the much more recent Obama policy of economic bailouts that were suppose to keep unemployment at or below 8% - a threshold we are still well above with a current rate of 9.5% - all do much damage to Keynesian economics.

And that doesn’t even go into the many of the moral arguments, like those of the Catholic Church, against socialistic economic systems, of which Keynesian economics is a subset.

Well, I can appricate you say but I would rather see data. I would suggest to you the relationship between average (actual mode) wage and new minimum wage will predict results, but that requires data.

 

[Darkbloom]

Well, I can appricate you say but I would rather see data. I would suggest to you the relationship between average (actual mode) wage and new minimum wage will predict results, but that requires data.

Plenty of data has been provided. I just offer data galore in the post you quoted.You offer none of your own to support Keynesian economics, yet the conservatives here have posted all types of link and made many different rational arguments.

Really, you’re entire data set was basically a few sound bites from Keynes. If that counts as data, the list of economist I gave - off the top of my head and without even a google search - is by the same logic enough to drown out your voice. You’re inconsistent.

There is a clear double standard at play with you, Stinkcat, and others. You will automatically dismiss or explain away data you don’t like, then act like you’re taking the intellectual high ground. Truth is, neither of you want to admit you’re wrong and you go to great lengths to avoid doing so.

When either of you wish to play by the rules you would force on others, let me know. For now, I rest my case.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Plenty of data has been provided. I just offer data galore in the post you quoted.You offer none of your own to support Keynesian economics, yet the conservatives here have posted all types of link and made many different rational arguments.

Really, you’re entire data set was basically a few sound bites from Keynes. If that counts as data, the list of economist I gave - off the top of my head and without even a google search - is by the same logic enough to drown out your voice. You’re inconsistent.

There is a clear double standard at play with you, Stinkcat, and others. You will automatically dismiss or explain away data you don’t like, then act like you’re taking the intellectual high ground. Truth is, neither of you want to admit you’re wrong and you go to great lengths to avoid doing so.

When either of you wish to play by the rules you would force on others, let me know. For now, I rest my case.

Why are you being defensive? (please notice the pronoun) I cannot see any of the data you posted was that not in the last post?

Here is the economic issue minimum wage is changed from $X.xx to $X.xx some jobs are lost, and some jobs are created. How many? What keeps getting posted is if we ignore the job creation and focus only on job loss we need no data, nor answers! Why not search for the answers and simply show what is found? Again if I want to hunt for a NEGITIVE OVERALL IMPACT I would look for a poorer areas thus the gap between mode wage and minimum wage would be smaller. Similarly if I want a POSITIVE OVERALL IMPACT I would search for a richer area where the gap was larger. This is fundamental to elasticities, inelastic verses elastic points. So when rural Mississippi is affected by National Minimum wage laws you may find what you are looking for, however if New York City is the place, well the results might reverse.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A little quick research

Minimum wage change to
$0.30 (1939) change in gpd n/a % next year 17%
$0.40 (1945) change in gpd 5.8 % next year 0.5%
$0.75 (1950) change in gpd **0.7 **% next year **17% **
$1.00 (1956) change in gpd **7.8 % ** next year **5.6% **

Notice these are not negative numbers so gdp grew thus job creation had to occur.

Sources
whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf Pg 185

thedigeratilife.com/blog/federal-minimum-wage-history/

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, there is not an absolute consensus about every aspect of MW laws. But, and here is the key point which no honest person can deny, there is no serious dispute that MW laws lead to unemployment for those least able to afford loosing a job.

Actually, there is no absolute consensus on the effect of minimum wage laws on employment of unskilled workers. Most studies show a negative effect, a large fraction show insignificant effects and a small minority show a positive effect. Even for the studies that show a negative effect, the magnitude of the effects tend to be very small. It is not like half the unskilled workers are unemployed because of the minimum wage laws. Finally, what we really have no evidence of is who are the ones who are harmed when negative effects occur. For example, if it is children of middle class people, then the harm is that they have to live with a dumb cell phone instead of a smart one.

 

[TenBobNote]

I would like to offer you and education though this may be too much in such a short window. The only realistic opposition to Keynes theories I have ever heard involves the strain on capital. The theory is when the government spends to stimulate, it thus borrows excessive capital and thus increases lending rates to non government borrowing. Of course if you know of a realistic opposition to Keynes’s theories I would love to hear it. On the opposing side I allowed students for extra credit to do independent reports on “Say’s Law ” I require these students to include the date of Jean Says’ death because of the relationship of that date to today.

It’s called Austrian Economics.

They have already disproved Keynes, it will take a while before people will accept it.

A good lecture series is located here.
mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=145

The general site is here.
mises.org/

 

[TenBobNote]

I’d say the the history of the Anglo-American world is clearly an argument against Keynes.

I’d also say the work of people such Adam Smith, Edwin Von Miens, Fredrick Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Lott, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, or mainstream price theory is a very powerful argument against Keynes.

Don’t forget Keynes’ arch rival, Ludwig von Mises!

 

[tjm190]

A little quick research

Minimum wage change to
$0.30 (1939) change in gpd n/a % next year 17%
$0.40 (1945) change in gpd 5.8 % next year 0.5%
$0.75 (1950) change in gpd **0.7 **% next year **17% **
$1.00 (1956) change in gpd **7.8 % ** next year **5.6% **

Notice these are not negative numbers so gdp grew thus job creation had to occur.

Sources
whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf Pg 185

thedigeratilife.com/blog/federal-minimum-wage-history/

So we know that raising the minimum wage does not prevent job creation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s called Austrian Economics.

They have already disproved Keynes, it will take a while before people will accept it.

Whether or not they have disproved Keynes is a subject that can be debated, if they have you have to wonder why the proof never appeared in the Journal of Political Economy or the American Economic Review? In order for people to take Austrian Economics seriously, you have to get it into the graduate schools, and in the graduate schools of economics the Austrians have been MIA for years.