3 ms·

The economics of a minimum wage is much debated. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Economics_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Eco

The economics of a minimum wage is much debated. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Economics_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Economics_models However you are both making different points. @kardashev is making a the classic argument against a minimum wage. You're arguing that giving low income people more money will help them. It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage. The simplest would be to pay low income people money directly instead of through an employer. A direct transfer system like this would probably satisfy economists more than a minimum wage would, since a direct payment has less of a negative effect on economic behaviour than a price mandate.

gotthemwmds 10y ago
What I'd really like to argue for is twofold: 1) meeting people where they're at and making no demands of them, 2) lessening the day to day misery of anyone by any amount using practical means that can be implemented immediately. I strongly feel that large amounts of no-strings cash to people who need social-service type help is one of the best things you can do for them. No strings housing is a good start too, and I am proud to have voted for the woman currently running the 1811 Eastlake building (Nicole Marci -- Google her or that address, if interested) in a local election this year. I have been volunteering with various harm reduction type organizations off and on for almost 20 years.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>The economics of a minimum wage is much debated. The economics of minimum wage among 'respectable' economists is debated in a similar way that the global warming "controversy" is debated by big oil. It's good for business to make people believe that there's a strong link between job losses and raising the minimum wage. Meta-analyses of studies find an embarrassingly low level of statistical significance between job losses and raising the minimum wage: "Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[87] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[88]" Profits, on the other hand - the elephant in the room when it comes to studying minimum wages - almost always take the brunt of the rise in wages: http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to-hit-restaurant-profits-moodys-says-1434024001 http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to... >It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage. Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.
- oconnor663 10y ago
  > Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes. I don't know enough about the literature to comment on that part, but this is an uncharitable summary that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient too. You can make the same argument about paying for transfers, even if you don't have any particular love of Walmart.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda. I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs: http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro... Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a75623abd1c796f30/c=348-0-5260-3693&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2015/09/03/Westchester/Westchester/635768868151297751-ts090315minwage01.jpg http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562... What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it? >Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#66ca10177cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago

gotthemwmds 10y ago

What I'd really like to argue for is twofold: 1) meeting people where they're at and making no demands of them, 2) lessening the day to day misery of anyone by any amount using practical means that can be implemented immediately. I strongly feel that large amounts of no-strings cash to people who need social-service type help is one of the best things you can do for them. No strings housing is a good start too, and I am proud to have voted for the woman currently running the 1811 Eastlake building (Nicole Marci -- Google her or that address, if interested) in a local election this year. I have been volunteering with various harm reduction type organizations off and on for almost 20 years.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>The economics of a minimum wage is much debated. The economics of minimum wage among 'respectable' economists is debated in a similar way that the global warming "controversy" is debated by big oil. It's good for business to make people believe that there's a strong link between job losses and raising the minimum wage. Meta-analyses of studies find an embarrassingly low level of statistical significance between job losses and raising the minimum wage: "Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[87] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[88]" Profits, on the other hand - the elephant in the room when it comes to studying minimum wages - almost always take the brunt of the rise in wages: http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to-hit-restaurant-profits-moodys-says-1434024001 http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to... >It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage. Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

oconnor663 10y ago
> Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes. I don't know enough about the literature to comment on that part, but this is an uncharitable summary that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient too. You can make the same argument about paying for transfers, even if you don't have any particular love of Walmart.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda. I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs: http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro... Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a75623abd1c796f30/c=348-0-5260-3693&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2015/09/03/Westchester/Westchester/635768868151297751-ts090315minwage01.jpg http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562... What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it? >Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#66ca10177cd8 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
10y ago