3 ms·

Rather than rebut this in detail, let me just suggest that you study economics before spouting off. It's fun to speculate about numbers, but there is real resea

Rather than rebut this in detail, let me just suggest that you study economics before spouting off. It's fun to speculate about numbers, but there is real research and real models to describe these dynamics. I'm not an economist... but at least I know that about myself.

tudorconstantin 9y ago
Rather than attacking random people on the internet insinuating that they're economical illiterates, you yourself admitting to not being an economist, please try and rebut this in detail.
- ryandamm 9y ago
  Here, let me Google it for you: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic... I'm glad you "guess" it's nearly 100%. This article (the top Google hit for "effects of minimum wage on employment") suggests it's in the realm of 10% (though it's probably smaller) based on simple linear models of price elasticity. A 10% drop in employment is not nothing! It could absolutely matter! But that's the foundation for a debate, not some made- up numbers. My main point is that it's foolish to 'guess' and start applying numbers... it's tempting to make a point that's grounded in political philosophy, and slap a coat of speculative, pseudo-quantitative paint on it so it sounds more considered. To your other point, about not wasting time on internet comments, I will respectfully concede.
  - tudorconstantin 9y ago
    And what's the income reduction (in %) for those unlucky 10 percenters who end up jobless?
    - mrow84 9y ago
      As we're all comfortable with numbers plucked out of the ether, let's use yours: 1. The group of low-wage workers produce on average $9/hr. 2. A minimum wage of $15/hr is introduced. 3. The income of 10% of the group falls to $0/hr because they lose their jobs, a fall of $9/hr * 0.1 = $0.9/hr on average. 4. The income of 90% of the group rises to the new minimum wage of $15/hr, an increase of $(15 - 9 = 6)/hr * 0.9 = $5.4/hr on average. 5. The net change in income is $(5.4 - 0.9 = 4.5)/hr on average. So with all these contrived numbers the introduction of the minimum wage raised low-wage worker pay by $4.5/hr on average. Is that bad for low-wage workers? Of course, really, we should just take ryandamm's advice here [0] and stop trying to provide our arguments with the air of rigour by throwing some made up numbers around. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14381189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14381189

tudorconstantin 9y ago

Rather than attacking random people on the internet insinuating that they're economical illiterates, you yourself admitting to not being an economist, please try and rebut this in detail.

ryandamm 9y ago
Here, let me Google it for you: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/ http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic... I'm glad you "guess" it's nearly 100%. This article (the top Google hit for "effects of minimum wage on employment") suggests it's in the realm of 10% (though it's probably smaller) based on simple linear models of price elasticity. A 10% drop in employment is not nothing! It could absolutely matter! But that's the foundation for a debate, not some made- up numbers. My main point is that it's foolish to 'guess' and start applying numbers... it's tempting to make a point that's grounded in political philosophy, and slap a coat of speculative, pseudo-quantitative paint on it so it sounds more considered. To your other point, about not wasting time on internet comments, I will respectfully concede.
- tudorconstantin 9y ago
  And what's the income reduction (in %) for those unlucky 10 percenters who end up jobless?
  - mrow84 9y ago
    As we're all comfortable with numbers plucked out of the ether, let's use yours: 1. The group of low-wage workers produce on average $9/hr. 2. A minimum wage of $15/hr is introduced. 3. The income of 10% of the group falls to $0/hr because they lose their jobs, a fall of $9/hr * 0.1 = $0.9/hr on average. 4. The income of 90% of the group rises to the new minimum wage of $15/hr, an increase of $(15 - 9 = 6)/hr * 0.9 = $5.4/hr on average. 5. The net change in income is $(5.4 - 0.9 = 4.5)/hr on average. So with all these contrived numbers the introduction of the minimum wage raised low-wage worker pay by $4.5/hr on average. Is that bad for low-wage workers? Of course, really, we should just take ryandamm's advice here [0] and stop trying to provide our arguments with the air of rigour by throwing some made up numbers around. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14381189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14381189