3 ms·

Where are the statistics to suggest that people 55+ are taking all the minimum wage jobs? Why does this author mention "Bush" four times? The blogger is editor

Where are the statistics to suggest that people 55+ are taking all the minimum wage jobs? Why does this author mention "Bush" four times? The blogger is editorializing worse than the WSJ here (not that the WSJ article was much better). Essentially all of the counter points were mentioned in the WSJ article up front, then they focused on minimum wage worsening the effect. I'm not necessarily agreeing with WSJ on this one, but this guy's article is just as meaningless.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. The criticism of the WSJ may be (probably was) unwarranted, but the rest is not meaningless.
- walexander 15y ago
  > Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. Granted. However, in a post about how correlation between unemployment and minimum wage is overstated, I feel his defense should be more rigorous than: A) Irrelevantly point out Bush was in office, and B) Simply post another correlating statistics.
- jbooth 15y ago
  It was entirely warranted, because they're a newspaper and they were reporting in direct contradiction of the actual facts on this subject, in order to fit a pre-conceived narrative.
  - walexander 15y ago
    Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it? The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as worsening the effect. This blogger decides to focus on 55+ employment, which he already wrote about. How is one pre-conceived narrative and the other not?
    - jbooth 15y ago
      They provide zero evidence for their contention that wage increases "worsen the effect", and their phrasing implies that everything would be peachy keen if not for a minimum wage increase which caused this unemployment. Meanwhile, if you look at the graph, you see a straight line downward which flattens in 'ok' economies, and plunges during recession. Was flat through 2007, when the minimum wage increase was enacted. No mention of the fact that this phenomenon of jobless recoveries has applied to most jobs at most payscales over the time period they're highlighting. No mention of the fact that the minimum wage was higher in real terms for most of the 20th century, and teen employment was higher then (not that the one is likely to cause the other). I'll admit that they did include the graph. Reading the article does not make the author sound more honest or truth-seeking, though. Check out some of the applause lines.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    It was an editorial, clearly marked in the Opinion section. It's little better than a blog. You'd hope they'd have some editorial oversight, but after the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch I don't really have any such illusions. Editorial integrity is not something that Murdoch aspires to or holds in high regard.
Tangaroa 15y ago
"Where are the statistics to suggest that people 55+ are taking all the minimum wage jobs?" The evidence is only anecdotal and theoretical. In theory, the elderly cannot work as hard as young professionals but have a stronger work ethic than the very young, so they will compete with the young for low-wage, low-difficulty labour. For an anecdote, you can go to Wal-Mart and see all of the old people in the entry-level low-paying jobs there that high school students could also do. "Why does this author mention Bush four times?" Because it's a politically-motivated response to a politically-motivated piece that blamed a core Democratic Party principle for events that also took place when Bush was in power. "The blogger is editorializing worse than the WSJ here" It's some guy's blog. He's not pretending to be a professional journalist. "Essentially all of the counter points were mentioned in the WSJ article up front" The blogger's counterpoints are that 1) the current depression hurt teen employment and began before the minimum wage was raised, 2) the drop in teen employment began a long time before the minimum wage was raised, 3) certain numbers in the WSJ article are exaggerated or false, 4) youth in summer jobs have a lower minimum wage than the WSJ article says they do, and 5) the young have an increase in competition from the 55+. Only the first counterpoint is addressed.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago

Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. The criticism of the WSJ may be (probably was) unwarranted, but the rest is not meaningless.

walexander 15y ago
> Statistics and correlation are not meaningless. Granted. However, in a post about how correlation between unemployment and minimum wage is overstated, I feel his defense should be more rigorous than: A) Irrelevantly point out Bush was in office, and B) Simply post another correlating statistics.
jbooth 15y ago
It was entirely warranted, because they're a newspaper and they were reporting in direct contradiction of the actual facts on this subject, in order to fit a pre-conceived narrative.
- walexander 15y ago
  Did you actually read the WSJ article, or just the rebuttal to it? The actual article mentions almost everything he does, then focuses on wage increases as worsening the effect. This blogger decides to focus on 55+ employment, which he already wrote about. How is one pre-conceived narrative and the other not?
  - jbooth 15y ago
    They provide zero evidence for their contention that wage increases "worsen the effect", and their phrasing implies that everything would be peachy keen if not for a minimum wage increase which caused this unemployment. Meanwhile, if you look at the graph, you see a straight line downward which flattens in 'ok' economies, and plunges during recession. Was flat through 2007, when the minimum wage increase was enacted. No mention of the fact that this phenomenon of jobless recoveries has applied to most jobs at most payscales over the time period they're highlighting. No mention of the fact that the minimum wage was higher in real terms for most of the 20th century, and teen employment was higher then (not that the one is likely to cause the other). I'll admit that they did include the graph. Reading the article does not make the author sound more honest or truth-seeking, though. Check out some of the applause lines.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  It was an editorial, clearly marked in the Opinion section. It's little better than a blog. You'd hope they'd have some editorial oversight, but after the WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch I don't really have any such illusions. Editorial integrity is not something that Murdoch aspires to or holds in high regard.

Tangaroa 15y ago

"Where are the statistics to suggest that people 55+ are taking all the minimum wage jobs?" The evidence is only anecdotal and theoretical. In theory, the elderly cannot work as hard as young professionals but have a stronger work ethic than the very young, so they will compete with the young for low-wage, low-difficulty labour. For an anecdote, you can go to Wal-Mart and see all of the old people in the entry-level low-paying jobs there that high school students could also do. "Why does this author mention Bush four times?" Because it's a politically-motivated response to a politically-motivated piece that blamed a core Democratic Party principle for events that also took place when Bush was in power. "The blogger is editorializing worse than the WSJ here" It's some guy's blog. He's not pretending to be a professional journalist. "Essentially all of the counter points were mentioned in the WSJ article up front" The blogger's counterpoints are that 1) the current depression hurt teen employment and began before the minimum wage was raised, 2) the drop in teen employment began a long time before the minimum wage was raised, 3) certain numbers in the WSJ article are exaggerated or false, 4) youth in summer jobs have a lower minimum wage than the WSJ article says they do, and 5) the young have an increase in competition from the 55+. Only the first counterpoint is addressed.