![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can opponents claim anything or do their claims need to be substantiated to be included as though they're plausible? I've yet to see a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation. If one looks at minimum wage increases in constant dollars one will find no correlation. [1] [2] Based on these two pieces of information we can see that some of the most dramatic increases were followed by times of prosperity and some of the worst recessions had no minimum wage increase before or during it. Could we word the opinion (one might argue propaganda) that there is a correlation more neutrally? Because I'm a proponent of considerably larger increases than any being discussed, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to phrase more objectively but am willing to try if no one else does. I think that the American and British experiences show quite conclusively that minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment or inflation. They merely improve the quality of life for those in the bottom fifth, as is evidenced by the fact that this country's lowest poverty rate (11.1) in 1973 came shortly after the peak in minimum wage rate. Since, the poverty rate has never returned to 11.1.
Most economists would agree that a minimum wage law increases unemployment among low income workers -- those who would have been paid below the minimum wage if the law did not exist. However, except for a temporary one-time price shock, minimum wage does not cause inflation. Inflation depends on the growth rate of the money supply. (Yes, I have a PhD in economics, thanks for asking.) -- lk 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone tell me where does the minimum wage reside as a legal document? Also, what is required to change the minimum wage or wages if there is more than one?
Minimum Wage in michigan went up this week and the map and other information needs to be updated
I reverted an edit that removed notation as to the distinction between theoretical and empirical arguments. The editor suggested that the statement was "contentious." I fail to see the contention -- it is simply a statement of fact. Wikiant 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I said, "can be" established, not "will be" established. If you have a problem with some of the arguments listed, then deal with those arguments. You're beating up on definitions that have nothing to do with arguments for or against the minimum wage. The sentence you keep deleting simply states the distinction between an empirical and a theoretical argument. Wikiant 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by this sentence: "As of 2006, Oregon has the highest minimum wage: $10.45 per hour, with additional state-sponsored minimum wages for single parents." I thought that meant that the minimum wage for everyone is $10.45, plus there is additional money (on top of $10.45) for single parents. But according to the wikipedia page on List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages, the minimum wage is actually $7.50. According to the table in that article, Washington is the state with the highest minimum wage in the country with $7.63/hr. Does anyone else find this confusing? 209.150.227.50 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894"
How can something in 1894 follow something that happened in 1896? - Schrodinger82 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I don't really understand the graphs in the Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws section. Can someone improve them, or put a link to "How to Read These Graph Type Graphs?" Jerimee 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The four graphs in the section "Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws" are located: right-side, left-side, right-side, left-side. This makes it difficult to read the section. Especially since one of them seems to be covering the lower half of a line of text. Does anyone know how to fix this? JRSpriggs 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep the introduction on wiki articles short, and I think text that doesn't pertain to the core essence of the topic should not be in the introduction. For example, I find the following section very interesting and it deserves to be in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction:
"Minimum wage legislation may be interpreted as making it either unlawful for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage, or unlawful for workers to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[7] Although it is the employer who is fined and/or imprisoned for violations, the workers also lose their freedom, albeit indirectly."
I think the first form of legal implementation is the norm and, and the comment on South Africa, while fascinating, doesn't directly have to do with the difference. Almost the exact same economic effect would exist if the sanction for hiring workers below the minimum wage fell on the employers. (The only difference occurs in who bears the burden if the law is broken.) The point that a high minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the labor force is a very valid one though. I think the high unemployment rate of unskilled immigrants in the Banlieues of France has a lot to do with a high effective minimum wage created by French labor law. The marginal product of these workers is lower than their marginal cost to employers once firing rules etc... are all accounted for. For France, this is undoubtedly an unintended effect of their generous social system, but the point remains that high minimum wages can be quite discriminatory against unskilled workers, who often tend to be minorities and more vulnerable members of society. Maybe the S. Africa example should be incorporated into the critique of the minimum wage, or maybe it should get a very small subsection, but I don't think the relevance of it is properly understood in the introduction. (I'll agree though that the place I moved it to was probably incorrect...) Mgunn 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Edit" links in this article do not match up to the sections they are with. 72.145.220.191 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The debate outlined on this page seems to be heavily based around positive arguments, rather than normative ones. Even, for example "The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning." Both the "empirical" and "theoretical" arguments are positive ones, and in the article, normative positions on the issue are just assumed, if mentioned at all, when of course, all empirical/scientific/'logical' arguments are are pointless in a discussion of whether something is "right" or "wrong" unless accompanied by normative arguments. The minimum wage is treated here as a conflict over various scientific empirical facts, when ultimately it is a moral argument. - Matthew238 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was praying Wikipedia would have some of the earliest figures, but no such luck. I think it might be worthwhile, where a single figure is concerned, that the article try to include it. In England, where four boards set wages, this isn't feasible. For Massachusetts' 1912 law for women and children, it probably is. -- Thatnewguy 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is a blog being spammed on this page? There are millions of blogs on the minimum wage. Lets add them all! ~ UBeR 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"the blog (as a whole) is not highly... relevant." That's a bogus argument. The wiki already links to a Christian Science Monitor article on the minimum wage, and the Christian Science Monitor (as a whole) is not highly relevant to the minimum wage. Maybe that should be removed too? Of course not, because what matters is if the article is relevant.
The link goes to a post on the minimum wage that asks, what would you think of the following policy:
1. A wage subsidy for unskilled workers, paid for by
2. A tax on employers who hire unskilled workers.
Mankiw then says that the combination of these two policies is equivalent to the minimum wage, and these two policies work against eachother. This is an important point! From an economics perspective, the minimum wage is a self contradicting policy.
The discussion on this blog post is both: (1) Highly relevant (2) Conducted by an exceedingly prestigious economist. The only possible thing you can criticize this link for is that it is a blog. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that blogs should never be linked to, this link should remain. Mgunn 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight? It's ONE BOOK among many. I'm sure we can come up with better scholarly works that don't base their results on error prone data gathering methods like telephone interviews. Seems the only reason it's featured is that is has served as a vehicle to politically justify minimum wage laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.145 ( talk) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I think a majority of economists thinks the minimum wage decreases unskilled employment, but saying that this is the consensus among academic economists is probably overstating it. There is a fair amount of dissent at least for a relatively low minimum wage (everyone should agree that a sufficiently high minimum wage decreases employment for the unskilled). And from the current article it sounds like this dissent has been growing not shrinking:
A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed.
The statement that "We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs" is true for the data currently displayed in the article, but of course it depends on which dataset you look at. E.g. from a pro-minimum wage site here are some stats arguing in the opposite direction based on cross-sectional data:
The minimum wage increase will not destroy job growth. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment increased by 9.4 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 6.6 percent in states at the federal level. The minimum wage increase will not shut down small businesses. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses increased by 5.5 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 4.2 percent in states at the federal minimum wage level.5
As an aside, I think it would be good to compute some measure of statistical significance for the graphs in the article. Crust 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose all reference is removed to it and 1 sentence gets put in when/if the bill becomes law (passes house, senate, and president signs or congress overrides veto). Having a political fight over Pelosi and canneries isn't really relevent imho. This is an article about the minimum wage, not US politics. Mgunn 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The current construction of the sentence serves only to obfuscate, and it isn't even quite right. Fuller surveyed only economists that are members of the American Economic Association, not all members.
An individual not familiar with the American Economics Association might read the sentence and discount it by believing the AEA is not representative. Please review: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl5AEAmem.pdf http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl2AEAmem.pdf etc... An absolutely huge proportion of economists are members and a survey of AEA members is basically equivalent to a survey of American economists. That is why the title of the article is "Concensus Among Economicsts: Revisited" and not "Concensus Among AEA members who are Economists: Revisited"
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason not to shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists." -- Mgunn 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Lest another revert war, let us discuss the issue of the lead. In the lead, it states, "Detractors and a majority of American economists contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." This is not whether it not it should say "American economist believe", or members of the "AEA believe," (though the report is on AEA members, and we should be precise about that. False statements with a source does entail plagiarism, after all).
The problem is about whether that should be there at all. First and foremost, it entails of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Second, and probably more importantly, it is egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic, etcetera. It's not much different than stating, "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad," as if Americans were the ultimate authority on the issue and if they dare say otherwise, they are wrong. That is a false belief. Third, it does not entail a global or worldwide view (because, again, America is not the only place that has a minimum wage). Fourth, it's unnecessary.
My regards, ~ UBeR 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can opponents claim anything or do their claims need to be substantiated to be included as though they're plausible? I've yet to see a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation. If one looks at minimum wage increases in constant dollars one will find no correlation. [1] [2] Based on these two pieces of information we can see that some of the most dramatic increases were followed by times of prosperity and some of the worst recessions had no minimum wage increase before or during it. Could we word the opinion (one might argue propaganda) that there is a correlation more neutrally? Because I'm a proponent of considerably larger increases than any being discussed, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to phrase more objectively but am willing to try if no one else does. I think that the American and British experiences show quite conclusively that minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment or inflation. They merely improve the quality of life for those in the bottom fifth, as is evidenced by the fact that this country's lowest poverty rate (11.1) in 1973 came shortly after the peak in minimum wage rate. Since, the poverty rate has never returned to 11.1.
Most economists would agree that a minimum wage law increases unemployment among low income workers -- those who would have been paid below the minimum wage if the law did not exist. However, except for a temporary one-time price shock, minimum wage does not cause inflation. Inflation depends on the growth rate of the money supply. (Yes, I have a PhD in economics, thanks for asking.) -- lk 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone tell me where does the minimum wage reside as a legal document? Also, what is required to change the minimum wage or wages if there is more than one?
Minimum Wage in michigan went up this week and the map and other information needs to be updated
I reverted an edit that removed notation as to the distinction between theoretical and empirical arguments. The editor suggested that the statement was "contentious." I fail to see the contention -- it is simply a statement of fact. Wikiant 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I said, "can be" established, not "will be" established. If you have a problem with some of the arguments listed, then deal with those arguments. You're beating up on definitions that have nothing to do with arguments for or against the minimum wage. The sentence you keep deleting simply states the distinction between an empirical and a theoretical argument. Wikiant 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by this sentence: "As of 2006, Oregon has the highest minimum wage: $10.45 per hour, with additional state-sponsored minimum wages for single parents." I thought that meant that the minimum wage for everyone is $10.45, plus there is additional money (on top of $10.45) for single parents. But according to the wikipedia page on List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages, the minimum wage is actually $7.50. According to the table in that article, Washington is the state with the highest minimum wage in the country with $7.63/hr. Does anyone else find this confusing? 209.150.227.50 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894"
How can something in 1894 follow something that happened in 1896? - Schrodinger82 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I don't really understand the graphs in the Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws section. Can someone improve them, or put a link to "How to Read These Graph Type Graphs?" Jerimee 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The four graphs in the section "Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws" are located: right-side, left-side, right-side, left-side. This makes it difficult to read the section. Especially since one of them seems to be covering the lower half of a line of text. Does anyone know how to fix this? JRSpriggs 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep the introduction on wiki articles short, and I think text that doesn't pertain to the core essence of the topic should not be in the introduction. For example, I find the following section very interesting and it deserves to be in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction:
"Minimum wage legislation may be interpreted as making it either unlawful for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage, or unlawful for workers to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[7] Although it is the employer who is fined and/or imprisoned for violations, the workers also lose their freedom, albeit indirectly."
I think the first form of legal implementation is the norm and, and the comment on South Africa, while fascinating, doesn't directly have to do with the difference. Almost the exact same economic effect would exist if the sanction for hiring workers below the minimum wage fell on the employers. (The only difference occurs in who bears the burden if the law is broken.) The point that a high minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the labor force is a very valid one though. I think the high unemployment rate of unskilled immigrants in the Banlieues of France has a lot to do with a high effective minimum wage created by French labor law. The marginal product of these workers is lower than their marginal cost to employers once firing rules etc... are all accounted for. For France, this is undoubtedly an unintended effect of their generous social system, but the point remains that high minimum wages can be quite discriminatory against unskilled workers, who often tend to be minorities and more vulnerable members of society. Maybe the S. Africa example should be incorporated into the critique of the minimum wage, or maybe it should get a very small subsection, but I don't think the relevance of it is properly understood in the introduction. (I'll agree though that the place I moved it to was probably incorrect...) Mgunn 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Edit" links in this article do not match up to the sections they are with. 72.145.220.191 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The debate outlined on this page seems to be heavily based around positive arguments, rather than normative ones. Even, for example "The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning." Both the "empirical" and "theoretical" arguments are positive ones, and in the article, normative positions on the issue are just assumed, if mentioned at all, when of course, all empirical/scientific/'logical' arguments are are pointless in a discussion of whether something is "right" or "wrong" unless accompanied by normative arguments. The minimum wage is treated here as a conflict over various scientific empirical facts, when ultimately it is a moral argument. - Matthew238 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was praying Wikipedia would have some of the earliest figures, but no such luck. I think it might be worthwhile, where a single figure is concerned, that the article try to include it. In England, where four boards set wages, this isn't feasible. For Massachusetts' 1912 law for women and children, it probably is. -- Thatnewguy 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is a blog being spammed on this page? There are millions of blogs on the minimum wage. Lets add them all! ~ UBeR 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"the blog (as a whole) is not highly... relevant." That's a bogus argument. The wiki already links to a Christian Science Monitor article on the minimum wage, and the Christian Science Monitor (as a whole) is not highly relevant to the minimum wage. Maybe that should be removed too? Of course not, because what matters is if the article is relevant.
The link goes to a post on the minimum wage that asks, what would you think of the following policy:
1. A wage subsidy for unskilled workers, paid for by
2. A tax on employers who hire unskilled workers.
Mankiw then says that the combination of these two policies is equivalent to the minimum wage, and these two policies work against eachother. This is an important point! From an economics perspective, the minimum wage is a self contradicting policy.
The discussion on this blog post is both: (1) Highly relevant (2) Conducted by an exceedingly prestigious economist. The only possible thing you can criticize this link for is that it is a blog. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that blogs should never be linked to, this link should remain. Mgunn 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight? It's ONE BOOK among many. I'm sure we can come up with better scholarly works that don't base their results on error prone data gathering methods like telephone interviews. Seems the only reason it's featured is that is has served as a vehicle to politically justify minimum wage laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.145 ( talk) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I think a majority of economists thinks the minimum wage decreases unskilled employment, but saying that this is the consensus among academic economists is probably overstating it. There is a fair amount of dissent at least for a relatively low minimum wage (everyone should agree that a sufficiently high minimum wage decreases employment for the unskilled). And from the current article it sounds like this dissent has been growing not shrinking:
A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed.
The statement that "We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs" is true for the data currently displayed in the article, but of course it depends on which dataset you look at. E.g. from a pro-minimum wage site here are some stats arguing in the opposite direction based on cross-sectional data:
The minimum wage increase will not destroy job growth. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment increased by 9.4 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 6.6 percent in states at the federal level. The minimum wage increase will not shut down small businesses. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses increased by 5.5 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 4.2 percent in states at the federal minimum wage level.5
As an aside, I think it would be good to compute some measure of statistical significance for the graphs in the article. Crust 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose all reference is removed to it and 1 sentence gets put in when/if the bill becomes law (passes house, senate, and president signs or congress overrides veto). Having a political fight over Pelosi and canneries isn't really relevent imho. This is an article about the minimum wage, not US politics. Mgunn 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The current construction of the sentence serves only to obfuscate, and it isn't even quite right. Fuller surveyed only economists that are members of the American Economic Association, not all members.
An individual not familiar with the American Economics Association might read the sentence and discount it by believing the AEA is not representative. Please review: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl5AEAmem.pdf http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl2AEAmem.pdf etc... An absolutely huge proportion of economists are members and a survey of AEA members is basically equivalent to a survey of American economists. That is why the title of the article is "Concensus Among Economicsts: Revisited" and not "Concensus Among AEA members who are Economists: Revisited"
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason not to shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists." -- Mgunn 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Lest another revert war, let us discuss the issue of the lead. In the lead, it states, "Detractors and a majority of American economists contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." This is not whether it not it should say "American economist believe", or members of the "AEA believe," (though the report is on AEA members, and we should be precise about that. False statements with a source does entail plagiarism, after all).
The problem is about whether that should be there at all. First and foremost, it entails of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Second, and probably more importantly, it is egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic, etcetera. It's not much different than stating, "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad," as if Americans were the ultimate authority on the issue and if they dare say otherwise, they are wrong. That is a false belief. Third, it does not entail a global or worldwide view (because, again, America is not the only place that has a minimum wage). Fourth, it's unnecessary.
My regards, ~ UBeR 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)