![]() | 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. |
Wikiant, in your your edit summary, you said it was 'inaccurate' to describe this talking points memo as "a report published by Republican members of the U.S House of Representatives". This is indeed a report by a group of House Republicans. Please explain explain why you believe it is inaccurate to label it as such. Actually it does not appear to fit the criteria of WP:RS and probably shouldn't be in the article at all. Dlabtot ( talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It copiously cites politicians and ideologues — many of whom have no economics training at all — in order to push one particular point of view. Why were Republican congressmen cited in the introduction while Paul Krugman, a respected economist and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is not? Sure, some economists are against the minimum wage. That should be reflected — laissez-faire advocates with real reputations, like Milton Friedman, should indeed be cited. But this is an academic article; we shouldn't be citing party hacks and random guys on the Internet. *** Crotalus *** 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section of alternatives to minimum wage, I added a new sub-section where instead of outlawing all hiring at less than minimum wage, the government provides WPA-style jobs at what would have been the minimum wage. This is truly an alternative, because it has almost the same effect (by different mechanism), because if any employer offers employment at less than minimum wage, he finds it difficult to attract employees because they'd rather take a WPA job at higher wage instead. So why was my new text deleted??
198.144.192.42 ( talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info
I'm trying to understand Minimum wage by reading an encyclopedia article. Mainly, I'm looking at the first few paragraphs, to see if it's worth reading further. The first paragraph is pretty good: it gives a definition, some history, and several examples, all in six short sentences.
The second paragraph isn't nearly as good. It talks about supporters and opponents, and briefly states some of their key assertions. It doesn't say why there are supporters and opponents, and it doesn't say who they are, why they are making their assertions, why there's an ongoing debate, etc.
Then the article goes on and on and on, yammering about various assertions and debates, to the point that some have called "grotesque." WTF? Surely there's somebody here who can non-grotesquely summarize the various aspects of the debate and debaters in a paragraph or two, then put that stuff in the lead section. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Editors keep deleting the minimum wage vs. unemployment graph (first arguing that it lacks references, then arguing that it is original research). You'll find discussion on this topic on this page as far back as a year or two ago. The graph is a depiction of publicly available data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the BLS publishes the numbers, not the graph, creating a graphic of reliably sourced data does not constitute OR. Wikiant ( talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've read the previous discussion in full. Under "Rapid sequence of major edits" above, you keep talking about population by age, but the graph in question is titled "U.S. workers with less than a high school education (1984-2004)." So where is that data from? Am I supposed to guess which edition of the Statistical Abstract it's from? What table(s) it's from? That's not a proper citation. Where does the data for ratio of minimum wage to average hourly wage come from? It's not from the Department of Labor link which just gives the various levels of the minimum wage. If it can't be given a full citation, it's got to go, but I won't revert until you've had a chance to respond. Oh, and the critics mentioned in the graph description aren't cited, either. Academic38 ( talk) 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've also read the earlier discussion in full. It's original research and as such it doesn't belong in this article. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read the "no original research" article and I now agree that this constitutes original research. The relevant issue is synthesis that advances a position WP:SYN. Here is the text from the NOR article:
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2]
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about "Jones":
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor."
What Wikiant has done is synthesized data from two sources, neither of which comments on the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment (whether in general, for a specific age group, or a specific educational attainment level). Thus, it's original research, end of story. Academic38 ( talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
At WP:Attribution under, "What is not original research" is the following: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." I propose that the chart in question falls under this category as the graph neither changes the significance of the data nor requires additional assumptions. If editors still have a problem with this, I propose that the data be presented in two charts -- both of which are highly relevant to the article. Wikiant ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If an encyclopedia discusses fine points of economics, maybe it should do so in sentences and paragraphs that connect to one another in some sort of rational way. Most of these do not:
As my high-school math teacher used to say, "A duck, because the vest has no sleeves." Lou Sander ( talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I just archived all the remaining 2007 material, and clarified the labels on the "archive box." Lou Sander ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has REALLY weak coverage of the basic economic theory underlying the minimum wage. There are a few graphs and a bunch of bullet points, but that's about it. There's virtually nothing explaining it for the encyclopedia reader.
On the other hand, there is a huge amount of discussion about studies and opinions that contradict the basic theory. Sure looks like undue weight to me.
You don't even have to get into economic theory to understand some of the things that happen when a minimum wage is instituted or raised. You can find an enlightening case study HERE. Read it and do the questions, if you dare. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it. Such things have a certain air of undue weight about them. Lou Sander ( talk) 13:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What part of "The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it." are you having trouple with??? It seem to me you just gotta pay alot more attention to the basic supply an demand matters. An get rid of a lot of the critigues. Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birfday ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph, the sentence "Both supporters and opponents assert that the issue is a matter of ethics and social justice involving worker exploitation and earning ability" cites a 96-year-old reference. The sentence is misleading, since none of those supporters or opponents are still alive. I propose to delete the sentence until a more recent reference can be found. (The other use of the same reference is fine -- it talks about early minimum wage laws.) Lou Sander ( talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to get rid of the section, "Criticism of minimum wage by economists," based on WP:Listcruft. However, I think some of the quotes could be used elsewhere, so I don't plan to chop it immediately.
At the bottom of the "empirical studies" section, what do people think about the untitled table of 5 minimum wage studies? It's unsourced and probably overkill. I propose killing the table and adding some of the info as text in the Card and Krueger section. Academic38 ( talk) 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody removed this clearly specified reference and replaced it with a fact tag. Justification was that the link in the reference only went to the Amazon page on the book and not to the book itself. Please assume good faith. This material IS on page 300 of the cited book, just as specified. The Amazon link is to help people find the book. There is no requirement that citations be available online.
I replaced the fact tag with the very thorough citation of a reference to back up the claims. Lou Sander ( talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence says "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s established a consensus among economists that the minimum wage reduced employment, but this consensus was weakened based on work by David Card and Alan Krueger in the mid-1990s." This might be true, but unless a reliable source has published it, it amounts to original research. The article as a whole has lots of individual opinions about various aspects of the minimum wage, but it's pretty devoid of sourced summaries. Lou Sander ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This section doesn't even define what empirical studies are. (In economics, "empirical" generally refers to statistical or econometric analysis of numeric data -- click the link.) Then over half the section is devoted to non-empirical stuff like the opinions of economists and labor organizations.
The first two paragraphs have nothing to do with empirical studies, so they belong elsewhere. The third is fine, but needs wikilinks; it would be a good introductory sentence for the section. The next two (about polls of economists) belong elsewhere. So does the last one (about the opinions of labor organizations and political parties). If the remaining paragraphs are about empirical studies, you can't tell it from what they say.
Some of the stuff that "belongs elsewhere," IMHO belongs in the trash can. Some of it has good content and good citations, but where the heck do you put it?
The whole thing may or may not be grotesque, but it sure isn't very good work. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I already made the point that this section does not contain empirical studies, but surveys of economists. I completely agree with you that this is where we need to put in the econometric studies. Academic38 ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix graphics, but the supply/demand graph is incorrect. The amount of unemployment created in the abstract is only the difference between equilibrium employment and the lower level of employment at the higher price. Only the amount to the left of equilibrium is unemployment, not the amount to the right. Those people were not working prior to the minimum wage, so they did not become unemployed because of it. Academic38 ( talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent series of edits, when someone writes something in a book, it does not make it a fact, it makes it something someone has written in a book, and that's how it should be cited. WP:V is clear: When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please. The source for the Thomas Sowell material is carefully provided in the reference citation. This is NOT something like asserting that a band is great. It's a qualified person stating accepted facts about a social science. If an editor disputes such a sourced claim, it's an easy matter to provide a counterbalancing sourced claim. Just find a reliable source that disputes that the real minimum wage is greater than zero, put it in, and provide the reference.
Quite a bit of the material in this article is not referenced at all. Maybe we need to spend our energies on removing it or finding sources. Lou Sander ( talk) 09:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted some properly-sourced material. A minor edit war ensued. There was a plea to stop the edit war. I have now reverted the material to a somewhat-clarified version of the original posting. If other editors have a problem with the material, I invite them to discuss it here for discussion. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've placed a notice on WP:3RR. Dlabtot ( talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
De-indenting again--I think we've talked this one to death. There's no need for this snippet to be in the article, it adds nothing and subtracts some. I will come back to it being "an empirical matter". There are multiple questions
We are sittin around Panera lookin at y'all and scratching our heads. We wonder if the Three Musketeers have any ability to have a coherent thought and express it in words. So far all we see is that you can talk about deleting stuff. We are students at our community college, and WE know how to do this Couldn't do it a year ago, though. Can you put two or three sentences together on some subject and assemble them into a paragraph? We havent seen any of it yet. Can you put two paragraphs together to express the thought? Don't think so. Can you come up with references that support your work? Haven't seen it. This means Outdoor Guy, "Academic" and Cret. Here's the challenge: The three of you work up a short section on something and post it in the article. We don't think you can. Economiss is just 2 tuff 4 u. Sincerely, Birfday, TJail, and Pork. P.S. - We think you all the same person. Or maybe only two. Birfday ( talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
They aren't accusing anybody of anything. They are "calling you out." Lou Sander ( talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says "minimum wage laws are now enforced in more than 90% of all countries", and gives a source. The source says nothing at all about enforcement. In fact, a deeper reading shows that these laws are often unenforced, because of the problems they cause for the poorest of the poor. I will fix the problem. 72.95.129.107 ( talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Every sentence of the paragraph explicitly discusses teenagers. But Brown also studied young adults, a completely different class of worker. I added a sentence specifically about young adults. Someone reverted it on the basis of redundancy. The young adults material is not redundant, and is important in the study since the teenagers who removed themselves from the labor market are not formally counted as "unemployed." I propose to restore the sentence. 72.95.129.107 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The article provides a list of US state minimum wages. It's kind of listcrufty, and there's a note in the editing panel that specific regional wages should be put into the main Minimum Wage Law article. Also the US minimum wage is mentioned twice. I want to retain mention that there are state minimums higher than the US federal minimum, and specify the highest state minimum. Then I want to move the other state minimums to the main article. I mention it here first because there seems to have been contentious editing in this article. DCLawyer ( talk) 13:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with this proposal. Academic38 ( talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Lou Sander ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, material cited and placed in quotation marks should actually be a quote. I don't own Conscience of a Liberal so I can't look it up, but what does Krugman actually, literally say? That's the only thing that should appear in quotation marks. Dlabtot ( talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I do own COAL, and I undid LaidOff's good faith edit, as it wasn't what Krugman said. Academic38 ( talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Mankiw doesn't buy the Card/Krueger findings, but the source given doesn't exactly say that. He's actually quoting a Krugman book review of a book on the living wage, at a time when Krugman pretty clearly hadn't yet understood that C/K's findings wouldn't apply to a 57% increase of the minimum wage. Is there some place where Mankiw says in his own voice, "I don't buy it"? Thanks. Academic38 ( talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I searched his blog and substituted a more appropriate source. Academic38 ( talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the Fact tag on "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s...." If you're going to claim this, you need to provide references. I think they exist and are already in the article, but they need to be up here, too. This is a contentious article, and every important claim needs to be sourced as it is made. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree stylistically, but I have put in a reference from The Economist. I think we should move it elsewhere if we ever get consensus on the style question. Academic38 ( talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view. But a series of studies in the 1990s—including a famous analysis of fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania by David Card at Berkeley and Alan Krueger of Princeton University—challenged that consensus, finding evidence that employment in fast-food restaurants, actually rose after a minimum-wage hike. Other studies though, particularly those by David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher at the Federal Reserve, consistently found the opposite. Today's consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst." Academic38 ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that a three paragraph quote on this issue is excessive? I propose shortening it substantially. Academic38 ( talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully we will have this able to meet "Good Article" criteria before long. I'd like to suggest that there are several things still to be done, in no particular order:
Comments, suggestion and BOLD edits all welcome. Academic38 ( talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Editors disagree on whether the final sentence of the introduction simply summarizes fully cited content in article, thereby needing no citation; or is itself a claim requiring citation. I am in the former camp; others' opinion is appreciated. Academic38 ( talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I added this section based on Palgrave. Somebody deleted it, citing "anti minimum wage people," and "NPOV," and "undue weight." I restored the section because none of those things apply. Palgrave is an impeccable source of information about economics. Please do not remove properly cited material from authoritative sources. This is not in any way a matter of pro- or anti-minimum wage. It is a solid discussion of background material on the subject of the article. If you have something that contradicts it, please just add it to the article. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I put some "citation needed" tags in the section on Economics of the minimum wage. No source is given for these paragraphs, and they sound suspiciously like they were lifted from a textbook. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid the tag. The section has enough grammatical errors that it is unlikely that it came from a textbook. Wikiant ( talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section dealing with the history of minimum wage laws. I believe it was one of the Progressive reforms of the turn of the 20th century. I'd like to see more. CFPeterson ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
if anyone can help answer this question please do.your efforts will be well appreciated.
how did the introduction of the minimum wage legislation generally affect the union's activities? Phebean ( talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
A chart is not the way this material should be presented. Rather this should be integrated into the body of the article. Placing it in this chart gives the opinions of these two economists undue weight. It is not at all made clear that this is only their analysis of the data, opinions which they themselves don't claim are definitive. I quote from the introduction, page 7: " We state these conclusions bluntly here because we believe they are justified based on the evidence. Nonetheless, as will become clear during the reading of this book, research on the many facets of minimum wages is characterized by continuing disagreement and controversy. As a result, we are under no illusion that all readers of this book will agree fully with our conclusions." [1] Dlabtot ( talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the phrase: "The authors summarized their findings as follows:". A specific citation would be useful. On which page of the book did they do so? Dlabtot ( talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
So let's keep the chart but add a page number(s). What's the problem? radek ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely WP:UNDUE. Moreover, since this was published after Card and Krueger, it should come after them in the section. Academic38 ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
<-- Another way to think about this issue is this: suppose that there is some article which has a table describing regression results (coefficients, t-stats and all that). An editor then takes this table and changes the presentation but at the end of the day, in order to represent the article accurately the table in Wiki looks a lot like the table in the article. In that case there just isn't much room for a dramatic paraphrasing of the information. At the same time, in general, reproducing tables from scholarly work isn't considered plagiarism, as long as it is properly attributed and cites, which is the case here. radek ( talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see this section above for the earlier discussion, and this link for the original chart. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC) To summarize my position, I believe that the material should be incorporated into the text of the article, rather than reproducing a chart used in the source and changing a few words. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Copyright. There are no copyright violations here. Weight. I agree that there is NOT undue weight given to the Neumark and Wachter findings. If somebody thinks there IS, they need to be specific about it. The chart is pretty specifically presented as conclusions from a retrospective study of empirical research, not as any sort of "truth." I also agree that Card and Krueger ARE given undue weight. There hasn't been any big revolution based on their few and questioned studies. Theirs is a "minority view," at best, inappropriatly presented as "truth," at worst. It needs to be cut in half, at least. There are WAY too many details of their work compared to others. Chart vs. text. If somebody wants to rework the chart into a text presentation, they should do it on a sandbox page, then let the other editors see it and comment on it. It would be a big job, requiring knowledge of economics, careful study of the Neumark findings, and more skill in exposition than is usually found on Wikipedia. DCLawyer ( talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The Neumark & Wascher findings do a lot to demonstrate the undue weight that is given to Card & Kreuger's stuff here. C&K's work should be mentioned, but put into the proper context, which is that they achieved some notoriety because their results were different from the great mass of other results. Subsequent studies have generally failed to confirm their findings. C & K are interesting outliers. The article needs a lot less about them and a lot more about the hundreds of studies that contradict them. 173.75.41.215 ( talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply The only problem is that if you do a literature review of a literature that is littered with publication bias, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. There's a 2008 working paper available here ( [2], citable only with permission of the authors) which shows that publication bias in the minimum wage literature is as bad as when Myth and Measurement was published in 1995; moreover, it uses meta-regression techniques to derive what it claims are true disemployment effects that are virtually 0. If this is right on even just the publication bias issue, then it's indeed Neumark and Wascher who are the ones being given undue weight. And if you look at Google Scholar, you'll see that C&K's book is cited about 3 times as much as the next most cited works on the minimum wage. Even if they're wrong, they carry a lot of weight. Academic38 ( talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Definitely keep the chart. It's the most useful thing in the article. Also expand on it by creating sections and subsections that further expand on what the chart contains. In most cases, the article doesn't even mention the "effects considered" categorized by Neumark et al. It doesn't say much about disemployment, either. As many know (but not those who rely on this article), unemployment occurs when you lose your job and are looking for another one. Disemployment occurs when you lose your job and give up looking, or when you never get a job in the first place. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sad. We have had exactly one comment by an identified editor (an admin at that) who has not been involved with this article. All the rest is comments by involved parties (and an anonymous editor). The RfC process could be useful if we actually got some comments. As it is, we're just restating our various points of view. I suggest, as a way of moving forward, that we take the uninvolved admin's (Rd232) view seriously and break up the chart into text. Academic38 ( talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply. I disagree. The consensus here appears to be that we keep the chart. I'm not comfortable weighting editors' opinions based on their lack of involvement in an article. Wikiant ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply. Give us an example of what you propose to do. How will you show all the interconnections between the material in the chart? If you can do a better job of presenting the information, that's great. If not, you should leave it alone. It takes talent to do such a thing, as well as the ability to think clearly about complex matters. Those things are pretty rare. BTW, there are some obvious reasons why so few responded to the RfC. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. My outside input is keep the chart. My other outside input is that this article is heavily biased in favor of the point of view that minimum wage is good public policy. Much of the bias comes from undue emphasis on Card & kreuger. Other comes from suppression of contrary points of view such as those backed by the material in the chart. Those who would change the chart might like to do so by weakening what it says. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The chart and the associated text do NOT have any discernable problem with undue weight. To quote the relevant policy, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That is exactly what this material does. It is a clearly-explained summary of decades of empirical research. If an editor thinks the material is unfair, or wrong, or whatever, it is up to the editor to find reliably sourced material to that effect. At the very least, such an editor must be specific about his or her concerns. The chart does NOT violate copyright in any way. It does NOT give any incorrect perception about its source. If someone claims that it does, they need to do more than just assert their opinion. Skyrocket654 ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In this article, criticisms of the economic theory about the minimum wage are given almost as much space as the theory itself! The explanation of the theory is kind of shaky, with quite a few unreferenced points. The voluminous criticisms contain arguments and speculations of individuals seemingly with minority views, all meticulously referenced. All this seems to give undue weight to the criticisms. The situation continues in the rest of the article, IMHO. Lou Sander ( talk) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Two difference people claim that the reference says two different things; demand for workers can be inelastic, or demand for their product can be inelastic. Which does it actually say? Also, IMHO this is hardly "standard theory criticism." It's the provision of further detail. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've consolidated the material in this section and altered some headings. IMHO, the material under "Simple supply and demand" and "Complicating factors" is basically that which existed before, but better organized and coordinated. Also, everything is referenced and seems to accurately describe the basics of labor supply and demand.
One problem is that the drawing, which is originally from a site intended to show somebody's graphic skill, shows the supply and demand curves in light colors and shows meaningless shading below them. It's beautiful, but suboptimal. Maybe someone can fix it. I don't know how.
The "Standard theory criticism" section is, IMHO, still a wee bit incoherent. Lou Sander ( talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Surveys of economists" is not only irrelevant to the article's topic, it is also fallacious, and constitutes an appeal to authority and belief. The article also largely speaks of "economists" as though they are an indistinguishable mass of experts who can arbitrarily and anonymously be called upon to weigh in on the topic of minimum wage. We're left with an article full of "dueling experts", which is really just a sophisticated form of "some people say". -- 70.131.52.222 ( talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There is now a reference about the weakening of consensus. It was long overdue. A problem with the referenced article, which is a good one, is that it has nothing to do with "Surveys of economists." This sentence needs to be deleted or moved to somewhere more appropriate.
The original point of this discussion is that a section of surveys isn't appropriate. Maybe somebody could tell us why they think it is. IMHO, the surveys don't make any coherent point, nor does the section. It's just a selected list of people's opinions on various aspects of the minimum wage. Because they are selected, and not even claimed to be representative of any mainstream view, each of the survey is given undue weight. They belong in footnotes, if anywhere. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a featured article in which numerous studies are discussed: FairTax. Note that few of these studies are in academic journals, however, which in my mind actually weakens its claim to be a featured article. Such is life. There is no other featured article about a truly controversial economic topic, as far as I can tell. Academic38 ( talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll like to offer a third opinion here, if it's still needed. I've just read through the discussion here, and the section in the article. I think that surveys of academics on a controversial subject are relevant and notable. The section as it now stands needs a bit of reorganization and cleanup, but I think the sources cited are good and should be included. LK ( talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Minimum Wages, The MIT Press, 2008, draws the following conclusions:
§ Minimum wage laws reduce job opportunities for less-skilled workers;
§ Higher minimum wages tend to reduce earnings of the lowest-skilled workers;
§ Minimum wages do not reduce poverty, but rather tend to redistribute income among low-income families and may actually increase poverty; and
§ Minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings through the loss of investment in skills and education.
DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've (re)removed several top-level categories such as "Economics" from this article. It is still massively overcategorised. Remember that an article should not be in a high-level category if it is can be assigned to a subcategory. JQ ( talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "weekly" from the first line, since as I recall it isn't in the reference. If I'm wrong, or if you can provide a reference for it, I'm all for putting it back in. (I've never heard of a weekly minimum wage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just give us a place to verify its existence.) Lou Sander ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How can the minimum wage law be enforced in, for example, USA when there is a language barrier? Many immigrants don't speak English, who are business owners & employees, & law enforcement usually only speak English? Isn't that impossible? Should this be commented on? Stars4change ( talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A language barrier means it's impossible to enforce this law, so the business owner might be living in a mansion & traveling the world while their employees in America might be earning, for example $.10 an hour because they can't know the minimum wage law even exists. And I read in " Fast Food Nation" that in the 1950's Walt Disney, who was getting rich & there was no language barrier, paid the authorities to look the other way so he could pay below the so-called "minimum wage law" which was only about $2.50 an hour which no one could live on even in 1950's dollars. I'm saying It's impossible to enforce any minimum wage laws. Stars4change ( talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A “language barrier” doesn’t mean it is impossible to enforce any law any more than it means someone “can’t” know the law. If one person doesn’t speak the language necessary to know the rules, perhaps someone else – who does – will explain it to him or her. More difficult, but not impossible!
If “Fast Food Nation,” is your source of knowledge, and you think the minimum wage in the 1950’s [sic] was $2.50 an hour, you probably need to study more, rather than wasting time here. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. I'll find many to show you. Stars4change ( talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is from " When Corporations Rule the World" refers to workers in San Francisco today: "Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers.....(shows us that minimum wage can't be enforced): Many of the [modern clothing shops] are dark, cramped and windowless.... Twelve-hour days with no days off and a break only for lunch are not uncommon. And in this wealthy, cosmopolitan city, many shops enforce draconian rules reminiscent of the 19th century. 'The workers are not allowed to talk with each other and they didn't allow us to go to the bathroom,' Says one Asian garment worker. ...Aware of manufacturers' zeal for bargain basement prices, the nearly 600 sewing contractors in the Bay Area engage in cutthroat competition--often a kind of Darwinian drive to the bottom..... Manufacturers have another powerful chip to keep bids down. Katie Quan, a manager of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in San Francisco, explains, 'They say, If you don't take it, we'll just ship it overseas, and you won't get work and your workers will go hungry.' In 1992 a [Department of Labor] investigation of garment shops on the U.S. protectorate of Saipan found conditions akin to indentured servitude: Chinese workers whose passports had been confiscated, putting in 84-hr weeks at subminimum wages." Stars4change ( talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's referring to the surrounding cities too, because they all run together, & I'm sure it happens to millions nationwide in US, & most people worldwide do have to suffer in those conditions, & they die in those conditions, even in USA, as the slaves did in the past,because this is slavery. Stars4change ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bureau of Labor Statistics don't know any Truth. Stars4change ( talk) 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I changed the wording of the book & made the error. Here's how it's written: Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers [meaning worldwide], even in the "modern and affluent" North, sound like a throwback to the days of the early industrial revolution. Consider this description of conditions at contract clothing shops in modern affluent San Francisco: [then it says...] Many of them are dark, cramped and windowless...] Anyway there are millions worldwide, & thousands in San Francisco, & I don't see how the minimum wage law can be enforced in any US city because of the language barrier, & those conditions are modern slavery, about a 9, on a scale of 1 to 10. Stars4change ( talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No; slavery means being "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation" and "a person who is controlled by someone or something" so the wage system is also slavery. Study child labour until you see it. I can prove the wage is slavery to every Supreme Court & judge & lawyer & person on earth, & it wouldn't be difficult to do. Also, the wage is the cause of world poverty; see multinational corporations. And look at Haitian slaves working for Disney here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/WorkingForRAt_DisneyHaiti.html and this place shows USA must change for any other nation to change: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html. That's earthshaking news, but it's true we're all slaves. Stars4change ( talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You can take a slave out of the field & put him in an office, but he's still a slave. We'll be free when every person on earth owns all things, & only when we end world poverty. 69.228.192.184 ( talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Stars4change, in December 2007, the combined total employment in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties was 2,072,400. [Source: http://stats. bls.gov/ ro9/ qcewca.pdf] If “millions” of workers are slaving away in sweat shop conditions, then we must believe only 72,400 – that’s 3.5%, folks! – are taking care of Silicon Valley and a couple of world class universities, not to mention the local, state and federal government offices, teachers, bus drivers . . . I think you get the idea. This source is not credible.
Of course, it could be that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t know any Truth [sic], but that would be even more incredible, wouldn’t it? The bottom line is that you cannot change definitions and discard credible sources to fit your preconceived notions, and expect to go unchallenged. DOR (HK) ( talk) 09:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is the WAGE system is the problem worldwide. The wage is the CAUSE of world poverty. The WAGE system is not the solution, it is the Problem, because it is slavery, but most people still don't know that. The wage is slavery, but a Guaranteed Income for every person (or better yet, all people OWN ALL things) is the RIGHT way that the whole world should do things. Because no one can enforce a ridiculous "minimum wage law" anywhere on earth. Stars4change ( talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
this article seems to be a sandbox for a few ideologues, it seems to violate all the Wikipedia norms of encyclopedic and sticking to the subject, it is not helpful for anyone looking for basic info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.94.195 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, I’m inclined to stand by my comment about “register and sign your comments when trolling” simply because the comment about “ideologues” was totally unsubstantiated, and met with direct attack rather than reasoned discourse. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure this section belongs in the article. There is no citation for the key claim that it has been advocated as an alternative to the minimum wage. It has numerous 10-month old fact tags. The quotation from Andre Gorz is too long, IMO. How do others feel about this section? Academic38 ( talk) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it belongs in this article. Wages are the price of labor; minimum wage laws are legal price fixing. The alternative is not to fix the price of labor, period. And, since there is no recent evidence that a minimum wage does anything to improve living standards, any other issue is aimed at some other subject. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing that there shouldn't be an "alternatives" section. The minimum wage was introduced for specific reasons, and there may be other means to achieve those policy goals, such as the EITC or an NIT. DOR (HK), the most common claim I have seen is that the EITC is better than the minimum wage for reducing poverty because it is better targeted, not that the minimum wage has no effect on decreasing poverty. We actually need a section on the politics of the minimum wage, because a) the public at large is far more supportive of it than economists are; and b) it might therefore be more politically feasible to raise the minimum wage than to raise the EITC (and we've obviously never introduced an NIT).
As for "Basic Income," I agree with LK that the section needs to cleaned up and shortened. Academic38 ( talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
JQ, you agree that the most recent comprehensive work on the subject takes the position that a minimum wage does not reduce poverty. And, yet, you still want to have a section on poverty. I don’t get it; am I missing something? Why would we include in this article something that it doesn’t do? As for Sweden, the situation is the same in Germany: strong unions and no statutory minimum wage.
Wikiant, I don’t want to be insulting, but your suggestion sounds like adding a section to the Evolution article on Creationism. Why bother? Would the article on Poverty include “minimum wage laws have been shown not to reduce poverty” right along side “vanilla ice cream has been shown not to reduce poverty?” Do we list every single item that doesn’t affect a subject? DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the article section on "arguments for and against the minimum wage," you will note that the second argument (sourced) given in favor is that it reduces poverty. While economists obviously disagree about this, it seems clear to me at least that this is a very important question about the minimum wage and absolutely belongs in this article. Academic38 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest: Card and Krueger represent the political view "minimum wage laws help reduce poverty;" Neumark and Wascher represent the political view "there is no evidence that the old consensus, that minimum wage laws help reduce poverty, is correct."
Neither should be called mainstream, simply because you can't have a "main" stream that is exactly between the (only) two positions. More important, it is intellectually dishonest to go searching for contrary views that can be said to be "mainstream."
So, since this is an article on Minimum Wage, and not "The Politics of . . . ," we should be able to agree to strip this article down to the bare minimum (*ahem*) and put the political arguments in another article.
Opinions? DOR (HK) ( talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty minor detail but I think that the "Apartheid" bulletpoint is just invalid. The point being made is that the only way black workers could get hired under apartheid if they sold their labor for less than the white workers. Unfortunately, this argument is a false dichotomy (a type of logical fallacy that has a well-written wiki-article, just do a search). It implies that they were only two choices for South Africa: to either have a minimum wage and disenfranchise black workers or not have a minimum wage and allow black workers to sell their wages at lower levels. This completely leaves out several other options; one of them is to eliminate apartheid, which is what actually happened. Additionally, while apartheid does still exist (or similar programs) in the world, it should be clarified that this argument only applies to such countries. After all, this is the English-speaking wiki and America currently has the largest number of English speakers in the world; it also has no apartheid system. This argument is pretty meaningless in that sense. Again, I'm not denying that apartheid still exists, but this point is irrelevant for a large number of people viewing this page. So to recap, it's a false dichotomy that is at least fairly irrelevant. Anyone agree/disagree? Also, let me point out : I know that Wikipedia is not the place to DETERMINE whether an argument is right or wrong, just to post it. YET, we have to have some discretion when we post arguments. I could post a pro-min. wage argument stating that it's a good idea because Barack Obama likes it. Yet, this would be a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). Discuss?
I've restored the recently-removed NW material, which was deleted without discussion, and on grounds that do not seem very solid.
NW's work is not a mere "literature review," but is an important book from an important academic press with a strong reputation in economics. It is a pretty high-end reliable source. The restored material is, IMHO, an even-handed summarization of what NW found. (I deleted the characterization of Card & Krueger as "outliers," in case some found that distasteful.) The restored material makes no claims that NW's findings represent a consensus—the findings are presented as what they are: the results of a study by scholars in the field. As far as I can see, they are presented clinically and from a neutral point of view. There are no peacock words that I can see. If others disagree with me on this, it would REALLY be good if they could present their reasoning here.
Arguments that NW are partisans, or biased, or whatever, don't diminish them or their book as a reliable source. NW are who they are, and they found what they found, and an extremely reliable source saw fit to publish it. Editors who disagree with NW's conclusions should, instead of trying to remove the conclusions or mischaracterize them, present opposing work, explain it, summarize its conclusions, etc., just as has been done with NW. Lou Sander ( talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this the more I am inclined to disagree based on WP:UNDUE. While we should certainly refer to it as a "book" rather than a "literature review" when describing it, the fact is the book presents no original research. It's just the authors' reading of the literature. Since they have done important research in the field, if I ran an academic press, I would certainly have accepted this as a book I'd be happy to publish. The book is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, and if it does become the post-Card and Krueger consensus one of its blurbs says it will, it will deserve a lot of weight. But that is still in the future, and it deserves much less weight now. Looking at Google Scholar today, the book has been cited 8 times. Obviously, it's early, but that's my point! Myth and Measurement has been cited 1080 times now. Since it had 1008 citations when I mentioned it on December 31, 2008, we know that it has been cited 9 times as often as NW this year alone. Bottom line: NW does not yet deserve a section of its own. Academic38 ( talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is restored again. Please do not delete reasonably stated, well-sourced material that sheds quite a bit of light on the minimum wage. Please do not attempt to recast this work as being mostly in opposition to Card & Kreuger. Please do not assert, without any sort of rationale, that undue weight is given to this important work, or that it "seems" to inspire improper conclusions. If you "feel" that it is something other than what it is, please find opposing material and add it to the article in a separate section. Skyrocket654 ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:UNDUE: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (my emphasis) NW has too much text in Skyrocket654's edit, and the scorecard is, by its very nature, prominent. The scorecard needs to go. Academic38 ( talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Skyrocket654, based on the surveys we present, I agree that opposition to the minimum wage is not a minority view among economists, although it seems to be slightly in the minority among labor economists. However, that doesn't mean this particular book deserves much space yet. What would be better, and what would make it easier to accommodate dissenting views than the scorecard did, would be to add a section on post-C&K studies. I'm willing to help with that, but can't do it alone as I have some very pressing deadlines right now. Academic38 ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The relevant study is the 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson, where 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. Since Card and Kruger themselves would likely be in the second category, I would interpret that at 45.6% disagree with Card and Kruger (minimum wage is bad all the time), and 54.4% agree with Card and Kruger. Hence the current version is unbalanced against Card and Kruger. LK ( talk) 11:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is the right place to lambaste the Progressives for any eugenics views some of them may have harbored. Therefore, I have reverted what I assume were good faith edits, and would be happy to discuss them per WP:BRD. Academic38 ( talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Princeton essay in which I used information pertaining to the eugenic case made by early Progressives for the minimum wage was not a "lambaste." It is a historical fact that many leading Progressive economists wanted to cull the "unemployables" from the wage market. I supported this fact with quotes from leading early Progressives. It is part of history. Agbook ( talk) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What part of Thomas Leonard's body of work and research into the eugenic roots of progressive thought on the minimum wage is acceptable? It was a clear strain of thought during that time that dealt specifically with the issue of the minimum wage.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Eugenics.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf
While it may be unpalatable, it is part of factual history that deserves to be part of Wikipedia.
I can certainly improve my previous post, however I feel it is an important part of history that needs to be brought to light concerning the minimum wage. Agbook ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I’ve asked Lawrencekhoo and Waveology to please consider writing an article about alternative ways of transferring wealth within society, rather than just cluttering up this one. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
JQ, was that a misprint? I find the majority view among economists that minimum wage laws have either increase poverty or have no effect. The layman’s view is that paying above market-clearing rates reduces poverty, but that seems to be because the job losses are ignored.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) ( talk • contribs)
LK, I can’t argue with your technical analysis about a minimum wage marginally above the market rate, but that is in a theoretical world. Poverty is real world, and in the real world, minimum wages tend to get confused with other concepts to the result that they are set considerably above the market-clearing rate.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) ( talk • contribs)
JQ, the "I'm an economist and you're not" and "right wing think tank" arguments are not helpful. So far, all I've heard you say is that there are some empirical studies that show that an increase in the minimum wage reduces poverty. What I'm more interested in is a theoretical argument. How does the "minimum wage reduces poverty" argument manage to get around the laws of demand and supply? Wikiant ( talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with DOR (HK) and Wikiant that the majority view is not that minimum wages reduce poverty. It may be the majority opinion that the minimum wage has a net positive effect on the poor, helping those who are employed sufficiently to compensate (a la
Kaldor-Hicks) for those who become unemployed. I certainly don't think the statement is obvious to be included without good citations.
The interesting issue is whether alternatives to the minimum wage can (1) consume fewer societal resources and (2) provide more benefits to the poor. But the *relevant* issue is whether we need to summarize information on alternatives to the minimum wage and spin out an article, or keep the information here. The first way seems better to me, because I think that there's a lot to be said and I wouldn't want that to compete with information on the minimum wage itself on this article.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo, Decreases educational levels among the poor ?? I might accept “discourages economically poorer students from remaining in school,” but that isn’t the same as actually decreasing their level of education. I think you need one needs a blunt blow to the head to achieve that effect.
DOR (HK) (
talk)
07:27, 21 July 2009 (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. |
Wikiant, in your your edit summary, you said it was 'inaccurate' to describe this talking points memo as "a report published by Republican members of the U.S House of Representatives". This is indeed a report by a group of House Republicans. Please explain explain why you believe it is inaccurate to label it as such. Actually it does not appear to fit the criteria of WP:RS and probably shouldn't be in the article at all. Dlabtot ( talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It copiously cites politicians and ideologues — many of whom have no economics training at all — in order to push one particular point of view. Why were Republican congressmen cited in the introduction while Paul Krugman, a respected economist and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is not? Sure, some economists are against the minimum wage. That should be reflected — laissez-faire advocates with real reputations, like Milton Friedman, should indeed be cited. But this is an academic article; we shouldn't be citing party hacks and random guys on the Internet. *** Crotalus *** 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section of alternatives to minimum wage, I added a new sub-section where instead of outlawing all hiring at less than minimum wage, the government provides WPA-style jobs at what would have been the minimum wage. This is truly an alternative, because it has almost the same effect (by different mechanism), because if any employer offers employment at less than minimum wage, he finds it difficult to attract employees because they'd rather take a WPA job at higher wage instead. So why was my new text deleted??
198.144.192.42 ( talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info
I'm trying to understand Minimum wage by reading an encyclopedia article. Mainly, I'm looking at the first few paragraphs, to see if it's worth reading further. The first paragraph is pretty good: it gives a definition, some history, and several examples, all in six short sentences.
The second paragraph isn't nearly as good. It talks about supporters and opponents, and briefly states some of their key assertions. It doesn't say why there are supporters and opponents, and it doesn't say who they are, why they are making their assertions, why there's an ongoing debate, etc.
Then the article goes on and on and on, yammering about various assertions and debates, to the point that some have called "grotesque." WTF? Surely there's somebody here who can non-grotesquely summarize the various aspects of the debate and debaters in a paragraph or two, then put that stuff in the lead section. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Editors keep deleting the minimum wage vs. unemployment graph (first arguing that it lacks references, then arguing that it is original research). You'll find discussion on this topic on this page as far back as a year or two ago. The graph is a depiction of publicly available data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the BLS publishes the numbers, not the graph, creating a graphic of reliably sourced data does not constitute OR. Wikiant ( talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've read the previous discussion in full. Under "Rapid sequence of major edits" above, you keep talking about population by age, but the graph in question is titled "U.S. workers with less than a high school education (1984-2004)." So where is that data from? Am I supposed to guess which edition of the Statistical Abstract it's from? What table(s) it's from? That's not a proper citation. Where does the data for ratio of minimum wage to average hourly wage come from? It's not from the Department of Labor link which just gives the various levels of the minimum wage. If it can't be given a full citation, it's got to go, but I won't revert until you've had a chance to respond. Oh, and the critics mentioned in the graph description aren't cited, either. Academic38 ( talk) 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've also read the earlier discussion in full. It's original research and as such it doesn't belong in this article. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read the "no original research" article and I now agree that this constitutes original research. The relevant issue is synthesis that advances a position WP:SYN. Here is the text from the NOR article:
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2]
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about "Jones":
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor."
What Wikiant has done is synthesized data from two sources, neither of which comments on the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment (whether in general, for a specific age group, or a specific educational attainment level). Thus, it's original research, end of story. Academic38 ( talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
At WP:Attribution under, "What is not original research" is the following: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." I propose that the chart in question falls under this category as the graph neither changes the significance of the data nor requires additional assumptions. If editors still have a problem with this, I propose that the data be presented in two charts -- both of which are highly relevant to the article. Wikiant ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If an encyclopedia discusses fine points of economics, maybe it should do so in sentences and paragraphs that connect to one another in some sort of rational way. Most of these do not:
As my high-school math teacher used to say, "A duck, because the vest has no sleeves." Lou Sander ( talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I just archived all the remaining 2007 material, and clarified the labels on the "archive box." Lou Sander ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has REALLY weak coverage of the basic economic theory underlying the minimum wage. There are a few graphs and a bunch of bullet points, but that's about it. There's virtually nothing explaining it for the encyclopedia reader.
On the other hand, there is a huge amount of discussion about studies and opinions that contradict the basic theory. Sure looks like undue weight to me.
You don't even have to get into economic theory to understand some of the things that happen when a minimum wage is instituted or raised. You can find an enlightening case study HERE. Read it and do the questions, if you dare. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it. Such things have a certain air of undue weight about them. Lou Sander ( talk) 13:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What part of "The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it." are you having trouple with??? It seem to me you just gotta pay alot more attention to the basic supply an demand matters. An get rid of a lot of the critigues. Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birfday ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph, the sentence "Both supporters and opponents assert that the issue is a matter of ethics and social justice involving worker exploitation and earning ability" cites a 96-year-old reference. The sentence is misleading, since none of those supporters or opponents are still alive. I propose to delete the sentence until a more recent reference can be found. (The other use of the same reference is fine -- it talks about early minimum wage laws.) Lou Sander ( talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to get rid of the section, "Criticism of minimum wage by economists," based on WP:Listcruft. However, I think some of the quotes could be used elsewhere, so I don't plan to chop it immediately.
At the bottom of the "empirical studies" section, what do people think about the untitled table of 5 minimum wage studies? It's unsourced and probably overkill. I propose killing the table and adding some of the info as text in the Card and Krueger section. Academic38 ( talk) 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody removed this clearly specified reference and replaced it with a fact tag. Justification was that the link in the reference only went to the Amazon page on the book and not to the book itself. Please assume good faith. This material IS on page 300 of the cited book, just as specified. The Amazon link is to help people find the book. There is no requirement that citations be available online.
I replaced the fact tag with the very thorough citation of a reference to back up the claims. Lou Sander ( talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence says "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s established a consensus among economists that the minimum wage reduced employment, but this consensus was weakened based on work by David Card and Alan Krueger in the mid-1990s." This might be true, but unless a reliable source has published it, it amounts to original research. The article as a whole has lots of individual opinions about various aspects of the minimum wage, but it's pretty devoid of sourced summaries. Lou Sander ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This section doesn't even define what empirical studies are. (In economics, "empirical" generally refers to statistical or econometric analysis of numeric data -- click the link.) Then over half the section is devoted to non-empirical stuff like the opinions of economists and labor organizations.
The first two paragraphs have nothing to do with empirical studies, so they belong elsewhere. The third is fine, but needs wikilinks; it would be a good introductory sentence for the section. The next two (about polls of economists) belong elsewhere. So does the last one (about the opinions of labor organizations and political parties). If the remaining paragraphs are about empirical studies, you can't tell it from what they say.
Some of the stuff that "belongs elsewhere," IMHO belongs in the trash can. Some of it has good content and good citations, but where the heck do you put it?
The whole thing may or may not be grotesque, but it sure isn't very good work. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I already made the point that this section does not contain empirical studies, but surveys of economists. I completely agree with you that this is where we need to put in the econometric studies. Academic38 ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix graphics, but the supply/demand graph is incorrect. The amount of unemployment created in the abstract is only the difference between equilibrium employment and the lower level of employment at the higher price. Only the amount to the left of equilibrium is unemployment, not the amount to the right. Those people were not working prior to the minimum wage, so they did not become unemployed because of it. Academic38 ( talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent series of edits, when someone writes something in a book, it does not make it a fact, it makes it something someone has written in a book, and that's how it should be cited. WP:V is clear: When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Please. The source for the Thomas Sowell material is carefully provided in the reference citation. This is NOT something like asserting that a band is great. It's a qualified person stating accepted facts about a social science. If an editor disputes such a sourced claim, it's an easy matter to provide a counterbalancing sourced claim. Just find a reliable source that disputes that the real minimum wage is greater than zero, put it in, and provide the reference.
Quite a bit of the material in this article is not referenced at all. Maybe we need to spend our energies on removing it or finding sources. Lou Sander ( talk) 09:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted some properly-sourced material. A minor edit war ensued. There was a plea to stop the edit war. I have now reverted the material to a somewhat-clarified version of the original posting. If other editors have a problem with the material, I invite them to discuss it here for discussion. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've placed a notice on WP:3RR. Dlabtot ( talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
De-indenting again--I think we've talked this one to death. There's no need for this snippet to be in the article, it adds nothing and subtracts some. I will come back to it being "an empirical matter". There are multiple questions
We are sittin around Panera lookin at y'all and scratching our heads. We wonder if the Three Musketeers have any ability to have a coherent thought and express it in words. So far all we see is that you can talk about deleting stuff. We are students at our community college, and WE know how to do this Couldn't do it a year ago, though. Can you put two or three sentences together on some subject and assemble them into a paragraph? We havent seen any of it yet. Can you put two paragraphs together to express the thought? Don't think so. Can you come up with references that support your work? Haven't seen it. This means Outdoor Guy, "Academic" and Cret. Here's the challenge: The three of you work up a short section on something and post it in the article. We don't think you can. Economiss is just 2 tuff 4 u. Sincerely, Birfday, TJail, and Pork. P.S. - We think you all the same person. Or maybe only two. Birfday ( talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
They aren't accusing anybody of anything. They are "calling you out." Lou Sander ( talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says "minimum wage laws are now enforced in more than 90% of all countries", and gives a source. The source says nothing at all about enforcement. In fact, a deeper reading shows that these laws are often unenforced, because of the problems they cause for the poorest of the poor. I will fix the problem. 72.95.129.107 ( talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Every sentence of the paragraph explicitly discusses teenagers. But Brown also studied young adults, a completely different class of worker. I added a sentence specifically about young adults. Someone reverted it on the basis of redundancy. The young adults material is not redundant, and is important in the study since the teenagers who removed themselves from the labor market are not formally counted as "unemployed." I propose to restore the sentence. 72.95.129.107 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The article provides a list of US state minimum wages. It's kind of listcrufty, and there's a note in the editing panel that specific regional wages should be put into the main Minimum Wage Law article. Also the US minimum wage is mentioned twice. I want to retain mention that there are state minimums higher than the US federal minimum, and specify the highest state minimum. Then I want to move the other state minimums to the main article. I mention it here first because there seems to have been contentious editing in this article. DCLawyer ( talk) 13:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with this proposal. Academic38 ( talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Lou Sander ( talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, material cited and placed in quotation marks should actually be a quote. I don't own Conscience of a Liberal so I can't look it up, but what does Krugman actually, literally say? That's the only thing that should appear in quotation marks. Dlabtot ( talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I do own COAL, and I undid LaidOff's good faith edit, as it wasn't what Krugman said. Academic38 ( talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Mankiw doesn't buy the Card/Krueger findings, but the source given doesn't exactly say that. He's actually quoting a Krugman book review of a book on the living wage, at a time when Krugman pretty clearly hadn't yet understood that C/K's findings wouldn't apply to a 57% increase of the minimum wage. Is there some place where Mankiw says in his own voice, "I don't buy it"? Thanks. Academic38 ( talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I searched his blog and substituted a more appropriate source. Academic38 ( talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the Fact tag on "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s...." If you're going to claim this, you need to provide references. I think they exist and are already in the article, but they need to be up here, too. This is a contentious article, and every important claim needs to be sourced as it is made. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree stylistically, but I have put in a reference from The Economist. I think we should move it elsewhere if we ever get consensus on the style question. Academic38 ( talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view. But a series of studies in the 1990s—including a famous analysis of fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania by David Card at Berkeley and Alan Krueger of Princeton University—challenged that consensus, finding evidence that employment in fast-food restaurants, actually rose after a minimum-wage hike. Other studies though, particularly those by David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher at the Federal Reserve, consistently found the opposite. Today's consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst." Academic38 ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that a three paragraph quote on this issue is excessive? I propose shortening it substantially. Academic38 ( talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully we will have this able to meet "Good Article" criteria before long. I'd like to suggest that there are several things still to be done, in no particular order:
Comments, suggestion and BOLD edits all welcome. Academic38 ( talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Editors disagree on whether the final sentence of the introduction simply summarizes fully cited content in article, thereby needing no citation; or is itself a claim requiring citation. I am in the former camp; others' opinion is appreciated. Academic38 ( talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I added this section based on Palgrave. Somebody deleted it, citing "anti minimum wage people," and "NPOV," and "undue weight." I restored the section because none of those things apply. Palgrave is an impeccable source of information about economics. Please do not remove properly cited material from authoritative sources. This is not in any way a matter of pro- or anti-minimum wage. It is a solid discussion of background material on the subject of the article. If you have something that contradicts it, please just add it to the article. Lou Sander ( talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I put some "citation needed" tags in the section on Economics of the minimum wage. No source is given for these paragraphs, and they sound suspiciously like they were lifted from a textbook. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid the tag. The section has enough grammatical errors that it is unlikely that it came from a textbook. Wikiant ( talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section dealing with the history of minimum wage laws. I believe it was one of the Progressive reforms of the turn of the 20th century. I'd like to see more. CFPeterson ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
if anyone can help answer this question please do.your efforts will be well appreciated.
how did the introduction of the minimum wage legislation generally affect the union's activities? Phebean ( talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
A chart is not the way this material should be presented. Rather this should be integrated into the body of the article. Placing it in this chart gives the opinions of these two economists undue weight. It is not at all made clear that this is only their analysis of the data, opinions which they themselves don't claim are definitive. I quote from the introduction, page 7: " We state these conclusions bluntly here because we believe they are justified based on the evidence. Nonetheless, as will become clear during the reading of this book, research on the many facets of minimum wages is characterized by continuing disagreement and controversy. As a result, we are under no illusion that all readers of this book will agree fully with our conclusions." [1] Dlabtot ( talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the phrase: "The authors summarized their findings as follows:". A specific citation would be useful. On which page of the book did they do so? Dlabtot ( talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
So let's keep the chart but add a page number(s). What's the problem? radek ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely WP:UNDUE. Moreover, since this was published after Card and Krueger, it should come after them in the section. Academic38 ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
<-- Another way to think about this issue is this: suppose that there is some article which has a table describing regression results (coefficients, t-stats and all that). An editor then takes this table and changes the presentation but at the end of the day, in order to represent the article accurately the table in Wiki looks a lot like the table in the article. In that case there just isn't much room for a dramatic paraphrasing of the information. At the same time, in general, reproducing tables from scholarly work isn't considered plagiarism, as long as it is properly attributed and cites, which is the case here. radek ( talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see this section above for the earlier discussion, and this link for the original chart. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC) To summarize my position, I believe that the material should be incorporated into the text of the article, rather than reproducing a chart used in the source and changing a few words. Dlabtot ( talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Copyright. There are no copyright violations here. Weight. I agree that there is NOT undue weight given to the Neumark and Wachter findings. If somebody thinks there IS, they need to be specific about it. The chart is pretty specifically presented as conclusions from a retrospective study of empirical research, not as any sort of "truth." I also agree that Card and Krueger ARE given undue weight. There hasn't been any big revolution based on their few and questioned studies. Theirs is a "minority view," at best, inappropriatly presented as "truth," at worst. It needs to be cut in half, at least. There are WAY too many details of their work compared to others. Chart vs. text. If somebody wants to rework the chart into a text presentation, they should do it on a sandbox page, then let the other editors see it and comment on it. It would be a big job, requiring knowledge of economics, careful study of the Neumark findings, and more skill in exposition than is usually found on Wikipedia. DCLawyer ( talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The Neumark & Wascher findings do a lot to demonstrate the undue weight that is given to Card & Kreuger's stuff here. C&K's work should be mentioned, but put into the proper context, which is that they achieved some notoriety because their results were different from the great mass of other results. Subsequent studies have generally failed to confirm their findings. C & K are interesting outliers. The article needs a lot less about them and a lot more about the hundreds of studies that contradict them. 173.75.41.215 ( talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply The only problem is that if you do a literature review of a literature that is littered with publication bias, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. There's a 2008 working paper available here ( [2], citable only with permission of the authors) which shows that publication bias in the minimum wage literature is as bad as when Myth and Measurement was published in 1995; moreover, it uses meta-regression techniques to derive what it claims are true disemployment effects that are virtually 0. If this is right on even just the publication bias issue, then it's indeed Neumark and Wascher who are the ones being given undue weight. And if you look at Google Scholar, you'll see that C&K's book is cited about 3 times as much as the next most cited works on the minimum wage. Even if they're wrong, they carry a lot of weight. Academic38 ( talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Definitely keep the chart. It's the most useful thing in the article. Also expand on it by creating sections and subsections that further expand on what the chart contains. In most cases, the article doesn't even mention the "effects considered" categorized by Neumark et al. It doesn't say much about disemployment, either. As many know (but not those who rely on this article), unemployment occurs when you lose your job and are looking for another one. Disemployment occurs when you lose your job and give up looking, or when you never get a job in the first place. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sad. We have had exactly one comment by an identified editor (an admin at that) who has not been involved with this article. All the rest is comments by involved parties (and an anonymous editor). The RfC process could be useful if we actually got some comments. As it is, we're just restating our various points of view. I suggest, as a way of moving forward, that we take the uninvolved admin's (Rd232) view seriously and break up the chart into text. Academic38 ( talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply. I disagree. The consensus here appears to be that we keep the chart. I'm not comfortable weighting editors' opinions based on their lack of involvement in an article. Wikiant ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply. Give us an example of what you propose to do. How will you show all the interconnections between the material in the chart? If you can do a better job of presenting the information, that's great. If not, you should leave it alone. It takes talent to do such a thing, as well as the ability to think clearly about complex matters. Those things are pretty rare. BTW, there are some obvious reasons why so few responded to the RfC. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. My outside input is keep the chart. My other outside input is that this article is heavily biased in favor of the point of view that minimum wage is good public policy. Much of the bias comes from undue emphasis on Card & kreuger. Other comes from suppression of contrary points of view such as those backed by the material in the chart. Those who would change the chart might like to do so by weakening what it says. 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The chart and the associated text do NOT have any discernable problem with undue weight. To quote the relevant policy, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That is exactly what this material does. It is a clearly-explained summary of decades of empirical research. If an editor thinks the material is unfair, or wrong, or whatever, it is up to the editor to find reliably sourced material to that effect. At the very least, such an editor must be specific about his or her concerns. The chart does NOT violate copyright in any way. It does NOT give any incorrect perception about its source. If someone claims that it does, they need to do more than just assert their opinion. Skyrocket654 ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In this article, criticisms of the economic theory about the minimum wage are given almost as much space as the theory itself! The explanation of the theory is kind of shaky, with quite a few unreferenced points. The voluminous criticisms contain arguments and speculations of individuals seemingly with minority views, all meticulously referenced. All this seems to give undue weight to the criticisms. The situation continues in the rest of the article, IMHO. Lou Sander ( talk) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Two difference people claim that the reference says two different things; demand for workers can be inelastic, or demand for their product can be inelastic. Which does it actually say? Also, IMHO this is hardly "standard theory criticism." It's the provision of further detail. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've consolidated the material in this section and altered some headings. IMHO, the material under "Simple supply and demand" and "Complicating factors" is basically that which existed before, but better organized and coordinated. Also, everything is referenced and seems to accurately describe the basics of labor supply and demand.
One problem is that the drawing, which is originally from a site intended to show somebody's graphic skill, shows the supply and demand curves in light colors and shows meaningless shading below them. It's beautiful, but suboptimal. Maybe someone can fix it. I don't know how.
The "Standard theory criticism" section is, IMHO, still a wee bit incoherent. Lou Sander ( talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Surveys of economists" is not only irrelevant to the article's topic, it is also fallacious, and constitutes an appeal to authority and belief. The article also largely speaks of "economists" as though they are an indistinguishable mass of experts who can arbitrarily and anonymously be called upon to weigh in on the topic of minimum wage. We're left with an article full of "dueling experts", which is really just a sophisticated form of "some people say". -- 70.131.52.222 ( talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There is now a reference about the weakening of consensus. It was long overdue. A problem with the referenced article, which is a good one, is that it has nothing to do with "Surveys of economists." This sentence needs to be deleted or moved to somewhere more appropriate.
The original point of this discussion is that a section of surveys isn't appropriate. Maybe somebody could tell us why they think it is. IMHO, the surveys don't make any coherent point, nor does the section. It's just a selected list of people's opinions on various aspects of the minimum wage. Because they are selected, and not even claimed to be representative of any mainstream view, each of the survey is given undue weight. They belong in footnotes, if anywhere. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a featured article in which numerous studies are discussed: FairTax. Note that few of these studies are in academic journals, however, which in my mind actually weakens its claim to be a featured article. Such is life. There is no other featured article about a truly controversial economic topic, as far as I can tell. Academic38 ( talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll like to offer a third opinion here, if it's still needed. I've just read through the discussion here, and the section in the article. I think that surveys of academics on a controversial subject are relevant and notable. The section as it now stands needs a bit of reorganization and cleanup, but I think the sources cited are good and should be included. LK ( talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Minimum Wages, The MIT Press, 2008, draws the following conclusions:
§ Minimum wage laws reduce job opportunities for less-skilled workers;
§ Higher minimum wages tend to reduce earnings of the lowest-skilled workers;
§ Minimum wages do not reduce poverty, but rather tend to redistribute income among low-income families and may actually increase poverty; and
§ Minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings through the loss of investment in skills and education.
DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've (re)removed several top-level categories such as "Economics" from this article. It is still massively overcategorised. Remember that an article should not be in a high-level category if it is can be assigned to a subcategory. JQ ( talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "weekly" from the first line, since as I recall it isn't in the reference. If I'm wrong, or if you can provide a reference for it, I'm all for putting it back in. (I've never heard of a weekly minimum wage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just give us a place to verify its existence.) Lou Sander ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How can the minimum wage law be enforced in, for example, USA when there is a language barrier? Many immigrants don't speak English, who are business owners & employees, & law enforcement usually only speak English? Isn't that impossible? Should this be commented on? Stars4change ( talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A language barrier means it's impossible to enforce this law, so the business owner might be living in a mansion & traveling the world while their employees in America might be earning, for example $.10 an hour because they can't know the minimum wage law even exists. And I read in " Fast Food Nation" that in the 1950's Walt Disney, who was getting rich & there was no language barrier, paid the authorities to look the other way so he could pay below the so-called "minimum wage law" which was only about $2.50 an hour which no one could live on even in 1950's dollars. I'm saying It's impossible to enforce any minimum wage laws. Stars4change ( talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A “language barrier” doesn’t mean it is impossible to enforce any law any more than it means someone “can’t” know the law. If one person doesn’t speak the language necessary to know the rules, perhaps someone else – who does – will explain it to him or her. More difficult, but not impossible!
If “Fast Food Nation,” is your source of knowledge, and you think the minimum wage in the 1950’s [sic] was $2.50 an hour, you probably need to study more, rather than wasting time here. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. I'll find many to show you. Stars4change ( talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This is from " When Corporations Rule the World" refers to workers in San Francisco today: "Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers.....(shows us that minimum wage can't be enforced): Many of the [modern clothing shops] are dark, cramped and windowless.... Twelve-hour days with no days off and a break only for lunch are not uncommon. And in this wealthy, cosmopolitan city, many shops enforce draconian rules reminiscent of the 19th century. 'The workers are not allowed to talk with each other and they didn't allow us to go to the bathroom,' Says one Asian garment worker. ...Aware of manufacturers' zeal for bargain basement prices, the nearly 600 sewing contractors in the Bay Area engage in cutthroat competition--often a kind of Darwinian drive to the bottom..... Manufacturers have another powerful chip to keep bids down. Katie Quan, a manager of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in San Francisco, explains, 'They say, If you don't take it, we'll just ship it overseas, and you won't get work and your workers will go hungry.' In 1992 a [Department of Labor] investigation of garment shops on the U.S. protectorate of Saipan found conditions akin to indentured servitude: Chinese workers whose passports had been confiscated, putting in 84-hr weeks at subminimum wages." Stars4change ( talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's referring to the surrounding cities too, because they all run together, & I'm sure it happens to millions nationwide in US, & most people worldwide do have to suffer in those conditions, & they die in those conditions, even in USA, as the slaves did in the past,because this is slavery. Stars4change ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bureau of Labor Statistics don't know any Truth. Stars4change ( talk) 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I changed the wording of the book & made the error. Here's how it's written: Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers [meaning worldwide], even in the "modern and affluent" North, sound like a throwback to the days of the early industrial revolution. Consider this description of conditions at contract clothing shops in modern affluent San Francisco: [then it says...] Many of them are dark, cramped and windowless...] Anyway there are millions worldwide, & thousands in San Francisco, & I don't see how the minimum wage law can be enforced in any US city because of the language barrier, & those conditions are modern slavery, about a 9, on a scale of 1 to 10. Stars4change ( talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No; slavery means being "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation" and "a person who is controlled by someone or something" so the wage system is also slavery. Study child labour until you see it. I can prove the wage is slavery to every Supreme Court & judge & lawyer & person on earth, & it wouldn't be difficult to do. Also, the wage is the cause of world poverty; see multinational corporations. And look at Haitian slaves working for Disney here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/WorkingForRAt_DisneyHaiti.html and this place shows USA must change for any other nation to change: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html. That's earthshaking news, but it's true we're all slaves. Stars4change ( talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You can take a slave out of the field & put him in an office, but he's still a slave. We'll be free when every person on earth owns all things, & only when we end world poverty. 69.228.192.184 ( talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Stars4change, in December 2007, the combined total employment in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties was 2,072,400. [Source: http://stats. bls.gov/ ro9/ qcewca.pdf] If “millions” of workers are slaving away in sweat shop conditions, then we must believe only 72,400 – that’s 3.5%, folks! – are taking care of Silicon Valley and a couple of world class universities, not to mention the local, state and federal government offices, teachers, bus drivers . . . I think you get the idea. This source is not credible.
Of course, it could be that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t know any Truth [sic], but that would be even more incredible, wouldn’t it? The bottom line is that you cannot change definitions and discard credible sources to fit your preconceived notions, and expect to go unchallenged. DOR (HK) ( talk) 09:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is the WAGE system is the problem worldwide. The wage is the CAUSE of world poverty. The WAGE system is not the solution, it is the Problem, because it is slavery, but most people still don't know that. The wage is slavery, but a Guaranteed Income for every person (or better yet, all people OWN ALL things) is the RIGHT way that the whole world should do things. Because no one can enforce a ridiculous "minimum wage law" anywhere on earth. Stars4change ( talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
this article seems to be a sandbox for a few ideologues, it seems to violate all the Wikipedia norms of encyclopedic and sticking to the subject, it is not helpful for anyone looking for basic info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.94.195 ( talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, I’m inclined to stand by my comment about “register and sign your comments when trolling” simply because the comment about “ideologues” was totally unsubstantiated, and met with direct attack rather than reasoned discourse. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure this section belongs in the article. There is no citation for the key claim that it has been advocated as an alternative to the minimum wage. It has numerous 10-month old fact tags. The quotation from Andre Gorz is too long, IMO. How do others feel about this section? Academic38 ( talk) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it belongs in this article. Wages are the price of labor; minimum wage laws are legal price fixing. The alternative is not to fix the price of labor, period. And, since there is no recent evidence that a minimum wage does anything to improve living standards, any other issue is aimed at some other subject. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing that there shouldn't be an "alternatives" section. The minimum wage was introduced for specific reasons, and there may be other means to achieve those policy goals, such as the EITC or an NIT. DOR (HK), the most common claim I have seen is that the EITC is better than the minimum wage for reducing poverty because it is better targeted, not that the minimum wage has no effect on decreasing poverty. We actually need a section on the politics of the minimum wage, because a) the public at large is far more supportive of it than economists are; and b) it might therefore be more politically feasible to raise the minimum wage than to raise the EITC (and we've obviously never introduced an NIT).
As for "Basic Income," I agree with LK that the section needs to cleaned up and shortened. Academic38 ( talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
JQ, you agree that the most recent comprehensive work on the subject takes the position that a minimum wage does not reduce poverty. And, yet, you still want to have a section on poverty. I don’t get it; am I missing something? Why would we include in this article something that it doesn’t do? As for Sweden, the situation is the same in Germany: strong unions and no statutory minimum wage.
Wikiant, I don’t want to be insulting, but your suggestion sounds like adding a section to the Evolution article on Creationism. Why bother? Would the article on Poverty include “minimum wage laws have been shown not to reduce poverty” right along side “vanilla ice cream has been shown not to reduce poverty?” Do we list every single item that doesn’t affect a subject? DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the article section on "arguments for and against the minimum wage," you will note that the second argument (sourced) given in favor is that it reduces poverty. While economists obviously disagree about this, it seems clear to me at least that this is a very important question about the minimum wage and absolutely belongs in this article. Academic38 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest: Card and Krueger represent the political view "minimum wage laws help reduce poverty;" Neumark and Wascher represent the political view "there is no evidence that the old consensus, that minimum wage laws help reduce poverty, is correct."
Neither should be called mainstream, simply because you can't have a "main" stream that is exactly between the (only) two positions. More important, it is intellectually dishonest to go searching for contrary views that can be said to be "mainstream."
So, since this is an article on Minimum Wage, and not "The Politics of . . . ," we should be able to agree to strip this article down to the bare minimum (*ahem*) and put the political arguments in another article.
Opinions? DOR (HK) ( talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty minor detail but I think that the "Apartheid" bulletpoint is just invalid. The point being made is that the only way black workers could get hired under apartheid if they sold their labor for less than the white workers. Unfortunately, this argument is a false dichotomy (a type of logical fallacy that has a well-written wiki-article, just do a search). It implies that they were only two choices for South Africa: to either have a minimum wage and disenfranchise black workers or not have a minimum wage and allow black workers to sell their wages at lower levels. This completely leaves out several other options; one of them is to eliminate apartheid, which is what actually happened. Additionally, while apartheid does still exist (or similar programs) in the world, it should be clarified that this argument only applies to such countries. After all, this is the English-speaking wiki and America currently has the largest number of English speakers in the world; it also has no apartheid system. This argument is pretty meaningless in that sense. Again, I'm not denying that apartheid still exists, but this point is irrelevant for a large number of people viewing this page. So to recap, it's a false dichotomy that is at least fairly irrelevant. Anyone agree/disagree? Also, let me point out : I know that Wikipedia is not the place to DETERMINE whether an argument is right or wrong, just to post it. YET, we have to have some discretion when we post arguments. I could post a pro-min. wage argument stating that it's a good idea because Barack Obama likes it. Yet, this would be a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). Discuss?
I've restored the recently-removed NW material, which was deleted without discussion, and on grounds that do not seem very solid.
NW's work is not a mere "literature review," but is an important book from an important academic press with a strong reputation in economics. It is a pretty high-end reliable source. The restored material is, IMHO, an even-handed summarization of what NW found. (I deleted the characterization of Card & Krueger as "outliers," in case some found that distasteful.) The restored material makes no claims that NW's findings represent a consensus—the findings are presented as what they are: the results of a study by scholars in the field. As far as I can see, they are presented clinically and from a neutral point of view. There are no peacock words that I can see. If others disagree with me on this, it would REALLY be good if they could present their reasoning here.
Arguments that NW are partisans, or biased, or whatever, don't diminish them or their book as a reliable source. NW are who they are, and they found what they found, and an extremely reliable source saw fit to publish it. Editors who disagree with NW's conclusions should, instead of trying to remove the conclusions or mischaracterize them, present opposing work, explain it, summarize its conclusions, etc., just as has been done with NW. Lou Sander ( talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this the more I am inclined to disagree based on WP:UNDUE. While we should certainly refer to it as a "book" rather than a "literature review" when describing it, the fact is the book presents no original research. It's just the authors' reading of the literature. Since they have done important research in the field, if I ran an academic press, I would certainly have accepted this as a book I'd be happy to publish. The book is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, and if it does become the post-Card and Krueger consensus one of its blurbs says it will, it will deserve a lot of weight. But that is still in the future, and it deserves much less weight now. Looking at Google Scholar today, the book has been cited 8 times. Obviously, it's early, but that's my point! Myth and Measurement has been cited 1080 times now. Since it had 1008 citations when I mentioned it on December 31, 2008, we know that it has been cited 9 times as often as NW this year alone. Bottom line: NW does not yet deserve a section of its own. Academic38 ( talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is restored again. Please do not delete reasonably stated, well-sourced material that sheds quite a bit of light on the minimum wage. Please do not attempt to recast this work as being mostly in opposition to Card & Kreuger. Please do not assert, without any sort of rationale, that undue weight is given to this important work, or that it "seems" to inspire improper conclusions. If you "feel" that it is something other than what it is, please find opposing material and add it to the article in a separate section. Skyrocket654 ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:UNDUE: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (my emphasis) NW has too much text in Skyrocket654's edit, and the scorecard is, by its very nature, prominent. The scorecard needs to go. Academic38 ( talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Skyrocket654, based on the surveys we present, I agree that opposition to the minimum wage is not a minority view among economists, although it seems to be slightly in the minority among labor economists. However, that doesn't mean this particular book deserves much space yet. What would be better, and what would make it easier to accommodate dissenting views than the scorecard did, would be to add a section on post-C&K studies. I'm willing to help with that, but can't do it alone as I have some very pressing deadlines right now. Academic38 ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The relevant study is the 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson, where 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. Since Card and Kruger themselves would likely be in the second category, I would interpret that at 45.6% disagree with Card and Kruger (minimum wage is bad all the time), and 54.4% agree with Card and Kruger. Hence the current version is unbalanced against Card and Kruger. LK ( talk) 11:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is the right place to lambaste the Progressives for any eugenics views some of them may have harbored. Therefore, I have reverted what I assume were good faith edits, and would be happy to discuss them per WP:BRD. Academic38 ( talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Princeton essay in which I used information pertaining to the eugenic case made by early Progressives for the minimum wage was not a "lambaste." It is a historical fact that many leading Progressive economists wanted to cull the "unemployables" from the wage market. I supported this fact with quotes from leading early Progressives. It is part of history. Agbook ( talk) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What part of Thomas Leonard's body of work and research into the eugenic roots of progressive thought on the minimum wage is acceptable? It was a clear strain of thought during that time that dealt specifically with the issue of the minimum wage.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Eugenics.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf
While it may be unpalatable, it is part of factual history that deserves to be part of Wikipedia.
I can certainly improve my previous post, however I feel it is an important part of history that needs to be brought to light concerning the minimum wage. Agbook ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I’ve asked Lawrencekhoo and Waveology to please consider writing an article about alternative ways of transferring wealth within society, rather than just cluttering up this one. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
JQ, was that a misprint? I find the majority view among economists that minimum wage laws have either increase poverty or have no effect. The layman’s view is that paying above market-clearing rates reduces poverty, but that seems to be because the job losses are ignored.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) ( talk • contribs)
LK, I can’t argue with your technical analysis about a minimum wage marginally above the market rate, but that is in a theoretical world. Poverty is real world, and in the real world, minimum wages tend to get confused with other concepts to the result that they are set considerably above the market-clearing rate.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) ( talk • contribs)
JQ, the "I'm an economist and you're not" and "right wing think tank" arguments are not helpful. So far, all I've heard you say is that there are some empirical studies that show that an increase in the minimum wage reduces poverty. What I'm more interested in is a theoretical argument. How does the "minimum wage reduces poverty" argument manage to get around the laws of demand and supply? Wikiant ( talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with DOR (HK) and Wikiant that the majority view is not that minimum wages reduce poverty. It may be the majority opinion that the minimum wage has a net positive effect on the poor, helping those who are employed sufficiently to compensate (a la
Kaldor-Hicks) for those who become unemployed. I certainly don't think the statement is obvious to be included without good citations.
The interesting issue is whether alternatives to the minimum wage can (1) consume fewer societal resources and (2) provide more benefits to the poor. But the *relevant* issue is whether we need to summarize information on alternatives to the minimum wage and spin out an article, or keep the information here. The first way seems better to me, because I think that there's a lot to be said and I wouldn't want that to compete with information on the minimum wage itself on this article.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo, Decreases educational levels among the poor ?? I might accept “discourages economically poorer students from remaining in school,” but that isn’t the same as actually decreasing their level of education. I think you need one needs a blunt blow to the head to achieve that effect.
DOR (HK) (
talk)
07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)