Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 569
  1. #541
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    My original point was about the scope of what you have been saying, which you now restrict to those scenarios where there is a low affect of monopsony. That’s what makes it now more irrelevant.
    It is possible that I was unclear as to scope, but given that I mentioned in the OP I think it is a stretch that I am changing the scope now.

    Can you elaborate on why that original point makes my argument more irrelevant? Given that we only really find monopsony power in professional sports, was your concern about a minimum wage law for professional atheletes?

    What labor markets do you think contain monopsony forces?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    First step is to initiate more studies.
    Why would we need more studies when we already have a good half dozen on employer reactions and motivations? What specific number is required?

    What would these new studies cover that isn't covered in the existing ones?

    I ask because without specifics this looks like just an obfuscation to avoid the conclusions of peer-reviewed work. If they missed something specific, let's discuss that, if you just want "more for the sake of more" then your appeal is fallacious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The argument is simple economics: a company that cannot make a profit shouldn’t exist.
    No disagreement there (well except that it should be "make an economic profit" but that is a bit more advanced than we need to worry about here). But there is a world of difference between a company not being profitable, and a company folding because you've imposed artifical costs on it.

    Let's take President Trump's current tariffs for example. Those tariffs represent a cost increase of 20-25% for many steel firms (sometimes higher or lower depending on steel type). Is it moral that those companies should not exist? Or, is the political whim of the President insufficient economic and moral argument for why they shouldn't exist?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And also, specifically what companies are you talking about? The odd mom and pop shop that you mention hardly counts.
    That is a pretty callous thing to say. Why shouldn't they count?

    And it is hardly the "odd mom and pop" shop. As noted earlier in thread, a $1 increase in MW rates increases the liklihood of shutting down by about 4-10%. If we limit it to those companies more likely to employ economically marginalized workers it increases it increases to 14%. That is a significant increase in risk that a company will be forced to go out of business following MW increases. This translates, in the Seattle scenario (though it applies universally) to a roughly additional 4% closure rate. IE 4% of all businesses that have MW employees will go out of business based on MW increases.

    Given the number of businesses that fall into that category in Seattle, we are talking something like 800-1000 additional companies closing their doors. That isn't just the "odd mom and pop."

    What's more, that work found that those 800-1000 would be disproportionately minority owned and minority serving businesses. So the impact on economically depressed neighborhoods is magnified, shutting down employment opportunities, entreprenurial opportunities, and blocking of access to goods and services in the places that need them most.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure. Bad industries need to be wiped out and not artificially propped up by the government.
    Ok, and you prefer a scenario where the burden on tax payers is higher, as long as they meet your artificial wage rate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That again, is the free market at work.
    You've already been challenged to support that the imposition of non-market costs (like minimum wage legislation) constitutes a "free market." You offered no support then or now. Please support or retract that point. Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    People will get other jobs or be forced to retrain.
    Can you support that this actually happens in response to minimum wage laws? I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.

    And where will these new jobs come from? If they pay better (and presumabely are more valuable), why don't those jobs exist now, without a minimum wage rate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, if you’re saying that these jobs are another form of government handout
    I'm not, you've claimed that..without any evidence.

    I'm simply pointing out that your concept is internally incoherent because you haven't thought it out past the motives stage (I want to help people) to the effects stage. Your argument is that you don't want people burdening the tax payer because of low paying jobs, and your solution is to have them burden the tax payer even more because they don't have a job. That is incoherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then it’s up to you to be specific in what you’re arguing
    I have been, you simply refused to read it.

    It is literally the title of the thread: "Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society."

    And in the OP:

    The underlying claim that I will deal in this thread is that increases to the minimum wage negatively affect employment. Specifically, the minimum wage negatively affects employment for those workers most vulnerable to economic fluctuations, low skilled workers.

    The minimum wage is a regressive policy that both lowers employment prospects for the lowest skilled workers and prevents those workers from acquiring the experience that will boost them into higher paying jobs.

    ...

    If you support a minimum wage, you support hurting the lowest skilled workers in our economy (generally young minorities) in favor of those who are more moderately skilled. You prevent them from getting a foot on the economic ladder. You prevent them from competing with those who can spend money towards their personal capital.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #542
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is possible that I was unclear as to scope, but given that I mentioned in the OP I think it is a stretch that I am changing the scope now.
    Then you need to change the title to include all the qualifications that are now coming up.



    Can you elaborate on why that original point makes my argument more irrelevant? Given that we only really find monopsony power in professional sports, was your concern about a minimum wage law for professional atheletes?

    What labor markets do you think contain monopsony forces?
    No idea. Now that your claim excludes all scenarios with monopsony forces you have to prove that there are none at all in all the scenarios where you claim it matters.

    Why would we need more studies when we already have a good half dozen on employer reactions and motivations? What specific number is required?
    I’m not sure whether those studies were guesses by the researchers or direct quotes from employers. Can you point out a reference which does the latter?

    What would these new studies cover that isn't covered in the existing ones?
    Specific reasons from employers, longer term effects of MW, rather than the immediate reactions.

    I ask because without specifics this looks like just an obfuscation to avoid the conclusions of peer-reviewed work. If they missed something specific, let's discuss that, if you just want "more for the sake of more" then your appeal is fallacious.
    That’s a fair question. The results in my mind don’t specifically point to actual reasons - we know they can fire or reduce hours of people but we don’t know if it truly is that they’re about to collapse as a business or not. I don’t see those stats - they just seem like guesses from you or the papers.



    No disagreement there (well except that it should be "make an economic profit" but that is a bit more advanced than we need to worry about here). But there is a world of difference between a company not being profitable, and a company folding because you've imposed artifical costs on it.
    Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about the real world and not some fantasy land where the government isn’t involved. This line of argument just makes me take you less seriously and more cultish since there is likely no totally free market economy.

    Let's take President Trump's current tariffs for example. Those tariffs represent a cost increase of 20-25% for many steel firms (sometimes higher or lower depending on steel type). Is it moral that those companies should not exist? Or, is the political whim of the President insufficient economic and moral argument for why they shouldn't exist?
    Depends on what Trump believes is the greater good. I’ve not followed this latest change but I’m sure he’s not doing it for, what he feels, is a bad reason.

    That is a pretty callous thing to say. Why shouldn't they count?

    And it is hardly the "odd mom and pop" shop. As noted earlier in thread, a $1 increase in MW rates increases the liklihood of shutting down by about 4-10%. If we limit it to those companies more likely to employ economically marginalized workers it increases it increases to 14%. That is a significant increase in risk that a company will be forced to go out of business following MW increases. This translates, in the Seattle scenario (though it applies universally) to a roughly additional 4% closure rate. IE 4% of all businesses that have MW employees will go out of business based on MW increases.

    Given the number of businesses that fall into that category in Seattle, we are talking something like 800-1000 additional companies closing their doors. That isn't just the "odd mom and pop."

    What's more, that work found that those 800-1000 would be disproportionately minority owned and minority serving businesses. So the impact on economically depressed neighborhoods is magnified, shutting down employment opportunities, entreprenurial opportunities, and blocking of access to goods and services in the places that need them most.
    I don’t believe that the Seattle results can be applied to all economic scenarios. Unless you have another paper in another economic region that shows the same results, this is just one datapoint.

    That said,do you have proof that 800-1000 additional companies actually closed their doors and specifically because of MW? You seem to be extrapolating a lot here.

    Ok, and you prefer a scenario where the burden on tax payers is higher, as long as they meet your artificial wage rate?
    Well, the government is in the driving seat on this one and I suspect that dumping all the companies that can’t sustain a living wage is better overall than having them. That way, new companies that come to replace them will step in will figure out efficiencies that the previous companies couldn’t.

    You've already been challenged to support that the imposition of non-market costs (like minimum wage legislation) constitutes a "free market." You offered no support then or now. Please support or retract that point. Challenge to support a claim.
    The government is still part of the free market. I’ve said so before I don’t believe in your fantasy land of no government involvement. So I’m redefining, for the purpose of this discussion, that the government is as much of a participant in the market as the companies and their workers. Saying they’re not is a ridiculous distinction that means nothing and adds nothing to your argument.



    Can you support that this actually happens in response to minimum wage laws? I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.
    And how is being ripped off by an employer that only survives due to government handouts any better?

    And where will these new jobs come from? If they pay better (and presumabely are more valuable), why don't those jobs exist now, without a minimum wage rate?
    Companies will come in to fill the gap of there is a market for those jobs. And if not then they’ll be gone. I really don’t see the problem.




    I'm not, you've claimed that..without any evidence.

    I'm simply pointing out that your concept is internally incoherent because you haven't thought it out past the motives stage (I want to help people) to the effects stage. Your argument is that you don't want people burdening the tax payer because of low paying jobs, and your solution is to have them burden the tax payer even more because they don't have a job. That is incoherent.
    And your arguments about artificial rates is a fantasy land of nonsense. If your argument rests on some weird economic perfection then it’s little wonder it has so little effect. At least in these scenarios you’re pointing out, it is clear who is helping the poor: the government or terrible employers?


    I have been, you simply refused to read it.

    It is literally the title of the thread: "Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society."
    In some scenarios where there is no monopsony power, where the profits are so low the employers will fold if MW is raised and perhaps maybe in Seattle.




    And in the OP:

    The underlying claim that I will deal in this thread is that increases to the minimum wage negatively affect employment. Specifically, the minimum wage negatively affects employment for those workers most vulnerable to economic fluctuations, low skilled workers.

    The minimum wage is a regressive policy that both lowers employment prospects for the lowest skilled workers and prevents those workers from acquiring the experience that will boost them into higher paying jobs.

    ...

    If you support a minimum wage, you support hurting the lowest skilled workers in our economy (generally young minorities) in favor of those who are more moderately skilled. You prevent them from getting a foot on the economic ladder. You prevent them from competing with those who can spend money towards their personal capital.
    And you do so by ensuring that government funds are used to directly support those people rather than artificially via profiteers who won’t pay a living wage.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 16th, 2018 at 07:14 PM.

  3. #543
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then you need to change the title to include all the qualifications that are now coming up.
    Why would I need to do that? What about monopsony power is relevant to: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society. What specific issue is there with that title?

    And how is that issue not resolved in the OP?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No idea. Now that your claim excludes all scenarios with monopsony forces you have to prove that there are none at all in all the scenarios where you claim it matters.
    Which I did...in the OP.

    And again in the OP part II.

    And again in a later post.

    And again in direct response to you.

    That there is no significant monopsony power (outside of professional sports) is well established in this thread. If you have responses to that evidence, I'm open to it, but simply ignoring it isn't a valid response.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I’m not sure whether those studies were guesses by the researchers or direct quotes from employers. Can you point out a reference which does the latter?
    All of them do the latter. "Guessing" isn't a valid research technique and wouldn't survive peer review.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Specific reasons from employers, longer term effects of MW, rather than the immediate reactions.
    Again, the first part is already covered in the data. The second request is already covered within studies within the OP. Multi-generational povery is certainly a long term effect. Persistent, systematic unemployment of minority youth is a long term, not a short term effect. All of these were covered in the OP and OP part II.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That’s a fair question. The results in my mind don’t specifically point to actual reasons - we know they can fire or reduce hours of people but we don’t know if it truly is that they’re about to collapse as a business or not. I don’t see those stats - they just seem like guesses from you or the papers.
    Do you really think that guesses would make it past peer-review? These aren't just random students writing a term paper, these are highly respected economists from Harvard writing for review in a peer-reviewed journal and examined for accuracy by other respected economists.

    The paper cites over two dozen other peer-reviewed papers, utilizes firm specific census "micro-data" and controls for non-MW factors through multi-variate regression testing.

    You also seem to misunderstand this paper. This paper wasn't about them reducing hours or letting a couple of employees go. This paper discussed the liklihood of the business to shut down and how that liklihood is effected by minimum wage laws. It found that when the minimum wage is increased by $1, the liklihood that these businesses will collapse as a business increases by 4-10%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about the real world and not some fantasy land where the government isn’t involved.
    Of course it matters. If, tomorrow, the EPA imposed a penalty on all solar panel makers of $10,000/panel we'd see essentially all of them shut down. That isn't an economic effect, it is a political effect.

    The same is true here. A business shutting down because you invented an artificial cost (like the penalty above) isn't a reflection on that company's business model, it is a reflection on your bizarre political process that imposed the cost.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Depends on what Trump believes is the greater good.
    So, in your mind, President Trump's emotions are the moral basis for whether a company should exist or not?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don’t believe that the Seattle results can be applied to all economic scenarios. Unless you have another paper in another economic region that shows the same results, this is just one datapoint.
    If you don't think it is widely applicable, offer some evidence or reason as to why. Why does its elasticity measurement not apply, what details of the paper do not apply to other areas? You have to offer something more than just your gut feeling for this to constitute a rebuttal.

    I don't just have another economic paper, I've presented nearly 150 other economic papers in this thread. The consensus opinion shows the same elasticity rate as does the UW study. A 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to 1-4% increase in unemployment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, the government is in the driving seat on this one and I suspect that dumping all the companies that can’t sustain a living wage is better overall than having them. That way, new companies that come to replace them will step in will figure out efficiencies that the previous companies couldn’t.
    But you've already conceded that the government being in the driving seat doesn't necessarily mean better results on the last page. So your first sentence has already been undermined by your own writing. What's more, making a claim again that you've already conceded is beyond bad form.

    Your second sentence is contradicted by the evidence. Generally new companies don't come to replace them. Even a ten second reflection would show this, as that "better" company would have been more profitable without a minimum wage and would likely already have been created. This claim rests on an assumption that business people are just too stupid to make the most profitable decisions, which is a bit of an odd assumption to make. And I've already asked you to support it. Do you have any evidence that this actually happens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The government is still part of the free market.
    Redefining a term into a non-standard use does not constitute support. Unless you can offer support for this, further use of this claim would be a rule violation imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And how is being ripped off by an employer that only survives due to government handouts any better?
    You dodged the question. Can you support that this actually happens in response to minimum wage laws? I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Companies will come in to fill the gap of there is a market for those jobs. And if not then they’ll be gone. I really don’t see the problem.
    Given that we know, from the data, that it is actually the latter (they will be gone) the problem would presumably be that intergenerational poverty rates increase, life time maximum wage decreases, life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.

    Are those outcomes not a problem in your mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And your arguments about artificial rates is a fantasy land of nonsense.
    This is simply an emotive response, please constrain your responses to on topic conversation. Given that it has been shown that overall dependency rates and poverty rates increase under the policies you are defending, how do you then maintain that they "fix the problem" of laborers being dependent on the tax payer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    In some scenarios where there is no monopsony power, where the profits are so low the employers will fold if MW is raised
    IE, every single scenario where minimum wage employees are employed. We know that monopsony power is confined to professional sports and is, therefore, not relevant. And we know that profit rates for companies that employ minimum wage workers are generally low enough to be significantly effected by increased labor costs.

    So, to rephrase your comment into a more comparable scope one, "In every scenario a minimum wage employee is likely to be employed, increasing the Minimum Wage will hurt those most vulnerable in our society."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And you do so by ensuring that government funds are used to directly support those people rather than artificially via profiteers who won’t pay a living wage.
    Nope, that was your requirement, not mine. Remember your emotional outburst about this being a "fantasy world?" You insisted in your earlier outburst that we couldn't address why corporate welfare was given. I was more than happy to address it and defend why it shouldn't be a part of the economic landscape, you rejected that suggestion, not me.

    What's more, the conclusion to your statement here should be "so we adopt a policy that ensures more government funds are used to support those people!" Which is hardly a coherent solution given what you claim is your concern.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #544
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would I need to do that? What about monopsony power is relevant to: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society. What specific issue is there with that title?



    And how is that issue not resolved in the OP?
    Not sure when you raised the idea of monopsony power but it did seem to be in this last round. If it's relevant that these people are the most vulnerable, how can you also claim that there's no monopsony power over them? You already conceded that there could be monopsony power over migrant workers because they are in a weaker position due to their immigration status but how can you now say there isn't any over, what you are calling, the most vulnerable in our society? How is it that employers won't take advantage of the most vulnerable people?




    That there is no significant monopsony power (outside of professional sports) is well established in this thread. If you have responses to that evidence, I'm open to it, but simply ignoring it isn't a valid response.

    I think your response that no monopsony power means that a fair wage is come to is a red herring. It may be "fair" because it is agreed upon between the employer and employee, but it doesn't make that wage a living one. I think this is the biggest weakness of your argument but I think I have to understand the results you present more deeply than I have.





    All of them do the latter. "Guessing" isn't a valid research technique and wouldn't survive peer review.

    OK, so do you have those direct quotes from employers? Or better still a summary of their responses?


    Again, the first part is already covered in the data. The second request is already covered within studies within the OP. Multi-generational povery is certainly a long term effect. Persistent, systematic unemployment of minority youth is a long term, not a short term effect. All of these were covered in the OP and OP part II.

    Actually, just point out one paper that contains these specifics and I will read it properly.


    You also seem to misunderstand this paper. This paper wasn't about them reducing hours or letting a couple of employees go. This paper discussed the liklihood of the business to shut down and how that liklihood is effected by minimum wage laws. It found that when the minimum wage is increased by $1, the liklihood that these businesses will collapse as a business increases by 4-10%.
    I don't think I even read the paper, only your interpretation and reporting of it.



    Of course it matters. If, tomorrow, the EPA imposed a penalty on all solar panel makers of $10,000/panel we'd see essentially all of them shut down. That isn't an economic effect, it is a political effect.



    The same is true here. A business shutting down because you invented an artificial cost (like the penalty above) isn't a reflection on that company's business model, it is a reflection on your bizarre political process that imposed the cost.

    Well, this is another reason why economics isn't really a science: it rejects anything it deems not part of it's limited understanding (albeit currently) of the real world. Calling things 'artificial' is irrelevant and adds nothing to the fact that these things happen and that there are more players than a simple buyer/seller of goods. To ignore the role of government and international politics is just ridiculous given the impact these things have. And whining about it does nothing to forward the credibility of your argument.





    So, in your mind, President Trump's emotions are the moral basis for whether a company should exist or not?

    Presumably, he's implementing whatever his party and/or his supporters want. I don't like it but I have to respect the democratic process - I just hope that when he realizes killing solar isn't going to save coal he'll reverse his course on this.





    If you don't think it is widely applicable, offer some evidence or reason as to why. Why does its elasticity measurement not apply, what details of the paper do not apply to other areas? You have to offer something more than just your gut feeling for this to constitute a rebuttal.



    I don't just have another economic paper, I've presented nearly 150 other economic papers in this thread. The consensus opinion shows the same elasticity rate as does the UW study. A 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to 1-4% increase in unemployment.
    The paper is just about one specific region at a specific economic point in time. Besides, 1-4% increase in unemployment doesn't seem to be that big a cost to pay to help all the other people that don't end up losing their jobs.

    Also, where have you presented 150 papers! At most there must have been only a dozen or so. Surely, you're not artificially inflating the number of sources as well as the scope of your arguments?



    But you've already conceded that the government being in the driving seat doesn't necessarily mean better results on the last page. So your first sentence has already been undermined by your own writing. What's more, making a claim again that you've already conceded is beyond bad form.
    No, it's just being realistic - nothing is ever guaranteed and a government can make mistakes but so what? They are in the driving seat: they control how the poor are taken care of, how much companies should pay and all manner of details. It's not bad form to describe reality: it's bad form, as you're doing, setting up government as a necessarily 'bad' thing, or at least a tolerated 'artificial' participate. You're literally ignoring reality whilst trying to hew to some weird economic purity argument.


    Your second sentence is contradicted by the evidence. Generally new companies don't come to replace them. Even a ten second reflection would show this, as that "better" company would have been more profitable without a minimum wage and would likely already have been created. This claim rests on an assumption that business people are just too stupid to make the most profitable decisions, which is a bit of an odd assumption to make. And I've already asked you to support it. Do you have any evidence that this actually happens?

    If they don't then the economic conditions aren't conducive to those businesses to continue existing - I don't see a problem with either scenario.


    Redefining a term into a non-standard use does not constitute support. Unless you can offer support for this, further use of this claim would be a rule violation imo.

    Well, that's all I have but I don't need to use the term any more since you've already proven a lack of flexibility in your regard to government's involvement. You've already several times shown that you're more interested in pushing economics 101 ideas that see government involvement as a burden. I'll try and remember not to use that term again but will continue to attack you on the weakness of your models.



    You dodged the question. Can you support that this actually happens in response to minimum wage laws? I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.
    No, this is the core issue: either government is in control or it isn't and businesses that only survive because the government tolerates them paying a non-living wage, should not exist. I don't know if this happens - I'm only responding to your scenarios of businesses folding because they cannot afford to pay their workers properly.


    Given that we know, from the data, that it is actually the latter (they will be gone) the problem would presumably be that intergenerational poverty rates increase, life time maximum wage decreases, life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.



    Are those outcomes not a problem in your mind?
    That just means that we need to do a better job as a government to mitigate those conditions. This is definitely a better scenario than making it acceptable to underpay workers.




    This is simply an emotive response, please constrain your responses to on topic conversation. Given that it has been shown that overall dependency rates and poverty rates increase under the policies you are defending, how do you then maintain that they "fix the problem" of laborers being dependent on the tax payer?

    It's no less emotive than you declaring government involvement as 'artificial' when it is actually your own notion of a 'free market' that is actually the artificial construct in this discussion. Government provides the protection for the lower economic band so I see no problem with it making certain decisions that wipe out companies that only exist because they take advantage of supplemental programs.




    IE, every single scenario where minimum wage employees are employed. We know that monopsony power is confined to professional sports and is, therefore, not relevant. And we know that profit rates for companies that employ minimum wage workers are generally low enough to be significantly effected by increased labor costs.



    So, to rephrase your comment into a more comparable scope one, "In every scenario a minimum wage employee is likely to be employed, increasing the Minimum Wage will hurt those most vulnerable in our society."
    Well, we both know, or at least you should, that MW doesn't increase with inflation, so it's actually going down. What you're talking about increasing is probably (I haven't done the math) is maintaining it to a decent level so that MW workers can continue have a living wage.




    Nope, that was your requirement, not mine. Remember your emotional outburst about this being a "fantasy world?" You insisted in your earlier outburst that we couldn't address why corporate welfare was given. I was more than happy to address it and defend why it shouldn't be a part of the economic landscape, you rejected that suggestion, not me.



    What's more, the conclusion to your statement here should be "so we adopt a policy that ensures more government funds are used to support those people!" Which is hardly a coherent solution given what you claim is your concern.
    That's your scenario: you're saying that MW should not be increased (nor started, nor any other collective bargaining). You're the one arguing that keeping MW as is, i.e. decreasing with inflation, is the best scenario. So you are literally supporting companies that exist to take advantage of this static MW, when they fully know that those wages are not a living wage, and that their employees have to get government handouts.

    And if the government ends up having to keep these people alive, whilst these companies profit, then why should the government not raise MW and get rid of the worst of companies. Those single-digit percent of people that end up losing their job will be kept safe, and yes, at a greater cost to the government, but at least the other 90% who don't lose their jobs end up with a better salary. And we also prevent those nasty companies from coming into existence again. It's practically a win-win for everyone except the profiteers.

    I think you're seeing this whole scenario incorrectly through your fanatical view that only the employer and employee should have any say about salary. Government is involved in practically about everything else in that relationship so to single out MW as being 'artificial' is a pointless - you're picking one tiny bit of 'artificiality' whilst ignoring the rest of the reality which, I suppose you'd also complain as being artificial!

    I also feel that you haven't made the case because you haven't shown that not having MW at all provides a better outcome: i.e. does not having MW provide a living wage for workers?

  5. #545
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not sure when you raised the idea of monopsony power but it did seem to be in this last round. If it's relevant that these people are the most vulnerable, how can you also claim that there's no monopsony power over them?
    I raised it in the OP Sharmak. The OP. I raised it again in response to you assertion that employers were driving down prices via monopsony power (though you didn't know the term). I only raised it in the OP because it is such a standard go to for minimum wage supporters.

    Clearly you can distinguish between people being economically vulnerable and monopsony power right? Those two things are not synonomous. People can be economically vulnerable for a whole host of reasons from youth (limited experience), gender, race, poor education, etc. None of those are related, in the slightest, to monopsony power.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    You already conceded that there could be monopsony power over migrant workers because they are in a weaker position due to their immigration status
    This question makes me wonder if you have forgoten what Monopsony power is. Monopsony power is not the power exerted due to someone's status as an illegal immigrant. Monopsony power is:

    in a monopsony, a large buyer, not a seller, controls a large proportion of the market and drives prices down. A monopsony occurs when a single firm has market power through its factors of production. The firm is the sole purchaser for multiple sellers and drives down the price of the seller's products or services according to the amount of quantity that it demands.
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m...#ixzz5AsBqJNik

    What you are describing is a variant of rent-seeking behavior. Given that it involves relying on illegal immigrants unwillingness to go to the authorities, certainly a minimum wage wouldn't be relevant in that situation right? Those employers are already violating minimum wage laws because they don't fear enforcement, increasing the minimum wage likely wouldn't help any of those employees.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I think your response that no monopsony power means that a fair wage is come to is a red herring. It may be "fair" because it is agreed upon between the employer and employee, but it doesn't make that wage a living one.
    I'm pretty confident I didn't say that it meant the wage was "fair" which makes this a strawman. I specifically didn't use the word fair because it doesn't have an objective meaning here.

    Fair to whom?

    Because it is a "living wage" (another undefined and undefinable term) doesn't make it a fair wage either. When we begin asking whether a wage is fair, we are adding all kinds of subjective intuitions into the discussion. Importantly, subjective intuitions from people who aren't involved in the actual transaction or its consequences. It is one of my major criticisms of President Trump's tariffs as well. He says the trade isn't "fair." But no one can seem to define what it means to be fair. Same here with wages, when we say something is a "fair" wage we end up never really being able to define it in any meaningful sense. Is $15/hour fair? Maybe for one person, but not for another.

    What I said, was that it was a price they would both accept. IE it was an amount the employer felt was less than the value of not having the labor and an amount that the employee felt was more than the alternative use of their labor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Actually, just point out one paper that contains these specifics and I will read it properly.
    Certainly, before I do, I want to remind you that it doesn't really matter why they shut down. They could shut down purely out of malevolent greed or out of economic necessity. Neither explanation affects how those who lose their jobs are impacted. If a company shuts down purely because the owner was a "fat cat" their wage is still $0. If it is because they were a low capital startup run by an inner city minority with no access to capital, their wage is still $0.

    The primary paper cited can be found here, it shows that firms on the economic margin were more likey to shut down explicitely due to labor cost increases due to MW hikes. Importantly, it highlights 3 peer-reviewed studies that show exactly the same thing in its opening: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...091096&EXT=pdf

    A related paper that discusses the economic impact from an objective point of view on employers due to MW increases can be found here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2992783

    This paper contains data not associated with direct quotes or surveys, but more independent (and I would argue reliable) data associated with public filings related to regulatory costs (of which labor price floors are included): http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138183?...n_tab_contents

    Direct evidence from firms that increases in the minimum wage caused industry exit do to a lack of profitability: https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/20....php?pdfid=207

    Direct survey data related to the ability of firms to absorb costs through price increases versus being forced to cease operations: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3997.pdf

    Direct survey of restauranteurs shows that labor costs are the primary determinant of finanical success or failure:
    https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf

    Not directly from employers, but perhaps even better, analysis by industry experts showed that an unexpected increase in the minimum wage cause substantial decreases in firm valuations. Meaning that those with the best knowledge found these firms would suffer signicant cost problems: https://economics.yale.edu/sites/def...ember_2015.pdf

    Relatedly, this study discusses the ability of firms to pass along these costs in the form of price increases. It also discusses average margins for minimum wage employed firms. Given those two numbers, it is clear that increasing the minimum wage causes firms to become economically nonviable: http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2018/...s-absorbed.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Calling things 'artificial' is irrelevant and adds nothing to the fact that these things happen and that there are more players than a simple buyer/seller of goods. To ignore the role of government and international politics is just ridiculous given the impact these things have.
    Who is ignoring the impact of governmental policies? And who said that economics ignores the Government's role or impact? In fact, the theory of governmental operations and political decision making is a field covered by economics, Public Choice Theory. And economics pioneered the idea that there are more players than just the buyer and seller via the inclusion of positive and negative externalities. Just because you aren't familiar with economics concepts doesn't mean they don't exist.

    You seem extremely defensive of labelling things like MW "artificial" but I'm not really sure why. It is a clear distinction favored often by minimum wage proponents. We need to distinguish between processes and effects of natural market participants and effects/processes from non-market actors. I'm not sure why you find that controversial.

    And it doesn't explain why you ignored the point. Clearly if we institute a cost on a business based on non-market (ie artificial) considerations, that wouldn't reflect on their market based business model, correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't like it but I have to respect the democratic process
    An interesting viewpoint. So when the democratic process created Jim Crowe laws that fobade black owned businesses, we should have respected that as well?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The paper is just about one specific region at a specific economic point in time. Besides, 1-4% increase in unemployment doesn't seem to be that big a cost to pay to help all the other people that don't end up losing their jobs.
    But nothing about it being a case study in Seattle means it isn't applicable to other regions. If you want to make an argument that its findings aren't representative of labor markets, you have to give a positive defense for the distinction you are drawing, not just highlight that it is a distinction.

    You'll have a bit of a hard time though given that the consensus values from all kinds of regions, for all kinds of time periods, in all kinds of different labor markets is that at 10% increase in the MW leads to a ~4% decrease in employment. (See below for reference)

    I get that it might 'seem' to be worth it, but the math doesn't work out remember? Remember, in Seattle (or LA, or any of the other "fight for 15" cities) we are talking about a 75% increase in the minimum wage (depening on where the city started. Seatte started at $8.55). That means something like a 20-30% decrease in employment. That means you are absolutely destroying the entire income for about a quarter to a third of minimum wage workers for a benefit the study also calls into question. Remember, we also see that the hours worked deceases, so that those who keep their jobs aren't actually better off.

    Just to summarize in big bullets because you keep bringing up this unsupported assertion. All minimum wage workers fall into two groups:

    1) 20-30% who lost their jobs, whose wage went to $0.

    2) 70-80% who, on average saw their paychecks decrease.



    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages

    That doesn't indicate that it was "worth it" at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Also, where have you presented 150 papers! At most there must have been only a dozen or so. Surely, you're not artificially inflating the number of sources as well as the scope of your arguments?
    No, charitably assuming you've read the OP, I'm assuming you don't realize what an environmental scan is. That is where a researcher reviews all the major works on a subjec over a period of time and consolidates the results. The Neumark study in the OP alone covers 100 independent, peer-reviewed papers on the minmum wage. I then offer a list in OP II of more than 50 papers supporting the consclusion of this thread. There are then at least another dozen papers in this thread supporting the same conclusion.

    Those papers support the UW findings. The results of the papers in Neumark cluster around the UW number for unemployment rates. Within a standard deviation, the papers found about 4% decrease in employment for every 10% increase in MW.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, it's just being realistic
    Is/Ought fallacy. Nothing about the nature or reality of their influence changes the outcomes. I'm arguing against those outcomes.

    It is absolutely bad form to highlight a government policy as inevitable or any obections to its negative consequences as illegitimate because...government!

    It wasn't illegitimate to agitate against the internment of japanese-americans, even though the reality was that it was happening. Or against the discrimination against blacks in the South by the government even though it was happening.

    Using the government as a smokescreen to ignore the disaterous effects of your policy is absolutely bad form.


    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    If they don't then the economic conditions aren't conducive to those businesses to continue existing - I don't see a problem with either scenario.
    You don't see a problem with multi-generational poverty, and no employment options available to those at the economic margins? You are fine with perpetual povery?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I'll try and remember not to use that term again
    Thank you


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, this is the core issue: either government is in control or it isn't and businesses that only survive because the government tolerates them paying a non-living wage, should not exist.
    It isn't the core issue of this thread at all. The core issue of this thread is whether or not the people we aim to help with the minimum wage are actually helped or not. You made a positive claim that the harmful effects of theminium wage are mitigated because "people will get other jobs." I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.

    It is central to the thread because I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That just means that we need to do a better job as a government to mitigate those conditions.
    How exactly? If you are going to propose that the effects we actually see, in reality, aren't a big deal because they can be mitigated, it is incumbent on you to explain how.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's no less emotive than you declaring government involvement as 'artificial'
    No Sharmak, as I've detailed, this isn't an emotional term at all (well except for the fact that you seem to take it and respond emotionally), no more so than marginal utility, or comparitave advantage. Artificial simply means that the effect or topic being discussed is brought about by means of some kind of intervention, it is literally used all the time by economists (and lawyers, and doctors, and essentially everyone) of all stripes:

    Paul Krugman the Keynesian, discussing that the Fed creates an "artificial interest rate" ie a rate other than what would occur without intervention: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-the-real-deal

    Scott Sumner from the Austrian school discussing the same thing related to interest rates and prices being artificial when produced by other than market forces (and including non-political forces): http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...oes_it_me.html

    Frédéric Bastiat discussing the difference between an artificial organization and a natural one: https://mises.org/library/natural-an...l-organization

    Or a basic introduction to microeconomics discussing artificial forces on prices and quantities, some of which are political, some are not. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Microeconomics.html

    Or a concept shared both by law and economic, corporations as artificial perons. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Corporations.html

    In fact, there is an entire field of econometrics called Artificial Economics that uses modeling to detail optimal policy solutions and implemntations: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642029554

    That you took the term so negatively reflects more on your defensiveness than on the term's connotation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Government provides the protection for the lower economic band so I see no problem with it making certain decisions that wipe out companies that only exist because they take advantage of supplemental programs.
    Even when those decisions make it worse for those in the lower economic band? Seems an odd solution to make their condition worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, we both know, or at least you should, that MW doesn't increase with inflation, so it's actually going down.
    In real terms yes, lowering the unemployment effect of the price foor that is minimum wage. Meaning more peole are employed, fewer undergo multi-generational poverty, their lifetime earnings increase, and the economic mobility increases. Right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And if the government ends up having to keep these people alive, whilst these companies profit, then why should the government not raise MW and get rid of the worst of companies.
    Because that increases the total burden on government? And it causes a net harm to the individuals by lowering their economic mobility, loweing their lifetime earnings, and increases multi-generational poverty?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    but at least the other 90% who don't lose their jobs end up with a better salary.
    But not a higher take home pay right? So they get paid at a higher rate, but take home less total money, right? If you are suggesting that they actually have more money in their pockets, you'll need to support that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I also feel that you haven't made the case because you haven't shown that not having MW at all provides a better outcome: i.e. does not having MW provide a living wage for workers?
    I'd be happy to (and have to some extent in this thread already), can you define a living wage precisely? IE, can you provide a definition of living wage that allows me to say "person X is or is not earning a living wage?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #546
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Clearly you can distinguish between people being economically vulnerable and monopsony power right? Those two things are not synonomous. People can be economically vulnerable for a whole host of reasons from youth (limited experience), gender, race, poor education, etc. None of those are related, in the slightest, to monopsony power.
    So you're saying that the most economically powerful employers do not take advantage of the least economically powerful workers? In what universe does that happen?

    This question makes me wonder if you have forgoten what Monopsony power is. Monopsony power is not the power exerted due to someone's status as an illegal immigrant. Monopsony power is:
    in a monopsony, a large buyer, not a seller, controls a large proportion of the market and drives prices down. A monopsony occurs when a single firm has market power through its factors of production. The firm is the sole purchaser for multiple sellers and drives down the price of the seller's products or services according to the amount of quantity that it demands.
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m...#ixzz5AsBqJNik

    What you are describing is a variant of rent-seeking behavior. Given that it involves relying on illegal immigrants unwillingness to go to the authorities, certainly a minimum wage wouldn't be relevant in that situation right? Those employers are already violating minimum wage laws because they don't fear enforcement, increasing the minimum wage likely wouldn't help any of those employees.
    OK, so how is this relevant to your mom and pop shops? They're not a large buyer of labor right? And in the Seattle case, how many of those companies also exert a large proportion f the market? How is this even relevant to the discussion if those situations aren't applicable. Seems like a big red herring and makes me wonder why you bring it up! How is this relevant to how employers will go for the lowest wages they can get away with?



    I'm pretty confident I didn't say that it meant the wage was "fair" which makes this a strawman. I specifically didn't use the word fair because it doesn't have an objective meaning here.

    Fair to whom?

    Because it is a "living wage" (another undefined and undefinable term) doesn't make it a fair wage either. When we begin asking whether a wage is fair, we are adding all kinds of subjective intuitions into the discussion. Importantly, subjective intuitions from people who aren't involved in the actual transaction or its consequences. It is one of my major criticisms of President Trump's tariffs as well. He says the trade isn't "fair." But no one can seem to define what it means to be fair. Same here with wages, when we say something is a "fair" wage we end up never really being able to define it in any meaningful sense. Is $15/hour fair? Maybe for one person, but not for another.

    What I said, was that it was a price they would both accept. IE it was an amount the employer felt was less than the value of not having the labor and an amount that the employee felt was more than the alternative use of their labor.
    Right, finally it's made clear what your position is really saying: that all you're saying is that a 'price' is reached and the nonsense of a pure economic model is exposed for the fraud it is.

    If it's a price that 'they would both accept' then you're ignoring the disparity in power of an employer over a minimum wage, economically weak worker: these are the people that have to accept low wages because that's all they can get and some have to work multiple jobs and take government handouts. I don't see how this is a "fair" situation in anyone's book. To strawman $15 is ludicrous - we're talking about minimum wage jobs not software engineering.

    But now that we know that you're arguing more for some bizarro economic theory of a 'free market' then we can conclude you're not arguing reality, where there are a significant number of governments (i.e. nearly all of them) who have chosen the path of MW over this 'price they would both accept'. We already know that this is not the 'right' price otherwise there'd be no point in having MW in the first place!

    Certainly, before I do, I want to remind you that it doesn't really matter why they shut down. They could shut down purely out of malevolent greed or out of economic necessity. Neither explanation affects how those who lose their jobs are impacted. If a company shuts down purely because the owner was a "fat cat" their wage is still $0. If it is because they were a low capital startup run by an inner city minority with no access to capital, their wage is still $0.
    It absolutely matters: a company who is greedily paying their workers low wages deserves to shut down. Who wants sweat shops where workers are locked in rooms and forced to work? If it's a low capital startup then that's just a natural consequence of business and changing regulations - there's absolutely nothing wrong with businesses failing because they are so working so close to the bone. In both scenarios, these companies are an acceptable cost.

    The primary paper cited can be found here, it shows that firms on the economic margin were more likey to shut down explicitely due to labor cost increases due to MW hikes. Importantly, it highlights 3 peer-reviewed studies that show exactly the same thing in its opening: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...091096&EXT=pdf
    I can't read the whole paper but the abstract says:
    "We find that the impact of the minimum wage depends on whether a restaurant was already close to the margin of exit.". Is basically saying that businesses that are close to failing are pushed over the edge. This is shouldn't be a surprise and wholly warranted since they're probably already a big drain on the country anyway.

    Then it says "Our point estimates suggest that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating on Yelp), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale)." And there's nothing wrong with this either! A mediocre restaurant is likely doing all sorts of other things wrong and doing so in a visible way that even their customers see.

    So this is just supporting my point all along that terrible businesses should just die.

    A related paper that discusses the economic impact from an objective point of view on employers due to MW increases can be found here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2992783
    From the abstract - "Consistent with our theoretical model, an increase in minimum wage in Seattle has no influence in more severe (red) violations, and a significant increase in less severe (blue) violations.". So businesses are cutting corners due to MW? If this is the same 3.5 star restaurants then, again, good riddance!


    Direct survey of restauranteurs shows that labor costs are the primary determinant of finanical success or failure:
    https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf
    Restaurants fail because their food is terrible - they are 100% driven by providing good food and service at a good price. To blame labor costs is ridiculous.

    ...
    I can't go through all of them but it seems that the general pattern is that an increase in MW gets rid of businesses that are already poorly run or not economically viable or likely to cut corners in quality. Seems to me that MW is doing everyone a favor here. I don't see any issue.


    Who is ignoring the impact of governmental policies? And who said that economics ignores the Government's role or impact? In fact, the theory of governmental operations and political decision making is a field covered by economics, Public Choice Theory. And economics pioneered the idea that there are more players than just the buyer and seller via the inclusion of positive and negative externalities. Just because you aren't familiar with economics concepts doesn't mean they don't exist.

    You seem extremely defensive of labelling things like MW "artificial" but I'm not really sure why. It is a clear distinction favored often by minimum wage proponents. We need to distinguish between processes and effects of natural market participants and effects/processes from non-market actors. I'm not sure why you find that controversial.
    I don't find it controversial - I find it an artificial distinction. I also challenge the point that the government isn't a market actor since it provides all the infrastructure that businesses require to run at a low cost, it keeps the country safe from external harm and local police to maintain the law. I don't understand your point that it's a non-market actor: the government, since all the regulations, laws and taxes *are* the foundation that the market exists on. Not only that but the government participates in the market because it's *people* are also market participants as well as the support for both businesses and employees. Seems to me that you're missing the forest for the trees, focusing on two agents when those agents exist within a governmental framework.

    What makes your point nonsensical is that these 'natural market participants' can really exist in isolation: just above you already concede that the wage from such natural activities isn't necessarily a 'fair' or a 'living wage'. But we already know this because left to their natural state, the situation we end up with is one that needs fixing - to point out that external changes via government or collective bargaining is required to fix the issue is obvious, banal and useless.

    Either way, it's a distinction that is wholly pointless to the discussion: whether it artificial or not has no bearing as to whether these changes are justified. And I believe they are justified: firstly, because it rids the economy of bad businesses and secondly, it ensures that businesses that start will do so at a wage that is much better than what came before. Finally, it actually pays a better wage and hopefully we see fewer MW workers having to work multiple jobs.

    And it doesn't explain why you ignored the point. Clearly if we institute a cost on a business based on non-market (ie artificial) considerations, that wouldn't reflect on their market based business model, correct?
    Sure, and if a business ignores the fact that they live in a world with governments and laws and poor people that have to propped up by taxpayers due to their terrible wage practices, then I say again, good riddance! And what a terrible point you're making here - literally saying that businesses don't take into account possible government changes and that they ONLY focus on the market! Perhaps they should ignore the economics 101 arguments you're making here and start understanding the real world! To argue that businesses are as narrow minded as your poorly received ideas are is also to argue that your viewpoints, if taken in isolation, are clearly a poor way to navigate a complex world: those that plan for change survive and those that don't get what they deserve.

    I'll respond to the rest in due course but I feel that you have not justified your position at all. Ultimately, I think your argument holds no water, which is why it holds no water for nearly every government that moves forward with MW (which is also nearly all of them). If the worse case is that bad or poorly run companies that ignore the real world of government regulations or bet that nothing will change, then I fail to see the downside.

  7. #547
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you're saying that the most economically powerful employers do not take advantage of the least economically powerful workers? In what universe does that happen?
    Well, I'm using precise terminology, so I'm not saying "economically powerful." When you use that term, what do you mean? Are you referring to Porter's Five (6) Forces analysis? Monopsony power? Rent Seeking power? What?

    What makes an employer "economically powerful?"

    Side note: I'm saying that of all the possible influences you could mean, only monopsony power is relevant to a minimum wage. If, for example, you are referring to Rent Seeking, then increasing the minimum wage only gives the employer more power, not less.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Seems like a big red herring and makes me wonder why you bring it up! How is this relevant to how employers will go for the lowest wages they can get away with?
    I'm not even sure how your statement makes sense. Monopsony power was brought up in the OP as a possible objection to support minimum wage. I showed that it wasn't a relevant objection.

    It was brought up again later when you appealed to it without realizing that that was what you were doing (as you do, again, here).

    It is relevant then and now because, when you say "the lowest wages they can get away with," the fact that they have to compete with other employers means that the wage rate is competitive, and thus higher than it would be otherwise.


    Let me see if I can explain it in a more familiar context. Let's look at monopoly powers. If I were to say "the prices for product x are lower than they would be in a monopoly environment because there are lots of companies producing product x," would you ask "how is that relevant to the fact that companies charge as much as they can get away with?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    If it's a price that 'they would both accept' then you're ignoring the disparity in power of an employer over a minimum wage, economically weak worker: these are the people that have to accept low wages because that's all they can get and some have to work multiple jobs and take government handouts. I don't see how this is a "fair" situation in anyone's book. To strawman $15 is ludicrous - we're talking about minimum wage jobs not software engineering.
    You'll notice that I'm not ignoring it at all, in fact, I'm the only person (between the two of us) to actually discuss it. I am the one, not you, that discussed monopsony power.

    What I'm asking in this thread is, if we adopt a policy (raising the minimum wage) what happens to the actual people affected by that policy? Remember, the people you said you don't really care if their poverty rates are increased or if they are stuck in multi-generational poverty? Those people. What actually happens to them when we implement the policies you favor? The answer is, they are made worse off. They earn less during thier lives, stay in poverty longer, and bequeth poverty to their children at higher rates. That doesn't sound "fair" to me, but then "fair" is just a way of dealing with an issue emotionally when you don't have real evidence or really care what the outcome is, as long it is the politically attractive one.


    Also, how is $15/hour a straw man? That is literally the rate being advocated for all over the country. Are you saying that it is too high? If so, why?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It absolutely matters: a company who is greedily paying their workers low wages deserves to shut down.
    It might matter to social justice warriors like yourself, it doesn't actually matter to the people whose lives are affected by your policy. If the company closes down because it is greedy, or if it closes down for purely financial reasons, that is irrelevant to the person who is now unemployed, who now has a more economically vulnerable position, who now is more likely to have children who will live in poverty, who is now less likely to get future employment, etc.

    The reason you think it matters is because you are primarily focused on your dislike of the company. What actually matters is how people are hurt by your war against "bad employers."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Is basically saying that businesses that are close to failing are pushed over the edge. This is shouldn't be a surprise and wholly warranted since they're probably already a big drain on the country anyway....So this is just supporting my point all along that terrible businesses should just die.
    First, I'm glad that you appear to have conceded that raising the minimum wage causes business to fail.

    It is interesting though that you see this failure as a good thing even though it means less access for the community and fewer jobs. You seem to have forgotten that five star restaurants tend to charge higher prices than 3.5 star restaurants. You tend to forget that there is a place in markets for cheaper, lower quality goods because they satisfy a demand from those with lower disposable income.

    Again, you are focused on what you feel about the business, and are ignoring the impact on the actual people affected.

    What appears to be your optimal solution is for there to only be 5 star restaraurants, even if that means that everyone below the poverty line can't afford to eat a restaraurat and that the chance of escaping poverty by starting up a business has been removed from that community.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Restaurants fail because their food is terrible - they are 100% driven by providing good food and service at a good price. To blame labor costs is ridiculous.
    Let me get this straight.

    Sharmak: I demand, in their own voices, direct survey data from employers on why they closed!
    Also Sharmak: They lied on the survey!

    You obvsiouly see the fallacy you are committing here, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Restaurants fail because their food is terrible
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't see any issue.
    Exactly. You are fine with people being made poorer and communities being stuck in multi-generational poverty as long as you get your particular pet policy. You don't see an issue with ruining peoples' lives as long as it hurts businesses you don't like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I also challenge the point that the government isn't a market actor since it provides all the infrastructure that businesses require to run at a low cost
    Setting aside that it does this via capital extraction from the economy, I'll point out that that factor is 100% irrelevant to the distinction being made. It would be like arguing that because a company pays someone's wages it is therefore a voter because they might use that money to drive to the polls.

    The fact (or rather unsupported assertion) that companies must rely on government infrastructure has nothing to do with whether or not the government is a natural party to wage price setting. Companies also rely on suppliers to buy products from, it doesn't mean that suppliers are therefore part of the wage negotiation process.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't understand your point that it's a non-market actor: the government, since all the regulations, laws and taxes *are* the foundation that the market exists on.
    Before this point gets a challenge tag, I'd like to ask you to clarify. Do you mean those factors affect market operations, or are you making the patently ridiculous claim that markets wouldn't exist absent taxes and regulation?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Either way, it's a distinction that is wholly pointless to the discussion
    I know, which is why it is weird that you seemed so emotional over the term. The fact that you are angry that all economists and lawyers use this term regularly in common parlance isn't really relevant to the fact that the policy you are defending makes peoples' lives worse.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Finally, it actually pays a better wage and hopefully we see fewer MW workers having to work multiple jobs.
    1) to be accurate, you mean wage rate not a total wage, right? There has been no evidence in this thread that MW workers get better take home pay as a result of wage increases, and some evidence that shows that they get worse take home pay.

    2) Well we can agree that fewer MW workers will have to work multiple jobs, since we know, from the evidence, that quite a few of them will be working 0 jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure
    Thank you for the concession. I'm glad that we agree that if we institute a cost on a business based on non-market (ie artificial) considerations, that wouldn't reflect on their market based business model. You'll remember that you made that assertion earlier. Now that you've conceded it was incorrect, hopefully we won't have to hear it anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    literally saying that businesses don't take into account possible government changes and that they ONLY focus on the market!
    Yeah, heaven forbid companies focus on serving their customers and people in the community! How dare they not focus on their bureacratic overlords!


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    If the worse case is that bad or poorly run companies that ignore the real world of government regulations or bet that nothing will change, then I fail to see the downside.
    Exactly because, as you said, you don't care about those who are actually harmed by the policies. You seem only to care if a certain set of businesses are hurt, regardless of the collateral damage. Hard to argue you are the compasionate side given that take.





    I think it is quite telling which points you responded to and which you didn't. I find it even more interesting that you solely focused on how the MW hurts businesses you don't like and conceded that it actually hurts economically marginalized people.

    Because you ignored so many cogent points, I'm offering them here again (if you are actually conceding any of these points let me know and I won't include them again);


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't like it but I have to respect the democratic process
    An interesting viewpoint. So when the democratic process created Jim Crowe laws that fobade black owned businesses, we should have respected that as well?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The paper is just about one specific region at a specific economic point in time. Besides, 1-4% increase in unemployment doesn't seem to be that big a cost to pay to help all the other people that don't end up losing their jobs.
    But nothing about it being a case study in Seattle means it isn't applicable to other regions. If you want to make an argument that its findings aren't representative of labor markets, you have to give a positive defense for the distinction you are drawing, not just highlight that it is a distinction.

    You'll have a bit of a hard time though given that the consensus values from all kinds of regions, for all kinds of time periods, in all kinds of different labor markets is that at 10% increase in the MW leads to a ~4% decrease in employment. (See below for reference)

    I get that it might 'seem' to be worth it, but the math doesn't work out remember? Remember, in Seattle (or LA, or any of the other "fight for 15" cities) we are talking about a 75% increase in the minimum wage (depening on where the city started. Seatte started at $8.55). That means something like a 20-30% decrease in employment. That means you are absolutely destroying the entire income for about a quarter to a third of minimum wage workers for a benefit the study also calls into question. Remember, we also see that the hours worked deceases, so that those who keep their jobs aren't actually better off.

    Just to summarize in big bullets because you keep bringing up this unsupported assertion. All minimum wage workers fall into two groups:

    1) 20-30% who lost their jobs, whose wage went to $0.

    2) 70-80% who, on average saw their paychecks decrease.



    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages

    That doesn't indicate that it was "worth it" at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Also, where have you presented 150 papers! At most there must have been only a dozen or so. Surely, you're not artificially inflating the number of sources as well as the scope of your arguments?
    No, charitably assuming you've read the OP, I'm assuming you don't realize what an environmental scan is. That is where a researcher reviews all the major works on a subjec over a period of time and consolidates the results. The Neumark study in the OP alone covers 100 independent, peer-reviewed papers on the minmum wage. I then offer a list in OP II of more than 50 papers supporting the consclusion of this thread. There are then at least another dozen papers in this thread supporting the same conclusion.

    Those papers support the UW findings. The results of the papers in Neumark cluster around the UW number for unemployment rates. Within a standard deviation, the papers found about 4% decrease in employment for every 10% increase in MW.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, it's just being realistic
    Is/Ought fallacy. Nothing about the nature or reality of their influence changes the outcomes. I'm arguing against those outcomes.

    It is absolutely bad form to highlight a government policy as inevitable or any obections to its negative consequences as illegitimate because...government!

    It wasn't illegitimate to agitate against the internment of japanese-americans, even though the reality was that it was happening. Or against the discrimination against blacks in the South by the government even though it was happening.

    Using the government as a smokescreen to ignore the disaterous effects of your policy is absolutely bad form.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, this is the core issue: either government is in control or it isn't and businesses that only survive because the government tolerates them paying a non-living wage, should not exist.
    It isn't the core issue of this thread at all. The core issue of this thread is whether or not the people we aim to help with the minimum wage are actually helped or not. You made a positive claim that the harmful effects of theminium wage are mitigated because "people will get other jobs." I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.

    It is central to the thread because I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That just means that we need to do a better job as a government to mitigate those conditions.
    How exactly? If you are going to propose that the effects we actually see, in reality, aren't a big deal because they can be mitigated, it is incumbent on you to explain how.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's no less emotive than you declaring government involvement as 'artificial'
    No Sharmak, as I've detailed, this isn't an emotional term at all (well except for the fact that you seem to take it and respond emotionally), no more so than marginal utility, or comparitave advantage. Artificial simply means that the effect or topic being discussed is brought about by means of some kind of intervention, it is literally used all the time by economists (and lawyers, and doctors, and essentially everyone) of all stripes:

    Paul Krugman the Keynesian, discussing that the Fed creates an "artificial interest rate" ie a rate other than what would occur without intervention: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-the-real-deal

    Scott Sumner from the Austrian school discussing the same thing related to interest rates and prices being artificial when produced by other than market forces (and including non-political forces): http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...oes_it_me.html

    Frédéric Bastiat discussing the difference between an artificial organization and a natural one: https://mises.org/library/natural-an...l-organization

    Or a basic introduction to microeconomics discussing artificial forces on prices and quantities, some of which are political, some are not. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Microeconomics.html

    Or a concept shared both by law and economic, corporations as artificial perons. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Corporations.html

    In fact, there is an entire field of econometrics called Artificial Economics that uses modeling to detail optimal policy solutions and implemntations: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642029554

    That you took the term so negatively reflects more on your defensiveness than on the term's connotation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Government provides the protection for the lower economic band so I see no problem with it making certain decisions that wipe out companies that only exist because they take advantage of supplemental programs.
    Even when those decisions make it worse for those in the lower economic band? Seems an odd solution to make their condition worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, we both know, or at least you should, that MW doesn't increase with inflation, so it's actually going down.
    In real terms yes, lowering the unemployment effect of the price foor that is minimum wage. Meaning more peole are employed, fewer undergo multi-generational poverty, their lifetime earnings increase, and the economic mobility increases. Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And if the government ends up having to keep these people alive, whilst these companies profit, then why should the government not raise MW and get rid of the worst of companies.
    Because that increases the total burden on government? And it causes a net harm to the individuals by lowering their economic mobility, loweing their lifetime earnings, and increases multi-generational poverty?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    but at least the other 90% who don't lose their jobs end up with a better salary.
    But not a higher take home pay right? So they get paid at a higher rate, but take home less total money, right? If you are suggesting that they actually have more money in their pockets, you'll need to support that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I also feel that you haven't made the case because you haven't shown that not having MW at all provides a better outcome: i.e. does not having MW provide a living wage for workers?
    I'd be happy to (and have to some extent in this thread already), can you define a living wage precisely? IE, can you provide a definition of living wage that allows me to say "person X is or is not earning a living wage?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #548
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I'm using precise terminology, so I'm not saying "economically powerful." When you use that term, what do you mean? Are you referring to Porter's Five (6) Forces analysis? Monopsony power? Rent Seeking power? What?

    What makes an employer "economically powerful?"

    Side note: I'm saying that of all the possible influences you could mean, only monopsony power is relevant to a minimum wage. If, for example, you are referring to Rent Seeking, then increasing the minimum wage only gives the employer more power, not less.
    An employer is more 'powerful' in the minimum wage scenario we're talking about because labor is easily found and easily replaced. The worker is a replaceable cog whose specific skills are readily trainable with little unique value. They have little negotiating power, hence in other scenarios where we see a similar disparity, governments step in or unions are created. Whether or not you think that a single employer is powerful, you can't disagree that collective bargaining can produce better results than a single negotiation.

    It is relevant then and now because, when you say "the lowest wages they can get away with," the fact that they have to compete with other employers means that the wage rate is competitive, and thus higher than it would be otherwise.
    Yet, all over the world, in all economies we see that this rate, even though it is 'competitive' is insufficient to produce a fair living wage. This is a flaw in the free market model where only the buyer and seller are involved in salary negotiations. And we see, again the world over, when a union or a government steps in, a better wage and better conditions can be achieved.

    Let me see if I can explain it in a more familiar context. Let's look at monopoly powers. If I were to say "the prices for product x are lower than they would be in a monopoly environment because there are lots of companies producing product x," would you ask "how is that relevant to the fact that companies charge as much as they can get away with?"
    Irrelevant - as I keep pointing out, it is collective bargaining that provides a better wage and better conditions for all employees. You're still fixated on the fact that a price can be negotiated without considering whether it is a fair wage.


    What I'm asking in this thread is, if we adopt a policy (raising the minimum wage) what happens to the actual people affected by that policy? Remember, the people you said you don't really care if their poverty rates are increased or if they are stuck in multi-generational poverty? Those people. What actually happens to them when we implement the policies you favor? The answer is, they are made worse off. They earn less during thier lives, stay in poverty longer, and bequeth poverty to their children at higher rates. That doesn't sound "fair" to me, but then "fair" is just a way of dealing with an issue emotionally when you don't have real evidence or really care what the outcome is, as long it is the politically attractive one.
    Yet, I have to continue to point out that if this were true then all minimum wage legislation and all unions would be instantly disbanded. It's all very well calling it emotional and politically attractive but at the end of the day, your 'social science' is largely ignored in this regard. Nearly, if not actually, 100% of the time; from all governments, of all stripes and persuasions and in a vast number of countries around the world. I suspect that you're missing the whole point of MW is to make it attractive to work - that earning more money by physically contributing is better than sitting on one's butt claiming government handouts. A low minimum wage just discourages work, except for the most desperate who have to do multiple jobs.

    In your scenario of low pay and long working hours and multiple jobs and government handouts is awful to the core. A decent working wage provides those that get those jobs a much better outlook and much better outcome since they will have time to focus on other things to better themselves. Your scenario just turns people to wage slaves. That, sir, is blatantly unfair.


    It might matter to social justice warriors like yourself, it doesn't actually matter to the people whose lives are affected by your policy. If the company closes down because it is greedy, or if it closes down for purely financial reasons, that is irrelevant to the person who is now unemployed, who now has a more economically vulnerable position, who now is more likely to have children who will live in poverty, who is now less likely to get future employment, etc.

    The reason you think it matters is because you are primarily focused on your dislike of the company. What actually matters is how people are hurt by your war against "bad employers."
    Well, being a cultist yourself with a narrow and unrealistic vision of the world, it is clear that you have to stoop to insults when you don't get your way. Nevertheless, I'm shocked that you believe that businesses should be both supported by the government yet not allow the government to control how that support is done and who it should go to. No matter how you slice it, the government represents the employees as much as the employers and it can't always be a free ride.

    This is nothing to do with disliking anything and all to do with what is fair to everyone: not just the employees but also the taxpayers who have to support them. Using some sad cases to argue your point misses the actual facts of the matter is that those businesses are barely surviving to begin with. Chucking them over the edge helps everyone. Evolve or die.


    First, I'm glad that you appear to have conceded that raising the minimum wage causes business to fail.
    Badly run businesses.


    It is interesting though that you see this failure as a good thing even though it means less access for the community and fewer jobs. You seem to have forgotten that five star restaurants tend to charge higher prices than 3.5 star restaurants. You tend to forget that there is a place in markets for cheaper, lower quality goods because they satisfy a demand from those with lower disposable income.

    Again, you are focused on what you feel about the business, and are ignoring the impact on the actual people affected.

    What appears to be your optimal solution is for there to only be 5 star restaraurants, even if that means that everyone below the poverty line can't afford to eat a restaraurat and that the chance of escaping poverty by starting up a business has been removed from that community.
    Lol, you didn't even read your own source: a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating on Yelp), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale)
    It's talking about Yelp ratings not 5-star as in Michelin star restaurants (which only go up to 3 anyway).

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible.
    It's kinda obvious: it's a restaurant and what do restaurants do to survive? They provide good food so that people will support their businesses. No matter what external effects there are, if they don't do that one thing, they will not survive. If it were due to minimum wage increases then ALL restaurants would not be able to survive. Also, I'm not really clear how this is relevant to MW - this is a study of independent restaurant startups, it doesn't even mention MW as a cause. And startups, especially restaurants, are a risky enterprise, and are more likely to fail than thrive: I live in a neighborhood where I've seen dozens come and go. And all the ones that go are ones that serve terrible fod.

    Exactly. You are fine with people being made poorer and communities being stuck in multi-generational poverty as long as you get your particular pet policy. You don't see an issue with ruining peoples' lives as long as it hurts businesses you don't like.
    They're MW workers - their lives already suck. They're not going to get out of it by working MW jobs but by getting better skills to get past MW jobs. Having greedy poorly run companies doesn't help towards that goal and the money we have to spend to maintain such a company (through inspections and such) is better spent towards educational or vocational programs.


    Setting aside that it does this via capital extraction from the economy, I'll point out that that factor is 100% irrelevant to the distinction being made. It would be like arguing that because a company pays someone's wages it is therefore a voter because they might use that money to drive to the polls.

    The fact (or rather unsupported assertion) that companies must rely on government infrastructure has nothing to do with whether or not the government is a natural party to wage price setting. Companies also rely on suppliers to buy products from, it doesn't mean that suppliers are therefore part of the wage negotiation process.
    There you go again, entering fantasy land. No one is saying companies MUST rely on government! I am saying that this is a fact of the REAL WORLD that we are discussing and not your FANTASY LAND or ALTERNATIVE REALITY that you persist is the 'right' way to look at things. Your narrow minded, wholly ignored, largely irrelevant and tunnel vision of how things "SHOULD" work is 100%. Who cares if the government is a 'natural party' to wage setting - they are are actual party and have been since there were governments.

    And yes, suppliers can be part of the wage negotiation process: they can refuse to supply goods to terrible companies - they have the right as to who they do business with! I don't know where you come up with your fantastical ideas but I can see why governments the world over disregard them!



    Before this point gets a challenge tag, I'd like to ask you to clarify. Do you mean those factors affect market operations, or are you making the patently ridiculous claim that markets wouldn't exist absent taxes and regulation?
    Of course the former - you're so stuck in fantasy land that you believe that others have ridiculous ideas too! The point isn't that markets WOULDN'T EXIST sans government - that's in your fantasy land view of economics where you try to make points without involving government. I am saying markets DO EXIST with government rules and regulations all over them. To ignore that fact and focus only on your so-called 'natural actors' is ludicrous since the government is just as natural as any other agency in our economy.

    Your economics 101 view is world is a simplification that is largely unrealistic because no modern economy exists in such a kindergarten fairy tale. You're confusing the simplicity of the model you learned in high school with how the world "should" be and in presenting your argument in such terms, it makes your view point irrelevant because it doesn't take into account complexities beyond the supply and demand charts that you've no doubt committed to memory (not that they're particularly difficult concepts).


    1) to be accurate, you mean wage rate not a total wage, right? There has been no evidence in this thread that MW workers get better take home pay as a result of wage increases, and some evidence that shows that they get worse take home pay.

    2) Well we can agree that fewer MW workers will have to work multiple jobs, since we know, from the evidence, that quite a few of them will be working 0 jobs.
    Evidence that is wholly ignored by everyone because your evidence are used to support a simplified and unrealistic view of the world.


    Thank you for the concession. I'm glad that we agree that if we institute a cost on a business based on non-market (ie artificial) considerations, that wouldn't reflect on their market based business model. You'll remember that you made that assertion earlier. Now that you've conceded it was incorrect, hopefully we won't have to hear it anymore.
    Grabbing at straws I see: yes, if you institute an unrealistic view of the world then you will be burned when the world doesn't behave according to your limited understanding of it.

    Yeah, heaven forbid companies focus on serving their customers and people in the community! How dare they not focus on their bureacratic overlords!
    And again, you reveal your lack of understanding of the real world: I'd be shocked if you weren't actually a econ professor peddling his religion to students who will likely ignore your simplified view of things. Of course companies should focus on the economic and legislative and regulatory environment they exist within! It's patently ridiculous not to do so. Little wonder that no matter how much evidence you are able to provide that there are so few governments taking them seriously.


    Exactly because, as you said, you don't care about those who are actually harmed by the policies. You seem only to care if a certain set of businesses are hurt, regardless of the collateral damage. Hard to argue you are the compasionate side given that take.
    I really only care about the system working and keeping poor businesses running does no one any favors.



    I find it even more interesting that you solely focused on how the MW hurts businesses you don't like and conceded that it actually hurts economically marginalized people.
    EMP are already hurting - to hurt them more by supporting companies that exploit them helps nobody. If we rid ourselves of the leeches, those companies that you claim ONLY focus on serving their customers and their community (ignoring that the government is a direct by product of said community) whilst being ignorant of the actual world around them, then that is a good thing. Who knows what other problems that lie beneath the surface of a company that can't be bothered to keep track of regulations that affect their business directly! That lack of attention to their own business, as well as the lack of care for their employees, whilst they serve themselves all the profits, while at the same time relying on the taxpayer to pay the rest of the living wage, can hardly contribute much to the community in the long run.

    I think it is quite telling which points you responded to and which you didn't.
    There are only so many ways I can point out that:

    1. Your simplified model of the world, aka 'free markets', is unrealistic.
    2. The evidence is wholly ignored by nearly every government in the world.
    3. The evidence that you've presented points out that poorly run businesses fail with minor legislative changes. That you defend that by saying 'mah free market' just makes you less credible: i.e. as credible as everyone else is taking your ideas.

    So if you don't have anything new to say, then I would suggest you concede your debate. I agree that it appears that you have evidence to support your case, but I believe it to be exaggerated, over applied, likely specific to a certain time frame in history or geography, but most of all ignored by nearly all the world except for those most vested in promoting their quasi religious economic views onto others.

    It saddens me that you have the ability to bring all this together and argue cogently yet unable to see the forest for the trees. You've yet been able to provide a solution as to how to pay someone a fair living wage, you can't even decide intuitively what constitutes as a fair wage, and I doubt you even care that there is a fair living wage since you're more interested in maintaining a natural equilibrium between your 'natural' actors, as if the world should fit into your simply model rather than you coming up with a better model.

    So you have to forgive me if I cannot address any more of your points, I feel that we're at the point with going around in circles now. You know my responses (your simplified view of letting badly run companies to continue taking advantage of workers, is ignored by the world) and you have no rebuttal. I will accept your concession with grace, I believe that you think you have put together a rock solid case, but its simplicity and a strange preference for no government/union involvement means that you're arguing in a tiny bubble of irrelevance.

  9. #549
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    An employer is more 'powerful' in the minimum wage scenario we're talking about because labor is easily found and easily replaced...They have little negotiating power...
    What you are describing here is, again, Monopsony power. The ability of the employer to drive wages down because of the number of workers is so large compared to the number of jobs. I get that your intuition tells you that there is monopsony power. But we run into a difficult problem when we actually measure it...for low skilled workers, there isn't any monopsony power. Companies can't actually drive down wages.

    How do we reconcile your intuition with the data? I think it becomes clear when we realize that our experience as workers (or employers) is usually us applying for a single job and battling against other applicants. It seems a lot like the employer has a lot of power in that situation. What it doesn't account for is that you can (and most people do) apply for multiple jobs at the same time. There is certainly competition amongst workers to work at the place with the best pay, conditions, etc. There is also competition amongst employers to hire the most productive employees.

    So while it might look like McDonald's has a lot of power over the 400 people applying for three positions, we also have to remember (as you correctly point out) that these are relatively low skilled workers that can easily transition to other roles.

    For every McDonald's trying to drive down prices, there is a Hardee's, Jack in the Box, Chick-fill-a, and Pizza Hut competing for that labor. What's even more revealing is that, for low skilled employees, all of those vendors are competing with Walmart, Lowes, Target, local garden companies, construction, temp agencies, cleaning companies, and literally dozens of other industries.

    When you think of it in that light, you start to realize that there really is a lot of competition both on the employee and on the employer side of the labor market.

    We can give one annecdotal example. Chick-fill-a. They have a particular customer service requirement at their company not present at a lot of other fast food vendors. They tend to hire people who are on the upper end of productivity and are willing to present a positive attitude to customers. This limits who they can hire from the pool of relatively low skilled labor. Chick-fill-a thus has to pay above market rates for those people (starbuck does the same thing btw). Clearly they don't have monopsony power here because they have to pay more to get the kind of low skilled worker they want.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And we see, again the world over, when a union or a government steps in, a better wage and better conditions can be achieved.
    Except, and this was literally the point of this entire thread and decades of research, they don't produce "better wages and better conditions."

    They produce higher wage rates, but actual wages, the amount of money you take home is generally unchanged or lower. Work conditions also decrease as benefits and other employee perks (being able to get a free meal at the place you are work for example) are cut to pay the higher wage rate. Community conditions also worsen as larger number of unemployed workers struggle to find work and end up creating intergenerational poverty.

    Those are the actual facts as shown in almost 200 peer-reviewed studies, ignoring them for what you hope would happen isn't a rational option.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    it is collective bargaining that provides a better wage and better conditions for all employees.
    Well better conditions actually isn't supported by historical evidence, but you are (generally) correct about unions and collective bargaining providing a better wage for employees. What does it also do? It creates unemployment in the industry and slows job growth, right? (There really isn't a no answer to that question because that is, quite literally, the mechanism it uses to do so).

    Ironically, given that you called this point irrelevant without answering the actual point made, you'll note that this thread isn't about collective bargaining or unions, its about minimum wage. That you keep bringing up a red herring, and a weak one at that, only serves to avoid the obvious point about the negative impact of the minimum wage. Can you actually answer the question posed?

    If I were to say "the prices for product x are lower than they would be in a monopoly environment because there are lots of companies producing product x," would you ask "how is that relevant to the fact that companies charge as much as they can get away with?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    whether it is a fair wage.
    And I've asked you several times in thread to define a fair wage in a manner that would allow us to do exactly what you are asking here, determine whether a job offer is a "fair" wage. Can you do that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Yet, I have to continue to point out that if this were true then all minimum wage legislation and all unions would be instantly disbanded...
    Hmm, you already retracted the claim earlier in thread that governments perfectly react to these kinds of data. Are you renewing that claim? If so do you have support? Even if we set aside the clear appeal to popularity fallacy here, why would governments at all time react in perfect accord with impacts on all of their citizens?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    A low minimum wage just discourages work, except for the most desperate who have to do multiple jobs.
    Let's actually go through this a bit since I think this is a great example of what economists (and actually all systems fields) call "Stage 1 thinking" or what is commonly called not thinking about second and third order consequences.

    So let's say a low minimum wage actually discouraged work as you claim.

    That, by definition, means that there would be fewer people in the workforce, right? Because some set is "discouraged?"

    So if we decrease the supply of something, but keep the demand of something constant, what happens? Or in less technical terms, what happens when something people want becomes relatively more rare?

    That's right! The price goes up! So if this mechanism were the case (and it might well be), then the price would naturally rise until the value of the work equaled the value people wanted to work at, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Your scenario just turns people to wage slaves. That, sir, is blatantly unfair.
    As opposed to your scenario where they become welfare slaves? And what's worse, their children become welfare slaves? And they lose their chance to not become wage/welfare slaves as they gain experience?

    Remember, that is your scenario:

    1) More people are reliant on higher levels of government welfare (with all the negative social outcomes that that produces).

    2) More people enter intergenerational poverty, meaning their children and grandchildren are relaint on welfare (and all the negative social outcomes that that produces).

    3) People's lifetime earnings (including welfare payments) go down, meaning they are, in total, poorer off.

    4) Economic mobility is dramatically decreased, so fewer people have a chance of getting a better job in the future.


    How is that not blatantly unfair? Because you had good intentions? Please.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Nevertheless, I'm shocked that you believe that businesses should be both supported by the government...This is nothing to do with disliking anything and all to do with what is fair to everyone: not just the employees but also the taxpayers who have to support them.
    Wait, I've said that businesses should be supported by government? Support or retract. Challenge to support a claim.


    How is it fair to taxpayers to have to pay a higher tax burden so that you could put some businesses that weren't making enough profit to satisfy you out of business?

    And, you ignored my point. If the business closes down because the owner is greedy or if it closes down because its margin was small, how does that matter to the person now out of work? Remember, this is your claim, the least you could do is defend it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Badly run businesses.
    Which apparently equals businesses that aren't greedy enough for Sharmak to make more profit? Regardless of your rationalizing and emotionally biased terminology, you conceded the point. Again, thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Lol, you didn't even read your own source: [COLOR=#505050][FONT=NexusSansWebPro]a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating on Yelp), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale)
    Did you read the source? Or did you stop there? Did you notice that the 5 star rated restaurants were less likely to hire, be owned by, or serve minorities? Or to be present in economically marginalized communities? Hence why I find it odd that you see these companies closing as a good thing given their disproportionate impact on minorities. It seems odd that someone who proports to care so much is nearly gleeful about less access for minority communities, fewer minority business owners, and fewer minority jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Restaurants fail because their food is terrible - they are 100% driven by providing good food and service at a good price. To blame labor costs is ridiculous.
    Let me get this straight.

    Sharmak: I demand, in their own voices, direct survey data from employers on why they closed!
    Also Sharmak: They lied on the survey!

    You obvsiouly see the fallacy you are committing here, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's kinda obvious: it's a restaurant and what do restaurants do to survive? They provide good food so that people will support their businesses. No matter what external effects there are, if they don't do that one thing, they will not survive.
    So if you increased the cost of meat and vegetables by 10,000% due to a tariff that would be irrelevant to whether the restaruant stayed in business?

    You've offered no evidence to support your claim. Please support or retract that: " Please support or retract that the businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible."

    Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    They're MW workers - their lives already suck. They're not going to get out of it by working MW jobs but by getting better skills to get past MW jobs.
    Their lives suck so screw them? Is that really your position?

    We actually know that they do get out of it by working those jobs and getting skills via experience. It is why economic mobility, and peak income fall dramatically when you raise a minimum wage. The entire point of several of the studies I offered was to show that actual people don't get out of poverty explicitely because the minimum wage removes their ability to gain skills via experience.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Who cares if the government is a 'natural party' to wage setting - they are are actual party and have been since there were governments.
    Apparently you do Sharmak. Remember that this entire point was brought up because you pitched a fit because of the term "artificial price floor." If you are agreeing that they aren't a natural party to wage setting because wages can be agreed to without them (the most patently obvious idea ever), then why did you have an emotional response over artificial earlier?

    I also imagine that you meant the last part as a throw away line, but I want to be sure. Are you seriously maintaining that "governments have been a an actual party to wage setting since there were governments?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Of course the former - you're so stuck in fantasy land that you believe that others have ridiculous ideas too! The point isn't that markets WOULDN'T EXIST sans government
    You contradict yourself here. You said "former" (those factors affect market operations), but then you state the latter position (markets wouldn't exist absent taxes and regulation). Your response seems confused and incoherent. All I can do is respond to both points.

    1) "those factors affect market operations, so they are market participants." This bizarre view seems to not understand what a market participant is. Volcanoes affect market operations and prices too, but no one would call them a market participant. Clearly you can't mean that just because something is a relevant factor in price setting (like the weather, distance, time, taxes, etc) that it is a market participant.

    2) Ok, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that markets cannot exist sans government (hint: retraction is the wise option since markets predate governments).


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Either way, it's a distinction that is wholly pointless to the discussion
    I know, which is why it is weird that you seemed so emotional over the term. The fact that you are angry that all economists and lawyers use this term regularly in common parlance isn't really relevant to the fact that the policy you are defending makes peoples' lives worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Evidence that is wholly ignored by everyone because your evidence are used to support a simplified and unrealistic view of the world.
    You mean like IQ and race aren't connected, but the government still used that to pass laws preventing blacks from working? Be careful conflating data with political processes.

    Regardless, you ignored the points made, perhaps because they are inconvenient for you?

    1) to be accurate, you mean wage rate not a total wage, right? There has been no evidence in this thread that MW workers get better take home pay as a result of wage increases, and some evidence that shows that they get worse take home pay.

    2) Well we can agree that fewer MW workers will have to work multiple jobs, since we know, from the evidence, that quite a few of them will be working 0 jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    yes, if you institute an unrealistic view of the world you will be burned when the world doesn't behave according to your limited understanding of it.
    Exactly my point, thank you. If you operate on a bizarre view that raising a price doesn't discourage how much is actually bought, you will end up putting a lot of people out of work, impovershing minorities, creating intergenerational poverty, and reducing minority access to goods and services.

    More relevant to the thread, now that you've conceded that closing your business because of MW, all the repeated statements about them being "bad business" are retracted as well. Continuing to make that claim, absent evidence would be a violation of the support requirements.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I'd be shocked if you weren't actually a econ professor peddling his religion to students who will likely ignore your simplified view of things. Of course companies should focus on the economic and legislative and regulatory environment they exist within!
    Given that my day job is actually a program manager for brand development and regulatory compliance in the most heavily regulated field in the US, I would imagine I actually have a better understanding of the world than you.

    I'm actually concerned you don't know what an is/ought fallacy is.

    Because companies have to, and do (generally) follow regulatory guidance doesn't mean that all regulatory guidance is good for consumers and workers right? [If you think that the government acts with perfect efficiency for everyone's welfare we have a different cult/religion/naivety point to discuss].


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I really only care about the system working and keeping poor businesses running does no one any favors.
    Except those people who lose their jobs and economic mobilty, right?

    Oh, and their children and grandchildren who are more likely to live in poverty as a result?

    Oh, and the communities that lose access to goods and services and have to go without?

    Oh, and the minorities who would have escaped poverty through business ownership, but now can't, right?

    Oh, and the tax payers who now have to foot a higher welfare bill?

    Oh, and the tax payers also because there are fewer businesses to offset their tax bill?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    EMP are already hurting - to hurt them more by supporting companies that exploit them helps nobody.
    This is an argument against corporate welfare, which is outside the scope of this thread, not an argument for minimum wage.

    Your argument seems to be EMP are already hurting, so who cares if we hurt them more? Remember, we've already established (in such excruciating detail you've already conceded the point) that increasing the MW, on net, makes people worse off. So the argument you are left with is, "I don't care if it hurts them more, as long as it hurts businesses I don't like." How is that a moral position?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    1. Your simplified model of the world, aka 'free markets', is unrealistic.
    2. The evidence is wholly ignored by nearly every government in the world.
    3. The evidence that you've presented points out that poorly run businesses fail with minor legislative changes.
    1. Is/Ought Fallacy
    2. Appeal to Popularity Fallacy
    3. Red Herring fallacy.


    None of your points have iota 1 to do with the fact that individuals are actually hurt by increasing the minimum wage. That communities, especially minority and economically vulnerable communities are disproportionately hurt by increasing the minimum wage.

    You can appeal to whatever fallacy you want, but unless you tackle that single objectively true fact, you simply sound callous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't like it but I have to respect the democratic process
    An interesting viewpoint. So when the democratic process created Jim Crowe laws that fobade black owned businesses, we should have respected that as well?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The paper is just about one specific region at a specific economic point in time. Besides, 1-4% increase in unemployment doesn't seem to be that big a cost to pay to help all the other people that don't end up losing their jobs.
    But nothing about it being a case study in Seattle means it isn't applicable to other regions. If you want to make an argument that its findings aren't representative of labor markets, you have to give a positive defense for the distinction you are drawing, not just highlight that it is a distinction.

    You'll have a bit of a hard time though given that the consensus values from all kinds of regions, for all kinds of time periods, in all kinds of different labor markets is that at 10% increase in the MW leads to a ~4% decrease in employment. (See below for reference)

    I get that it might 'seem' to be worth it, but the math doesn't work out remember? Remember, in Seattle (or LA, or any of the other "fight for 15" cities) we are talking about a 75% increase in the minimum wage (depening on where the city started. Seatte started at $8.55). That means something like a 20-30% decrease in employment. That means you are absolutely destroying the entire income for about a quarter to a third of minimum wage workers for a benefit the study also calls into question. Remember, we also see that the hours worked deceases, so that those who keep their jobs aren't actually better off.

    Just to summarize in big bullets because you keep bringing up this unsupported assertion. All minimum wage workers fall into two groups:

    1) 20-30% who lost their jobs, whose wage went to $0.

    2) 70-80% who, on average saw their paychecks decrease.



    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages

    That doesn't indicate that it was "worth it" at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Also, where have you presented 150 papers! At most there must have been only a dozen or so. Surely, you're not artificially inflating the number of sources as well as the scope of your arguments?
    No, charitably assuming you've read the OP, I'm assuming you don't realize what an environmental scan is. That is where a researcher reviews all the major works on a subjec over a period of time and consolidates the results. The Neumark study in the OP alone covers 100 independent, peer-reviewed papers on the minmum wage. I then offer a list in OP II of more than 50 papers supporting the consclusion of this thread. There are then at least another dozen papers in this thread supporting the same conclusion.

    Those papers support the UW findings. The results of the papers in Neumark cluster around the UW number for unemployment rates. Within a standard deviation, the papers found about 4% decrease in employment for every 10% increase in MW.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, it's just being realistic
    Is/Ought fallacy. Nothing about the nature or reality of their influence changes the outcomes. I'm arguing against those outcomes.

    It is absolutely bad form to highlight a government policy as inevitable or any obections to its negative consequences as illegitimate because...government!

    It wasn't illegitimate to agitate against the internment of japanese-americans, even though the reality was that it was happening. Or against the discrimination against blacks in the South by the government even though it was happening.

    Using the government as a smokescreen to ignore the disaterous effects of your policy is absolutely bad form.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, this is the core issue: either government is in control or it isn't and businesses that only survive because the government tolerates them paying a non-living wage, should not exist.
    It isn't the core issue of this thread at all. The core issue of this thread is whether or not the people we aim to help with the minimum wage are actually helped or not. You made a positive claim that the harmful effects of theminium wage are mitigated because "people will get other jobs." I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.

    It is central to the thread because I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That just means that we need to do a better job as a government to mitigate those conditions.
    How exactly? If you are going to propose that the effects we actually see, in reality, aren't a big deal because they can be mitigated, it is incumbent on you to explain how.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's no less emotive than you declaring government involvement as 'artificial'
    No Sharmak, as I've detailed, this isn't an emotional term at all (well except for the fact that you seem to take it and respond emotionally), no more so than marginal utility, or comparitave advantage. Artificial simply means that the effect or topic being discussed is brought about by means of some kind of intervention, it is literally used all the time by economists (and lawyers, and doctors, and essentially everyone) of all stripes:

    Paul Krugman the Keynesian, discussing that the Fed creates an "artificial interest rate" ie a rate other than what would occur without intervention: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-the-real-deal

    Scott Sumner from the Austrian school discussing the same thing related to interest rates and prices being artificial when produced by other than market forces (and including non-political forces): http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...oes_it_me.html

    Frédéric Bastiat discussing the difference between an artificial organization and a natural one: https://mises.org/library/natural-an...l-organization

    Or a basic introduction to microeconomics discussing artificial forces on prices and quantities, some of which are political, some are not. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Microeconomics.html

    Or a concept shared both by law and economic, corporations as artificial perons. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Corporations.html

    In fact, there is an entire field of econometrics called Artificial Economics that uses modeling to detail optimal policy solutions and implemntations: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642029554

    That you took the term so negatively reflects more on your defensiveness than on the term's connotation.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Government provides the protection for the lower economic band so I see no problem with it making certain decisions that wipe out companies that only exist because they take advantage of supplemental programs.
    Even when those decisions make it worse for those in the lower economic band? Seems an odd solution to make their condition worse.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, we both know, or at least you should, that MW doesn't increase with inflation, so it's actually going down.
    In real terms yes, lowering the unemployment effect of the price foor that is minimum wage. Meaning more peole are employed, fewer undergo multi-generational poverty, their lifetime earnings increase, and the economic mobility increases. Right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And if the government ends up having to keep these people alive, whilst these companies profit, then why should the government not raise MW and get rid of the worst of companies.
    Because that increases the total burden on government? And it causes a net harm to the individuals by lowering their economic mobility, loweing their lifetime earnings, and increases multi-generational poverty?




    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    but at least the other 90% who don't lose their jobs end up with a better salary.
    But not a higher take home pay right? So they get paid at a higher rate, but take home less total money, right? If you are suggesting that they actually have more money in their pockets, you'll need to support that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I also feel that you haven't made the case because you haven't shown that not having MW at all provides a better outcome: i.e. does not having MW provide a living wage for workers?
    I'd be happy to (and have to some extent in this thread already), can you define a living wage precisely? IE, can you provide a definition of living wage that allows me to say "person X is or is not earning a living wage?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #550
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Note: I feel that you’re not producing good arguments any more - you’re quibbling over minor terminological issues that have no real relevance and you’re repeating points. In the next response, please do some editing: I wanted to do so but your points were coupled with challenges so I tried to address them. Also, if you’re going to quote my positions, please do so explicitly and don’t exaggerate as you paraphrase them to your advantage - it’s poor debating form. It’s also tiresome since that’s all you appear to have left in a debate in which you continue to try to restrict discussion (i.e. that somehow MW isn’t also the other side of the coin from corporate welfare). Again, this is poor form because you’re looking at the problem too narrowly (in addition to oversimplifying the scenario).

    Basically your position boils down to that small sliver (4%) of economic interactions between poor companies that employ poor people. I’ve already said that this is an acceptable cost because bad companies that rely on government handouts should not be surprised when that gravy train goes away. Their employees are already likely being supported via government programs anyway since they’re being paid so poorly so they going to be fine until their next opportunity. So your point is not only obvious but already taken into account and not at all a good argument against MW.

    To suggest that MW is the final step rather than a first step is also poor thinking: sometimes we just have to do something and then fix things as we go along. No matter how much *you* think economics is a science, it’s really just social studies with math, and those results continue to be factored in by real world governments and largely ignored: and just saying it’s politics isn’t a sufficient rebuttal to the near universal disregard for your arguments.

    So what else is there to really discuss? You’ve reached the point where you need to strawman what I’ve said whilst ignoring or forbidding very relevant weaknesses in your simplified model and you continue to quibble over minor economic terms that ultimately add no real benefit to the discussion.

    All I’m suggesting is that you take a breather. Write your response and then edit it down and be accurate in how you’re portraying my position.

    _________
    To move the debate forward a bit, I’ve moved an important portion up to the top. If you just answer this and ignore the rest, I feel we’re progressing:

    I get that it might 'seem' to be worth it, but the math doesn't work out remember? Remember, in Seattle (or LA, or any of the other "fight for 15" cities) we are talking about a 75% increase in the minimum wage (depening on where the city started. Seatte started at $8.55). That means something like a 20-30% decrease in employment. That means you are absolutely destroying the entire income for about a quarter to a third of minimum wage workers for a benefit the study also calls into question. Remember, we also see that the hours worked deceases, so that those who keep their jobs aren't actually better off.
    Challenge to support a claim. Show that there is a 20-30% job loss in Seattle. I don't recall any evidence that high. Prove that this is a linear relationship. That each year, each increase is losing that number of jobs.
    Show that all these people weren’t able to get other jobs and that they are now stuck in multigenerational poverty.
    And while you’re at it, show this 20-30% magnitude loss in another study where minimum wage has had time to fully take into effect.

    ___________

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What you are describing here is, again, Monopsony power. The ability of the employer to drive wages down because of the number of workers is so large compared to the number of jobs. I get that your intuition tells you that there is monopsony power. But we run into a difficult problem when we actually measure it...for low skilled workers, there isn't any monopsony power. Companies can't actually drive down wages.
    Of course they can't - it's what we've been discussing all along: it's already so low that it probably can't go any lower. Left to their own devices, the equilibrium price is set at a rate that employers must pay and that workers have to accept.

    But you keep forgetting that this is NOT what we are discussing: we are discussing a living wage. I'm baffled you keep bringing this monopsony power into play - it's a total strawman. You’re confusing MW as a wage that can be negotiated between MW-workers and employers when in fact, the reality is that they cannot and do not: hence why government needs to step in as a more powerful negotiator on their behalf.

    This is nothing to do with monopsony power and everything to do with negotiation power.

    Except, and this was literally the point of this entire thread and decades of research, they don't produce "better wages and better conditions."
    Those are the actual facts as shown in almost 200 peer-reviewed studies, ignoring them for what you hope would happen isn't a rational option.
    Well, that's the option that nearly all governments of all economies have taken. I don't think that these results are being ignored, they're being weighed against other concerns - namely providing a living wage.

    And now we have 200 studies and not the 150 disputed down below. Sigh, must you keep overstating your case and me having to fact check everything you say.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that you have provided *200* papers.


    Well better conditions actually isn't supported by historical evidence, but you are (generally) correct about unions and collective bargaining providing a better wage for employees. What does it also do? It creates unemployment in the industry and slows job growth, right? (There really isn't a no answer to that question because that is, quite literally, the mechanism it uses to do so).
    Sure, for some of the lowest members that work for the weakest companies as you’ve pointed out. To which, I have to reply, good riddance to bad companies.

    And I've asked you several times in thread to define a fair wage in a manner that would allow us to do exactly what you are asking here, determine whether a job offer is a "fair" wage. Can you do that?
    It doesn't matter - the goal is that a person working a full working week should be able to earn a living wage. Who knows what that is across all the economies around the world.

    Hmm, you already retracted the claim earlier in thread that governments perfectly react to these kinds of data. Are you renewing that claim? If so do you have support? Even if we set aside the clear appeal to popularity fallacy here, why would governments at all time react in perfect accord with impacts on all of their citizens?
    I don't believe I have ever used the term "perfectly react" so that's a nonsensical claim for a start. If you want to repeat my own words and claims then state what I said. You're also strawmanning what I said which is not necessarily a 'perfect reaction' (see how your mistating of my position gets you) but a natural reaction to pause or slow down such efforts.
    Again, another strawman of yours is exposed as you fraudulently have to grasp at straws to win a debate you have already lost in the real world (that your model continues to fail to take into account).

    That, by definition, means that there would be fewer people in the workforce, right? Because some set is "discouraged?"
    Wrong - they are not being "discouraged" to work at all - according to you they are being fired. In your desperation to use the same word I used, you've made your analogy irrelevant. So I'm ignoring what your point here because again, you’re inventing and grasping at straws as you begin to argue against yourself. I’m not getting sucked in with your deliberate exaggerations and slippery sloping of what I’ve said. If you wish to argue against me rather than your inaccurate strawman version of me then please quote my words and then argue against them.


    As opposed to your scenario where they become welfare slaves? And what's worse, their children become welfare slaves? And they lose their chance to not become wage/welfare slaves as they gain experience?
    So what percentage of MW workers end up in this exact scenario?


    Wait, I've said that businesses should be supported by government? Support or retract. Challenge to support a claim.
    You're supporting that MW workers are being paid correctly which means that they are also requiring government support in order to live.

    Your stage-1 thinking (or rather, not thinking about 2nd or 3rd level consequences) regarding MW is clearly at play here and I suggest that you do so in future since we’ve already discussed these effects at great length. To ignore what we’ve literally agreed upon as a real world consequence of not having MW is extremely poor form and doesn’t move the debate forward.

    How is it fair to taxpayers to have to pay a higher tax burden so that you could put some businesses that weren't making enough profit to satisfy you out of business?
    Of course it's fair - we're already paying that business to survive allowing them to not pay a living wage. We do this directly through taxes that feed into supplemental programs. If we are paying to support these terrible companies, it's totally “fair” on us to make the decision to put them out of business and encourage better wage behavior in the remaining companies. You keep forgetting who is in the driving seat here: it's the people, via their elected government (local or national). We’re the ones that are either being poorly paid or having to support the ones that are; whilst those companies that rely on those programs being in place to support their bad wage policies get away with profits that are being artificially propped up by our tax dollars.

    And, you ignored my point. If the business closes down because the owner is greedy or if it closes down because its margin was small, how does that matter to the person now out of work? Remember, this is your claim, the least you could do is defend it.
    It's not my claim - it's from your own evidence about companies that are close to failure will be shut down because of MW. Do you not read your own evidence?? Is this why you keep miscounting the number of papers you have provided?

    Which apparently equals businesses that aren't greedy enough for Sharmak to make more profit? Regardless of your rationalizing and emotionally biased terminology, you conceded the point. Again, thank you.
    I'm just pointing out the facts from the papers I looked at, which you forwarded. It's hardly emotional or rationalizing to expect a company that doesn't make enough profits to survive a minor MW raise, (which are usually scaled in and not a huge jump), to fail. It's just a fact of life - it's neither surprising nor unexpected.

    It's your over-simplified world view that thinks that these companies should continue existing. It’s you defending the status quo that these bottom rung companies are good for the country in the long run rather than being the corporate leeches they actual are.


    Did you read the source? Or did you stop there? Did you notice that the 5 star rated restaurants were less likely to hire, be owned by, or serve minorities? Or to be present in economically marginalized communities? Hence why I find it odd that you see these companies closing as a good thing given their disproportionate impact on minorities. It seems odd that someone who proports to care so much is nearly gleeful about less access for minority communities, fewer minority business owners, and fewer minority jobs.
    I stopped at the point where you didn't appear to understand what 5-star meant and if you don’t know your own sources, I don’t see why I should care any further about them. Seems to be I’m doing all the leg work while you just Gish gallop by tossing out papers that you haven’t fully absorbed yourself.

    Which might explain why your position fails to find support in the real world. That you’re resorting to appealing to popularity (muh poor people) and emotion (muh really poor minorities) aren’t a good arguments against otherwise having to support actual leeches on society.

    So if you increased the cost of meat and vegetables by 10,000% due to a tariff that would be irrelevant to whether the restaruant stayed in business?

    You've offered no evidence to support your claim. Please support or retract that: " Please support or retract that the businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible."

    Challenge to support a claim.
    How is this a relevant scenario? When will that happen or when has that happened? And I have supported my claim already, if you find flaws in it then point out the flaws in my argument. To support or retract that restaurants do one thing (provide food) to make a profit is kinda ridiculous - it’s in the definition of what they do. If they do not make profit, then they do not have enough customers, and that is ALWAYS because their food isn’t good.

    I happen to live in a city that has a high throughput of the kinds of businesses we’re talking about: and business failures in this business is 100% always because of the food - I try them all out.


    Their lives suck so screw them? Is that really your position?

    We actually know that they do get out of it by working those jobs and getting skills via experience. It is why economic mobility, and peak income fall dramatically when you raise a minimum wage. The entire point of several of the studies I offered was to show that actual people don't get out of poverty explicitely because the minimum wage removes their ability to gain skills via experience.
    You can only help people help themselves. In order to do that, we need to raise the minimum wage, cut out those terrible businesses that require government assistance to survive, and create programs to help whoever is left.
    Challenge to support a claim.: Please provide this explicit evidence. I might have missed it.

    Apparently you do Sharmak. Remember that this entire point was brought up because you pitched a fit because of the term "artificial price floor." If you are agreeing that they aren't a natural party to wage setting because wages can be agreed to without them (the most patently obvious idea ever), then why did you have an emotional response over artificial earlier?

    I also imagine that you meant the last part as a throw away line, but I want to be sure. Are you seriously maintaining that "governments have been a an actual party to wage setting since there were governments?"
    This is a pointless discussion over your economics 101 view of the world. The government is wholly part of this discussion so whether they're artificial or natural or not natural is irrelevant. You're again quibbling over terminology and not substance. It makes no difference in your limited and simplified view of the problem that they’re natural or not: governments are already part of the entire process from regulations to programs in this actual real world that we’re supposed to be discussing and not what you learned in high school.

    You contradict yourself here. You said "former" (those factors affect market operations), but then you state the latter position (markets wouldn't exist absent taxes and regulation). Your response seems confused and incoherent. All I can do is respond to both points.

    1) "those factors affect market operations, so they are market participants." This bizarre view seems to not understand what a market participant is. Volcanoes affect market operations and prices too, but no one would call them a market participant. Clearly you can't mean that just because something is a relevant factor in price setting (like the weather, distance, time, taxes, etc) that it is a market participant.

    2) Ok, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that markets cannot exist sans government (hint: retraction is the wise option since markets predate governments).
    Wrong. I didn't say "WOULDN'T". I said they "DO NOT" exist. I've already explained this - do you not understand the distinction I am making? And because governments DO exist and regulations DO exist and those regulations affect the markets DIRECTLY then it's clear they are a market participant no matter how you want to perceive it. Not only that, the government also supplement's the businesses by taking up the salary slack, so they're literally on both sides of the employer/employee side of things. Including other taxes and other things the governments do.

    Also, since this is the second time I've had to respond to this: Challenge to support a claim. State exactly where I said "that markets cannot exist sans government ".


    I know, which is why it is weird that you seemed so emotional over the term. The fact that you are angry that all economists and lawyers use this term regularly in common parlance isn't really relevant to the fact that the policy you are defending makes peoples' lives worse.
    Pointing out that your limited world view isn't really very realistic isn't being emotional. I think you're being emotional in the cultish way you trot out irrelevant terms, focusing on your economics 101 view of the world using your simplified world views that continue to be ignored by governments the world over. You’ve had to increase the number of papers that support your case and try to limit discussion and misquote me in order to support your case. To now, multiple times in your last response, to ad-hom by position (which is broader and more realistic than your simple views) just speaks volumes as to how poorly formed your argument is. Twice now, quibbling over minor terminology that adds no real substance to the debate! And twice over high school economic terms. And you wonder why governments ignore you?

    If economists are more concerned about pushing their jargon and their simple models as you continue doing, it is little wonder that they are being ignored.

    You mean like IQ and race aren't connected, but the government still used that to pass laws preventing blacks from working? Be careful conflating data with political processes.

    Regardless, you ignored the points made, perhaps because they are inconvenient for you?

    1) to be accurate, you mean wage rate not a total wage, right? There has been no evidence in this thread that MW workers get better take home pay as a result of wage increases, and some evidence that shows that they get worse take home pay.

    2) Well we can agree that fewer MW workers will have to work multiple jobs, since we know, from the evidence, that quite a few of them will be working 0 jobs.
    1. I don't know if there is NO evidence and I don't know if your SOME evidence is applicable generally. If you're still using Seattle as a general 'proof' then I think the jury is still out on this.
    2. Sure, temporarily as the bad businesses fail but there's nothing to stop them from finding other jobs and if those jobs aren't available, the government, as always, is there to help.

    Exactly my point, thank you. If you operate on a bizarre view that raising a price doesn't discourage how much is actually bought, you will end up putting a lot of people out of work, impovershing minorities, creating intergenerational poverty, and reducing minority access to goods and services.

    More relevant to the thread, now that you've conceded that closing your business because of MW, all the repeated statements about them being "bad business" are retracted as well. Continuing to make that claim, absent evidence would be a violation of the support requirements.
    Um, no - I am saying that if a minor blip such as MW causes them to fail then that makes them a bad business for not considering or factoring in a buffer for such changes or otherwise just not doing their math or otherwise having a good enough product in the first place. Nice try again failing to understand what is being said.

    Given that my day job is actually a program manager for brand development and regulatory compliance in the most heavily regulated field in the US, I would imagine I actually have a better understanding of the world than you.
    You're the one that pointed out that companies don't (or shouldn’t) focus on regulation earlier so I will take that as yet another red herring in your argument.

    And if you have a better understanding then you’re doing a terrible job showing it or incorporating it into your arguments. You appear to be more interesting in pushing your knowledge of economic terms rather than solving any real world problems at hand.

    I'm actually concerned you don't know what an is/ought fallacy is.

    Because companies have to, and do (generally) follow regulatory guidance doesn't mean that all regulatory guidance is good for consumers and workers right? [If you think that the government acts with perfect efficiency for everyone's welfare we have a different cult/religion/naivety point to discuss].
    Again, you're overstating your point. When did I say ALL regulatory guidance is good? If you focus on what I said, rather than what you wish I'd said, then perhaps we'll have a more productive debate. And who is saying that governments act with PERFECT efficiency? And what does an is/ought fallacy have to do with ANYTHING we're discussing! Sigh, sometimes I feel you're your own worst enemy, arguing against yourself, using irrelevant terms, and ignoring that the real world exists and that this debate is one that is held within this real world and not your fictional simplified version of it.


    This is an argument against corporate welfare, which is outside the scope of this thread, not an argument for minimum wage.

    Your argument seems to be EMP are already hurting, so who cares if we hurt them more? Remember, we've already established (in such excruciating detail you've already conceded the point) that increasing the MW, on net, makes people worse off. So the argument you are left with is, "I don't care if it hurts them more, as long as it hurts businesses I don't like." How is that a moral position?
    The whole argument is about corporate welfare! What are you literally talking about is removing regulations that allow companies to pay less than the minimum wage - that's corporate welfare you're arguing for!


    You can appeal to whatever fallacy you want, but unless you tackle that single objectively true fact, you simply sound callous.
    Um, who's being emotional now? It is objectively true that everything you have said has had little effect on the world and the reason why is clearly shown because the world you wish to see is already proven to be terrible. You can't even explain your point of view properly without showing you understand the role of government. Indeed, you're claiming that corporate welfare is out of scope!

    An interesting viewpoint. So when the democratic process created Jim Crowe laws that fobade black owned businesses, we should have respected that as well?
    Strawman - we already know that politics isn't morally perfect.

    But nothing about it being a case study in Seattle means it isn't applicable to other regions. If you want to make an argument that its findings aren't representative of labor markets, you have to give a positive defense for the distinction you are drawing, not just highlight that it is a distinction.
    Not my claim to disprove - you're the one saying that Seattle is 100% applicable to all regions in all economies.

    You'll have a bit of a hard time though given that the consensus values from all kinds of regions, for all kinds of time periods, in all kinds of different labor markets is that at 10% increase in the MW leads to a ~4% decrease in employment. (See below for reference)
    The 4% is due to companies that are barely making it anyway right? At least according to the evidence I already pointed out, this seems a fair trade. So I really think we're done here. I accept your 4% as an acceptable cost since I, as a taxpayer, don't want to support companies that are run poorly.


    No, charitably assuming you've read the OP, I'm assuming you don't realize what an environmental scan is. That is where a researcher reviews all the major works on a subjec over a period of time and consolidates the results. The Neumark study in the OP alone covers 100 independent, peer-reviewed papers on the minmum wage. I then offer a list in OP II of more than 50 papers supporting the consclusion of this thread. There are then at least another dozen papers in this thread supporting the same conclusion.

    Those papers support the UW findings. The results of the papers in Neumark cluster around the UW number for unemployment rates. Within a standard deviation, the papers found about 4% decrease in employment for every 10% increase in MW.
    Got it - you did overstate that you presented 150 papers. Quote "I've presented nearly 150 other economic papers in this thread." is not true.

    I have you made sure that the 150 is even accurate that you’re not double counting some?

    Is/Ought fallacy. Nothing about the nature or reality of their influence changes the outcomes. I'm arguing against those outcomes.

    It is absolutely bad form to highlight a government policy as inevitable or any obections to its negative consequences as illegitimate because...government!

    It wasn't illegitimate to agitate against the internment of japanese-americans, even though the reality was that it was happening. Or against the discrimination against blacks in the South by the government even though it was happening.

    Using the government as a smokescreen to ignore the disaterous effects of your policy is absolutely bad form.
    I have no idea what point you're making here. Government policy isn't inevitable, no-one said that (again you're arguing against yourself). Government policy is what we are currently talking about - it is the situation you are arguing against and I am arguing for. You're ignoring the reality that this is what governments do, in some cases, argue for a better world for their voters, ideally on the platform they ran on.

    If you're against that, that is fair too, I'm not saying it's illegitimate. What I am saying is illegitimate is your economics 101 view of the world that ignores the real world . It's not a smokescreen - it's literally what we're discussing and no matter how unnatural or artificial these things are (in your limited model of the world), the government, and by extension, us as taxpayers, must be part of your argument. If it isn't then you have no argument, which is why your argument holds no water when the question comes up in the real world (and not your artificially limited one).

    Your view of what the world ‘ought’ to be appears to be predicated on either governments not existing or exercising their right, if not mandate, to represent the people that voted them in. Multiple times, you have suggested that government regulations of this sort are ‘artificial’, as if they aren’t part of the fabric of the economy around wages, or otherwise not considered by businesses as a business risk, so it appears you’re the one using government (aka bad) as a smokescreen to suggest that the ‘natural’ order should be the one holding sway.

    It isn't the core issue of this thread at all. The core issue of this thread is whether or not the people we aim to help with the minimum wage are actually helped or not. You made a positive claim that the harmful effects of theminium wage are mitigated because "people will get other jobs." I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.
    I didn't say are necessarily mitigated, I am saying they CAN be mitigated. I definitely don't see support that that people that lose their minimum wage job will be destituted forever. Nor do I believe that you have shown that those people are somehow PREVENTED from find other jobs.

    It is central to the thread because I've offered evidence in this thread that contradicts this. We know from the data that people generally don't get new jobs (since these were the entry level positions training them for other jobs), their intergeneration poverty rates increase, their life time maximum wage decreases, their life time earnings decrease, and "Systematic Unemployment" (Unemployment that is persistent) dramatically increases, especially among those economically marginalized.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide this evidence.


    How exactly? If you are going to propose that the effects we actually see, in reality, aren't a big deal because they can be mitigated, it is incumbent on you to explain how.
    They are being mitigated by the government programs that support them. What are you talking about? You're literally ignoring things we have discussed already.

    No Sharmak, as I've detailed, this isn't an emotional term at all (well except for the fact that you seem to take it and respond emotionally), no more so than marginal utility, or comparitave advantage. Artificial simply means that the effect or topic being discussed is brought about by means of some kind of intervention, it is literally used all the time by economists (and lawyers, and doctors, and essentially everyone) of all stripes:

    ...

    That you took the term so negatively reflects more on your defensiveness than on the term's connotation.
    So like I said - an irrelevant distinction that has nothing to do with the debate at hand as to whether government involvement is warranted or not.

    I’m ignoring the rest of the pointless questions that we have discussed already.
    Last edited by SharmaK; April 11th, 2018 at 11:24 AM.

  11. #551
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    There is one way to conclusively settle this. Formal debate. An OP and one response with a closing argument. Judges can be Mican, MT, Belthazor, and Frank, or we can simply open it up to the entire forum to judge.

    Are you game?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    try to restrict discussion (i.e. that somehow MW isn’t also the other side of the coin from corporate welfare)
    The irony of you telling me not to mischaracterize your argument when you've had to retract claims as to what my argument even is.

    And here again, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that I have maintained that corporate welfare isn't related to minimum wage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Basically your position boils down to that small sliver (4%) of economic interactions between poor companies that employ poor people.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    1) That my position only refers to both poor people and poor companies (my OP seems to indicate the opposite).
    2) That those only represent 4% of all economic interactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Their employees are already likely being supported via government programs anyway since they’re being paid so poorly so they going to be fine until their next opportunity.
    Which I haven't disputed. What you fail to address is that your policy of minimum wage increases makes them more dependent on government programs rather than less. And makes them poorer, makes them less likely to escape poverty and less likely for their children to escape poverty. Do you dispute any of those outcomes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    To suggest that MW is the final step rather than a first step is also poor thinking..They are being mitigated by the government programs that support them.
    Which I haven't done at all, of course. And we should note that they aren’t being mitigated, that is literally the point of the evidence in this thread. Remember all the evidence in OPII about how the minimum wage has no positive effect on poverty rates? Hard to arguing that they are actually being mitigated if you can’t show that they are actually being mitigated.

    So what exactly can government do to mitigate the intergenerational poverty, lower economic mobility, and high unemployment caused by minimum wage laws? Please be specific.

    If, rather, you don’t have specific policies (and I've challenged you on several occasions on this point) that would affect those, please refrain from making the claim that they are capable of being mitigated without providing some kind of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    Show that there is a 20-30% job loss in Seattle. I don't recall any evidence that high. Prove that this is a linear relationship. That each year, each increase is losing that number of jobs. Show that all these people weren’t able to get other jobs and that they are now stuck in multigenerational poverty. And while you’re at it, show this 20-30% magnitude loss in another study where minimum wage has had time to fully take into effect.
    Let me get this straight. You spend two paragraphs on your highhorse telling me to stop misrepresenting my position, then you go ahead and challenge me to support something I've never said?

    Let me actually state the claims I've made and you can tell me if you think those are supported or not;

    1) The current data from Seattle has shown an unemployment effect from the increase to $11/hour that, when extrapolated to the increase of $15/hour will result in a loss of 20-30% of minimum wage jobs. The University of Washington team found this effect to be consistent between the first wave of increases and the second wave of increases. What's also important is that they found this effect consistent with studies from several other regions and time periods. They will release a follow on report following the $15/hour increase that is underway now.

    2) The 10% increase leading to a 4% decrease in minimum wage employment effect was found to be consistent across multiple regions, mutliple levels, and across multiple times. If there is some elasticity in this curve, it hasn't been detected between 75 cents/hour and $15/hour.


    A couple of notes. The idea that they are finding other jobs is included in the net findings here. Some might be, but when all the dust settles, 4% fewer of them are employed for every 10% increase in Minimum Wage.

    I didn't claim that they are "all" stuck in multi-generational poverty. I pointed out that the minimum wage increases the number of economically marginalized people who end up in multi-generational poverty. That this effect has been widely noted and the mechanism is patently obvious (if you decrease someone's lifetime earnings, you are going to make multi-generational poverty more likely).

    I also have shown this same magnitude loss in nearly 100 studies. That was the point of the Nuemark study, it surveyed the findings of more than 100 peer reviewed works and found the same effect. A 10% increase has led to a 4% decrease.

    Nor did I claim it to be a linear relationship. In fact, I would point out that the marginal revolution killed that idea a long time ago. What I said was that we could use a linear approximation as a conservative estimate. Remember that the marginal effect trends towards flat employment. IE if I raise the wage from $1M an hour to $1.5M an hour, I don’t disemploy as many people as if I raise it from $10/h to $15/h. So linear approximation tends to understate the unemployment effects of minimum wage rather than overstate it.

    Are any of these claims unsupported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Left to their own devices, the equilibrium price is set at a rate that employers must pay and that workers have to accept.
    Ok, so when you said:

    An employer is more 'powerful' in the minimum wage scenario we're talking about because labor is easily found and easily replaced...They have little negotiating power...

    You are retracting that now? If you are saying that employers don't actually have the power to affect wages, then what could this sentence possibly mean?

    And then you add this:
    This is nothing to do with monopsony power and everything to do with negotiation power.

    So if employers have stronger negotiating power, what are they negotiating if not wages? If they are negotiating wages, then you are saying that they have the ability, because of their relative power level to affect the wage level, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    But you keep forgetting that this is NOT what we are discussing: we are discussing a living wage.
    You mean the term I've asked you to define in a measurable way on no less than three occassions? Can you define living wage such that we could actually measure whether people were getting it or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    Please support or retract that you have provided *200* papers.
    I already explained this in post 545.

    OP: Environmental scan consisting of more than 100 peer-reviewed papers (117 to be exact). Plus I add two other studies. I should also note that the Neumark study conducted an independent verification of those other studies' findings with data covering from 1997-2005 across the entire US based on the Department of Labor's Monthly Labor review. It's conclusion was within the margin of error for the 4% for every 10% metric, though on the higher side, with it being closer to 5.9% for every 10%.

    OPII: Admittedly, I estimated 50 papers for OPII rather than counting them. Going back and counting them I actually posted 96.

    Since then, starting generally on page 23, I've posted another 15 papers (about half of page 23, half earlier).

    So the total number of papers referenced by me is 231.

    So you are correct that my claim is incorrect. I did not, as I claimed provide "almost 200" studies, rather I provided more than 200 studies, 231 to be precise.

    And since you dodged defending your claim, I'll re-engage. Please support or retract that, "And we see, again the world over, when a union or a government steps in, a better wage and better conditions can be achieved." Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure, for some of the lowest members that work for the weakest companies as you’ve pointed out. To which, I have to reply, good riddance to bad companies.
    So again, you seem to be endorsing the idea that it is fine if some people's lives are ruined, even if that means the overall condition of that industry and laborers is worse, as long as some set of companies is put out of business? Is that correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It doesn't matter - the goal is that a person working a full working week should be able to earn a living wage. Who knows what that is across all the economies around the world.
    How can it not matter? If you don't even know what the goal is, how can you determine if it isn't being met? Or what is necessary to meet it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't believe I have ever used the term "perfectly react" so that's a nonsensical claim for a start. If you want to repeat my own words and claims then state what I said. You're also strawmanning what I said which is not necessarily a 'perfect reaction' (see how your mistating of my position gets you) but a natural reaction to pause or slow down such efforts.
    I literally quoted you and responded to that. I'm not sure how you can conceive that a quote from you is a strawman.

    Let's simplify this, are you claiming or not that Governments would "instantly disband" all unions and minimum wage legislation if it were shown that a group of people were made worse off by their policies?

    IE, are you claiming or not, that governments respond primarily to the effects of their policies on economically marginalized groups?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Wrong - they are not being "discouraged" to work at all - according to you they are being fired.
    It is almost as if you didn’t read your own point. Your point wasn’t about increasing the minimum wage, it was about decreasing it, making it too low.

    A low minimum wage just discourages work, except for the most desperate who have to do multiple jobs.

    So if a low minimum wage actually discourages work, making people less likely to work, what happens? If there are fewer people willing to do a job, what happens to the price of labor to do that job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    So what percentage of MW workers end up in this exact scenario?
    From the OP and OPII we find that for every 10% increase in minimum wage, there is a 5.6% (estimates range from 4.2 to 6.4) increase in intergenerational poverty and a 16% decrease in economic mobility. These figures apply to workers in the lowest income quintile when the laws are passed.

    Because you didn’t address it, I want to highlight it. If any of these factors are not outcomes of the minimum wage, please highlight and we can discuss. If you accept that they are, that’s fine, we just need to know what your position is.

    Remember, that is your scenario:

    1) More people are reliant on higher levels of government welfare (with all the negative social outcomes that that produces).

    2) More people enter intergenerational poverty, meaning their children and grandchildren are relaint on welfare (and all the negative social outcomes that that produces).

    3) People's lifetime earnings (including welfare payments) go down, meaning they are, in total, poorer off.

    4) Economic mobility is dramatically decreased, so fewer people have a chance of getting a better job in the future.


    How is that not blatantly unfair? Because you had good intentions? Please.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    You're supporting that MW workers are being paid correctly
    Wait, what?

    A, please support that I said that MW workers are being paid correctly… Challenge to support a claim.

    B, how does that have anything to do with me advocating that a business being supported by the government? Specifically, where did I say that “because MW workers are being paid correctly that necessitates that we must support businesses with corporate welfare?” Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's not my claim
    It absolutely is your claim, unless you are retracting it now. You claimed in post 546 that the reason a company shut down (margin v greed) matters to those how are unemployed.

    Squatch: I want to remind you that it doesn't really matter why they shut down. They could shut down purely out of malevolent greed or out of economic necessity. Neither explanation affects how those who lose their jobs are impacted. If a company shuts down purely because the owner was a "fat cat" their wage is still $0. If it is because they were a low capital startup run by an inner city minority with no access to capital, their wage is still $0.

    Sharmak: It absolutely matters…

    Your entire point for several posts now has been that it is relevant, from an marginalized worker point of view if the company shuts down because the owner is greedy versus if their margin was small (you confuse in post 546 a low capital and low margin company, but we will let that pass for now).

    Is that still your claim, or do you agree, from the perspective of the person now making $0/h that it matters very little?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It's hardly emotional or rationalizing to expect a company that doesn't make enough profits to survive a minor MW raise, (which are usually scaled in and not a huge jump), to fail. It's just a fact of life - it's neither surprising nor unexpected.
    Two interesting points here.

    1) Thank you for conceding the thread. Remember, my claim in the OP is that raises in the minimum wage cause unemployment, especially in workers who are economically marginalized. You concede that entire point here when you say that you don’t expect those companies to survive a minimum wage increase.

    2) You hint at the underlying fact that essentially everyone agrees here that MW increases cause unemployment. If those increases didn’t, why would they be phased in rather than just implemented? If they really created net benefit aren’t you just being cruel by phasing them in? Of course, the rational explanation is that we all know they cause unemployment and the phasing is a political decision to minimizing the noticeable impact and prevent voter backlash.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I stopped at the point where you didn't appear to understand what 5-star meant…That you’re resorting to appealing to popularity (muh poor people) and emotion (muh really poor minorities) aren’t a good arguments against otherwise having to support actual leeches on society.
    So…no you didn’t read through it. Great.

    The fact that 5 star restaruants are less effected by MW increases is only irrelevant if you have absolutely no understanding of the OP. If a MW increase predominately hurts business employing, owned by, and serving lower income communities then that is a direct support for the OP’s claim that “increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society,” because it shows that those at the economic margins are disproportionately affected by the negative aspects of the minimum wage.

    Even if we assumed that those working in 5 star restaurants were benefited (and the evidence indicates that they aren’t, that they have fewer non-pecuniary benefits, work fewer hours, and have higher turnover), that only supports the central thesis of minimum wage research, that the policy hurts the poor and favors the well-off. In this case, low income people lose their jobs, while those generally coming from middle and upper class families do not. [You’ll undoubtedly have a tirade that this is unsupported, so I will pre-emptively refer you back to the OP and OP II where I detail this with support.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Restaurants fail because their food is terrible - they are 100% driven by providing good food and service at a good price. To blame labor costs is ridiculous.
    Let me get this straight.

    Sharmak: I demand, in their own voices, direct survey data from employers on why they closed!
    Also Sharmak: They lied on the survey!

    You obviously see the fallacy you are committing here, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    How is this a relevant scenario?...And I have supported my claim already, if you find flaws in it then point out the flaws in my argument. To support or retract that restaurants do one thing (provide food) to make a profit is kinda ridiculous - it’s in the definition of what they do.
    Besides the obvious relevance to a cost increase affecting a business? You really don’t see how this is a relevant scenario?

    And I’m afraid you didn’t support that claim, you simply restated it as if it were a truism. You also seem to be defending a different, and unrelated, point here, so I’m curious if perhaps you were a bit confused when you typed up your initial claim. To be clear, your claim was;

    [T]he businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible.

    To clarify, I’m not arguing that businesses can and do fail because they fail to attract customers, which is apparently what you are defending. Rather, I’m asking you to support your assertion (made both originally and in your last post) that businesses only fail because they fail to attract customers. If we are really talking about a business closing because it isn’t profitable, that can come both through revenue and expense changes right?

    So given that clarification, please support or retract that the businesses in the survey referenced (https://www.restaurantowner.com/down...rate_study.pdf) failed because their food was terrible.
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    You can only help people help themselves. In order to do that, we need to raise the minimum wage, cut out those terrible businesses that require government assistance to survive, and create programs to help whoever is left.
    Challenge to support a claim.: Please provide this explicit evidence. I might have missed it.
    But you are ignoring the fact that by raising the minimum wage you do exactly the opposite. You cut out their ability to help themselves with on the job training, gaining of experience, and decreasing of risk via having references and a resume. Those are exactly the factors most likely to affect someone’s ability to rise out of poverty.

    If you had bothered to read OP II, you would see that I already presented significant evidence to this effect:


    • The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings.
    Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).
    • The minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty.
    Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).
    • The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.
    Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).
    • The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas.
    Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).
    • The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
    Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).
    • The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.
    Stigler (1946).

    I also detailed this in post 123. And quoted it directly to you when you challenged this point the last time!
    Income mobility can be measured over the course of an individual’s life or by the mobility between generations in the same family. Most people start their adult lives with relatively low earnings, because they have few job skills, little work experience, and incomplete education. As they build skills, gain experience, and complete their education, their earnings rise through their 20s, 30s, and 40s, and they typically achieve their maximum earnings in their 50s or 60s before they retire.

    Historically, this “lifecycle” of earnings has created a great deal of income mobility. Data from the University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics show that, of people who were in the lowest fifth of income earners in 1975, only 5.1 percent of them were still in the lowest fifth 16 years later and 29 percent had actually risen all the way to the top fifth of income earners.

    Mobility between generations is less dramatic. A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research examined how children born in the 1980s did relative to their peers compared to how their parents did relative to their peers. It found that 8 percent of children born into families in the bottom fifth of income earners made it to the top fifth of income earners of their own age by the time they were 30. For children born in the middle fifth, 20 percent made the top by age 30.

    Contrary to the claims of the President, the study also found that the rate of intergenerational mobility was largely unchanged over the last 50 years. Yet, this does not mean that there are not barriers to upward mobility. The study found significant local and regional variations in mobility across the country. Neighborhoods with large densities of African-American populations tended to demonstrate lower relative income mobility.

    Unfortunately, President Obama’s proposals are unlikely to help increase income mobility in the lower-mobility segments of the U.S. population. The greatest barrier to income mobility for some workers is their ability to get up onto the first rung or two of the economic ladder that will allow them to build the skills in order to achieve a normal lifecycle of earnings.

    The minimum wage is one policy that prevents workers from stepping onto the first rung of the ladder. Some workers’ hourly productivity is below the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. These workers are prevented from getting their first job and beginning the process of acquiring the skills that would lead to higher incomes in the future. Young African-Americans are disproportionately harmed. Nearly half of the workers earning the minimum wage are under 25, and unemployment among 16 to 24 year old African Americans remains at more than 23 percent. It is likely that an increase in the federal minimum wage would prevent even more workers from getting their first job that allows them to start climbing the economic ladder.

    I also detailed this in post 494, not directly to you, but Frank Apisa;

    Concerns about Economic Mobility

    I think this perception is based on a misunderstanding of the argument. I believe both sides want people to be able to climb the economic ladder, be more successfull, and lead productive lives. My argument (and the argument of most of the people who agree with me (especially if we exclude the mouth breathers on both sides)) is that the minimum wage does exactly the opposite. If we go back to my OP you'll see that one of the criticisms I level against the minimum wage is exactly that it prevents people from "develop[ing] skills necessary to obtain a job it is worth paying a living wage to do..."

    That is the mechanism that makes it so dangerous to those who are most economically vulnerable. There is a risk to employing someone with no work experience, or no skills, or a criminal background, or a homelessness background. So when MW is high, employers tend to go with the safe bet, which tends (according to the data) to be the children of middle class suburbanites rather than inner city dwellers.

    It has been said that the MW takes the bottom rungs out of the economic ladder and justifiably so. When the MW is increased in a city, minority economic mobility (the ability to get a higher paid job at some point in your life) drops dramatically. By preventing those jobs that generally provide the first work experience from being available, you make the hurdle into a "living wage" job far higher and far fewer people are able to take it.
    We estimate the minimum wage's effects on low-skilled workers' employment and income trajectories...Over three subsequent years, we find that binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an "internship" effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation.
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w20724?ut...utm_source=ntw
    [I then quote post 123 again]


    I also detailed some of this information in response to your objection in post 482.


    In addition to all of that, there is a plethora of evidence out there on just this effect.

    The Panel Study of Income Dynamics is the most comprehensive data set on individual earnings every compiled. It tracks the earnings of every US worker for 25 years (now approximately 35 years). It found that when a state increased its MW laws, the lifetime earning and maximum earning rate of workers in the lowest quintile dramatically decreased. IE when the MW was increased, peoples’ future prospects decreased. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/07/art4full.pdf

    [W]e find that binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Estimates using both data sets are robust to adopting a range of alternative strategies, including matching on the size of states’ housing declines, to account for variation in the Great Recession’s severity across states. In aggregate, we estimate that this period’s minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by around 0.6 percentage point. We provide evidence that the $7.25 federal minimum wage had deeper and more sustained bite on low-skilled groups’ wage distributions than the federal minimum wage increases of the 1990s.
    http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~j1clemens/p...tRecession.pdf

    The Central Bank of Peru also did a comprehensive study of the last 30 years of data in Peru and found that MW increases there had significant unemployment effects (larger than those found in the US) and significantly increased poverty by decreasing economic mobility. http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Publicac...jo-12-2013.pdf
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #552
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The government is wholly part of this discussion so whether they're artificial or natural or not natural is irrelevant.
    First, I’ll note that you didn’t respond or defend the silly idea that governments have been a party to wage setting since there have been governments. That is a helpful retraction, thank you.

    Second, it is incredibly important to the nature of the defense you’ve offered of MW. You have essentially fallen back on the idea that it is justified because “governments do it.” Failing any actual defense of why that matters, it is important to note that governments are not a natural part of wage discussions, but have rather imposed an artificial constraint on wage setting. It is also important because all artificial constraints on prices create some kind of cost. Given that the government is imposing a price floor (something no one on the planet to my knowledge disputes), we have to ask what are the natural consequences of a price floor? What have they been in literally every single situation a price floor has been introduced above the market price?

    Those consequences are important, your willingness to write off those on the economic margins not withstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Wrong. I didn't say "WOULDN'T". I said they "DO NOT" exist
    Ok, Challenge to support a claim.. Please support that markets do not exist absent taxes and regulations? To give you a bit of a headstart, please explain how gray and black markets exist, or provide evidence that they don’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And because governments DO exist and regulations DO exist and those regulations affect the markets DIRECTLY then it's clear they are a market participant no matter how you want to perceive it.
    And because volcanos DO exist and affect the markets DIRECTLY then it's clear they are a market participant no matter how you want to perceive it.

    Do you see how silly your position is? Affecting a market does not make one a market participant. Can you provide a definition from a respected source that says that all factors that affect prices are market participants? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Challenge to support a claim. State exactly where I said "that markets cannot exist sans government ".
    Your original statement was:

    I don't understand your point that it's a non-market actor: the government, since all the regulations, laws and taxes *are* the foundation that the market exists on.

    Given that you are calling taxes and regulations the “foundation” that the market exists on, it would seem clear that you are saying it wouldn’t exist sans government. IE without those taxes and regulation, the market would not exist.

    This is clearly not you saying that they just affect prices, you are calling taxes and regulation the “foundation” meaning that they are the establishing artifacts that markets rely on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Pointing out that your limited world view isn't really very realistic isn't being emotional. I think you're being emotional in the cultish way you trot out irrelevant terms
    You’re right, pointing that out isn’t emotional. Accusing me of being cultish for using a term in common parlance amongst economists, lawyers, regulators, and MW proponents is emotional. Creating a strawman parody over a term widely accepted with no subjective connotation is emotional.

    Go re-read the response I’m quoting and tell me it isn’t an emotional response. Tell me you don’t read it with a shouting, angry intonation in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    1. I don't know if there is NO evidence and I don't know if your SOME evidence is applicable generally. If you're still using Seattle as a general 'proof' then I think the jury is still out on this.
    2. Sure, temporarily as the bad businesses fail but there's nothing to stop them from finding other jobs and if those jobs aren't available, the government, as always, is there to help.
    Noting that you ignored the fact that your world view (governments are the determining factor on whether a field is correct or not) requires you to accept that racial discrimination is fine in some instances, we will move on.

    1) You do, in fact, know that there is no evidence because literally none has been provided. If you wish to defend your position then you should offer some evidence of your own. As it stands, there is literally no evidence in this thread that MW workers get better take home pay as a result of wage increases, and some evidence that shows that they get worse take home pay.

    1B) No jury is still out on whether or not the Seattle study is generally applicable. You simply refused to apply it to other labor markets with, quite literally, zero explanation as to why it wouldn’t apply. No economist, no lawyer, no serious researcher that I’m aware of has implied that the reaction Seattle employers had to the minimum wage is mysteriously different than, say, Detroit employers would have, or London employers. If you want to maintain that Seattle is different in a material sense, present an argument. Until you offer said argument, that point continues unrebutted.

    2) Challenge to support a claim. Whoa there. Do you have evidence that MW unemployment effects are temporary? IE can you present a peer-reviewed work that shows that that level of unemployment drops after some period of time above and beyond background growth rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Um, no - I am saying that if a minor blip such as MW causes them to fail then that makes them a bad business for not considering or factoring in a buffer for such changes or otherwise just not doing their math or otherwise having a good enough product in the first place.
    More likely, you’ve forgotten what you argued. I pointed out in post 545 that, “Clearly if we institute a cost on a business based on non-market (ie artificial) considerations, that wouldn't reflect on their market based business model, correct?”

    To which, in post 546, you responded: “Sure”

    That means you are conceding that non-market costs do not reflect on them being a bad business, as you initially claimed. Rather, you are claiming that they are bad at understanding politics. Sure, that is true, but it doesn’t mean they are a bad business. That specific claim appears to be retracted unless you can show that instituting a non-market cost on a company reflects on their business model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    You appear to be more interesting in pushing your knowledge of economic terms rather than solving any real world problems at hand.
    Heaven forbid we actually research the field that governs how things actually operate before creating a policy. Would you also encourage us not to study law before we file a lawsuit? Or physics before building a rocket?

    And how, exactly, is it not dealing with the problems at hand to show that the policy you are advocating for creates poverty? I appear to be the only one dealing here with how people are actually affected, and harmed, by the MW. Your response seems to be to trot out an is/ought fallacy about fighting city hall.

    It is a simple question, one you refuse to answer. Are minimum wage workers better off or worse off following a minimum wage hike?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Again, you're overstating your point. When did I say ALL regulatory guidance is good?
    Not really, I’m just reciting back your argument to you. That is sounds over the top is a reflection on it, not me.

    Your point was that we can ignore all the peer-reviewed evidence about minimum wage effects because governments ignore it as well (an unsupported claim by you).

    You further said (talking about all the harm MW does); “if this were true then all minimum wage legislation and all unions would be instantly disbanded”

    It is your argument that the existence of minimum wage legislation means that the MW doesn’t produce negative effects, not mine.

    Because a company follows a rule or regulation has no reflection on whether that regulation is good for consumers and workers right? Should be an easy yes answer here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I really only care about the system working and keeping poor businesses running does no one any favors.
    Except those people who lose their jobs and economic mobility, right?

    Oh, and their children and grandchildren who are more likely to live in poverty as a result?

    Oh, and the communities that lose access to goods and services and have to go without?

    Oh, and the minorities who would have escaped poverty through business ownership, but now can't, right?

    Oh, and the tax payers who now have to foot a higher welfare bill?

    Oh, and the tax payers also because there are fewer businesses to offset their tax bill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What are you literally talking about is removing regulations that allow companies to pay less than the minimum wage - that's corporate welfare you're arguing for!
    You’ve become so focused on “evil corporations” (ie small businesses run by minority owners) that you’ve completely missed my argument. My point is not about companies, it is about people. Are their lives better off with a higher minimum wage or not? And we've already established (in such excruciating detail you've already conceded the point) that increasing the MW, on net, makes people worse off. So the argument you are left with is, "I don't care if it hurts them more, as long as it hurts businesses I don't like." How is that a moral position?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It is objectively true that everything you have said has had little effect on the world and the reason why is clearly shown because the world you wish to see is already proven to be terrible.
    You could make the same argument to William Wilburforce. It is just as fallacious now as it was then.

    Until you can at all respond to the fact that you’ve conceded that increasing the minimum wage, on average, makes people’s lives worse, you aren’t arguing about people, you are arguing about maintaining government bureaucracy, which is the justification for corporate welfare.

    If we want to start a thread about why you think it is good for the government to subsidize corporations, fine. This thread is about the negative impacts the policy you support has on real people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Strawman - we already know that politics isn't morally perfect.
    I’m glad you’re willing to say that. So if we know that politics isn’t morally perfect, how are you using politics to defend the MW? IE, why do you think that politics magically worked better this time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Not my claim to disprove - you're the one saying that Seattle is 100% applicable to all regions in all economies.
    It is your claim to defend when you’ve already been presented evidence showing that this study is applicable to other labor markets. Remember, one of the major groundbreaking parts of this study was that they were able to apply and validate their methodology against multiple data sets across different geographies and times. That was discussed when it was originally posted.

    If you want to maintain that all the economists, statisticians, and peer-reviewers were wrong, and that it isn’t, or why their actual validation was incorrect somehow, feel free. But simply maintaining that it doesn’t apply is unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The 4% is due to companies that are barely making it anyway right? At least according to the evidence I already pointed out, this seems a fair trade. So I really think we're done here. I accept your 4% as an acceptable cost since I, as a taxpayer, don't want to support companies that are run poorly.
    You mean the evidence I presented? Given that you’ve yet to produce any evidence in this entire thread, I think that claiming credit for my sources is a bit disingenuous. What’s better, you fantastically miss several points.

    1) “Barely” making it is a subjective term with no evidence behind it. Non-profits are also “barely” making it, as are companies that intentionally run low margins to benefit marginalized communities (remember Mrs. Obama’s food desert campaign?). Their profit margin is also no reflection on subsidization. Nothing about making a 1% profit margin means they get government funds.
    2) If you are claiming that these are companies that are barely profitable, please support that with data. None of the data I offered suggested that their profit margins were unusually low. Challenge to support a claim.
    3) How is it an “acceptable cost” to ruin someone’s life? How is that a moral position?
    4) Given that we know that you, as a taxpayer, now owe more because of this policy, how is it a trade off? This would seem to be a lose lose scenario, not a trade off.
    I get that it might 'seem' to be worth it, but the math doesn't work out remember? Remember, in Seattle (or LA, or any of the other "fight for 15" cities) we are talking about a 75% increase in the minimum wage (depending on where the city started. Seattle started at $8.55). That means something like a 20-30% decrease in employment. That means you are absolutely destroying the entire income for about a quarter to a third of minimum wage workers for a benefit the study also calls into question. Remember, we also see that the hours worked deceases, so that those who keep their jobs aren't actually better off.

    Just to summarize in big bullets because you keep bringing up this unsupported assertion. All minimum wage workers fall into two groups:

    1) 20-30% who lost their jobs, whose wage went to $0.

    2) 70-80% who, on average saw their paychecks decrease.



    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages

    That doesn't indicate that it was "worth it" at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Got it - you did overstate that you presented 150 papers. Quote "I've presented nearly 150 other economic papers in this thread." is not true.

    I have you made sure that the 150 is even accurate that you’re not double counting some?
    I thought about being snarky here, noting that my claim of “nearly” was in fact incorrect given that I’ve actually presented 231 as demonstrated above, but given that you are specifically saying that I “overstated” my case, I think you need to support or retract that.

    Please support or retract that I “overstated that you presented 150 papers” Challenge to support a claim.

    As to your question, yes I actually did. The Neumark environmental scan only covers papers that were published after the environmental scan in OPII. All subsequent papers have been published after Neumark’s study and thus cannot have been included. But hey, good way to try to cast doubt out there without actually having to do any research yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Government policy is what we are currently talking about - it is the situation you are arguing against and I am arguing for. You're ignoring the reality that this is what governments do, in some cases, argue for a better world for their voters, ideally on the platform they ran on.
    Except you’ve already conceded that these policies don’t actually make the voters better off. You’ve condeded the 4% per 10% increase unemployment effect. You’ve conceded the increased burden on the tax payer through additional transfer payments caused by MW. You’ve not contested the increased intergenerational poverty rates. You haven’t seemed to argue against any of the actual measurable effects at all.

    The sole, single defense you’ve offered is that governments do, in fact, institute MW laws. The point I was making here is that simply appealing to the fact that government’s make laws isn’t a good defense that those laws are good. If you want to offer an actual defense of that policy being good, you need to talk through its effects, not the mechanism of making it a law.

    So far, and I’m happy to be wrong here, you haven’t addressed the effects of MW laws on employees at all.

    So, Sharmak, what is your defense of the law as being a good law rather than just a law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I didn't say are necessarily mitigated, I am saying they CAN be mitigated. I definitely don't see support that that people that lose their minimum wage job will be destituted forever. Nor do I believe that you have shown that those people are somehow PREVENTED from find other jobs.
    1) I have shown that. That is what intergenerational poverty means. That is what lower income potential means. It means that these people don’t find other jobs. What’s more, the fact that the MW unemployment rate doesn’t drop back down over time (see OP and OPII) shows that they aren’t finding new jobs. That is the definition of unemployment.

    2) No, in post 540, you said: “People will get other jobs or be forced to retrain. It’s happened before and will happen again.” I’m asking you to support or retract that claim. That they will find new jobs. Challenge to support a claim. Remember, this is important because all the evidence presented thus far shows the opposite. You don’t get to just ignore evidence with unsupported claims here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide this evidence.
    See the OP, and OP II for discussions of long term poverty and unemployment rates. See the discussion above for evidence of income mobility.

    There is a reason that minimum wage increases are classified as structural unemployment, it is because it is long term, persistent, and unresolved without policy change.

    As detailed in the OPII works, there is a reason that black male youth unemployment is 28-40 percent in high minimum wage areas but 10-12 percent in low minimum wage areas and, importantly, has been that way for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Government provides the protection for the lower economic band so I see no problem with it making certain decisions that wipe out companies that only exist because they take advantage of supplemental programs.
    Even when those decisions make it worse for those in the lower economic band? Seems an odd solution to make their condition worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And if the government ends up having to keep these people alive, whilst these companies profit, then why should the government not raise MW and get rid of the worst of companies.
    Because that increases the total burden on government? And it causes a net harm to the individuals by lowering their economic mobility, lowering their lifetime earnings, and increases multi-generational poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    but at least the other 90% who don't lose their jobs end up with a better salary.
    But not a higher take home pay right? So they get paid at a higher rate, but take home less total money, right? If you are suggesting that they actually have more money in their pockets, you'll need to support that. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I also feel that you haven't made the case because you haven't shown that not having MW at all provides a better outcome: i.e. does not having MW provide a living wage for workers?
    I'd be happy to (and have to some extent in this thread already), can you define a living wage precisely? IE, can you provide a definition of living wage that allows me to say "person X is or is not earning a living wage?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  14. #553
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    662
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There is one way to conclusively settle this. Formal debate. An OP and one response with a closing argument. Judges can be Mican, MT, Belthazor, and Frank, or we can simply open it up to the entire forum to judge.

    Are you game?
    I think this is an outstanding idea and I would love to participate by judging/voting either with the group you mentioned or everyone or whatever Future is agreeable to.

  15. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  16. #554
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    There is one way to conclusively settle this. Formal debate. An OP and one response with a closing argument. Judges can be Mican, MT, Belthazor, and Frank, or we can simply open it up to the entire forum to judge.

    Are you game?
    Settle what exactly? How your arguments are largely ignored in the real world, i.e. the world that is beyond the scope of your limited arguments? That appears to be quite factual so I have no idea what you plan to gain from a formal debate: some brownie points? Satisfaction that you have put forward a 'good' argument (that's ignored by the world)?

    It might be best to take a breather, as I suggested earlier, and not vent your pent up frustration mashing the challenge button so much. I feel that you're quibbling over nothing and arguing a point that has already been lost in the real world but also limiting debate in a way that forbids us to discuss why you have lost. Certainly a weekly spam of challenges because you can't wait for your opponent to respond is poor form.

    I suggest, again, that after you've taken a breather, let's take a reset. Write a short paragraph as to what you believe my argument is and I will respond in kind, summarizing your points. At the moment you're nitpicking so much, I fear any single response would just be another flood of challenges. I think would be better for you to take the next few steps slowly and just argue a single point so that we can clear the backlog.

  17. #555
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Settle what exactly?
    Well the primary issue of the thread of course.

    Does increasing the minimum wage negatively impact those who are most vulnerable in our society? I'm happy to entertain a different premise to discuss if you want to propose it.

    I've had a couple of people PM me asking for us to do it, are you game? (It might be nice for you since there aren't challenges in formal debate).

    Here is how I propose it go:

    Squatch: 1 Post opening argument (my position).

    Sharmak: 1 Post opening argument (your position).

    Squatch: 1 Post rebuttal of your position.

    Sharmak: 1 post rebuttal of my position.

    Squatch: Closing argument

    Sharmak: Closing argument

    Votes by all active site members.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #556
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well the primary issue of the thread of course.

    Does increasing the minimum wage negatively impact those who are most vulnerable in our society? I'm happy to entertain a different premise to discuss if you want to propose it.

    I've had a couple of people PM me asking for us to do it, are you game? (It might be nice for you since there aren't challenges in formal debate).

    Here is how I propose it go:

    Squatch: 1 Post opening argument (my position).

    Sharmak: 1 Post opening argument (your position).

    Squatch: 1 Post rebuttal of your position.

    Sharmak: 1 post rebuttal of my position.

    Squatch: Closing argument

    Sharmak: Closing argument

    Votes by all active site members.
    I understand the mechanism and I'm sure there are lots of people that want something resolved. The problem is that we've gone far beyond your initial premise: even if your claim is true, and it may well be in the few studies that you've been able to selectively gather (rejecting the others as being not-economists or political entities), So given your claims, then what? Then I presume your suggestion is either to not institute MW, or not increase it, and possibly even to revoke it altogether. Yet to do so is to ignore my main point that your vision is too narrow to make such decisions, especially if those claims are being disputed and most especially because economies from the world over have chosen this path.

    You also exaggerate your claims, Seattle being the big one, where you finally said "when extrapolated to the increase of $15/hour will result in a loss of 20-30% " - where "when EXTRAPOLATED" has finally made its way to the front of the argument. An FD doesn't provide enough space to go back and forth given how long it took to get to that point.

    An FD is also a format that requires a single point, and we're arguing different ones: you that your limited set of ignored studies (btw, I don't know if your 200+ now includes filtering out duplicates) shows MW harms the weakest in the economy. And I am arguing that there are plenty of other larger concerns, some you have forced out of this discussion.

    And I also have a recent paper that draws opposite conclusions and at some point, it's worth going over that paper too.

    So the net result, for me, is that your best case is that your evidence continues to be ignored with people that have a broader view.

    That you cannot take the next few steps to determine whether weshould increase MW even given these results and examine why this is usually the path taken when governments make these decisions ignores that your studies are just a first step and a single data point in the decision making.

    Just to put you out of your misery though, your OP is poorly worded: "Does increasing the minimum wage negatively impact those who are most vulnerable in our society?" then the answer is ALWAYS going to be yes, because there is going to be at least one of those "most vulnerable" people that would be negatively impacted. So take that as a win if you like, if that's your goal. But while you continue to challenge-spam, mis-represent, and exaggerate whilst limiting debate, it makes it hard to see what your eventual goal is.

    So I have to politely decline an FD, not least of which, I have already won in the real world and your OP is too limited in scope to draw conclusions as to whether we should increase MW or not. For me, it isn't about 'winning' a debate but trying to understand where you're coming from - and you're making it too difficult because you're being too defensive on simple matters and evasive in others. An FD doesn't provide enough time to go through those details thoroughly enough.

    Next Steps: pick one of the challenges and let's go through them, one by one until we are done.

  19. #557
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The problem is that we've gone far beyond your initial premise
    Even if that were true (rather than it is simply a method of you ignoring scientific evidence), who cares? That debate wouldn't be about this thread. It is an entirely new debate, not referencing this thread, or relying on it. I would simply make an argument on whether this statement is true or not:

    Increasing the Minimimum Wage produces on net negative social impacts that are predominately benefit those from higher income groups at the expense of economically vulnerable people.


    Is that statement true or false? That is what that thread would seek to determine.



    Your rebuttal (as previewed here) is that there are other, non-economic factors to consider. Ok, fair enough. Present them and see if your case is more compelling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    So I have to politely decline an FD, not least of which, I have already won in the real world and your OP is too limited in scope to draw conclusions as to whether we should increase MW or not.
    I'm not sure anyone would read your last response as polite, perhaps you have a different definition of that word. But if that is your take so be it. You are free to rely on the emotional vindication that politicians are always right in your world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Next Steps: pick one of the challenges and let's go through them, one by one until we are done.
    The challenges are already stated. It is incumbant on you to support them. Sufficed to say, you are free to do that one by one as you like feel free to pick the one you want to start with, but you need to be aware that the remaining challenges are in effect until you support them.

    Or, you could try to coherently argue your "broader view" in a fresh setting...
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #558
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Even if that were true (rather than it is simply a method of you ignoring scientific evidence), who cares? That debate wouldn't be about this thread. It is an entirely new debate, not referencing this thread, or relying on it. I would simply make an argument on whether this statement is true or not:

    Increasing the Minimimum Wage produces on net negative social impacts that are predominately benefit those from higher income groups at the expense of economically vulnerable people.


    Is that statement true or false? That is what that thread would seek to determine.
    So your “debate” is essentially a tautology: you’re literally asking whether the papers are valid or not. That’s your only point? And if only one person is affected then you take that as a ‘win’, right?

    You also need to define “economically vulnerable people” before this can continue.

    Then you should have put nearly everything I’ve said out of scope.

    The challenges are already stated. It is incumbant on you to support them. Sufficed to say, you are free to do that one by one as you like feel free to pick the one you want to start with, but you need to be aware that the remaining challenges are in effect until you support them.

    Or, you could try to coherently argue your "broader view" in a fresh setting...
    Correct. Then consider everything beyond your tautological argument withdrawn. My point about your limited view is thus confirmed.

  21. #559
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So your “debate” is essentially a tautology: you’re literally asking whether the papers are valid or not. That’s your only point? And if only one person is affected then you take that as a ‘win’, right?

    I don't think you are using tautology correctly in that sentence. A tautology is a statement that is self-referentially true. Something like "all bachelors are not married." Did you mean something else with that objection?

    Additionally, I think you misunderstood the claim I'll defend. It isn't that some people are harmed, it is that the population of economically vulnerable are, on net harmed. IE that the total harm done by raising the minimum wage out weighs the total benefits accrued from raising the minimum wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    You also need to define “economically vulnerable people” before this can continue.

    Sure, makes sense. I am open to an alternative definition of who should be included, if you have one that makes more sense to you.

    Narrow Definition: Those people whose household income is in the lowest half of the lowest quintile and who are in the workforce.

    Broad Definition: Any individual currently earning minimum wage.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then you should have put nearly everything I’ve said out of scope.
    How so? Wouldn't your other defenses be considered "benefits" to that population and need to be weighed? I'm happy to include other objectively verifiable criteria in the thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then consider everything beyond your tautological argument withdrawn.
    If you wish to concede the thread that is your affair, rationalize it however you like.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  22. #560
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Just an evidence based side note, it looks as if US wage rates are increasing over the last two quarters in low income sectors. This undercuts the idea that employers are keeping wages down with their monopsony power as we should only see wage rate increases in higher income sectors in that case. That lower income sectors are growing faster indicates a more competitive employment field for employers and less bargaining power. http://www.aei.org/publication/so-wh...FIWmFqVlRxRCJ9
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 11:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 02:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 09:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 07:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 08:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •