House Dems propose raising minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

Ummmm…you haven’t linked to a peer-reviewed study, you’ve linked to a book.If you want to get into a cite war you’re going to have to try harder. Here, I’ll go for you: Eat this EE!

OK, now you go for me.

It’s a book that summarizes his own peer-revied articles and those of others.

You dug up one of his, and that’s the first one I would have linked to, as well. I’ll see which other ones I can get online.

By the way, the minimum wage in Washington is $9.04, and it’s tied to the CPI, and its 8.1% unemployment rate is better than 15 other states with lower minimum wages.

Surely you’re not suggesting a correlation, are you?

[John_Mace]

Here’s another from Neuman. The full article requires payment, so I can only link to the abstract:

Minimum Wage Effects throughout the Wage Distribution
This paper provides evidence on a wide set of margins along which labor markets can adjust in response to increases in the minimum wage, including wages, hours, employment, and ultimately labor income. Not surprisingly, the evidence indicates that low-wage workers are most strongly affected, while higher-wage workers are little affected. Workers who initially earn near the minimum wage experience wage gains. Nevertheless, their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes on earned income suggests adverse consequences, on net, for low-wage workers.

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

It’s a book that summarizes his own peer-revied articles and those of others.

You dug up one of his, and that’s the first one I would have linked to, as well. I’ll see which other ones I can get online.

I deliberately linked to a study of theirs because you linked to a book of theirs, not a study. You actually didn’t even link to the book, you linked to a description of a book. Does the description accurately describe the book? How do you know? Have you read the book? Have I read the book? Can I read it online, or do I have to pay $100 for a book that you probably haven’t read so that I can refute arguments that you probably aren’t aware the book makes? If this is a fair debate method, then I claim that refutations of all your arguments are contained in this book. Please purchase and read it, and then get back to me with your counterargument.

Surely you’re not suggesting a correlation, are you?

I don’t know, am I?

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

Here’s another from Neuman.

So, have you read this paper? Does it specifically refute my argument that increases in the minimum wage will have a positive effect under current economic conditions, which include a liquidity crisis? Maybe linking to abstracts of papers you haven’t read isn’t arguing in good faith? I’m just throwing that out there.

The full article requires payment, so I can only link to the abstract:

And I in turn will link to thefull refutation of Neuman’s paper.

[Evil_Economist]

@Evil_Economist

So, have you read this paper? Does it specifically refute my argument that increases in the minimum wage will have a positive effect under current economic conditions, which include a liquidity crisis? Maybe linking to abstracts of papers you haven’t read isn’t arguing in good faith? I’m just throwing that out there…

I tried to edit this to read:

… Maybe linking to abstracts of papers you haven’t read and that I have to pay to read to be able to refute isn’t arguing in good faith?..

but the damn thing timed out.

[elucidator]

Well, now, to be ruthlessly fair, we often give reference to technical or esoteric citations that we don’t entirely understand. That’s fair.

[Evil_Economist]

I really should try to gather up my thoughts and make one big post instead of making lots of little posts, which I’m sure annoys readers–I don’t post on message boards much, so I have some bad habits to overcome. so, apologies for posting so many times in a row.

For anyone who’s interested in a non-technical discussion of this topic, I found this interesting. He makes the same point I’m trying to make, but he does it more eloquently:

if one understands the need to raise real purchasing power, which everybody talks about, it’s kind of hard to comprehend why raising minimum wage isn’t one of the answers being talked about in this election campaign.

…

So there was very interesting work done by economists who are at the Federal Reserve, showing that minimum wage increases led to significant increase in purchases of durable goods–and, in fact, the implied multipliers were quite large. So from a perspective of stimulating demand, minimum wages will tend to increase demand by increasing the purchasing power of those workers. Well, the other side of it which is argued is that in a recession it’s a particularly bad time to raise the minimum wage, because on the one hand, you have this increase in purchasing power; on the other hand, raising the wages will cut jobs, even if it doesn’t cut jobs during a boom period. So we actually looked at what happens to the changes in minimum wages across different states, including during this recession, and we found no difference in the effect of the minimum wage on jobs in–depending on sort of the level of unemployment rate in that local area. So that again raised real question about some of the conventional wisdom that’s sometimes bandied around about minimum wages and jobs and recessions.

Krugman kind of addressed the point I was trying to make, but from the opposite side; he was making the point that decreases in minimum wage wouldn’t stimulate demand in a liquidity crisis.

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

I deliberately linked to a study of theirs because you linked to a book of theirs, not a study. You actually didn’t even link to the book, you linked to a description of a book. Does the description accurately describe the book? How do you know? Have you read the book? Have I read the book? Can I read it online, or do I have to pay $100 for a book that you probably haven’t read so that I can refute arguments that you probably aren’t aware the book makes? If this is a fair debate method, then I claim that refutations of all your arguments are contained in this book. Please purchase and read it, and then get back to me with your counterargument.

It’s simply not possible always to link to the primary sources online. If you think the information in the links are inaccurate, I suppose that’s your perogative. I’m happy to let the read decide. I’m sure it’s possible that the publisher of the book, MIT press, has distorted the content.

I don’t know, am I?

If you don’t know what you’re posting, then I don’t know why you post it.

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

It’s simply not possible always to link to the primary sources online. If you think the information in the links are inaccurate, I suppose that’s your perogative. I’m happy to let the read decide. I’m sure it’s possible that the publisher of the book, MIT press, has distorted the content.

I’m stuck trying to decide how to make fun of this argument. Help me out; should I go with:

“those idiots, if they had known we could extract everything of value in their book from a one paragraph summary, they wouldn’t have had to waste all that time writing it!”

or should I go with:

“If this book is the only source of information on unemployment on the whole internet, they’re probably undercharging for it!”

also, I note you didn’t answer any of my questions. Should I narrow it down to just one? OK, I will: Have you read this book?

No, wait, a second question: In your own words, what does the book say about the impact of minimum wage increases during a liquidity crisis?

If you don’t know what you’re posting, then I don’t know why you post it.

I’m an idiot savant.

[carnivorousplant]

What does one buy at $7.50 an hour, bread and water?

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

I really should try to gather up my thoughts and make one big post instead of making lots of little posts, which I’m sure annoys readers–I don’t post on message boards much, so I have some bad habits to overcome. so, apologies for posting so many times in a row.

For anyone who’s interested in a non-technical discussion of this topic, I found this interesting. He makes the same point I’m trying to make, but he does it more eloquently:

Krugman kind of addressed the point I was trying to make, but from the opposite side; he was making the point that decreases in minimum wage wouldn’t stimulate demand in a liquidity crisis.

If we need to inject some temporary buying power into the economy, at the very bottom of the income scale, then the way to do that is to give those folks some cash. Making a change to the MW is not a temporary action, and isn’t going to be reversed once the economy has recovered. Assuming that will actually make the economy recover.

I can’t imagine why anyone would advocate an irreversible policy like that as a way of temporarily altering the dynamics of the economy. Unless of course their motive is to make a permanent change.

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

No, wait, a second question: In your own words, what does the book say about the impact of minimum wage increases during a liquidity crisis?

It says that it results in increased unemployment. Whether that happens today or tomorrow isn’t really an issue, because the MW isn’t going to be reduced when the liquidity crisis is over.

[carnivorousplant]

@John_Mace

It says that it results in increased unemployment.

So we increase the minimum wage and hang employers who fire folks.

I don’t see a problem here.

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

If we need to inject some temporary buying power into the economy, at the very bottom of the income scale, then the way to do that is to give those folks some cash. Making a change to the MW is not a temporary action, and isn’t going to be reversed once the economy has recovered. Assuming that will actually make the economy recover.

I can’t imagine why anyone would advocate an irreversible policy like that as a way of temporarily altering the dynamics of the economy. Unless of course their motive is to make a permanent change.

Let’s see, we can take an action that will benefit the economy in the short term, may speed an end to the recession, but we shouldn’t do those things because it might provide long-term benefits to low income workers? you have made a strong argument that I cannot counter.

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

It says that it results in increased unemployment. Whether that happens today or tomorrow isn’t really an issue, because the MW isn’t going to be reduced when the liquidity crisis is over.

I’m going to have to verify that. What page does it say that on?

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

I’m going to have to verify that. What page does it say that on?

43

[even_sven]

@kayaker

Nope. You just use a reduced number of workers and find ways to either improve individual productivity or alter your business model. For me, an increased minimum wage would likely result in me working 40 hours a week instead of my current 30. I can, by increasing my own work week 10 hours, replace 2 1/2 minimum wage employees.

It seems to me on a grand economic scale, this would be a good thing for the American economy. Here you are, apparently a grand master widget-maker, able to do the work of two men and half men in ten hours. But you aren’t doing that- instead you are hiring inefficient widget makers who make their widgets slowly. Your labor is not being used to its maximum potential and neither is theirs.

A nation whose competitive advantage is “cheap labor” is not going to get far for long. Higher wages encourage employers to invest in their employees through training, professional development, and an attempt at retention. It motivates employers to develop efficient systems other than a disposable labor force.

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

43

Is this as honest a response as all your others?

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Economist

Let’s see, we can take an action that will benefit the economy in the short term, may speed an end to the recession, but we shouldn’t do those things because it might provide long-term benefits to low income workers? you have made a strong argument that I cannot counter.

Um, no. It doesn’t provide a long term benefit.

My question is simple. If it’s a lack of spending power, and it’s temporary, then why not advocate for what is not only a better solution (a temporary injection of cash), but is also politically viable? Cash can even be given to people who… don’t have a job to begin with! And what model was used to come up with the idea that it’s at exactly $10.00/hr at which the MW should be set? Not $9.45 or $10.33 but $10.00. What an amazing coincidence!!

[Evil_Economist]

@John_Mace

Um, no. It doesn’t provide a long term benefit.

My question is simple. If it’s a lack of spending power, and it’s temporary, then why not advocate for what is not only a better solution (a temporary injection of cash), but is also politically viable? Cash can even be given to people who… don’t have a job to begin with! And what model was used to come up with the idea that it’s at exactly $10.00/hr at which the MW should be set? Not $9.45 or $10.33 but $10.00. What an amazing coincidence!!

And…how do we know there’s no long term benefits? 'Cause I have some actual cites, that I can actually link to, that other people can actually read, that you don’t have to pay for, that say there **are **long-term benefits.

Are we arguing political viability now? Isn’t that a different question?

Is it an amazing coincidence that it’s $7.25 now? Not $7.24 or 7.26? you want to argue that it should be $10.01, go right ahead. I bet the cite for that is in that book.