If I go type a few search terms I’ll get a bunch of links, and have not much of an idea which of the results are considered, by those who care about the issue, to provide the strongest arguments, and I’ll have no idea (because I’m no economist) which results are (or should be) taken seriously and which aren’t, and by whom. A random google-smattering of links to summaries of scholarly works (because I will typically have no access to the works themselves unfortunately) will give me no picture of the intellectual lay of the land. It will just be one damn thing after another.
If, on the other hand, I ask the people who care about the issue and are knowledgeable about the literature to point me to the best articles, I’m much more likely to get results that I can do something intelligent with.
I mean yeah I could go to the library, look for the latest stuff in journals online, follow the references back to the last layer of research, and so on, til I’ve digested the field and know who says what to whom and where all the arguments lie etc. That’d take a long time of course. And others have done it already. Why reinvent the wheel when I can just go ask those who are knowledgeable and who care about the issue?
[raises finger] And Furthermore, I could engage in this as a solitary activity, which’d be fine, but I also know I have access to a community where people like to talk back and forth about these things. It’s considered amusing and useful to do so. So I know no one would be exploited by a request like this one–it’s the kind of thing many of them want to do here.
So many birds, one single stone.
I have appreciated the contributions so far, and will hopefully have further questions soon. (I’m mostly away for the weekend though.)
It’s not a debate topic just because you do not know how to do academic research. Google search is not typically the most effective way to find these sort of sources.
It’s not a debate topic just because you think going to the library would take too much time. FWIW, my library has subscriptions to various academic databases that typically cost a good bit of money annually so are out of reach for the more casual home researcher. If you have a library card you can even access these databases through the library’s web portal from home. It’s not as high quality as some of the setups that I’ve had access to in the past, but it does include stuff like an EBSCOHost subscription with full text articles which would cover your needs quite well.
I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but look at what you actually wrote. You basically said “I want quality research on this and don’t muck this thread up with your opinions.” This is supposed to be a debate forum, if you want us to do research leg work for you, don’t act like it’s a debate. Just ask us to do research for you in the appropriate forum and I’m sure at least some people would oblige you.
You gotta love that Neumark; he’s got balls of steel. He selected papers for inclusion in his metastudy the same way Dick Cheney selected candidates for vice president.
You spoil a joke by explaining it, so let me go ahead and spoil the joke; Dick Cheney was chosen by George Bush to search for a qualified vice presidential candidate. Dick Cheney, after months of searching, came up with a list that had one name on it; his own. Dick Cheney has balls of steel.
When you do a metastudy your first task is to select the most reliable papers in the field. Neumark studied the field and realized ‘hey, this Neumark guy has a bunch of great papers on unemployment, let’s make sure to include lots of them.’ Neumark’s metastudy–here’s a shocker–supported the results of his other papers. This makes Naumark the proud author of the only metastudy of which I am aware that supports his theory that minimum wages reduce employment. All the other metastudies, which found the opposite, no doubt suffered from too low a ratio of Neumark papers.
The people who cite Neumark’s metastudy sometimes forget to mention this, so I thought I’d bring it up.
A relevant comment, as google searching is the only method I mentioned in my post.
Also relevant, since I specified that it’s the act of “going to the library” in particular which would take “too much” time.
Very relevant, since I have not explained in my previous post that I assume the relevant “research leg work” has already been done by people who are happy to share.
It is also extremely relevant to question whether this is a debate topic, since I certainly did not by any means address that question in the OP already.
Let me paraphrase Bob Murphy’s point; “who you gonna believe, theory or your own lyin’ eyes?” Bob Murphy seems to be upset that so many professional economists–including many silly Nobel Laurates, who would be better at economics if only they listened to Bob Murphy–are allowing emperical evidence to cause them to re-think their theories. As an Austrian economist, Bob Murphy knows that you should never let the facts spoil your otherwise great theory.
Like I said, I personally am not doing research for you. I don’t care at all what other people do, you’re the only one who is acting butthurt because someone pointed out that your OP was basically just asking people to do work for you and then acknowledging “this probably isn’t really a great forum for this” and then doing it anyway.
That’s like me saying, “I should recycle this” as I throw a glass bottle in the trash can.
You’re making straightforwardly false statements now, Martin. I’ve explained already that the idea is not to ask anyone to do research for me, but rather, to present the research they’ve already done. And in the OP I explain why it is the best forum, not why I’m doing it even though it’s not.
“Research” by individuals can include finding articles other people have done. I’m not saying you’re asking us to become economists, but you’re definitely saying you’re too lazy to go to the library to find already-done research of your own so could we please do it for you. You’ve not said “I only want articles you have laying around”, and one must assume an open ended request could indeed included people browsing academic databases for you.
And none of that is a problem, but it’s not a debate.
By using the word “lazy” in the above you negate your later claim that “none of that is a problem.” If you think “lazy” is the right word to use, then for you, it is a problem. You have a problem with me. I’ve explained why you are wrong to think you should have this problem, but you are not listening. I think that’s pretty much all that can be said.
I’ve also explained very clearly why it is a debate, but again, you’re not listening. This, also, seems like pretty much all that can be said.
What Murphy did doesn’t even rise to the level of half-assed. He’s basically claiming that differences in teen employment can only be due to differences in minimum wage. No doubt he thinks that the 32.7% teen unemployment rate in Missouri is due to the high $7.35 minimum wage there ($0.10 above the federal limit!), while the low 12.4% teen unemployment rate in Nebraska is due to the low $7.25 minimum wage there (equal to the federal limit!)
Actually testing the impact of minimum wages on teen unemployment is difficult; here’s what people with the heads outside their asses have to say:
“Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009) conducted a meta-study of 64 minimum-wage studies published between 1972 and 2007 measuring the impact of minimum wages on teenage employment in the United States. When they graphed every employment estimate contained in these studies (over 1,000 in total), weighting each estimate by its statistical precision, they found that the most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects”
and
“Paul Wolfson and Dale Belman have carried out their own meta-analysis of the minimum wage, focusing on studies published only since 2000. They identified 27 minimum wage studies that produced the necessary elasticity estimates and corresponding standard errors, yielding 201 employment estimates in total. They then produced a range of meta-estimates, controlling for many features of the underlying studies, including the type of worker analyzed (teens or fast food workers), whether the study focused on the supply or the demand side of the labor market, who the authors of the study were, and other characteristics. The resulting estimates varied, but revealed no statistically significant negative employment effects of the minimum wage”
and
“Allegretto, Dube, and Reich analyzed data on teenagers taken from the Current Population Survey (CPS) for the years 1990 through 2009. …once they controlled for different regional trends, the estimated employment effects of the minimum wage disappeared, turning slightly positive, but not statistically significantly different from zero”
You might also want to ask why Bob Murphy looked at teen unemployment, rather than overall unemployment; I suspect the answer is that he knew he would find the opposite–that overall unemployment rates were lower in states with minimum wages higher than federal rates. I would probably be suspicious that he didn’t mention this at all.
I said one thing about the minimum wage, that TriPolar was spot on that it has little economic effect and that if you did research that’s the aggregate opinion. That was my only intended contribution to the thread. One sentence of that post pointed out that I don’t particularly care for doing research for other people, and it doesn’t serve as an interesting debate.
Frylock has continually whined at me about that since, and that is the only reason I’ve continued with any further posts in this thread. It’d be rude not to respond to a direct address, and that is all I’ve done since my first post which was intended to be my only post.
