# What would be the actual effects of abolishing the minimum wage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234 "2016-12-08T21:25:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/101 "2016-12-12T13:19:27Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Sure, so your point seems to be that MW increases unemployment (and your answer to the OP is that abolishing it will decrease unemployment). > > Is that it? Because I’ve asked several times if anyone wants to engage on that particular argument against MW and no-one has. Several posters want to _imply_ that point but not actually defend it. Yes, all other things being equal, raising the MW will cause some job losses. > [@](#): > > Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly. [Cite](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995). As **Ramira** points out, all other things are not going to be equal. Very few workers in the US make minimum wage, and about half of those who do are not supporting a family or themselves. The effects, both positive and negative, are going to be minimal, therefore, and difficult to detect amid the general rise or fall of the economy overall. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/102 "2016-12-12T14:20:35Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > That was my point, the premise of neoclassical economics hinges on people always operating as perfect little “Jews” who’d never spend a penny more on a piece of toilet paper than they’d have to, is that not correct? This is a warning for using racial slurs. Do not do this again on this message board. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/103 "2016-12-12T18:16:50Z")
Lower wages. Is that specific enough! ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/104 "2016-12-12T18:25:32Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Well, if we raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and Walmart chooses to continue to employ that person, then I guess that will prove their work was worth more than $15 per hour to Walmart. > > I suspect most large companies have a pretty good idea how much their employees are worth to them, and that they aren’t drastically overpaying out of the goodness of their heart. On the other hand, workers who fear unemployment might be willing to accept substantially less pay than their work is actually worth to the company. It seems to me that a benefit of minimum wage is that it sets a floor on how far workers can bid down the value of their own labor. And the fact that very few people make minimum wage for long sort of implies that minimum wage is only needed for a marginal few and for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/105 "2016-12-12T18:29:58Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > No, it means that as the first approximation the human beings tend to have preference orders of desire/enjoyment and within their own preference orders they tend to rank and select ‘rationally’, and this means not contrary to their own internal ordering of selection preference. > > It is simply an organizing principle for the modelling of the selection behavior, and as a general principle is a reasonable generalizable basis. …and as I explained, this is completely meaningless if according to you the “good” can mean anything even if it’s something that isn’t measurable in an economic system. As I pointed out, this would mean it would be more ‘rational’ for a pyromaniac who gets high off of burning money to burn $1 million dollars instead of invest it, if he achieved more satisfaction from the former than the later. So in other words, it can just mean anything you want and there’s no way of distinguishing ‘rational’ from ‘irrational’. > [@](#): > > Ah already the plain language appeal of the anti learner. > > The technical language has the specific meaning, that you have this anti learning reaction only tells us about your personal hostility. Not at all, credible ideas can be explained in complex terms, but also summarized concisely, like the law of thermodynamics. “Ideas” which can’t be explained in intelligible terms are a good sign that the idea is just hokus pokus and just relying on the use of ‘big words’ to conceal it’s rubbish, like this for example: > **[Cassiopaea](https://cassiopaea.org/)** > > Home of the Cassiopaean Experiment [quote] The jargon of the economics, like the jargon of the biological sciences has a specific basis. > [@](#): > > This sort of response is not different than those anti-evolution characters who rage on against the specific language of the biologists or who clumsily and deliberately misuse it. …fail. Was already explained to you anyway that social sciences like economics are not the same as natural sciences, or conform to the standards Anyone is immediately suspect as a con man, or just an ignorant person. > [@](#): > > The failure to be able to understand the economics is not the failure of the discipline it seems clear, but a hostility in you. I’ve read books by actual economists much smarter than you who are able to word things in ways easy to understand and elaborate, since you aren’t able to do so it’s clear that your ideas are hogwash, and that you’re intentionally making the language unintelligible just so you can fall back on “you just don’t understand” as a cop out. Many cults such as Scientology use similar methods of peddling their snake oil. > [@](#): > > This is irrelevant to the economic subject, and confuses moral questions for economic issues. The economic analysis looks at the incentives, if there are the strong incentives for something that has what are held to be the negative outcomes, then it seeks to the paths to changing the incentives. Again that’s meaningless, because ‘rational and irrational’ aren’t automatically the same as ‘moral and immoral’. But if ‘rational’ can mean anything you want, such as burning money being more rational than investing it if the person is a pyromaniac who enjoys burning things, then there’s no way to measure or test its validity. Hence unlike evolution, it’s not ‘science’ because it’s totally untestable, therefore being much more similar to young earth creationism. > [@](#): > > No, you are 100% wrong again and demonstrate again zero understanding. > > It is 100% wrong again as you do no understand the concepts and it is clear you are coming at trying to understand the concepts from some a priori political point of view, or some kind of the vague moralizing. Wow, you’re more ignorant than I thought. > [@](#): > > There is no statement in the pure modeling economic analysis about any moralistic outcome - self destructive to an individual or not. > > It is unsurprising you have been unable to understand and are reduced to many paragraphs of not very coherent non-sequiturs. > > There is no further point to this hijack, it is clear enough there is no understanding of the economics, no ability to comment on the actual content of the economic theory, and only there is a desire to rant in a anti educated fashion from a political point of view… No one said “immoral” - I said that if ‘rational’ can mean anything one wants it to, then the theory is meaningless hogwash, since you can’t distinguish between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ choices, therefore there’s no way to test whether the theory is true or not, since doing so would require some way of identifying what makes a choice rational. So the entire theory is based on blind faith acceptance of something which by definition has no way of being proven or disproven, hence creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/106 "2016-12-12T18:57:56Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > …and as I explained, this is completely meaningless if according to you the “good” can mean anything even if it’s something that isn’t measurable in an economic system. > > As I pointed out, this would mean it would be more ‘rational’ for a pyromaniac who gets high off of burning money to burn $1 million dollars instead of invest it, if he achieved more satisfaction from the former than the later. > > So in other words, it can just mean anything you want and there’s no way of distinguishing ‘rational’ from ‘irrational’. The fact that different people value different things doesn’t mean that economics is not a science. “Rational” in this context means “does it follow logically from the premise”. If a pyromaniac values burning money over investing it, then it is rational for him to burn rather than invest. Most people aren’t pyromaniacs, therefore they would invest or spend the money. Because they value spending or investment over pyromania. It would be irrational for most people to burn money instead of investing it. That explains why most people don’t burn money. But you can even measure it if it is based on something you don’t value. Peter Pyro burns $1M, but he invests if the amount is $1M +1. Therefore, we know that he values burning money at exactly $1M. Most of the discussion around MW increases (to drag the subject back to the OP by its ears) is driven by two things. [ol][li]People who value one good over another. I.e. better that the majority of MW workers get a raise even if it decreases MW employment by 500,000 jobs. And[/li][li]People who believe that neither good is forgone by a MW increase. That is why people claim that MW increases will have no effect on employment, or will even increase it. [/ol]Case #1 I guess we have to agree to disagree. Case #2 is trickier - economics is a social science, and it is harder to isolate the factors so that you can tease out the effects of a MW hike from the effects of a rising or falling economy. [/li] [quote] Not at all, credible ideas can be explained in complex terms, but also summarized concisely, like the law of thermodynamics. > [@](#): > > “Ideas” which can’t be explained in intelligible terms are a good sign that the idea is just hokus pokus and just relying on the use of ‘big words’ to conceal it’s rubbish, like this for example: > > [http://cassiopaea.org/](http://cassiopaea.org/) Or maybe one side or the other isn’t listening. > [@](#): > > I’ve read books by actual economists much smarter than you who are able to word things in ways easy to understand and elaborate, since you aren’t able to do so it’s clear that your ideas are hogwash, and that you’re intentionally making the language unintelligible just so you can fall back on “you just don’t understand” as a cop out. > > Many cults such as Scientology use similar methods of peddling their snake oil. This is just the genetic fallacy writ large. Thomas Sowell and the authors of _Freakonomics_ have written about economics in ways that are understandable by laymen. Check them out. > [@](#): > > Again that’s meaningless, because ‘rational and irrational’ aren’t automatically the same as ‘moral and immoral’. That’s what **Ramira** is saying - don’t confuse moral/immoral with rational/irrational. Economics deals with rational vs. irrational. Moral/immoral is philosophy and religion. > [@](#): > > Wow, you’re more ignorant than I thought. Good-bye. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/107 "2016-12-12T19:07:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > My employee’s labor is worth around twice what I pay them. . . . > [@octopus](#): > > No it isn’t. If you can find the labor at that price or a substitute good/service at that price than that is what that labor is worth. . . . **octopus** : You mischaracterize the tautological definition that you are trying to appeal to. An object’s worth is not “what someone pays for it” but “what someone is willing to pay for it.” **k9bfriender** indicates a willingness to pay up to double the current rate for labor, and thus that labor’s worth is, in fact, around twice what is being paid. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/108 "2016-12-12T19:24:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **octopus** : You mischaracterize the tautological definition that you are trying to appeal to. An object’s worth is not “what someone pays for it” but “what someone is willing to pay for it.” > > **k9bfriender** indicates a willingness to pay up to double the current rate for labor, and thus that labor’s worth is, in fact, around twice what is being paid. However, “what someone **says** they are willing to pay” is not always the same as what they actually will pay for it. There are various surveys that ask about aspects of taxpayer funded health care, and also how much people say they are willing to pay in tax increases to cover them. The amount they are willing to pay is rarely close to the actual amount. How much they are willing to have someone else pay is a different matter. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/109 "2016-12-12T19:47:27Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > …and as I explained You mean as you asserted in a series of statements demonstrating you do not understand the concept. Shodan has well replied to this. For your continuation of your unfortunate obsession with clinging to decided ignorance: > [@](#): > > Not at all, credible ideas can be explained in complex terms, but also summarized concisely, like the law of thermodynamics. The use of the technical jargon in a discipline is not a statement that the ideas can not be explained in the ‘ordinary’ language, but develop in specialist disciplines for the precision among the specialists. Your statement continues a non-sequitur of aggressive refusal of improved understanding. It is worth saying that this is … very boring as a complete failure to understand the actual point of the usage of specific terminology > [@](#): > > …fail. Was already explained to you anyway that social sciences like economics are not the same as natural sciences, or conform to the standards You mean you made a string of assertions, in a response where you failed to understand that my comment made zero direct comparison between the hard sciences to the economics with the respect to the specialized language using meanings not the same as the ordinary language. This holds true for all of the specialized disciplines and is really not one thing to do with “science”. Your ‘explanations’ were nothing more than rant like straw men that in no way responded to this core observation about the use of the languagge. It is unfortunate. > [@](#): > > I’ve read books by actual economists much smarter than you who are able to word things in ways easy to understand and elaborate, Perhaps you have, although it is evident the effort was not a successful one since you continue to make assertions showing no grasp of the concepts and began this conversation in fundamental errors. Since I am not an Anglophone I am sure native Anglophone economists can be clearer, but it seems clear that whatever the faults of my English, this is not the first barrier to you in understanding the economics. > [@](#): > > So the entire theory is based on blind faith acceptance of something which by definition has no way of being proven or disproven, hence creationism. It is sad to see such an aggressive assertion of the pure anti-learning but [as this thread here tells me, this is a sterile engagement.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=813494) > [@Shodan](#): > > The fact that different people value different things doesn’t mean that economics is not a science. > > “Rational” in this context means “does it follow logically from the premise”. If a pyromaniac values burning money over investing it, then it is rational for him to burn rather than invest. Indeed, it is such a person’s preference, they get more of the utility from such destruction than not. > [@](#): > > Most people aren’t pyromaniacs, therefore they would invest or spend the money. Because they value spending or investment over pyromania. > > It would be irrational for most people to burn money instead of investing it. That explains why most people don’t burn money. and of course it is the aggregate of the majority of the non pyromaniacs that make the economy. If the large numbers of humans were the pyromaniacs, it can be said that the economy would not work very nicely for the objectives of the wealth creation, but the economic exchange would remain. > [@](#): > > But you can even measure it if it is based on something you don’t value. Peter Pyro burns $1M, but he invests if the amount is $1M +1. Therefore, we know that he values burning money at exactly $1M. The good example. [QUOTE] Most of the discussion around MW increases (to drag the subject back to the OP by its ears) is driven by two things. [ol][li]People who value one good over another. I.e. better that the majority of MW workers get a raise even if it decreases MW employment by 500,000 jobs. And[/li][li]People who believe that neither good is forgone by a MW increase. That is why people claim that MW increases will have no effect on employment, or will even increase it. [/ol]Case #1 I guess we have to agree to disagree. Case #2 is trickier - economics is a social science, and it is harder to isolate the factors so that you can tease out the effects of a MW hike from the effects of a rising or falling economy. [/li][/QUOTE] And it is studying a dynamic system, thus the simplifications to build the basis first of the static analysis and then some approaches to dynamic models. The second point is perhaps more well understood from the view that there can be the valid view that there can be market mechanism breakdown in the labor market where there is potential for the market power… a very discussable situation not at all clear but needs to be acknowledged as a potential real world situation. > [@](#): > > Thomas Sowell and the authors of _Freakonomics_ have written about economics in ways that are understandable by laymen. Check them out. I am afraid he has already ranted against the second. > [@](#): > > That’s what **Ramira** is saying - don’t confuse moral/immoral with rational/irrational. Economics deals with rational vs. irrational. Moral/immoral is philosophy and religion . We can say that the Moral/immoral is also perhaps the realm of the politics and the policy choices. There is also the prescriptive economics but I am the fan of the empiricism. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/110 "2016-12-13T01:04:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **octopus** : You mischaracterize the tautological definition that you are trying to appeal to. An object’s worth is not “what someone pays for it” but “what someone is willing to pay for it.” > > **k9bfriender** indicates a willingness to pay up to double the current rate for labor, and thus that labor’s worth is, in fact, around twice what is being paid. Nope. Willingness to pay is meaningless. Pricing is established by the act of trading. Not some unrealized hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/111 "2016-12-13T01:42:29Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Nope. Willingness to pay is meaningless. Pricing is established by the act of trading. Not some unrealized hypothetical. That would mean that many commodities have no price, no worth, and no value. No one has ever bought or paid for Yellowstone National Park. So it has zero value. My sister’s house has no value. (Can we persuade the tax assessor of this?) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/112 "2016-12-13T03:55:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That would mean that many commodities have no price, no worth, and no value. > > No one has ever bought or paid for Yellowstone National Park. So it has zero value. > > My sister’s house has no value. (Can we persuade the tax assessor of this?) Wrong. They have estimated values. They don’t have a known value. These aren’t difficult concepts. If for example your sister’s house sells that what the value is at that moment. The value of commodity approaches an equilibrium but relatively unique things are negotiated for until an agreement is made and that’s the value to those people at that time. Since time also has a subjective value in most transactions we usually accept a price if it looks reasonable enough. That’s a multi-variable judgement. If you don’t value your time that much you can find markets where you can haggle or bid. People are seeking truth and precision in a subject that doesn’t operate with intrinsic value in any alternative unit other than it’s own. I.e. a pear is only intrinsically valuable as it’s properties of being a pear. Any other ratio of units /pear, pear/, apple/pear, wives/pears must be realized by trade. And yes commodity a/commodity b does approach a set value at a given time in a given locale if the volume of trade is high enough. For heaven’s sake man if things had known and accurate intrinsic value why would anyone trade stock? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/113 "2016-12-13T04:44:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, all other things being equal, raising the MW will cause some job losses. Ok, but what I was wondering was whether anyone was using this as their argument against MW. It seems not really. But anyway, there’s plenty of data to show that no, in fact, increasing MW doesn’t increase unemployment. For example, there’s the finding that states that raised the MW had faster job creation ([cite](http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/2014-job-creation-in-states-that-raised-the-minimum-wage)). And then there’s all the research cited [here](http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss), which yes is an advocacy page but still it’s a pretty comprehensive set of research. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/114 "2016-12-13T13:14:45Z")
I’ve already linked to the study from the Congressional Budget Office, which is not an advocacy group. > [@](#): > > For example, there’s the finding that states that raised the MW had faster job creation (cite). As the cite says - > [@](#): > > …this kind of simple exercise can’t establish causality From [here](https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/52874/Castrejon_Greer_Lee_Final%20Draft.pdf) > [@](#): > > Both microeconomic and macroeconomic theory dictate that unemployment > rate will increase with an increase in the minimum wage. This economic relationship is tested on > a state-by-state basis in the United States from 2002 to 2012 based on data obtained from the > bureau of labor statistics. This time period is broken up into three models: pre-recession, > recession, and post-recession. The simple regression models made the conclusions that > minimum wage has an effect on unemployment. For the multiple regression models, it was > concluded that minimum wage had a significant effect on unemployment when the economy was > unstable, during the recession and post-recession. And [here](https://mises.org/library/yes-minimum-wages-still-increase-unemployment) > [@](#): > > … careful analysts will often summarize the new research in a nuanced way, saying “modest” increases in the minimum wage appear to have little impact on employment. But the proposed increase from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour is a 39-percent increase, which can hardly be characterized as “modest.” Such an increase, therefore, could well destroy teenagers’ jobs, notwithstanding the revisionist studies. And > [@](#): > > Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/115 "2016-12-13T15:20:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’ve already linked to the study from the Congressional Budget Office, which is not an advocacy group. The cite was actually a long list of independent research suggesting no correlation (and indeed an inverse correlation) between MW and the unemployment rate. I could have cut and pasted the links here but thought I’d be open about where I found them. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/116 "2016-12-13T16:09:34Z")
Yes, I understand that. My point was that [ul][li]Very few workers in the US earn MW so the effects are going to be difficult to detect [_]the effects tend to be drowned out by a rising economy, making them even harder to detect [_]The researchers, especially amid the advocacy groups, are talking about relatively smaller increases in the MW, not a 39% bump.[/ul]The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan, and they project a loss of jobs in the half million range, for a 39% increase in MW. [/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/117 "2016-12-13T20:35:27Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Wrong. They have estimated values. They don’t have a known value. . . . Then **k9bfriender** was not wrong in estimating his employees being worth about twice what he’s paying them. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/118 "2016-12-13T20:51:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If the worker’s labor was worth $15/hr, that’s what they’d be paid. Worth is established by the transaction. After cost of materials upkeep, taxes markting etc. a widget nets a profit of $2.00 Worker A produces 20 widgets and hour, but is very shy and doesn’t know the widget market and so meekly accepts $8.00 an hour. The Boss gladly rakes in a net profit of $32.00 Worker B produces 10 widgets an hour but hires a negotiator who convinces the boss to pay him $16.00 an hour. The boss still seeing a net profit of $4.00 accepts. Obviously worker B is twice as valuable to the employer as worker A as indicated by the fact that he is paid twice as much. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/119 "2016-12-13T21:05:41Z")
OK, but so what? The government raises MW to $30 an hour. Who keeps his job? If worker B is twice as valuable, he would stay. I don’t think it will work out that way. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234/120 "2016-12-13T21:37:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, but so what? > > The government raises MW to $30 an hour. Who keeps his job? If worker B is twice as valuable, he would stay. I don’t think it will work out that way. > > Regards, > Shodan Oh, I didn’t know that we were talking about a raise of MW to $30. I would say such a thing would be foolish, and I would chastise anyone who suggested it. I am sure that someone suggested it in this thread for you to bring it up, otherwise you are just being entirely disingenuous and trying to sidetrack the debate with irrelevant non-sequiturs. Now, can we talk about what happens if MW gets raised to $10-$12 an hour? In Buck’s scenario, the boss loses out on 4 an hour from his better worker, but still makes a pretty good profit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-actual-effects-of-abolishing-the-minimum-wage/774234.md?page=7)