The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment

"Well that's convenient. So you want to dismiss my data outright and then tell me that you don't have to give me data? That's a double standard. " First, It's not a double standard. The proposition does not require that you provide empirical data, Nor did I implore you to provide empirical data. (If I did, Point out where? ) Second, I did not outright dismiss your data. Your data is insufficient because it does not control for the minimum wage--it therefore cannot make any accurate assessment on the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment or the lack thereof. "I strongly suggest that you cough up your sources or everything you're saying is hypothetical. " First I did cite a source. (Once again, The models are in my photo album. ) Nothing I've stated is "hypothetical. " It's deductive reasoning. "First you say "No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business. " . . . [my quote] So first you say that it doesn't make them lose their business, " First, No one did state that the minimum wage "destroys/[lose] a business. " And I did not state it, Until I stated it. Long term effects of the price floor (minimum wage) will make it costly to employ labor at their output--particularly low-skilled and unskilled labor. "You say that the businesses "hemorrhage" but I showed in my previous link that the floor only denotes a loss in profits. Profit loss doesn't necessarily cause hemorrhaging" Long term profits at equilibrium in a competitive market is at zero. Any loss in profit results in a net loss. You're confusing "accounting profits, " or "normal profits" which is the surplus in deducting explicit costs from revenue with economic profit upon which the theory of marginal productivity is based denotes Total costs--implicit and explicit--and Total Revenue. Your inference not only lacks economic information, But narrowly focuses on short term perspectives. "Unemployment can only go up if unemployment is created on top of it. " No, This is a rather specious conclusion. And let's demonstrate that with logic: if for example, The death rate is X%. The number of homicides with the firearms increases, But the number of car accidents reduce by the same amount, Then the "death rate" will remain the same. Does this mean that firearms weren't used to create death? The logic is the same with Unemployment. The unemployment rate merely presents a ratio between those who are currently employed and those who the BLS narrowly defines as the labor force. I'm not arguing a change in the unemployment rate, Which can be influenced by other factors (e. G. Price elasticity of the final product, Like food or medicine. ) "If your model is true, Then it should easily be spotted on scatterplots. " No, Not necessarily. A scattered plot can conclude that there's a lack in the growth in the employment rate rather than the actual level of employment. But once again, We are not talking about rates. You have once again conveyed no knowledge of the actual argument. And citing data alone, Let alone attempting to define this argument as one over empirical data--especially considering the nature of Economics--does not create an onus. If you choose to ignore the proposition, then that is on you. "Show me sources that show the unemployment that is 'created'" Don't need to provide a "(empirical) source. " (Once again, We aren't arguing over the unemployment rate. ) The minimum wage prices out those whose marginal productivity fall below the wage floor by LAW. It's compulsory unemployment. Not to mention I cited the models which demonstrate the concept of price floor in the labor market. Perhaps you'll take a look at them. "You say that employing disenfranchised groups will weigh on the taxpayers. Incorrect. " Straw man argument. I didn't argue this at all. I argued that tax breaks as a remedy to the minimum wage was only a temporal offset, And doesn't address the long term costs of employing labor at a wage beyond the commerce low-skilled/unskilled labor output generates. "Disenfranchised groups already lean on the government in most cases and gainful employment will allow the government to reduce their benefits. " Another non sequitur; nothing I stated explicitly or implicitly referenced benefits of the disenfranchised. Keep your focus on my actual argument. "It cancels itself out and the employer gets a net gain. " Is this self-evident? "I've already shown that the employment contracts opened up are not able to be taken due to the cost of living. " No you did not. You used the minimum wage imposed in your locality and cited the costs of goods informing meant to establish a standard cost of living. This assumes that a person takes only one job: 4. 9 percent of workers held more than one job at the same time [BLS] More People Probably Work Multiple Jobs Than The Government Realizes [Forbes] "This is not self evident" Yes it is. Once again, And for the last time, When the government outlaws the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum wage, It is making their employ legally prohibited. "and saying something is self evident is fallacious" No it isn't. Fallacious denotes faulty reasoning. So long as the reasoning is sound, It is not "fallacious. " "Calling a huge economic theory self evident is categorically false. " No it is not. The Law of Supply and Demand is an axiom in which all market analyses premise their arguments. Arguments which inform the government policy in which you argue favor. Unemployment being a consequence of the minimum wage law is deductive logic. The price floor creates surplus labor; that means, There is more labor in the market than there is employment or job opportunity (demand. ) Even if the argument is made inductively, The data including regression analyses consistently support demand curves generally sloping downward: Multiple Regression Analysis: One Tailed Test Downward Sloping Demand Theory (Pages Three-Fourteen) The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market The Own-Wage Elasticity of Labor Demand: A Meta-Regression Analysis "You said this last time too. Once again, That's what it's meant to do. Look for correlation. No correlation as found. There is nothing dubious about data. Do you have a problem with them looking at two things and not finding patterns? " You don't take random trends, Place them together, And attempt to establish a correlation or the lack thereof. You employ the same methods when establishing a correlation and the results should determine the extent of the correlation. The blog merely puts them side by side and states that it "appears" to be no correlation. It doesn't isolate the minimum wage at all, And it does not rule out other factors which may be influencing the unemployment rate. I said that last time, Too. "Furthermore. I provided sources and you have verbally refused to provide sources. " You don't get credit for citing a source. You get credit if said source sufficiently informs your argument. It does not. " And I haven't "refused" to provide sources; I have not done so for a reason. Because once again, And finally, we are not arguing over the unemployment rate. We are arguing over the unemployment created by the minimum wage. "and poorly so :) that's not an insult, I'm just estimating your capacity. " Hold on to this thought. . . "well if that's the case, How can you prove your claim? " Because you have through this entire debate obfuscated the proposition over which we argue. My proposition isn't that the minimum wage creates a particular unemployment rate, Which the BLS defines as the ratio between those who have been actively seeking employ for at least four weeks, And those actively employed. My proposition is that the Minimum Wage creates unemployment. I even defined Unemployment in Round 2. So, Yes I do believe I've been quite accurate in estimating your capacity in this debate. "Special pleading, That's just cherry picking stats. " It's not "special pleading. " I offered a stipulation since the beginning of my argument. If you took issue, You should have then made your contention known. ""Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, Which raise employers" cost, Generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers" pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, Creating higher demand, Which in turn requires hiring more workers" You're randomly citing google sources without comprehensively reading the material and verifying its sources. The sources upon which your new source premises its argument are heavily scrutinized in Revisiting the Minimum Wage-EmploymentDebate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater? By David Neumark and M. Ian Salas "ILRR symposium launched a new body of contemporary research on the minimum wage, Much of which was summarized in the Neumark and Wascher book Minimum Wages. In that book, Our evaluation and summary of the evidence concluded that "[M]inimum wages reduce em-ployment opportunities for less- skilled workers, Especially those who are most directly affected by the minimum wage" The present article, In part, Extends the 2008 evaluation and summary to today by evaluating two recent studies that have questioned the empirical methods and conclusions in much of the recent literature. " "So it seems that some economists thinks this is a win/win situation. " Some Economists. . . If it is in fact a win-win situation why not raise the minimum wage to $100 and hour? $1000 an hour?