Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 1

message: I think the following paragraph should be deleted:
"The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning."
The proceeding pros and cons are not strictly empircal.  The statements "reduces demand for workers" and "reduce worker exploitation" are not based on evidence.
And the section immediately following this paragraph is empirical.
It's totatlly backwards.  Even if it were correct methinks it would add little
Burkander 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words (and the points preceeding and proceeding) have morphed from what I originally wrote. The original intent was to distinguish between arguments that are theoretical (i.e., those which hinge on theoretical disagreement), and those that are empirical (i.e., those for which there is no disagreement as to theory, but which hinge on disagreement as to data and/or analytic methods). Those unfamiliar with economic theory will typically not be able to distinguish between the two types of arguments and so will regard the entire minimum wage debate as representing incomplete economic theory. Wikiant 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph should really go 

message: Removed Greece and Belgium from the second paragraph, since they both have minimum wages, as Eurostat shows.
Greetings
:--capaman
----
ww.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm
:--Chris 20:25, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurostat

message: I noticed on a TV program, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" I believe, that there are states with their own minimum wage laws. These states were colored red on a map. One of those states was North Carolina. Yet, the map in this article shows blue for NC, denoting a minimum wage same as the federal. Is this map here flawed or outdated? Somebody please check. -Amit
----
I've deleted the 'short-term' comment in the 'debate' section and re-inputted the "personal element of labour transactions" section - these are important points. Large discrepancies in pay for the same job with very similar non-percuniary atributes in the same area of the country indicate pretty long-term market power. 
:In my experience, if one job has significantly pay discrepancy, there is also a difference in the quality of work being performed (which effectively means they are slightly different jobs), and the turnover rate.  Neither of which indicates a long-term market power.  
:Furthermore, you are assuming that the higher price of labor is closer to equilibrium, when in fact, it is much more likely that the lower price is the equilibrium price, and the higher price is a business decision to attract a higher caliber of employee.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "higher price is a business decision to attract a higher caliber of employee," then the discussion of minimum wage becomes more complex. What you are really describing are two labor markets: one for lower skilled labor for which the minimum wage is binding (i.e. higher than the equilibrium), and one for higher skilled labor in which the minimum wage is not binding (or, perhaps, less binding). Wikiant 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is what I am describing.  How does this make the discussion any more complex?  Minimum wage already only binds itself to certain labor markets to the exclusion of others.  -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting we not talk about this, but I am warning that if we do then we must be very careful in our wording. We could no longer speak of "the impact of minimum wage on employment," but must always specify "employment of whom." For example, your statement "min wage already only binds itself to certain labor markets," is inadequate. The correct statement is, "The likelihood of the minimum wage being binding is greater in the markets for lower-skilled labor." Wikiant 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the minimum wage gets seriously jacked up, it has no likelihood of affecting most labor markets; just the labor markets for unskilled workers doing jobs which involve no risk of personal injury or death.  -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Half of SS and Medicare taxes are *collected* from the employer and employee, respectively. Economic studies suggest, however, that the bulk of the taxes are *paid* by the employee. Wikiant 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated "Comparison of State and Federal Minimum Wage" Map?

message: I just made some major revisions to the part of the article that deals with the Card-Krueger experiments, as it made no mention of the serious objections made to their methodology and conclusions.
I was wondering if it might ultimately be better to put everything regarding C-K in a new section or perhaps an entirely separate article.
Kurt Weber 23:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Weber cut the possible theoretical explanations of why C-K may be right. That is totally unjustified, so I'm putting them back. No matter what one thinks of this literature, C-K have made a major step in pushing economists away from a dogmatic and _a priori_ approach to the minimum wage question. BTW, it's been known for quite awhile that the data indicating a negative employment effect due to the minimum wage is very shaky (showing low statistical significance).
Jdevine 16:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card-Krueger Experiments 

message: Sorry, but seems like your sources really don't understand the complex systems we have in scandinavian countries. I do believe the finnish version of wikipedia with lots of local experts checking the article a bit more trustworthy than the US state bureau. Pls see    -- Tmh 12:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, please send some over to here! :) Hardern 08:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum wage in Finland 

message: Minimum wage was recently (sometime within the pased few months) raised in Virginia. I only know this because it recently caused some of my coworkers to get a raise to $5.75, the new minimum wage here. However, I can't find any online documentation to back this up.
- July 2005
Reply: Trust me the minimum in July 2005 in VA was not $5.75, I live in the Southwest region and it was still $5.15.
:Unfortunately even if you are correct, we cannot just trust you.  Wikipedia depends on verifiable sources for statements like this.  If you can find an official statement regarding minimum wgae in 2005 in Virginia I'd be happy to make the change myself, i kan reed 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum wage raised in Virginia 

message: "Clinton gave states the power to set minimum wages above the federal, &c" ... I can't find any corroborating quote on a non-wikipedia-clone website anywhere on google, and besides:
 "In 1979, only Alaska had a minimum wage set above the federal level"
Also, under what power of office could Clinton make that kind of choice?  It seems fake to me.
Before I edit, maybe whoever wrote it can clear up my confusion.
:This line might be misstated, Clinton promoted and signed into law a bill passed by congress that allowed states to increase the minimum wage.  Clinton was influential in the passage of the bill. LegCircus 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton line wrong 

message: I just added  to the article, as I don't understand why the estimates should be given in USD. I agree there has to be some comparison, but what about euro? In the list Euro is used far more than USD (bar estimates) so why does it give the estimes in USD?, surely it would make more sense to give them in euro? - RedHotHeat 20:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just make the computations yourself?  All currency translations go out of date quickly, but you are free to run the numbers and type them in.  There are more minimum wages set in Euro because there are more countries that use the Euro, but USD is the world's most traded currency (see, e.g., exchange rate) and most popular reserve currency, so I don't think it's "pushing" USD as some sort of hegemonic currency as acknowledging that USD is probably the most common denominator for international prices.  Are you going to add NPOV to, for example, list of countries by GDP (nominal) and every other article making international comparisons in dollars?  But as I said, I doubt anyone would mind if you added Euro quotations as well.  Afelton 21:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought here, MediaWiki could really use a standard way to express currencies, and a localization feature for users.  For example, if the article reads USD$150 and my preference is set to EU, the value would automatically be shown in today's Euro rate, either alongside or replacing the original text.  If the user isn't logged in or has no preference, the value would be presented as a link you could click on and see a table of conversions.  Ideas?  Lkoziarz 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would indeed be awesome.  I hope someone implements that -- maybe you could suggest it in a more widely-read forum than this one.  In the meantime, I am going to take off the NPOV tag unless someone objects. Afelton 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking of suggesting that once (the curreny thing), but the problem I see is that the use of currency names like Dollar, or Pound, escpecially when people dont use things like US$ as they would guess the "dollar" they are reffering to is implied by the page it's on. Also, there are many people on Wikipedia, who seem to have a problem with using symbols ($, €, £ etc) and constantly write things like 10 dollars, 20 euros (although it is more frequent with euro. I think it's because of the kind of people who insist that euros is correct and they're trying to highlight it) - RedHotHeat 11:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: US$29/hour seems a bit much to me, but I have no sources to correct it. laug 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish minimum wage wrong 

message: I think that Minimum wage in the United States, Minimum wage in the United Kingdom and Minimum Wages in Australia sections should be moved to their own articles to shorten this article. Does anyone agree or disagree to this proposal?--Clawed 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate having the worldwide comparison table here with the main article, but more detailed articles on individual countries seem a logical extension of this. Perhaps limit them to non-theoretical topics such as Minimum wage legislation (United States), Minimum wage legislation (United Kingdom), etc. This technique seems to be working for Fox hunting legislation. - Rorybowman 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections to separate pages 

message: Added this introducing sentence: "The difference between the net minimum wage and gross minimum wage costs is not only a tax wedge but also a tax void." Colignatus 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax void

message: I find the reference to the Winter 2005 JEP survey of economists cited in the Debate section of the main page to be rather misleading. Having (eventually) found the article to which it refers (David Colander, The Making of an Economist Redux, pp.175-198 link link), there are several qualifiers that I feel should be added to the main page, if this survey is to continue to be cited.
* The survey is of graduate students from seven top-ranking US graduate economics programmes (Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale and Princeton). Of the 800-900 possible respondents, 231 students replied. The use of "academic economists at top universities" implies to me a rather wide-ranging survey of lecturers/professors, rather than a more limited one of students themselves.
* The students were asked (amongst other things) seven questions on their economic opinions, including the one mentioned on minimum wages. Possible responses to the questions were: Agree, Agree with reservations, Disagree and No Strong Opinion. 33% agreed, 38% agreed with reservations, 23% disagreed and 7% had no strong opinion. I therefore feel it's misleading to report that "that exactly two-thirds ... agree with the statement" without any qualifiers or even citation to the original article.
Perhaps the sentence could be revised to something like: "Of the respondents to a 2005 survey <insert citation> of graduate economists at seven top US universities, 71% agreed or agreed with reservations with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled." although I accept this reduces its force (which was perhaps not the original author's intention...)--Ejr 19:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this discussion too late. I already replaced this survey by a more serious one and hope it's alright for you. Hardern 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited survey of economists 

message: I propose these campaign links simply be abolished. They are not informative about the minimum wage, their purpose can be accomplished by just a single line in the article about people supporting the minimum wage. - Centrx 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess so too. I was just putting them all under this headline in order to separate them from the rest of the links. Though sometimes these campaign sites may provide us with special insights into minimum wage issues (as is partly the case in Germany with the current trade union campaign for the introduction of a national minimum wage), we would probably have 50 or so links just for the US in here soon. So let's throw them out, if nobody has any objections. Hardern 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign links 

message: I just deleted the above named article, since it was requested to merge both articles and I could not find very helpful information in it. Anyway, here is the article so that anyone who likes it more than I do can work on it. It should be noted that the article had the famous -button... Hardern 14:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected [[Minimum-wage job]] 

message: the France section only states the minimum wage in France, the list of countries already does this. Thus, rendering the France section pointless. Anyone object? BadCRC 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of France section 

message: Our article states that in 1894, the first minimum wage lage was enacted in New Zealand, followed by Australia in 1896. Now this source says it was 1896 and 1899, respectively. Can anyone confirm one of the two versions? Hardern 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First MW laws in NZ and Australia 

message: There's a new twist in the minimum wage debate... Illegal immigration. Many of the illegals work for much below the minimum and live well, including sending a portion to their home country. If a high minimum is needed, why are there still jobs at these low wages? If all of these low wages were brought up to par, how would the economy be effected? It is certain, if there were no illegal aliens, there would be more people working for the higher minimum wage. There should be something in the article to reflect the current reality accross the world. 68.48.174.136 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum Wage and Illegal Immigration 

message: These reasons were given:
* The article will also need to have its citations in accordance with the Cite.php guideline, thus removing the inline external links.
* The text says British Columbia allows employers to pay as little as $6/hour to an inexperienced worker. but it is not compared the fixed minimum wage of BC.
* The dollar & pound and etc. signs should be linked to appropriate pages for the currency conversion to be easily found by the readers.
* The article should order the minimum wage fixing chronologically, with australia first, then maybe UK or UK first. It is now too pele-mele.
* Costs and benefits section needs to be turned to prose.
* Recent trends in the U.S. is too ethnocentric ... it should include various contries.
:: Where did that trend data come from?  Do those numbers apply to median or average wage?  Not only is that section ethnocentric, but it seems more confusing than informative.  --65.202.132.51 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed