Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 2

message: Can opponents claim anything or do their claims need to be substantiated to be included as though they're plausible?  I've yet to see a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation.  If one looks at minimum wage increases in constant dollars one will find no correlation.  Based on these two pieces of information we can see that some of the most dramatic increases were followed by times of prosperity and some of the worst recessions had no minimum wage increase before or during it.  Could we word the opinion (one might argue propaganda) that there is a correlation more neutrally?  Because I'm a proponent of considerably larger increases than any being discussed, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to phrase more objectively but am willing to try if no one else does.  I think that the American and British experiences show quite conclusively that minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment or inflation.  They merely improve the quality of life for those in the bottom fifth, as is evidenced by the fact that this country's lowest poverty rate (11.1) in 1973 came shortly after the peak in minimum wage rate.  Since, the poverty rate has never returned to 11.1.
:: Pure logic shows that there is a problem with minimum wage, where do you think that the money is supposed to come from? You're going to give a substantial portion of the population an increase in wages and the money is going to come from nowhere? Productivity will hardly cover the increase. As for those studies, I have my doubts.--Rotten 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're looking for some quick-and-dirty evidence, take a look at . This is not a rigorous statistical analysis, but the pictures are rather compelling. What you'll see is that increases in the minimum wage are associated with increases in unemployment *most strongly* among the uneducated and *not at all* among the educated. Wikiant 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning seems to ignore both economic theory and social science research methods. Opposition to the minimum wage is based on mainstream economic theory regarding price floors. As far as social science research methods are concerned, simply looking at correlations and then assuming cause-and-effect relationships can lead to incorrect conclusions. Failing to control for independent variables can also lead to incorrect conclusions. You seem to be making both mistakes. If you want to see "a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation," you can start by reading the research listed here. --JHP 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. However, we're going to create a significant misunderstanding among the 99% of readers who are not economists if we say, "the minimum wage does not cause inflation." It may be better to capture the idea of the one-time price shock while avoiding the technical particulars of inflation-as-a-growth-rate by saying something like, "the minimum wage causes an increases in prices." Wikiant 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponents contend minimum wage raises unemployment & inflation 

message: I reverted an edit that removed notation as to the distinction between theoretical and empirical arguments. The editor suggested that the statement was "contentious." I fail to see the contention -- it is simply a statement of fact. Wikiant 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical vs. Empirical Arguments 

message: I'm confused by this sentence: "As of 2006, Oregon has the highest minimum wage: $10.45 per hour, with additional state-sponsored minimum wages for single parents." I thought that meant that the minimum wage for everyone is $10.45, plus there is additional money (on top of $10.45) for single parents. But according to the wikipedia page on List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages, the minimum wage is actually $7.50. According to the table in that article, Washington is the state with the highest minimum wage in the country with $7.63/hr. Does anyone else find this confusing? 209.150.227.50 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon? 

message: "The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894"
How can something in 1894 follow something that happened in 1896? -Schrodinger82 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: The four graphs in the section "Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws" are located: right-side, left-side, right-side, left-side. This makes it difficult to read the section. Especially since one of them seems to be covering the lower half of a line of text. Does anyone know how to fix this? JRSpriggs 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of graphs

message: I think it's important to keep the introduction on wiki articles short, and I think text that doesn't pertain to the core essence of the topic should not be in the introduction.  For example, I find the following section very interesting and it deserves to be in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction:
"Minimum wage legislation may be interpreted as making it either unlawful for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage, or unlawful for workers to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[7] Although it is the employer who is fined and/or imprisoned for violations, the workers also lose their freedom, albeit indirectly."
I think the first form of legal implementation is the norm and, and the comment on South Africa, while fascinating, doesn't directly have to do with the difference.  Almost the exact same economic effect would exist if the sanction for hiring workers below the minimum wage fell on the employers.  (The only difference occurs in who bears the burden if the law is broken.)  The point that a high minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the labor force is a very valid one though.  I think the high unemployment rate of unskilled immigrants in the Banlieues of France has a lot to do with a high effective minimum wage created by French labor law.  The marginal product of these workers is lower than their marginal cost to employers once firing rules etc... are all accounted for.  For France, this is undoubtedly an unintended effect of their generous social system, but the point remains that high minimum wages can be quite discriminatory against unskilled workers, who often tend to be minorities and more vulnerable members of society.  Maybe the S. Africa example should be incorporated into the critique of the minimum wage, or maybe it should get a very small subsection, but I don't think the relevance of it is properly understood in the introduction.  (I'll agree though that the place I moved it to was probably incorrect...)Mgunn 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first form appears to be the accepted norm among non-economists. That's precisely why this example should appear in the intro. From an economic perspective, both forms are equally valid interpretations. The distinction of the "sanction falling on employers versus employees" is artificial. As with the burden of taxation, the burden of the minimum wage sanction is determined by market forces. The law has no power to determine the distribution of the sanctions. Wikiant 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the content of everything you just said, I think this point requires more text to properly made and understood by the average reader... What type of law was the S. African one? the former? (it's not explicit)  Maybe the whole point would be clearer if you replaced the last sentence with, "Economics says that banning employers from paying workers less than a minimum wage and banning workers from working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects."  Or maybe use the more provocative, "Economics says that jailing employers for paying workers less than a minimum wage and jailing workers for working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects."  (I think some people might dispute the precise equivalence in an environment where cheating was commonplace.)  I still think this point should be put in a subsection though.    I'm not going to go to the mat for this; I just like intros to be as short as possible, and this intro is quite long.Mgunn 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I suppose, upon reflection, what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that the minimum wage can equally well be viewed as an infringement on property rights. Specifically: The labor is my (the worker's) property, and yet the government is telling me that I can't sell that labor for a lower price than that which the government dictates.  Wikiant 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for many good reasons. ~ UBeR 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro comment 

message: The "Edit" links in this article do not match up to the sections they are with.72.145.220.191 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked a few and it seems to be working fine. Give me the exact link that doesn't work. Leotolstoy 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking Problems in Article 

message: I was praying Wikipedia would have some of the earliest figures, but no such luck. I think it might be worthwhile, where a single figure is concerned, that the article try to include it. In England, where four boards set wages, this isn't feasible. For Massachusetts' 1912 law for women and children, it probably is. --Thatnewguy 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for historical data

message: It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight? It's ONE BOOK among many. I'm sure we can come up with better scholarly works that don't base their results on error prone data gathering methods like telephone interviews.
Seems the only reason it's featured is that is has served as a vehicle to politically justify minimum wage laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.145 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mostly because a lot of new studies still use their book in references. At least, I see pop up a few times. ~ UBeR 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but does it contribute to resolving the unemployment question? I don't think it does at this point. As follow-up studies have shown, their technique of using telephone interviews provided false data. The pretty much makes their conclusions worthless. The entire book becomes a waste of time. Besides, we already have the data comparing the minimum wage relative to the mean wage against the unemployment rate for certain groups (contained in the graphs). That's pretty hard evidence that unemployment often does increase with higher minimum wages. At this point I think we should model the minimum wage article after the Global warming article. We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs. Sure, unemployment may not be caused by higher minimum wages, but the consensus of most economists is that it is. This is very much like the global warming debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.149.130 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think many argue at all that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment among teenagers and the unskilled. To what extent and to that consequences (both negative and positive) is much debated, indeed. I do not believe, however, the entire section should be scrapped. I still find their work significant for the inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the minimum wage. ~ UBeR 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it should be scrapped. The article is predominantly cited by two groups: (1) non-economists who want empirical support for the minimum wage, and (2) economists who want to demonstrate how empirical studies should not be done. NOTE: I have no problem with including articles the support the minimum wage. A major problem (for proponents) with this article is that it actually undermines proponents' arguments via severely flawed research methods. Wikiant 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card and Krueger section should be tossed or re-written 

message: I propose all reference is removed to it and 1 sentence gets put in when/if the bill becomes law (passes house, senate, and president signs or congress overrides veto).  Having a political fight over Pelosi and canneries isn't really relevent imho.  This is an article about the minimum wage, not US politics.Mgunn 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing write-up was misleading and so I revised it. I wouldn't be sad to see the issue dropped from the article but I do worry about the potential for it to later be re-added in a misleading way in the future. Settler 12:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do believe newly proposed (and passed) bills for the minimum wage in the United States is, in fact, quite relevant to the minimum wage article in the section of the United States. I do also believe it's quite notable to include areas that exempt to the new bill, where there would ordinarily be assumed applied. I also believe it's notable, for the section, to include why this might be. ~ UBeR 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have to admit, the version I read 1 minute ago looks pretty good.  On a hot button topic like this, some degree of political football is inevitable, but I just hope it can be kept at a minimum.  My initial reaction on reading an earlier version was that almost nowhere else in Wikipedia (or on any other topic) do you get discussion and announcement of partially passed legislation, but I'm fine with the current version as long as it stays reasonably succinct.  Mgunn 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is "To become law, the bill would also need to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. If the bill is vetoed by the President, Congress can attempt to override the veto." Needed? It seems to just be reciting standard practice of passing laws in the United States. DeMyztikX 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is I think 1 billion random people we're adding "a minimum wage bill was just passed that will..." or other phrasings that implied the bill has been passed and is ALREADY law.  It's a bit silly, but putting the full requirements for bill to become law makes it explicit and I think has kept out a lot of bogus edits by people who don't really know how the government works.  Mgunn 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At the current time, it lacks any long time importance; I would not oppose its removal. ~ UBeR 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New US Minimum Wage Law