Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Minimum Wage, Maximum Unemployment for Youths, or, Bummer in the Summer
Interesting piece in the DC Examiner, looking at the effects of minimum-wage hikes on summer job opportunities for teens and other relatively low-skilled workers. Snippets:
This year, it's harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as "the worst in post-World War II history" for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be "even worse."
According to their data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse.
The percentage of teens classified as "unemployed"—those who are actively seeking a job but can't get one—is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.
One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes that policymakers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty.
According to economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young black adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent. In the past 11 months alone, the United States' minimum wage has increased by more than twice that amount.
For more about the minimum wage, check out this classic 1995 reason article on the subject.
Update: Here's something from Steven Horwitz on the subject:
If one is tempted to minimize the role of self-interest in the political realm, one might wish to read the debates surrounding the creation of the first federal minimum wage law in the US as well as similar laws as part of apartheid in South Africa. The backers of the US law were not ignorant of its effects; they knew exactly what it would do (shut out immigrant and black labor), which is precisely why they supported it, and also why a number of politicians voted for it.
For example, in the April Freeman, David Henderson reports the following story:
At a 1957 hearing on increasing the minimum wage, a northern U.S. Senator who favored the increase stated: "Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too-the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage-and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work-it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn't it?"
Who was the senator? Here's a hint: just four years later he was the President. His name: John F. Kennedy.
JFK was not ignorant of the economics of the minimum wage and neither were the unions he was responding to. The unions were looking after their collective self-interest and JFK knew where the votes came from.
|6.9.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Economic research has shown time and again that increasing
the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing
little to address poverty.
I guess we'll find out if joe is awake yet... ;-)
|6.9.08 @ 9:18AM|#
It's better for some to get paid more, even if it means some don't work at all. Especially if the ones with jobs are the white kids, and the ones without are black.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Teenagers shouldn't be working for money, they should be
volunteering for national service...or even "volunteered"
forcibly!
I couldn't decide whether to pretend to be McCain or Obama when
making this joke.
|6.9.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Speaking of summer jobs...
The Today Show had a segment on what you can teach your
kids by letting them have a lemonade stand.
Initial thought: Tax them 25%, and give it away to any neighbor
kids who didn't help them with the stand, especially any who they
asked to help and refused or the mean-ass bully kid down the
block.
Romster|6.9.08 @ 9:26AM|#
I'm a teenager living in a beach town, so even when I was 15 it was relatively easy to find work at the boardwalk. This year I don't have any friends who have been hired to new jobs, anyone working is back at a job they had last summer.
|6.9.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Economic research has shown time and again that increasing
the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing
little to address poverty.
'
Except, of course, when it shows the opposite. But we're not going
to talk about that.
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Are these guys saying the Congress cannot rewrite the laws that govern space and time . . who'd a thunk it.
BakedPenguin|6.9.08 @ 9:32AM|#
The Today Show had a segment on what you can teach your kids
by letting them have a lemonade stand.
That, in this day and age, no one will buy lemonade from a kids
roadside stand? Just guessing.
|6.9.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Maybe teenagers are getting better at bullshitting unemployment claims. I knew a girl in college who worked at a restaurant over the summer and collected unemployment the rest of the year while she was in school, which was total BS.
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 9:34AM|#
The next step is to make it nearly impossible to fire someone. Then we will see US inner cities during into French suburbs.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 9:41AM|#
Except, of course, when it shows the opposite. But we're not
going to talk about that.
Got a link, joe?
|6.9.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Just look in the archives, Episiarch. Reason itself linked to a couple of studies that contradicted the local consensus back in 05 or 06.
|6.9.08 @ 9:48AM|#
kinnath,
Wait till Obama's first hundred days with two-thirds Democratic
majorities in both houses in 2009, when we get a card-check
constitutional amendment and whatever else union bosses want.
I keep bouncing back and forth between thinking McCain's
warmongering is going to be more destructive and thinking unopposed
Democratic rule is.
|6.9.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Hey Joe-
Are you the type of guy who thinks that you have the right to tell
me what I have to pay my employees? Are you the type of guy who
thinks that you have the right to steal that which I produce so
that you can fund your bureaucracy that will be needed to make sure
that I pay my employees what you say I have to pay them?
If the answer is yes, you are a totalitarian. People, one is a
totalitarian if one espouses minimum wage laws.
|6.9.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Unemployment is a statistic but one one person that wants to get
a job is not a statistic. There are many 75K, 100K and 150K jobs
out there.
http://www.realmatch.com
http://www.monster.com
http://www.careerbuilder.com
You see?
|6.9.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Our federal government now spends billions on job training
programs to help improve the chances of the unemployed to reach one
of the lower rungs of the career ladder. If the minimum wage were
eliminated (in which case the FAA would need to staff up its
control towers to deal with all the flying pigs), a number of
additional rungs would be added to the bottom of the career ladder,
allowing the young and otherwise unproven not just the chance to
get on the ladder, but to ascend it in a steady, incremental
fashion.
Of course, the government entitlement regime continues to compete
all too effectively for the labor (or the idleness) of those whose
labor is currently worth the minimum wage or less (or, in too many
cases, more). While the nineties ushered in a brief spell of
bipartisan cooperation to reform concerning this variety of
market-distorting state action, such consensus would appear to be
beyond reach for the foreseeable future.
I find it unlikely that any educational program designed and
implemented by the government (or with governement funds) would be
able to match the quality of training offered by a job market
unfettered by wage regulations. Pay stubs communicate far more
effectively than report cards the value one brings to the
marketplace and the improvements one must make to get ahead.
|6.9.08 @ 9:58AM|#
The (higher and higher) minimum wage is correcting a market
failure -
I'm going to tell that to the next person who can't get a part
time/summer job to help pay for their schooling and other
expenditures. You're SUPPOSED to be unemployed! Don't you get
it?!
|6.9.08 @ 10:00AM|#
liberty mike,
I'll take from your little outburst about how much more moral your
position is that you can't really defend it on the pragmatic terms
the blogger claimed.
You, sir, are a hysterical child.
|6.9.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Wait till Obama's first hundred days with two-thirds Democratic majorities in both houses in 2009, when we get a card-check constitutional amendment and whatever else union bosses want.
I keep bouncing back and forth between thinking McCain's warmongering is going to be more destructive and thinking unopposed Democratic rule is.
In the spirit of true bipartisanship, I say we unionize the DoD.
We'll never have to worry about going to war again.
|6.9.08 @ 10:05AM|#
joe,
I wouldn't go as far as lm, but are you claiming that moral
considerations shouldn't enter into the discussion at all? Wouldn't
that sort of attitude kind of torpedo a whole slew of beloved
liberal programs that society would be better off in pragmatic
terms without?
Judean People\'s Front|6.9.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Joe, did you click on the link at the bottom of the entry? Great job taking down many of the minimum wage studies.
|6.9.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Hands up who's shocked joe's dealing out ad hominems rather than addressing the topic at hand.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Just look in the archives, Episiarch. Reason itself linked
to a couple of studies that contradicted the local consensus back
in 05 or 06.
(ponders some way to insult joe to motivate him to do the looking
up for me)
|6.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Of course moral considerations should enter into the discussion,
Chris. I've never suggested otherwise.
It's just that the flip-flopping between naked assertions about
concrete benefits, and the retreat to "moral" considerations when
called on that nakedness, is a rather irritating debate tactic.
liberty jack|6.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#
If the answer is yes, you are a totalitarian. People, one is
a totalitarian if one espouses minimum wage laws.
That's a pretty good parody of a libertarian for this early on a
Monday.
|6.9.08 @ 10:09AM|#
The experience at my job in New York City is that it's very
difficult to find unskilled workers to hire even though we pay
higher than the minimum wage. (That's higher than the New York
state minimum, which is higher than the Federal minimum to begin
with.) I don't know of any employer in the city that does pay
minimum wage. I'm sure there are businesses that do so, but as a
rule those competing for unskilled labor find it necessary to set
wages higher in order to get the workers they need, and most need
to hire some percentage of undocumented workers anyway. Even those
undocumented workers earn more than minimum wage.
What parts of the country have employers who would be able to pay
less than they currently do for entry level jobs and still find
people willing to take them? (People who, at a minimum, would show
up within 30 minutes of their scheduled starting time at least 4
out of the 5 work days each week.)
robc|6.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#
joe,
What Chris said.
Also, your description of liberty mike is dead on.
That said, I, personally, never feel the need to defend anything on
pragmatic grounds. The minimum wage law is morally wrong.
|6.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Wah wah wah, joez bad, he responded when someone calle him a
thief and totalitarian.
Why must you reply to a reasonable statement like "anyone who
supports the minimum wage is like Hitler" with an ad homenim
attack, joe? Is it because you hate the children?
Fucking hypocrites.
robc|6.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#
joe,
It's just that the flip-flopping between naked assertions about
concrete benefits, and the retreat to "moral" considerations when
called on that nakedness, is a rather irritating debate
tactic.
I agree, I havent seen anyone do that in this thread yet.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:12AM|#
That, in this day and age, no one will buy lemonade from a
kids roadside stand? Just guessing.
No, the lemonade stand would probably get shut down for not having
a permit, not using FDA approved lemons, and failing to list the
nutritional information on the jug.
I knew a girl in college who worked at a restaurant over the
summer and collected unemployment the rest of the year while she
was in school, which was total BS.
I used to know several people in college who signed up for food
stamps. It's sad that people my age (25) think that's just a
program for any person who signs up...
|6.9.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Joe-
The hysterical child is the one who demands that Caesar steal from
those who produce in order to get his way. The people who want to
take stuff from others are the hysterical children.
|6.9.08 @ 10:15AM|#
I doubt minimum wage is the reason why teenagers are having
trouble finding jobs. There was a 0.5% jump this most recent month.
Generally there is a trickle down effect with more experienced
employees taking jobs previously reserved for teenagers. The
economic environemnt is the primary reason for the job drought, not
minimum wage.
Oh and Krueger and
Card did a study on fast food employment on NJ and PA fast food
restaurants and employment that found a very small effect on
unemployment due to minimum wage hikes.
Plus, it seems disingenuous for Reason to be so concerned about
teenage employment. As I'm certain "he who will not be named" will
point out IllegalImmigrants take FastFood, EntryLevel, construction
and ag jobs from teenagers.
|6.9.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Wait, has anyone made an actual argument in favor of the minimum
wage yet? Has anyone called someone else on naked assertions?
No?
|6.9.08 @ 10:17AM|#
People who use the word "steal" to refer to taxes should have
their wallet lifted by a guy with a gun.
People who use the word "totalitarian" to describe minimum wage
laws should run a political web site in China for a year.
Hysterical children who could, at a minimum, stand to get a real
job under their belt.
Nigel Watt|6.9.08 @ 10:18AM|#
People who use the word "steal" to refer to taxes should have their wallet lifted by a guy with a gun.
People who use the word "totalitarian" to describe minimum wage laws should run a political web site in China for a year.
A good sign of failure in an argument is when you say that things
are awesome one way because you can easily think of worse ways.
|6.9.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Good point, Mo.
Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth that greeted the
post-Katrina speculation about hurricanes and global warming? Oddly
absent from this thread.
As the economy slides into a credit-market-induced recession, we're
blaming the subsequent uptick in unemployment on a minimum wage
hike?
|6.9.08 @ 10:19AM|#
I just read the linked article and wanted to note, the Krueger-Card study I linked to is an updated version of the study taken down in that 1995 article. rather than using their own survey data, they use data from the BLS. So rather than finding a negative relationship between unemployment and minimum wage, it finds a positive, but very small positive relationship.
|6.9.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Joe-
Give me my minimum wage, now. I know I don't have the skills and I
know that I can't get what I want on a voluntary, consensual basis,
but.. I want my minimum wage. I demand my minimum wage. Wine, wine,
wine.
Look at it logically. Can you do that? Who is the hysterical child?
A, who makes and produces on a voluntary, consensual basis and
proclaims that his company shall decide what it will pay its
employees, or B, who, upon discovering that he can't get the wage
he wants, goes to gvmint and demands that the guvmint force A to
pay him what he wants.
|6.9.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Steve,
Tens of millions of low-income wage earners over the years - those
at minimum, and slightly above it.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:21AM|#
People who use the word "steal" to refer to taxes should
have their wallet lifted by a guy with a gun.
So if I stop paying taxes, a guy with a gun won't come and take my
wallet?
|6.9.08 @ 10:21AM|#
I like wine, too, liberty mike, but I think you know as much about economics as English diction.
robc|6.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Oh and Krueger and Card did a study on fast food employment
on NJ and PA fast food restaurants and employment that found a very
small effect on unemployment due to minimum wage
hikes.
I dont know about in NJ and PA, but most fast food places I know of
pay well above the minimum. Thus, a change doesnt really have any
effect. Back in the mid/late 90s, downtown Louisville McD's were
starting at $9/hr.
|6.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Taktix,
Had you ever actually been robbed, or had your house broken into,
you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the
difference between that, and paying your taxes.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Good point, Mo.
Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth that greeted the
post-Katrina speculation about hurricanes and global warming? Oddly
absent from this thread.
As the economy slides into a credit-market-induced recession, we're
blaming the subsequent uptick in unemployment on a minimum wage
hike?
Hey I have a new game! It's called Count the Strawmen!
1...2...
|6.9.08 @ 10:24AM|#
If I don't pay my mortgage, and stick it out long enough,
someone with a sidearm on his hip for self defense will come to my
door, too, Taktix.
That's not robbery, either.
|6.9.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I have a better game: it's called write something about the
fucking topic, instead of me.
It might take some of you some getting used to.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Had you ever actually been robbed, or had your house broken
into, you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the
difference between that, and paying your taxes.
Hey fuckface,
I have been robbed, and even pistol whipped, and all they got was a
playstation an a few games.
Now, if they'd have taken 20% of my income...
No Name Guy|6.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Except a mortgage is entered into voluntarily, in a
contract.
I never signed a contract saying I was obligated to pay taxes.
|6.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Minimum wage hikes hurt low-level management in that money isn't taken necessarily from CEOs and high level executives and investors and given to the poor unskilled workers, but is rather taken from assistant managers and retail managers in the form of delayed promotions, smaller or non-existent or harder-to-obtain raises/bonuses, fewer hours and less pleasant working conditions for the minimum wage employees, which means more hours for the low-level salaried managers at the same pay.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#
joe is right. Paying taxes is like what the mafia does with protection rackets, not like robbery.
J|6.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I disagree with joe about minimum wage, but I completely agree
with his reaction. Not a pure libertarian does not make
totalitarian. Joe is probably pretty firmly on the middle left of
the Nolan chart, if I had to guess. One position does not a
totalitarian make.
News to you, I know, but I'll help you out here too. Strict
constitutionalists or even minarchists aren't totalitarian either,
even though they don't embrace anarchist ideals.
No Name Guy|6.9.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Whats more, with mortgages and car payments I'm at least getting
something directly back for myself.
Its not like I'm paying my mortgage, and someone else's mortgage,
and welfare, and for the Iraq War, and agro subsidies, and all
kinds of other worthless crap.
robc|6.9.08 @ 10:28AM|#
joe,
Had you ever actually been robbed, or had your house broken
into, you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the
difference between that, and paying your taxes.
Having been robbed, having had my house broken into (multiple
times) and having paid taxes, the biggest difference is the first
two didnt require me to do paperwork first.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Except a mortgage is entered into voluntarily, in a
contract.
Beat me to it, but additionally, I get a house in exchange for the
money as well.
I have a better game: it's called write something about the
fucking topic, instead of me.
Is this some strange new aspect of joez law? I was pointing out
that you're arguing premises that no one has posed, and you accuse
me of not sticking to the topic at hand?
Also, I'd like to see how you wiggle your way out of your robbing
statement, since you didn't know me and can't see the scars on my
head from where a robber hit me with his .45...
robc|6.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Reinmoose may hive hit it exactly right. I dont think I have
seen any studies looking at the affect on hours worked/bonuses
received of low level salaried employees due to minimum wage
changes.
However, anecdotally, the big round of minimum wage hikes in the
90s were followed by the "tech boom" market where all the peons
were working 60+ hour weeks.
|6.9.08 @ 10:33AM|#
No Name Guy | June 9, 2008, 10:26am | #
Except a mortgage is entered into voluntarily, in a contract.
I never signed a contract saying I was obligated to pay
taxes.
Whether you dissent from the widespread opinion on the social
contract or not, the metaphoric connection between taxation and
robbery is a slap in the face to those who've suffered the latter.
It's the equivalent of the Dworkin-defition of "rape." Tasteless,
misleading, hysterical, and used only as an emotional bludgeon.
No Name Guy|6.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#
As to the minimum wage, I don't think its high enough to the point where it does much harm (additionally, it doesn't do any good). Its just a way for Democratic politicians to grand stand.
|6.9.08 @ 10:34AM|#
It's just that the flip-flopping between naked assertions
about concrete benefits, and the retreat to "moral" considerations
when called on that nakedness, is a rather irritating debate
tactic.
Anyone want to give me an over/under on when joe will engage in
just this flip-flop?
Had you ever actually been robbed, or had your house broken
into, you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the
difference between that, and paying your taxes.
And had you ever had to pay protection money to a criminal
syndicate, you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding
the similarity between that form of robbery-by-extortion and paying
your taxes.
|6.9.08 @ 10:35AM|#
To summarize what Parse said @ 10:09:
The "real" minimum wage is whatever McDonald's has to pay to find
workers that will stay for more than a month.
The McDonald's on International Drive and Sand Lake (which at least
was the largest McDonald's in the world) was advertizing jobs at
somewhere around twice the minimum wage circa 1983. Orlando has
grown a lot since then, but I still bet they have to offer more
than the minimum to get workers.
|6.9.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Also, I'd like to see how you wiggle your way out of your
robbing statement, since you didn't know me and can't see the scars
on my head from where a robber hit me with his .45...
OK. You're a lunatic.
|6.9.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Way to go there Dictator Bush! So consumed with Global
domination you have completely run your own country right into the
ground!
JT
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Whether you dissent from the widespread opinion on the
social contract or not
Social contract = "pay...or else."
|6.9.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Tens of millions of low-income wage earners over the years -
those at minimum, and slightly above it.
at the expense of millions more who won't be able to get in the
door at all because the payroll budget has been allocated by
Congress rather than the business owner.
joe, is it really the legislature's mandate to decide that the
former group is more deserving of employment than the latter?
|6.9.08 @ 10:38AM|#
The experience at my job in New York City.... + What parts
of the country have employers who would be able to pay less than
they currently do for entry level jobs and still find people
willing to take them? (People who, at a minimum, would show up
within 30 minutes of their scheduled starting time at least 4 out
of the 5 work days each week.)
This was a joke, right? Standard of living costs are substantially
different throughout the country, and to use NYC as a typical
example... it was a joke, right?
|6.9.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Based on my ex's experience working as a retail manager, I think Reinmoose has it right: "...which means more hours for the low-level salaried managers at the same pay."
|6.9.08 @ 10:42AM|#
What parts of the country have employers who would be able
to pay less than they currently do for entry level jobs and still
find people willing to take them?
NYC can skew your perspective on a lot of things, including what
constitutes an entry level wage.
Anyhow, prevalent areas for minimum wage jobs are summer tourism
spots. You think the local water park really wants to pay their
employees more than the minimum?
|6.9.08 @ 10:44AM|#
People, one is a totalitarian if one espouses minimum wage
laws.
Why stop with minimum wage? What about those totalitarians who
countenance the 40-hour week, unemployment insurance, child labor
laws and the end of indentured servitude?
|6.9.08 @ 10:47AM|#
People, one is a totalitarian if one espouses minimum wage
laws.
Tiresome rhetoric. Regardless of the veracity of the statement,
it's best left unsaid.
brec|6.9.08 @ 10:48AM|#
joe said,
... the metaphoric connection between taxation and robbery is a slap in the face to those who've suffered the latter. It's the equivalent of the Dworkin-defition of "rape." Tasteless, misleading, hysterical, and used only as an emotional bludgeon.
Yes, taxation and robbery are not identical. Specifically, taxation has widespread social support and robbery does not. But the connection is more than mere metaphor: the use or threat of literal physical coercion is fundamental to both.
|6.9.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Hugh,
at the expense of millions more who won't be able to get in the
door at all because the payroll budget has been allocated by
Congress rather than the business owner.
A claim not backed by the data. It's an article of faith among some
that this is the effect of minimum wage laws, but notably, it seems
to be far more common among those who ended their economic
education after Econ 101 than among practicing economists.
Markets can be less-than-perfect in a manner that underpays workers
as well. People at the bottom of the income scale are, almost by
definition, going to be those at the most severe disadvantage in
negotiating benefits. To the extent that minimum wage laws
counteract this effect, they're going to be a net gain for the
economy.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Tens of millions of low-income wage earners over the years -
those at minimum, and slightly above it.
The ones who can't be hired because employers have to pay more to
their current employees?
Example: my Father inlaw is general manager for a small town movie
theater, not rocket science to do the jobs he hires high schoolers
and high school drop outs to do, but now he has to pay them about
$2.00 more an hour than he was, had to get rid of 1/3 of them to do
so. Of course the "raise" doesn't mean much when right after a min
wage hike prices raise, it also doesn't mean much when the employer
takes a second look at the benefits ( health ins ect) that are
offered to the employees...
So you end up with more unemployed low wage workers, and those who
keep their job are paying relatively the same percentage of out of
pocket expenses and possibly getting less in other areas from their
employer to compensate for the hike.
I don't see who this would help other than the people doing the
raising of the min wage and getting pats on the back for it.
brec|6.9.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I wrote not far above, "Specifically, taxation has widespread social support and robbery does not." I might better have replaced "Specifically" with "E.g.", as the cited difference can be expanded upon with others, such as the typical emotional effect on the victim (if he perceives himself as such), etc.
|6.9.08 @ 10:54AM|#
liberty mike might be a blowhard, but I agree that the minimum
wage is a good place to draw a line in the sand.
I'm pretty sure the moral high-ground is over on my side of that
line, and I'm tired of seeing it conceded to the "do-gooders" who
do no good and, in fact, do real harm to the very people they claim
to want to help.
Do I think they intend harm to the poor? In most cases, no. But
good intentions do not excuse the real hurt such policies, and
those who promote them, cause, damn it.
What the fuck do I care what the minimum wage is, personally? Even
my teenagers are skilled enough to have jobs that pay above the
minimum.
But a lot of kids aren't so fortunate, and it's those kids these
misguided policies are hurting. So I could just say, "Fuck it. Me
and mine have ours. Let the morons have their minimum wage.
Bwahahaha!"
It certainly would be easier than fighting this losing battle. But
I can't seem to let it go. The minimum wage sticks in my craw like
few other idiocies.
(And just for the record, my economic education did NOT end with
Econ 101.)
|6.9.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Anecdotes aside, Steve, the correlation between wage hikes and
increases in unemployment just aren't there. The minimum wage went
up at the McDonalds I worked at as a teenager and the staffing
didnt' change a lick.
It doesn't take much imagination to understand how, in theory, an
increase in labor costs can hit a business, but if that was all
that was happening, we's see robut and predictable data about job
losses. We don't - the studies are all over the place on this
question - so there is clearly more than that at work.
|6.9.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Teenagers are, in many cases, being displaced by adults who have
higher "overhead." The grandstanding politicians want to make it
look like they're helping those people, by putting a floor under
wages, which prevents teenagers from underbidding.
"I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote."
-also Eddie Cochran
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Whether you dissent from the widespread opinion on the
social contract or not, the metaphoric connection between taxation
and robbery is a slap in the face to those who've suffered the
latter.
As much as a slap in the face to claim I'm a lunatic for being a
victim of a robbery?
Jeez, sorry I couldn't get assaulted in a more suitable
fashion.
Since I'm a "lunatic," please explain how forcing me to pay...
rather, taking my pay before I even have it... to pay for a wide
variety of things I don't agree with or use... barring the fact
that it's being used incredibly inefficiently... and at many times
working against my rights and livelihood...
Tell me how all that is not robbery.
Colin|6.9.08 @ 10:56AM|#
President Obama + Democratic Congress = $15/hr minimum
wage.
Get ready for almost univerisal unemployment among inner-city
youth. But don't worry too much about them -- Obama will make sure
that they're compensated plenty by the government.
|6.9.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Nick, Nick, bo bick. Where and what is "Northeastern
University"? The link you give takes to "commentary" by Kristen
Lopez Eastlick, and her link takes us to, um, Kristen Lopez
Eastlick. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that 2007 was the worst
summer ever for finding a summer job since WWII, and that 2008
looks "even worse." In 1984 the overall jobless rate was over 10%.
Try finding a summer job in that job market. If the teen
unemployment rate is so much higher than the overall rate, it's
because the overall rate is so low.
Furthermore, Kristen offers no evidence to prove that the
"drought," which itself is phony, is caused by minimum-wage hikes.
As you know, but don't tell us, the research on the impact of
minimum-wage hikes is, um, conflicted. We don't need a minimum
wage, as some Democrats other than me would tell you (if they were
drunk enough), but the public keeps falling for it.
Not a good posting.
|6.9.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Taktix,
Apparently it's not robbery because a majority of your neighbors
say it's not robbery and would like some of your money.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 11:00AM|#
A claim not backed by the data. It's an article of faith
among some that this is the effect of minimum wage laws, but
notably, it seems to be far more common among those who ended their
economic education after Econ 101 than among practicing
economists.
I was going to but a cute note in like "citation needed" but you
insulted me.
So tell me where the fuck this "data" is?
Come on joe, where is it?
|6.9.08 @ 11:00AM|#
No, Taktix, you're not a lunatic for getting robbed.
You're a lunatic for getting robbed, and thinking "this is just
like FICA withholding." This is one of those things you can't
really have explained to you. If everything is in proper working
order up there, you understand it without anyone needing to walk
you through it.
|6.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Taxation is theft. Just because taxation may enjoy widespread
support does not change the basic proposition: Give me your stuff
or bad things will happen to you.
I agree that the theft of taxation is not identical to the theft of
your wallet by a mugger. The latter does not act under the color of
law and she does not enjoy the benefit of a multi-trillion dollar
juggernaut to ge the job done.
PeeDub|6.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Not so sure, Colin. I know for a fact that you can get a decent job while getting great exercise in Baltimore for a taste of the package.
|6.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#
To the extent that minimum wage laws counteract this effect,
they're going to be a net gain for the economy.
----
The minimum wage went up at the McDonalds I worked at as a teenager
and the staffing didnt' change a lick.
'nuff said
Move along, now.
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:02AM|#
joe,
there is clearly more than that at work.
I think this is the key point. The economy has lots of frigging
confounding factors. I think that minimum wage hikes have a tiny
negative effect, but it is swamped/bolstered by other things going
on, hence studies all over the place.
Also, when you go a long period of time between minimum wage hikes,
the number of workers at or near minimum gets very tiny, meaning
the hike will have a very small effect.
|6.9.08 @ 11:02AM|#
It's linked to right in Reason's own archives, Taktx.
If you can rouse yourself from your perpetual victimhood, maybe you
can enter some search terms.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 11:02AM|#
As much as a slap in the face to claim I'm a lunatic for
being a victim of a robbery?
You misunderstand, Taktix. joe called you a lunatic for actually
having the temerity to pwn him by responding to "If you'd ever been
robbed" with "uh, I have".
|6.9.08 @ 11:03AM|#
My Econ "101" class was actually a class in how classical
economics has failed us - so if you went to school where I went,
you'd have an opinion much like joe's from just having one
course...
In other words, the opinion that the minimum wage is correcting a
"market failure" is not necessarily more informed than the opposing
view.
|6.9.08 @ 11:04AM|#
joe | June 9, 2008, 10:09am | #
Of course moral considerations should enter into the discussion,
Chris. I've never suggested otherwise."
If we are gonna use moral considerations, I humbly suggest we use
mine. Being a christian that leans heavily toward egalitarianism, I
believe my morals to be the best all around basis for minimum wage
and benefits policy.
fwiw, the state minimum wage here for waitressing is $2.90/hour +
tips and it is the prevailing wage for such jobs in the local
area.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#
If you can rouse yourself from your perpetual victimhood,
maybe you can enter some search terms.
The onus is not on me to verify your bullshit.
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Anecdotes aside, Steve, the correlation between wage hikes
and increases in unemployment just aren't there.
The typical MacD's 35 years ago (when I worked at one) had about
twice as many teens working on any given shift as they do today.
And we did everything by hand (such as taking orders or drawing
drinks) that is typically automated now.
Raising minimum wages does not produce an instantaneous loss of
teen jobs. But if the market can't support the wages, within five
years or so, the teens will be replaced with automation.
|6.9.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Raising minimum wages does not produce an instantaneous loss
of teen jobs. But if the market can't support the wages, within
five years or so, the teens will be replaced with
automation.
Well observed, kinnath.
It's a market distortion that causes things that would otherwise be
more expensive to be cheaper. What do you call this... a
subsidy?
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 11:08AM|#
You're a lunatic for getting robbed, and thinking "this is
just like FICA withholding."
I didn't say it was just like FICA withholding.
Being robber in my junior year of college: Lost $250-$300 tops, one
time.
FICA withholding: $600 every two weeks for at least the last two
years, and more to come.
These are nothing alike, but since you obviously don't read
anyone's comments before laughably attempting to respond to the
them, I didn't expect you to pick up on that.
|6.9.08 @ 11:09AM|#
kinnath,
You don't think there would tecnological advance and greater
automation without a minimum wage?
On the macro scale, teenage unempoloyment overall (not talking
about pronounced ups and downs in a given period here, but the
aggregate economy over time) hasn't doubled, or even risen
appreciably, since 1983.
|6.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Taktix® | June 9, 2008, 10:21am | #
So if I stop paying taxes, a guy with a gun won't come and take my
wallet?
Taktix® | June 9, 2008, 11:08am | #
I didn't say (being robbed) was just like FICA
withholding.
Don't be a worm, Taktix. Either stand by your argument or stop
making it.
|6.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#
McDonald's has already responded to the supply of employees too poorly educated to add and subtract; the cash registers have little pictograms of various menu items on the keys, and show how much change to return on the little screen. They even have been experimenting, I believe, with self-service credit/ debit card order stations; why on earth would they do that?
brec|6.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#
joe said,
A claim not backed by the data. It's an article of faith among some that this is the effect of minimum wage laws, but notably, it seems to be far more common among those who ended their economic education after Econ 101 than among practicing economists.
...and then later after a request for a citation,
It's linked to right in Reason's own archives
Here is Reason's 1995 article debunking (my term) the Card and Krueger study which raised many eyebrows.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 11:13AM|#
I'm not your secretary.
joe, when you make a claim about data, it is your
responsibility to link to it. If you don't, it can safely be
assumed you are talking out of your ass, even if you aren't.
This is intertubez 101, joe. You know this.
|6.9.08 @ 11:13AM|#
On the macro scale, teenage unempoloyment overall (not
talking about pronounced ups and downs in a given period here, but
the aggregate economy over time) hasn't doubled, or even risen
appreciably, since 1983.
You know what else hasn't risen appreciably since 1983? The real
minimum wage.
|6.9.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Reinmoose,
Good point. Which is what makes the hysterical predictions about
what a wage hike would mean so over-the-top.
Minimum wage increases, at this point in American history, are
about replacing what's been lost to inflation.
|6.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Taktix,
Here's the argument: you are paying $600/2weeks in fica. That means
you are makin lots of money. Many others aren't as fortunate. They
don't make enough at work to even get by. If those of you with
plenty don't help those without, then the govt. feels it is their
responsibility to help you in your charitable giving. Many many
voters are willing to let their "leaders" have that
responsibility.
|6.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Make that "being robbed"
Try not to make that slip when you're being interrogated by the
cops... ;-)
|6.9.08 @ 11:19AM|#
joe - do you think it should be mandated that, if prostitution
were legal, the prostitutes should be paid minimum wage for their
work?
If so, why do you want government in our bedrooms, again?
|6.9.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Umm
Just because it's being raised to what it was in 1983 doesn't mean
that it doesn't have an effect on the economy.
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 11:21AM|#
You don't think there would tecnological advance and greater
automation without a minimum wage?
Complicated business case.
Wages & benefits (plus learning curve) to train a 16-year-old
to draw a Coke from a fountain versus acquisition costs,
maintenance, and depreciation of capital equipment.
Labor needs to be pretty fucking expensive to justify replacement
by capital equipment.
|6.9.08 @ 11:21AM|#
joe,
Ah, so you have one Keynesian scheme mitigating the adverse effects
of another Keynesian scheme, like the infinite cascade of epicycles
upon epicycles in the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System.
But where oh where is our economic Copernicus, our monetary policy
Isaac Newton?
Peter K.|6.9.08 @ 11:22AM|#
"Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the
minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing
little to address poverty."
Economic research also has showed that slave plantations had full
employment!
|6.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#
joe - do you think it should be mandated that, if
prostitution were legal, the prostitutes should be paid minimum
wage for their work?
Minimum wage laws should apply to all businesses, but prostitutes
make a lot more than that where it is legal.
If so, why do you want government in our bedrooms, again?
The Bunny Ranch is not your bedroom. It's a place a business.
Softballs.
|6.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Wait wait! I think I finally understand the argument for the
minimum wage!
It's:
1. The minimum wage helps all kinds of people who are earning a
very little amount of money.
2. It has no effect on the macro economy
Is that about right?
|6.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Has a federally mandated minimum wage kept wages at an artificially low figure for all these years. iow, if the market were alowed to truly regulate itself, would average, unskilled, entry level wages be higher than the fed. minimum?
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:25AM|#
joe,
You don't think there would tecnological advance and greater
automation without a minimum wage?
It would be adopted more slowly.
If I pay someone $5/hr and could replace them with a machine that
cost $6/hr, Im not going to do it. If min wage goes up to $7/hr,
they are gone.
Realistically what happens is that, as with most tech advancements,
it is expensive early on and price drops over time. Thus, with a
higher min wage, the break even point is reached sooner and the
technology is adopted sooner.
|6.9.08 @ 11:25AM|#
kinnath,
Labor needs to be pretty fucking expensive to justify
replacement by capital equipment. That depends on the volume,
and the amount of value added from the "human touch."
McDonalds would be automating regadless of the minimum wage,
because automation makes sense for a business like that.
brec|6.9.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Er, after linking in my previous comment to Reason's 1995 article as archived on another site, I noticed that Nick linked to it on Reason's site at the end of the H&R entry we're discussing.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 11:26AM|#
On the macro scale, teenage unempoloyment overall (not
talking about pronounced ups and downs in a given period here, but
the aggregate economy over time) hasn't doubled, or even risen
appreciably, since 1983.
might even be true, but i'd be interested to see the effect on
small business owners over that period of time...
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Also note that coporate america may be more than happy to replace people with machines, but start-up businesses (mom & pop shops)get hurt (potentially fatally), because they can't afford the capital outlay to buy automation.
|6.9.08 @ 11:27AM|#
robc -
stop it with your voodoo economics you learned from your intro
class. Can't you see that the minimum wage helps a lot of people
who need it, hurts noone who doesn't deserve hurting, and has no
effect on the greater economy? You'd know that if only you had a
*better* understanding of economics (which apparently the general
electorate has over you)
|6.9.08 @ 11:29AM|#
The Bunny Ranch is not your bedroom. It's a place a
business.
it doesn't all occur in places like that, joe.
I find it exceptionally curious you're an advocate of "what
consenting adults do behind closed doors should be
private"...except when Person A agrees to work for 6 bucks an hour
instead of 6.85 (and rising).
Steve|6.9.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Can't you see that the minimum wage helps a lot of people
who need it,
Who, for how long, until the next time they need a wage hike? Not
much of a solution then is it?
hurts noone who doesn't deserve hurting,
Who? Small business and franchise owners?
and has no effect on the greater economy?
then why do it?
|6.9.08 @ 11:30AM|#
I get that, robc. There is going to be some effect, just not the
simple one-for-one replacement that was postulated.
The net effect does not appear to be any job loss, if we're
comparing 1983 and today.
Contra the luddites, automation is not a net loser for the labor
market.
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:30AM|#
One analogy to the tech adoption thing:
The high gas prices are leading to people adopting more energy
efficient means. Hybrids and etc. Also research into non-oil
methodologies and such.
That doesnt mean the increased prices are a good thing. It also
doesnt mean, like some have argued, that we should have higher
taxes to keep oil expensive and encourage the new tech
development.
Mother necessity will solve the problems, but let her do it at her
own damn pace.
|6.9.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Ayn Randian, you can keep pretending not to know the difference between a business and a home, but I'm not playing.
|6.9.08 @ 11:33AM|#
The high gas prices are leading to people adopting more
energy efficient means.
You're talking about a situation of real increases in overall
costs.
As has been mentioned, the real minimum wage is not increasing over
time.
|6.9.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Wages & benefits (plus learning curve) to train a 16-year-old
to draw a Coke from a fountain versus acquisition costs,
maintenance, and depreciation of capital equipment.
Labor needs to be pretty fucking expensive to justify replacement
by capital equipment.
Once you've got the machine, you don't have to replace and retrain
it on a recurring basis (unlike human employees). And capital
expenditures get a pretty favorable treatment, tax-wise.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Don't be a worm, Taktix. Either stand by your argument or
stop making it.
If you would actually read my comments, you'd see that I didn't say
they were the same. The actions are similar, but the FICA
withholding is worse than being robbed, because at
minimum, I could press charges against a common thief.
I have no one to go to when the government takes my money. They
kinda have a monopoly.
I am not going to respond to any of your comments if you can't take
the time to read mine and respond to them, Paddy Tanniger.
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#
joe,
Anyone who lost their job one day earlier because of the min wage
increase was hurt by probably wouldnt show up in the
statistics.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Is Joe a statist?
Yes
Why he spends his days arguing with non-statists on a non-statist
site is beyond me though...
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Is Joe a statist?
duh.
Maybe you should read this blog a few months before you start
posting.
|6.9.08 @ 11:38AM|#
joe at 11:30: The net effect does not appear to be any job loss,
if we're comparing 1983 and today.
joe at 11:33: As has been mentioned, the real minimum wage is not
increasing over time.
Duh? I mean, that's like saying "there's been no change in
conditions (between 2 indicators), so your suggestion that if we
changed conditions there would be a change in effect doesn't make
any sense"
robc|6.9.08 @ 11:39AM|#
BTW,
While Im probably alone on this, Ive always considered "read a
online forum long enough to know its tone before posting" to be a
basic rule of netiqueete.
|6.9.08 @ 11:40AM|#
A coke machine won't call you thirty seconds before he's supposed to clock in, to "let you know" he's at Buffoonaroo, and *might* be back in two weeks.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 11:40AM|#
I was being sarcastic
lol, a little too dead on, those are the arguements i'm used to
hearing.
kinnath|6.9.08 @ 11:40AM|#
I conduct a thought experiment ever 3 or 4 years. How many
minutes do I need to work at MacDs to buy lunch at MacDs (two
regular burgers, small fries, and the smallest drink)
In the last 35 years it has ranged from about 45 minutes to about
55 minutes -- consistently for more that three decades. There are
some small aberations such as the last big jump in minimum wage
drive the minutes down for awhile. But my guess is that it will
even out in another two or three years.
Regardless what the Congress thinks, they cannot alter the basic
ratio of labor cost versus labor value when it comes to
establishing wages.
|6.9.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Reinmoose,
The real minimum wage - that is, the wage adjusted for inflation -
hasn't changed. The nominal minimum wage has gone up a few times,
to keep pace with inflation. I'm saying that keeping the minimum
wage about constant in REAL terms, by increasing it in NOMINAL
terms, isn't going to have much of an impact, because (as you say),
it doesn't reflect much of a real change.
robc,
Anyone who lost their job one day earlier because of the min
wage increase was hurt by probably wouldnt show up in the
statistics.
They would certainly show up comparisons of overall unemployment
statistics over time.
Is Joe a statist? The dictionary defines a statist as one
who worships or reveres the state. So, no, I am not. I am, however,
a liberal Democrat, which is somebody who believes that state
intervention in the economy can have positive consequences.
I don't worship or rever the state any more than I worship or
revere my socket set.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 11:45AM|#
I think we can both live that, Taktix. Buh bye.
Is that a concession? Even Hillary Clinton was more graceful than
that. Poor form, sir.
By the way, it's 11:45 a.m., and joe still has yet to cite any
evidence for his sophomoric, unsubstantiated claims. Just pointing
that out...
Steve|6.9.08 @ 11:47AM|#
I am, however, a liberal Democrat, which is somebody who
believes that state intervention in the economy can have positive
consequences.
Do you also believe it can have negative consequences? I ask
because i see your posts on energy/housing/agriculture and i don't
think I've seen you lay any of the blame on state
intervention...
|6.9.08 @ 11:48AM|#
joe -
This is ignoring that the status quo is unacceptable and
destructive in certain ways. It is a market distortion in favor of
automation (as others have noted), not a market correction in favor
of employees. It requires employees to be more flexible and be able
to wait for employers to adjust, forcing them to rely on debt and
what little money they have until the automation factory 600 miles
away decides it needs more employees - only that transition doesn't
usually happen very smoothly.
|6.9.08 @ 11:50AM|#
It is also a market distortion in favor of large corporations with the money to invest in automation equipment, and against small businesses who are already operating on smaller margins.
|6.9.08 @ 11:51AM|#
All in all, it's kinda ironic given that the proponents of minimum wage laws are generally anti-corporation/pro-small business and pro-job security in talk, but advocate policies that promote the opposite.
|6.9.08 @ 11:54AM|#
I am, however, a liberal Democrat, which is somebody who
believes that state intervention in the economy can have positive
consequences.
Is your default assumption that state intervention is likely to be
a net positive for the economy as a whole? If so, why?
|6.9.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Steve,
Do you also believe it can have negative
consequences?
Of course. I discuss the negative effects of urban renewal and snob
zoning on housing all the time.
|6.9.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Is that a concession?
No, it's a kiss-off, and far more "graceful" than this fuckface had
written the first time.
Kindly stick your word now.
x,y|6.9.08 @ 11:59AM|#
One of my biggest gripes with Reason is that its arguments are
too utilitarian. A lot of commenters agree, in part, but are more
concerned with the moral underpinnings. This article and the
comments are a case in point.
Reason: Min wage laws are bad because they craete unemployment,
especially among poor, minority kids.
Commenter: Min wage laws are bad because the gov't should let me
run my business as I see fit (provided I am not encroaching on
another's rights).
joe then pops in and suggests the same person is making both of
these arguments. And there's nothing wrong with doing that,
provided you start with the commenter's argument. But from what I
can tell, no one is flip flopping as claimed (though I'll cop to
not reading all the comments).
|6.9.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Reinmoose,
It requires employees to be more flexible and be able to wait
for employers to adjust, forcing them to rely on debt and what
little money they have until the automation factory 600 miles away
decides it needs more employees
That does not seem to be how automation at McDonalds actually
works. They're employing more people than ever.
|6.9.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Is your default assumption that state intervention is likely
to be a net positive for the economy as a whole?
No. I am probably the only person on this thread who does have a
default assumption about the consequences of state intervention in
the economy.
I don't think that a meaningful statement about the general
category "state invervention in the economy" can be made. I think
you actually have to look at each instance to draw a
conclusion.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 12:01PM|#
but advocate policies that promote the opposite.
Pretty much sums up everything to do with liberal democrats.
state intervention says can't drill for oil must protect some bird
or another = less supply of oil = higher prices from the cartel as
demand rises = higher prices for consumers = proponents wanting
more state intervention in energy
never ending cycle, their policies have dire unintended
consequences and their solutions to those consequences are always
more of the same policies
x,y|6.9.08 @ 12:02PM|#
I am, however, a liberal Democrat, which is somebody who believes that state intervention in the economy can have positive consequences.
I'm sure I can find some conservative Republicans who believe state
intervention can have positive consequences. Say, by, allowing
prayer in public schools. This doesn't give them the moral high
ground, though. It just makes them a different kind assclown with
totalitarian tendencies.
Steve|6.9.08 @ 12:04PM|#
It's why statists are also driving up prices in housing, medical care, food and education as well.
|6.9.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Ayn Randian, you can keep pretending not to know the
difference between a business and a home, but I'm not
playing.
What about a home-based, family business?
if you could lay out a moral case, or even a utilitarian one, why
we should interfere in the operations of one and not the other,
that'd be perfect.
Taktix®|6.9.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Kindly stick your word now.
Wha?!? Joez Law in effect!
By the way, it's 12:10 p.m., and joe has yet to cite any evidence
for his ridiculous claims...
|6.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#
X,Y-
Right on. I have not made any utilitarian arguments here, just the
moral ones. I do not need to make any utilitarian arguments when it
comes to liberal democrats(read communists) stealing my property.
Thus, I must assume that joe was not referring to me as I have not
flip-flopped.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 12:15PM|#
joe, Nick posted some additional info under his original post that you might want to check out. Bonus: it involves another Masshole.
|6.9.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Utilitarian Arguments-
As to matters of evidence in debating this issue, and for that
matter, many others, why should a person who has common sense and
an appreciation for history, credit any statistic or study
promulgaed or paid by the state?
|6.9.08 @ 12:21PM|#
What about a home-based, family business?
A home-based, family prostitution business? Uh, ew.
x,y's comment is perfect. Sometimes, libertarians pretend that
people's economic well being is a universal good, and of course
they support that. They are even willing to pretend they believe it
in minimum wage threads, and shed croccodile tears for the poor
workers (allegedly) negative effects of such laws on the economic
well-being of low-income workers. But, when you press them on it,
they come up a comparison to something like school prayer, and the
wholly subjective "benefits" that result from it. It really isn't
too difficult to get the mask to slip, when there isn't anything
real holding it on.
|6.9.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Episiarch,
The fact the supporters of the minimum wage realized that it would
prevent business owners from replacing their employees with cheaper
employees is not terribly groundbreaking, nor is the fact that they
realized such laws would prop up wage rates in an entire area.
|6.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#
That does not seem to be how automation at McDonalds
actually works. They're employing more people than ever.
Wow, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. You also
played right into the argument about how it helps the corporations
over the small.
|6.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Sometimes, libertarians pretend that people's economic well
being is a universal good, and of course they support that. They
are even willing to pretend they believe it in minimum wage
threads, and shed croccodile tears for the poor workers
joe, go away. I can't believe you have the downright rudeness and
audacity to insult a whole host of people who have put up with your
trolling all these years.
I guess it wasn't too tough to get your "mask to slip" and get you
to collectively denigrate and smear libertarians, was it?
|6.9.08 @ 12:33PM|#
For those too lazy to educate themselves, here are some helpful
links:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atp2MiOAZ3Xc&refer=home
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/business/main2082810.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/erp.pdf
|6.9.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Ayn Randian, I've never made an pretense about my contempt for the attidues most libertarians hold towards the poor.
|6.9.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Joe submits that one cannot make general claims about state
intervention in the economy and that one has to "look at each
instance to draw a conclusion."
Well, in each instance, the conclusion I draw is that some loser
gets my stuff.
|6.9.08 @ 12:37PM|#
I say I prebutted you by providing links to the statements of
professional economists, including the Council of Economic
Advisors, who say you're opionion is nonsense.
Not much with the consideration of evidence, are you?
So, how's that "no longer responding" thing going?
Mr Anonymous|6.9.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007
as "the worst in post-World War II history" for teen summer
employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to
be "even worse."
Doesn't someone make this claim every year, just after saying the
next generation will be the first to have things worse off than
their parents?
|6.9.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Yes, Reinmoose, whenever I disagree with you, it's becuz I
dunt reed to gud.
Or it could be that you didn't actually say anything that was
relevant to my previous statement when making an statement that was
supposedly an argument against my statement....
Or you know, you could just try to be more of a dick - that usually
is a very good tactic
|6.9.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Ayn Randian, I await your passionate denunciation of liberty
mike for proclaiming that poor people are "some loser."
Because of how passionately you all care about the well being of
the less fortunate.
Yep, any minute now.
|6.9.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Ayn Randian, I've never made an pretense about my contempt
for the attidues most libertarians hold towards the
poor.
Which makes me wonder why you're here at all. You start off with a
faulty premise that collectively smears us all. It's obvious your
mind isn't going to change and that your intellectual growth got
stunted somewhere along the way.
If you roll into every argument thinking that all of us have
contempt for the poor, you might as well pack up your bag of tricks
and take your show somewhere else. I'm not going to engage in a
sharing of ideas with someone who's pre-judged me and everyone
here.
|6.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#
STRAWMAN ALERT: You can't think someone is a loser and still care about their well-being
|6.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Sounds like as good a fig leaf as any for abandoning the
field.
The assumptions of economic conservatives about the effect of the
minimum wage are wildly at odds with the reality that practicing
economists understand.
|6.9.08 @ 12:43PM|#
You can't think someone is a loser and still care about
their well-being
I suppose in some sort of elitist sense that's possible, but it
would be foolish to take such an assertion at face value.
|6.9.08 @ 12:46PM|#
elitist:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or
groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived
superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial
resources.
Hmm.... nope
English please
Steve Verdon|6.9.08 @ 12:47PM|#
You mean
like this article joe?
Minimal Evidence
Flawed studies drive the call for an increased minimum wage.
[...]
Unsurprisingly, this new research has quickly become politicized. Labor leaders, who like high minimum wages because they make union pay scales more competitive, have seized on the new research to disparage the traditional view. So have Labor Secretary Robert Reich and President Clinton. "Now, I've studied the arguments and the evidence for and against a minimum wage increase," Clinton claimed in his State of the Union Address. "I believe the weight of the evidence is that a modest increase does not cost jobs, and may even lure people back into the job market."
Well, not so fast, please. While the new studies are serious works, done by serious scholars, they are not particularly believable. Indeed, they have several problems in common, as well as various individual flaws. And the (seemingly) most persuasive study turns out to be based on abysmally bad data.
[...]
Yeah, we have a mountain of evidence on one side. We have, not even
a small pile, on the other, lets give most weight to those studies
that contradict the consensus. You know, that consensus thing that
joe talks soooo much about with regards to oh...I don't
know...global warming anyone?
Good one joe. Thanks for another laugh, and on a Monday too! You
really are a gem to have around here.
|6.9.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Joe-
There you go again. You are assuming a fact not in evidence. I
never said that poor people are losers. Prove me wrong.
The "losers' to whom I am referring include defense contractors,
the state of Israel, the state of Egypt, the united nations, the
police and the police unions in massachusetts who continue to
insist that they alone should be manning construction and survey
sites and not flagmen. In other words I know that the biggest
losers are the big boys-not the welfare queen with 8 kids by 9
different fathers.
|6.9.08 @ 12:56PM|#
No, Mr. Verdon, I was thinking more about the confounding
studies that came out, as I said, two-three years ago, as well at
the Council of Economic Advisors report, the big push by economists
for a minimum wage increase back in 2006, and the poll that came
out last year showing that a majority of practicing economists
supported a minimum wage increase.
But you don't need to worry about that. You already know what you
believe, so you can keep talking about mountains and repeating what
was conventional wisdom 20 years ago.
Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 12:57PM|#
I love it when joe makes friends. It makes them all want so much to take his arguments seriously in the future.
|6.9.08 @ 12:58PM|#
"my contempt for the attidues most libertarians
progressives hold towards the poor."
Mr Anonymous|6.9.08 @ 12:59PM|#
I suppose in some sort of elitist sense that's possible, but
it would be foolish to take such an assertion at face
value.
Uh, charges of "Elitism" more or less require showing that the
"elite" advocates that he or she deserves to be treated differently
in a structural sense (priva legis would be an example). I
suspect a libertarian message board is the last place you will find
"elites."
Steve Verdon|6.9.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Then this
one maybe, which doesn't mention any studies at all. It does
link to
this study by Neumark and Wascher, but I doubt you'll like
their conclusions.
And funny, I like how analyses that are 5 years old are now 20
years old, and how you don't have anything other than the old
Card/Krueger/Katz studies which are approaching 10 years in
age.
Steve Verdon|6.9.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Oh and joe, your
second link reference to the CEA report is one that goes back
to the Card/Krueger/Katz stuff.
Further, that link doesn't dispute the negative impact of raising
the minimum wage, just that a phased in approach would offer
greater benefits than costs. Here is how the logic runs.
Sure, there is a disemployment effect, but the welfare of those who
keep and/or get jobs at the higher wage rate will be better off.
This increase in welfare can offset the loss in welfare to those
who don't get jobs.
Really, do you read your own links?
Keep up the funny posts though.
|6.9.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Steve, you should know that joe already knows we don't care
about the poor, so anything we say must be viewed through the lens
that libertarians are dedicated to oppressing the poor.
even though, if a poor person wanted to work for 6 dollars an hour,
big-hearted people like joe would tell him to stuff it.
Steve Verdon|6.9.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Hmmm, a search at EconPapers
pulled up only a handful of hits from 2007, 2006, and 2005.
Whatever could joe be thinking of?
Still,
this one could help joe. It does note there is no evidence of
an adverse employment effect. However, the introduction does have
this to say,
However, the economics of the minimum wage is different in developing countries, where the minimum wage affects many more workers and labor institutions and law enforcement differ in important ways. For example, the limited evidence for Latin America indicates that the wage compression and employment effects are considerably stronger in developing countries than they are in developed countries (Castillo-Freeman and Freeman, 1992; El-Hamidi and Terrell, 2002; Maloney and Mendez, 2004; Montenegro and Pages, 2004). Nonetheless, this literature consists of very few studies (mostly one or two for each country) and the results are sometimes conflicting. For instance, although the evidence for Brazil also indicates that the minimum wage strongly compresses the wage distribution, it suggests a small adverse employment effect (Carneiro and Henley, 2001; Neumark et al., 2005; Lemos, 2004). Hamermesh (2002) argues that much more evidence is required to evaluate measures such as recent Latin American policymakers' promises of minimum wage increases (The Economist, 2002 and 2003).
Not exactly a stunning refutation for the claim that raising the
minimum wage has an adverse impact on teenage employment.
anon|6.9.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Did anyone else notice that this post was about JFK? - you know, the woman-chasing (a postiive), shitty-naval-officer, sabre-rattling, average-president that was only idolized because of Oswald.
|6.9.08 @ 1:39PM|#
I think its probably safe to say that the minimum wage doesn't reduce employment opportunities only when it is set below the prevailing rate of unskilled entry level work.
Steve Verdon|6.9.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Steve, you should know that joe already knows we don't care about the poor, so anything we say must be viewed through the lens that libertarians are dedicated to oppressing the poor.
You mean like Paul Krugman
In Praise of Cheap Labor
Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all.
By Paul Krugman
(1,669 words; posted Thursday, March 20; to be composted Thursday, March 27)
For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty. Several thousand men, women, and children lived on that dump--enduring the stench, the flies, and the toxic waste in order to make a living combing the garbage for scrap metal and other recyclables. And they lived there voluntarily, because the $10 or so a squatter family could clear in a day was better than the alternatives.
The squatters are gone now, forcibly removed by Philippine police last year as a cosmetic move in advance of a Pacific Rim summit. But I found myself thinking about Smokey Mountain recently, after reading my latest batch of hate mail.
The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for the New York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less visible rural poverty." I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour."
Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad.
|6.9.08 @ 2:35PM|#
joe | June 9, 2008, 10:17am | #
People who use the word "steal" to refer to taxes should have their
wallet lifted by a guy with a gun.
People who pay taxes and don't want to DO have their wallets lifted
by a guy with a gun. (Or guys with guns)
|6.9.08 @ 2:46PM|#
joe | June 9, 2008, 10:22am | #
Taktix,
Had you ever actually been robbed, or had your house broken into,
you wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the
difference between that, and paying your taxes.
My house was broken into when I was over in Iraq. And I was mugged
as a kid.
I think because of the latter is some of my vitriol against
thieving and robbing.
So explain to me how the IRS is any different, except that it is
much easier to do something about the private enterprise robbers
than the government sanctioned ones.
Joe,
If I started to tax you. If I came by your home or business, and
was very polite and well dressed, but I made evident my ability to
use violence against you, and the futility of your resistance.
Because I wanted to fund my pet cause that I think is very
important.
Would you not consider yourself robbed? Would it not enrage
you?
Steve Horwitz|6.9.08 @ 3:13PM|#
And as Spooner pointed out years ago, at least the highway
robber doesn't have the chutzpah to try to convince you he's using
your money for a better purpose when he robs you.
Anyone who has tried to not pay taxes knows that, like robbery, if
you don't turn over your money, physical force will soon
follow.
|6.9.08 @ 3:43PM|#
the biggest losers are the big boys-not the welfare queen
with 8 kids by 9 different fathers.
I would say that is real talent. 8 kids by 9 dads.
Mike Laursen|6.9.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Got a link, joe?
Gotta back joe up on this.
You can find dozens of studies concluding that minimum wage laws
cause unemployment, and dozens of studies that say they don't.
Lists have been compiled and shared on past discussion
threads.
The way I figure it, most mandatory minimum wage laws set the
minimum wage close to or slightly below the prevailing market wages
that the effect of the laws is hard to discern. Which means the
laws are mostly about political pandering and posturing.
Now, "living wage" laws, would be a different animal. It would be
really easy to see all the job loss they would create. For that
very reason, you don't see a lot of living wage laws passed.
|6.9.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Hmmm, a search at EconPapers pulled up only a handful of
hits from 2007, 2006, and 2005.
That site must have missed this.
That study does suggest that Reinmoose might be right. Wages become
flattened, at least in the restaurant sector.
Myself, I lean towards Mike Laursen's explanation.
Steve Verdon|6.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#
That site must have missed this.
Odd, they use at 10% significance level in that study. The usually
accepted level is 5%. I wonder if this is why the results haven't
been published.
Oh and in case the general reader is wondering what the importance
of the significance level is, since the authors are relying on a
10% to obtain statistically significant results, if one were to use
a 5% level the results would be statistically insignificant.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245