Economics

"The consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession."

|

The Wall Street Journal's Jason L. Riley reports on a new study from economists William Even and David Macpherson which suggests that recent increases in the minimum wage have injured the very groups those increases were supposed to help:

Minimum-wage proponents argue that a higher wage floor will improve the standard of living for poor families. The reality is that higher labor costs reduce employment, especially for younger workers, and the greatest amount of pain is felt by black men. The Even and Macpherson study finds that among whites males ages 16-24, each 10% increase in a federal or state minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5%. For Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2%. "But among black males in this group, each 10% increase in the minimum wage has decreased employment by 6.5%."

The effect on the black community is so pronounced, write the authors, that "employment losses for 16-to-24 year-old black males between 2007 and 2010 could have been nearly 50% lower had the federal and state minimum wages remained at the January 2007 level."

It gets worse. Not all states were fully affected by the federal minimum wage increases because some already mandated a minimum wage above the federal requirement. But in the 21 states that were fully affected, about 13,200 black young adults lost their job as a direct result of the recession, versus 18,500 who lost their job as a result of the minimum-wage mandates. "In other words," write Messrs. Even and Macpherson, "the consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession."

Read the whole story here. Watch Riley discuss immigration and the case for open borders with Reason.tv below.

NEXT: How ObamaCare Cuts Medicare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Easy. A lot of people really believe that poor people exist because rich people hold on to too much money.

    2. For a utilitarian it’s a simple question: will the benefit that the number of people who make more because of it outweigh the harms it may have on any others. Surely there are people out there who would still have a job but would make less if not for the minimum wage, those are who it beneifts.

      1. LA!

      2. The problem with centralized control of the economy (of which this is but a relatively small example) is that such questions are impossible to answer with any accuracy in advance. One reason this is the case is that people change their behavior based upon the policy itself.

      3. There’s gonna have to be at least a 33:1 ratio of people who got 25 cent increases to people who lost their jobs to break even in that utility calculation, MNG. And going from 25 cents an hour to 0 is a much greater harm than going from 8.25 to 8.50 is a good, so the ratio really must be higher.

        And we’re not even considering the minimum wage workers who had their hours cut as a result of the increase.

        1. This is if their numbers are to be believed. See Laursen below.

          1. The ratio Tulpa came up with doesn’t require their numbers. It is derived from the the fact that 33 people gaining 25 cents are required to balance out once person losing 8.25.

            None of the data from the study is necessary to reach that conclusion.

            1. Thank you!

        2. It’s hard to tell what the effect of a typical minimum wage law is because the mandated wage levels are so close to what the market is paying, anyway.

          Job loss might not always be the effect: it might only result in loss of hours for some low-wage workers, or the businesses affected making a bit less profit, or customers paying more.

          Now, “living wage” laws are a different animal. They would clearly lead to unemployment and it would be much easier to measure their effects. But, then, you don’t see many living wage laws actually getting passed. Politicians can meet their pandering goals by touting their support for minimum wage laws, so they don’t need to delve into the living wage territory.

        3. Where did MNG go? He could not address this point?

      4. Apparently it benefits Whites and Hispanics at the expense of Blacks.

      5. The difficulty utilitarians run into is coming up with a fungible measure, a common denominator.

        As Tulpa points out, merely saying that more people got a small raise than got fired doesn’t cut it. You have to come up with some way of comparing the impact of a small raise against losing your job. It quickly becomes very subjective, undermining the veneer of objectivity of utilitarian analysis.

        1. This why most people who claim to be “utilitarians” are cowards. Determining what policies have greater benefit require some first principles to base the idea of what a “benefit” is on at all. The claim that utlitarians are beyond ideology is an attempt to avoid revealing and defending what those first principles are.

          1. Yes, the devil is in the utility function, but nat rights thinkers have the same problem with necessary abrogations of their principles to avoid horrific conclusions in desert-island and comatose-violinist type hypotheticals.

            To me, utilitarianism is a way of clarifying your principles. In this case, it’s obvious that losing a job that pays $8.25 an hour is at least as bad as getting a $8.25 pay cut. A utility function that said otherwise would be preposterous.

    3. Fifty years ago, the politicians who pushed for the increased minimum wage did not hide their motives. Nor, in an era of state-sanctioned segregation, did they feel the need to hide their knowledge of who the intended victims of minimum-wage increases would be. In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator (and future President) John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts said:

      “Having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor [hundreds of thousands of black workers] depresses wages outside of that group, the wages of the white worker who has to compete.

      When an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage, it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it? There are, as you pointed out, hundreds of thousands of colored workers looking for decent work.”

      It’s sad when the racists have a better grasp of basic economics than the enlightened liberals.

  1. You mean increasing the cost of something results in less of it? Inconceivable!

    1. u mean like gas? prob is the saudi oil minister says world supply n demand remain balanced. so increasing cost has NOT resulted in less oil

      1. Damn you’re an idiot

      2. And yes, moron, the higher cost of gas has resulted in less purchase of gas as people seek ways to consume less.

      3. it doesnt take an idiot to understand that ur poor writing resulted in an unclear statement

        1. Fucking reading comprehension, how does it work?

  2. Fucking price floors. How do they work?

  3. No shit.

  4. Yep, and with fewer jobs available there’s more competition. So now you practically need a college degree to get a minimum wage job. Terrific!

  5. Good point, next time we raise the minimum wage, we just won’t let employers fire anyone either.

    1. We’ll also have to make sure we force them to hire more people. Oh, yeah, and then they can’t raise prices to cover the increased cost of labor by ‘screwing’ the consumers. Let’s see, what else will need to happen so we can pretend the law of supply and demand has magically been repealed?

      1. We can’t allows them to go out of business either.

        1. Mr. Wesley Mouch will see us through.

  6. Illegal immigrants don’t qualify for welfare but their children do. His comments our a semantic game.

    Further, the undocumented are free to use emergency healthcare.

    I’m not against immigration but to incorrectly price the cost is a disservice

    1. aren’t

  7. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Everyone knows that if you increase the minimum wage then the poorest people get more money. The only people that dare complain about common sense laws like minimum wage are corrupt robber-barons who wish their employees would just get black lung and die already. I ask you to be fair, reason reader, and compare minimum wage increases to the prevalence of black lung. I think you’ll find that the minimum wage protects far more than you’d think.

    1. Sing it, brother!

    2. Wait, are you suggesting that there is a causal relationship between the minimum wage and black lung? Wow, you are an idiot. I bet you also believe in the causal relationship between autism diagnosis and vaccination rate, since the two are correlated.

      1. I apologize if this was supposed to be sarcasm, which I really hope, for the sake of your intelligence, it is.

      2. “I bet you also believe in the causal relationship between autism diagnosis and vaccination rate, since the two are correlated.”

        This is why pediatricians who administer vaccinations shouldn’t do autism testing.

    1. I don’t think obligatory means what you think it means.

  8. Unions must know this too, that’s why they support massive unemployment and welfare benefits next to minimum wage laws. They want to reduce the supply of labor, but most affected are minorities, who now have to live off the government dole. But that’s not a problem, because the rich pay for the dole. And of course there can’t possibly be anything wrong with being on the government dole perse, even if it is destroying communities around as we speak.

    1. Union cartel wages also have the effect of reducing the demand for labor. So thats probably part of it too.

    2. alotta hispanics work day-labor for cash which isnt reflected in ur wingnut meme

  9. But that’s not the intention.
    You see, the money that it costs businesses when they’re forced by the government to pay their workers more is supposed to come from their ill-gotten profits.
    It’s not supposed to result in automation, jobs being shipped overseas, or some other reduction in jobs. That is not the intention.

    So if the intent is not to reduce jobs then such laws do not reduce jobs. Even if that is the result it really isn’t the result because it’s not the intent.

    It’s really the fault of greedy businesses not reducing ill-gotten profits when being told to pay their workers more.

    Dyslexics of the world… UNTIE!

    1. Truthfully economic reality only matters in local politics. One of my youngest SOTU memories is Clinton saying “we should raise the minimum wage”. This generated massive applause and sounded good to my 12-year-old ears. Anyone who says “we should eliminate the minimum wage” may as well have horns growing out of their forehead with a forked tail and pitchfork.

      1. “The first rule of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to supply everyone. And the first rule of politics, is to ignore the first rule of economics.”

        Thomas Sowell

        1. I, too, was anti-egg.

        2. why is there air?

          1. to blow up basketballs and volleyballs…

      2. We should elinimate the minimum wage.

        Damnit, the horns started right away!

    2. I bet they (government types) wonder why businesses can’t just operate with negative profits, like the Govmint does.

    3. Even if that is the result it really isn’t the result because it’s not the intent.

      Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      1. And the fact that the unspoked purpose of the minimum wage is to reduce the labor supply, it is definately not unintended.

        1. Shhhhh!

          Unspoken purposes are exactly that: unspoken.

          If it is never spoken, then when the opposition points it out you can get all indignant and say “I never said that! How dare they accuse me of wanting to increase unemployment!”

          See?

  10. BTW – exactly where in the constitution does the Federal government find its powers to regulate wages?

    1. Only seven words of the constitution matter:

      general welfare… regulate commerce… necessary and proper

      That’s it. The whole thing.

      1. The feds can’t pass laws for the general welfare. That’s why they’ve done the butterfly-flaps-its-wings commerce clause analysis. So they could take the police power for the feds.

    2. Commerce Clause, because ‘regulate’ means ‘make any damn rules you want’, so if something has any effect on commerce, then the government can ‘make rules about it’. QED!

      1. Regulate clearly was used by the ratifiers and today to mean “to make rules about.” Facts are stubborn things, sorry.

        1. So, all wages are “interstate commerce”?

          Show your work.

          1. Do you want to argue that there is not a national labor market? Show that work.

            1. Once you show your proof that “national labor market” == “interstate commerce”.

              1. Er, people and companies go across state boundaries to contract for work. This is not rocket science, is it?

                1. Er, people and companies go across state boundaries to contract for work.

                  Then the people and companies who do that are subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Not everyone else.

                  1. I agree that if you don’t buy the substantial effects stuff then that is going to exclude a lot of folks.

                    And the substantial effect doctrine concerns me, but here’s the thing, I understand the courts argument behind it, that if you don’t have it what happens is you effectively gut any national attemtps to regulate actual interstate commerce. Imagine for example setting a minimum wage for only those workers, how would that word? Or trucking standards that would not apply to intra-state trucks that also engage in inter-state trucking, etc.

                    1. Oh the horrors of no federal min wage or interstate trucking standards! If regulation is hard and counterintuitive, then maybe you shouldn’t be regulating that stuff in the first place.

                    2. It would be strange for the ratifiers to give Congress this unqualified “power to regulate” thinking it would be tied down with such bizarre considerations.

                      But worse, the plain meaning of ‘commerce’ doesn’t restrict it to just the moment you step over a state line.

                      If you 1. call my company in Maryland from yours in Ohio and make an order, and 2. I order my parts from FL and 3. hire local workers to assemble them in Maryland, 4. load them on the truck in Maryland and then 5. the truck drives to Ohio and 6. unloads them there, it seems bizarre to have one set of rules for 1, 2 & 5, one for 3 & 4, and one for 6. Most common sense people see that as one continious act of commerce between us.

                    3. Recall the goofy opinion about Holmes regarding MLB, that it was not commerce but an exhibition.

                      Under your theory MLB is not interstate commerce as the games are not played directly across state lines (I mean literally, they would have to have a state line running through the infield or something). Otherwise all MLB games and the concessions and novelty sales occur within a given state. And so we get a reading of interstate commerce where that doesn’t occur when the Texas Rangers play the NY Yankees.

                    4. OH MY GOD WHAT WILL WE DO IF CONGRESS CAN’T REGULATE RANGERS-YANKEES GAMES!! SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!

                      Considering your reading allows Congress to regulate a farmer growing corn to feed to his own pigs under the guise of interstate commerce, I don’t think you’re in a position to appeal to common sense readings.

                    5. It would be strange for the ratifiers to give Congress this unqualified “power to regulate” thinking it would be tied down with such bizarre considerations.

                      It’s not unqualified, and the “bizarre consideration” that the commerce cross state lines is WRITTEN RIGHT THERE IN THE SAME FUCKING CLAUSE. Obviously they intended it.

                    6. Is this person for real? I mean, this is how some minds work?

                2. but most people earning wages arent doing it acorss borders – national labor market = interstate commerce onyl flows with the absurd if it effects interstate commerce logical step. If this where at all intended, there wouldnt have been a point in listing out any other power int he constitution, because all those other things would flow from it.

                3. As an actual rocket scientist, I must say: Your model is flawed.

                  1. do model rockets count? after all, those dont blow-up & kill people

            2. If I work for a company located in the state of Florida, I live in the state of Florida and I do not need to leave the state of Florida at any point during my commute; how is that “interstate commerce”.

              1. ?

                Ahhh – forgot my ?

              2. how is that “interstate commerce”

                Anything that could potentially affect interstate commerce is open for federal regulation.

                Anything at all.

                That includes butterfly farts in Africa.

                1. I think Lopez and Morrison slew this dragon, it must be economic activity. I agree with the reasoning, otherwise you can get the butterfly effect going.

              3. 1. Does the object of your work leave the state (or include components that come in from elsewhere)? If so then you are enaged in interstate commerce. The conditions of your employment is part of that commerce (your boss would find it strange indeed that his labor costs and policies are not part of his business).

                2. Even if the question to the above is no, what you get paid in an intrastate situation substantially effects in the aggregate the natioal labor market.

                1. Does the object of your work leave the state (or include components that come in from elsewhere)? If so then you are enaged in interstate commerce.

                  And that means the feds can regulate the action of bringing components from other states, or sending the finished product to another state…you know, the “interstate commerce” in which you are engaged. It doesn’t mean that the feds can regulate every part of your business once you partake in interstate commerce.

                  And of course your second point shows you were completely insincere in making the first one.

                  1. It doesn’t show insincerity, it’s the current law, more importantly I make the points separate because perhaps the reader doesn’t buy the second.

                    As to your first point, why would we have such an artifical distinction (the old ‘commerce/manufacturing’ distinction)? The business owner doesn’t see importing components and shipping them as some radically different aspect of his enterprise in commerce, why should we? It get’s strange quickly. So my trucker who delivers my widgets over the state line has a different set or rules than when he stops one mile short of that line for a drop off? Etc.

                2. Substantially effecting the aggregate the natioal labor market by what standard? When you use weazel words that are not themselves in the Constitution you open the door to tyranny.

                3. Does the object of your work leave the state (or include components that come in from elsewhere)? If so then you are enaged in interstate commerce.

                  No, you’re not. The transactions that actually cross state lines are interstate commerce. Those that do not, are not.

                  This is not rocket science. If the Founders had intended all transactions with an indirect effect on interstate commerce to be subject to federal control, they would have written the Commerce Clause differently. As it is, the word “indirect” does not appear.

                  1. If the Founders had intended all transactions with an indirect effect on interstate commerce to be subject to federal control, they would have written the Commerce Clause differently.

                    If the Founders had intended that, they would have replaced Article I Section 8 with a single statement: “Congress can pass any law it wants as long as it’s not forbidden by this Constitution”

                4. Substantially affecting the national labor market is not commerce.

                  I think that commerce needs to be considered one transaction at a time. If the transaction crosses state borders, then it is interstate commerce. If not, then no. Please answer me this, if the commerce clause was intended to allow the breadth of federal regulation we have now, what was the point of putting the word “interstate” in there?

            3. What do you mean by a national labor market?

              And so what? Most people, especially hourly people, work locally. Which is to say, intrastate. Even if they work for a national organization, their exchange of labor for wages (which is the commerce in question) is not interstate.

              And yes, I know that SCOTUS has effectively (and illegally) amended the Constitution.

              1. Don’t you know that the McDonalds in Jackson, MS is competing with all the McDonalds in Alabama for fry cooks?

              2. You’ve never heard of people being attracted across state lines by the idea of better wages?

                1. So? How does deciding to engage in a purely intrastate transaction in a different state transform it into an interstate transaction?

                  Let’s say my business is digging up rocks on my land with my bare hands,I use nothing that has ever been in interstate commerce to get my rocks.

                  Am I in interstate commerce because somebody else is selling rocks across state lines? I know SCOTUS would say yes, but I want to know whether you agree, and if so, why?

                  I sell those rocks, for cash, out of a roadside stand.

                  Would you say that is interstate commerce because some of the people driving past that I sell to reside out of state?

                  Let’s say I decide to move my business to another state, and I buy a parcel there and start the exact same business there.

                  Has it been transformed into an interstate business because I used to do it purely in State A, and now do it purely in State B?

                  1. I sell those rocks, for cash, out of a roadside stand.

                    If someone chooses to buy your rocks instead of rocks from another state, then you have affected interstate commerce by preventing that other transaction from occurring.

                    Any and all economic activity is interstate commerce.

                    No limitations at all.

                    None.

                  2. The conditions of your employment is part of that commerce (your boss would find it strange indeed that his labor costs and policies are not part of his business).

                    His cost of buying or renting building space is part of his business. You must be arguing that the commerce clause grants Congress the power to impose controls on the price of buying or renting a building, right?

                2. So MNG,

                  By it being named the interstate commerce clause, that suggests that there is commerce that is not interstate (otherwise it would have been called the commerce clause). So please list to me 10 things that are commerce but not interstate based on current legal reasoning.

                  1. similarly, what was the point of the pattent or weights and measures clause? Why where these specified consideirng they would fit within the current legal definition of interstate commerce clause powers? Where the founders just trying to waste some ink?

                3. You’ve never heard of people being attracted across state lines by the idea of better wages?

                  It’s highly unlikely when we’re talking about minimum wage jobs.

                  1. I will say, I am sympathetic to the ICC argument that without the substantial effects doctrine, you create local monopolies.

                    If my lumber company in Alabama wants to sell to Georgia, I have to follow Fed Rules X, Y, and Z, but your purely Georgian company doesn’t have to follow those rules, meaning you can destroy my Georgia market.

                    Yes, my company would be asking for government intervention. But assumedly the Georgia company has also pressed their state law makers to give them advantages as well (a lower than federal minimum wage, for example).

                    1. If my lumber company in Alabama wants to sell to Georgia, I have to follow Fed Rules X, Y, and Z, but your purely Georgian company doesn’t have to follow those rules, meaning you can destroy my Georgia market.

                      Only if you accept MNG’s premise that once you engage in interstate commerce, every business activity you partake in becomes subject to federal regulation (ie, not just the activities involving moving goods across state lines or monetary transactions with out-of-state parties). True, you may have to follow more rules shipping your products over the state line, but chances are the Georgia company has lower shipping costs anyway since they’re closer to the market.

                      So the natural tendency of businesses that do business in multiple states would be LESS federal ICC regulation, rather than more regulation that they push for now so as to have greater uniformity.

              3. starting w the 1886 railroad decision which gave corporations the rights of citizens

            4. I accept the definition of regulate that you like, MNG. But interstate commerce is also what it sounds like: someone in one state buying something in another state. So I suppose the fed could regulate wages for people who work in one state for a company headquartered in another. But that’s it. Facts are stubborn things and words mean what they say. The word “interstate” is there for a reason.

          2. Hasn’t Wickard v. Filburn taught you anything???

            Growing food for personal consumption in your garden is interstate commerce!

          3. 1. Workers breathe air.

            2. Air crosses state boundaries.

            3. You can buy canned air.

            4. QED!

        2. Clearly? I would like to see that stated explicitly in one of the Federalist Papers or debate notes. From what I understand it mean simply “make regular”. To “regulate trade” was to “make trade regular”. It is a pity that it is not easier to get a hold of a copy of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary. That is the dictionary that was used at the time.

          1. Neu Mexican just the other day provided a selection from a contemporaneous dictionary that supports my assertion. You could look that up.

            But more importantly the Constitution itself speaks of “regulation” of the armed forces in the same section. Surely they didn’t mean Congress had the power to “remove impediments” to the armed forces.

            Of course, even if it solely meant “to make regular” then what could be a better example of “making regular” than setting a nation-wide minimum? That’s as “regular” (uniform) as you can get.

            1. So, I take it you would be fine with that nationwide minimum being set at zero?

              1. I think Congress has the authority to set the minimum wage high or low, though I might be against the latter and would push to have my rep work against that. Not everything is a constitutional matter, some of it is politics.

                1. OK, so do you think it would be wise to set the Minimum Wage at $200.00 an hour? Why or why not?

                  1. I think the wage should be set with an eye to whether it helps more people than it hurts, but it also has this function of protecting our idea of morality and dignity.

                    For example, do you oppose child labor laws? Why? Certainly economic efficiency would be boosted were they gone.

                    1. nothing says morality like rich white people feeling good about themselves as they throw poor black people out of work.

                    2. “I think the wage should be set with an eye to whether it helps more people than it hurts, but it also has this function of protecting our idea of morality and dignity.”

                      So is that a yes or no on the $200.00 an hour minimum?

                    3. You actually think politician will set it to what is fair and helps the most people? What fantasy land do you live in? They’ll ignore any study that doesn’t fit their worldview and biases.

                    4. Child labor went out of favor before child labor laws were created, because children aren’t really all that productive. In fact, the end of child labor was a result of industrialization. Before industrialization, children had labored for thousands of years in agriculture.

                      Child labor laws, however, do prevent many perfectly capable young adults from having nice jobs.

                    5. And a lot of farm work is still exempted from child labor laws.

            2. Of course, even if it solely meant “to make regular” then what could be a better example of “making regular” than setting a nation-wide minimum?

              You can’t just skip over what they were authorized to make regular: interstate commerce. Not all commerce. Not everything that affects interstate commerce. Interstate commerce.

            3. You’re right it does speak of “regulation” FOUR FUCKING WORDS after saying specifically saying “MAKE RULES”

              Why did they USE both if it means the same thing?

          2. I hear this all the time but what on earth does “make regular” mean if not “make rules about”?

            And don’t tell me it was to prevent states from charging tariffs only; that was separately forbidden in Article 1 Section 10. And if they wanted to say “no interstate tariffs” why the heck didn’t they say that?

            1. + 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

            2. Why did is say “interstate” if it was to mean anytime anyone engages in voluntary exchange?

              Must have been a typo, or one of those damned autocomplete software thingies.

              What they really meant was “Congress can make rules about anything it damn well pleases, so fuck off.”

              1. I don’t support the expansive reading of the commerce clause, but the argument that “regulate” meant something other than the currently understood meaning is bogus. Just because I’m on the same side of an issue doesn’t mean I can let bogus arguments slide.

                In fact, it only heightens my obligation to rebut them, so as to keep the other side’s strawmen from coming to life.

              2. Because it would be absurd to think it meant it could regulate commerce between state governments, because wtf would that be, prison license plate swaps?

                It said commerce among the states, clearly commerce that goes one between the states as geographical units.

                1. It is to make sure that states don’t put tarrifs on goods from other states. That is regulating interstate commerce.

                  1. Article I, Section 10 already takes care of that:

                    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

                    1. This is for international goods, not interstate goods.

                    2. That is what I was thinking, isn’t that all part of the states can’t make treaties with other countries idea?

        3. And all of the rest of the words in the Constitution restricting the power of the federal government must have no meaning for this to be true, so logic is a stubborn thing, sorry.

          1. Of course the other provisions can’t be violated by this. The First Amendment would bar an act under the Commerce Clause making everyone buy a Bible or tithe at their local church for example.

            1. Why did the Constitution give Congress the power to coin money, and emit bills of credit, and establish post offices and postal roads, and all the other stuff in A1S8, when all that stuff was already covered in the Commerce Clause under your interpretation?

            2. “The First Amendment would bar an act under the Commerce Clause making everyone buy a Bible or tithe at their local church for example.”

              The implication being that sans the 1st amendment the federal government has the power to coerce the populace to buy a particular book or contribute to particular charity. But why would the 1st amendment be a particularly difficult obstacle? If you worded the law to require a person to buy some kind of scripture or tithe to a religious organization of their choice, that would not establish a specific religion and would arguably no run afoul of the establishment clause.

        4. Sorry, it “meant” ‘to make regular’ as in those bastard in PA can’t screw the people in VA.

        5. The commerce clause was intended to prevent states from legislating interstate trade barriers.

        6. Then why the fuck did they write: “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”

          if “regulate” and “make rules” means the same fucking thing? Poetic license?

    3. Constitution?, to god-damned hell with Constitution! We have no Constitution. In fact, we don’t need Constitution. I don’t have to show you any stinking constitutions, you god-damned cabron and ching’ tu madre!

    4. Are you serious? Are you serious?

    5. The labor market is an interstate one.

      1. Name a market that isn’t an interstate one, and/or hasn’t been since 1789.

        1. exactly – I’m still waiting to hear him give me a list of commerce that isnt interstate.

          1. Not too many. So the question becomes why do you want lawlessness over what is clearly federal jurisdiction.

      2. By taking it to that extent, the labor market and other commerce is international. It is rare to see someone argue in favor of a reductio ad absurdam.

    6. Nowhere in The Constitution. But if the retards in Congress really think that minimun wage will help people, why don’t they just make it $50 per hour? Why fool around with this $7.50 nonsense?

  11. Why don’t I try arguing against this study the way people around here argue against AGW research?

    1. Correlation ain’t causation, so there!

    2. Who did the funding for this research? We all know the incentives big business beholden foundations must provide to have the research come out this way, ergo it’s bullcrap!

    3. Poverty has been going on forever!

    1. While I haven’t investigated the study thoroughly, I would imagine there are 2 important differences with AGW research:

      1) There is a definitive point where the change occurred, so it is easier to isolate the effects of the cause under study.

      2) There can be some sort of ‘control groups’ by comparing state minimum wages that changed at different points.

      1. “There can be some sort of ‘control groups’ by comparing state minimum wages that changed at different points.”

        I see your point, but I’m not sure how well one state can act as a control group for another. All kinds of potentially important differences going on there.

        1. I was trying not to imply that they were perfect controls, but they are certainly better than either none at all or computer models.

          1. I was trying not to imply that they were perfect controls, but they are certainly better than either none at all or computer models.

            Not sure that is true. The scientific models used to develop the computer models used in AGW research are much more scientifically rigorous than the statistical models used in economics. You just can’t statistically control for all relevant factors in a complex economy.

      2. Not only this, but what was the effect of Trade Agreements that factually encouraged companies to send many traditionally minimum wage jobs overseas? How about advancements in technology in the manufacturing sector, i.e., robots doing more of the work, and therefore reducing the need to hire actual human beings to do labor for example? Surely this is a complicated question that can’t be isolated to merely minimum wage laws having an absolute casual relationship to loss of jobs especially in minority communities.

        1. gavin – wingnuts dont do “complicated”. stick to something like “min wage kills kids” which can easily be morphed into “obama kills kids” in the minds of wingnuts.

        2. Did you read the study? If so you would find that much of it is based on industries like food services that clearly are not effected by any of the things you mention. We are not talking manufacturing jobs here which are not even minimum wage for the most part. Do you think these economists are really that stupid?

    2. There’s also the significant difference that projections of future employment weren’t required. This study was based purely on data that was measured in the real world.

    3. I wish the government would just give all of us a million dollars each so we’d all be millionaires because we’d each have a million dollars. You can’t be poor if you have a million dollars!

      1. Frankly, this seems like the cheapest option at this point. At least then I could pass all that inflation on to my current mortgage company and get a house out of it.

  12. My friend recently defending his thesis on this exact topic, but specific to Vermont.

  13. I’m against minimum wage laws, but find it hard to swallow that an economist can isolate such laws as a factor and measure their effect with a decimal point. That goes for any study that shows a positive effect, too.

    1. 0.1% is pretty standard significant figure. I mean if your regression analysis can’t get down to that level then the trend is probably not worth breaking out in the first place.

  14. RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

  15. But the “intention” was to help these groups, therefore, if you are against the increases, you are a racist. Logic, facts and results are meaningless. Only intentions, feelings, and self-rightousness matter. What’s so difficult to understand about that? Nevermind that minimum wage laws were originally created to protect unions from low cost minority and immigrant labor. That’s not important at all.

    1. Nevermind that minimum wage laws were originally created to protect unions from low cost minority and immigrant labor. That’s not important at all.

      Yet another reason that 20th century unionism is essentially dead, with only its zombie remnants in government left over due to political capture. And that will end once local and state governments have to either descale their bureaucracies or face default, which will force them to cut back anyway.

      1. but thanks to the wisconson wackjobs, we’re coming back babieeee!!

  16. Closer to home (for me, anyways): http://www.fraserinstitute.org…..crease.pdf

  17. My next door neighbor has a Masters degree and just took a job at Pizza Hut delivering pizza, go figure!

    http://www.totally-anon.at.tc

    1. Masters degree in what?

      I chose my major based upon working as a cook with a waitress with a Masters in English who made more money as a waitress than she could with her degree, with a waiter with a degree in Environmental Science who couldn’t find a job, with a cook with a Liberal Arts degree who’s goal was to be a manager, and a cook who left for an engineering job as soon as he graduated college.

      1. Masters in Anonymity.

    2. how do u get a michigan state grad off ur front porch? pay for the pizza!

  18. Also, let us not forget, the constitution does NOT APPLY TO ME. It is a limiting document for the Federal Government. It was written to lay the boundaries for the Fed and its relationship with the semi-sovereign states. It had nothing to do with me growing wheat and using it to feed my cows.

    1. so the 2d amendment isnt an individual right?

      1. God you are retarded. Did you even read what he said?! The constitution was written to apply limits to the FEDERAL government, in what it can and can not do. It is not meant to limit what an individual can or can not do, including buying guns.

  19. People gloss too quickly over the term “commerce” in the Interstate Commerce clause. Commerce is not the same as “economic activity”. It is not production (or consumption); it requires an exchange, a transaction, buying and selling.

    The first step in deciding whether something is interstate commerce is to identify the transaction you seek to regulate. In the labor market, surely this is the employment relationship, which is generally local, intrastate.

    The fact that a large corporation engages in local transactions in many different states does not change the nature of those transactions from intrastate to interstate.

    Employment by a large corporation cannot be interstate. If you work for a national bank, you are probably engaged in interstate commerce with them.

    If, however, you work at a McDonalds, you probably are not engaged in interstate commerce, because you don’t work for McDonalds, Inc.; you are actually working for the local franchise.

    See how this works? If both parties to the transaction are local, its intrastate. If one is from out of state, its interstate.

    1. Should be Employment by a large corporation cannot may be interstate.

    2. Someday, I hope the lawyers in the black robes agree with you.

    3. This really seems like the only reasonable interpretation.

  20. 50% lower! That’s a very significant find, and argument for no minimum wage.

    http://www.intellectualtakeout…..g-fairness

  21. A 2008 meta-analysis of 64 studies relating to whether minimum wage contributed to unemployment concluded that there was no negative relationship.

    We’ve had minimum wage laws in recessions and in times of full employment. They are not the cause of unemployment. They are a way to keep this country a civilized one.

    1. Really? No negative relationship at all? Link?

    2. You mean that the Northern racists seeking to keep black people from taking jobs from whites who demanded higher wages actually helped civilization with their racist laws?

      Seriously?

      Next you’ll be telling me that segregation reduced the rate at which young women were sexually assaulted (and yes, that argument was seriously advanced by segregationists as a reason to keep black men from attending schools with white women).

  22. Tony|5.9.11 @ 3:17PM|#
    “A 2008 meta-analysis of 64 studies relating to whether minimum wage contributed to unemployment concluded that there was no negative relationship.”
    Seems we have a newer study which directly contradicts *your unsupported claim*:
    http://www.clms.neu.edu/public….._Teens.pdf

    “They are not the cause of unemployment.”
    Unsupported claim.

    “They are a way to keep this country a civilized one.”
    Smarmy self-righteousness.

    1. Good study, even at the height of the boom (2007) teen unemployment was highest since WW2. Luckily people aren’t expected to get a job until about 26 these days…

      1. “Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007”
        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..110:H.R.2:
        And this was only the latest increase.

    2. You’re supposed to stop reading after the “Tony” part.

  23. If they eliminated the minimum wage, who would post on these forums during the day?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.