Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is It Time to Start Dismissing 'Economics Deniers'?

Minimum wage laws have negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

We're all the same person, a wise fellow once said—just on different days. He didn't know the half of it. For years, environmentalists have blasted "climate science deniers" for refusing to accept the evidence for human-caused global warming. Is it time we started talking about economic-science deniers, too?

The case for anthropogenic (i.e, human-induced) global warming, or AGW, is very strong. Decades of peer-reviewed research on the question has been done, and it all seems to point in one direction. Even former doubters have been convinced on the point: See for instance physicist Richard Muller's 2012 essay, "The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic." He and a team of scientists tried vigorously to find credible alternative explanations for the observed increase in global temperatures, and couldn't. "I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong," he concluded—but on the fundamental point, he agrees: "Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Muller is not unique; other skeptics gradually have come around, too. On the other hand, the reverse has not happened. Firm believers in AGW are not deciding, after careful study, that it's really just a hoax after all. And that should tell you something—because climate-change skeptics have challenged the consensus view loudly and aggressively. If they had been able to falsify the AGW hypothesis, as scientists have proven false various claims about cold fusion experiments, then at least some climate scientists would have admitted as much.

Note that climate-change skeptics blithely accept bizarre but apparently true scientific claims regarding quantum indeterminacy and the curvature of space. Yet they truculently refuse to concede a point about the Earth's climate that is, intuitively, far less difficult to swallow. They will not believe the peer-reviewed research of hundreds of scientists on climate—but they will gladly believe something they read on a blog somewhere insisting the research is all wrong.

Because they don't like the political implications, climate-change doubters become hyper-skeptical victims of confirmation bias: No amount of evidence is ever enough to mollify their doubts. There is always something wrong with the data sets, or the climate models, or—hey, look at this ridiculous quote from Al Gore 20 years ago! He was wrong then, ergo everyone else must be wrong now, right? Q.E.D.

So what does all this have to with economics?

In late June, researchers published a careful and data-rich study on Seattle's minimum-wage law. It found that the city's graduated hike in the minimum wage is costing thousands of jobs and cutting the number of hours worked by people in low-pay jobs. In the aggregate, Seattle workers are losing millions of dollars in wages thanks to the law. The study has drawn praise for its analytical rigor; one economist at MIT called it "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

Or not.

Since its publication, liberals have given the study hyper-skeptical treatment, claiming to find all sorts of shortcomings with its methodology, data set, and so on. They point to a different study, from the University of California at Berkeley, which examined the law's effects on the restaurant industry and found no statistically measurable effect.

Even Seattle's political leaders are piling on, although they commissioned the research in the first place.

The idea that the price of something has no effect on demand for it sounds pretty funny, coming from liberals. After all, progressives generally support raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking. Last November several cities joined the growing list of liberal demesnes that have imposed soda taxes—Berkeley, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc.—to discourage consumption of sugary drinks. Heck, some localities even have firearms and ammunition taxes. One of them, in fact, is Seattle—where gun sales have dropped as a result.

The cognitive dissonance can be head-spinning. On Sunday, The New York Times ran an editorial dismissing the study on Seattle's minimum wage. This was the same editorial board that exulted, "A big tax on sugary drinks in Mexico appears to be driving down sales of soda" a couple of years ago. On Monday, the paper's David Leonhardt praised Seattle's tax on sugary soft drinks, asserting that such taxes "work as intended ... people in those places are ... drinking less soda."

Yet supporters of the minimum wage insist wages are somehow different. They point to research purporting to show that small wage hikes have no effect on employment. That might be true—just as small hikes in cigarette taxes don't change the behavior of smokers, and small releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere don't affect planetary climate. Different goods and services have different price elasticities, just as different greenhouse gases have different radiative forcing effects. But it does not follow that just because a small increase has no effect, a big increase will have none, either.

Yet when it comes to wages, liberals want to suspend the iron laws of economics—or at least pretend they don't apply, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

They don't reject all economic science, any more than conservatives deny all physical science. But, as conservatives do regarding climate change, on the minimum wage liberals suffer from an affliction once described by Solzhenitsyn: "the desire not to know."

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

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.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin||

    Quick question: Who would you rather be? Subject A who works 40 hours a week making $290/wk or Subject B who works 19 hours a week making $285/wk?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Neither

    I pick Subject C who is now on welfare working 0 hours a week in order to pay for subject B's wage increase

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin||

    The thing I like about this article is the implicit acknowledgement that the line of argument employed by conservatives like the author for 30 years now has been pretty much bullshit. Oh well.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Where is that acknowledgment, Mr. Mass Murderers For Username? All that is acknowledged is that small changes may not have had an impact, other than the impact that the minimum wage has through its very existence, but the evidence that this large change has a negative impact is pretty stunning

    And check out the Denmark study

  • Sevo||

    For those who can read AND comprehend, it said if the increase is small enough to have nearly no effect, it has nearly no effect.
    And dimwit lefties try to spin that into something else entirely, right, dimwit lefty?

  • Zeb||

    Right. Minimum wage hasn't been too damaging in the past mostly because increases tend to lag behind prevailing wages. Trying to use it to give everyone a pay raise is going to do a lot more harm.

  • dchang0||

    Very true. Anyone who doubts this should google "Gravity Payments."

    When the CEO increased the minimum wage to $70,000/year (approx $34/hr) within the company, the two hardest-working people got pissed off and left because now they were working harder than everyone else but making only slightly more.

    Everyone needs to understand that there is more than just monetary compensation involved; there is social ranking going on (dominance hierarchy). That's the real reason any time we ask a minimum-wage supporter "why not $100/hr?" they know that's too high, though they cannot explain it. It would upend the social order and cause outright war between social classes.

  • ||

    Past MW increases HAVE had an effect.

    That effect:
    Is proportionate to the scale of the increase.
    AND may not always or primarily show up in employment.

    Any minimum wage about zero is net harmful.

    All minimum wages are not a floor to wages - they are a ceiling to employment.
    Whatever the MW is if your labor is not worth that much - then you will not have a job.
    Any productive task whose value is lower than the MW will not occur.

    Worse still - absent central banks a free market is naturally mildly deflationary.

    Rising standard of living inherently means producing ever greater value with ever less human resources.
    The minimum wage is actually a hinderance to rising standard of living.

  • MarkLastname||

    The thing I like about physics is how physicists tacitly acknowledge how the laws of physics are bullshit when they admit that adding small amounts of water to oceans doesn't noticeably alter their water level.

  • Sevo||

    That admits nothing of the sort.
    It admits that inputs at the thousandth decimal point are hard to measure.

  • MarkLastname||

    Unskilled workers love high minimum wages so much they're migrating en masse out of places with high minimum wages into places with low ones. Must be some capitalist Jedi mind trick.

  • DarrenM||

    Minimum wages are intended to drive out the riffraff, those workers who aren't skilled enough to work in better paying jobs. This is so the MW supporters don't have to deal with "those people".

  • Sevo||

    Honest answer:
    Whichever didn't get fired as a result of ignoramuses like you.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Explain to me how reduced hours which net me no additional earnings along with no additional jobs available to further increase my total income helps me. Especially when the areas that have instituted this grand idea didn't make it any cheaper to live there.

    Having more time to sit at home with no funds to do anything constructive seems like a suckfest to me.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Part time remote work and companies like uber and making this more viable than it ever was historically.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Uber? The company that's being banned all over the place for their 'unfair work practices'?

  • Longtobefree||

    Mostly they get banned for not bowing down to the union taxi companies and the politicians that are their captive cronies.
    Uber cannot have 'unfair work practices', because they do not have employees. They use a franchise model with contracts for individuals. In other words, if you don't think it is fair for you, don't take it.
    But this is how they put it on the first page of their web site.
    "This opportunity is for an independent contractor. Actual earnings may vary depending on number of rides taken, time of day, location and other factors."

  • Eman||

    . "They use a franchise model with contracts for individuals. In other words, if you don't think it is fair for you, don't take it."

    How is that any different from any other job?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    As longtobefree points out, a lot of the pressure on uber has come from taxi cartels, and i feel no sympathy for someone who would rather resort to political force or violence than by just offering a better service.

    But in any event, even if you were to say that uber had to fix their work practices, it still is an example of the type of work that people can do in their spare time now that was never available to them before the internet. These are good things for creative people who need money.

  • ||

    If you do not like Uber's work practices - do not work for them.

    That is how freedom and free markets work.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    So we should laud the idea of working multiple jobs to offset the loses of my previous single job? At a minimum were still talking about lost productivity. Worse than that were talking about even less work/life balance as people struggle to make up losses.

    Progress?

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    I'm not really arguing that, obviously the best outcome is for people to continue working full time at one job, making additional money without putting their company out of business. Thatd be dandy. But given market realities in certain industries, particularly the restaurant and food industry, sometimes increased wages do make business nonviable.

  • ||

    The best outcome is to allow people to be free to make their own choices.

    They are not all going to make the same choices.
    Laws and regulations herd us like sheep into uniformity of choice and choke the increase in standard of living.

  • plusafdotcom||

    ... So 'we' should pass a law forcing the sheep to make better choices?

    If you've described a Problem, at the very least you should offer up a solution, even if it gets torn to shreds by Critical Thinkers...

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Yes, finally.

    It's just that simplistic, people.

  • Sevo||

    Given that you are a simplistic commenter, care to comment on WIH this means?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Trick question! Subject B got fired and his $285/week is welfare.

  • sarcasmic||

    And he isn't working. Why bother? If he's lucky enough to get a job that earns $300/wk, that means working 40hrs for $15. Fuck that. Stay on welfare.

  • Zeb||

    40*15=600. Am I missing something?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Taxes.

    I jest. He means for 40 hours work, you get $300, which is $15 over welfare.

  • Zeb||

    Doesn't welfare get taxed too? Or is that already included in the $285? Or am I missing the joke?

  • sarcasmic||

    Forget taxes.

    If you take home $285/week for doing nothing, and the only job you can get brings home $300/week, then all that work is for $15.

    It's not worth it.

  • Zeb||

    Ah, I misinterpreted the $15 as $15/hr.

  • Red Twilight||

    Subject B. I'll eat $5 less each week, live longer.

  • Sevo||

    Red Twilight|7.12.17 @ 1:44PM|#
    "Subject B. I'll eat $5 less each week, live longer."

    Lefty scum:
    "I don't care, make funny"

  • Zeb||

    Well, eating just enough to get by is supposedly effective in extending your lifespan. You spend a lot of time hungry and tired, but you get more of it.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Live longer and sad life or live shorter but fulfilled life.... I get the extra years up front, right? No? Fuck it. Give me two double cheeseburgers.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Actually subject A gets full time benefits, subject B doesn't - by the law.
    So enjoy your $5 dollar less idiot. It's costing you a lot more than that

  • BYODB||

    Guess who is now considered non-benefits eligible part-time employed?

  • Uncle Jay||

    Can you give me hint?

  • ||

    And what to make of the 21 hours? So his wage goes up not via natural market forces but by government so someone is gonna eat that deficiency in hours worked. In effect, I argue, the economy is actually poorer. THAT'S the part lefties don't understand or even care about.

  • Paper Wasp||

    I would rather be Subject D, who is not an entitled mushroom who bitches and whines about his low-skill, low-pay job for years on end, but instead gets off his ass and gets some more marketable skills and a better-paying job.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    A job is a right!

    /derp

  • Michael Hihn||

    Quick question:

    With bullshit options.
  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Can we not sink to their level and use the term "denier"? Evoking Holocaust denial for people who disagree with you is pathetic

  • Dillinger||

    ^^^ this

  • colorblindkid||

    He's specifically referring to global warming deniers, because that is an appropriate anaogy. He is not comparing it to Holocaust deniers or moon landing deniers or any other sort of denier.

  • The Last American Hero||

    But the people who use climate denier as a phrase are making a direct comparison to flat earthers and holocaust deniers.

  • CitizenA||

    The comparison is a reasonable one though, moral valence on the last one aside. All of these "deniers" disregard or attempt to explain away incontrovertible empirical evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

  • plusafdotcom||

    So, as a Warmite, you're saying that Everything on this page of my website is false?!

    http://www.plusaf.com/homepage.....ming-2.htm

    Color me "Denier" and I'm proud of it. What Warmites consider 'incontrovertible evidence' is often what I call "facts".

    Enjoy!

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    "Denier" has long been reserved for the Holocaust. Other conspiracy theorists, like the 9/11, Sandy Hook, and flat Earth people, are called "truthers". The deliberate choice to call climate change skeptics "deniers" makes them sound evil rather than deluded or just wrong

  • John C. Randolph||

    global warming deniers, because that is an appropriate anaogy.

    No it isn't, and fuck you for trivializing the holocaust.

    -jcr

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I tend to agree, however, I have repeatedly accused Kshama Sawant as believing in economic creation science.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, please. Meeting them on their own dishonest playing field doesn't work, because there are a lot of them and they made the rules.

    Try to be honest and say what you mean.

  • MarkLastname||

    Denialism denier!

  • Kay Faibe||

    I'm not so much a denier, I just don't give a fuck. I live here now, not too concerned with 100 years from now. Sorry next generations but the survival instinct can't be denied.

  • Sevo||

    In fact, I think they need to be investigated for misleading stock holders.

  • Ron||

    lots of people are atheist until they get religion that still doesn't prove god exist yet there are more christians than atheist so by consensus god exist and he is a christian god everyone else is a denier

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Minimum wage laws have little downside for us here in Silicon Valley and Seattle.

    We have some of the best social safety nets in the world, protecting our 1% asses from unlikely financial ruin, while we enjoy the services of our robot army.

    And since they don't get paid, who cares what the minimum wage is?

    That's called progress, people.

  • Sevo||

    Did you have a point other than 'I'm alright, Jack'?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Apparently not a Seattle resident, since you seem gleefully unaware of the homeless problem.

  • Dillinger||

    the robot army will handle that

  • Zeb||

    Check out the handle. It's deliberately being ridiculous.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I live in Issaquah, thank you very much.

  • Daily Beatings||

    Anytime you have the floor artificially set above the equilibrium price there will always be less demand. It's unbelievable there's even an argument about this.

  • Fat Stanley||

    No argument on supply/demand. However that's not the whole (or only) question. In a system where workers exceed number of jobs, hiring a $10/hr worker to do a job that's "worth" $20/hr to the employer, ALL excess benefits go to the employer, none to the worker. Workplace wage and safety laws (like min wage, max hours, etc) are in place to balance this unequal relationship between the relatively few employers and the relatively many workers.

    If one agrees with this premise (that rules are needed), then we're simply quibbling about what's "fair."

  • Sevo||

    Fat Stanley|7.12.17 @ 1:27PM|#
    "In a system where workers exceed number of jobs, hiring a $10/hr worker to do a job that's "worth" $20/hr to the employer, ALL excess benefits go to the employer, none to the worker."

    Right, and no competitor would dare enter such a market and compete the price down ass a result of the lower wages.
    Are you stupid or willfully ignoring reality?

  • Zeb||

    If someone is willing to do a job for $10/hour (and can do it competently), then the job isn't worth $20/hour.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think he means that the job produces $20 of value for the employer. Therefore the job is "worth" $20, and the worker deserves to be paid the full amount. Any profit that the employer makes by paying the worker less than $20 is theft from the worker. Just as selling anything above cost is theft from the customer.

    All profit is theft.

  • Zeb||

    Ah, yes. Good old Labor theory of value. Where capital and ideas just magically appear.

  • Galane||

    Don't you know that every business has a magical, bottomless pit of money to pay all their expenses? 100% of the gross profits must be paid to the proletariat!

  • Socrates92||

    Are we talking about economic or accounting profit?

  • Sam Grove||

    What about losses? Do workers share in business losses?
    I don't think so.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    "If someone is willing to do a job for $10/hour (and can do it competently), then the job isn't worth $20/hour."

    OH NO! A monopsony power denier!

  • Zeb||

    Can't tell if serious.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Said it joking, but a point to keep in mind is that unequal bargaining power can lead to real market failures. i.e. coercive bargaining positions that erode the function of free markets. An example of this being monopsony power.

  • ||

    Then go start a business Fat Stanley. You're not entitled to it. And quite frankly employees - though obviously critical to most enterprises - over rate themselves where min. wage is concerned.

    The bottom line is the 'capitalist' - the person who puts down the capital and takes the risk - is entitled to profits and it's not your place to determine how much is 'fair'.

    Don't like it? Change job.

  • Loss of Reason||

    You really don't understand business and working do you Fatty?

    So a $10/hr worker produces worth of $20/her to employer.

    The Employer has to pay corporate tax, pay insurance for the business, pay the workers insurance, pay the workers 401K, pay property taxes, and loads of other things. Most employers aren't living high on the hog and most small business owners take more risk than their employees. Most employees can live, most business owners live or die with the business.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Where its true that ownership and/or management are still tied to risk, thats a persuasive argument but its an ever decreasing trend across industries in an ever more global market.

  • Daily Beatings||

    We're not taking about the labor theory of value, which is highly subjective since greater "worth" to the employer would obviously increase the equilibrium for such labor.

    Minimum wage should be set just below the equilibrium to dissuade businesses from exploiting the disadvantaged. If the minimum wage is set to high the demand curve shifts to the left and you get less employment.

    It's even worst once you factor in the multiplier since the higher wage does not offset the reduced economic activity from employment loss. It's economically better to have 9 people working at $10.00 an hour than 6 working at $15.00 an hour.

  • Sevo||

    "Minimum wage should be set just below the equilibrium to dissuade businesses from exploiting the disadvantaged. If the minimum wage is set to high the demand curve shifts to the left and you get less employment."

    You're full of shit.

  • spec24||

    How do people like you function?

  • spec24||

    How do people like you function?

  • plusafdotcom||

    And, as I've been saying for years, if you don't DEFINE "Fair" before swinging it as a club, your 'argument' is useless.

    And I do NOT mean defining "fair wages" by naming a dollar price per hour. That varies with industries, seasons and economic cycles.

  • Qsl||

    In general, there is a grave ignorance (student loan crisis, housing bubble, etc.) among the populace to where I think a case can be made for teaching basic economics/finance ahead of programing or what ever in school.

    And it need not even be Mises Uber Alles: I'm open to the possibility that increasing the minimum wage might have greater benefits than loses, but show me the work, show me the reasoning.

    Most people won't even think far enough to ask the question.

  • Red Twilight||

    And most libertarians will smugly make conclusions without bothering to read responses. Or assign homework. Or laugh it off. Or make more assertions.

  • Sevo||

    Red Twilight|7.12.17 @ 1:54PM|#
    "And most libertarians will smugly make conclusions without bothering to read responses."
    Responses from lefty twits have been read often enough to realize we're dealing with parrots.
    Fuck off.

  • ||

    Know what the origins of minimum wage is Red Twilight?

    It was to force immigrants out of taking jobs that were undercutting the wages of Anglo-Saxons. It was a (racist) scheme to create an underclass. And here's the kicker....it was by design.

    Min. wage HURTS the labour force AND businesses. It's lose-lose.

    Go read a little. I know lefties like to read the Little Red Play Book but that's the truth.

  • Galane||

    The first two countries to enact minimum wage laws were New Zealand and the USA, in 1938. It's easy to see the effect that's had in the ever upward spiral of prices on consumer goods.

  • plusafdotcom||

    " It's easy to see the effect that's had in the ever upward spiral of prices on consumer goods."

    .... not easy for Liberals, alt-Left, Socialists, BernieSanders-Lovers, etc., to see...

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    When I started my first small business my view of economics was pretty much the standard leftist line, workers are paid less than their '"value" so the owner can get get rich and retire at age 50 on a beach somewhere. I knew how to do the work but I was a complete economic illiterate. Needless to say I had to learn a lot about the subject in order to survive. Some years later I read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, a short easy read. It confirmed every lesson I'd learned in my little enterprise. I wish I had read it in high school.

  • Red Twilight||

    Depends on what it is. But, yes, that is true.

    So, the theory is that, if the minimum wage for restaurants (as an example) was set to $15, when the "real, equilibrium price" is $12 (again, for example), then the demand for those wage earners will decline.

    Sure, that is true overall. Only the large restaurants will be able to afford that $3.

    What could happen? Restaurants will be forced to close, or at least downsize. Some will raise their prices, and that may, in turn, reduce patronage. At least temporarily.

    But what about the demand for eating out? If 1000 people were eating out, will all of them stop eating out? That supply has gone down, while the demand has remained the same.

  • sarcasmic||

    What happens is the restaurants hire cooks with experience, while teenagers and others who lack skills find themselves unable to get hired.

    No job, no experience; no experience, no job. Catch 22.

    The unemployment is mostly unseen. It's not so much people getting fired or laid off. It's people not being hired in the first place.

  • Zeb||

    That's actually the argument I've had the most success with in convincing people that maybe big minimum wage increases aren't a good idea.

    There are a ton of people out there who don't need to support a family or even live independently on their wages. But they do need work experience so that some day they will be able to support themselves. There's even a great cautionary example in Europe where many countries have incredible youth unemployment because of the overregulated labor market. When I went to Spain this spring, I think the youngest person I saw waiting tables, or working at a restaurant at all, must have been over 30. And most were solidly middle aged.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. The MW has it's main negative effect in jobs that never materialize in the first place. MW supporters only look at existing jobs that are lost.

  • Galane||

    Before the round of minimum wage increases to $7.25, the local McDonalds would hire people as young as 15, with a wage starting above minimum.

    That was despite the limitation of a 15 year old only being allowed to work 4 hours a day, only doing cleanup or running a register. No cooking. The restaurant needed the warm bodies to do those jobs while the higher paid, longer hours, older kids and adults got to do the work the younglings weren't allowed.

    But when the first kick up in minimum wage went into effect, there were no more 15 year old kids working at McDonalds, or most anywhere else. When the next raise came, they weren't working anywhere but family owned businesses, and 16 year old kids were getting locked out of jobs.

    When it went to $7.25 it was near impossible for anyone under 18 to find a job.

    Going to $15, even in steps, is going to squeeze out younger people with less experience - much of that due to the $7.25 wage keeping them from getting any job before their 18th birthday.

    IMHO the main objective behind the $15 minimum wage is to increase the numbers of minimum wage workers. At $7.25 the percentage of working people getting paid that was around 5% nationally, and the same in most States.

    Labor unions attempting to coerce minimum wage workers into their ranks (to swell their $$$$ with more union membership dues) find 5% a pretty small pool.

  • Galane||

    Politicians claiming they're going to "help" the "downtrodden" also find 5% of the workforce a small pool to pander to. Make more minimum wage workers by legislative fiat and they think they can get more people to vote for them.

    Where you'll find much of the opposition to raising the minimum wage is from workers who already make between $7.25 and $15, especially those who already make $15 or just above. That separation shows their work is more valuable than what an 18 year old at McDonalds does. It shows they've put forth the effort, done the learning etc to deserve what they're paid.

    Raising the minimum wage to $15 wipes all that out. Someone being paid just under $15 for semi-skilled labor might decide he'd be better off to get a McDonalds job that's less physically demanding and offers discounted meals, instead of doing the same grunt work for a few cents raise to $15.

    The next step will be getting people out to protest and demand a $20 minimum wage.

  • ||

    It's all arbitrary. How it could possibly be demonstrated by any reasonable or financial measure $15 or $20 or $100 is appropriate?

  • plusafdotcom||

    Sarcasmic, I bitched about exactly that "Catch-22" before I got my first job, too.

    But it's a fallacy. If you have NO experience in ANY vocation, you need to prove yourself the only possible way... get a job that requires little or no experience of college degree and prove to the employer that you can show up on time Every Day and do whateverTF the job does require!

    After some months of that, you now have a non-zero CV that you can take to an employer and demonstrate that they just might be able to trust you TO come to work on time and Do The Work. That job might even be one where you DO have some appropriate (innate or through experience or minimal education) skills to bring to the party.

    After that, it can all be 'up and to the right.' One of my first summer jobs was at an electronics firm and my "qualifications" amounted to the ability to solder wires and having passed enough science and math classes in high school to show that I could do some worthwhile thinking. The engineers I reported to tried the "bucket of smoke" crap on me and in a short time I proved that 1) I was way beyond that, and 2) when I started to solve problems or even analyze problems better and faster than some of them, that shit ended.

    But I hated having to join a union to work there and I saw all the downsides of having to actually 'punch a time clock' in and out. I swore that was the last job like that I'd ever take, and it was.

  • Sevo||

    "What could happen? Restaurants will be forced to close, or at least downsize. Some will raise their prices, and that may, in turn, reduce patronage. At least temporarily."
    Yeah, who cares about those folks tossed off a job if lefties get to feel good?

    "But what about the demand for eating out? If 1000 people were eating out, will all of them stop eating out?"
    It will fall, meaning more people lose jobs, but if you're a lefty, who cares?

  • Paper Wasp||

    But what about the demand for eating out? If 1000 people were eating out, will all of them stop eating out? That supply has gone down, while the demand has remained the same.

    The demand goes elsewhere. That is what is happening in Seattle. Some restaurants are closing for good; some are reopening outside city limits. People are discovering the joys of dining out...side of town. When you go to restaurants out in the 'burbs, you can still get great food and service, and you don't see any snotty-proggie notes on your menu or your receipt about how they're adding a 5 or 10 or whatever percent surcharge to your bill to cover their staff's paid sick leave (now required in Seattle) or overinflated wages.

    That kind of messaging is extremely common in Seattle. And what diners have figured out is that they're not getting better food or service for that surcharge; in fact, the service is declining because they can hire fewer workers. Go a couple of miles further, outside the city limits, and all that bullshit goes away, so...

  • Loss of Reason||

    So if restaurants downsize, their workstaff is smaller...so less people working who have less money to spend, so of course demand is going to go down to. Not in your dream world, but that's how the real world works.

  • spec24||

    What the hell are you talking about? "that may, in turn, reduce patronage.......the demand has remained the same."

    Make up your mind. Either demand remains the same or it doesn't. Are you under the impression that demand is people wanting to eat out? That's not what demand is! Demand is wanting to eat out AND having the means to do it. If restaurants raise their prices and reduce patronage that is a decrease in demand.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    " Some will raise their prices, and that may, in turn, reduce patronage. At least temporarily.

    But what about the demand for eating out? If 1000 people were eating out, will all of them stop eating out? That supply has gone down, while the demand has remained the same."

    Huh? Demand has remained the same while patronage is reduced because of increase prices? Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?

  • plusafdotcom||

    No, Red, if the prices at the restaurant(s) paying higher wages go up, some of those "1000 people" will ALSO be "priced out of the market", too.

  • Brandybuck||

    There is also price elasticity to take into account. It's what Keynes called "sticky wages". Keynes may have been wrong on some things, but he was not wrong on that. Employers do NOT like to lay off workers. So there is some elasticity in wages. They are somewhat sticky. The flaw in the progressive argument is that they assume elasticity is infinite. It most certainly is not!

    Past minimum wage hikes were modest, and mostly just adjusting the minimum to be closer to the equilibrium. But the $15 minimum is clearly far above the equilibrium for unskilled zero-experience labor. The sticky wages stretch past the snapping point, and employers cease hiring or even laying off.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not so much that they cease hiring. They cease hiring people without experience.

  • Daily Beatings||

    The flaw in the progressive argument is that demand for unskilled labor is inelastic at all price levels. The reality is that at price levels far above the equilibrium demand becomes elastic and employment decreases. Elasticity of supply has no role since unskilled labor has a surplus.

  • MarkLastname||

    An additional problem is that, to the extent that there is inelasticity, the employers will just pass the increased cost onto customers by increasing prices, and since most minimum wage jobs produce goods or services consumed disproportionately by the poor, it is still mainly a transfer of wealth from poor people qua consumers to poor people qua employees.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Is It Time to Start Dismissing 'Economics Deniers'?
    Minimum wage laws have negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

    One can speculate just how many people who know anything about economics and small business owners support minimum wage increases.

  • spec24||

    Form a coherent sentence please.

  • SilentSkies||

    I prefer the term "math denier". It's a lot funnier.

  • ||

    Haven't your heard? Math is racist.

  • Daily Beatings||

    Tryone pimps 3 ho's. If the price is $85 per trick. How many tricks per day must each ho turn to support Tyrone's $800 per day crack habit?

  • Uncle Jay||

    None.
    Just shoot the fucker and rip off his money.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "Start" dismissing?

    Sorry guys, I jumped the line ahead of the starter's gun. We're gonna need a restart.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's all about intentions. The current supporters of minimum wage, unlike the originators of the policy, intend to help unskilled workers. They intend to force employers into giving them a raise. The originators of the policy understood exactly what the result would be. This was back when eugenics was fashionable. They had good intentions as well. They were trying to purify the gene pool by preventing undesireables from earning enough money to live. Destroying lives served the greater good. But if you point this out, or any other facts related to the harm done by minimum wage, then you're the one with bad intentions. You hate the poor because you don't want them to get a raise. You want the rich to get richer. You're a shill for the Koch brothers.

    And WTF with getting logged out after five seconds?

  • Eric||

    Hinkle's pulling out the verbal judo on our resident righties. Will they notice?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Never.

  • Fat Stanley||

    IT'S ONE STUDY, PEOPLE. "Science" in the real meaning of the word requires that others be able to independently confirm the results of a given experiment. As much as it makes sense that wages up would likely mean number of hours down, you have to perform this analysis different ways to test whether this is a one-time result, or a more stable relationship. (Speaking of stable relationships....[insert horse joke here])

    What's actually puzzling is that (hourly rate * hours worked) in the first period was HIGHER THAN (hourly rate * hours worked) in the second period by a fair amount. Shouldn't they be basically the same (all other things equal)?

  • Sevo||

    Fat Stanley|7.12.17 @ 1:35PM|#
    "IT'S ONE STUDY, PEOPLE."

    Bull
    .
    .
    shit.

  • ||

    PAID FOR KOCH AND PRIVATE CORPORATIONS!

    PAS BON!

  • sarcasmic||

    "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

    -Albert Einstein

  • Brandybuck||

    What's actually puzzling is that (hourly rate * hours worked) in the first period was HIGHER THAN (hourly rate * hours worked) in the second period by a fair amount. Shouldn't they be basically the same (all other things equal)?


    The hourly rate is NOT the full cost to the employer! I haven't read the study in question, but I do know that much. Part time vs full time employees have different costs to the employer. There are different non-wage benefits, different legal rules, other factors as well. Apples and oranges may both be fruits, but they are not equal.

  • Ragoftag||

    In response to the author's heavy bias, the case for anthropogenic (i.e, human-induced) global warming, or AGW, is very weak. Decades of peer-reviewed research on the question has been done, and it all seems to point in one direction: more grant money to waste. All the original work is either sequestered from view or denied for verification. EVERY climate model has failed when tested by non-acolytes of the AGW religion. The 'church' of AGW is at least as bad as the Catholics' inquisition, substituting modern punishments and tortures for the passe thumbscrews and rack. Every current screed put out starts with hysterical screamings and rants against unbelievers who doubt the presence of the proclaimed witch's' powers. One went some seven chapters before offering the first 'Indisputable FACT'. Shame it had already been dis-proven years earlier. Some don't even get around to even favoring AGW in the writing.

    No matter, Sec Pruitt has already set in motion the wheels of scientific inquiry which will find the truth through the 'verification' steps we all learned in Jr High Science.

  • Ragoftag||

    You do remember the Scientific Method, right?

    Choose and define that you want to figure out and explain.

    Collect information through observations or replicate this phenomena by means of a test eliminating interference.

    Collect data, look for pattern. Attempt hypothesis to explain any pattern.found

    Test hypothesis by collecting other data to see if the hypothesis continues true. Restart if fails

    Hypothesis is posited to the other scientists to see if it is valid and their inputs are factored in. Becomes a theory if best explanation

    Theory is ALWAYS subject to modification/rejection if evidence disproves it

    (I may have missed a step, it was decades ago)

    A few other 'scientific' truths:
    Every 'thing' is subject to scientific 'study', but not 'explanation' (No, I don't understand that one)
    The Universe has limits, stupidity does not (attributed to Einstein)
    Science studies 'how' not 'why'.
    No theory is ever eternal/absolute TRUTH.
    All is subject to verification by others or its not science.
    Every theory is both a challenge of many types to exceed and a windmill worthy of tilting.

    Note to Hinkle: Using as discredited a lot as that of the AGWs is not a sound debating format.

  • sarcasmic||

    "When politics is determined by science, science will be determined by politics."

    -me

  • Azathoth!!||

    There's a reason sarcasmic posted this--

    "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

    -Albert Einstein

    It applies to this as well.

    EVERY climate model has failed when tested by non-acolytes of the AGW religion.

    See? Einstein said a single experiment can prove him wrong. 'SINGLE'. With AGW, EVERY model has been wrong. That's 'EVERY'. Game over.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "All the original work is either sequestered from view or denied for verification."

    No it's not.

  • spec24||

    The facts are this: all other things being equal, if you increase the price of something people will consume less of it. We don't need THIS study to tell us this because we have shit loads of studies that have been done. It's one of the basic, fundamental principles in economics. So it is not speculation that increasing the minimum wage (all other things being equal) will have a negative effect on low skilled workers. If you disagree with this you are clearly an economics denier and have no business in the discussion. You would have to bust this rock-solid theory to claim that minimum wage laws are beneficial to those same people.

  • MarkLastname||

    There are many studies, many many studies. See Neumark and Wascher's book 'Minimum Wage.'

  • ThomasD||

    " But, as conservatives do regarding climate change..." Oh horseshit Hinkle.

    One of the main criticisms of climate science is that absolute dearth of predictive success.

    Pointing this out renders you a 'denier' to the true believers. Which is why the response to economic denial is not blanket dismissal. That would only make you another sort of true believer. The response is to keep pointing out their errors.

    But otherwise? Spot on!

  • ThomasD||

    These sorts of bootstrapped Tu Quoque arguments are becoming a hallmark of Reason.

  • Eric||

    I like it when the hypocrisy of BOTH sides is pointed out. Especially in the current political environment when no 'speck-in-the-eye' goes un-punished.

  • BYODB||

    One would think the solution to economic denial is to educate people on economics. I don't get the comparison to AGW though, since it's only similar in the sense that both economics and climate science are both soft sciences.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this entire article consists of little more than a lot of false equivalency arguments. Go figure.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There's no such thing as soft science. There's the scientific method and there's not the scientific method. There are not varying degrees.

    Despite everyone's "prices go up, demand goes down DUH" theories, economics is one of the most complex fields known to man. As a result, it's perceived as a "soft science", as if the findings are somehow a little less legitimate.

  • Sevo||

    "There's no such thing as soft science. There's the scientific method and there's not the scientific method."

    I get very tired of this also. Physics, in the hands of those cold-fusion guys, is not a 'hard science'.
    The subject or field is irrelevant; are you using science to examine it? If so, you're doing science even if the field is knitted caps.
    Economics is a bitch since we can't select for a control group, and the left refuses to accept the obvious failures of socialism, since they we're 'real' socialism.
    The state does not relinquish power easily...

  • Sevo||

    ...since they we're 'real' socialism.

    ...since they *weren't* 'real' socialism.
    Sorry.

  • Curt||

    The comparison isn't entirely horseshit, but to make it accurate he would need to go further with it.

    Imagine if the minimum-wage-is-bad crew didn't simply stop there, but further predicted that unless we dropped minimum wage to $5 per hour we will encounter 50% unemployment, complete financial collapse, and a general return to the great depression in the next twenty years; starting with 20% unemployment in the next five years. And five years later, nothing has really changed.

    Then we would have all kinds of different economics-deniers: the ones who think those consequences worst-case scenarios are possible but probably excessive; the ones who think results won't nearly be that severe; the ones who think the absence of impact in last five years proves the theory wrong; the ones who agree with the general concept, but think $5/hr is excessive; etc. Then the analogy might be accurate as those people are all lumped together as heretical economics deniers.

  • Curt||

    But, the minimum-wage-is-bad people don't make such crazy, dire predictions. They don't have an enormous history of failed predictive models. They don't have Hollywood actors as their spokespersons.

    They say it will cause negative (but not doomsday) consequences and they are proven right. Until they go completely batshit crazy, there is no need for them to adopt the tactics of the people who are already batshit crazy and start accusing opponents of being heretical "deniers".

  • spec24||

    ^^^ this is dumb

  • MarkLastname||

    "Dearth of predictive success."
    This really isn't true, no matter often people repeat it.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And yet you've no cites to offer.

    How about that?

  • Mark22||

    Liberty isn't about "predictive success". Even if socialism actually worked better than free markets, I would still prefer free markets. Ditto for climate change: between a world with global socialism and a stable climate and a world with liberty and a warming climate, I'd strongly prefer the latter. A few degrees of warming are negligible compared to the kind of misery socialism causes.

    (Of course, in reality, when you choose socialism or progressivism because you want achieve X, you get the oppressive state and you still don't get X anyway.)

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Is It Time to Start Dismissing 'Economics Deniers'?

    Way, way ahead of you on that one, Hinkle.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>He and a team of scientists tried vigorously to find credible alternative explanations for the observed increase in global temperatures, and couldn't.

    group-idiot.

  • Longtobefree||

    Question one; the 'real' increase in global temperatures, or the 'adjusted to fit' increase in global temperatures?
    Question two; did they consider as credible the "well, the earth goes through very long, very slow changes in temperature from cold to warm and back again, and that is how it is supposed to be." theory?

  • MarkLastname||

    Well read their work and find out. But I'm willing to bet that they are well aware of cyclical climate patterns; the sunspot cycle et al. have well known periods and anyone doing research in that field would know to adjust for them. So no, you didn't just make the theory-busting discovery.

  • Red Twilight||

    Minimum wage laws have negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

    True.

    The lack of a minimum wage also has negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

  • Sevo||

    "The lack of a minimum wage also has negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them"

    So does the lack of "free" food, except those of us capable of thought know there's nothing "free".
    But you were hoping details like that would get ignored, right?

  • Red Twilight||

    Nope, I was expecting you to not read, and make assertions like the jackass you are. And you did.

  • Sevo||

    Red Twilight|7.12.17 @ 1:55PM|#
    "Nope, I was expecting you to not read, and make assertions like the jackass you are. And you did."

    Gee, calling lefties on their brain-dead bullshit makes me a jackass!
    Fuck off.

  • spec24||

    You're just a giant asshole, aren't you? Too stupid to make a real argument, you just make assertions with nothing to back it up, like a jackass, and then call someone else a jackass. You're an idiot. Go be an idiot somewhere else and stop bothering people who know what they're talking about. Jackass.

  • chemjeff||

    Oh I think that those of us who advocate for the lack of a minimum wage (seems silly to say that I advocate for the *lack* of something, but whatever) do acknowledge the downsides. If there were no minimum wage, some people would be paid very little for hard work. Some people would actually be exploited, however you might choose to define that term. But the point of having no minimum wage isn't to create some labor utopia, but to maximize liberty for all involved.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you make $0 dollars or are unemployed, you're eligible for food stamps and other types of welfare. That's a kind of minimum wage in and of itself.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Thank you for being intellectually honest.

    I find one of the great ironies of libertarianism to be that libertarians tend to be strong advocates of individualism, but the way they argue against the minimum wage is based largely on the effects of the populace as an aggregate. They're basically correct, but with the exception of you, I find very few people acknowledging that there would be some individuals that would lose if the minimum wage laws were repealed.

    Libertarians are better off arguing against the minimum wage on ethical premises (ie. that they are a violation of humans' natural right to free association). That doesn't carry much traction with your average fan of politics though.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Libertarians are strong advocates for individual liberty, including the freedom to work for whatever wage you find acceptable. Your argument is that somebody somewhere will be "exploited" by an employer in a voluntary agreement to work. The reality is that employers do not determine wages, the market does.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    This is correct in a free market. In a crony capitalist market built from artificial hierarchies and excessive regulation, it's not clear that this is true.

  • Paper Wasp||

    The lack of a minimum wage also has negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

    Huh. Who said that? What are those negative effects? Can you list them, without listing any that are a variation of "unskilled workers, or those who are otherwise unemployable due to personality problems etc., have a hard time getting money"? In other words, are there any "negative effects" that are not the employee's responsibility?

  • Galane||

    Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage law, yet burger flippers get paid $20 an hour. The country also has sky high prices and taxes, to the point where after just subtracting the income taxes that $20 gets knocked down to $12.

    Then there's all the other (highly inflated) costs of life, rent/mortgage, food, clothes. Got a car in Denmark? Then there's car payment, insurance, fuel.

    On and on until that $20 is no better than what America's federal $7.25 is.

    What the USA economy needs is a way to cut prices on most things back to early 1980's levels, and wages back to late 1980's levels.

    Using inflation adjusting mumbo-jumbo, prices on some types of goods are drastically *lower* now than 30 years ago, in some cases the 'real dollars' prices are lower now. Mostly that's electronics. Assuming an average 2017 laptop could have been made 30 years ago, it likely would have cost so much only millionaires could afford it. Today one costs a couple hundred bucks.

    Massive amounts of production automation have separated their production costs, and thus retail prices, from the cost of labor.

    But most goods, especially commodities like food and construction materials, have gone up and up in cost, inflation adjusted and 'real'. Anything that is labor intensive (even if far less so than in past decades) has gone way up in cost to produce, and the retail price - while the profit margins are slim as ever, or even slimmer.

  • Mark22||

    The lack of a minimum wage also has negative effects whether or not their advocates acknowledge them.

    I can't think of any. But perhaps you can explain these "negative effects" to the rest of us based on your theory of "scientific creationism".

  • ||

    AGW- We *know* what's causing warming- the Sun is (slightly) brighter. We know this because other planets are also warming.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Other planets are warming because we've underestimated the impact of our CO2 emissions.

  • Dillinger||

    Neptunians rioting.

  • BYODB||

    Actually we're near a minimum of solar output at the moment, but of course there also hasn't been much warming for the last two decades so...yeah.

  • Juice||

    No, the "solar minimum" is not a minimum in "output" but a minimum in sunspot and flare activity.

  • BYODB||

    It is output as well, although it's a misnomer as they aren't actually a minimum or maximum. It is something of a misnomer though, since it isn't necessarily reflective of a true minimum or maximum.

    Wikipedia on Solar Cycle


    The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).

  • BYODB||

    Lets uhh...just ignore my sentence fail...^_^

  • Juice||

    Wel, uh, ok, but the actual variation in total solar irradiance is roughly 0.1%, so...

  • Galane||

    But that small percentage is actually a variance in many trillions of watts of energy that hits Earth.

    Hurricane Katrina unleashed more energy in a week than the entire human race used in nearly 20 years. Enough solar energy hits earth every second to power hundreds of Katrina sized storms.

    What humans do compared to the smallest variation in the amount of solar radiation Earth intercepts is like unto throwing a couple of molecules of chlorine into the Earth's oceans and claiming it's been turned into swimming pool water.

    A fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent 'extra' carbon dioxide in the air? When it's inferred from the fossil record that long ago there was far more carbon dioxide in the air?

    We're taught about evolution and the changeability and adaptability of life and nature in general - then the same people flip around and insist that the environment *must not be allowed to change*. There's some "ideal" state that must somehow be preserved at any cost.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    At the same rate and with the same time course?

  • MarkLastname||

    Given how easy it is to measure solar output, I'm pretty sure that's been accounted for; also, inasmuch as solar output varies cyclically, the temperature response from previous cycles using historical temperature data can be compared to current trends. Sorry, but you haven't discovered anything new.

  • ||

    This is funny, I made a facebook update asking this same question a month ago or so. Of course, no one replied/reacted to it.

    A Barton Hinkle-Heimersmith, stop stealing my ideas!

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    No, it's time to start killing economics deniers.

  • Juice||

    See for instance physicist Richard Muller's 2012 essay, "The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic."

    You fell for that? Shame.

  • ||

    I know one thing. Lefties who claim min. wage is such a good thing will likely change their tune when they get off their ideological laurels and go start a business. Those smart enough and endowed with some sober self-awareness will realize what utter bull shit they pimped and be embarrassed they could be so thoughtless and ignorant. Once they reach this epiphany they will join the productive and intelligent rank.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    off topic, but since you brought it up: At some point there needs to be a way to treat big business different than small companies where ownership is not so detached from management. Companies run by major shareholders, etc., like wal-mart and apple, need to be treated differently in the context of competition and basic functioning/regulation.

  • ||

    Absolutely. SME's aren't the same as MNC's. Different cats altogether and their interests don't necessarily align.

  • Sevo||

    Fear and Loathing in DC|7.12.17 @ 3:31PM|#
    "...At some point there needs to be a way to treat big business different than small companies where ownership is not so detached from management. Companies run by major shareholders, etc., like wal-mart and apple, need to be treated differently in the context of competition and basic functioning/regulation."

    Yeah, they should be left alone in a big manner instead of a small manner.
    Unless you have reason to suggest otherwise.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    For instance, if one or two companies control 90% of the market, like google and facebook do for internet news ad revenue, and news companies want to collectively act to gain equal bargaining power, I'm for it - but antitrust laws prohibiting google and facebook from collectively bargaining (which is good) prevent that. This is a problem to me.

  • Sevo||

    Fear and Loathing in DC|7.13.17 @ 11:42AM|#
    "For instance, if one or two companies control 90% of the market, like google and facebook do for internet news ad revenue, and news companies want to collectively act to gain equal bargaining power, I'm for it - but antitrust laws prohibiting google and facebook from collectively bargaining (which is good) prevent that. This is a problem to me."

    Well, I'm glad you don't have a lot of control.
    Those proposing more gov't are a problem to me.

  • Longtobefree||

    Those lefties will never ever go and start a business. They might start a 'non-profit' if they can get a buddy to find them a grant, so they can get a large salary until the grant runs out.

  • Juice||

    The case for anthropogenic (i.e, human-induced) global warming, or AGW, is very strong. Decades of peer-reviewed research on the question has been done, and it all seems to point in one direction.

    No it doesn't. It points in all sorts of directions because the question isn't yes or no "is CO2 a greenhouse gas" or "does more CO2 cause more heat to stay in the atmosphere". It's "is this effect dramatic and is it a problem".

    I say there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 will cause dramatic warming in the next 100 years and that any warming it does cause will be minor and swamped by natural variation. I also say that recent warming has been rather mild (we're supposed to already be in hell according to these same people 30 years ago) and is most likely beneficial to life along with the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess I'm a science denier because the future I predict isn't the same as the gloom and doom catastrophe predicted by some of the computer modelers.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're burning a straw man in any case. Short term variation (including on a time scale of a few decades) is almost always going to be mostly natural or noise. The temperature changes for the past 2 centuries, on the other hand, are highly anomalous. And just picking the most inaccurate models, saying 'see they don't work!' Is not a sound refutation. In every field, models decouple with the object of prediction over time. Any predictive model that isn't perfect will gradually veer away from the time series as time passes. There's no such thing as a predictive model that never fails. Pointing out that a model eventually fails is like raising the rim until Yao Ming can't reach it anymore then declaring he sucks at basketball.

  • ||

    In every field, models decouple with the object of prediction over time. Any predictive model that isn't perfect will gradually veer away from the time series as time passes. There's no such thing as a predictive model that never fails.

    This is fascinating: you're saying that predictive models of chaotic processes don't work, therefore their results can't be criticized.

  • Longtobefree||

    In this case, it is every model, within decades. I guess I missed the part where the seas rose 10 feet.

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017). "Widespread" agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

  • Juice||

    Muller is not unique; other skeptics gradually have come around, too. On the other hand, the reverse has not happened.

    1. Muller was never actually skeptic, or at least not what you would categorize as a "denier".
    2. On the other hand, Judith Curry is just one example of someone going the other way.

    Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

    I mean she "shifted sides" more than Muller did and wasn't intellectually dishonest about it.

  • Jere Krischel||

    This. To pretend that nobody has ever looked at the AGW activism, and come to the belated conclusion that they're overhyped is simply false.

    Judith Curry is an incredible example every scientist should follow. She's honest with herself, and others.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's fitting that he uses Muller as his example. Muller's the guy who's convinced that the Sun is part of a Binary that throws comets toward the inner system every 26MM years. With ZERO evidence.

    Most likely this is Hinkle still compensating for his failed volcano in 3rd grade.

  • Galane||

    If you read the full reports from the IPCC, especially the draft versions, instead of only the Summary For Policymakers, you'll find there's much less of the doom and gloom BS.

    There's zero correlation between average global temperature and the number and/or power of cyclonic storms. One only has to look at the plots of the known storm history in order to see it's entirely chaotic. The body of one of those IPCC reports said there was no correlation - yet in the Summary For Policymakers it was written they'd found a strong correlation.

  • MarkLastname||

    From what I've read, most climate scientists will tell you that any correlation between hurricanes and temperature is not well demonstrated at best, and likely just not there or not very strong. Those who argue there is a strong correlation between the two are in the minority in their field these days imo. It's an adverse selection problem: those who think that there will be an epidemic of hurricanes are a lot more likely to get invited onto CNN.

  • Mark22||

    Well, I'm a scientist. I used to believe the hype about AGW my colleagues were spewing. After I spent a few weeks looking at the literature and the data, I concluded: yeah, it's getting warmer, but it's probably not a big deal and it's probably not harmful; and even if it were a big deal, I'd rather live on a hotter planet than a (hypothetical) cooler planet with the kind of political machinery necessary to stop carbon emissions.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    So long as you ignore the clickbaity headline and read the article to not say anything about minimum wage laws, "in general" than sure, Seattle seems like a good example of libs not recognizing it as a place where the MWL went too high.

    But what people have coherently argued that there isn't such a thing as "too high" for MWLs? None that I'm aware of.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    The argument should always be (1) whether or not its the right tool; and (2) if it is, what the right level is to avoid the ceiling. Reason appears to be looking at an example of #2, and arguing against #1 as a general matter.

  • sarcasmic||

    Minimum wage is "too high" when it puts you or someone you care about out of work. Otherwise any hike is just fine.

    Just like the definition of rich is "more than me."

    So the trick is setting minimum wage at a point where the people who are rendered unemployable are too young, poor, stupid, or feeble to make any noise about it.

    When suburban high school kids can't find a job, then you know it's too high.

  • Rhywun||

    the observed increase in global temperatures

    Would that be the temperatures that need constant tweaking in favor of the desired conclusion - nudge the old ones down, the recent ones up?

    I guess AGW is slowly but surely becoming the official position here. Dragging it into a discussion of minimum wage as if the two areas of research are at all comprable is baffling to say the least.

  • MarkLastname||

    I guess this is one area where I'm a libertarian establishment cuck rather than a hip rebellious commenter. I don't see what's inherently wrong with factoring known technical biases and noise when interpreting one's data. Is there a particular statistical adjustment you take issue with? Is all normalization fraud?

  • Mark22||

    I don't see what's inherently wrong with factoring known technical biases and noise when interpreting one's data.

    The problem is that there is a large number of possible adjustments you can make, and scientists pick a subset that they consider reasonable. If those scientists are biased in favor of some outcome, there is a good chance that they will make choices that bias their results that way. That's why we have double blind studies in medicine.

    I think worrying about this is barking up the wrong tree anyway. It doesn't matter whether it has gotten warmer. What matters is whether we can or should do anything about carbon emissions, and I think the answer there is a firm no.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The core thesis here is interesting. The thread kind of has become about whether minimum wage laws mess things up. But the core thesis, that economic illiteracy should be given equal derision of that of other scientific illiteracy is good to me.

    Not to say that everyone has to know this stuff, that would be silly, people can specialize how they want. Most people don't bat an eye at someone with no knowledge whatsoever in the subject bloviating on the subject with great authority and at great length. And I think that is worth calling out.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Its arguably not the core thesis, but its the best part of the article. Liberals can't be detached from the facts when evaluating Seattle, even if they support minimum wage laws in general.

    I think the real implicit argument, based on both the headline and the conclusion, is that people who support MWLs _are_ detached from the facts _in general_ and need to stop denying the futility of MWL, which is too strong based on just Seattle, an example of MWLs gone wild.

  • Galane||

    There's a study that indicates San Diego is "missing" 4,500 to 5,000 food service jobs since the city's firs stage of minimum wage increase went into effect.

    That's based on year to year job growth numbers from the past. The minimum wage increase appears to have removed around 5,000 new jobs due to a slowdown in the number of new restaurants opening and lower numbers of new jobs at existing ones.

  • Fear and Loathing in DC||

    Would be enormous evidence of a problematic MWL. Mind linking?

    Also, for the record, I am against MWLs, employer healthcare, etc. I think all of these welfare programs run THROUGH business make ZERO sense. The government, if it wants to establish certain baselines, needs to do it directly and stop trying to make employers part of big government.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sadly the only thing that matters is what feels good politically.

    AGW feels good. The intention is to save the planet from humanity.

    Minimum wage feels good. The intention is to force those greedy businesses to give poor people a raise.

    The road that is paved with these good intentions? Well, it ain't to utopia, I can tell you that.

  • Paul E||

    While I agree with the fact that progressives by and large are purposefully economically illiterate; this is why they keep advocating for a economic model that has lead to mass starvation, murder and death. It is hard to read an article at "REASON" where the author parrots the AWG propaganda like a trained monkey. The fact that all of the "warming" can be attributed to "adjusting" the data proves the whole thing is farce and just another avenue for the progressives to control everything. Green is just the new Red.
    I will go ahead and leave this here. Maybe the author could educate himself on how science actually works.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....chart.html

  • Zeb||

    Drink!

  • in the woods||

    Remove the adjustments and there is a more significant warming trend observed, not less. Try not to rely on non-peer reviewed white papers for explosive claims. If this were true, this would be easy to show and would be in a top scientific journal. Here's good summary of the white paper your comment is based on, if you're interested in learning. http://bit.ly/2sWcNLc

    "The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend.
    ...
    The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don't dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don't like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence. It's not worth the paper it's printed on."

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nucitelli in the Gruniad is your yardstick? Talk about not worth the paper it's printed on. And as to "roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming," it's convenient that those corrections are not temporally distributed and DO increase the rate of warming.

    And note that Hausfather's histogram is based on... Karl et al (2015). Anything special about that? Why yes, that's the paper that magically eliminated the pause by *drum roll* tweaking up ocean temps using the warmest data set available.

    Nice try on maintaining the narrative though.

  • MarkLastname||

    I dont suppose you even purport to know why they adjust the data?

  • in the woods||

    A single study shows has a result, therefore all previous evidence - including a study the same UW economics group from the year before - must be ignored. You're not a serious reporter / analyst, just a troll. Here is an actual analysis of what we know about the minimum wage and how this study fits into it: https://bloom.bg/2uaE0tv

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The majority of literature shows this. Or are you hanging your hat on Card and Kruegger who have been debunked by Neumark?

    But if you keep clapping Tinkerbell WILL fly again.

  • MarkLastname||

    'Going slow' is essentially doing nothing; minimum wages are mostly tracking the market clearing wage. If there is a real net positive effect to raising it, you should not do it slowly. There'd be no basis for doing so. In fact if anything, as with expected inflation (as opposed to unexpected inflation) it just gives everyone time to adjust prices accordingly so as to mitigate the impact, rendering merely a nominal change.

    And read Neumark and Wascher to get a good accounting of the MW reasearch; it most certainly is not one study.

  • Sevo||

    "'Going slow' is essentially doing nothing; minimum wages are mostly tracking the market clearing wage"

    Exactly.
    Raising the m/w by an amount that has no effect on wages not surprisingly has no effects on job loss or income loss.

  • ericg||

    Call me a climate denier. Our planet has maintained life for millions of years, with many volcanoes and large asteroids. This implies strong negative feedback loops that stabilize our atmosphere, such as increasing clouds that deflect the sun. The idea that increasing CO2 from 0.02% to 0.05% will cause a run-away warming ignores the negative feedback loops and there are many nonlinearities involved. 2 degrees over 100 years is 1) debatable given the clear incentives to measure higher temperatures by the institutions in charge of measuring this (note tree rings are used for the past centuries because they fit AGW, but no longer because they don't) and 2) has no reference standard error, which we suspect is much larger than 2 degrees given the Medieval warming period and little ice age.

  • Ladyhawk||

    No no no, "climate deniers" do not have to disprove AGW, science cannot and does not disprove anything ever. AGW is WILDLY incomplete in its "proof" of AGW, it is still based on models which have not been able to predict the catastrophic warming , because it is not happening. There are many many other reasonable explanations for the warming that has occurred, many other variables that have been proven to contribute to warming, other recent warmings of an equivalent magnitude and speed that happened before the industrial age, so AGW is a hugely deficient theory that has not begun to adequately eplain current climate reality. I can't be bothered to read the rest of this artcle when the author is that obtuse about climate change.

  • Galane||

    The AGW computer models are wrong because they can't 'retrocast' accurately. For example, feed in data from the 1960's and 70's and have the programs attempt to 'forecast' the 1980's.

    They fail. Doesn't matter what time period the data is from and what time period to 'forecast' from that data, there's not yet been a computer program that comes close to right - without 'adjusting' the input data or (as the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file revealed) applying artificial corrections in the program.

  • antiestablismentarianism||

    Eliminating a minimum wage, as some people seem to suggest is not the right answer either because there must be a threshold to prevent wages from falling into slavery territory. I don't think making the minimum a "living" wage is appropriate either though. Minimum wage is supposed to be just that, the BARE minimum. This is a means of allowing people to work to take care of their basic needs. This means not affording your own place, not having internet or cable or a cell phone, and not having a newer car. It means having a roommate or two, going to the library for internet access, and driving that clunker or riding the bus.

    What if we enacted an overtime minimum wage? Currently, the time and a half is the law nationwide, but if we made overtime pay no less than say, $20/hr, companies would be more encouraged to limit hours to 40 forcing the company to hire more workers thereby creating more jobs? This would end the problem of mandatory overtime at many places which has made little sense to me when you can hire new workers. Next, make the current minimum wage follow inflation like government employees' pay does. I know that's not a new idea, but the government has yet to implement it. Lastly, and I know this isn't a new idea, quit forcing employers to provide benefits. Prior to the forcing of benefits, the market worked in that regard. If an employer refused benefits, they had to provide higher pay to stay competitive. We should go back to that model.

  • Sevo||

    antiestablismentarianism|7.12.17 @ 5:43PM|#
    "Eliminating a minimum wage, as some people seem to suggest is not the right answer either because there must be a threshold to prevent wages from falling into slavery territory."
    What a steaming pile of shit.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Galane||

    Let the free market decide. If someone wants to pay too little, nobody will work for that employer. People will go for the jobs that pay the best, with the best extra-salary benefits.

    Employers will set the wages they offer in order to attract the caliber of employees they want to hire.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    If employers have the ability to dictate wages why isn't everybody making 7.75/hr? Employers don't dictate wages minimum, maximum or otherwise, the market does that.

  • Cgire||

    I think the comparison with global climate change is apt. Climate data has been collected for centuries (manual) or 4 decades (satellite). Scientists have outstanding physical evidence for climate change, proven both in the lab and confirmed in the field. A tremendous number of alternative theories have been proposed, examined, and found inadequate to cause the observed data.

    So far as I know, the Seattle study only investigates a single implementation in Seattle from 2014 to 2017. The Seattle approach was to rapidly reach 15% (a 60% increase in 3 years). There are too many lurking variables to clearly account for the poor result in Seattle. Did they raise the rate too quickly? Did they clearly understand what types of workers were in the minimum wage category and were those types the same/different in other cities? Did they raise the rate too high; was $13 the "right" value for that community? If so, why is $13 "right" and $15 "wrong?" And many other questions that are not yet answered.

    The referenced Vox article makes a similar point. This is a very interesting study and the data should be further explored. But no reputable scientist can make any definitive claims from a single report of this type. Instead, the message should be "caution is desired; grow minimum wages at a slightly slower rate until more data is collected and analyzed; leave politics out of the decision." The last item is a good idea in general.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Actually the models have been proven failures. They show no skill in modeling regional temps or rainfall. They vastly overestimate the rate of warming. They cannot predict ENSO events at all. So, um, the outstanding physical evidence argues strongly against CAGW. In fact the IPCC widened the range of likely ECS in AR5 and removed any central estimate while most recent papers have the estimate coming down significantly.

    And the literature on minimum wage consists of far more than a single paper.

    So the message should be that fairy tales (both light and dark) are for children and do not age well.

  • MarkLastname||

    'The models...'
    Which models? If you're really saying 'all' the. That's simply false. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

    And the IPCC range for temp effects from CO2 doubling was lowered from 2-4 degrees to 1.5 - 4 if that's what you're referring to; you can get an estimate of median by looking at the published lit, which is publicly available. I'd say a generous lower bound is 1 when factoring in uncertainty about cloud formation and the magnitude of various feedback loops. If you believe it's much less than that you're not in a position to be lecturing others on fairy tales.

  • turco||

    The debate on AGW is whether positive feedback mechanisms ( such as increased water vapor due to warming trapping more heat ) are stronger than negative feedback mechanisms ( such as increased CO2 leading to more photosynthesis which slows dow n the CO2 rise ). Observed data so far does not support the runaway warming models.

    In contrast, observed data on minimum wage effects in Seattle clearly supports the very simple and logical model that increasing price drives down demand.

    There is no equivalence here. Progressives wre wrong on both counts.

  • Longtobefree||

    For science deniers, let me introduce to the threads the following:
    Is DNA analysis science? If so, why is there any confusion about XX .vs XY being all there is?
    Are all the gender fluid ones out there science deniers? Or is DNA not valid for courtrooms any more?

  • DGH||

    I wonder if Mr. Hinkle has read any of the climate science he's referred to.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You can acknowledge the fact that climate change is real and is a product of humans without also accepting the stringent regulations, absurd bureaucracy and red tape of the naive "solutions" that government has advocated. Likewise, if you're a minimum wage advocate, you can acknowledge that the minimum wage is bad for the economy but still advocate for it for some other reason.

    People are odd. When they don't like a solution they pretend the problem doesn't exist. What's worse, they come up with ignorant conspiracy theories that make them look silly and end up doing a net disservice to their cause.

  • trudybeauty||

    The only way you can acknowledge the reality of climate change and do something about it is not offer uncited, undetailed attacking generalities/caricatures and suggest what you propose and provide evidence of it working.

    People are odd. Most of all "libertarians". They have this magical ideology that never seems to have any working examples. But they are excellent at generalities and context- and example-free (the "intellectual ones") argumentation.

    Look at how all of northern Europe is doing it and succeeding and will be, of course, profiting massively from all their "stringent regulations" and red-tape naive bureaucratic government solutions. Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland....

    And your examples are???

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    @trudybeauty Fucktard alert! Fucktard alert! Hong Kong, a island without any real natural resources was turned into a economic power house when Britain, who ruled the country left it alone, no high taxes, no welfare, very little regulation etc. as a result they built a economically wealthy country with low unemployment rates, astronomic economic performance. Europe, on the other hand, has had stagnant economic growth, in fact, most of these countries your going on and on about had to institute free market reforms to keep their economies solvent. Not to mention in some of those countries you've listed they have to some degrees stronger property rights and lower corporate tax rates like Denmark. Look it up, but of course you won't because your a slave driving, control freak, commie propaganda spewing moron.

  • Mark22||

    Look at how all of northern Europe is doing it and succeeding and will be, of course, profiting massively from all their "stringent regulations" [...] And your examples are???

    My examples are Northern Europe: I do not want US society to become as poor and oppressive as those nations are. However, they are desperately looking for people, so if that's the kind of lifestyle you want, go right ahead and move there.

    People are odd. Most of all "libertarians". They have this magical ideology that never seems to have any working examples

    There are plenty of working examples. More importantly, however, there are plenty of examples of the alternatives not working: European welfare states, socialist countries, etc.

  • Mark22||

    People are odd. When they don't like a solution they pretend the problem doesn't exist. What's worse, they come up with ignorant conspiracy theories that make them look silly and end up doing a net disservice to their cause.

    That's because the people proposing government action on climate change are economically illiterate. You can't reach them with arguments about how such government action is worse than the problem they are trying to fix. The only argument that reaches them is that there is probably no problem in the first place.

    Luckily, government action on climate change is a non-solution to a non-problem, so we can attack the policy on both fronts.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I think that's a counterproductive strategy. You won't reach the American left with conspiracy theories that suggest all the world's scientists are in cahoots. That will just validate their position. Worse than that, it creates an uphill battle for scientifically-minded libertarians who have better solutions to climate change than sticking their heads in the sand.

    Let's not forget that many of the alleged sources of climate change actually violate the non-aggression principle in the first place. We're not republicans. Businesses don't get a free pass under the auspices of trickle-down.

  • Mark22||

    You won't reach the American left with conspiracy theories that suggest all the world's scientists are in cahoots

    If you are a scientist yourself, you must be a pretty ignorant one. No, it doesn't take "conspiracies" or "cahoots" for scientific fields to be dominated by bad theories; the academic world is set up to encourage group think over truth.

    "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck

    Let's not forget that many of the alleged sources of climate change actually violate the non-aggression principle in the first place

    If you are trying to say that emitting carbon is like punching someone in the face, you're a bloody fool. And you're certainly no libertarian.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You got really offended really quickly. Definitely a strange guy.

    The academic world is set up to punish group think, not encourage it. Anyone who toes the line can basically kiss their careers goodbye after 5. This is actually one of the predominant issues right now, and why so many people are stuck in a perpetual postdoc. It may have been ok in the past when it was a buyer's market. But now that there are too many people seeking faculty positions in the sciences, there's less room for redundancy. Most of the major funding mechanisms right now have an almost annoying focus on breakthrough, not validation. [this has its own set of problems, but stagnation isn't one of them]

  • Mark22||

    Anyone who toes the line can basically kiss their careers goodbye after 5. This is actually one of the predominant issues right now, and why so many people are stuck in a perpetual postdoc

    You're saying that postdocs can't get jobs because they are too conformist? That's ridiculous.

    Most of the major funding mechanisms right now have an almost annoying focus on breakthrough, not validation.

    They do. But "breakthrough" doesn't mean challenging existing dogma. Funders want promises of breakthroughs based on ideas that are compatible with existing dogma. And even if you got funding, reviewers would still reject your publications if they strayed too far from existing dogma. That's not a new phenomenon either.

    You got really offended really quickly. Definitely a strange guy.

    What makes you think you offend me?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Because you resorted to name calling almost immediately.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's interesting that the soda tax was brought up, because this is perhaps a better example where the American left has ignored scientific progress for decades. In their quest to advocate for all things organic, they tend to revere "chemicals" (or, more generally, words they can't pronounce) as dangerous, without scientific basis. For example, look at Jill Stein's and Bernie Sanders' stance on GMO's. Many of the soda tax advocates support the tax because they think artificial sweeteners cause cancer.

  • Longtobefree||

    I do notice a lack of general laughter from the populace when a soda tax is introduced as taxing 'sugary' drinks to combat obesity, then diet drinks are added.
    Makes me think it is more about raising taxes than anything else.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I saw my family's reaction to it when it was implemented locally. It took three forms:

    1) Another tax? No thanks. Oh wait, it will go to schools? Then how can I say no?
    2) Soda is bad for you, so taxing it is fine. [this was said at a cookout where everybody was eating hamburgers and drinking beer]
    3) There are so many chemicals in it. It's no wonder people are dying of cancer.

  • John B. Egan||

    Currently, the federal minimum wage is less than half that amount, at $7.25 an hour, where it has been since 2009. Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage had its peak buying power in 1968, when it was worth $8.68 in 2016 dollars. Only 45% of the 2.6 million hourly workers who made federal minimum wage (or less) in 2016 were between 16 and 24 years old. Another 23.3% were aged 25-34, meaning that 31.7% of all hourly workers making minimum wage or less were over 34.

    Meanwhile, back in 1968, I was renting a 2 bedroom home for $225 a month, my utilities, phone and cablevision ran about $60 a month, gasoline cost 30 cents a gallon, health care was included in my wages, and $200 bought groceries for 2 for a month. Today, that 2 bedroom home runs $1500 or more a month, utilities, cablevision and a 'wall phone' cost about $200 a month, gasoline has dropped to $3.00 a gallon, healthcare is absurd, and food for 2 for a month runs about $500.

    Please explain to me how those confused 'economics deniers' have trouble conceptualizing that 2 people bringing home a collective inflation adjusted $2,777.60 a month and spending about $1300 a month on necessities back in 1968, is equivalent to that same couple earning a collective $2,480 a month and spending more than that for basic necessities today are missing the point?

    Somebody needs a new calculator for their birthday! Or somebody needs to live in the real world like ordinary people!

  • Sevo||

    "Please explain to me how those confused 'economics deniers' have trouble conceptualizing that 2 people bringing home a collective inflation adjusted $2,777.60 a month and spending about $1300 a month on necessities back in 1968, is equivalent to that same couple earning a collective $2,480 a month and spending more than that for basic necessities today are missing the point?"

    Please explain to all of us how someone who claims to be an adult could post such a cock-a-mamie non-sequitur and expect an honest answer.
    Either you're a fucking idiot who is stupid enough to think what you posted makes sense or some dim-bulb lefty hoping we'll ignore your conclusion-jumping.
    Oh, and fuck off on your m/w financed bus ride.

  • trudybeauty||

    Powerful argument, dude. I am surprised at your accomplished use of the word "Fuck".

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    What? Sevo is being dead on, your a idiotic fucktard "trudybeauty" in fact, I have a sinking suspicion your a former moron that used to haunt this board under a different handle after that person was destroyed in a debate, your the one that got destroyed.

  • Sevo||

    trudybeauty|7.13.17 @ 10:48AM|#
    "Powerful argument, dude. I am surprised at your accomplished use of the word "Fuck"."

    Dim-bulb lefty tries sarcasm, fails.
    Fuck off.

  • ||

    "Or somebody needs to live in the real world like ordinary people!"

    I can't hear you. I'm polishing my monocle as I whip my orphans while slaves rub my feet.

  • Sevo||

    I think he meant 'whiny losers', Rufus, but spelling is hard.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    It seems the Washington Post, the NYT, and various other Democrat pressure groups can't easily be dismissed by a magazine with a readership that's a couple of orders of magnitude lower than those rags.

  • Sevo||

    What mean?

  • trudybeauty||

    Yeah, those rags with rich histories of holding power to account and exposing hundreds or thousands of malfeasance... everything from nail salons, to human trafficking, to fake wars, to taking down a criminal president.

    You mean those rags? Or do you have the other ones that have these long histories?

  • Sevo||

    "to taking down a criminal president."

    No, he left office earlier this year.

  • ||

    Yes, those rags.

    You took that that nail salon thing seriously? Reason covered the poor journalism in that one. And the mere fact you said 'criminal president' only points to your stupidity. I gather you're a big believer in the Russia hacking nonsense too.

    Of course, I would ask for you to produce proof of it but then I know there isn't. It's just a narrative.

    That's it. Narratives is what drives left-wing intellectualism.

  • turco||

    I predict that in a couple of years someone will cite a study showing the median wage in Seattle rising faster than surrounding cities as support for minimum wage laws.

  • peabody3000||

    this article is curiously shallow and myopic. it merely states the utterly obvious - that higher wages can reduce employment in individual businesses - but without factoring in any macro-economic ramifications, and without citing any macro-economic data from cases where the minimum wage HAS been raised, which from my readings has shown an uplifting economic effect far more often than not

  • Ship of Theseus||

    This article started so terribly, I couldn't get to the actual point it was trying to make at the end.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    It's all about intentions. The current supporters of minimum wage, unlike the originators of the policy, intend to help unskilled workers. They intend to force employers into giving them a raise. The originators of the policy understood exactly what the result would be. This was back when eugenics was fashionable. They had good intentions as well. They were trying to purify the gene pool by preventing undesireables from earning enough money to live. Destroying lives served the greater good. But if you point this out, or any other facts related to the harm done by minimum wage, then you're the one with bad intentions. You hate the poor because you don't want them to get a raise. You want the rich to get richer. You're a shill for the Koch brothers.

    And WTF with getting logged out after five seconds?
    My recent post: Social Kickstart 2 Review

    My recent post: Challenges Empire Review

  • trudybeauty||

    This is the usual claptrap..."minimum wage is destroying people's lives...."
    Well, one study doth not conclude the issue and the results (similar to this one) do not point to some certitude about the effects of minimum wages. And, of course, the idea of applying the minimum wage in one city and looking at it over a very short term and in a complex (urban/suburban/rural) context says little.

    However, unless the study examines the fact that those living on anything but a $15/hour wage have to depend on government assistance for everything from food stamps to medicaid to housing assistance.

    Of course, you LiberIdeolgues like to ignore that the problem is our society and your solutions fail to provide an ability to live decently in an (declining) advanced industrial democracy.

    And you fail to point to any examples where your solutions are working on anything like a country-sized scale. Even a small country. Except perhaps for Somalia.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Read above, Hong Kong, and how did socialism work out for you in Russia, Poland, Czechoslavkia, etc.? Didn't work out to well, did it? Oh and just a FYI, Somalia isn't "libertarian" like you control freak libtards say it is, its a country that is ruled by two tribes fighting each other. So yeah, go fuck yourself "trudybeauty" your a bottom feeding piece of shit. Freedom has worked very where it is tried and you don't want to see that because your either too fucking dumb or your a control freak that wants to control every single facet of everybody's lives via the state. Yeah, fuck off slaver.

  • Sevo||

    trudybeauty|7.13.17 @ 10:43AM|#
    "...Well, one study..."

    Was this posted somewhere lefty twits could copy for pasting?
    No, you imbecile, it's the latest in a whole bunch of studies that point out YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING!
    Fuck off, idiot.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    *Face palm* Seriously, this idiot author is going to compare "global warming skeptics" to "economics skeptics"? I had to make myself read the whole thing, I get what he is doing but he is dead wrong on "global warming". Most of these "peer reviewed" science types derive most of their funding FROM THE GOVERNMENT, who want a expansion of their power and less freedom for us. I really couldn't take the article seriously after he made that stupid comparison.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Some get it from the government, some don't. I guess the scientists that don't receive government funding support your view? I hadn't heard that to be true...

    But that doesn't matter. Your entire argument doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that peer reviewers -- some of which, don't even have funding -- are in cahoots with politicians? Why would that be true? These are two very distinct entities. Journals are not run by the government. The majority of scientific papers that are published in reputable journals actually do NOT cite public funding. Many of those don't cite funding mechanisms at all. You're cherry picking a few papers, insisting there's a vast global conspiracy among them, and quite literally ignoring all the other scientific works.

    Also, the idea that funding only goes to labs that toe the party line couldn't be further from the truth. The last three grant proposals that I had rejected were because they were not impactful enough from the standpoint of shifting our body of knowledge to new avenues, even though I scored very highly on the quality of the science. For NIH, for example, approx. 20% of your score comes from how much you DON'T agree with the current dogma. When you are able to prove that current research has something wrong, you make waves and improve your career. And everybody knows this and endeavors to do it.

  • Mark22||

    Yet they truculently refuse to concede a point about the Earth's climate that is, intuitively, far less difficult to swallow. They will not believe the peer-reviewed research of hundreds of scientists on climate ... Because they don't like the political implications,

    (1) Peer review doesn't even attempt to ensure correctness of what is being published, merely that it is of interest to the readership.

    (2) There is no single category of "climate change denier". A few people deny that it's getting warmer, more consider it unproven that it is due to human influence, and even more simply don't think it's a problem.

    (3) There are no obvious "political implications". In fact, it is ironic for you to publish an article about economic illiteracy while at the same time implying that government can affect climate change through economic policy.

    Hinkle's column puts him in the category of someone who is both scientifically and economically illiterate.

  • dchang0||

    Well put.

    I'd like to add that peer review doesn't mean shit nowadays, as it has been repeatedly done that hoax papers were intentionally submitted to see if they would pass peer review and succeeded in doing so.

    A reminder to everyone pushing the "consensus" argument: at one point, all scientists thought the Earth was flat and the sun went around the Earth, and at those times, peer-review would have enforced that consensus (with executions, no less).

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "as it has been repeatedly done that hoax papers were intentionally submitted to see if they would pass peer review and succeeded in doing so."

    Your use of the term "repeatedly" here is like saying that we have repeatedly walked on the moon. Or are you a moonwalk denier too?

    Having bad papers get accepted is hardly the norm. And they almost always end up getting caught and retracted.

    Think about it, people. When you have a large group who lives to contradict and show that they're more right than someone else, why would they turn a blind eye to bad ideas? It's like writing an article advocating socialism on Reason -- tell me that would go unnoticed. That would be a shit storm of epic proportions. The scientific community is a lot bigger than Reason readership.

  • Mark22||

    Having bad papers get accepted is hardly the norm. And they almost always end up getting caught and retracted.

    Oh, but it is.

    It's like writing an article advocating socialism on Reason -- tell me that would go unnoticed.

    Your analogy is flawed. Reason is considered a kind of crackpot publication by "reputable, mainstream media".

    It's more like writing an article repeating Clinton campaign claims for the WaPo or NYT: they'll republish it uncritically.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Having bad papers get accepted is hardly the norm.

    I wish!

    You're living in the past, by at least a couple of decades.

    -jcr

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Ah the good ol' days...

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Regarding #1 -- That is exactly the opposite of truth. They ONLY attempt to ensure correctness, and only the EDITOR has final say on interest. There are even some fairly prominent journals (PLoS One, as an example) that actually ignore interest as a matter of policy.

  • Mark22||

    Peer reviewers obviously like to reject obviously false papers. But beyond that, they can't verify whether a paper is true; the only way to do that is to actually reproduce the results. There are numerous examples of false papers (either due to fraud or negligence) that passed peer review just fine because the peer reviewers simply had no basis on which to detect those errors. If an author says "I did X and got result Y", the peer reviewer has to assume it's true unless, by chance, there is a contradiction somewhere. Conversely, if you try to publish a paper that says "I did X and got result Y" and "result Y" contradicts current dogma, your paper will likely be rejected even though it is true. And that's in the best of cases. Many peer reviewers are simply graduate students with little experience who simply judge papers based on poorly digested textbook knowledge.

    Let me repeat it again: peer reviewers can't guarantee the truth of a paper because they simply lack the necessary information or resources. All they can do is reject obvious junk.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You and I have different definitions of the word "numerous." Again, just because something has happened before doesn't mean that it's the norm.

    Your "I did X and got Y" rejection idea doesn't hold up either.

    And I don't know where you got this idea that peer reviewers are graduate students without real world experience. Do you think reviewer selection is like jury duty?

  • Mark22||

    You and I have different definitions of the word "numerous." Again, just because something has happened before doesn't mean that it's the norm.

    You need to look up "reproducibility crisis".

    And I don't know where you got this idea that peer reviewers are graduate students without real world experience. Do you think reviewer selection is like jury duty?

    From having been on numerous conference committees.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'd love to know what field you're in where the peer review process is littered with graduate students who don't have a body of work.

  • Kame-Sennin||

    This is a very unconvincing analogy. You base the analogy on the existence of one study. That seems more akin to climate science skeptics pointing to one study as proof that climate sensitivity is very low and disregarding anything else. Climate science is built on a large collection of studies each providing a thread that when stitched together starts to paint a broad picture that becomes harder and harder to challenge.

    "Yet supporters of the minimum wage insist wages are somehow different."

    Of course they are different. Everyone's income is someone else's spending. Wages are not the same as sugar or nicotine or alcohol or anything else that someone might like to discourage through regulation that raises the price. How much wages someone receives determines how much they can spend in the economy thus impacting the income of someone else and thus productivity generally.

    The analogy is also premised on the notion that climate science and economics have equivalent standing. That seems a bit tenuous. The physical sciences have, or seem to have, a pretty good grasp on the fundamental physical laws. Economics OTOH does not seem to have robust fundamental theories on human productivity and prosperity, it has opinions and schools of thought.

  • Sevo||

    Kame-Sennin|7.13.17 @ 8:42PM|#
    "...You base the analogy on the existence of one study...."

    Wrong.
    The most recent in a long strung proving you can't get something for nothing.

  • Hank Phillips||

    MUST we be irritated by the looter press and its screed? Temperatures have been falling since 1920 on average is what the raw data say. Tony Heller gives away software such that even Winkle here could graph the charts--no need to even differentiate a constant. But since Winkle knows the facts, refuting Tony's refutation of what looters believe will bring him fame and fortune nobody at Reason can afford to offer. Realclimatescience.com is your meal ticket, Barton.

  • ||

    Why at a time when the CAGW meme is so clearly failing would a writer in Reason be arguing this claptrap.

    I can argue the weakness of many of the details in this rant - but the fact is the planet has spoken.

    No it is not reasonable to assume that something that has been occuring for 200+ years and could only have human causes within the past 50 must be primarily of human origen.

    Libertarians are supposed to be noted for their logical skills.

  • ||

    The author is railing about economic denialism - yet not too many decades ago it was OUR economic ideas - that after two centuries of predominace were rejected by most of the elite.

    Libertarians refused to abandon reason to decades of models and theories and economic giants telling us how wrong we were.

    In the end - though sniping continues the economics of freedom still stands. As strong as ever.

    So why is reason spouting the scientific equivalent of keynesian or communism ?

    In point of fact the science is NOT there. There have been thousands of peer reviewed papers.
    Nearly all of which are just CAGW cheerleading.

  • ||

    But slowly reason, logic and actual science are prevailing - Several big whigs in the climate science priesthood - specifially Mann and Santer - along with many others have finally admitted what has been obvious for decades - the probability that the Global Climate Models are correct is less than 9%.

    That makes the IPCC report - which is pretty much the most conservative scientific claim regarding CAGW little more than toilet paper.

    We know far more about economics than Climate - and economics is closer to a determinate system.
    Libertarians have been fighting the tyranny of models for decades.
    It should not be all that difficult for us to grasp that if economic models are near useless at forecasting then climate models are not going to be any better.

    Properly done statistical consideration of the CAGW thesis has never produced results with any strong degree of confidence.

    Skeptics are not relying on oddballs from obscure websites with tin foil on their heads.
    They have relied on real science, real math, real statistics, real logic.
    The things libertarians are supposed to value.

    We can debate nuances of what climate has done over the past 20 years.
    What can not be debated is that none of the model predictions have come true - not even close to true.

    The high priests of warmendom are now shooting the moon by betting on some hoped for tipping point.

  • ||

    So what do we know ?
    The statistical correlation between global temperatures and CO2 (that is ANY CO2) has never been strong enough to come close to causastion. That is statistics that are beyond dispute.
    That does not mean that CO2 is not a factor - but it means that CO2 is not a significant enough factor to make future predictions based on CO2 alone. That alone should have ended the debate 40 years ago. A wise scientist would have grasp that means Climate is not so simple as CO2 drives temperature, that there were likely many other factors - and feedbacks - particularly negative feedbacks.

    We also know that the physics of warming - from most any cause are logarithmic.
    Again this is centuries old science. It is not specific to CO2 it is not specific to warming.
    It essentially means that each increase in temperature requires exponentially greater amounts of energy. This is basic high school physics and the entire behavior of the universe depends on it, not merely climate science. This means that absent any feedbacks and assuming that CO2 was an established factor that linear increases in CO2 - which is what we have had since atleast the 50's will produce ever smaller increases in temperature. That a graph of linerarly increasing CO2 will result in a temperature graph that rapidly plateaus - much as we have had in the past 40 years.

  • ||

    We know that we can accurately model the temperature of the planet using 6 solar cycles with a degree of confidence that is an order of magnitude greater than that of CO2 - and that model continues to correlate, while over the past 20 years the CO2 model continues to get weaker.

    We know now from external observations that the energy budget of the planet does not balance for warming. This has been the cause of Trendberth and company running arround like chickens with their heads cut off looking for the so called hidden heat. I beleive the current thesis is that it is in the deep ocean - because we have proven it is not in the shallow and mid oceans.
    But we can prove it is not in the oceans at all. The primary cause of Sea Level Rise is thermal expansion not land ice melting, while Sea Levels continue to rise - they do so reflecting linear increases in energy content - when exponential increases are needed to validate CAGW - hence the missing heat. I would note that warmists trap themselves in a Catch-22 when they carp on increased melting of land ice. The larger the component of SLR that comes from land ice melting the smaller the porting that comes from greenhouse gas capture of solar energy.

    There are many many other self evident failure of CAGW.

  • ||

    To be clear - CO2 and greenhouse gasses undoubtedly warm the planet. That has never been a question. The relevant question has been their scale and whether their were significant negative feedbacks. It is increasingly clear - the scale is small, and that feedbacks are primarily negative.

    My expectation is that CAGW will go the way of Silent Spring, Peak Oil, The population bomb and the myriads of other fallacious malthusian claims that libertarians have faced down over the past 40 years.
    All bad science.

    But exactly as those hoaxes - their importance will fade - all too many of us will continue to beleive hiding behind false claims that some orchestrated leftist response defused the crisis.

    I have been a skeptic for a long time. I am well past the slightest fear that I will be proven wrong.
    The issue that remains is what consequence will the fraudsters pay ?
    And the answer is none.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Is It Time to Start Dismissing 'Economics Deniers'?"

    There is an important distinction between "Economics Deniers" (minimum-wage advocates and other socialists) and "Climate Change Deniers." That is, Economics Deniers are on the attack--they are trying to change the status quo. But Climate Change Deniers are on the defense, the attackers in that fight are the Climate Change Alarmists.

    It is to anyone's peril to dismiss or ignore an attacker of the size of the Economics Deniers movement.

  • CitizenA||

    There's a fundamentally flawed premise at work here: the assumption that economics is a science like the physical and natural sciences. In fact, it is nothing but competing policy assumptions dressed in math that plays out those assumptions; and making use only of the evidence deemed relevant in light of those assumptions. Watching people argue over economic analyses is like watching philosophers argue - the argument itself may be interesting and one may end up persuaded by one side or the other; but no empirical truth is established thereby and everyone's views will continue to change over time.

    Rather than letting economic studies (with their baked-in ideological premises) tell us what our moral stance should be, our moral stance should guide how we make use of economic studies.

  • Sevo||

    CitizenA|7.14.17 @ 7:26AM|#
    "There's a fundamentally flawed premise at work here: the assumption that economics is a science like the physical and natural sciences"

    Another lefty apologist with more lefty lies!
    How
    .
    .
    .
    .
    pathetic.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "There's a fundamentally flawed premise at work here: the assumption that economics is a science like the physical and natural sciences."

    Economics IS a natural science. Unless we're reverting to dualism, it's as "physical" as trying to discover what neurons in the cerebral cortex are doing.

    Although I have to admit, I hate the word "science" being used in this manner. Science is a process, not a field. If you use the scientific method, you're doing science. When you're not using the scientific method, you're not doing science. Doesn't matter if your data set comes from test tubes or surveys.

  • Filippo3||

    On GW the author says, "...skeptics gradually have come around, too. On the other hand, the reverse has not happened."

    He must have missed reading about these scientists' GW skepticism:
    •James Lovelock, a scientist and founder of the Gaia Hypothesis, said this about GW, "Well, it's a religion, really, you see. It's totally unscientific."
    •"CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren't reliable."

    Here are quotes from other scientists:
    •" Patrick Michaels, a climatologist, is the director of the Center for the Study of Science: "Until June 2015, most scientists acknowledged that warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, and since then had plateaued in a "hiatus."
    •"Without El Niño, temperatures in 2015 would have been typical of the post-1998 regime. And, even with El Niño, the effect those temperatures had on the global economy was de minimis."

    And some others:
    •"Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'I'm 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side."
    •Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: "Global warming is a non-problem' – 'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong."

  • plusafdotcom||

    A. Barton Hinkle, it's a shame you didn't spend more time delivering more data and links to minimum-wage-skeptics' information.

    But what bugs ME the most is that you held up AGW Skeptics as Deniers of "Settled Science.

    If you truly believe that "The case for anthropogenic (i.e, human-induced) global warming, or AGW, is very strong.", may I suggest you take some time and cruise around the links (and funny cartoons and pics) I've collected at http://www.plusaf.com/homepage.....ming-2.htm

    The Science isn't as "settled" as the AGW folks think.

  • swampwiz||

    And Medicaid doesn't help anyone. SORRY, I AM NOT BUYING THIS GARBAGE.

  • JohnAiton||

    Poor analogy , CO2 is neither a pollutant nor the temperature knob.
    However goverment intervention into the Scientific Research has similar negative consequences as intervention in labor markets.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online