|
VitalSigns posted:This answer can't be true. As x grows large, the square term will dominate. Manually calculating the top integral gives me 0.5w^2 + 7.25*x*w + 7.25 + c for the antiderivative, and since the bounds are 7.25 + 7.25x and 7.25 the definite solution will have x^2 in it. The bottom integral is constant of course, it's just 0.5*50 - 0.5*7.25. The reason it seems intuitively wrong is because after the new minwage (7.25 + 7.25x) exceeds 50, it's counting raises for workers that were never being paid in the first place. The upper bound for the top integral exceeds that of the bottom one.
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8l5pxSbn6Q
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Wow this is like a microcosm of the transition towards mathematical modelling in economics irl.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Once 7.25+x*7.25 exceeds 50 in your example everyone will be making the same wage. At that point, the relationship between total wages and the minimum wage will be linear. Right? If you increase all wages by 10% at that point, the sum of all wages has to go up 10% too. Can we start by agreeing on this. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:56 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Once 7.25+x*7.25 exceeds 50 in your example everyone will be making the same wage. At that point, the relationship between total wages and the minimum wage will be linear. Right? Yes. The upper bound for the integral should really be min(7.25+7.25x, 50), and at 50 the growth rate becomes linear.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Yes. The upper bound for the integral should really be min(7.25+7.25x, 50), and at 50 the growth rate becomes linear. Right. The polynomial approximation is only valid when x is relatively small. As x grows large, the growth rate becomes linear. Asdf32 is worried about the effect of polynomial growth on the total wage cost in the economy (total wages in the economy are obviously a humongous constant coefficient, $8.8trillion in 2014) In a polynomial function y= A+bx+cx2 When does the quadratic term start to dominate the value of y, when x is large or when x is relatively small compared to A? Should asdf32 be worried?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Stanford professor: MY GOD, THIS ARTICLE IS ALL WRONG. I DON'T KNOW HOW; BUT IT IS But I will definitely agree that "This is all wrong, I don't know how but it is" seems to be the argument you've made this entire thread. quote:Metroeconomica article with no empirics at all: Yeah, there's a lot of empirical evidence for this quote:*adds pic from Unlearning Economics, the economics equivalent of a global warming denier blog*
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The part that you're loving up is basic algebra vocabulary Well gently caress this is correct. The X^2 relationship I've been describing is correctly called quadratic not exponential. VitalSigns posted:Right. The polynomial approximation is only valid when x is relatively small. As x grows large, the growth rate becomes linear. Specifically when minimum wage has already swept up the whole population it becomes linear. The ^2 part is based on the fact that minimum wage keeps hitting more people as it grows. We know that stops. But the range $7->$15 is a range where every dollars adds lots new people. Quark can answer everything for us now that he's on board with quadratic and has the actual data. Quark where did you download the data?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
the dude's argument is "well children of poor people who work minwage jobs in highschool will make more money too NOT JUST POOR PEOPLE", right? i can't really make sense of the whole "minimum wage people making 100k" or whatever the gently caress he's saying
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:26
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:the dude's argument is "well children of poor people who work minwage jobs in highschool will make more money too NOT JUST POOR PEOPLE", right? i can't really make sense of the whole "minimum wage people making 100k" or whatever the gently caress he's saying His argument is that wages have no correlation with wealth, that low-wage workers who do not make the absolute minimum aren't affected by min-wage increases, and that standards of living both do and don't exist as is convenient. In short, our inbred friend has absolutely no interest in reality as an objective phenomenon, much like his fellow Russian Vladimir Putin.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Specifically when minimum wage has already swept up the whole population it becomes linear. The ^2 part is based on the fact that minimum wage keeps hitting more people as it grows. We know that stops. But the range $7->$15 is a range where every dollars adds lots new people. That's also the range where x is small and the polynomial part of the approximation is not the main driver of the total labor costs. Based on Quark's graph, the total labor cost increases by 500 millions of dollars at a $15/hr minimum wage (2005 data) The total wages in the economy are trillions ($8.8 trillion in 2014, GDP has grown a total of about 30% since then so assume $6.6 trillion total labor cost in 2005), and upping the minimum wage to $15 in 2005 would have increased total labor costs in the economy by a whopping....much less than a percent...? ??? That seems small even to me. Are you sure that graph is correct, QuarkJets?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right. The polynomial approximation is only valid when x is relatively small. As x grows large, the growth rate becomes linear. At x = 5.9 the new minwage is approximately $50, so that's the upper bound where the solution works. If you plot 0.000817181 (3.55271×10^-15-5.25625×10^-8 x+26.2813 x^2) from 0 to 5.9 you get a quadratic curve.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:At x = 5.9 the new minwage is approximately $50, so that's the upper bound where the solution works. If you plot 0.000817181 (3.55271×10^-15-5.25625×10^-8 x+26.2813 x^2) from 0 to 5.9 you get a quadratic curve. raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $50, an almost 6-fold increase, only causes labor costs to go up ~80%.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:At x = 5.9 the new minwage is approximately $50, so that's the upper bound where the solution works. If you plot 0.000817181 (3.55271×10^-15-5.25625×10^-8 x+26.2813 x^2) from 0 to 5.9 you get a quadratic curve. Yes, exactly. Costs are not a quadratic function of the minimum wage in general, but there are wage distributions for which a polynomial approximation is useful when x is small (in your example, the polynomial is exact when x < 5.9 because you selected a distribution that would turn out that way). Should we be worried about the contribution of the polynomial term when x is small? Here's a hint: WhiskeyJuvenile posted:raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $50, an almost 6-fold increase, only causes labor costs to go up ~80%.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, exactly. Costs are not a quadratic function of the minimum wage in general, but there are wage distributions for which a polynomial approximation is useful when x is small (in your example, the polynomial is exact when x < 5.9 because you selected a distribution that would turn out that way). As it has been from the start, it's cost increases versus minwage increases. It's about relative numbers. If you compare a 20% and a 100% increase, the latter will have 25x the impact as opposed to 5x.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, exactly. Costs are not a quadratic function of the minimum wage in general, but there are wage distributions for which a polynomial approximation is useful when x is small (in your example, the polynomial is exact when x < 5.9 because you selected a distribution that would turn out that way). I still don't think you're getting the relationship. The exponent comes from the fact that we're integrating over an increasing number of people. IE we're filling a glass that gets wider as it goes up so each step takes more than the last. So an exponent of more than 1 exists until everyone is on minimum wage. It may be less than 2 (quadratic) if wage distribution is declining, I.E. the number of people making $15 is less than $14, or greater than 2 if the opposite is true. But it's always greater than linear until literally everyone is on minimum wage. And I suspect it's actually larger than 2 in this range. EDIT: so no it's not necesarily quadratic by nature, that's based on an assumption of wage distribution in this range, but it's greater than linear up until the point where literally everyone is on minimum wage. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
math teachers across america weep
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
I feel like nobody here is communicating any more effectively than they were before.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:When you posted a citation I explained why your conclusions were wrong using the citation. It is not my fault you cannot understand things. I had some quibbles with the methodology as well, but I expressly accepted the article despite them and said I would take it as face value. Why is this so hard to understand? The article you posted contains no empirical evidence that the labor supply curve is inverted in developed countries. It is a theory paper. Then you posted another graph, showing how things might be, hosted by basically the global warming deniers of modern economics, once again without actual evidence that labor supply might be inverted in developed countries for anyone except the super rich. Your Weird Uncle posted:the dude's argument is "well children of poor people who work minwage jobs in highschool will make more money too NOT JUST POOR PEOPLE", right? i can't really make sense of the whole "minimum wage people making 100k" or whatever the gently caress he's saying It's that people here seem to have this misconception that poverty in America is a bunch of single mothers working two jobs, both for minimum wages and that most minimum wage workers are poor. Neither of those is the case. Most poor people are not working at the minimum wage (many are not working at all) and secondly, only 25% of people who work minimum wage jobs come from the bottom 20% poorest households. 19% of minimum wage workers come from families with incomes in the 4th quintile (60-80%). Of course, most of the left wingers here have never actually met a poor person and are basing their opinions on articles they read in The Atlantic instead of actual statistics about minimum wage workers or more likely, just hate poor people and are more interested in securing a raise at Pizza Hut than helping them. The minimum wage worker coming from a $100k earning family is real, and actually about as common among minimum wage workers as the general population. The minimum wage is almost as effective at getting money to poor families as handing out money in the streets to random people. If you want to get money to the poorest 20% households, you'll do that 20% of the time handing out money and 25% of the time by increasing the minimum wage. If you just gave money to random black people, you'd actually have a better chance of giving money to a poor person than through the minimum wage. If you're an upper-middle class white kid like I'm guessing most pro-min wage posters here are, you're probably supporting an increase in the minimum wage because upper middle class (top 60-80% of income) households are just as likely to benefit from a minimum wage as (19%) as being randomly handed cash (20% chance). On the other hand, if you want to support poor people instead of upper middle class households, you'd support policies like TANF (almost 100% likely to end up in a bottom 40% household) or food stamps or EITC. Is giving upper middle class families a pay increase necessarily a bad policy though? No. But then you have to consider the negative side effects of a minimum wage. One of them is price increases. Price increases that are documented to disproportionately affect poor people. Most of whom are not affected by the increase in the minimum wage, many of whom aren't working and so on. Of course upper middle class white kids like Effectronica and VitalSigns like to handwave away any price increases for them with a "they're incomes are cost of living adjusted" or some overall sweeping statement like that which is simply not true for everyone, especially working poor people who are not affected by the minimum wage increase but who have large families to feed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:As it has been from the start, it's cost increases versus minwage increases. It's about relative numbers. If you compare a 20% and a 100% increase, the latter will have 25x the impact as opposed to 5x. What are you defining as "impact" here. Your definition of "impact" seems to be "the raw amount of extra dollars that will be paid" since this is the quantity that increases 25x for a 5x minimum wage increase, but that's not the relevant quantity. The relevant quantity is the proportional increase in labor costs. If I want to estimate by what proportion companies might raise prices, I would look at the proportional increase in their labor costs, not the raw amount of new dollars they are spending.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
so if you walk down park avenue, you think you have a 20% chance of meeting a "poor person"?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:If you just gave money to random black people, you'd actually have a better chance of giving money to a poor person than through the minimum wage. I would obviously support the Give Money To Random Black People Act of 2015, but somehow I suspect that's a lot less likely to get through this congress than the minimum wage. Just a hunch.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What are you defining as "impact" here. Your definition of "impact" seems to be "the raw amount of extra dollars that will be paid" since this is the quantity that increases 25x for a 5x minimum wage increase, but that's not the relevant quantity. If we want to know how much prices will go up across the economy "raw extra dollars" tells us that most directly. But those two things have the same relationship to minimum wage anyways. Your proportion is just "raw extra dollars" divided by a fixed number (current total wages).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Ol' Jeepy does it again, declaring that waiting tables at Pizza Hut nets you fifty grand a year right before insisting that someone who makes $9/hr would not be affected positively by an increase in the minimum wage to $15/hour, because his putrid Euro brain can only think in terms of magic and superstition.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's also the range where x is small and the polynomial part of the approximation is not the main driver of the total labor costs. What is the time scale on the left axis, per year or day or hour? Assume that $15 is roughly the median income in 2005, and then assume the labor force is 148 million people then as it is now and minimum wage then was $5 (just to round things around). The maximum potential increase will be 148/2 million * 10 per hour = $740 million... per hour Since I'm basically assuming the worst case here, I can easily see how with the actual figures that would fall to about $400 million. But that's $400 million per hour of work. Which then works out to quite a bit more per year.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ol' Jeepy does it again, declaring that waiting tables at Pizza Hut nets you fifty grand a year right before insisting that someone who makes $9/hr would not be affected positively by an increase in the minimum wage to $15/hour, because his putrid Euro brain can only think in terms of magic and superstition. Tell me, is it true, did you actually request a probation because it was the only way you'd stay away from here for 3 days straight? That's just so sad, but also so funny.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:44
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ol' Jeepy does it again, declaring that waiting tables at Pizza Hut nets you fifty grand a year right before insisting that someone who makes $9/hr would not be affected positively by an increase in the minimum wage to $15/hour, because his putrid Euro brain can only think in terms of magic and superstition. Geriatric Pirate posted:Tell me, is it true, did you actually request a probation because it was the only way you'd stay away from here for 3 days straight? Can we not the thread is boring but at least on topic without this
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:What is the time scale on the left axis, per year or day or hour? Assume that $15 is roughly the median income in 2005, and then assume the labor force is 148 million people then as it is now and minimum wage then was $5 (just to round things around). Ah that would make a lot more sense, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Did you guys know that if you raise the minimum wage, the cost of employing people goes up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Did you guys know that if you raise the minimum wage, the cost of employing people goes up. Or if you introduce guard rails next to the meat processors.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If we want to know how much prices will go up across the economy "raw extra dollars" tells us that most directly. Which statement gives you the information you need to estimate how much the price tag on a Spacely Sprocket might increase next year? A: Spacely Sprockets projects it will face $10 million in extra costs next year B: Spacely Sprockets projects its total costs will rise by 10% next year asdf32 posted:But those two things have the same relationship to minimum wage anyways. Your proportion is just "raw extra dollars" divided by a fixed number (current total wages). No, total costs are original costs plus new costs. The proportional increase in cost is (new cost + original costs)/(original costs)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If we want to know how much prices will go up across the economy "raw extra dollars" tells us that most directly. The absolute number is meaningless. It does not tell me how much more any specific item will cost, and it does not tell me overall impact on the economy without comparison to other numbers. That is the whole mathematic purpose behind ratios and proportions. If you tell me that labor costs will increase by $100 million, what data can I extract from that without plugging it into a formula with other data?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Did you guys know that the minimum wage isn't very effective at transferring money from the rich to the poor? If a fifteen dollar minimum wage is implemented, what happens? It's likely that any reduction in poverty would be small. And now when we advocate for policies that might make more significant impacts on income inequality -- taxes and transfer payments and expanded social services -- conservatives will say: smug: "just get a cushy min wage job, liberailures".
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Okay then let's push wages down even more to shame Republicans into supporting welfare. Republicans have shame, right?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
The $15/hr minimum wage has a lot less to do with income inequality and a lot more to do with ensuring everyone has access to a living wage.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:The article you posted contains no empirical evidence that the labor supply curve is inverted in developed countries. It is a theory paper. Then you posted another graph, showing how things might be, hosted by basically the global warming deniers of modern economics, once again without actual evidence that labor supply might be inverted in developed countries for anyone except the super rich. uh if you're cranking out five paragraph theses about how mad you are you're loving up at trolling geriatric priate do you cite your viewership of hbo's the wire to explain your american poverty fetish
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
I'm not advocating for accelerationism. If we're examining the minimum wage in the context of political reality, there's a real political cost in tying anti poverty efforts to the conservative paradigm that poor people can just work their way out of poverty. That's why the minimum wage is popular among republicans, you realize?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not advocating for accelerationism. If we're examining the minimum wage in the context of political reality, there's a real political cost in tying anti poverty efforts to the conservative paradigm that poor people can just work their way out of poverty. That's why the minimum wage is popular among republicans, you realize? The minimum wage isn't popular among Republicans, though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:44
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not advocating for accelerationism. If we're examining the minimum wage in the context of political reality, there's a real political cost in tying anti poverty efforts to the conservative paradigm that poor people can just work their way out of poverty. That's why the minimum wage is popular among republicans, you realize? The minimum wage is not "popular among Republicans" for that reason, unless we're going to say that Social Security is inherently conservative too.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not advocating for accelerationism. If we're examining the minimum wage in the context of political reality, there's a real political cost in tying anti poverty efforts to the conservative paradigm that poor people can just work their way out of poverty. That's why the minimum wage is popular among republicans, you realize? True, conservatives are really really good at proposing the compassionate conservative alternative to socialism, and then as soon as Democrats agree, turning around and calling it big government socialism. See also: the EITC. I'm not sure what to do about this though, when they control congress. At least states and localities can raise the minimum wage on their own. And the minimum wage doesn't increase deficits so that takes the deficit-hawk attack off the table.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:48
|
|