|
Geriatric Pirate posted:google "David Neumark", go to his website, read his papers If you have a study in mind that you've read to support your claim, why don't you give the guy the title or link it or something rather than expecting him to just guess which paper you mean.
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
David Neumark may not be the hill you want to die on. His latest meta-study found that out of a large sample of studies done on minimum wage, only his studies could be deemed credible. hmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you have a study in mind that you've read to support your claim, why don't you give the guy the title or link it or something rather than expecting him to just guess which paper you mean. nope sorry you gotta read his entire body of work to find out that GP is still a moron.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The unemployment rate is at least 5% right, depending on how you measure it, and used to be higher during the recession, right? So there are at least 5% fewer jobs than people who need jobs, right? What might you expect to happen with food prices if the total amount of food available for purchase in the US amounted to just 95% of the calorie requirements of the population, and the government pursued a free-market laissez-faire approach to food prices and distribution? Hey man sometimes you gotta tighten the belt. Maybe we need to shed some of those excess citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you have a study in mind that you've read to support your claim, why don't you give the guy the title or link it or something rather than expecting him to just guess which paper you mean. It might even be possible for him to give some sort of description or summary of the article so that it could be discussed without everyone needing to take the time to read the entire thing. I dunno just spitballing here. If only papers had something useful for that sort of thing presented right at the very beginning of them on essentially every academic site where they're posted, it would be very convenient.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:57
|
|
archangelwar posted:David Neumark may not be the hill you want to die on. His latest meta-study found that out of a large sample of studies done on minimum wage, only his studies could be deemed credible. hmmmmmmmmmm 
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
OK I lied a bit for effect. The plurality of studies he found credible were his own. He also agreed with a sample of studies conducted in developing colonial economies (surprise!). At least Card and Kruger, for whatever their flaws, have responded to critiques of methodology by actually rerunning and updating their results. There are also a plethora of meta-analyses that we can look at at this point (which have been repeatedly linked in this thread). We don't have to trust singular sources.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:David Neumark may not be the hill you want to die on. His latest meta-study found that out of a large sample of studies done on minimum wage, only his studies could be deemed credible. hmmmmmmmmmm A guy who claims other people's conclusions are incorrect because their data collection is bad goes on to discount their data in his own conclusion.... that is shocking. I don't know much about Neumark and there might be other reason's he's wrong but this is just silly. VitalSigns posted:The unemployment rate is at least 5% right, depending on how you measure it, and used to be higher during the recession, right? So there are at least 5% fewer jobs than people who need jobs, right? What might you expect to happen with food prices if the total amount of food available for purchase in the US amounted to just 95% of the calorie requirements of the population, and the government pursued a free-market laissez-faire approach to food prices and distribution? That's not what 5% unemployment means.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Where does this gently caress a watermelon statement come from why is it being used? Also whats up with referances to crabs?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Have you ever hosed a watermelon logosanatic?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Where does this gently caress a watermelon statement come from why is it being used? I have found an answer to both your questions: 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:A guy who claims other people's conclusions are incorrect because their data collection is bad goes on to discount their data in his own conclusion.... that is shocking. That isn't actually what I said. Perhaps I should have known better than to use big words like "meta-analysis." But I still like how you snap to his defense with such nonsense. No, a meta-analysis where discrediting "all peer reviewed work that reaches a different conclusion" is not the beginning of a convincing argument. At the very least have the decency to either exclude your own work or just use a dispassionate third party. As I already said, Card and Kruger have met all of his critiques that he has offered and he still discredits their work because it does not match his predetermined conclusions. Even with all of this, I have no problem with his inclusion in other meta-analyses. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:No, a meta-analysis where you discredit all peer reviewed work because it reaches a different conclusion is not the beginning of a convincing argument. It is if your argument is "everyone else is wrong"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:That isn't actually what I said. Perhaps I should have known better than to use big words like "meta-analysis." But I still like how you snap to his defense with such nonsense. #1 What you said about them dismissing work is not true, neither is the idea that all peer reviewed work other than theirs reaches the conclusion that minimum wages don't affect employment (the CBO for instance used the assumption that there would be a small decrease based on their review of the estimates presented in the literature) #2 Card and Krueger are not active in the minimum wage literature anymore, their last paper was published 15 years ago. Their seminal study on NJ vs Pennsylvania has been quite widely discredited as being an example of a bad control (see the graph below), even being used as an example of one in one of the most popular econometrics textbooks ("Mostly Harmless Econometrics" by Angrist and Pischke - Angrist is a friend and coauthor of Card)  (incase you don't get what's going on here, the point is that employment trends in both states are almost as good as random before the minimum wage instead of very highly correlated as they should be, and you actually see bigger changes with no minimum wage changes than those caused by the minimum wage before) #3 The Neumark and Wascher critique of the original Card and Krueger paper was based on data arguments which C&K responded to somewhat satisfactorily. The "bad controls" argument has yet to be addressed. N&W weren't the first to make that argument though. #4 The most widely cited modern papers arguing against employment effects (by Dube and co-authors) use a similar approach except across all states. Neumark, (Salas) and Wascher argue that both the idea of using neighboring counties doesn't work (and demonstrate why) as well as many other problems with their specifications LorrdErnie posted:It might even be possible for him to give some sort of description or summary of the article so that it could be discussed without everyone needing to take the time to read the entire thing. I dunno just spitballing here. Sorry - I didn't realize you were the guy who was completely incapable of interpreting basic data that you were posting. I guess for you, going to his website and seeing articles with names like ""Employment Effects of Minimum Wages.” or "More On Recent Evidence on the Effects of Minimum Wages in the United States" might have been a bit confusing. VitalSigns posted:No, the US government also subsidizes the purchasers of food with programs like WIC and SNAP (food stamps). And part of its price support mechanism is buying up reserve food, which it can distribute if needed. And some foods like milk are subsidized to lower the price. (#1 - you were arguing that food isn't expensive because the government subsidizes it and #2 you gave examples of policies that should make food more expensive, not cheaper, yet here we are, food is still cheap)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Why don't you take a second and think about #1) what you were trying to argue against initially and #2) what the effect of the bolded policies would be? That's not what he said. Here, I'll bold the important parts: VitalSigns posted:Lol why do you keep bringing up a commodity that's subject to the heaviest of US government intervention to keep supplies and prices within certain bounds, and then subject to even more intervention to subsidize the poor in purchasing it? He's saying that food is kept more expensive by government intervention, not less (aka price supports). And he's also saying that food is subsidized for certain segments of the population (those who receive SNAP benefits), which is true. He is not saying that food is subsidized for everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's not what he said. Here, I'll bold the important parts: No, what he's trying and failing at for literally the 43rd time is to push the idea that government regulation is required to keep food cheap when the slightest analysis reveals that regulation has nothing to do with retail food prices or keeping food cheap. Food stamps and production side subsidies don't do this and it's embarassing that he even brought them up in this context.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:#1 What you said about them dismissing work is not true, I am referring to Neumark's meta-analysis that was conducted to determine credibility of other literature, in which all of his studies were deemed credible along with a handful of non-US studies against a backdrop of over 150 peer reviewed studies. This is a thing that happened, in fact, it is easily found if you google "David Neumark" and go to his page. quote:neither is the idea that all peer reviewed work other than theirs reaches the conclusion that minimum wages don't affect employment (the CBO for instance used the assumption that there would be a small decrease based on their review of the estimates presented in the literature) You are corrected, I edited the statement as it originally said "discredit all peer reviewed work that reaches a different conclusion." I will go back and edit the original to say what I intended. quote:#2 Card and Krueger are not active in the minimum wage literature anymore, their last paper was published 15 years ago. Their seminal study on NJ vs Pennsylvania has been quite widely discredited as being an example of a bad control (see the graph below), even being used as an example of one in one of the most popular econometrics textbooks ("Mostly Harmless Econometrics" by Angrist and Pischke - Angrist is a friend and coauthor of Card) You are correct that they are no longer active, but have been active in both discussion (as well as updating or expanding on their original work) and included in a range of meta-analysis, which is what I have been discussing in this thread, here, today. Meta-analysis is important as it helps to aggregate both data and methodologies, which is why I am stressing it in this thread and not to rely on a single source such as Neumark, especially since I believe Neumark to be guilty of violating the principle of meta-analysis with his own work.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No, what he's trying and failing at for literally the 43rd time is to push the idea that government regulation is required to keep food cheap Actually it sounds like he is saying the government intervenes in food to keep prices stable, not to keep them cheap. Which it does. Like, it patently and obviously does this.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Actually it sounds like he is saying the government intervenes in food to keep prices stable, not to keep them cheap. Which it does. Like, it patently and obviously does this. My argument was that the same arguments that he is making for why the price of labor should be driven down by employers apply to why the price of food should be driven up by producers. And that food prices aren't very high. He then argues that food prices are influenced by the government, and gives several ways in which the government affects food prices. However, for him to be correct, these ways would have to drive down food prices. Every intervention he has given so far should increase prices or not affect them. So clearly, government isn't the reason food is cheap. But then that's if you buy the argument that food demand is inelastic because it's a necessity and that labor supply is inelastic because you have to work. Though his whole premise was flawed and neither of those statements is actually true, although it is true that food and working are necessities. archangelwar posted:You are correct that they are no longer active, but have been active in both discussion (as well as updating or expanding on their original work) and included in a range of meta-analysis, which is what I have been discussing in this thread, here, today. Meta-analysis is important as it helps to aggregate both data and methodologies, which is why I am stressing it in this thread and not to rely on a single source such as Neumark, especially since I believe Neumark to be guilty of violating the principle of meta-analysis with his own work.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Also whats up with referances to crabs? Listen to this song and replace lobster with crabs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q8Ob7noYys In fact, just don't read the thread and listen to the song, as it is a far less painful way to understand the argument.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I tend to disagree that meta-analyses are important just because so many MW papers are poorly done. I'm much more convinced by one good paper than I am by 20 bad ones. But since this thread isn't really the best places to discuss what's a good paper (NSW and Dube fight over it a lot), I agree that for our purposes, meta-analyses are the way to go. But don't dismiss Neumark or the idea that there are meta-analyses which find employment effects. Neumark can aggregate work just like Dube or Krueger can aggregate work, unsurprisingly both come to opposite conclusions when reviewing the literature. The CBO assumed that there would be increased unemployment based on their reading of the literature as another example. I agree that MW work is often poorly done, but that is generally the purpose of meta-analysis. This is why I agree that Neumark's work can and should be included, although forgive me if I don't find his own meta-analysis convincing when his conclusion is that his own work is the most credible. I will leave that for others to decide. I will just leave this here: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6391084.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not what 5% unemployment means. While that's true (full employment doesn't correspond to 0% employment because there are always frictions), it is the case that there are not enough jobs for everyone who wants one to have one and this is true most years. So what might happen to the price of food if there were not enough calories available for the entire population, and the US government had abandoned its interventionist approach to the food supply.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While that's true (full employment doesn't correspond to 0% employment because there are always frictions), it is the case that there are not enough jobs for everyone who wants one to have one and this is true most years. The market would adjust accordingly, you see an economy has to do with business and money. All that other poo poo doesn't matter as long as you don't see people as anything more than a commodity to be exploited.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No, what he's trying and failing at for literally the 43rd time is to push the idea that government regulation is required to keep food cheap when the slightest analysis reveals that regulation has nothing to do with retail food prices or keeping food cheap. Food stamps and production side subsidies don't do this and it's embarassing that he even brought them up in this context. No, I said the government intervenes to keep prices stable, he even bolded the relevant parts for you. Sometimes that means protecting farmers. That protection goes away if prices rise. Check milk subsidies, farmers only get those when the price of milk is low. If they try to charge more, they lose the subsidy. And the demand for milk is pretty elastic, people can drink other things when the price goes up, which is why the government is interested in keeping prices low. There is no point in trying to jack prices when you know the government will intervene. But before intervention this did happen: in the depression, farmers destroyed thousands and thousands of tons of food to keep prices high because it was more profitable to sell less food to people with more money who would pay than to dump it on the market and drive down prices. What you are asking about actually loving happened, but expecting a republican to read a history book is too much I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:google "David Neumark", go to his website, read his papers ahahahaha
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There is no point in trying to jack prices when you know the government will intervene. But before intervention this did happen: in the depression, farmers destroyed thousands and thousands of tons of food to keep prices high because it was more profitable to sell less food to people with more money who would pay than to dump it on the market and drive down prices. You seem to be confusing "what farmers did on their own" with "what the government paid them to do".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:You seem to be confusing "what farmers did on their own" with "what the government paid them to do". Nah, the big orange growers in California were destroying their surpluses before the government got involved. It was one of the bitter ironies of the depression. Fields ready for harvest were plowed under, grain was left to rot in silos, all while people without money were starving. Bad, bad deal, I don't know why the free market acolytes want to return to that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Wait, so are some of you actually arguing that people should be paid less than 7 dollars an hour, 56 dollars a day?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, the big orange growers in California were destroying their surpluses before the government got involved. It was one of the bitter ironies of the depression. It's not clear from the quote whether that was among the things the government paid them to destroy. Regardless it was a matter of over-production and prices that were too low. quote:"Farmers faced the most severe economic situation and lowest agricultural prices since the 1890s."[1] "Overproduction and a shrinking international market had driven down agricultural prices." quote:For example, in an effort to reduce agricultural surpluses, the government paid farmers and ranchers hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy crops and livestock.[7][8] Oranges were being soaked with kerosene to prevent their consumption and corn was being burned as fuel because it was so cheap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
I know that I certainly hate it when the necessities of life are so cheap that everyone can afford them in abundance.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's not clear from the quote whether that was among the things the government paid them to destroy. Regardless it was a matter of over-production and prices that were too low. Very good. And it was more profitable to sell less food to people with more money, so farmers did that. The government also came in later and did more of that but also intervened to alleviate the problems this causes (people starving) by providing food or money to purchase food. There are indeed huge problems that arise when the government doesn't keep the price of food stable. Now what happens in the other situation. If food were like unskilled jobs today: not enough for everyone who wants one. What happens to food prices then if the government doesn't take over with price controls and ration books?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Sorry - I didn't realize you were the guy who was completely incapable of interpreting basic data that you were posting. I guess for you, going to his website and seeing articles with names like ""Employment Effects of Minimum Wages.” or "More On Recent Evidence on the Effects of Minimum Wages in the United States" might have been a bit confusing. And #2: I didn't visit his website because you gave me literally zero reason to do your work for you
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Very good. And it was more profitable to sell less food to people with more money, so farmers did that. The government also came in later and did more of that but also intervened to alleviate the problems this causes (people starving) by providing food or money to purchase food. There are indeed huge problems that arise when the government doesn't keep the price of food stable. The government doesn't control prices. It influences supply in various ways. It doesn't need to control prices because the market does that just fine. Remember my preferred response to low demand is additional direct investment into things like infrastructure, education or research. This is a solution far more analogous to current food policy than minimum wage. Minimum wage is nothing like existing food policy. At all. Not all regulations are equal so you need to get a clue before you use "but the government regulates food" as an analogy for minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
If you redefine "flora" as "supply" and "fauna" as "demand" you see that really everything is either supply or demand including you and me and this plant spouting from the manure I pretend is my brain.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
what about rocks
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
asdf32 posted:The government doesn't control prices. It influences supply in various ways. It doesn't need to control prices because the market does that just fine. I can't believe someone has the balls to say this after the subprime mortgage crisis.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:what about rocks gently caress, ok, ok, ok. Do over. "Rocks" are supply, and "everything else" is demand. No, "my face" is demand. Please throw rocks at my face.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:If you redefine "flora" as "supply" and "fauna" as "demand" you see that really everything is either supply or demand including you and me and this plant spouting from the manure I pretend is my brain. Oh so you don't follow VitalSign's argument then. Effectronica posted:I can't believe someone has the balls to say this after the subprime mortgage crisis. In other news market economies work.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:In other news market economies work.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:The government doesn't control prices. It influences supply in various ways. Yes, in order to control prices, just not directly. Sheesh quote:Remember my preferred response to low demand is additional direct investment into things like infrastructure, education or research. This is a solution far more analogous to current food policy than minimum wage. Minimum wage is nothing like existing food policy. At all. Not all regulations are equal so you need to get a clue before you use "but the government regulates food" as an analogy for minimum wage. It would require opening enough $15/hour positions to hire every single person who is currently paid less than $15/hour, but I think that most minimum wage proponents here would be fine with that. Raise upper tax brackets and let's create a poo poo-ton of well-paying government jobs; employers like McDonalds will have to raise wages in order to compete. That sounds great. Get your magic wand out and let's get started Oh, this doesn't have a chance in hell of getting past the conservatives in Congress? Well, we can always dream, I guess
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:59
|
|