|
QuarkJets posted:Except that they don't reject the null hypothesis. Saying that you reject it is not the same as actually rejecting it. That kind of thing is okay for a working paper, which is what this is, but it's not acceptable to draw meaningful results from the paper in the meantime. Except you don't need to reject the null hypothesis when you're attempting to test whether the price response to a minimum wage increase is positive or negative, corresponding to a competitive (econ101) or monopsony (Econ 30X) model of the labor market, respectively. Your frantic attempts to derail nonwithstanding.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Preface:
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Foppery posted:So I was just looking through the thread and I figured this didn't quite get the attention it deserved. May I be the first to ask; what the gently caress? It is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Except you don't need to reject the null hypothesis when you're attempting to test whether the price response to a minimum wage increase is positive or negative, corresponding to a competitive (econ101) or monopsony (Econ 30X) model of the labor market, respectively. Your frantic attempts to derail nonwithstanding. It's really important that you determine whether or not your model is useful before you start using it. If your observations are due entirely to random chance then how are you going to have any confidence in your results? e: Using your same logic, it doesn't matter whether or not uncertainties are even considered; all that you care about is measuring the price response. So why even bother building a statistical model? Just measure the CPI before and after the wage and say "the minimum wage caused prices to increase by this much". If you disagree with this approach, why? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:Yes? I was not aware that placing more money in the hands of a group who spend it immediately rather than tucking it away out of circulation would somehow hurt the economy. Please elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's really important that you determine whether or not your model is useful before you start using it. If your observations are due entirely to random chance then how are you going to have any confidence in your results? Quark, how would you respond to the authors' and I imagine their reviewers' contention that they did not in fact fail to reject and that their model (actually multiple specifications crafted to test the robustness of their results) is indeed not just picking up random noise? Because as much as you're making of this point it is basically "I, QuarkJets, have decided these researchers have made elementary statistical errors" and between you and the researchers & reviews at the Chicago fed the latter group is more credible, at least for judging the methodological soundness of an econ paper. edit to add: Had they found no statisticly significant price response that would have been a rather surprising result, and probably the main topic of the paper. Not something they 1) wouldn't mention and 2) would go on to totally ignore in the rest of the analysis. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Is there really any point in debating the papers/research at this point? I think we can all agree that the data isn't terribly compelling one way or another. I think we can all agree that at a sufficient minimum wage, we will start to see negative unemployment effects. Ultimately, I don't think this is a great reason to avoid raising the minimum wage because we need to figure out what to do with the unemployable, and by that I mean those that can't compete with technology and/or automation (regardless of whether it's their fault or not). Having our system able to provide a living wage for workers is not only a realistic goal, but it's the only ethical one as long as we choose to live in a society where your well being is so closely attached to your employment. I totally understand that businesses don't want to be on the hook for all that a "living wage" entails and the answer to that is let the government provide common goods like healthcare, education as well as put a floor on living standards (food stamps, public housing, public transit etc). There are more extreme solutions like a GMI, but honestly that's so far away w/r/t public opinion it's probably not worth talking about seriously at this point. The sad truth is that the business owners are solely to blame for neither happening. They fight both increased wages and increased taxes to pay for the social services that would be required to justify any sort of ethical justification for the lower wages they want to pay.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Does someone really have to prove that increasing wages for the class with the least disposable income boosts the economy? Do we have to post a study to support a claim that cats are sometimes, but not always fluffy? Well, yes, but the IMF seems to have you covered. "First, we show why policymakers need to focus on the poor and the middle class. Earlier IMF work has shown that income inequality matters for growth and its sustainability. Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels." https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:45
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:Yes? That's a fair question. Here's Moody's estimation of the fiscal multipliers you'll see from various stimulus measures https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf code:http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12309/concepts/diminishing-marginal-utility-of-income-and-wealth/
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Fun fact about tips in America: Never tip your server/driver/bartender/whatever on your credit card receipt unless you're too drunk to recognize denominations on your paper money. We get taxed on tips that go on your card, because they go into the system when you get charged for it. Always tip cash, 100% of that will go in your server's pocket Except the IRS has cracked down hard on this awhile back. Tipped workers now need to keep pretty close track of how much money they received in cash tips, or the IRS will assume a value and just go with it. Thousands in credit tips and zero cash tips is no longer acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
If the minimum wage were a simple transfer of profits from businesses to the poor there would be little reason to oppose it, but studies like the one being discussed indicate it's not nearly that simple. If most of the additional wage is paid for by increased prices, as this study concludes, then the wage gains of minimum wage workers are paid for by the consumers of minimum wage labor. Rich people certainly buy minimum wage labor, but the study indicates poor and middle class people probably consume more of it as a proportion of their income; fast food restaurants showed a much more substantial price increase than full service restaurants, for example. So the minimum wage actually resembles a wealth transfer program funded by a regressive tax.QuarkJets posted:It's really important that you determine whether or not your model is useful before you start using it. If your observations are due entirely to random chance then how are you going to have any confidence in your results? They use a series of robust methods to rule out random variation. You need to describe why they're insufficient, and where you'd expect error to actually affect their results. If you think the absurd straw man you construct in your second paragraph has any resemblance to the study we're discussing, you need to go back and actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Is there really any point in debating the papers/research at this point? I think we can all agree that the data isn't terribly compelling one way or another. I think we can all agree that at a sufficient minimum wage, we will start to see negative unemployment effects. Ultimately, I don't think this is a great reason to avoid raising the minimum wage because we need to figure out what to do with the unemployable, and by that I mean those that can't compete with technology and/or automation (regardless of whether it's their fault or not). I agree with your overall point, except what data are you looking at that isn't overwhelmingly compelling in support of raising the minimum? Nobody is suggesting a minimum that would have any discernable effect on employment, the current debate is (sadly) centered around just bringing it up to match inflation / productivity gains over the last 30 years. As for the unemployable, it's an unavoidable and horrible, but temporary problem. If we were a better society, we would have learned the lessons from the first 60 years of the Industrial Revolution and had a plan in place for workers displaced by technology. Sadly, bootstrap conservatives have dismantled even what safety nets we had in place, so we're probably going to face another labor crisis very soon no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
An increase in the price of lovely, obesity-causing food causing a shift to other higher-quality sources of food that are now affordable due to a higher wage? What's the issue here, again? Taxing soda in Mexico has reduced soda consumption and, surprise surprise, not decreased the real median income. People just drink less soda. In this case, people consume fewer services that are highly dependent on exploited people. Again, not a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They use a series of robust methods to rule out random variation. You need to describe why they're insufficient, and where you'd expect error to actually affect their results. If you think the absurd straw man you construct in your second paragraph has any resemblance to the study we're discussing, you need to go back and actually read it. So you agree that rejecting the null hypothesis is important, now? Because this is what you said earlier: JeffersonClay posted:Except you don't need to reject the null hypothesis when you're attempting to test whether the price response to a minimum wage increase is positive or negative, corresponding to a competitive (econ101) or monopsony (Econ 30X) model of the labor market, respectively. Your frantic attempts to derail nonwithstanding. It's not really a straw man if it describes your exact argument, your frantic hand-waving nonwithstanding
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
If government is going to put up with paying for all of common goods like healthcare, education as well as put a floor on living standards (food stamps, public housing, public transit etc), why don't we just nationalize the industries so that the people benefit from the profits of their investment through taxes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
So the minimum wage is good because it will put lots of fast food restaurants out of business. And it will somehow also not negatively affect employment. Think this through. You can at least admit that poor people who do not receive minimum wage income would get hosed in this story, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:34
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If most of the additional wage is paid for by increased prices, as this study concludes, then the wage gains of minimum wage workers are paid for by the consumers of minimum wage labor. I'm not sure it says anything about "most" of the additional wage. Even if it does, how would it be possible that the wage gains could be SMALLER than the price increase, which is the only situation in which the net gain would be negative. JeffersonClay, I suggest you take a step back and ask yourself "What am I arguing?" because it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop trying to "win" the argument and actually discuss something without turning into an autist. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I agree with your overall point, except what data are you looking at that isn't overwhelmingly compelling in support of raising the minimum? Nobody is suggesting a minimum that would have any discernable effect on employment, the current debate is (sadly) centered around just bringing it up to match inflation / productivity gains over the last 30 years. Look I tend to agree with you that raising the minimum wage a few dollars won't have a discernable effect on employment but it doesn't hurt to mention that even if there is some raise in unemployment (which even the "worst-case" data doesn't make look significant) it's not a good reason to not raise the minimum wage. euphronius posted:If government is going to put up with paying for all of common goods like healthcare, education as well as put a floor on living standards (food stamps, public housing, public transit etc), why don't we just nationalize the industries so that the people benefit from the profits of their investment through taxes? Like I said, a GMI is preferable and probably less expensive than maintaining a variety of social programs and keeping most of industry private but it's about steps we can take in that direction. "Why don't we just nationionalize" because nationalize is a dirty dirty word here in the US. JeffersonClay posted:So the minimum wage is good because it will put lots of fast food restaurants out of business. Having as many fast food restaurants as possible is not a societal goal worth pursuing. Having our fast food restaurants pay a living wage is. Part of the reason that food is so cheap in America compared to the EU is our workers are paid poo poo. People still go to McDonalds in the EU, they still order Pizzas. Prices are a bit higher, but the labor is treated fairly. quote:And it will somehow also not negatively affect employment. Think this through. This is exactly what I'm talking w/r/t about debating the numbers. Unless you can substantiate that the "negative affect employement" would be significant to the point of immediate catastrophe, it's not a great argument to not raise the minimum wage. Policy can change. quote:You can at least admit that poor people who do not receive minimum wage income would get hosed in this story, right? Do you understand that poor people who don't make a wage generally survive off of other poor people who make, you guessed it, wages close or around the minimum, which would, surprise, go up in the case of a raise in the minimum wage. You're really contorting any way possible to justify your previously held positions which clearly weren't that thought out. Maybe consider actually trying to learn something instead of just playing win the argument. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Quark, how would you respond to the authors' and I imagine their reviewers' contention that they did not in fact fail to reject and that their model (actually multiple specifications crafted to test the robustness of their results) is indeed not just picking up random noise? Because as much as you're making of this point it is basically "I, QuarkJets, have decided these researchers have made elementary statistical errors" and between you and the researchers & reviews at the Chicago fed the latter group is more credible, at least for judging the methodological soundness of an econ paper. The authors don't make that contention. They say that their results are statistically significant, likely meaning that their reported uncertainties do not cross zero. This is not the same as testing for zero response. The model can have relatively small uncertainties but still be a poor description of the data, if the data has sufficient random variation (such as price data) We are talking about this paper, right? The one where their first model doesn't even consider errors? wateroverfire posted:Quark, how would you respond to the authors' and I imagine their reviewers' contention that they did not in fact fail to reject and that their model (actually multiple specifications crafted to test the robustness of their results) is indeed not just picking up random noise? Because as much as you're making of this point it is basically "I, QuarkJets, have decided these researchers have made elementary statistical errors" and between you and the researchers & reviews at the Chicago fed the latter group is more credible, at least for judging the methodological soundness of an econ paper. What reviews? This is a working paper. It's explicitly labeled as such. Your'e trying to strawman me; I haven't claimed that these researchers made statistical errors. I've stated this before: I believe that the authors intended to go back and test for the null hypothesis at a later time and just never did for whatever reason (possibly because they'd have to rewrite the whole paper if they failed to reject the null hypothesis). You're also trying to use the appeal to authority fallacy. You're getting sloppy
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So the minimum wage is good because it will put lots of fast food restaurants out of business. And it will somehow also not negatively affect employment. Think this through. I didn't have to think too hard about it because there has been a colossal mountain of research performed over the last 30 years on the effects of minimum wage on employment. Here are five papers that were published between 1990 and 2012 by both academic and government sources in three different countries. http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288841/The_National_Minimum_Wage_LPC_Report_2014.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2010.00799.x/abstract http://www.motu.org.nz/publications/detail/the_short-run_effects_of_age_based_youth_minimum_wages_in_australia_a_regre Guess what every single one of those studies found! About whether a raise in minimum wage affects employment! Guess!! It's a fun game!!! quote:You can at least admit that poor people who do not receive minimum wage income would get hosed in this story, right? I don't understand the picture you're painting here. What does this dystopian LIEberal future look like to you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So the minimum wage is good because it will put lots of fast food restaurants out of business. And it will somehow also not negatively affect employment. Think this through. The additional money velocity that a higher minimum wage would give would stimulate the economy to a much greater extent than the economy is dragged down by Wendy's closing a few locations. It *may* negatively impact employment in the short term, which will then rebound. One of the primary reasons to raise the minimum wage is to force business and the wealthy to stop doing loving nothing with their money. I'd be happy with not raising the minimum wage if domestic reinvestment of 90% of profits were mandatory, for example, or if spending 90% of your profits on domestically-manufactured jet plane demolition derbies were required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
here, I'll make this an even more fun game. Match the paper from my previous post to the conclusion in this post. Careful, though, it's a JUMBLE! A. This study is an aggregate of 1,494 estimates published in 64 other papers on the effect of minimum wage on employment. The consensus: It don't change squat, son! B. Guess what's true about minimum wage in Australia? It has a huge effect on employment! Wait, no i read that wrong, it has no effect whatsoever. C. This study looked at restaurant employment in 288 counties with various minimum wage laws. Turns out minimum wages do boost pay, but don't affect employment. D. After New Jersey raised its minimum wage and Pennsylvania didn't, this study tracked fast food employment over the following year. It found no difference employment between the two states. E. After this government commissioned 130 pieces of research from a bunch of different economists, they found that OH MY GOD MINIMUM WAGE CAUSES no discernible change in employment. If you get them all right, you get a sticker!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If government is going to put up with paying for all of common goods like healthcare, education as well as put a floor on living standards (food stamps, public housing, public transit etc), why don't we just nationalize the industries so that the people benefit from the profits of their investment through taxes? because history shows two things: A. a central authority controlling the means of production is literally a dictatorship B. slippery slope arguments are dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If the minimum wage were a simple transfer of profits from businesses to the poor there would be little reason to oppose it, but studies like the one being discussed indicate it's not nearly that simple. If most of the additional wage is paid for by increased prices, as this study concludes, then the wage gains of minimum wage workers are paid for by the consumers of minimum wage labor. Rich people certainly buy minimum wage labor, but the study indicates poor and middle class people probably consume more of it as a proportion of their income; fast food restaurants showed a much more substantial price increase than full service restaurants, for example. So the minimum wage actually resembles a wealth transfer program funded by a regressive tax. I don't follow this, who exactly is going to be hurt enough by a minimum wage increase to need to stop it ? Minimum and near-minimum wage workers will have increased pay to take care of price increases, the middle class and upper class have the ability to pay which leaves you those who don't have working income, most of which is some variety of government assistance, who is hurting enough to block the idea? Even if you think this is mostly a transfer from the middle class people and above as well as the government to minimum/near minimum wage workers, where is the problem here? In addition, if you accept that study as it is, then the price increases will if anything be predictably small (food service if anything is more likely to be reliant on minimum wage labor than most industries). For every 10% increase in MW you have a .7% increase in prices, how is this is exactly something to be concerned with? Almost certainly doing nothing is more regressive. down with slavery posted:Like I said, a GMI is preferable and probably less expensive than maintaining a variety of social programs and keeping most of industry private but it's about steps we can take in that direction. "Why don't we just nationionalize" because nationalize is a dirty dirty word here in the US. A GMI is still a problem in the US, because there is most likely no way to fund a traditional safety net and a GMI at the same time. In this sense, I would prefer more traditional spending (public housing, education, health care) to a GMI. I would also prefer a high minimum wage/living wage as well. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:here, I'll make this an even more fun game. Match the paper from my previous post to the conclusion in this post. Careful, though, it's a JUMBLE! Are folks still saying it causes unemployment? I thought they had moved on to "but prices will increase negating any raise"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
I don't think nationalization necessarily means "central planning". At all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:00
|
|
euphronius posted:I don't think nationalization necessarily means "central planning". At all. I think it's safe to say that implementing a GMI or "why don't we just nationalize the industries so that the people benefit from the profits of their investment through taxes?" are so far separated from the current political climate it's nigh pointless to even discuss them, especially in the context of "what can we do to ameliorate poverty today". I'm not saying it wouldn't be ideal, but one step at a time. Ardennes posted:A GMI is still a problem in the US, because there is most likely no way to fund a traditional safety net and a GMI at the same time. In this sense, I would prefer more traditional spending (public housing, education, health care) to a GMI. Can we agree that we'd take either if either was an option? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Are folks still saying it causes unemployment? I thought they had moved on to "but prices will increase negating any raise"? pretty much JeffersonClay but sometimes it just feels good to post Real Facts euphronius posted:I don't think nationalization necessarily means "central planning". At all. Well what exactly do you call it when a public agency controls the means of production? Call it whatever you want, I'm just saying it tends not to work out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A GMI is still a problem in the US, because there is most likely no way to fund a traditional safety net and a GMI at the same time. In this sense, I would prefer more traditional spending (public housing, education, health care) to a GMI. A GMI is potentially less expensive than the "safety nets" it would replace (i.e. prison, food stamps, the 33 different housing programs run by four different cabinet departments, etc) While we're in fantasy land, GMI + socialized medicine + mental health + drug decriminilization / treatment would be a vastly more efficient system than we have ever had with guaranteed better outcomes but hey i'm just blue sky thinking here
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:
Yes the US during WW2 couldn't weld to plates together, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes the US during WW2 couldn't weld to plates together, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship#Hull_cracks
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes the US during WW2 couldn't weld to plates together, right? I'm not against socializing industry for specific applications when sovereignty and/or public safety is threatened (i.e. war, climate change, healthcare) What I'm saying doesn't tend to work out is socializing production solely for the economic benefit of the state. If that wasn't what was being argued, then I misunderstood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:A GMI is potentially less expensive than the "safety nets" it would replace (i.e. prison, food stamps, the 33 different housing programs run by four different cabinet departments, etc) Are we at the point in the thread where we need to remind the anti-minwage people that everyone in the thread who is pro-minwage is also in favor of many, much better solutions, such as GMI, socialized medicine, etc? My how time flies Let's do it, let's set up some sort of universal income and then abolish the minimum wage. I'm okay with this, and I suspect that the rest of the thread is, too. Oh, Republicans in Congress are loving shitheads who will only pay lip service to a GMI whenever the poors start demanding a minimum wage hike and then quickly forget about the GMI afterwards? Nevermind
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Yeah I am all for full communism now but short of that I support improvements to worker's lives like a livable wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Let's do it, let's set up some sort of universal income and then abolish the minimum wage. I'm okay with this, and I suspect that the rest of the thread is, too. Oh, Republicans in Congress are loving shitheads who will only pay lip service to a GMI whenever the poors start demanding a minimum wage hike and then quickly forget about the GMI afterwards? Nevermind wait, do you live in america? a republican in congress paying lip service to GMI would be pilloried, then guillotined, his head covered in tar and impaled on a pike on the south lawn as a warning for others. it's not an either / or proposal, a real minimum wage is an achievable political goal that will move the discussion toward progressive welfare reform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:wait, do you live in america? a republican in congress paying lip service to GMI would be pilloried, then guillotined, his head covered in tar and impaled on a pike on the south lawn as a warning for others. Sorry, I shouldn't have said "in Congress"; there are a number of intellectual and influential conservatives who support a GMI, but even Congressional Democrats won't go anywhere near that sort of legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:pretty much JeffersonClay but sometimes it just feels good to post Real Facts No, I wasn't suggesting an employment effect. I was pointing out that Radbot's hypothetical story where a minimum wage hike drives fast food establishments out of business for the good of society must produce a measurable employment effect, even in the short term, which is at odds with the research you were frantically posting while missing the point, and therefore his hypothetical is likely wrong. Ardennes posted:I don't follow this, who exactly is going to be hurt enough by a minimum wage increase to need to stop it ? Minimum and near-minimum wage workers will have increased pay to take care of price increases, the middle class and upper class have the ability to pay which leaves you those who don't have working income, most of which is some variety of government assistance, who is hurting enough to block the idea? Even if you think this is mostly a transfer from the middle class people and above as well as the government to minimum/near minimum wage workers, where is the problem here? I think minimum wages are a transfer from people who don't get minimum wage income to those that do. poor people without wage income will transfer money to Poor people with wage income, and also to middle and upper class households with a source of minimum wage income. I agree that there are situations where this will be welfare enhancing for society, but I don't see any moral imperative to support the policy, particularly as very vulnerable groups like the disabled may bear the brunt of the negatives. quote:In addition, if you accept that study as it is, then the price increases will if anything be predictably small (food service if anything is more likely to be reliant on minimum wage labor than most industries). For every 10% increase in MW you have a .7% increase in prices, how is this is exactly something to be concerned with?. QuarkJets posted:The authors don't make that contention. They say that their results are statistically significant, likely meaning that their reported uncertainties do not cross zero. This is not the same as testing for zero response. The model can have relatively small uncertainties but still be a poor description of the data, if the data has sufficient random variation (such as price data) The plain meaning of "the results are statistically significant" is that they can be confident to reject the null hypothesis. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. quote:We are talking about this paper, right? The one where their first model doesn't even consider errors? You're either bad at reading or being willfully obtuse here. They present the data without error correction methods, and then show that the results are robust even when those error correcting methods are employed. Then they show the same effect with a completely different data set. This is a solid study, and you've identified absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise. down with slavery posted:I'm not sure it says anything about "most" of the additional wage. quote:Even if it does, how would it be possible that the wage gains could be SMALLER than the price increase, which is the only situation in which the net gain would be negative. quote:, I suggest you take a step back and ask yourself "What am I arguing?" because it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Remove the beam from your own eye first. quote:Do you understand that poor people who don't make a wage generally survive off of other poor people who make, you guessed it, wages close or around the minimum, which would, surprise, go up in the case of a raise in the minimum wage. They also survive on government benefits, disability and unemployment benefits, and plenty of other sources which we have no reason to assume would increase with a minimum wage hike. The economic studies that you think are pointless to discuss actually estimate how many poor households would expect to see the benefits of a minimum wage hike. The answer is not "all of them". Not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The plain meaning of "the results are statistically significant" is that they can be confident to reject the null hypothesis. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. These authors make the claim of "statistically significant" with the model that doesn't even consider uncertainties, in Section 3.1. You and I agree that a claim of statistical significance should mean successful rejection of the null hypothesis, but these authors clearly don't. You're asking me to prove a negative. The onus is on them to prove that they have produced statistically significant results, but they haven't done that. quote:You're either bad at reading or being willfully obtuse here. They present the data without error correction methods, and then show that the results are robust even when those error correcting methods are employed. Then they show the same effect with a completely different data set. This is a solid study, and you've identified absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise. It's a solid study that does not reject the null hypothesis, which is necessary in order to accept any of their conclusions. JeffersonClay posted:[quote= [/quote] So you're not arguing that most minimum wage households would be harmed by an increase in the minimum wage? But you wrote this later in the same post: JeffersonClay posted:They also survive on government benefits, disability and unemployment benefits, and plenty of other sources which we have no reason to assume would increase with a minimum wage hike. The economic studies that you think are pointless to discuss actually estimate how many poor households would expect to see the benefits of a minimum wage hike. The answer is not "all of them". Not even close. Okay, so on one hand you think that "not even close" to all minimum wage households would benefit from a minimum wage increase, because of full price pass-through (can you please put in some effort and show this?). On the other hand, you're saying that you don't think that you're likely to find minimum wage households that are negatively impacted by full price pass-through. So which is it? Could you stop posting, think carefully about your position, and then write a post describing it? I think that would be very helpful for the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:00
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then you didn't read the study. "Full pass through" means all the minimum wage hike is paid for by price increases. Yes I'm aware what "full pass through" means, I'm asking you if that makes sense to you. Does the research/data you've read lead you to believe that this would be the case? quote:This could happen if, say, most households with a minimum wage earner were middle class and most of the price increases were paid by the poor. I don't think that's a likely outcome but I didn't argue it was. There are statistics that directly refute this... beyond that, are we really going to talk about only minimum wage earners? Isn't a bit disingenous at this point seeing as "minimum wage increases" are supposed to target a bunch of low wage workers, not just those making minimum wage. quote:Remove the beam from your own eye first. I've actually put my own argument down quite succinctly multiple times. I'll even quote the most recent time. down with slavery posted:Is there really any point in debating the papers/research at this point? I think we can all agree that the data isn't terribly compelling one way or another. I think we can all agree that at a sufficient minimum wage, we will start to see negative unemployment effects. Ultimately, I don't think this is a great reason to avoid raising the minimum wage because we need to figure out what to do with the unemployable, and by that I mean those that can't compete with technology and/or automation (regardless of whether it's their fault or not). Feel free to provide a few paragraphs surmising your position. quote:They also survive on government benefits, disability and unemployment benefits, and plenty of other sources which we have no reason to assume would increase with a minimum wage hike. The economic studies that you think are pointless to discuss actually estimate how many poor households would expect to see the benefits of a minimum wage hike. The answer is not "all of them". Not even close. I don't think they are pointless to discuss, I just think they've been discussed to death and there's not a single person here who hasn't heard enough of it yet. We understand that there are conflicting sources, and like I told you, I'm not going to try to argue that there won't be price increases or employment losses, just that they aren't sufficient enough reason to continue to keep wages unreasonably low. Do you really think there's more to add in the realm of studies and papers that haven't already been discussed to death? Do you think anything productive will come of going down that route of discussion given the past 30 pages or so?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I wasn't suggesting an employment effect. I was pointing out that Radbot's hypothetical story where a minimum wage hike drives fast food establishments out of business for the good of society must produce a measurable employment effect, even in the short term, which is at odds with the research you were frantically posting while missing the point, and therefore his hypothetical is likely wrong. thanks for acknowledging how frantic i was, i'm posting my rear end off over here!! JeffersonClay posted:I think minimum wages are a transfer from people who don't get minimum wage income to those that do. poor people without wage income will transfer money to Poor people with wage income, and also to middle and upper class households with a source of minimum wage income. I agree that there are situations where this will be welfare enhancing for society, but I don't see any moral imperative to support the policy, particularly as very vulnerable groups like the disabled may bear the brunt of the negatives. There's a lot to unpack here, but let's start by summarizing your thesis: You oppose raising the minimum wage because you're concerned that wealth will transfer from those relying solely on government assistance and/or pensions to the working poor. This is an interesting hypothesis. There has been more than enough fluctuation in minimum wage in our recent history to be able to observe this effect, can you point to a study that supports your claim? Also, can you enumerate the size of the middle and upper class household pool that benefits from minimum wage income? I haven't seen that mentioned as any sort of economic factor before, I'm curious as to how large this demographic is. JeffersonClay posted:If we take the study at face value, we know that the number of dollars transferred to minimum wage workers must equal approximately the number of dollars collected in higher prices. So all we need to compare is who will receive higher wages and who will pay higher prices -- there's no extra money coming from corporate profits. Minimum wage earners are more likely to come from poor households, but poor households are more likely to consume minimum wage labor and thus bear price increases, as well. We've already gone over the EPI study that estimates that a 10 percent increase in minimum wage can cause an 0.7 to 1.4 percent increase in prices. Even if that estimate is off by a factor of 4, it's still safe to say that poor households get a net benefit here. I'm not sure why you're reiterating this argument. Even if there is a complete passthrough of benefit in the form of prices of low end goods, low end goods are not the only things you can buy with money. If poor people all of a sudden gain some level of discretionary spending, an incredibly wide range of markets benefit and have incentive to cater to them. I can't see how that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Radbot posted:One of the primary reasons to raise the minimum wage is to force business and the wealthy to stop doing loving nothing with their money. I'd be happy with not raising the minimum wage if domestic reinvestment of 90% of profits were mandatory, for example, or if spending 90% of your profits on domestically-manufactured jet plane demolition derbies were required. I missed this post earlier, but a large part of the reason that businesses and the wealthy don't spend their money is that they now have so loving much of it that it's literally impossible for them to spend it in a way that benefits GDP proportionally to their wealth. A minimum wage hike really woudn't put a dent in this problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:03
|
|