Congressional Republicans sucker punch American steel workers, scrapping 'Buy America' provision

[fskimospy]

I think small to negative should agree with the basic principle though. I mean, raising the wages of a few will have a small to negative effect when the marginal increase is so small. The change nationally is going to be super small. Regionally the effects have been negative. Its totally believable in my view to think that the ability to capture what is going on is likely to get washed out in the noise.

Yes, but plenty of studies have found NO effect, which directly refutes that principle. And remember, these analyses only look at people making minimum wage, so they are not looking at the 'wages of a few', they are looking at the entire population.

As for turnover, I think it can be a negative, but it can also be a positive. Any company that pays its workers to keep them is simply paying more to keep its skilled workers which is expected. It could also be true that raising the minimum wage could cause people who were making less to shift to a position that is easier because their utility is less than anything above. If I were making 15 or below, and the minimum went to 15, and I knew I could not find anything at 16 then I would have a huge incentive to find a position that is easier that pays the same.

I think the my main point is that he was not wrong. Had he made a claim about it being a large loss then maybe, but his original point that raising the minimum wage decreases jobs holds true. Unless the argument is that it might not cost jobs, but reduce hours ect.

I'm sorry but the research doesn't support your conclusion as we've already discussed.

 

[ivwshane]

I think small to negative should agree with the basic principle though. I mean, raising the wages of a few will have a small to negative effect when the marginal increase is so small. The change nationally is going to be super small. Regionally the effects have been negative. Its totally believable in my view to think that the ability to capture what is going on is likely to get washed out in the noise.

As for turnover, I think it can be a negative, but it can also be a positive. Any company that pays its workers to keep them is simply paying more to keep its skilled workers which is expected. It could also be true that raising the minimum wage could cause people who were making less to shift to a position that is easier because their utility is less than anything above. If I were making 15 or below, and the minimum went to 15, and I knew I could not find anything at 16 then I would have a huge incentive to find a position that is easier that pays the same.

I think the my main point is that he was not wrong. Had he made a claim about it being a large loss then maybe, but his original point that raising the minimum wage decreases jobs holds true. Unless the argument is that it might not cost jobs, but reduce hours ect.

/facepalm

You claim to "think" but all you've done so far is to tell us what your gut is telling you. Its apparent that your pride gets in the way of you actually thinking.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, but plenty of studies have found NO effect, which directly refutes that principle. And remember, these analyses only look at people making minimum wage, so they are not looking at the 'wages of a few', they are looking at the entire population.



I'm sorry but the research doesn't support your conclusion as we've already discussed.

Saying no effect is different than they did not find an effect though. I think what the studies said was they found no effect, not that there was not one.

 

[realibrad]

/facepalm

You claim to "think" but all you've done so far is to tell us what your gut is telling you. Its apparent that your pride gets in the way of you actually thinking.

Why not just tell me? Why keep posting about how I got it wrong, and not tell me what is right? That seems very strange.

 

[fskimospy]

Saying no effect is different than they did not find an effect though. I think what the studies said was they found no effect, not that there was not one.

But that's every study ever. I mean if you did a study on whether or not the price of ice cream affected the quantity of unicorn farts the outcome would be that you did not find an effect, not the confirmation of no effect as you can't prove a negative.

 

[ivwshane]

Why not just tell me? Why keep posting about how I got it wrong, and not tell me what is right? That seems very strange.

I'm wasting your time like you do to everyone else you have a "discussion" with.

 

[realibrad]

But that's every study ever. I mean if you did a study on whether or not the price of ice cream affected the quantity of unicorn farts the outcome would be that you did not find an effect, not the confirmation of no effect as you can't prove a negative.

Well that is why narrow differences are generally accepted as not being definitive. Saying he is wrong about a basic underlying principle would in my view require more definitive studies.

Also, if you have been hiding a unicorn, you better start sharing.

 

[realibrad]

I'm wasting your time like you do to everyone else you have a "discussion" with.

Lol okay kiddo. You think I have misunderstood but you wont tell me what I got wrong. I guess it is what it is.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol okay kiddo. You think I have misunderstood but you wont tell me what I got wrong. I guess it is what it is.

Did you read the thread and then re read it again?

If so then can you tell me what the original context was that warranted uglycassanovas response?

 

[fskimospy]

Well that is why narrow differences are generally accepted as not being definitive. Saying he is wrong about a basic underlying principle would in my view require more definitive studies.

Also, if you have been hiding a unicorn, you better start sharing.

I don't agree, it's not saying that he's wrong about a basic underlying principle, it's saying that you don't even know if that principle applies because it's entirely possible that the decrease in training costs and opportunity costs from less competent employees actually exceeds the wage increase, meaning that raising the minimum wage could decrease the cost of labor. In simple terms a large portion of the economic literature says that his statement cannot be supported by the evidence.

 

[realibrad]

Did you read the thread and then re read it again?

If so then can you tell me what the original context was that warranted uglycassanovas response?

The first comment was about Republicans voting against their self interests. The implication being that Republicans were dumb for doing that. The response by Ugly was that Dems do the same thing when they vote for raising the minimum wage that has the effect of pricing out their unskilled labor from the market. Ugly then responded saying that he must need to go back to school to relearn basic economic principles, because as far as he knew, raising the minimum wage puts pressure on low wage jobs. You then responded saying that the assumption about raising the minimum wage was based on old assumptions from the 60,70s ect. He then responded saying the principles were still the same. Spy then challenged that by saying that recent studies show little to no negative effects to raising the minimum wage. That is when I jumped in and challenged Spy.

Miss anything?

 

[realibrad]

I don't agree, it's not saying that he's wrong about a basic underlying principle, it's saying that you don't even know if that principle applies because it's entirely possible that the decrease in training costs and opportunity costs from less competent employees actually exceeds the wage increase, meaning that raising the minimum wage could decrease the cost of labor. In simple terms a large portion of the economic literature says that his statement cannot be supported by the evidence.

It cant be supported or disproved because the evidence does not seem to point to anything. It could be entirely possible that changes in the minimum wage are offset by employment growth. The fact is that many of the studies have not been very large, so the effects they find are not large. If its true that the market for some odd reason had a turnover rate that was at a rate that was reducing profits, then you could be right. I know of no such study that has looked at that in terms of the minimum wage.

 

[ivwshane]

The first comment was about Republicans voting against their self interests. The implication being that Republicans were dumb for doing that. The response by Ugly was that Dems do the same thing when they vote for raising the minimum wage that has the effect of pricing out their unskilled labor from the market. Ugly then responded saying that he must need to go back to school to relearn basic economic principles, because as far as he knew, raising the minimum wage puts pressure on low wage jobs. You then responded saying that the assumption about raising the minimum wage was based on old assumptions from the 60,70s ect. He then responded saying the principles were still the same. Spy then challenged that by saying that recent studies show little to no negative effects to raising the minimum wage. That is when I jumped in and challenged Spy.

Miss anything?

You did indeed! You missed the part where I said the evidence says otherwise, which eskimospy has patiently explained to you, and its that that shows why supporting raising the minimum wage is not an example of voting against one interests.

Now that you should thoroughly understand the context of this discussion and how ugly was wrong, and how econ 101 doesn't give one a good basic understanding of economics, we can move on from your buckshatting of this thread. Right?

 

[ivwshane]

It cant be supported or disproved because the evidence does not seem to point to anything. It could be entirely possible that changes in the minimum wage are offset by employment growth. The fact is that many of the studies have not been very large, so the effects they find are not large. If its true that the market for some odd reason had a turnover rate that was at a rate that was reducing profits, then you could be right. I know of no such study that has looked at that in terms of the minimum wage.

/facepalm

/brick wall

 

[realibrad]

You did indeed! You missed the part where I said the evidence says otherwise, which eskimospy has patiently explained to you, and its that that shows why supporting raising the minimum wage is not an example of voting against one interests.

Now that you should thoroughly understand the context of this discussion and how ugly was wrong, and how econ 101 doesn't give one a good basic understanding of economics, we can move on from your buckshatting of this thread. Right?

Except dummy, the evidence does not say otherwise. From the link that Spy posted you can find this in the conclusion.

The minimum wage literature is not only large but also growing and the empirical studies on the employment effect of minimum wages still produce controversial results. During the last five years we have found dozens of published and unpublished studies on the employment effect of minimum wages which approach the impact from different point of views and use various methods and models. The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship between minimum wages and employment using a meta-sample of 45 empirical studies published in academic journals within the 2010-2014 period. Our analysis points to the existence of publication bias in the elasticities’ meta-sample but once it is corrected, the impact is so small that is of no significant use. On the other hand, in the coefficients’ meta-sample, no evidence of publication bias is found in the multiple meta-regression analysis and again the minimum wage effect is negative but small. In addition, we identify as potential sources of heterogeneity of the results the study characteristics related to the data, the model specifications, the group of population, the minimum wage and employment measurements and the industry concerned.

See that? I know right, weird. See, the study Spy linked to was to show that the effects of minimum wage were not as large as predicted, likely due to other causes. I have been on topic this whole time. Somehow, you believe that there is evidence that says that the minimum wage does not have an effect. At best, the argument is that the effect might be too small to measure, or that its slightly negative. What me and Spy have been talking about is why that might be. You questioned the underlying principle because you have no idea what you are talking about. Then you tried to make it seem like I was off topic. I was not and am not.

That is why Spy was willing to talk to me and discuss things. You have no idea what you are talking about, other than a few articles where someone somewhere once said a thing.

 

[ivwshane]

Except dummy, the evidence does not say otherwise. From the link that Spy posted you can find this in the conclusion.



See that? I know right, weird. See, the study Spy linked to was to show that the effects of minimum wage were not as large as predicted, likely due to other causes. I have been on topic this whole time. Somehow, you believe that there is evidence that says that the minimum wage does not have an effect. At best, the argument is that the effect might be too small to measure, or that its slightly negative. What me and Spy have been talking about is why that might be. You questioned the underlying principle because you have no idea what you are talking about. Then you tried to make it seem like I was off topic. I was not and am not.

That is why Spy was willing to talk to me and discuss things. You have no idea what you are talking about, other than a few articles where someone somewhere once said a thing.

Lol sure sport.

 

[fskimospy]

It cant be supported or disproved because the evidence does not seem to point to anything. It could be entirely possible that changes in the minimum wage are offset by employment growth. The fact is that many of the studies have not been very large, so the effects they find are not large. If its true that the market for some odd reason had a turnover rate that was at a rate that was reducing profits, then you could be right. I know of no such study that has looked at that in terms of the minimum wage.

Yes but 'disproven' doesn't matter here as nothing is ever disproven in research, hence my earlier unicorn fart example. The evidence not pointing to anything means the answer is no. Remember, research is only about proving an effect, not about disproving an effect, which again would be impossible.

Also the size of the study has little to do with the magnitude of the effect, if anything smaller studies should have exaggerated effects as their confidence intervals would be larger.

 

[realibrad]

Yes but 'disproven' doesn't matter here as nothing is ever disproven in research, hence my earlier unicorn fart example. The evidence not pointing to anything means the answer is no. Remember, research is only about proving an effect, not about disproving an effect, which again would be impossible.

Also the size of the study has little to do with the magnitude of the effect, if anything smaller studies should have exaggerated effects as their confidence intervals would be larger.

I did not mean disproved in the pedantic sense. I mean reasonably disproved. The studies show there is a likely negative but reasonable change that its neutral. Ugly said that raising the minimum wage kills jobs and the studies seem to agree. They leave open a reasonable chance it could be neutral, but lean toward negative. What do you think disagrees with the belief that minimum wage kills jobs?

Are you saying that the word kills represents something of scale larger than what the studies suggest? Maybe we are split on that part.

 

[realibrad]

Lol sure sport.

I know I know, its hard to argue when you have no position to do so. I laid out data and reason, and your response was "lol you are missing the point". I ask you what the point is, and you say that evidence was presented to show that the minimum wage does not kill jobs, even though in the conclusion it says it does. But hey, I'm sure you will deflect and pretend that the error is on my end because you cant admit you are wrong. You could explain how my understanding of the paper is flawed, but instead you will do something else.

 

[skull]

I agree. I'm a half breed convicted felon. I got out of prison and was told by 9 out of 10 jobs we don't hire felons. The others were just too nice to tell me to my face. I worked my ass off and kept finding better jobs a step at a time. I'm not rich but I'm doing pretty well for myself. I really don't want to hear how hard it is and how others can't find work. I'm not buying that one bit.

Amen brother I was out on felony probation when I decided to get my life together and stop being a bum. Kept getting turned down for work because of my record. Fine I'll work whatever job they give me and work it harder than anyone else so you have to give me a raise. Just kept working my way up spending all my money on tools for my side jobs until my side jobs turned into a real business. I'm still in poverty according to atot standards but I have it better than I ever have for which I'm grateful.

It drives me nuts hearing but thats too hard or thats too disgusting. Your lucky you weren't born in africa pussy. The poor here have it better than kings in the old days they need to stop bitching and start working. Why should they though? These liberals give them all they need and still think they have to give them what they want. Why? I still can't figure it out. I had the liberal mindset when I kept fucking up my future. Its societies fault, I deserve more. I finally realized what I deserved was a kick in the ass.

 

[FIVR]

Yes it comes as no surprise that Trump is #1 with convicted felons, rapists, and most likely Dylan Roof voted for him early. Maybe Trump will make an appearance at his trial?



The best people, always.

 

[ivwshane]

I did not mean disproved in the pedantic sense. I mean reasonably disproved. The studies show there is a likely negative but reasonable change that its neutral. Ugly said that raising the minimum wage kills jobs and the studies seem to agree. They leave open a reasonable chance it could be neutral, but lean toward negative. What do you think disagrees with the belief that minimum wage kills jobs?

Are you saying that the word kills represents something of scale larger than what the studies suggest? Maybe we are split on that part.

Maybe you are split on that part? Lol. When 98 out of a hundred minimum wage workers get a raise and two of them lose their job one can reasonably say they (minimum wage workers) weren't voting against their will interest. You on the other hand apparently can argue that and will continue arguing that.

Face it buckshit Jr, you don't know what you are talking about and you have been repeatedly corrected and you still don't know what you are talking about.

If eskimospy wants to keep "discussing" it with you then that's on him. I on the other hand, prefer not to buckshat threads to death like you do.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe you are split on that part? Lol. When 98 out of a hundred minimum wage workers get a raise and two of them lose their job one can reasonably say they (minimum wage workers) weren't voting against their will interest. You on the other hand apparently can argue that and will continue arguing that.

Face it buckshit Jr, you don't know what you are talking about and you have been repeatedly corrected and you still don't know what you are talking about.

If eskimospy wants to keep "discussing" it with you then that's on him. I on the other hand, prefer not to buckshat threads to death like you do.

Now you are making up things because you are clearly wrong. If the net effect of minimum wage increases are a net loss of jobs in the short run, they will be a bigger loss of jobs in the long run. Further, it limits upward mobility which is a major concern. But hey, why dont you ask Spy this yourself? You seem to want to pretend that the discussion was not that minimum wage increases reduces jobs and are now trying to say that, while it does reduce jobs, its a benefit to others so its okay. Never mind that those who are typically displaces are the lowest skilled workers and thus the most in need of more income. Fuck those guys right.

Also, my comment was addressed to Spy not you. If you feel that my point to him was not valid enough, then why jump in? He is more than willing to tell me when he thinks im wrong. As I said, you will do anything but admit that I was correctly on topic. Your back must be tired from shifting the goal post.

 

[skull]

Yes it comes as no surprise that Trump is #1 with convicted felons, rapists, and most likely Dylan Roof voted for him early. Maybe Trump will make an appearance at his trial?



The best people, always.

You talking to me? I ignored the last post that I thought you were joking about. This felon thinks trumps a douche bag. I thought you libs were all for felons, no?

 

[ivwshane]

Now you are making up things because you are clearly wrong. If the net effect of minimum wage increases are a net loss of jobs in the short run, they will be a bigger loss of jobs in the long run. Further, it limits upward mobility which is a major concern. But hey, why dont you ask Spy this yourself? You seem to want to pretend that the discussion was not that minimum wage increases reduces jobs and are now trying to say that, while it does reduce jobs, its a benefit to others so its okay. Never mind that those who are typically displaces are the lowest skilled workers and thus the most in need of more income. Fuck those guys right.

Also, my comment was addressed to Spy not you. If you feel that my point to him was not valid enough, then why jump in? He is more than willing to tell me when he thinks im wrong. As I said, you will do anything but admit that I was correctly on topic. Your back must be tired from shifting the goal post.

Lol wut? A small, if any, jobs loss from raising the minimum wage will result in larger job losses in the future? Lol which hole of yours did you pull that from? One can easily look at history to see that you are full of shit both on a micro and macro level! As to upward mobility and its correlation to raising the minimum wage? Well, you'll have to show your work on that one.

Also I never said you weren't on topic, although I did, correctly say you'd straw man us to death and so far you've proven me correct.

Even after correcting your summary you still don't get it. Not only that but you completely ignored my previous post that broke it down to an example even the dumbest people can understand. And your reply? A straw man.

Lol sport