Review of 100+ academic studies shows negative impact of minimum wage hikes

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Supply and demand isn't the end-all-be-all. Look at gas prices. How much has the demand for gasoline fallen with the rise in prices from $1 a decade ago to $4? I paid $4.90 last week and used the exact same amount of I would if it cost me $2.

I ignored that because it's ridiculous. It takes time for people to respond to price changes. You're not going to buy a new car right away if gas prices climb, but you sure are going to consider commute and fuel economy when you move or buy a new car. In time, the market will respond. And you still haven't addressed the fairness issue. How does the entire class being better off if some members of that class are screwed? You're basically asking them to make unfair sacrifices for their peers. But honestly I don't care about your answer.

Anyway, I'm done here. You're obviously not interested in discussing the study itself, but you just want to hear yourself rehashing the same tired misunderstandings.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Many other things happened between 1880 and 1920: unionization, child labor laws, progressive taxation, anti-trust laws, various kinds of government regulation of business. And prosperity increased during that time. And the standard of living continued to increase well beyond the 1920's into the era of social security, medicare, etc. by every known statistical measure.

I'm still looking for the empirical example that proves libertarian economics is consistent with a high standard of living. U.S. economic history certainly doesn't consitute any such proof.

What does this have to do with the study?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Now why would you say I'm unwilling to change my mind? Sounds more like you're the unreasonable one. The book was written by two people who already had a set viewpoint, what further research have you done on this topic? Try reading the Wikipedia page on it, and wait a bit for some peer reviews to come out on their methodology to see if it's accurate. That's what science is about, Infohawk.

Can you please expand what you mean by "the book was written by two people who already had a set viewpoint." First of all, it's a paper not a book. Second of all, you're discrediting their arguments by attacking their motives. That's fallacious reasoning. I can tell you're unwilling to change your mind by the very fact you're not even willing to address their arguments. Instead, you're saying "let's wait for someone to disprove it." Do you even realize that there's is a review of all other studies? This is not an original experiment that you have to wait for someone to replicate the experiment. You should be embarassed to say something like "that's how science works" when you employ irrational arguments (attacking the motives) in the very same post.

Let me try to make this more clear, there's no point talking to you about this unless you want to actually read the linked text and point out specific flaws in it. You're basically saying, "I don't believe it even though I don't know what it says." Don't you realize how idiotic that is?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Can you please expand what you mean by "the book was written by two people who already had a set viewpoint." First of all, it's a paper not a book. Second of all, you're discrediting their arguments by attacking their motives. That's fallacious reasoning. I can tell you're unwilling to change your mind by the very fact you're not even willing to address their arguments. Instead, you're saying "let's wait for someone to disprove it." Do you even realize that there's is a review of all other studies? This is not an original experiment that you have to wait for someone to replicate the experiment. You should be embarassed to say something like "that's how science works" when you employ irrational arguments (attacking the motives) in the very same post.

Let me try to make this more clear, there's no point talking to you about this unless you want to actually read the linked text and point out specific flaws in it. You're basically saying, "I don't believe it even though I don't know what it says." Don't you realize how idiotic that is?

Although I agree with most of what you wrote, the fact that the paper is not peer reviewed is a fair criticism. If the paper's methodology hasn't been verified by an independent source there could be errors in how they got their figures that the average reader isn't going to pick up.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Let's stipulate that the study is right and a minimum wage decreases employment. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't have a minimum wage. Employment at a such a low wage level where the employee needs to be subsidized by the society through low income social programs is not better for society. If you are not at the level where you are productive enough to earn even minimum wage, you should be studying to improve your productivity, not working dead end jobs.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
If you are not at the level where you are productive enough to earn even minimum wage, you should be studying to improve your productivity, not working dead end jobs.

That's awfully judgmental of you. There are a variety of classes of people that might want to have a low-wage job. A teenager, student, or stay-at-home parent might be supported by their savings or parents and choose to answer phones or flip burgers for low wages so that they can have extra spending money.

At the end of the day you think that a government planner can make people and businesses' economic decisions better than they can. Not only has that been shown to be a mistake throughout history but it is remarkably arrogant.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I ignored that because it's ridiculous. It takes time for people to respond to price changes. You're not going to buy a new car right away if gas prices climb, but you sure are going to consider commute and fuel economy when you move or buy a new car. In time, the market will respond. And you still haven't addressed the fairness issue. How does the entire class being better off if some members of that class are screwed? You're basically asking them to make unfair sacrifices for their peers. But honestly I don't care about your answer.

Anyway, I'm done here. You're obviously not interested in discussing the study itself, but you just want to hear yourself rehashing the same tired misunderstandings.

They're being screwed by the government because no one will hire them for a living wage?

Be truthful. It's not the people who would otherwise be working for slave wages that you're concerned about, it's the inflated profits and CEO salaries allowed by the market's trend toward third world socioeconomic stratification that you're worried about.

Fair pay for honest work. It's a simple concept.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
That's awfully judgmental of you. There are a variety of classes of people that might want to have a low-wage job. A teenager, student, or stay-at-home parent might be supported by their savings or parents and choose to answer phones or flip burgers for low wages so that they can have extra spending money.

At the end of the day you think that a government planner can make people and businesses' economic decisions better than they can. Not only has that been shown to be a mistake throughout history but it is remarkably arrogant.

I had no problem getting a minimum wage job as a teenager. Even in high cost of livng CA, it's $8/hr. If you are a student, and are not productive enough to fetch that, get back to school work.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
That's awfully judgmental of you. There are a variety of classes of people that might want to have a low-wage job. A teenager, student, or stay-at-home parent might be supported by their savings or parents and choose to answer phones or flip burgers for low wages so that they can have extra spending money.

At the end of the day you think that a government planner can make people and businesses' economic decisions better than they can. Not only has that been shown to be a mistake throughout history but it is remarkably arrogant.

LOL. High school kids and housewives earning extra spending money. I'm not sure if you're being serious or joking.

The fact is, those "menial" jobs need to be done, and if they need to be done, the people doing them need to be paid a living wage. If the jobs can't exist at a living wage, they shouldn't exist at all.

The working poor shouldn't exist. Fair pay for honest work.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
LOL. High school kids and housewives earning extra spending money. I'm not sure if you're being serious or joking.

The fact is, those "menial" jobs need to be done, and if they need to be done, the people doing them need to be paid a living wage. If the jobs can't exist at a living wage, they shouldn't exist at all.

The working poor shouldn't exist. Fair pay for honest work.

Tell ya what, they should raise the McD's and Walmart workers where you live to the same exact wage as you while leaving your wage unchanged. I bet you will piss and moan that you deserve more because of your education and experience.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Paste me the part where the paper addresses the societal impacts of slave wages and fairness to workers.

The paper and this thread are about the connection between employment rates and the minimum wage. I'm not interested in your off-topic comments.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The working poor shouldn't exist.

I don't even know where to start with that. Should poor people exist at all? Are you so naive that you think we can legislate poverty away? (Please don't bother answering as I really don't care.)

PS I am curious why you keep responding to my posts. You understand I'm not interested in what you have to say right?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I don't even know where to start with that. Should poor people exist at all? Are you so naive that you think we can legislate poverty away? (Please don't bother answering as I really don't care.)

PS I am curious why you keep responding to my posts. You understand I'm not interested in what you have to say right?

Someone working full time and therefore benefiting his employer and society should not be living in poverty. He should be making at least a living wage, enough for a decent basic standard of living. No welfare. No handouts. You don't understand that concept?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Someone working full time and therefore benefiting his employer and society should not be living in poverty. You don't understand that concept?

What do you hope to get out of this discussion? I'm not interested in what you have to say anymore. Why do you keep trying to get me to respond to you?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Infohawk, he is stating the core basis of the idea behind a minimum wage.

Minimum wage isn't meant to create employment, no one argues that fact. It is meant to stop the exploitation of the labor pool.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Let's stipulate that the study is right and a minimum wage decreases employment. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't have a minimum wage. Employment at a such a low wage level where the employee needs to be subsidized by the society through low income social programs is not better for society. If you are not at the level where you are productive enough to earn even minimum wage, you should be studying to improve your productivity, not working dead end jobs.

Thats certainly a reasonable point but that's not what is being argued about. You can't have a rational discussion about trade offs until you admit the downsides of a minimum wage. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the downsides don't exist.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I don't even know where to start with that. Should poor people exist at all? Are you so naive that you think we can legislate poverty away? (Please don't bother answering as I really don't care.)

PS I am curious why you keep responding to my posts. You understand I'm not interested in what you have to say right?

At least you got off your high horse and moved on from "teenager, student, or stay at home parent" to who really will be making this wage, which is poor people. It's not a temporary supplementary income, this is going to be those people's living wage.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
At least you got off your high horse and moved on from "teenager, student, or stay at home parent" to who really will be making this wage, which is poor people. It's not a temporary supplementary income, this is going to be those people's living wage.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I've been posting.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
So much for the War on Poverty.... Poverty is apparently not even considered an evil to be eliminated anymore, at least not by the economists and Infohawk.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Try to have some decency and not misrepresent my positions. Thanks.

How is it a misrepresentation? You oppose the minimum wage, not to mention living wage. You believe that a certain caste of Americans, doing certain types of job, should be able to make below a living wage in exchange for doing those vital jobs.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
So much for the War on Poverty.... Poverty is apparently not even considered an evil to be eliminated anymore, at least not by the economists and Infohawk.

I never said reducing poverty is a bad goal. (This is exactly why you're not worth having a serious discussion with.)