Suburban Poverty Increases... [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Atlanteax

12-07-2006, 01:14 PM

I'd like to know how adults can't get paid more than minimum wage. I got paid more than minimum wage at 15. If you can't produce enough to get paid more than minimum wage, it's your fault.

They're hispanic or brown or black and predominantly uneducated and/or non-speakers of English.

Also, it's not suburban areas doing worse economically.

It's them doing rather well, and thus increasing opportunities for those mentioned above to find employment doing landscaping, housekeeping, and other things of that nature.

In my (affluent) suburb, 4-5 miles of new sidewalk was done by a 100% greasy (they looked that way) hispanic crew. They're also "constant gardeners" (separate hispanic crews).

.

So you have this influx of low-wage earners into high-income residential areas.

Of course there would be a poverty increase in said residental areas.

All this is, is a good news story, or a sharply edged slant, about why more should be spent on social programs or raising the minimum wage.

.

Don't forget these people (those migrating to do landscaping/housekeeping/etc) are being paid in cash.

Raising the minimum wage will do diddly-squat for them, because the probability is high that they are not even being paid minimum wage.

Nevermind that there's no Federal enforcement mechanism to force payment of minimum wage if the payments are done in cash.

.

Perfect example of how often (signficant) things are overlooked when perspectives (such as this story's slant) are being hyped.

Skirmisher

12-07-2006, 01:15 PM

Yell it from a place very high comrade!

Or if you're French.

Sans Jupons!

Interesting that you mention the French as that was what the article made me think of also.

In particular how the riots of this last year pointed out to me how in France and Paris in particular the inner cities were where the most affluent lived with the slums being in the suburbs.

Stanley Burrell

12-07-2006, 01:40 PM

Interesting that you mention the French as that was what the article made me think of also.

In particular how the riots of this last year pointed out to me how in France and Paris in particular the inner cities were where the most affluent lived with the slums being in the suburbs.

I would say that France's apathy and reclusive practices of isolationism directed at certain population densities amongst its cheesy masses very well may have played a rather ginormous role in said rioting.

Then again, perhaps the declining business productivity of raping, robbing and killing the oppressed masses due to the ineffective hassle of having to climb up thirty-five flights of steps in a project building was easily offset by the infallible ease of raping, robbing and killing the oppressed masses of one-level suburban homes. In suburbia. In France.

Ilvane

12-07-2006, 01:45 PM

Skirmisher

12-07-2006, 01:46 PM

They're hispanic or brown or black and predominantly uneducated and/or non-speakers of English.

Also, it's not suburban areas doing worse economically.

It's them doing rather well, and thus increasing opportunities for those mentioned above to find employment doing landscaping, housekeeping, and other things of that nature.

In my (affluent) suburb, 4-5 miles of new sidewalk was done by a 100% greasy (they looked that way) hispanic crew. They're also "constant gardeners" (separate hispanic crews).

.

So you have this influx of low-wage earners into high-income residential areas.

Of course there would be a poverty increase in said residental areas.

All this is, is a good news story, or a sharply edged slant, about why more should be spent on social programs or raising the minimum wage.

.

Don't forget these people (those migrating to do landscaping/housekeeping/etc) are being paid in cash.

Raising the minimum wage will do diddly-squat for them, because the probability is high that they are not even being paid minimum wage.

Nevermind that there's no Federal enforcement mechanism to force payment of minimum wage if the payments are done in cash.

.

Perfect example of how often (signficant) things are overlooked when perspectives (such as this story's slant) are being hyped.

Four to five Miles?

That sounds like a public works crew or at least a crew sub contracted by the towns public works.

If you indeed were so sure they were illegals did you report that fact? Question

People talk alot about illegal workers but then don't actually DO anything.

And my apologies for the sweaty greasiness of a crew outside doing hard physical labor Mr tie man.

TheEschaton

12-07-2006, 02:07 PM

Atlanteax strikes me as the biggest xenophobe we have on the boards, which is ironic, as his name looks faux French.

As for being a communist - eh. Close. I'm a Catholic Socialist. Dorothy Day style.

-TheE-

Atlanteax

12-07-2006, 02:10 PM

Four to five Miles?

That sounds like a public works crew or at least a crew sub contracted by the towns public works.

If you indeed were so sure they were illegals did you report that fact? Question

People talk alot about illegal workers but then don't actually DO anything.

And my apologies for the sweaty greasiness of a crew outside doing hard physical labor Mr tie man.

Or a crew subcontracted by the company hired by the town to do it.

I don't recall saying anything about illegals in my previous post. My point was that they (including the landscapers and housekeepers) are probably being paid at or below the minimum wage in cash, which would lead to the "poverty in suburbia" phenomenon, that the article was hyping.

I had no problem with sweaty and tired bodies outdoors doing physical labor... as I do it regularly at home as well.

I just thought it was uncanny how similiar that crew looked, in apparel, to what is commonly displayed in the media (TV/movies) about the crews (in Mexico) that jumps on trucks looking for work across the border.

Atlanteax

12-07-2006, 02:20 PM

Atlanteax strikes me as the biggest xenophobe we have on the boards, which is ironic, as his name looks faux French.

-TheE-

Nah, I just don't say "African American" ... I say "black".

"Brown" being the catch-all for Asian Indians, Mexicans, etc.

I don't believe in being political correct.

.

Let's see, a childhood friend since the 5th grade and a next-door neighbor (until college) was Chinese. Across the street used to be Vietnamese (I think). On the otherside of my house was Indian (with grandparents living in the home, as seems traditional). Granted, most of the homes on the street was white. But I grew up in a multi-cultural neighborhood that prominently featured a Mosque and a Hindu temple in addition to Christian churches.

When I was working at GM, the coworker of similiar age that I got along the best with was Indian. But his apartment always stunk of curry.

Having been in other Indian homes with a strong lingering smell of curry... I don't think it'd be xenophobic of me to state that most Indian homes seem to permeated with the (foul) scent of curry.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 02:25 PM

The logic that raising the minumum wage will cause all these businesses to close is just scare tactics.

I didn't say it would cause all business to close.. I did say they would pass on their increased expenses on to everyone else.

Skeeter

12-07-2006, 02:27 PM

The logic that raising the minumum wage will cause all these businesses to close is just scare tactics.

With a living wage, people who get paid more SPEND more money at businesses. ALL businesses.

But whatever, think what you want.

Angela

and where will all this extra payroll money come from? Oh right. by raising the price on items that are sold. Now the minimum wage people can't afford them again, and guess what, some of us can't afford them now either because the cost of living has risen faster than our salaries.

but whatever, think what you want.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 02:28 PM

I will say that EVERY Indian's house I've been in has stunk... I later learned it was curry oooozing out of their pores.

xtc

12-07-2006, 02:39 PM

Nah, I just don't say "African American" ... I say "black".

"Brown" being the catch-all for Asian Indians, Mexicans, etc.

I don't believe in being political correct.

.

Let's see, a childhood friend since the 5th grade and a next-door neighbor (until college) was Chinese. Across the street used to be Vietnamese (I think). On the otherside of my house was Indian (with grandparents living in the home, as seems traditional). Granted, most of the homes on the street was white. But I grew up in a multi-cultural neighborhood that prominently featured a Mosque and a Hindu temple in addition to Christian churches.

When I was working at GM, the coworker of similiar age that I got along the best with was Indian. But his apartment always stunk of curry.

Having been in other Indian homes with a strong lingering smell of curry... I don't think it'd be xenophobic of me to state that most Indian homes seem to permeated with the (foul) scent of curry.

I don't think you are a racist but someone reading your last post may conclude that you are.

Saying all Indians smell of curry or that Mexicans are greasy doesn't bode well for race relations.

Almost every Indian home I have been in has been clean and spotless and didn't smell of curry. Of course this takes a little extra effort, close all the doors to the kitchens when cooking, use an overheard fan and be spotless in your cleaning.

I have met very few Mexicans, excludung trips to Mexico, but I wouldn't have described them as greasy.

In Toronto many ethnicites complain that white people aren't clean.

Making such comments, as you have, only leads to racial tension and I think you are above that.

TheEschaton

12-07-2006, 02:54 PM

Firstly, curry doesn't stink. It's just different from your preferred tastes. I love the smell of curry and would feel at home anywhere which smelled of it. And I know many white people who love curry (it's like, the national food of the UK practically). To A) conclude it stinks, and B) apply it to all Indians, is idiotic, and xenophobic (IE, not accepting of other cultures - which doesn't necessarily mean racist, another contention you just assumed).

The same application goes for the "greasy" Mexican thing.

Let's say a shop has a market of 100 people. I think that's reasonable for, say, a corner bodega. Said bodega probably employs 3-5 people who aren't members of the family. Say they all work 40 hour weeks. Say you raise their minimum wage.....$2 (which is more than anyone is suggesting). So now, 5 people are earning $80, for a total of $400 more a month.

Now, take all the products in the bodega IN A MONTH, and spread that $400 over it. If you have 400 products in the bodega in a month, you have an average $1 raise in prices. If you have 4000 items (which seems to me a bare minimum), you have a 10 cent increase on average, per item.

10 cents per item, say the average consumer buys 5-10 items per week. It doesn't seem to be an unreasonable expense. And I think most stores have a higher product to employee ratio than my illustration, and a lower potential minimum wage increase. 10 cents seems to me, a worst case scenario.

-TheE-

Hulkein

12-07-2006, 02:57 PM

Shit doesn't stink either, it's all preference.

Gan

12-07-2006, 02:59 PM

The logic that raising the minumum wage will cause all these businesses to close is just scare tactics.

With a living wage, people who get paid more SPEND more money at businesses. ALL businesses.

But whatever, think what you want.

Angela

They have to spend more money because things will cost more with pass through costs associated with higher manufacture/distribution labor costs. You honestly think the manufacturers/distributors/retailers are going to eat the increased costs of labor? Come on now.

Sean

12-07-2006, 03:14 PM

Did you bother to stop and ask any of them if they were being paid a legal wage? Or are you just assuming they were being paid an untaxed sum under the table funded by your municipalities subcontractor?

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 03:21 PM

Ilvane

12-07-2006, 03:39 PM

So, if you are not rich enough to go to school, and get a job making more than minimum wage, you should have to suffer with it?

You pay people a living wage: They don't have to use public assistance, which lowers taxes eventually, no?

There are many good arguments for a higher minimum wage. Why would you begrudge people who work that hard a better life?

Angela

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 03:42 PM

Quick lesson for Ilvane:

Average number of employees=45
Average wage prior to wage hike = $7.00
Average wage after wage hike = $8.00
Average hours worked per week = 40
Average yearly salary per employee before wage hike = $14,560
Average yearly salary per employee after wage hike = $16,640
Average percentage of benefits per employee = 37%
Average price of benefits per employee before wage hike = $5,387
Average price of benefits per employee after wage hike = $6,157

Total labor before wage hike = $655,200
Total benefits before wage hike = $242,415

Total labor after wage hike = $748,800
Total benefits after wage hike = $277,065

Total wages/benefit increase after wage hike = $128,250

So does this owner just take a $128,250 pay cut or will he raise the price of his goods to accomodate this new cost? A good businessman will probably increase his price as far as the market can handle.. then cut labor to make up for the rest. At $128,250.. he would lay off almost 8 employees.

And take note.. this is only labor. This does not include all the businesses he buys supplies from to make his good or deliver his services. Almost every single business will be looking at an increase in labor and supplies.

Scare tactics indeed. If I was one of those 8 employees.. I would most certainly be scared.

Skirmisher

12-07-2006, 03:42 PM

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 03:43 PM

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 03:44 PM

There are many good arguments for a higher minimum wage.
Angela

Please offer one, because I haven't heard one yet.

Back

12-07-2006, 03:45 PM

For every 6 people you are giving this better life to.. you are putting at least one on the unemployement line.

But hey.. 6 > 1.. so fuck that one.

Would you punish a child for the fault of the parents?

Bobmuhthol

12-07-2006, 03:45 PM

Higher minimum wage is almost always a good idea.

Sean

12-07-2006, 03:56 PM

How many Min. Wage jobs that you can think of include benefits?

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 04:01 PM

Higher minimum wage is almost always a good idea.

Or not.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 04:07 PM

How many Min. Wage jobs that you can think of include benefits?

To be honest I can't think of ANY min wage jobs. Even day labor pays 8-10.

Bobmuhthol

12-07-2006, 04:19 PM

<<Or not.>>

Living expenses always go up. I haven't seen very much deflation lately. Keeping the same minimum wage for too long is an awful idea.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 04:49 PM

<<Or not.>>

Living expenses always go up. I haven't seen very much deflation lately. Keeping the same minimum wage for too long is an awful idea.

You'll figure it out when you grow up.

Apathy

12-07-2006, 04:56 PM

I was excited to add my insight that suburban poverty increases are directly correlated to urban re-development...but then I read this thread about minimum wage that I've read like 20 other times and got sad again.

So now I just don't care, as usual. Carry on.

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 05:11 PM

Would you punish a child for the fault of the parents?

Would you punish an entire family because a couple Democrats want to get re-elected?

Jazuela

12-07-2006, 05:12 PM

I think minimum wage is irrelevent. Most minimum wage jobs aren't full time anyway, and part time work isn't exactly the preferred choice for wage-earners in family environments. Minimum wage here in Connecticut is $7.35, a good 2 bucks higher than the federal minimum. Unfortunately this has cause the cost of living to increase in the state, making it one of the most expensive states in the country to live in. No, business don't go under. But they do charge more. Take a look at all the higher minimum wage states. They are all on the top of the list of expensive states to live in.

Raise the cost of having employees, and you'll have to raise the cost of the product they offer to customers. That's just how it works. I can think of a few things to help ease some of the problems, but none, even combined with others, as an actual solution. I'm sure all of us can think of ideas to help, but I doubt anyone can make a blanket statement about what will "solve" the problem. Because if they could, it would've been done already.

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 05:13 PM

How many Min. Wage jobs that you can think of include benefits?

Notice how my example didn't include a specific minimum wage position? Another great point you bring up Sean.. that raising the minimum wage increases the wages up most of the labor pyramid.

Excellent point.

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 05:18 PM

Higher minimum wage is almost always a good idea.

Says the 16 year old. I would expect you to want it to go up as your age level is the one who is paid that wage the most.

Then again, I'm trying to think of how 'poor' I actually was back then. No bills to speak of, so it was just spending money to me.

Back

12-07-2006, 05:29 PM

Would you punish an entire family because a couple Democrats want to get re-elected?

I don’t see how that correlates with punishing the child for the fault of the parents. Then again, you live in PB Land so logic is reversed.

xtc

12-07-2006, 05:29 PM

Says the 16 year old. I would expect you to want it to go up as your age level is the one who is paid that wage the most.

Then again, I'm trying to think of how 'poor' I actually was back then. No bills to speak of, so it was just spending money to me.

He is 16, encourage him to justify his argument.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 05:31 PM

We don't need another know it all 16 year olds response to a grown up thread XTC.. your replies are enough.

xtc

12-07-2006, 05:39 PM

So, if you are not rich enough to go to school, and get a job making more than minimum wage, you should have to suffer with it?

There are loans, grants, scholarships or work a job when you are in College. There are also apprenticeship programs for trades like plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, welders, tool & die makers, etc. There are on the job training programs that many firms offer, some firms will pay for your degree if you agree to work X number of months/years for them. There is night school for College.

You pay people a living wage: They don't have to use public assistance, which lowers taxes eventually, no?

That "living wage" drives up costs which either leads to highers prices or fewer jobs, or loss of jobs to offshore usually China.

A beter solution is to have that minimum wage challenge people to work hard and get a head. As the move up the ladder and earn more they pay more taxes.

There are many good arguments for a higher minimum wage. Why would you begrudge people who work that hard a better life?

I have yet to hear a good argument for a higher minimum wage. If you want a better life, work harder, go back to school, and get ahead.

Bobmuhthol

12-07-2006, 05:39 PM

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 05:42 PM

Back

12-07-2006, 05:44 PM

I have yet to hear a good argument for a higher minimum wage. If you want a better life, work harder, go back to school, and get ahead.

Why even have a minimum wage?

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 05:45 PM

Says the communist.

Back

12-07-2006, 05:46 PM

Says the communist.

Says the alcoholic unemployed house-husband.

xtc

12-07-2006, 05:50 PM

Would you punish a child for the fault of the parents?

Man you really are a socialist aren't you :). I see some of your logic sometimes but I have to part company with you today.

Society isn't punishing those children. Their parents choose to have children while earning minimum wage. If those children are under privileged, they have their parents to blame. If I choose to help that family through charities that is my choice but I am not going to damage the economy to help them.

Hopefully dumbass Ma & Pa will be motivated to earn more than minimum wage since they now have kids. If not hopefully the kids will be motivated by their poor upbringing to make something of themselves. Either way the blame lies with the parents.

They live in a country that offers free birth control and free sex education. They live in a country where a poor man can become a rich man. They live in a country that offers scholarships and grants and loans to go to school. The onus lies with the parents.

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 05:53 PM

<<Says the 16 year old. I would expect you to want it to go up as your age level is the one who is paid that wage the most.>>

Says the 60 year old. As I'm not employed and have only worked privately (for wages that are equivalent to a lot more than minimum wage), I don't give a fuck about who's getting paid what. Try living on $5.15/hr, then say minimum wage should stay there.

I'm about as close to 60 as you are to your first piece of ass. And once again, read what I posted. Most of the individuals getting paid minimum wage are living at home with their parents and have very little if any living expenses. Like you.

Back

12-07-2006, 05:57 PM

If I choose to help that family through charities that is my choice but I am not going to damage the economy to help them.

Forget for a minute about the hocus-pocus economics of “helping = hurting” our economy (which never, EVER, applies to tax breaks for the corporations or the weathy)...

You say you don’t want to hurt “the economy.” Whose economy are you talking about?

Bobmuhthol

12-07-2006, 05:58 PM

<<And once again, read what I posted.>>

Okay.

I would expect you to want it to go up as your age level is the one who is paid that wage the most.

...

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 06:02 PM

Says the alcoholic unemployed house-husband.

Or not. Have you even dated anyone since beth used you?

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 06:06 PM

Forget for a minute about the hocus-pocus economics of “helping = hurting” our economy (which never, EVER, applies to tax breaks for the corporations or the weathy)...

You say you don’t want to hurt “the economy.” Whose economy are you talking about?

Jesus Christ. Move to fucking Cuba if you want to live in the luxury of Communism. I hear the government says they stamped out all poverty there.

xtc

12-07-2006, 06:07 PM

Forget for a minute about the hocus-pocus economics of “helping = hurting” our economy (which never, EVER, applies to tax breaks for the corporations or the weathy)...

You say you don’t want to hurt “the economy.” Whose economy are you talking about?

In this case America's but the same arguments could apply to Canada's.

The money my firm or I earn is mine. The Government doesn't have some divine right to it. You say the phrase "tax break" like it is a dirty word. This is money individuals or companies EARN.

Giving tax breaks to firms encourages them to open up in our countries or states. Why open a new plant in New York if the taxes are cheaper in Vermont (for example). The tax breaks encourage the firm to invest new money in research and development facilities, purchase capital equipment or build new plants or facilities. All of which are good for the economy.

Why would a wealthy person want to continue to live in the US or Canada? There are many wealthy people who have moved to countries that have a lower tax rate.

Money collected through taxes is not a divine right.

Parkbandit

12-07-2006, 06:07 PM

Or not. Have you even dated anyone since beth used you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

xtc

12-07-2006, 06:09 PM

Can we keep the slurs out of this thread people?

Sean2, if you throw mud it is going to come back to you. Most of the time I just ignore your childish posts, but it seems Backlash isn't as kind as me.

Sean of the Thread

12-07-2006, 06:16 PM

Backlash took it to another level that wasn't necessary and thus he got it back in his eye. If you twits can't keep it on the same intellectual level than I advise you to "opt out" of the thread.

Back

12-07-2006, 07:31 PM

In this case America's but the same arguments could apply to Canada's.

Well, I meant the economy in general. You get razzed for being Canadian so I understand the reaction. The suggestion was that if you consider the economy’s strength mutually beneficial for everyone why would you not consider society as a wholes strength as being mutually beneficial as well?

The money my firm or I earn is mine. The Government doesn't have some divine right to it. You say the phrase "tax break" like it is a dirty word. This is money individuals or companies EARN.

Giving tax breaks to firms encourages them to open up in our countries or states. Why open a new plant in New York if the taxes are cheaper in Vermont (for example). The tax breaks encourage the firm to invest new money in research and development facilities, purchase capital equipment or build new plants or facilities. All of which are good for the economy.

Why would a wealthy person want to continue to live in the US or Canada? There are many wealthy people who have moved to countries that have a lower tax rate.

Money collected through taxes is not a divine right.

I was just saying, its pretty clear that the biggest tax breaks go to the richest people and corporations while the people who actually make those people and corporations rich both by working for and producing for those entities get less tax breaks.

People say, welfare for the poor is bad, people should work themselves out of their poverty, then turn around and say tax breaks for the rich are good because it helps the economy.

It just seems to me that the people who are really getting the welfare and charity are the people who don’t need it.

Back

12-07-2006, 07:54 PM

Gan

12-07-2006, 07:54 PM

For the record, this thread has been fucking hillarious so far.

Keep it up comrades!

:popcorn:

Hulkein

12-07-2006, 10:03 PM

Why would you begrudge people who work that hard a better life?

Angela

No one who works hard can't earn more than minimum wage. MCDONALD'S PAYS FULL TIME EMPLOYEE'S MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE.

If you actually hold a job for more than a month and are somewhat competent, you can make more than minimum wage. Far more than minimum wage, in a lot of fields that require nothing but hard work.

Hulkein

12-07-2006, 10:08 PM

<<Says the 16 year old. I would expect you to want it to go up as your age level is the one who is paid that wage the most.>>

Says the 60 year old. As I'm not employed and have only worked privately (for wages that are equivalent to a lot more than minimum wage), I don't give a fuck about who's getting paid what. Try living on $5.15/hr, then say minimum wage should stay there.

We can tell you've never actually had a job that borders on minimum wage because you're for raising minimum wage. No one gets paid 5.15 an hour unless they are 15 years old and work 10 hours a week at McDonald's.

Artha

12-07-2006, 10:10 PM

My first job consisted mostly of carrying stuff from point A to point B, moving stuff from Point C to point D, then moving stuff from point B to point C and point D to point A. For 8 hours a day. Pretty much anyone could do it and they'd hire just about anyone (one of my coworkers I'm certain had been heavily into meth and/or crack). $7.00 an hour to start, would've been more if I was older.

Ignot

12-07-2006, 10:58 PM

Cost of living rises then you would have to rise wages too. This is not happening. Hence the arguement over minimum wage and credit card debt and...yadda yadda yadda.

Im all for increasing the minimum wage.

Stretch

12-07-2006, 11:09 PM

Rathain

12-07-2006, 11:17 PM

Productivity in the US is stagnant, with wages exceeding per hour units of labor (except in the airbus manufacturing and a few other sects.) Paying workers at a time when costs already exceed their production value is not the way to go. That's why raising minimum wage at this time would not be prudent.

TheEschaton

12-07-2006, 11:33 PM

I have no empathy for illegal immigrants. Or people who have to take on two or three minimum wage jobs. Zero. Zilch.

My family had to overcome the same hurdles as illegals. We did it without breaking the law. Both my parents took blue collar jobs and worked night jobs to make ends meet.

There is opportunity for everyone to succeed in this country without depending on handouts. Are they equal opportunities for everyone? Hell no. But nobody ever said that life was fair. People not to stop bitching and accept the fact that they are accountable for their shitty lives.

Oddly enough, my parents were in the exact same situation - and they (and I) are highly sympathetic to illegals. What do they think?

Oh, and how'd your parents get permanent residence? Because, yanno, if they were both immigrants, and if they had no kids born here, it's been nearly impossible since the 80s.

-TheE-

Hulkein

12-07-2006, 11:42 PM

Who cares? Getting permanent residence has nothing to do with the fact that hard work will insure you're getting paid enough to survive.

Skeeter

12-07-2006, 11:57 PM

Oddly enough, my parents were in the exact same situation - and they (and I) are highly sympathetic to illegals. What do they think?

Oh, and how'd your parents get permanent residence? Because, yanno, if they were both immigrants, and if they had no kids born here, it's been nearly impossible since the 80s.

-TheE-

You've jumped from communist to terrorist again. Plz pick a fringe group and stick with it.

Ignot

12-08-2006, 12:09 AM

Gan

12-08-2006, 01:15 AM

I have no empathy for illegal immigrants. Or people who have to take on two or three minimum wage jobs. Zero. Zilch.

My family had to overcome the same hurdles as illegals. We did it without breaking the law. Both my parents took blue collar jobs and worked night jobs to make ends meet.

There is opportunity for everyone to succeed in this country without depending on handouts. Are they equal opportunities for everyone? Hell no. But nobody ever said that life was fair. People not to stop bitching and accept the fact that they are accountable for their shitty lives.

You are my hero. (for the next 10 minutes at least)

:clap:

Gan

12-08-2006, 01:39 AM

For those who want to do a little more reading on minimum wage and the pros/cons... wikipedia has a decent outlay on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 08:36 AM

There is opportunity for everyone to succeed in this country without depending on handouts. Are they equal opportunities for everyone? Hell no. But nobody ever said that life was fair. People not to stop bitching and accept the fact that they are accountable for their shitty lives.

QFT.

Take some responsibility for your own life instead of looking to others to provide that which you should be.

Valthissa

12-08-2006, 09:39 AM

For those who want to do a little more reading on minimum wage and the pros/cons... wikipedia has a decent outlay on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

Krueger is one of my favorites.

Isn't the minimum wage is mostly a red herring, dangled by politicians for political gain? The real world impact of slightly higher wages is debatable, as the article suggests.

The latest round of discussion on this issue seems to have more people substituting 'living wage' for 'minimum wage'. I suppose as a society we could decide that all jobs had to pay a living wage but my instinct is that we wouldn't like the results.

A thought experiment on wages:

Which would have more impact on wages of the poor:

1) An increase in the minimum wage
2) Deportation of all illegal immigrants

I don't recommend 2 as a strategy but it's a certainty that the poor would see the greatest benefit.

Isn't it important to understand how long the same people are in poverty, not a snapshot of any one year? This measure is sometimes called income mobility and my recollection is that less than 10% of the people in the bottom quintile remain in the bottom quintile after 10 years. I think it's these people that are not improving their economic condition that we should target with programs designed to alleviate their condition. Broad brush approaches, such as raising the minimum wage, seem to me a very inefficient attempt at a solution to poverty.

C/Valth (bored and cold)

Skeeter

12-08-2006, 10:28 AM

Skirmisher

12-08-2006, 10:36 AM

Oddly enough, my parents were in the exact same situation - and they (and I) are highly sympathetic to illegals. What do they think?

Oh, and how'd your parents get permanent residence? Because, yanno, if they were both immigrants, and if they had no kids born here, it's been nearly impossible since the 80s.

-TheE-
That was the first question that sprang to mind for me also.

Sean of the Thread

12-08-2006, 10:46 AM

Well Stretch looks like he is pushing 40 so that would mean he was born well before the 80's.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 10:50 AM

There are hundreds of LEGAL immigrants that are sworn in as citizens each day. The sympathy that people get from crossing our borders illegally and 'beating' the system that we have put in place is mind boggling. I suppose people have the same sympathy for bank robbers.. since they obviously do it because they need money.

Next time one of you bleeding heart liberals get mugged.. realize they are doing it because they have no other choice.

There's a reason they are called ILLEGAL ALIENS... it's not because they followed the laws of this country to get in.

Skirmisher

12-08-2006, 11:02 AM

Gan

12-08-2006, 11:05 AM

Isn't the minimum wage is mostly a red herring, dangled by politicians for political gain? The real world impact of slightly higher wages is debatable, as the article suggests.
Its more political than anything else considering the economics of a wage floor sets the stage for higher labor costs that are eventually passed along to the consumer, thus effectively negating any benefit those working at a minimum wage will ever see.

A thought experiment on wages:

Which would have more impact on wages of the poor:

1) An increase in the minimum wage
2) Deportation of all illegal immigrants

I don't recommend 2 as a strategy but it's a certainty that the poor would see the greatest benefit.
My thoughts exactly. Illegal immigration is a huge factor in bringing down the equilibrium price of wages since Illegals are willing to do 'any' job at almost 'any' price as compared to their more complacent American counterparts. And to add insult to injury, a majority of these wages are sent and spent outside the US so America is also cheated out of taxes and recriprocal purchasing (outside of basic necessities of the workers while working here).

Therefore the impact to the economic status of those actually working at minimum wage rates seems to be greater with immigration rather than skewing the equilibrium price with a wage floor.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 11:17 AM

Okie dokie

Fantastic input.

Thanks.

Skirmisher

12-08-2006, 11:25 AM

Fantastic input.

Thanks.

I was unaware you were the only one who could be sarcastic.

Is it only legal in PBLand if I type it out in all capitals and say something that obviously was not intended?

OMGYESILOVEALLBANKROBBERSANDMUGGERSBECAUSEIDONTCRA PONPEOPLEWHOACTUALLYWANTTOWORKUNLIKESOMANY"REALAMERICANS"

xtc

12-08-2006, 11:52 AM

Well, I meant the economy in general. You get razzed for being Canadian so I understand the reaction. The suggestion was that if you consider the economy’s strength mutually beneficial for everyone why would you not consider society as a wholes strength as being mutually beneficial as well?

I am not sure I understand your question to be honest. I will try I do consider society as a whole strengths being mutually beneficial. In this case I see an increase in the minimum wage being a cause for employment, layoffs, factory closings and losing jobs to China. That isn't beneficial for American workers and certainly isn't beneficial to those at the bottom of the salary scale.

I was just saying, its pretty clear that the biggest tax breaks go to the richest people and corporations while the people who actually make those people and corporations rich both by working for and producing for those entities get less tax breaks.

Rich people get rich by working harder and smarter. Some how we have vilifed success. I think we should applaud it. Successfull people create firms & technologies. Those firms create jobs, entail other firms to succeed, suppliers, local shops and restaurants, etc. The technologies they create may make our lives easier, perhaps there are advances in medical technology that allow us to live longer or fight diseases.

Rich people pay for more services and use less than poor people, so why shouldn't they be entitled to a tax break? I posted stats a while back to substantiate this claim. In terms of dollars firms and rich people carry the lion's share of the tax load.

People say, welfare for the poor is bad, people should work themselves out of their poverty, then turn around and say tax breaks for the rich are good because it helps the economy.

Welfare isn't bad but it shouldn't be abused. It should also be a stop gap measure not a cyclical process. Getting people off welfare is good for society and good for the people.

The tax that rich people and corporations pay entitle poor people to receive welfare. I have never subscribed to the philosophy that you are entitled to my money.

It just seems to me that the people who are really getting the welfare and charity are the people who don’t need it.

Thus lies the problem, we have made inroads into fighting welfare fraud. The pros now how to work the system getting multiple streams of welfare from multiple jurisdictions, at least they were in Ontario prior to Mike Harris. I am not against providing welfare for those who need it. I would like to see those people get off welfare and find a job. In Ontario our work for welfare was very successful in getting people jobs.

xtc

12-08-2006, 11:55 AM

Backlash took it to another level that wasn't necessary and thus he got it back in his eye. If you twits can't keep it on the same intellectual level than I advise you to "opt out" of the thread.

You opened the door with your commie crack. Agreed Backlash's post was more virulent. However you constantly make nasty cracks of a personal nature. I asked you nicely to keep my family out of your cracks on another thread yet you persisted. When you act like that what do you expect?

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 12:07 PM

the bottom line is for an economy to succeed there needs to be a rich a middle class and a poor. You can still decide where you fall on that scale by your willingness to do what it takes to get ahead.

That's if you believe capitalism is the only way. I swear, capitalism is more like a religion than most religions I know...

There are hundreds of LEGAL immigrants that are sworn in as citizens each day. The sympathy that people get from crossing our borders illegally and 'beating' the system that we have put in place is mind boggling. I suppose people have the same sympathy for bank robbers.. since they obviously do it because they need money.

Next time one of you bleeding heart liberals get mugged.. realize they are doing it because they have no other choice.

There's a reason they are called ILLEGAL ALIENS... it's not because they followed the laws of this country to get in.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.......have you ever been an immigrant? Let me tell you how my family became legal. My dad (and the rest of us) came over on his student visa. To get this visa, he had to jump through all sorts of hoops, including guaranteeing his loan from Wharton. The ironic part of this is his Indian uncle, who had married a British woman, and become an economist in London, offered to guarantee the loan. But he was rejected as a valid guarantor. His British (white) wife then went to the American embassy in London, and promised to guarantee my father's loan, using the SAME SOURCE OF FUNDING (my uncle's salary), and was approved - which is how my dad got his visa.

He had no permanent residency, nothing. When he got his MBA, he was supposed to go back to India. However, he had interviewed with a bunch of places, his bank wanted him to work for them, and you know what they had to do? They, as a corporation, HAD TO GUARANTEE he would have a job for the next 7 years (which is how long it took to get citizenship back then), and THEN persuade a Congressman (bless you, Rep. John LaFalce (Ret.)) in the Bank's district, to sponsor a bill which would give my dad and my family green card status.

After that - yeah, it was pretty easy.

So, yeah, you can do it LEGALLY no problem....if you're smart enough to be accepted into graduate level work and then find someone willing to employ you for 5 years and then find a Congressman willing to support your writ for residency.

As for "deporting illegals" as benefitting the poor, it just means that all the jobs they had would be minimum wage. And, as has been shown before - working 40 hours a week at 5.15 an hour makes you a gross of 206.00 a week, *52 weeks = 10,712 a YEAR, before taxes (though at this level, the only tax they would pay are sales taxes) which is UNDER THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. Don't you see that as somewhat wrong?

Oh, but then, I suppose you could have both parents working, making 21.5 grand a year. Their kids are alone since they can't provide their own daycare and they're "too wealthy" to qualify for federally supported daycare, and they're too wealthy to get Medicaid, so they have to provide their own medical insurance...they're too wealthy to get WIC or food stamps, so they have to buy everything at the same price as everyone else....

As for minimum wage never being minimum wage: uhhh, I know tons of jobs in Buffalo that are 5.15 an hour. With adults working them. Only since I've moved to Boston have I seen jobs starting around 7.00, but that's because to live in Boston is a significantly higher cost.

-TheE-

Valthissa

12-08-2006, 01:07 PM

As for "deporting illegals" as benefitting the poor, it just means that all the jobs they had would be minimum wage. And, as has been shown before - working 40 hours a week at 5.15 an hour makes you a gross of 206.00 a week, *52 weeks = 10,712 a YEAR, before taxes (though at this level, the only tax they would pay are sales taxes) which is UNDER THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. Don't you see that as somewhat wrong?

-TheE-

If you honestly believe that the result of losing 10 million illegal immigrants to the labor market would be that they would be replaced by minmimum wage jobs then it will be difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you on economics. It's not that I am advocating this as policy (it's a hypothetical), I am merely pointing out that the presence of this cheap labor benefits business at the expense of labor. The labor affected happens to at the lowest end of the wage scale.

Borjas is particularly good on the subject. Harvard economist, Cuban immigrant.

C/Valth

Daniel

12-08-2006, 01:20 PM

How would you pay for the logisitcal and administrative nightmare that would be deporting all illegal immigrants?

You think you just will that shit and it happens?

Gan

12-08-2006, 01:22 PM

I hear the Germans were pretty efficient at segregating the population based on certain criteria.

:whistle:

Ilvane

12-08-2006, 01:25 PM

Wow, just wow.

Angela

Daniel

12-08-2006, 01:28 PM

Good answer.

Valthissa

12-08-2006, 02:28 PM

How would you pay for the logisitcal and administrative nightmare that would be deporting all illegal immigrants?

You think you just will that shit and it happens?

It's a hypothetical as in - absent the pool of illegal immigrants, wages would be higher.

I intended to show that wage determination at the lower end of the market is more than just 'raise minimum wage good, lower minimum wage bad'.

C/Valth

Daniel

12-08-2006, 02:41 PM

It's a worthless activity that leads people to false conclusions.

Not to mention the bias of having one side of the comparing one side theoretically and the other realistically.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 03:35 PM

You opened the door with your commie crack. Agreed Backlash's post was more virulent. However you constantly make nasty cracks of a personal nature. I asked you nicely to keep my family out of your cracks on another thread yet you persisted. When you act like that what do you expect?

I doubt Backlash was offended by the commie comment... so I don't believe you are correct in saying that Sean2 started with the nasty cracks. That's like calling me an economic conservative and believing somehow I would take it negatively.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.......have you ever been an immigrant?

Unless you are of American Indian decent.. which I am not... I'm pretty sure at some point in your family tree you were an immigrant. And while I really am sorry your parents had a tough time getting into the country.. (not really)I think that's really put in place for a reason. Should we just open our borders and let anyone and everyone come into our country, use our resources and live the American dream? When is enough enough already? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? How many people do you believe can effectively be absorbed into our culture each year?

Immigrants have a tough time getting into the US? Great.. they should. If they come into this country illegally? They should be identified and thrown back to the country they came from. If they choose to come to the US, they need to do it legally.

Latrinsorm

12-08-2006, 04:15 PM

(not really)See this is your problem PB, you're too much of a bleeding heart.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 04:30 PM

See this is your problem PB, you're too much of a bleeding heart.

Yea.. I had to actually edit that in when I re-read my post. I should have said I WANT to feel bad for you.. but really don't.

Becoming an American isn't a right, it's a privilege. You don't want to follow our laws? Feel free to get kicked right back where you came from.

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 04:53 PM

Being free in the American way is a right, not a privilege, and people should be allowed to be American if they want to be...

we just open our borders and let anyone and everyone come into our country, use our resources and live the American dream?

Isn't that capitalism? The free flow of productivity to wherever? What happened to "Give me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free"?

-TheE-

CrystalTears

12-08-2006, 04:58 PM

Being free as an American is a right. Being free as an illegal immigrant is not.

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 05:00 PM

Artha

12-08-2006, 05:04 PM

Unfortunately that right is trumped by breaking the law, which they're doing by being here illegally.

Unless you're saying we should release all of our prisoners too?

Sean

12-08-2006, 05:15 PM

Most people coming from Mexico aren't coming here to be "free" they are coming here for better living conditions. I'd also venture a guess that when most people refer to illegal immigrants they aren't referring to people who made it here seeking asylum from genocide.

Although I'm not sure illegal immigrants are creating an increase in suburban poverty. How many people here on the PC live/lived in the burb' and how many of those communities have a relevant number of illegal immigrants draining the economy?

That said I'm for raising in the minimum wage but I don't think it will drastically effect the suburbs. But maybe I have a misconception about what constitutes a suburb. I've always viewed the burbs as primarily middle class. It'd be pretty damn bard to be a true middle classer on a min. wage salary.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 05:25 PM

Being free is an inalienable right. If the only way to be as free as Americans are is to be American, don't we have a moral obligation to let them be American?

Philosophy and morality would say yes. Bigotry and xenophobia would say no.

That is the best comeback you have? Because I believe people should immigrate to this country LEGALLY, then I must be a bigot or a xenophob.

You are retarded, plain and simple.

Who am I a bigot against? Every single non-American? Do you realize how fucking stupid you are to even suggest that?

Please come to us with more than a stupid moveon.org catch phrase if you want to debate simpleton.

Jesuit

12-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Speaking of illegals, we should import more dirt from the third world like this.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53192

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 05:34 PM

What happened to "Give me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free"?

-TheE-

You do realize where that phrase is and when it was placed there right? Please tell me you do know this at least.

Also.. if you know the time period.. do me a favor and check the population of the US at the time. Also check the immigration policy at the time. Finally check how many states we had at the time.

Once you do that, I'm pretty sure a light will flash in your head and you will realize that times do change. That a country, no matter how great, cannot keep their gates completely open at all times and to whoever wants to come over. There comes a point where the influx of immigrants is too much to be absorbed by the country without having a negative economic impact.

Jesuit

12-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Once you do that, I'm pretty sure a light will flash in your head and you will realize that times do change. That a country, no matter how great, cannot keep their gates completely open at all times and to whoever wants to come over. There comes a point where the influx of immigrants is too much to be absorbed by the country without having a negative economic impact.

Hey maybe he'll get a job and send all his money to pick up the slack. You never know.

Sean

12-08-2006, 05:38 PM

I agree with you in theory TheE but that's not applicable in real life.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 05:44 PM

I'm not calling you a bigot nor a xenophobe, whereas you are calling me a simpleton and "fucking stupid", which, I assure you, I am not.

I'm merely saying, we hold certain rights to be inalienable, and that those rights apply to all mankind. One of those is the pursuit of happiness. If a person cannot "pursue" happiness (due to, say, the Monroe doctrine treating Latin America as a stomping ground for American companies to exploit them), in their home country, don't we have a philosophical and moral obligation to let them pursue it here? Then, I merely said, to not acknowledge this strikes me as simply making a case based on xenophobia, by saying people should be "thrown back to where they came from", which, I believe, was your statement.

-TheE-

In 2 paragraphs.. you first say you aren't calling me a bigot or a xenophobe.. then you say I am. Which is it? I either am or I am not.

You are confused about using United States of America documents and giving it worldwide meaning. People do have a right to pursue happiness. They can fight for it, much like our fore fathers did in the Revolutionary War.. or they can sit and take it up the ass by the people they continue to leave in power. Freedom always has a price unfortunately. We have bled a shitload of blood to have the type of country we live in. That is our right, because we legally became Americans. Be it the way my family first did in the late 1600s or by the way your family did just a few years back. We're both Americans and have the right to call ourselves that.

It is NOT a right of mankind to come over to this country ILLEGALLY and try to hide in this country.

Valthissa

12-08-2006, 05:44 PM

It's a worthless activity that leads people to false conclusions.

Not to mention the bias of having one side of the comparing one side theoretically and the other realistically.

To what false conclusion am I trying to lead people?

I admit that I am relying on Paul Krugman and George Borjas for the premise of my hypothetical, both of whom claim categorically that illegal immigration depresses the wages of the poor. If you have a source, I'll gladly review it as economic theory is an area that I've been interested in over the last 30 years.

Also, it's helpful if, when you make an assertion, that you provide some supporting evidence or clarifying statement.

C/Valth

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 05:47 PM

I agree with you in theory TheE but that's not applicable in real life.

That's the difference, TheE lives on Fantasy Island. I live in the real world.

Hell, I would be the biggest supporter of Communism and Socialism if I thought for a moment it would work the way it's supposed to.

But human nature > communistic ideals and as such it will never and has never worked.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 05:50 PM

Speaking of illegals, we should import more dirt from the third world like this.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53192

We have plenty of our own dirt. Stupidity and drunkeness is not exclusive to illegal aliens.

Jesuit

12-08-2006, 05:52 PM

We have plenty of our own dirt. Stupidity and drunkeness is not exclusive to illegal aliens.

That's my point, we have enough to deal with without importing it.

Daniel

12-08-2006, 06:06 PM

To what false conclusion am I trying to lead people?

I admit that I am relying on Paul Krugman and George Borjas for the premise of my hypothetical, both of whom claim categorically that illegal immigration depresses the wages of the poor. If you have a source, I'll gladly review it as economic theory is an area that I've been interested in over the last 30 years.

Also, it's helpful if, when you make an assertion, that you provide some supporting evidence or clarifying statement.

C/Valth

In your initial post you exerted two alternatives, an increase in the minimum wage and the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

To have a fair comparison of the costs of each program you would have to factor in the costs of deporting 10 million people. Where do you get this money? What effects will this have on the economy?

An immense one I assure you.

If you wanted to be objective then you would test the variable of having zero illegal immigrants.

However, this presents two opposing methods, deportation or legalization.

Parkbandit

12-08-2006, 06:12 PM

Secure the borders first.. then let's talk about deporting illegals. You can't deport them out until you stop them from just walking across borders to get in.

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 06:55 PM

Those principles can be found at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Don't know exactly when the plaque was put there, but I imagine the mid to late 1800s?

This country may change, in context, political situation, and so on, and so forth...but principles NEVER change. In fact, the word "inalienable" basically means that we're born with such rights, and they cannot ever be taken away.

And I'll live in an idealist world as long as I want, when the real world is an unjust one. As long as I work towards that idealist world, I don't think you can deny me that.

As for the whole "human nature > ideals of (whatever: communism, socialism)", like Dr. King, I don't believe the "isness" of mankind's current nature should prevent him for striving for his eternal "oughtness".

-TheE-

Apathy

12-08-2006, 07:22 PM

As for the whole "human nature > ideals of (whatever: communism, socialism)", like Dr. King, I don't believe the "isness" of mankind's current nature should prevent him for striving for his eternal "oughtness".

-TheE-

Oughtness according to you. Not everyone agrees with you.

TheEschaton

12-08-2006, 07:37 PM

And I'm glad. Otherwise I'd never be able to sharpen my razor-sharp edge on my Sword of 1,000 Truths by cutting down thick, swarthy lie warthogs.

-TheE-

Latrinsorm

12-08-2006, 10:11 PM

One of those is the pursuit of happiness. If a person cannot "pursue" happiness (due to, say, the Monroe doctrine treating Latin America as a stomping ground for American companies to exploit them), in their home country, don't we have a philosophical and moral obligation to let them pursue it here?Having the right to pursue happiness does not supercede any or all laws one might come across. I'm sure I don't have to provide you with examples of the atrocities people commit in the name of the right to life. Tangentially, the point of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of breaking an immoral law.

Gan

12-08-2006, 10:45 PM

And I'm glad. Otherwise I'd never be able to sharpen my razor-sharp edge on my Sword of 1,000 Truths by cutting down thick, swarthy lie warthogs.

-TheE-

Tip: Your swiss army knife does not count as a sword.

Parkbandit

12-09-2006, 09:21 AM

And I'll live in an idealist world as long as I want, when the real world is an unjust one. As long as I work towards that idealist world, I don't think you can deny me that.

-TheE-

I don't deny for a moment you live in an idealistic fantasy world. I will discount your opinion though, since it's based in your world and not in ours.

Valthissa

12-09-2006, 11:44 AM

In your initial post you exerted two alternatives, an increase in the minimum wage and the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

To have a fair comparison of the costs of each program you would have to factor in the costs of deporting 10 million people. Where do you get this money? What effects will this have on the economy?

An immense one I assure you.

If you wanted to be objective then you would test the variable of having zero illegal immigrants.

However, this presents two opposing methods, deportation or legalization.

In my initial post I intended to make three substantive points:

1) Minimum wage policy is based on politics, not economics
2) The minimum wage is a small factor in wage determination
3) Income mobility is an important measure of poverty and needs to be factored into policies design to help the poor

For point 2) I used the term 'thought experiment' to introduce the choices. I did not actually intend for anyone to infer anything other than 2) above.

I admit to bringing up the subject of illegal immigration to try and stimulate some discussion on the impact of illegals on the poor.

I make no pretense of being objective; I have a point of view which I am willing to modify given sufficient information. I learned a long time ago that I believe many things to be true that are false and many things to be false that are true. Most people agree that they also might be wrong on occasion; it just never seems to be the thing that they are currently discussing with me.

Not that it's germane to the discussion but I am not long descended from immigrants.

C/Valth

TheEschaton

12-09-2006, 12:52 PM

Gan

12-09-2006, 01:27 PM

The minimum wage is not an economics issue, it's a welfare of society, policy issue, yes. That doesn't make it less important. In fact, societal policy, IMHO, is more important than economic policy.

-TheE-

Wrong. It is an economic issue because creating a price floor in a free market raises prices across that market and skews what would be a natural equilibrium for the supply and demand of wages. Its also an economic issue because it artificially raises prices for goods across all sectors, not just goods involved directly with minimum wage labor.

By refusing to recognize that, you're blindly endorsing social welfare at the expense of the very economics you say they're being cheated out of.

Parkbandit

12-09-2006, 01:30 PM

Wrong. It is an economic issue because creating a price floor in a free market raises prices across that market and skews what would be a natural equilibrium for the supply and demand of wages. Its also an economic issue because it artificially raises prices for goods across all sectors, not just goods involved directly with minimum wage labor.

By refusing to recognize that, you're blindly endorsing social welfare at the expense of the very economics you say they're being cheated out of.

Ganalon.. he's already admitted to focusing on his fantasy world and not the real world. He's not wrong, since in his world, he has created the utopia he posts about here.

You need to stop confusing his world and our world.

Gan

12-09-2006, 01:39 PM

Ganalon.. he's already admitted to focusing on his fantasy world and not the real world. He's not wrong, since in his world, he has created the utopia he posts about here.

You need to stop confusing his world and our world.

:lol:

I stand thoroughly chastised. Thank you sir, may I have another!

Daniel

12-09-2006, 02:20 PM

In my initial post I intended to make three substantive points:

1) Minimum wage policy is based on politics, not economics
2) The minimum wage is a small factor in wage determination
3) Income mobility is an important measure of poverty and needs to be factored into policies design to help the poor

For point 2) I used the term 'thought experiment' to introduce the choices. I did not actually intend for anyone to infer anything other than 2) above.

I admit to bringing up the subject of illegal immigration to try and stimulate some discussion on the impact of illegals on the poor.

I make no pretense of being objective; I have a point of view which I am willing to modify given sufficient information. I learned a long time ago that I believe many things to be true that are false and many things to be false that are true. Most people agree that they also might be wrong on occasion; it just never seems to be the thing that they are currently discussing with me.

Not that it's germane to the discussion but I am not long descended from immigrants.

C/Valth

Fair enough.

I just personally take exception to people that argue for deportation as if it were a feesible and somehow desirable option. Especially if it is compared to something like the minimum wage for the basis of economic comparison.

Daniel

12-09-2006, 02:24 PM

Wrong. It is an economic issue because creating a price floor in a free market raises prices across that market and skews what would be a natural equilibrium for the supply and demand of wages. Its also an economic issue because it artificially raises prices for goods across all sectors, not just goods involved directly with minimum wage labor.

By refusing to recognize that, you're blindly endorsing social welfare at the expense of the very economics you say they're being cheated out of.

A freely functioning economy is the epitome of a fantasy world.

Economics such be seen as it is, a social science that should be weighted against other sorts of social issues. It should *not* be seen as an organism or system all to it self.

Gan

12-09-2006, 02:50 PM

A freely functioning economy is the epitome of a fantasy world.

Economics such be seen as it is, a social science that should be weighted against other sorts of social issues. It should *not* be seen as an organism or system all to it self.

Agreed in its purest form. I understand the social science perspective since thats the department where my degree was obtained from, thus it was a prevalent perspective in every offered class. From a base understanding, economics is simply the study of the production of, consumption of, distribution of (behavior) resources within a societal structure. However, in the post that you were responding to as to whether it was more of a welfare or political nature rather than an economical nature. All of those mentioned are of a social nature, just with different emphasis on its subset. So in effect it *is* an economic issue.

However, in order to understand some of the implications of economic impacts within that environment, one must first look to its purest extreme and then work backwards.

Daniel

12-09-2006, 03:24 PM

However, in order to understand some of the implications of economic impacts within that environment, one must first look to its purest extreme and then work backwards.

^

I disagree. I think that you must approach issues from the perspective that you find them.

Too often people get caught up in the theoretical and never bother to look at reality.

Milton Freidman in Latin America would be an excellent example, as well as Rostow and today, Sachs. There's merit in stepping back and considering things theoretically, but if it has to be either\or then it's far better to be realistic.

Gan

12-09-2006, 03:32 PM

I disagree. I think that you must approach issues from the perspective that you find them.
To each their own it seems.

Daniel

12-09-2006, 03:33 PM

You silly Idealists.

Rathain

12-09-2006, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rathain
Productivity in the US is stagnant, with wages exceeding per hour units of labor (except in the airbus manufacturing and a few other sects.) Paying workers at a time when costs already exceed their production value is not the way to go. That's why raising minimum wage at this time would not be prudent.

What makes you think this?

I should have said production, and not productivity. J’ai regret. In essence, production values have fallen in the U.S since Oct ‘05. Workers are paid more per unit of labor than they were the previous year, without the accompanying increase in labor output.

As it stands, the increase in GDP is being driven by increase in productivity. Third quarter growth was 2.2%, which was larger than expected. Despite the fall in production, corporate profits were up 30%. The problem here is that this growth is non-sustainable. Short term interest values exceeds that of long term interest. The value of the dollar is faltering in the exchange market when compared to the euro and certain asian currencies. The Fed has the choice of combating a falling GDP or combating inflation, with associated risks of trying to accomplish both. In terms of a global economy, the export driven China and Japan rely heavily upon the U.S. to maintain high rates of positive growth. There will be international pressure, as well as pressure from within, prompting very tough decisions ahead.

The inclusion of minimum wage at this time is not wise because of the complications they already have to face. Further decreasing profits in the eye of real decreased profit in certain service sectors will not aid in upkeeping a positive growth to GDP to satiate international bond-backers.

Just to keep in mind that I only have a BA in finance, and this is my opinion. For a more complete explanation, ask a Ph.D. in Macroeconomic policy. They’ll give you an earful about what’s wrong, and what should be done.

Rathain

12-09-2006, 05:08 PM

A freely functioning economy is the epitome of a fantasy world.

Economics such be seen as it is, a social science that should be weighted against other sorts of social issues. It should *not* be seen as an organism or system all to it self.

Just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Realized economic equilibrium is not what is always best for a society.

Gan

12-09-2006, 06:09 PM

For a more complete explanation, ask a Ph.D. in Macroeconomic policy. They’ll give you an earful about what’s wrong, and what should be done.

No doubt one would at least need a master's in Economics to somewhat understand a PhD such as that. I remember sitting in on a policy think tank symposium while working on my undergrad and remember feeling like I was at the UN without a translator.

I liken that to watching a master organist play Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on a world class pipe organ and wondering how he/she can move all 10 fingers, both hands, and both feet independantly of each other while flying through pages of music.

Valthissa

12-09-2006, 09:19 PM

I liken that to watching a master organist play Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on a world class pipe organ and wondering how he/she can move all 10 fingers, both hands, and both feet independantly of each other while flying through pages of music.

oddly enough, we listened to E. Power Biggs last night for the first time in years. It was the Fantasy in G, but close enough.

C/Valth

Rathain

12-10-2006, 02:28 PM

No doubt one would at least need a master's in Economics to somewhat understand a PhD such as that. I remember sitting in on a policy think tank symposium while working on my undergrad and remember feeling like I was at the UN without a translator.

I had very different experiences from yours. The reason why I suggested Ignot aski a Ph.D., is because of a Ph.D's requisite TA hours and open office hours to assist both MBA and undergrad students. Their didactic prowess greatly exceeds that of an undergrad, because they have far more experience in teaching.

Several seminars and lectures, including those offered by Gregory Mankiew (formerly chief economic advisor to the Bush administration), which were highly computational, were offered at my school. We had very structured discussions during TA hours regarding some of these lectures. Terminology and structure stand constant, with economic models remaining as intellectual numerical constructs. It's not hard to understand what a Ph.D. says with regard to their research in macro policy. If anything, the most difficult thing to understand is their statistical analysis in SAS or some of their strange neural net fixations with IDL.

Even the top MBA programs in the country aren't too rigorous. Across the board, MBA's are notoriously easier tracks than Ph.D. programs, whether one is at Wharton or HBS. MBA programs were even easier, when the pass/fail system was still in place at some schools.

Gan

12-10-2006, 02:58 PM

Realized economic equilibrium is not what is always best for a society.

Specifically with regards to minimum wages. Why would you say that an equilibrium in wage demand and wage supply in a competetive (non-monopolistic) market would not be best for society? (This of course would also be in absentia of labor unions and other fiscal market affectors).

Realistically speaking, it would be difficult at best to remove minimum wages from the market at this point in time... the political rammifications alone would ensure that it survives any attempt of removal.

Yet from a pure theoretical model, equilibrium means that in a free and competetive market the demand price for labor meets/intersects with the supply price for labor. Why would that be a bad thing?

Edited to add: I have some thoughts on this from a theoretical standpoint as to why it [pure labor market equilibrium] can not work in a dynamic labor market such as the US; however, I'd like to see someone elses thoughts before I answer my own question.

Latrinsorm

12-10-2006, 03:32 PM

Yet from a pure theoretical model, equilibrium means that in a free and competetive market the demand price for labor meets/intersects with the supply price for labor. Why would that be a bad thing?There's just no such thing as a perfectly competitive market (c.f. Wal-Mart vs. Ol' Bill's Market & Grocer). Any theory that makes use of one cannot be applied to real life.

Daniel

12-10-2006, 03:46 PM

Keynes pretty much proved that labor markets are anything but ideal.

The reality is that the equilibrium level for wages may be far below the costs of living in a society. Therefore, you would not want the clearing rate for labor to be below the average cost of living. For various reasons.

The labor market can almost never be considered being "ideal" mainly for the fact that most people at the bottom rungs of the labor market have to get by with what they can get.

It's fine to say that someone will look elsewhere for work in a perfect market and thus realize their income needs, but the reality is that the poorest of the poor, in the United States or anywhere else around the world do not have that luxury. It's either because they lack the skills to obtain other employment or lack the financial means to support themselves in this transitionary period.

You can argue that it's there fault that they can only work in menial labor, but I'd argue that someone has to do it. There are countries in South east Asia where people with doctorates can't find anything above menial labor because A) There aren't enough jobs for PHDs B) Someone has to do it and C) You gotta feed your kids somehow.

This virtual monospony creates a situation where the producers of demand are allowed to dictate the terms of labor unabated. This is not what a "free market" means. It's merely allowing those with power to exploit the weak.

Why do you think it is neccessary to have labor and safety standards for all industries? Why do you think the financial system is so heavily regulated? It's because a free market does not work. We know it, and so does everyone else who has had almost any classes in economics. It's an ideal and nothing more.

Those that espouse the free "free" market are either not in touch with reality or are those who make out from the system as it is.

Rathain

12-10-2006, 04:15 PM

Why would you say that an equilibrium in wage demand and wage supply in a competetive (non-monopolistic) market would not be best for society?

In a laissez fair economy, when only the ground rules of commerce have been set, then that would allow the basis of natural equilibrium. The conception of anti-trust laws negates the possibility of a free, competitive market, so natural equilibrium can never be established within this framework. This slant towards the consumer is what is better for society.

Yet from a pure theoretical model, equilibrium means that in a free and competetive market the demand price for labor meets/intersects with the supply price for labor. Why would that be a bad thing?

The relationship of these two plots is not something evil or bad in itself. The problem with such plots is that the equilibrium position here is a numerical construct. It does not factor the quality of life, dependents in a family, or regional disparities in wage and cost of living. The reliance upon pure theory to initiate changes in policy often run concurently with social inequities for this very reason.

Parkbandit

12-10-2006, 04:29 PM

LOL.. I saw an ad on TV for Watchwalmart.com or walmartwatch.com

Holy shit.. do you think the unions want to get in there much?

:lol:

Gan

12-10-2006, 06:41 PM

Intersesting responses.

I went back and dug up my old labor econ textbook because I was reminded of a specific concept with regards to labor market equilibrium and why it can not be 'ideal' in a somwehat 'free' market as seen here in the US. That concept was the efficient wage hypothesis. The premise is that wages, regardless of their elasticity, tend to be determined by more than just your basic supply and demand. This factor that determines wages is based on employer based incentives in order to alleviate costs such as hire/rehire, train/retrain, and productivity. In a nutshell it says that employers are willing to pay higher than the equilibrium wage in order to avoid employees hiring on then leaving as well as employers hoping to attract a higher quality/caliber employee that will have positive offsets in productivity and tenure.

I believe Keynes idea with regards to labor equilibrium focused more on underemployment equilibrium and the long run existence of a labor surplus existing with an equally long run shortage of labor demand.

In a laissez fair economy, when only the ground rules of commerce have been set, then that would allow the basis of natural equilibrium. The conception of anti-trust laws negates the possibility of a free, competitive market, so natural equilibrium can never be established within this framework. This slant towards the consumer is what is better for society.

In other words, there can be no laissez-faire economy in a absolute form. Agreed, that world only exists in theory. Even if it would be a nice social experiement it work in real life.

I suppose that the most defining point of discussing free markets is denoting beforehand if we're talking about a pure (theoretical) free market as described by Adam Smith or are we talking about a realistic free market as defined by the US model (which is free'er than anywhere else but not completely free because of the existance of government regulations). While I tend to be heavily enscnced into the theoretical side when discussing absolutes, I definately realize that there is no actual ceteris paribus when applying theory to realistic models. Principally because not everyone will play nice with each other when it comes to money.

Now to bring it full circle. Would minimum wage increases be good or bad for the economy. Rathain gave a good explanation as to how it would impact the economy on a macroeconomic level with regards to GDP, interest rates, and monetary policy involvement, with a net result that its not a good idea. PB gave a microeconomic perspective from a labor supply side on how it would impact wages paid, cost of production, and how it would translate into aggregate higher costs of goods and services. Based on my own beliefs, and added to some of the other voices here in this thread, I believe it not to be a good thing for the US economy. Here's some thoughts as to why.

We can theorize how the wage earner will benefit from making higher wages yet suffer higher costs of goods and services resultant from them. Basically it boils down to the consumption habits of the minimum wage earner as well as whether or not the industries that employ minimum wage earners can pass along the higher costs of labor to the consumer and still remain competetive or if they will have to reduce labor capital while attempting to maintain a constant amount of productivity realized from a reduced labor force in order to remain profitable. Yet the net result will be that there is still a burden of attaining a survivable standard of living while employed at a minimal wage rate (with or without government assistance). Will it have little if any impact on those working at that level? I dont think so. If anything it will lure others who would be forced to consider additional education away from that consideration if they were faced with an immediate increase in an hourly minimum wage. Therefore continuing the cycle of being a minimal wage earner.

I suppose then we can argue what defines a minimum wage job, why is it paid only minimum wage (what market factors dictate labor supply at that rate) and why are there more immigrants willing to work in these jobs for this rate than their American citizen counterparts. If you paid sanitation workers $100.00/hour would the demand for that job change? Would the social stigma for that job change?

I guess what I'm getting at is that raising the minimum wage in order to help those who earn it meet a minimal standard of living seems to me like treating a symptom instead of the cause. And in the long run it will only hurt those more of whom its trying to help.

Sean of the Thread

12-10-2006, 06:55 PM

Yawn

Gan

12-10-2006, 06:59 PM

Yawn

If I threw in a bunch of porn site tag words would you find it more interesting?

Sean of the Thread

12-10-2006, 07:14 PM

The circle of yarn in this thread just keeps on spinning to the point where I'm no longer interested in reading the rhetoric. Please feel free to post pr0n anything.

Gan

12-10-2006, 07:18 PM

I guess BOOBIES what I'm getting at is BOOBIES that raising the minimum wage BOOBIES in order to help those who earn it BOOBIES meet a minimal standard of living seems BOOBIES to me like treating a symptom BOOBIES instead of the cause. And in the long run BOOBIES it will only hurt those more of BOOBIES whom its trying to help.

Reposted summary paragraph for Sean2's benefit.

Enjoy! BOOBIES

TheEschaton

12-10-2006, 07:23 PM

Great, now I can't read it because of all the Boobies.

-TheE-

Daniel

12-10-2006, 10:42 PM

dont think so. If anything it will lure others who would be forced to consider additional education away from that consideration if they were faced with an immediate increase in an hourly minimum wage. Therefore continuing the cycle of being a minimal wage earner.

^

Are you serious?

Gan

12-11-2006, 12:13 AM

Daniel

12-11-2006, 12:23 AM

Yea. I just had to clarify that you were so out of touch with reality.

You can pretty safely generalize the majority of people working at the minimum wage as people who lack the experience or means (i.e. education) to do anything else.

You could further define this into the group that is passing through, meaning they work through high school and college and then move onto bigger things, and a group of people that fundamentally lack the ability to attain any higher sort of work. This is the group that does not have an education and lacks the means to actually obtain one.

For the first group, it's laughable that you would suggest that they would consider maintaining a career at the minimum wage if it were raised.

For the second, it's likely that raising the minimum wage would *allow* them the opportunity to pursue additional education. Instead of having to work 3-4 part time, or 2-3 full time jobs they could realistically work one and have enough time to pursue education, or even better they wouldn't have to worry about struggling through a month and could afford such things as community college.

To put it bluntly, it's not a matter of desire. It's a matter of ability and opportunity.

Gan

12-11-2006, 12:35 AM

Yea. I just had to clarify that you were so out of touch with reality. Thats why I love debating with you, because you're so knowledgable and in touch with reality. It must be because your mom works at the U of Chicago... /sarcasm

You can pretty safely generalize the majority of people working at the minimum wage as people who lack the experience or means (i.e. education) to do anything else.
Thank you captain obvious.

You could further define this into the group that is passing through, meaning they work through high school and college and then move onto bigger things, and a group of people that fundamentally lack the ability to attain any higher sort of work. This is the group that does not have an education and lacks the means to actually obtain one.
Here's where you're not thinking this through clearly. The first group of high school students are not ALL going to go to college. SOME opt out for the allure of making real wages (especially if the minimum wage was high enough). Unless you're saying that NEVER happens.

For the first group, it's laughable that you would suggest that they would consider maintaining a career at the minimum wage if it were raised. Its laughable that you think it doesnt happen. Not all HS grads go to college. Not all in this group are passing through with the intentions you're giving them consideration for.

For the second, it's likely that raising the minimum wage would *allow* them the opportunity to pursue additional education. Instead of having to work 3-4 part time, or 2-3 full time jobs they could realistically work one and have enough time to pursue education, or even better they wouldn't have to worry about struggling through a month and could afford such things as community college.
Its been written about as the exact opposite in terms of real wages effecting additional education in terms of trade school or college in terms of a rise in real wages. If wages are high enough on a person's utility threshold via an increase in minimum wage, why would they put forth the extra effort and expense of additional education if it met their needs as is? The only thing that would make it otherwise would be the very desire you discount in your next statement.

To put it bluntly, it's not a matter of desire. It's a matter of ability and opportunity.
Ummm, yea. Right.

Gan

12-11-2006, 12:51 AM

Here's an interesting debate on th Becker/Posner Blog about minimum wage for those interested in reading further.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/11/on_raising_the.html

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/11/should_congress.html

These two are an interesting read but a little bias since its a Republican publication.
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/illusion.htm
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

Here's a piece by Joseph Salerno
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005874.asp

A study paper for the Center of Economic Studies
http://www.ces.census.gov/index.php/ces/1.00/cespapers?down_key=101670

Probably the best article I've read yet.
http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch36.asp

Rathain

12-11-2006, 01:12 AM

If anything it will lure others who would be forced to consider additional education away from that consideration if they were faced with an immediate increase in an hourly minimum wage. Therefore continuing the cycle of being a minimal wage earner.

You could further define this into the group that is passing through, meaning they work through high school and college and then move onto bigger things, and a group of people that fundamentally lack the ability to attain any higher sort of work. This is the group that does not have an education and lacks the means to actually obtain one.

Both of you have defined the end spectrum of the labor force. A diverse group that consists of those who seek to:

1) invest human capital with more education, or invest the money elsewhere
2) those who are satisfied with the stability of their income and an increase in the minimum wage will convince them to keep their jobs
3) or those who are target workers, and may actually work less given the wage increase

Quantifying the relative size of each stratum is as difficult as classifying consumers as logical. Hell, #2 and #3 don't make much sense to me, but some people enjoy simplicity and lack of complications in life.

But back to the question...

I don't agree with your earlier argument Ganalon, in large part because of the above. There are people who will use this opportunity to further themselves. Some will be successful, and some will not. At the absolute best, this policy allows those who are both willing and able to enhance their lives. At the very worst, it is a monetary sinkhole to others. This country invests a tremendous amount in research, and students loans, but not all of those endeavors end favorably. I view the minimum wage in the same light: an investment in people as well worth my tax dollars, a stabilizing force for others on the fringes of poverty, and a waste of money on those who choose to foolishly squander even the smallest of opportunities.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 01:12 AM

Ganalon, I realize you don't like looking at sources beyond wikipedia, but I suggest you start looking at some numbers before you start throwing out assumptions. Let's start with:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm

Pay special attention to

A) Educational level of most minimum wage workers (Hint: most have a high school diploma or higher). Therefore, something else, besides education is precluding these people from getting a higher paid job.

In a fully optiminal market, why would *anyone* not accept work for which they were qualified for? If it was just a matter of desire you would think they would take the opportunities that are already open for them. Therefore, it's a matter of opportunity; i.e. there are no other jobs available, or ability; i.e. they are not qualified for the jobs available around them.

B) Hours per week worked:

The vast majority of people work 40 hours or more a week. This hardly suggests that these people are just doing enough to get by, which according to you is sufficient enough for someone to not seek better paying jobs.

Afterall, why would you work beyond full time if you only cared about making the bills?

In any event, you're whole argument about people not wanting to obtain better jobs because their needs would be fulfilled by a higher minimum wage is fundamentally flawed. This is because there is a sizeable gap between the return of investment on higher education and the minimum wage.

The minimum wage would have to surpass the additional income you would generate from having an education. This would amount to almost a doubling of the minimum wage (with the very liberal assumption that all HS graduates and below only make the minimum wage).

Lol.

P.s.

You really suck at this insult thing Ganalon. It's funny that you think a misrepresented quote from someone else's profile and try and turn it into an insult. Especially considering how you threw a hissy fit and cried like a little girl over someone else doing the same thing.

Lol ;)

Daniel

12-11-2006, 01:33 AM

Gan

12-11-2006, 01:55 AM

Ganalon, I realize you don't like looking at sources beyond wikipedia, but I suggest you start looking at some numbers before you start throwing out assumptions.
Funny, I only remember referencing Wiki once, early on in the thread. You might consider browsing through the extra reading links post I submitted before you claim I'm just a Wiki guy. :lol:

A) Educational level of most minimum wage workers (Hint: most have a high school diploma or higher). Therefore, something else, besides education is precluding these people from getting a higher paid job.
Less than a HS diploma: 16.7%
HS Diploma: 83.3%
>HS Diploma but no college: 36.5%
>HS Diploma some college but no degree: 22.3%
But the issue isnt that something else besides education is precluding them from getting a higher paying job. Its the fact that in every group HS (some college) and under, there exists the decision to enter the job market due to a rise in minimum wages vs. the tradeoff of staying in school to realize an even higher ROI with a completed degree. Saying that does not happen is where reality is being denied. Not the other way around as you claim.

B) Hours per week worked:

The vast majority of people work 40 hours or more a week. This hardly suggests that these people are just doing enough to get by, which according to you is sufficient enough for someone to not seek better paying jobs.

Afterall, why would you work beyond full time if you only cared about making the bills?
Simply put, with the average consumption and spending habits of today's American population. It is not unreasonable to understand why one would need to work more than 40 hours a week in order to pay their bills. This is the viscious cycle that I mentioned earlier about higher wages alluring people into the job market who would have entered into additional educational opportunities if the wage rates were not as high. The data helps illlustrate that at 58.8% of the 83% of people who did graduate HS decided NOT to go to or complete a college degree. Without polling EVERY one as to why they did not attend or complete college, it is reasonable to agree with previous studies which illustrate that a significant reason was that wage rates at the minimum level and those wages that were pushed higher by a rise in minimum wages were attractive enough to offer a substitute of utility for that individual.

In any event, you're whole argument about people not wanting to obtain better jobs because their needs would be fulfilled by a higher minimum wage is fundamentally flawed. This is because there is a sizeable gap between the return of investment on higher education and the minimum wage.

First off you're either misunderstanding or mis-stating the argument I put forth. Its not that people are not wanting better jobs, its that people are foregoing additional education that would eventually net them a better job because of the reality of the allure of higher immediate available wages that maximize their current utility. Laughably its not *MY* argument, but one I am echoing from my labor economics text as well as theories and studies, some of which are illustrated in the links I have provided above.

The minimum wage would have to supplant the additional income you would generate from having an education. This would correspond to almost a doubling of the minimum wage (with the very liberal assumption that all HS graduates and below only make the minimum wage).
Do the math, 58% of the 83% that represent HS graduates earning at or below minimum wages indicate the very reality that the theory of higher minimum wages being a tradeoff for additional education exists.

Lol.
Indeed.

You really suck at this insult thing Ganalon. Yes, I do suck at insulting. Perhaps because deep down I'm simply a nice guy. I can think of a lot worse things to suck at though. Perhaps you can give me some pointers since you're so witty.

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:00 AM

Ganalon,

Do we fucking have to go through this every single time?

Googling for articles that match certain criteria of yours does not equal research.

For instance,

From the *only* scholarly article you posted for "more information" this is the Abstract:

Aside from the fact that this correlations no position that you have been trying to make, this effectively says that there is no merit to the position of Posner, that suggests that raising the minimum wage effects training opportunities for low skilled workers.

Translation: This goes against your position.
Actually as the title suggests, its additional links for further reading... NOT Googled articles that support my claimzzz. How was that difficult to understand?

If only you understood the difference between the reduction in investment in on the job training as it implies to minimum wages and what we're curently discussing which is foregone educational opportunity decisions made by the laborer, NOT by the employer. But then if you did, you would not have used this as your example.

If you want some more empirical evidence ( I hate to bring you away from your theory), here's a start.

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/90051397.pdf

I know you're pretty adept with google. So, I won't patronize you by pointing out more.

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to give it a read.

OK, I scanned it. Congratulations, you've managed to pinpoint a study that demonstrates a cancellation effect of a rise in minimum wage and at the same time makes *no* mention of a tradeoff education in lieu of joining the workforce by a sector of the service industry that represents 8.6% (as referenced in the BLS link you provided before) of overall occupations by industry in the US.

Thanks for the link, really.

Rathain

12-11-2006, 02:35 AM

I skimmed your links, and had a chance to look through that '03 paper (including the metrics section) from CES. The '03 paper doesn't bolster any argument, because it pertains to job training that is relevant to the type of work they are already involved in- negating the relevance to career change. Maybe I missed something - I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this.

And I'm confused why you linked blogs. Most of it is qualitative support of arguments. They aren't detailed studies in and of themselves, and their referenced articles aren't directly pertinent. The last article was probably the least objective article I have ever read. the last statement of the article was as follows, "Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerous workers who still prefer to be producers rather than parasites the privilege of making their own free choice."

but one I am echoing from my labor economics text as well as theories and studies, some of which are illustrated in the links I have provided above.

If you really want to substantiate your arguments with sound theory and studies, you should do just that- using articles of sound scientific methodology and statistical work. If you want to include these as support of employed theory, that would also be convincing.

I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, because it is not meant as one... but I've read you using this same type of argument against another poster (Lassiter I think) in a policy debate. I asked you then to substantiate your arguments concretely, which you refused to do at that time. I find myself asking you to elaborate again. And no, I don't have the spare money to pay you to explain yourself this time either :no:

TheEschaton

12-11-2006, 08:52 AM

Firstly, the bad thing of google = it purports to make everyone an expert, when no one is.

Secondly, Posner, though I've spoken to him and he sounds like a nice man, suggests that the law should be broken down into a purely economic breakdown. Which, IMHO, is just silly. You cannot outweigh the human element of the law.

-TheE-

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:08 AM

Before everyone goes all Don Quioxte please understand this before you consider anything else about the current discussion of minimum wages and the negative impacts it can have on those deciding between furthering personal education (college/trade school, etc) and entering the labor force as a full time employee.

Repeat after me, slowly: "Ganalon thinks that this concept/theory/idea is only one of many negative aspects of implementing, sustaining, and increasing a minimum wage".

I have yet to post any sources bolstering this theory because, until now, we are not at that point in defending it. Now, since it has been requested, I will give you my reasons why I believe so, backed with a few references.

With regards to the links earlier posted I'll reiterate: Please refer back to the title/opening statement of the post (of links) for an explanation as to why I posted the links. Please also do not confuse those links with the intention of a defense of the theory/notion that we are currently discussing, because their posting was not for that reason. They are posted for additional reading of different opinions of significant and somewhat notable economists regarding the generic topic of minimum wages and its pros/cons.

Now, onto my defense of the argument that a rise in real wages, through the mechanizations of a minimum wage hike, will encourage people (high school level and thereabouts) to enter the labor force rather than attend college or trade school. Please keep this focus in mind, since it was the point that Daniel was saying it was unrealistic (in so many words).

1. Senior level class in my undergraduate degree: Labor Economics. This concept of the foregone opportunity cost of continued education versus entering into the labor market in lieu of an increase in the base level of wages and how that increase translates into higher wages for most all non-executive labor positions (professional/non-professional) in the labor supply market.

2. Senior level class text: Modern Labor Economics. Ehrenberg & Smith. Sixth edition. Specifically Chapter 9 titled Investments in Human Capital: Education and Training.

3. Real world experience in being a participant in this actual decision when faced with entering the labor market after graduating high school. After having the luxury of working my way through my college degree I can explicitly attest to the allure of entering the labor market after HS and working to elevate an unskilled wage in order to meet a minimal standard of living equalling realistic personal needs and goals of a single male. Then weighing the opportunity costs of less hours worked (of available overtime) and less wages in order to attend college (with the added expense of tuition/books/etc.) with the sacrificed additional wage income that would be available through greater efforts in productivity and overtime.

With that said, I will endeavor to bring to this discussion some 'empirical' data since reality and logic alone is insufficient to demonstrate the mere possibility that the unskilled labor force recognizes this opportunity cost and that some of that cross-section do not represent the foreward thinking individual who sees the long run implications of attaining a college degree or trade school education to further their labor marketability. These individuals are represented by the title of Present-oriented. However I ask that you give me time to search for some specific empiracle and econometric research, since I dont have that referenced specifically in my text.

Lastly:

I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, because it is not meant as one... but I've read you using this same type of argument against another poster (Lassiter I think) in a policy debate. I asked you then to substantiate your arguments concretely, which you refused to do at that time. I find myself asking you to elaborate again. And no, I don't have the spare money to pay you to explain yourself this time either :no:
With regards to your statement, I do not take it as a personal attack, even though your posts, didactic, and education are suspiciously simliar to Lassiter's sans the bravado normally accompanying his thoughts. That thread, and my ending remarks in particular were in frustration at having to repeat the same thing over and over while watching a complete refusal to even acknowledge counterpoints on his behalf. To which I'll point out, again, that posting thoughts and defending ideals here on the PC is voluntary. After a point, the opportunity cost of continuing a debate that is not achieving any goals does not outweigh the time myself and many others spend in their professional (and paid) endeavors. Hence my response to posts that have already been asked/answered.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:09 AM

but I've read you using this same type of argument against another poster (Lassiter I think) in a policy debate.

^

It's a pretty recurrent theme.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:12 AM

With that said, I will endeavor to bring to this discussion some 'empirical' data since reality and logic alone is insufficient to demonstrate the mere possibility that the unskilled labor force recognizes this opportunity cost

Please do.

While you're there, please include numbers that show the difference in earnings for those with higher education than those who do not.

Once again, for this argument to be valid. The return from wages must be higher then the return from education. As it is, that would correspond to at least a 100% increase in the minimum wage.

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:12 AM

but I've read you using this same type of argument against another poster (Lassiter I think) in a policy debate.

^

It's a pretty recurrent theme.

Outstanding contribution... which also seems to be a recurrent theme of yours I might add.

:whistle:

Jazuela

12-11-2006, 09:13 AM

Every time the minimum wage increases, the cost of doing business in that area increases. It isn't just the minimum wage that goes up, it's all wages on the hourly payroll. Example:

Minimum wage 5.15/hour. 20 people getting minimum wage, new hires or people who just haven't gotten a raise yet.

20 people earning 5.50/hour, after being employed at the company for a year.

20 people earning 5.75/hour, after being employed for 1.5 years.
20 at 6.0/hour after 2 years employment

Minimum wage increases to $6.00

You now have 20 people getting an 85-cent increase. Plus 20 people getting a 50-cent increase. Plus 20 people getting a 25-cent increase. And since 20 people have been working for 2 years and are now getting "only" minimum wage, you need to increase their pay to convince them to stay there and continue being productive, proven employees. You should also be giving all those other people raises that bring them -above- minimum wage for the same reason.

So it isn't just a matter of giving 20 people a minimum wage raise. Or even 60 people a minimim wage raise. It's 1) making sure you comply with the minimum for the lowest wage earners on the payroll and 2) making sure everyone who has been working there at a higher-than-minimum continues to work there at a higher-than-minimum.

So, change things up a bit to make it more clear to employees that they are getting the increases equal to their time in the company:

Min earners now get 6 (.85x20=17.00)
1-year earners now get 6.50 (1.x20=20.00)
1.5-year earners now get 6.75 (1.x20=20.00)
2+ year-earners now get 7.00 (1.x20=20.00)

That's an increase of $77.00 per hour for each hour the company employs the same 80 people. Now assume each of those 80 people works 37.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, and there's no shift work or overtime or holiday pay or vacation or personal or sick time that has to be added into the mix. Just everyone working the same 37.5 hours a week. That comes to $2,877.50 per week in additional cost to the company, just to accommodate raises. One year of this increased cost comes to $149,630. For entry-level labor that doesn't require big raises or pension plans or cost-of-living increases. And that doesn't even account for the higher cost of unemployment tax, which must be paid by the company for each employee.

$149,630 per year, for a company that employs 80 full-time day-workers with no overtime, whose employees get unpaid breaks. That is over and above the wages they were earning as of yesterday, before the mandatory minimum wage increased 85 cents per hour. And the example I gave was a fair assessment of what the average retail store, supermarket, movie theatre, fast food restaurant, would look forward to after 2 years of employment in the same place.

Where's that extra $150k coming from? Who is paying it? Obviously not the store manager, he probably isn't even making that much a year and will likely demand an increase as well. The owner of the store? Probably not, because even if he's doing really well, that's a big chunk of change out of his pocket. No, they'll raise the prices of whatever they're selling. Or - they'll realize that they can't accommodate that kind of increase if they're a ma-an-pa kind of place, and go out of business or move their business elsewhere, producing a longer line at the umployment office.

Raising minimum wage isn't "just" raising minimum wage. It involves almost all (if not all) non-management wage-earners in the company, and often will involve every wage-earner in the company, from the lowest-paid to the highest.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:20 AM

But the issue isnt that something else besides education is precluding them from getting a higher paying job.

Uh. Yes it is. This is a labor market discussion, not one about educational attainment.

Try again.

It is not unreasonable to understand why one would need to work more than 40 hours a week in order to pay their bills. This is the viscious cycle that I mentioned earlier about higher wages alluring people into the job market who would have entered into additional educational opportunities if the wage rates were not as high.

You assume that a) Education is realistic and accessible to every member of the population. However, it is not @ the lowest levels of the economic ladder.

B) Access is uniform against all classes, races, localities etc.

c) That someone who works 40 hours+ hours aweek has the time to attend school.

I'd suggest that they don't and if you are dependent on the income from this work, then you are unlikely to stop working to attend school (That whole, "I have to eat thing").

Once again, the argument against this theory is that Education is not merely a choice someone makes based upon desire, but rather is dictated by the realities of their situation. Someone that does not any outside monetary support, or who has dependents of their own is less likely to forgoe wages presently for higher education because they can not afford to foregoe those wages.

You seem to think that it's only a rational choice made by people who have that luxury. I'm suggesting that at the lowest levels of the socio-economic strata, that this is not the case.

t is reasonable to agree with previous studies which illustrate that a significant reason was that wage rates at the minimum level and those wages that were pushed higher by a rise in minimum wages were attractive enough to offer a substitute of utility for that individual.

To agree that it is reasonable I would have to *see* one of these previous studies. I'll stop responding right here. Please link us to *one* study that suggests that a raise in the minimum wage would cause a significant amount of people to stop pursuing education (despite the astronomical ROI).

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:21 AM

Where's that extra $150k coming from?

^

From the increased revenue he's receiving from all the minimum wage earners using their newly found disposable income.

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:22 AM

Please do.

While you're there, please include numbers that show the difference in earnings for those with higher education than those who do not.

Once again, for this argument to be valid. The return from wages must be higher then the return from education. As it is, that would correspond to at least a 100% increase in the minimum wage.

And yet it escapes me that having the topic of a full chapter in a Labor Econ text is not good enough for you.

Let me help you with what you really want to see.

What you really want to see is two phasic. Firstly you need to see empiracle evidence of the utility of attending college versus entering into the labor force.

Secondly you're asking to see the difference of gross benefits compared to foregone earnings of those who choose to remain in the labor force rather than attend college.

Since its obvious that the gross benefits of attending college are well known and obvious to anyone somewhat familiar with 'why attending college is a good thing'. You're not considering the fact that there are some people, inspite of the evidence of higher wage earning potential, will choose not to enter into college because of the immediate impact of foregone earnings, especially if those earnings have been raised through a labor price floor adjustment (minimum wage).

So are you trying to argue that there is not a greater benefit to attend college and become a skilled worker versus an unskilled worker? If so then you'll get no argument from me.

But if you're trying to stay on point then you must, through the sheer evidence of logic, concede that people can and do make the decision NOT to go to college/trade school and choose to enter/remain in the labor force. And that this scenario is made all the more attractive by a wage hike.

As an aside:
The formula representing foregone earnings in this example would be Y=X times 1-[1/(1+r)n] over r.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:23 AM

And yet it escapes me that having the topic of a full chapter in a Labor Econ text is not good enough for you.

^

....

Since, I don't have said textbook in front of me. Please quote the relevant sections about Monsopony.

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:24 AM

Uh. Yes it is. This is a labor market discussion, not one about educational attainment.

No, you and I are debating the effects of opportunity costs of education and how minimum wages negatively impacts that scenario.

My god man, try to stay on point. Debating with you is like trying to heard a cat.

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 09:24 AM

Where's that extra $150k coming from?

^

From the increased revenue he's receiving from all the minimum wage earners using their newly found disposable income.
You honestly believe this? People here arguing that low income people aren't making a decent living wage, yet if they make 25 cents more an hour and suddenly they're going to splurge and go shopping?

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:25 AM

You honestly believe this?

Why not? Do you believe in tax cuts?

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:25 AM

You honestly believe this?

:rofl: Touche.

TheEschaton

12-11-2006, 09:26 AM

I'm sorry, if you have a company of 80 people, it's a relatively large retail, and you have quite a few products to loss-spread over. The less employees (IE, the more ma-n-pa-ish) a company has, the less products they have, equalling a roughly proportianate loss spreading on their items. Thus, fairly equating it over the retail industry.

Unless, of course, you've got a bloated staff, to sell not so much stuff, at which point raising the minimum wage just streamlines your business to industry standards.

-TheE-

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 09:28 AM

Yep, for the good of the people, the company should eat over 100g. Right. Find me that sucker of a business man. Show him to me!

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:30 AM

And yet it escapes me that having the topic of a full chapter in a Labor Econ text is not good enough for you.

Ganalon, I'm not arguing your logic. I'm arguing it's applicibility.

There is no doubt that if the minimum wage were 30 bucks an hour, then alot of people who forego college because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to get a marginal increase in wages.

My argument is that the minimum wage is so far below the wages one can expect from a college degree that there is no reason to realistically believe that many people forego college simply because of the lack of ROI.

In fact, I would argue that the minimum wage would have to raise substantially for this to happen.

You see, you've turned this into an either or type of argument. If minimum wages can do this at X level, then it's bad at all levels. This is not logical. The mean wage for someone with a college degree is around $18 dollars an hour. That means that there are a whole slew of numbers between 18 and 5.15 that could reasonably represent the minimum wage without creating the scenario you envision.

Clear?

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:32 AM

Yep, for the good of the people, the company should eat over 100g. Right. Find me that sucker of a business man. Show him to me!

It's simply supply and demand. The more people with money, the more they demand. The more demand, the higher the price. The higher the price, the higher the profit.

I ask you once again, do you please in tax cuts? If so, what is the difference between the two?

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:35 AM

No, you and I are debating the effects of opportunity costs of education and how minimum wages negatively impacts that scenario.

My god man, try to stay on point. Debating with you is like trying to heard a cat.

No, I'm talking about the merits of a minimum wage. You decided to turn it into one about educational attainment.

You suggest that a minimum wage is bad because it discourages people from obtaining a higher education, thus suppressing wages across the board.

I disagree. I suggest that higher wages gives people a better opportunity to pursue education.

The argument has and was always about minimum wage.

Anyway, I'm off to get my visa for Sierra Leone. I'll be waiting for your "Sources" when I get back.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:37 AM

You honestly believe this? People here arguing that low income people aren't making a decent living wage, yet if they make 25 cents more an hour and suddenly they're going to splurge and go shopping?

Okay,

Since you decided to edit I'll respond again.

The vast majority of minimum wage earners work in retail services. The vast majority of income for minimum wage earners goes towards basic subsistence items. Food, clothes, Car, etc. Therefore, if they have more money you can purchase more of the items you need.

You aren't going to Macy's, you're going right back to the Walmart you work at to get lil tracy some more school supplies.

Sean

12-11-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by CT

You honestly believe this? People here arguing that low income people aren't making a decent living wage, yet if they make 25 cents more an hour and suddenly they're going to splurge and go shopping?

Minimum wage earners tend to spend their entire paychecks, to my understanding. I don't see that changing with a slight increase in pay.

DeV

12-11-2006, 09:39 AM

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 09:39 AM

I disagree. I suggest that higher wages gives people a better opportunity to pursue education.
No according to you they're going to be shopping, not learning. :tongue:

And yes I agree with tax cuts to an extent. To me there is a difference between allowing one to keep more of what they are already earning across the board, than to increase it for a few that would negatively impact that business.

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:43 AM

No, I'm talking about the merits of a minimum wage. You decided to turn it into one about educational attainment.
As an anti-merit of minimum wage. It was listed as a reason, to which you stated in a responding post that that theory was not based in reality. And then the argument ensued.

You suggest that a minimum wage is bad because it discourages people from obtaining a higher education, thus suppressing wages across the board.
I'm saying that an escalation in minimum wage lures people away from college or trade school because of the opportunity to earn more money. As their goals change with the realization of more money (not withstanding the trade off of higher prices as the offset) then they might consider again attending college, OR they might be at a point in time where other circumstances prevent that goal from being realized. Explain to me how thats not a realistic outcome?

I disagree. I suggest that higher wages gives people a better opportunity to pursue education.
And yet you refuse to accede to any counterpoints stating an obvious alternative. Yay for you.

The argument has and was always about minimum wage.
Principally yes, it has, specifically you asked for a defense to the notion of what was explained above in the previous 5 posts. Again, stay on point.

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:48 AM

The vast majority of minimum wage earners work in retail services.

Try reading your own sources for a change. Retail sales makes up 14% of the [total] wage earner population. With 9.2% being the distribution at or below minimum wage. Hardly a vast majority. Now if you meant Leisure and Hospitality you'd be spot on.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm (Table 5.)

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:56 AM

Try reading your own sources for a change. Retail sales makes up 14% of the minimum wage earner population.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm (Table 5.)

# By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Top five areas of minimum wage earners per the tables:

Wholesale and retail trade
12,765

Education and health services
11,335

Manufacturing
10,299

Professional and business services
5,537

Local
5,118

This contradicts what I said, how?

Sean

12-11-2006, 09:56 AM

Retail and Wholesale make up 16.9% which is the largest % of the private sector...

I don't know that I'd call it a vast majority since manufacturing is at 13.6 and Education and health services is at 15 but it is a majority

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:57 AM

No according to you they're going to be shopping, not learning. :tongue:

And yes I agree with tax cuts to an extent. To me there is a difference between allowing one to keep more of what they are already earning across the board, than to increase it for a few that would negatively impact that business.

How about allowing people to earn what they deserve?

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 09:59 AM

How much do you consider "what they deserve"? How much does a stockboy or cashier really need to make an hour for you to be happy? Should they really be getting paid that well so that they be happy with the status quo?

Gan

12-11-2006, 09:59 AM

# By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Top five areas of minimum wage earners per the tables:

Wholesale and retail trade
12,765

Education and health services
11,335

Manufacturing
10,299

Professional and business services
5,537

Local
5,118

This contradicts what I said, how?

How about sticking to retail trade since that was your initial claim. I edited my post to show specifics for you.

Jazuela

12-11-2006, 10:05 AM

Who decides what they deserve? If it were up to me, support staff would earn more than 2nd level management, because it's the support staff that does most of the actual work. Research assistants would earn more than office managers who dole out the research assignments, because it's the research that gives the lawyers the data they need to do their jobs. Cooks would be paid more than cashiers, because cooks are the ones creating the product itself.

But that isn't how it is. Managers get more. Supervisors get more. Cashiers get more. And yet - they do less work, or work that doesn't directly provide the revenue-creating product. So - who decides what people "deserve"?

DeV

12-11-2006, 10:27 AM

Cooks would be paid more than cashiers, because cooks are the ones creating the product itself.
It was always my understanding that cooks were paid higher wages than cashiers, from fast food to gourmet restaurants.

Sean

12-11-2006, 10:32 AM

I suppose the obvious answer to her question would be that the Gov't determines the Min. amount people deserve to make. Beyond that when she buys her own BK franchise, assuming BK corp. has no control over it, shes more than welcome to restructure the payscale by position. Although I'm assuming there wouldn't be much incentive to move beyond fry cook.

Gan

12-11-2006, 11:33 AM

Anyway, I'm off to get my visa for Sierra Leone. I'll be waiting for your "Sources" when I get back.

Here you go. Some of these require acces to JSTOR, Blackwell-Synergy, or specific economic working paper websites, of which I'm not inclined to purchase a subscription for the sake of this argument.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CUNNINGHAM, J. (1981), “The impact of minimum wages on youth employment, hours of work and school attendance: cross-sectional evidence from the 1960 and 1970 censuses ”, in S. Rottenberg, (ed.), The Economics of Legal Minimum Wages, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARD, D. (1992), “Do minimum wages reduce employment? A case study of California, 1987-1989”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol. 46, No. 1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEUMARK, D. and W. WASCHER (1995a), “The effects of minimum wages on teenage employment and enrolment: evidence from matched CPS surveys”, NBER Working Paper, No. 5092.

The recent debate over minimum wages raises two questions. First, should policy makers no longer believe that minimum wages entail negative consequences for teenagers? Second, should economists discard the competitive labor market model? Our evidence for teenagers, using matched CPS surveys, suggests that the answer to both of these questions is no. We find that although increases in minimum wages have small net effects on overall teen employment rates, such increases raise the probability that more-skilled teenagers leave school and displace lower-skilled workers from their jobs. These findings are consistent with the predictions of a competitive labor market model that recognizes skill differences among workers. In addition, we find that the displaced lower-skilled workers are more likely to end up non-enrolled and non-employed. Thus, despite the small net disemployment effects for teenagers as a group, there are significant enrollment and employment shifts associated with minimum wage changes that should be of concern to policy makers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEUMARK, D. and W. WASCHER (1995b), “Minimum wage effects on employment and school enrolment”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL THROUGH POST-COMPULSORY EDUCATION AND

TRAINING: SELECTED EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY ASPECTS

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPER NO. 333

by

Sveinbjörn Blöndal, Simon Field and Nathalie Girouard

Section 2.1.2 (14) pp. 13 (pdf)
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/efdc39066d093574c1256bf3005a7d85/$FILE/JT00129531.PDF

Relatively high minimum wages for young people may discourage enrolment in upper-secondary
education to the extent they raise the opportunity cost of human capital investment. Several US studies
have found evidence of significant enrolment and employment shifts associated with minimum wages
changes. An early study by Cunningham (1981) using US state-level panel data found that minimum
wages both reduced employment of teenagers and reduced youth school enrolment. Similarly, Card (1992)
found that enrolment declined with the 1988 minimum-wage increase in California, relative to other state
labour markets that did not experience a minimum-wage increase. Neumark and Wascher (1995a) using
US aggregate data indicated that an increase in minimum wages decreased enrolment of teenagers and
increased the proportion of teenagers neither enrolled nor employed. Neumark and Wascher (1995b) in
another paper using individual-level panel data found that minimum-wage increases induce employers to
substitute away from less-skilled teenagers and toward more-skilled teenagers drawn into the labour
market. This results in fewer youth remaining in school, while the lowest-skilled teenagers are displaced
from their jobs. There are fewer studies on the possible impact of minimum wages on school enrolment in
other countries; in some of them (such as the Netherlands), special low minimum wages for youth are likely to limit any possible enrolment effects.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 12:32 PM

You really suck at this insult thing Ganalon.
Lol ;)

I can help him... I have a PhD in it.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 12:34 PM

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 12:37 PM

How about allowing people to earn what they deserve?

How abou tallowing people to earn what the market dictates?

Who is the determining factor in 'deserve'? You? Congress? Your Mom?

Daniel

12-11-2006, 01:44 PM

Daniel

12-11-2006, 01:46 PM

How about sticking to retail trade since that was your initial claim. I edited my post to show specifics for you.

Okay Ganalon, let's say you add in Hotel and Leisure services as a contrast to retail services. Does the basic fundamental fact that subsistence workers spend their money in the sectors to are employed in, change in any way shape or form?

P.s. you're inability to read a statistical table is troubling.

Gan

12-11-2006, 01:49 PM

Okay Ganalon, let's say you add in Hotel and Leisure services as a contrast to retail services. Does the basic fundamental fact that subsistence workers spend their money in the sectors to are employed in, change in any way shape or form?

P.s. you're inability to read a statistical table is troubling.

Providing you had included that in your original claim, then yes I would not have pointed it out. But since you didnt.

P.s. your inability to stay on point is troubling.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 01:51 PM

...Okay, Ganalon.

Not that my response was anywhere close to being off topic. I'll bite..

Did you ever respond to my ascertation that your claims on discouraging education were not applicable because of the significant gap between ROI in education and the current minimum wage?

No? Oh. Okay then.

Gan

12-11-2006, 01:53 PM

asked and answered

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:00 PM

Since you're having trouble with reading comprehension today. I'll lend you a hand. Tuition Free!

Please do.

While you're there, please include numbers that show the difference in earnings for those with higher education than those who do not.

Once again, for this argument to be valid. The return from wages must be higher then the return from education. As it is, that would correspond to at least a 100% increase in the minimum wage.

And yet it escapes me that having the topic of a full chapter in a Labor Econ text is not good enough for you.

Let me help you with what you really want to see.

What you really want to see is two phasic. Firstly you need to see empiracle evidence of the utility of attending college versus entering into the labor force.

Secondly you're asking to see the difference of gross benefits compared to foregone earnings of those who choose to remain in the labor force rather than attend college.

Since its obvious that the gross benefits of attending college are well known and obvious to anyone somewhat familiar with 'why attending college is a good thing'. You're not considering the fact that there are some people, inspite of the evidence of higher wage earning potential, will choose not to enter into college because of the immediate impact of foregone earnings, especially if those earnings have been raised through a labor price floor adjustment (minimum wage).

So are you trying to argue that there is not a greater benefit to attend college and become a skilled worker versus an unskilled worker? If so then you'll get no argument from me.

But if you're trying to stay on point then you must, through the sheer evidence of logic, concede that people can and do make the decision NOT to go to college/trade school and choose to enter/remain in the labor force. And that this scenario is made all the more attractive by a wage hike.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 02:07 PM

You missed this post:

Ganalon, I'm not arguing your logic. I'm arguing it's applicibility.

There is no doubt that if the minimum wage were 30 bucks an hour, then alot of people who forego college because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to get a marginal increase in wages.

My argument is that the minimum wage is so far below the wages one can expect from a college degree that there is no reason to realistically believe that many people forego college simply because of the lack of ROI.

In fact, I would argue that the minimum wage would have to raise substantially for this to happen.

You see, you've turned this into an either or type of argument. If minimum wages can do this at X level, then it's bad at all levels. This is not logical. The mean wage for someone with a college degree is around $18 dollars an hour. That means that there are a whole slew of numbers between 18 and 5.15 that could reasonably represent the minimum wage without creating the scenario you envision.

Clear?

How's that reading comprehension for you?

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:15 PM

Ganalon, I'm not arguing your logic. I'm arguing it's applicibility.

There is no doubt that if the minimum wage were 30 bucks an hour, then alot of people who forego college because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to get a marginal increase in wages.

My argument is that the minimum wage is so far below the wages one can expect from a college degree that there is no reason to realistically believe that many people forego college simply because of the lack of ROI.

In fact, I would argue that the minimum wage would have to raise substantially for this to happen.

You see, you've turned this into an either or type of argument. If minimum wages can do this at X level, then it's bad at all levels. This is not logical. The mean wage for someone with a college degree is around $18 dollars an hour. That means that there are a whole slew of numbers between 18 and 5.15 that could reasonably represent the minimum wage without creating the scenario you envision.

Clear?

And yet the elasticity of wages dictates that any increase in the minimal required wages by a supplier obligates that wages that were once higher than the minimum now also be raised, sometimes in proportion and sometimes not. The net effect is, with diminishing returns, that all wages paid by a particular supplier up to a certain unskilled level cap, will rise. And as studies have shown, this net increase in wages has an effect on whether or not people deciding to continue education or enter the labor force.

You see, its never been an either or type of argument unless your first statement that this scenario is not based in reality (not possible) created that environment.

The simple fact remains, that minimum wage can have an adverse reaction to continuing education for those considering the option of college or entering the labor force.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 02:18 PM

NEUMARK, D. and W. WASCHER (1995a), “The effects of minimum wages on teenage employment and enrolment: evidence from matched CPS surveys”, NBER Working Paper, No. 5092.

I have access to all of those databases and yet I'm having trouble finding most of those articles. Maybe because almost all of them are over a decade old.

Anyway, to update current informaton on the above publication I'll forward you to David Neumark's updated article on minimum wages in California.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/EP_705SAEP.pdf

I can't copy and paste relevant sections, but his general point is that living wages do what they are supposed to do: Reduce poverty. He does find that this isn't universal (What policy is) and that particular things (such as skill training) are needed to really help address the issue.

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:20 PM

...dont think so. If anything it will lure others who would be forced to consider additional education away from that consideration if they were faced with an immediate increase in an hourly minimum wage. Therefore continuing the cycle of being a minimal wage earner.

^

Are you serious?

So in a nutshell, yes. I am serious.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 02:26 PM

You two are ruining a perfectly good thread. If you are going to insult each other, stop putting in this economical shit and boring the crap out of us.

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:28 PM

:lol:

Never thought I'd heard that from you PB.

Its only because I suck at insulting people. :(

I've said pretty much all that I need to say with regards to why I think minimum wage is a bad thing. And its getting boring trying to keep Daniel on point when he wants to argue specifics.

Gan

12-11-2006, 02:33 PM

I have access to all of those databases and yet I'm having trouble finding most of those articles. Maybe because almost all of them are over a decade old.

Anyway, to update current informaton on the above publication I'll forward you to David Neumark's updated article on minimum wages in California.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/EP_705SAEP.pdf

I can't copy and paste relevant sections, but his general point is that living wages do what they are supposed to do: Reduce poverty. He does find that this isn't universal (What policy is) and that particular things (such as skill training) are needed to really help address the issue.

PS. Decade old data or not, its substantive to the point being discussed with reference points covering escalating minimum wages. Age of data points or theories has never stopped you from citing Keynes, why should it now?

PSS. That article is *not* a continuation of Neumark & Wascher's earlier work involving minimum wages and educational enrollment. Its a paper on living wages with no reference to the tradeoff of education and entering the labor force.

:lol: Couldnt resist.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 02:34 PM

Who is the determining factor in 'deserve'? You? Congress? Your Mom?

^

To answer all three of the same question at once. I would say the market.

AND A CONSERVATIVE IS BORN!!!

Yes, you should let the market dictate wages, not you, not your mom and not Congress.

Let's take the hotel market for instance. I know that 3 times a year, I would have the HR department do a wage and benefit survey of the competing hotels in my market. I wanted to make sure I could recruit and retain the best possible people by offering them higher wages and better benefits than my competitors. By doing that, I could drive up customer service, maintain employee loyalty and drive ADR (Average Daily Rate) because people were willing to spend more for a suite at my hotel than they would at any other hotel. Results? I had the highest RevPar (Revenue per available room) in my comp set and won highest GOP and Revpar 3 years in a row.

It started out by identifying and paying the quality people first. I don't agree with Walmart's business model as I think you get what you pay for.. shitty pay = shitty employees. But I'm not going to dictate what Walmart can and cannot do as far as paying their employees.

I don't think Congress should either.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 02:36 PM

:lol:

Never thought I'd heard that from you PB.

Its only because I suck at insulting people. :(

I shall help you, my young apprentice. You will find out the true power of the dark side.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 02:50 PM

Who is the determining factor in 'deserve'? You? Congress? Your Mom?

^

To answer all three of the same question at once. I would say the market.

Basicly, you would establish it by locality either at the state or major municipality level. This is what places like California, Santa Fe and others already do. However, instead of mandating the actual amount of the wage you would require them to meet the typical cost of living for the average person on minimum wage.

It's not very diffucult to figure out and it gives states the right to set their wage as high above the COL as they want, as long as it doesn't dip below. Isn't more power for the state a core republican tenet?

I just took your first sentence and responded to it without reading the rest. I was expecting some mumbo jumbo with links, bibliographies and footnotes.. which to be honest with you... bores me to tears.

But.. now that I went back and read it.. WTF!?

You say market should dictate a fair wage, then in the next breath you say government should determine it. Which is it?

Gan

12-11-2006, 03:14 PM

Utterly amazing.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 03:47 PM

Utterly amazing.

You are starting to sound like my wife last night after we did the horizontal limbada.

:)

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 03:51 PM

I think you misunderstood her. She probably said, "Quit using latex gloves. They look AMAZINGLY like UDDERS."

Some Rogue

12-11-2006, 03:59 PM

It's amazing that viagra does not help you at all. Have you considered an implant?

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 04:03 PM

They don't make implants large enough to make any difference on me. Besides, I want to satisfy.. not split in 2

Daniel

12-11-2006, 04:26 PM

PS. Decade old data or not, its substantive to the point being discussed with reference points covering escalating minimum wages. Age of data points or theories has never stopped you from citing Keynes, why should it now?

Why would you present papers that are on data following the 60's and 70's when you have alot more recent experiences with the minimum wage since the early 90's?

The reference to Keynes was only to dispell the notion that labor markets are anything up optimal and only has an historical reference to show the age of that assertation.

PSS. That article is *not* a continuation of Neumark & Wascher's earlier work involving minimum wages and educational enrollment. Its a paper on living wages with no reference to the tradeoff of education and entering the labor force.

Yea. Sorry. That Article is entitled skill transitioning: The minimum wage revisted, but I couldn't find a link that would work wout subscription access. I forgot to change the lead in and replace it with a blurb about this is what those peope think today about the living wage.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 04:28 PM

TheEschaton

12-11-2006, 04:47 PM

I think this is the first time I made a thread which went over 200 posts. W00t.

-TheE-

CrystalTears

12-11-2006, 04:51 PM

Doesn't the market dictate what the wages are now? I'm willing to bet a McDonald's worker in CT gets paid a whole lot more than one in the sticks of Georgia or something.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 04:55 PM

You say market should dictate a fair wage, then in the next breath you say government should determine it. Which is it?

^

It's not a hard concept.

The government stipulates a minimum wage that is equivilent to a living normal wage. However, this is likely to have great variation between West Virignia and California.

So, as to not impose additionally costs on businesses in West Virginia by requiring wages that are appriopriate for California cost of living, you allow the market to dicate what a sufficient living wage is.

I think I realize what your problem is here. You are confused what Market actually means. Market does NOT equal local government as opposed to federal government. Market is the local economy for that specific industry... ie in the example I provided you earlier.. the local hotel market.

It's not a hard concept... it's just one you've yet to grasp.

So when you posted "I would say Market" you should have put "I would say the local government"

Sean

12-11-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by TheE
I think this is the first time I made a thread which went over 200 posts. W00t.

-TheE-

Now if only 199 of those posts could be related to the influx of those below the poverty line into the suburbs we might be getting somewhere.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 05:05 PM

Doesn't the market dictate what the wages are now? I'm willing to bet a McDonald's worker in CT gets paid a whole lot more than one in the sticks of Georgia or something.

In CT, they artificially inflated the market with a statewide minimum wage. As you know.. you now live in one of the most expensive places in the country to live because of it.

Notice it's not just the minimum wage that is higher there, but every good and service is notably more in CT than in most places around the country? So by increasing the minimum wage there, you do get more money in your pocket, but you also pay out of your pocket more than in most parts of the country.

Take my move from Tampa, FL to New Fairfield, CT. I got a huge raise (or so I thought) to move there.. and yet found that my disposable income was much lower. The cost of living in New Fairfield, Connecticut is 101.7% higher than that of Tampa, Florida... meaning if I made $100,000 in Tampa, I need to make $201,667 in Connecticut to just break even.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 05:07 PM

Now if only 199 of those posts could be related to the influx of those below the poverty line into the suburbs we might be getting somewhere.

Yea.. because getting somewhere like that is what we come to these boards for.

TheEschaton

12-11-2006, 05:18 PM

You know I'm all for going off-topic, Tijay. ;)

-TheE-

Sean

12-11-2006, 05:20 PM

Your right I wouldn't come to these boards for a conversation different from the good ol' for/against min. wage increase. I mean how silly of me to open a thread called Suburban Poverty Increase and expect a discussion about that.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 05:32 PM

I challenge you to find any 20 page thread on this board where it stuck strictly to the topic. And the stupid "I will post a word, and you post one after it" threads don't count.

There's plenty of informative, enlightening and thoughtful posts on this thread. Feel free to read some of them instead of doing that which you are sarcastically bitching about.

Gan

12-11-2006, 05:35 PM

Why would you present papers that are on data following the 60's and 70's when you have alot more recent experiences with the minimum wage since the early 90's?
Econometric models are not just completed overnight. I would consider an economic model light on data if it did not cover at least a decade of data points illustrating the basis of said model. Unfortunately for me the latest two resources I could post on the earlier thread were mid-1990's studies using data ranging back from that time period.

If I still had access to JSTOR and other economic thinktank subscriptions I'm sure I could eventually find some recent research further elaborating on the connection. As it is, I'm stuck with whats available gratis from the internet and text materials from my undergrad experience back in the mid-late 90's.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 06:24 PM

So when you posted "I would say Market" you should have put "I would say the local government"

Not really. The market determines what the wages is. Not local governments. In what I'm suggesting the base minimum rate would be related to such measures as PPP and general COL for particular regions. These are indeed dependent on the market.

Sean of the Thread

12-11-2006, 06:26 PM

Daniel I'd suggest that you stop while you're ahead but you're so far behind at this point it's not funny.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 06:27 PM

Econometric models are not just completed overnight. I would consider an economic model light on data if it did not cover at least a decade of data points illustrating the basis of said model. Unfortunately for me the latest two resources I could post on the earlier thread were mid-1990's studies using data ranging back from that time period.

If I still had access to JSTOR and other economic thinktank subscriptions I'm sure I could eventually find some recent research further elaborating on the connection. As it is, I'm stuck with whats available gratis from the internet and text materials from my undergrad experience back in the mid-late 90's.

I would as well. I only did a percusory search earlier for specific authors. (I'm in finals right now. Doing 2 25 page papers on foreign assistance, what I'm personally interested in)

I did see a few papers that studied the effects of minimum wage since California instituted a higher minimum wage and others followed suit. However, I didn' thave time to hunt them down.

Really no need to go out and pay the 3 g's it takes to get a JStor subscription though. I get mine through the university.

Rathain

12-11-2006, 06:33 PM

1. Senior level class in my undergraduate degree: Labor Economics. This concept of the foregone opportunity cost of continued education versus entering into the labor market in lieu of an increase in the base level of wages and how that increase translates into higher wages for most all non-executive labor positions (professional/non-professional) in the labor supply market.

2. Senior level class text: Modern Labor Economics. Ehrenberg & Smith. Sixth edition. Specifically Chapter 9 titled Investments in Human Capital: Education and Training.

3. Real world experience in being a participant in this actual decision when faced with entering the labor market after graduating high school. After having the luxury of working my way through my college degree I can explicitly attest to the allure of entering the labor market after HS and working to elevate an unskilled wage in order to meet a minimal standard of living equalling realistic personal needs and goals of a single male. Then weighing the opportunity costs of less hours worked (of available overtime) and less wages in order to attend college (with the added expense of tuition/books/etc.) with the sacrificed additional wage income that would be available through greater efforts in productivity and overtime.

Your personal experience is compelling, though applying one's logic uniformly to the logic of other members of the working force is not a battle you will want to undertake.

That's what I'm getting at... why reference a textbook that are devoid of empirical research ? Undergraduate textbooks are written as teaching devices. If there are elements or concepts that are lacking in the discussion, just state it. Would save a lot of the arguing.

Much of the tertiary resources cited as part of your links, as well as France’s linked statistical research point to unemployment among teenagers, and certain minorities (black in the US during the 80’s, and Muslims in France). While teenagers may be important breadwinners in families on the fringe, the structure of the family typically places the weight upon those that are older than teenagers.

The trend suggests that minimum wage affects phases out those with the least amount of work experience, and this correlation may be tied directly to a worker’s age. This is an inequity towards this bracket of the working class, but not an uncommon theme in any workplace.

You say market should dictate a fair wage, then in the next breath you say government should determine it. Which is it?

This is not a non-sequitur. Markets dictate a wage regardless of impositions placed by local or the federal government. Government can view the dictated wage value, and ultimately determine a value by which to increase the previous floored minimum. In actuality, it’s not one, but the latter following the former.

As an undergrad, I served at Wharton’s Small Business Development Center, offering advice to smaller businesses in the local area. Most businesses do not do what they can to minimize overhead, how to market, best stratagems for increasing sales or rationalizing costs. I assisted on roughly 140 clients and read reports of 50 or so more. If they were being weeded out do to external mandates (ie minimum wage, smoking ordinances, revised rental of shop, or insurance costs), than they were at best pulling borderline profits and losses seasonally. In most cases, these businesses were somewhat burnt prior to changes in policy. These changes in policy only compelled them to receive advice they required far earlier.

To say minimum wage is going to do in mom and dad shops is underscoring the business practices that could not adapt to handle the stresses of increased overhead. In reality, minimum wage is one among many externalities they cannot control, that can challenge a small business.

With regards to your statement, I do not take it as a personal attack, even though your posts, didactic, and education are suspiciously simliar to Lassiter's sans the bravado normally accompanying his thoughts. That thread, and my ending remarks in particular were in frustration at having to repeat the same thing over and over while watching a complete refusal to even acknowledge counterpoints on his behalf. To which I'll point out, again, that posting thoughts and defending ideals here on the PC is voluntary. After a point, the opportunity cost of continuing a debate that is not achieving any goals does not outweigh the time myself and many others spend in their professional (and paid) endeavors. Hence my response to posts that have already been asked/answered.

I’m willing to bet that you’re older than I am. It shouldn’t be surprising that many of those who recently graduated from college feel very strongly of educational opportunities for those that want them. Placed into words, the feeling is simply gratitude.

With that said, I will endeavor to bring to this discussion some 'empirical' data since reality and logic alone is insufficient to demonstrate the mere possibility that the unskilled labor force recognizes this opportunity cost and that some of that cross-section do not represent the foreward thinking individual who sees the long run implications of attaining a college degree or trade school education to further their labor marketability. These individuals are represented by the title of Present-oriented. However I ask that you give me time to search for some specific empiracle and econometric research, since I dont have that referenced specifically in my text.

Still waiting on this one. Empirical evidence is the foundation. If they are posted, you’ll have quite a few people reading. Daniel, if you are having trouble getting articles, I can send them to you. My undergrad alumni account grants me full access to the online library.

If I still had access to JSTOR and other economic thinktank subscriptions I'm sure I could eventually find some recent research further elaborating on the connection. As it is, I'm stuck with whats available gratis from the internet and text materials from my undergrad experience back in the mid-late 90's.

You can still search for articles. All you will get are abstracts, but you can still search for them.

Sean of the Thread

12-11-2006, 06:47 PM

/request quotes with name of poster in the future.

Gan

12-11-2006, 06:54 PM

Still waiting on this one. Empirical evidence is the foundation. If they are posted, you’ll have quite a few people reading. You can still search for articles. All you will get are abstracts, but you can still search for them.

See post #196, Lassiter.

Parkbandit

12-11-2006, 09:31 PM

Not really. The market determines what the wages is. Not local governments. In what I'm suggesting the base minimum rate would be related to such measures as PPP and general COL for particular regions. These are indeed dependent on the market.

It's either the market will determine the MINIMUM wage or the government will determine the MINIMUM wage.

Holy shit.. really, it's not tough. I don't care if you want the Government to determine it.. but you can't have it both ways.

Daniel

12-11-2006, 09:37 PM

Okay

Rathain

12-11-2006, 10:35 PM

Publications can be found along any spectrum. Here are a few that don't agree with the one's you found earlier, or dissent on some specifics.

Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage
David Card
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Oct., 1992), pp. 22-37

The imposition of a national minimum wage standard provides a natural experiment in which the "treatment effect" varies across states depending on the fraction of workers initially earning less than the new minimum. The author exploits this fact to evaluate the effect of the April 1990 increase in the federal minimum wage on teenagers' wages, employment, and school enrollment. Comparisons of grouped and individual state data confirm that the rise in the minimum wage increased teenagers' wages. There is no evidence of corresponding losses in teenage employment or changes in teenage school enrollment.

------------

Economics of Education Review 22 (2003) 11–21
Minimum wages and school enrollment of teenagers: a look
at the 1990’s
Duncan D. Chaplina,∗, Mark D. Turner, Andreas D. Pape

Interest in the effects of the minimum wage on teenagers’ school enrollment has grown in recent years. This issue is of increasing importance given recent calls for increasing the minimum wage. Some authors argue that higher minimum wages will hurt teenagers by lowering their school enrollment. In this paper we estimate the effects of higher
minimum wages on school enrollment using the Common Core of Data, collected by the US Department of Education. These data cover the entire population of public school students in the United States. Controlling for local labor market conditions and state and year fixed effects we find some evidence that higher minimum wages reduce teen school enrollment in states where students can drop out before the age of 18. This appears to be driven by the grade 9 to grade 10 transition. We find no effects for higher-grade levels or in states where students cannot drop out until they are 18. This suggests that minimum wages may have a substantial effect on teens’ schooling effort in these early grades but also that these unintended effects can be offset by policies that encourage continued school enrollment.

------------

Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment Status of Youths: An Update Wellington, Alison J.. The Journal of Human Resources. Madison: Winter 1991.Vol.26, Iss. 1; pg. 27, 20 pgs

The large decline in the relative value of the minimum wage during the 1980s makes that period a valuable one for identifying the impact of variation in the minimum wage on youth employment. An analysis provides the robust finding that, when the experience of the 1980s is included, a 10% increase in the minimum wage is estimated to reduce teenage employment by less than 1%, which is the lower end of the range of previous estimates. Because this small employment effect is offset by a labor force withdrawal effect, no discernible effect on measured unemployment is found. The analysis also finds no apparent effect of the minimum wage on the employment of young adults aged 20-24. Breaking down the effect on teenage employment by race and sex shows that the estimated employment effects for teenage whites, males, and females resembled the effect for teenagers as a group. The point estimates for nonwhites are not consistently positive or negative, and none is statistically significant.

-------------

Card, David and Alan B. Krueger. 1994. “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” American Economic Review. Vol. 84, No. 4. (September), pp. 772-793.

Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model of the minimum wage, but consistent with a number of recent studies based on cross-sectional time-series comparisons of affected and unaffected markets or employers, we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state. Regardless of whether we compare stores in New Jersey that were affected by the $5.05 minimum to stores in eastern Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant at $4.25 per hour) or to stores in New Jersey that were initially paying $5.00 per hour or more (and were largely unaffected by the new law), we find that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment. We present a wide variety of alternative specifications to probe the robustness of this conclusion. None of the alternatives shows a negative employment effect. We also cheek our findings for the fast-food industry by comparing changes in teenage employment rates in New Jersey. Pennsylvania, and New York in the year following the increase in the minimum wage. Again, these results point toward a relative increase in employment of low-wage workers in New Jersey. We also find no evidence that minimum-wage increases negatively affect the number of McDonald's outlets opened in a state. Finally, we find that prices of fast-food

--------

Shaefer, H.Luke and Bruce Nissen. 2005. “The Florida Minimum Wage After One Year.” Florida International University.

In November of 2004, Floridians overwhelmingly voted to raise the state minimum wage above the federal level of $5.15. As of May 2, 2006, the newly approved law will have been in place for one year. The wage increased to $6.15 on May 2, 2005 and, because the voters approved an inflationary index, rose to $6.40 on January 1, 2006. In recognition of this anniversary, Florida ACORN commissioned this report to examine the economic health of the state after one year.

One year later there appears to be no evidence supporting these claims. Ten months after the law took effect, Enterprise Florida reported that “Florida continues to lead the nation in job growth” and the state “ranks 5th in the nation in the total number of insourcing jobs.”6 In a survey of Floridian retailers following the law’s implementation, “71 percent said the overall business climate in Florida would be better in the coming quarter than in the same quarter last year”7, and in a recent publication by the Florida Retail Federation on the state business climate, there is no mention of the minimum wage as a pressing issue of concern.8 Finally, a recent Tampa Tribune article reported that some big contributors to a coalition of opponents of the state minimum wage “have had stellar financial performances since May, including Publix Super Markets of Lakeland and Darden Restaurants of Orlando”.

Gan

12-12-2006, 09:34 AM

Valthissa

12-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Its no secret that you can find papers that will disagree with any economic theory. In fact, its rare that you can gather a room full of economists together and not find a dissenting opinion on any economic theory or hypothesis. They are famous for it. Thats why its called a dismal science.

My experience is that economists tend (<- I know that is a generalization) to agree on matters of theory but immediately begin to diverge on how theory should be used to inform policy. The hypotheticals they use and the inferences that they draw from the same set of data seem result oriented. Krugman and Samuleson are representative of this phenomena.

C/Valth

Back

12-12-2006, 10:44 AM

Its no secret that you can find papers that will disagree with any economic theory. In fact, its rare that you can gather a room full of economists together and not find a dissenting opinion on any economic theory or hypothesis. They are famous for it. Thats why its called a dismal science.

Way to invalidate everything anyone posts on the subject, including your own. Dismal science? Bullshit science. What other disciplines have such nebulous rules? Religion?

Gan

12-12-2006, 10:56 AM

My experience is that economists tend (<- I know that is a generalization) to agree on matters of theory but immediately begin to diverge on how theory should be used to inform policy. The hypotheticals they use and the inferences that they draw from the same set of data seem result oriented. Krugman and Samuleson are representative of this phenomena.

C/Valth

I know some who disagree on theory as well. I suppose a lot is which school of thought you were educated on. Becker/Posner also come to mind...

Gan

12-12-2006, 11:12 AM

Way to invalidate everything anyone posts on the subject, including your own. Dismal science? Bullshit science. What other disciplines have such nebulous rules? Religion?

Its not invalidating anything, its a known fact among those who study economics. Predicting the consumption of, distribution of, and manufacture of goods and services is about as sure as predicting the weather. Mainly because the principal variable in the study of economics is human behavior. And of course you know how predictable the human psyche can be.

Thats why we study trends, historical data, and create models based on historical behavior as well as future hypotheticals. No one guarantees that these models and the theories behind them will be 100% accurate. Its not exactly a best guess science, but its pretty close. The longer we exist with the ability to record and analyze how humans behave in the marketplace, the better our models will be... and the better our predictions will be.

Until then, you'll just have to be satisfied with the fact that, as in any field of science, there will be dissenting positions. And when you attach political connotations to those it creates a demand for polarization and dissenting hypotheticals/theories.

As in my case, spefically with this thread, and more specifically with the line of thought that minimum wage adjustments can affect enrollment in secondary and post-secondary educational institutions, it was challenged that there was not any empiracle study to back up the hypothesis as stated. In effect studies (at least in exerpt/bibliographical form) were provided. Nothing more.

Does that mean I'm right? Not necessarily, it just means that I agree with the hypothesis and incorperate that into the reasons why I disagree with minimal wage as an socio-economic tool, especially when manipulated by politicians.

Bullshit science? Your lack of knowledge into the subject hardly gives you credibility to make such a judgement. Go back to the peanut gallery and fire up your pipe buddy, relax, all is well now that your party is in control.