[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow. If they're not paying a decent wage then nobody would work for them. The market corrects those who abuse it.Not with the government/social programs. If you have no job and children you take what you can whether the pay is good or not. You have ZERO recourse in that scenario.[QUOTE="savebattery"] But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage. savebattery
Do illegal Immigrants really take our jobs away?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Card and Krueger.-Sun_Tzu-I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive. And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies. And no. "The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect" http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf So they're saying it had a possible, small, positive effect. But they're ignoring externalities. The sample size they used was far too small. For every one study claiming the opposite, there are fifty stating that minimum wage creates unemployment.
But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage. Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow. LJS, There's no exploitation. If the employees dont earn as much as they contribute to the company, then they will get other jobs because other employers will pay them more.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And that would still keep many people in poverty.:|
LJS9502_basic
Moreover, there really are no alternatives to this "exploitation" you're beating the drum about, except for outright unemployment.
And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="savebattery"] I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive.danwallacefan
And no.
"The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect"
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf
If there isn't really an effect on employment by minimum wage, then why did the teenage unemployment rate jump when the first minimum wage laws were passed? Don't know. Never really was interested in the economics behind the minimum wage to be honest. But (as much as I hate the saying) a correlation does not prove causation.well I'm sorry I offended you I guess... and if you want to go back to the reasons WHY there are other factors, well I'm afraid only a semester in macro-economics can fully explain why there's more to economics than what the original over-simplification stated, If you want more on this, see my OTHER original post on the second page, hamstergeddonNo. The initial statement was actually accurate. Economics has nothing to do with statement A....if and illegal immigrant has a job in the US then statement B an American does not.;)
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="savebattery"] I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive.savebatteryAnd Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies. And no. "The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect" http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf So they're saying it had a possible, small, positive effect. But they're ignoring externalities. The sample size they used was far too small. For every one study claiming the opposite, there are fifty stating that minimum wage creates unemployment.
Which is why I said the studies weren't conclusive :|
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="savebattery"] I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive.savebatteryAnd Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies. And no. "The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect" http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf So they're saying it had a possible, small, positive effect. But they're ignoring externalities. The sample size they used was far too small. For every one study claiming the opposite, there are fifty stating that minimum wage creates unemployment. The idea that minimum wage laws can have a positive impact seems incomprehensible on a theoretical level.
Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what happened between 1929 and 1933. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25%. But for those who were employed, real wages improved drastically. Why is this? Its because the artificially high wages forced businesses to not hire workers who coulden't contribute as much to their business.
Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow. LJS, There's no exploitation. If the employees dont earn as much as they contribute to the company, then they will get other jobs because other employers will pay them more.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="savebattery"] But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage. danwallacefan
Moreover, there really are no alternatives to this "exploitation" you're beating the drum about, except for outright unemployment.
Of course there is explotation....the company is still making money. Why? Under your initial premise there is no incentive for any company to pay highly since the government is not there for checks and balances.If they're not paying a decent wage then nobody would work for them. The market corrects those who abuse it.Not with the government/social programs. If you have no job and children you take what you can whether the pay is good or not. You have ZERO recourse in that scenario. You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow.
LJS9502_basic
So they're saying it had a possible, small, positive effect. But they're ignoring externalities. The sample size they used was far too small. For every one study claiming the opposite, there are fifty stating that minimum wage creates unemployment. The idea that minimum wage laws can have a positive impact seems incomprehensible on a theoretical level.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies. And no. "The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect" http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdfdanwallacefan
Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what happened between 1929 and 1933. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25%. But for those who were employed, real wages improved drastically. Why is this? Its because the artificially high wages forced businesses to not hire workers who coulden't contribute as much to their business.
Not everything in economics that seems to be one way theoretically translates as such in actuality.If there isn't really an effect on employment by minimum wage, then why did the teenage unemployment rate jump when the first minimum wage laws were passed? Don't know. Never really was interested in the economics behind the minimum wage to be honest. But (as much as I hate the saying) a correlation does not prove causation. very true, but we need some coherent theory to explain it all, and the theory I'm giving (which I think is the marginal utility product of labor, or some **** like that) seems to be the best one out there.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies.
And no.
"The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect"
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf
-Sun_Tzu-
LJS, There's no exploitation. If the employees dont earn as much as they contribute to the company, then they will get other jobs because other employers will pay them more.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow.
LJS9502_basic
Moreover, there really are no alternatives to this "exploitation" you're beating the drum about, except for outright unemployment.
Of course there is explotation....the company is still making money. Why? Under your initial premise there is no incentive for any company to pay highly since the government is not there for checks and balances. The incentive is that they're competing with other companies for workers, and if they don't attract any workers, they won't be able to sell any goods or services. The goverment is not a check and balance. Beyond stopping thievery and fraud, the government has no place in the market.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]The idea that minimum wage laws can have a positive impact seems incomprehensible on a theoretical level.[QUOTE="savebattery"] So they're saying it had a possible, small, positive effect. But they're ignoring externalities. The sample size they used was far too small. For every one study claiming the opposite, there are fifty stating that minimum wage creates unemployment.-Sun_Tzu-
Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what happened between 1929 and 1933. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25%. But for those who were employed, real wages improved drastically. Why is this? Its because the artificially high wages forced businesses to not hire workers who coulden't contribute as much to their business.
Not everything in economics that seems to be one way theoretically translates as such in actuality. You and your empiricism. A priori theories are necessary for soft sciences like economics.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not with the government/social programs. If you have no job and children you take what you can whether the pay is good or not. You have ZERO recourse in that scenario. You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault. Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well.[QUOTE="savebattery"] If they're not paying a decent wage then nobody would work for them. The market corrects those who abuse it.savebattery
Don't know. Never really was interested in the economics behind the minimum wage to be honest. But (as much as I hate the saying) a correlation does not prove causation. very true, but we need some coherent theory to explain it all, and the theory I'm giving (which I think is the marginal utility product of labor, or some **** like that) seems to be the best one out there. Possibly. But the studies conducted by Card and Krueger are something that should be considered.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] If there isn't really an effect on employment by minimum wage, then why did the teenage unemployment rate jump when the first minimum wage laws were passed?
danwallacefan
You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault. Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well. And unions are a natural phenomenon. They're not derived from government intervention. People have the right to organize, and they will if it benefits them in a dynamic market. But again, ultimately companies need workers. They're in direct competition with other companies for the services of the workers.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not with the government/social programs. If you have no job and children you take what you can whether the pay is good or not. You have ZERO recourse in that scenario.
LJS9502_basic
Not everything in economics that seems to be one way theoretically translates as such in actuality. You and your empiricism. A priori theories are necessary for soft sciences like economics. Oh, I know. But there are almost always exceptions to every theory in economics.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] The idea that minimum wage laws can have a positive impact seems incomprehensible on a theoretical level.
Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what happened between 1929 and 1933. Unemployment skyrocketed to 25%. But for those who were employed, real wages improved drastically. Why is this? Its because the artificially high wages forced businesses to not hire workers who coulden't contribute as much to their business.
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]very true, but we need some coherent theory to explain it all, and the theory I'm giving (which I think is the marginal utility product of labor, or some **** like that) seems to be the best one out there. Possibly. But the studies conducted by Card and Krueger are something that should be considered. I'll definitely look into those when I can[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Don't know. Never really was interested in the economics behind the minimum wage to be honest. But (as much as I hate the saying) a correlation does not prove causation.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]very true, but we need some coherent theory to explain it all, and the theory I'm giving (which I think is the marginal utility product of labor, or some **** like that) seems to be the best one out there. Possibly. But the studies conducted by Card and Krueger are something that should be considered. No, they shouldn't be considered. They said that it possibly could have a small positive effect. But they're using a tiny sample size and ignoring market externalities. There are many more things than just minimum wage that affect unemployment, and attributing all changes in it to minimum wage is ridiculous. The Mises article I posted addresses the fallacy of their logic.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Don't know. Never really was interested in the economics behind the minimum wage to be honest. But (as much as I hate the saying) a correlation does not prove causation.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well. And unions are a natural phenomenon. They're not derived from government intervention. People have the right to organize, and they will if it benefits them in a dynamic market. But again, ultimately companies need workers. They're in direct competition with other companies for the services of the workers.[QUOTE="savebattery"] You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault. savebattery
They got the governments attentiion which passed laws. Yes companies need workers but they will all fall in line with low pay because...guess what? People need money...ergo they need a job. He has gotten rid of all social programs. They have to SEEK WORK at the going rate which WILL be low. History has shown what corporations do when left to their own devices.
I cannot and do not agree with that line of thought and I don't think much of the author as he seems to have done no research.
You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault. Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well. eh no the will not. The workers will just flock to the companies that can pay them according to how much they can contribute to their firm, and those firms with the new employees will become much more profitable.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not with the government/social programs. If you have no job and children you take what you can whether the pay is good or not. You have ZERO recourse in that scenario.
LJS9502_basic
Price and wage collusion by producers isn't really at all sustainable within a free-market society. This is why the overwhelming vast majority of all oligopolies (remember the robber barons?) throughout history were created by states.
Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well. eh no the will not. The workers will just flock to the companies that can pay them according to how much they can contribute to their firm, and those firms with the new employees will become much more profitable.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="savebattery"] You're making the mistake of assuming that only one place would be offering a job, first off. Other people working the same position you apply for would set a precedent for a base level of pay, and increases or decreases in ability and productivity would determine how much you take home personally. If a company garners a reputation for not paying a livable wage, nobody is going to work for them and they'll lose oodles of money. But people are ultimately responsible for their own situations. If you're unemployed for any extended amount of time, it's your fault. danwallacefan
Price and wage collusion by producers isn't really at all sustainable within a free-market society. This is why the overwhelming vast majority of all oligopolies (remember the robber barons?) throughout history were created by states.
:lol: Keep thinking that.....History has shown otherwise. There is only so many employees one company can employ.Its not as if the only people in this relationship who are having an essential need provided for are the workers. The companies also need workers. The law of supply and demand still applies in the labor market.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]He has gotten rid of all social programs. They have to SEEK WORK at the going rate which WILL be low.LJS9502_basic
the "going rate" will only correlate to how much real value the workers contribute to the company which hires them.
History has shown what corporations do when left to their own devices.LJS9502_basic
Eh, they create cheap, high-quality products and services for the masses? The robber barons as painted by your history textbooks are a myth. These were state-created oligopolies.
I cannot and do not agree with that line of thought and I don't think much of the author as he seems to have done no research.a little harsh dontcha think? Look up any of the economists from the Austrian or Chicago tradition, they'll agree with what he's saying 100%LJS9502_basic
eh no the will not. The workers will just flock to the companies that can pay them according to how much they can contribute to their firm, and those firms with the new employees will become much more profitable.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well.
LJS9502_basic
Price and wage collusion by producers isn't really at all sustainable within a free-market society. This is why the overwhelming vast majority of all oligopolies (remember the robber barons?) throughout history were created by states.
:lol: Keep thinking that.....History has shown otherwise. There is only so many employees one company can employ. not when those new employees improve the company's bottom line.*sigh* Guess why the government stops collusion?Its not as if the only people in this relationship who are having an essential need provided for are the workers. The companies also need workers. The law of supply and demand still applies in the labor market.
the "going rate" will only correlate to how much real value the workers contribute to the company which hires them.
Eh, they create cheap, high-quality products and services for the masses? The robber barons as painted by your history textbooks are a myth. These were state-created oligopolies.
a little harsh dontcha think? Look up any of the economists from the Austrian or Chicago tradition, they'll agree with what he's saying 100%
danwallacefan
No not harsh...true. I don't bury my head and believe everything will work out good or fair.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] very true, but we need some coherent theory to explain it all, and the theory I'm giving (which I think is the marginal utility product of labor, or some **** like that) seems to be the best one out there.Possibly. But the studies conducted by Card and Krueger are something that should be considered. No, they shouldn't be considered. They said that it possibly could have a small positive effect. But they're using a tiny sample size and ignoring market externalities. There are many more things than just minimum wage that affect unemployment, and attributing all changes in it to minimum wage is ridiculous. The Mises article I posted addresses the fallacy of their logic. I'm sorry but your Mises article is not infallible. I can easily post articles by much more prestigious economists that say the opposite. It is not wise to outright reject and dismiss certain information because one article says it might not be accurate.savebattery
:lol: Keep thinking that.....History has shown otherwise. There is only so many employees one company can employ. not when those new employees improve the company's bottom line.Um...no. Companies have to have profit to stay in business. They aren't going to keep hiring which ups the cost of doing business. It plateaus out. A few economic and business courses would be helpful.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] eh no the will not. The workers will just flock to the companies that can pay them according to how much they can contribute to their firm, and those firms with the new employees will become much more profitable.
Price and wage collusion by producers isn't really at all sustainable within a free-market society. This is why the overwhelming vast majority of all oligopolies (remember the robber barons?) throughout history were created by states.
danwallacefan
And unions are a natural phenomenon. They're not derived from government intervention. People have the right to organize, and they will if it benefits them in a dynamic market. But again, ultimately companies need workers. They're in direct competition with other companies for the services of the workers.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why do you think unions were initially started? Because ONLY SOME companies were explotative? No. If one company gets away with little pay the next one will as well.
LJS9502_basic
They got the governments attentiion which passed laws. Yes companies need workers but they will all fall in line with low pay because...guess what? People need money...ergo they need a job. He has gotten rid of all social programs. They have to SEEK WORK at the going rate which WILL be low. History has shown what corporations do when left to their own devices.
I cannot and do not agree with that line of thought and I don't think much of the author as he seems to have done no research.
You're falling in line with mainstream wolfcries against companies and falling back on government intervention, which is exactly what got us into the situation we're in right now. Precedent cannot be set for low pay in the first place if workers stop going to low-paying companies. That company will simply fail, and other companies will learn from their mistake. Here are some peer-reviewed studies and articles on the subject: "The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment and Earnings of Youth." Robert H. Meyer; David A. Wise. Journal of Labor Economics V1 N (Jan., 1983), pp. 66–100. "Minimum Wages and Teenagers' Enrollment-Employment Outcomes: A Multinomial Logit Model." Ronald G. Ehrenberg; Alan J. Marcus. The Journal of Human Resources V17 N1 (Winter, 1982), pp. 39–58. "Minimum Wages and Teenage Unemployment." Robert Swidinsky, The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique V13 N1 (Feb., 1980), pp. 158–171. "Teenage Employment Effects of State Minimum Wages." Arnold Katz, The Journal of Human Resources V8 N2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 250–256. "The Effect of Minimum Wages on Teenage Unemployment Rates." Thomas Gale Moore, The Journal of Political Economy V 79 N4 (Jul., 1971), pp. 897–902. "Recent Department of Labor Studies of Minimum Wage Effects." George Macesich; Charles T. Stewart, Jr., Southern Economic Journal V26, N4 (Apr., 1960), pp. 281–290. "The Marginal Productivity Theory of Wages and Disguised Unemployment." Dipak Mazumdar, The Review of Economic Studies V26 N3 (Jun., 1959), pp. 190–197. "The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation." George J. Stigler, The American Economic Review V36 N3 (Jun., 1946), pp. 358–365.*sigh* Guess why the government stops collusion?LJS9502_basic
Because Government is incompetent.
No not harsh...true. I don't bury my head and believe everything will work out good or fair.*facepalm*LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="savebattery"] And unions are a natural phenomenon. They're not derived from government intervention. People have the right to organize, and they will if it benefits them in a dynamic market. But again, ultimately companies need workers. They're in direct competition with other companies for the services of the workers.savebattery
They got the governments attentiion which passed laws. Yes companies need workers but they will all fall in line with low pay because...guess what? People need money...ergo they need a job. He has gotten rid of all social programs. They have to SEEK WORK at the going rate which WILL be low. History has shown what corporations do when left to their own devices.
I cannot and do not agree with that line of thought and I don't think much of the author as he seems to have done no research.
You're falling in line with mainstream wolfcries against companies and falling back on government intervention, which is exactly what got us into the situation we're in right now. Precedent cannot be set for low pay in the first place if workers stop going to low-paying companies. That company will simply fail, and other companies will learn from their mistake. Here are some peer-reviewed studies and articles on the subject:Minimum wage merely raises the cost of doing business thus cost increases thus price increase which means while in theory minimum wage keeps people at a decent standard they will never be rich....and will end up basically in the same bracket what with the higher costs anyway.The government intervention I am talking about is making sure EMPLOYEES are not put in poverty while the company rakes in profit. I'm not advocating government get involved in the business.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
*sigh* Guess why the government stops collusion?danwallacefan
Because Government is incompetent.
No not harsh...true. I don't bury my head and believe everything will work out good or fair.*facepalm*Dude seriously? The government stops collusion because then all the companies will do exactly what I stated. Lower the pay. Those needing a job have no recourse but to work for said companies at the low rate because THEY NEED A JOB. They have no social programs to help them maintain a decent standard of living. I highly recommend you read up on the history of business and why unions arose and why government got involved.LJS9502_basic
No, they shouldn't be considered. They said that it possibly could have a small positive effect. But they're using a tiny sample size and ignoring market externalities. There are many more things than just minimum wage that affect unemployment, and attributing all changes in it to minimum wage is ridiculous. The Mises article I posted addresses the fallacy of their logic. I'm sorry but your Mises article is not infallible. I can easily post articles by much more prestigious economists that say they opposite. It is not wise to outright reject and dismiss certain information because one article says it might not be accurate. Here you go: "The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment and Earnings of Youth." Robert H. Meyer; David A. Wise. Journal of Labor Economics V1 N (Jan., 1983), pp. 66–100. "Minimum Wages and Teenagers' Enrollment-Employment Outcomes: A Multinomial Logit Model." Ronald G. Ehrenberg; Alan J. Marcus. The Journal of Human Resources V17 N1 (Winter, 1982), pp. 39–58. "Minimum Wages and Teenage Unemployment." Robert Swidinsky, The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique V13 N1 (Feb., 1980), pp. 158–171. "Teenage Employment Effects of State Minimum Wages." Arnold Katz, The Journal of Human Resources V8 N2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 250–256. "The Effect of Minimum Wages on Teenage Unemployment Rates." Thomas Gale Moore, The Journal of Political Economy V 79 N4 (Jul., 1971), pp. 897–902. "Recent Department of Labor Studies of Minimum Wage Effects." George Macesich; Charles T. Stewart, Jr., Southern Economic Journal V26, N4 (Apr., 1960), pp. 281–290. "The Marginal Productivity Theory of Wages and Disguised Unemployment." Dipak Mazumdar, The Review of Economic Studies V26 N3 (Jun., 1959), pp. 190–197. "The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation." George J. Stigler, The American Economic Review V36 N3 (Jun., 1946), pp. 358–365. All peer reviewed.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Possibly. But the studies conducted by Card and Krueger are something that should be considered. -Sun_Tzu-
If they collude to keep worker's wages low, then the same thing that happens when producers collude to screw the consumer will happen in the labor market, new businesses will come onto the scene and start paying the workers a higher wage closer to what they actually produce. This relationship of supply and demand, along with competition, will keep the wages at a rate roughly equal to what workers contribute to a company.Dude seriously? The government stops collusion because then all the companies will do exactly what I stated. Lower the pay. Those needing a job have no recourse but to work for said companies at the low rate because THEY NEED A JOB. They have no social programs to help them maintain a decent standard of living. I highly recommend you read up on the history of business and why unions arose and why government got involved.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm sorry but your Mises article is not infallible. I can easily post articles by much more prestigious economists that say they opposite. It is not wise to outright reject and dismiss certain information because one article says it might not be accurate. Here you go: "The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment and Earnings of Youth." Robert H. Meyer; David A. Wise. Journal of Labor Economics V1 N (Jan., 1983), pp. 66–100. "Minimum Wages and Teenagers' Enrollment-Employment Outcomes: A Multinomial Logit Model." Ronald G. Ehrenberg; Alan J. Marcus. The Journal of Human Resources V17 N1 (Winter, 1982), pp. 39–58. "Minimum Wages and Teenage Unemployment." Robert Swidinsky, The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique V13 N1 (Feb., 1980), pp. 158–171. "Teenage Employment Effects of State Minimum Wages." Arnold Katz, The Journal of Human Resources V8 N2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 250–256. "The Effect of Minimum Wages on Teenage Unemployment Rates." Thomas Gale Moore, The Journal of Political Economy V 79 N4 (Jul., 1971), pp. 897–902. "Recent Department of Labor Studies of Minimum Wage Effects." George Macesich; Charles T. Stewart, Jr., Southern Economic Journal V26, N4 (Apr., 1960), pp. 281–290. "The Marginal Productivity Theory of Wages and Disguised Unemployment." Dipak Mazumdar, The Review of Economic Studies V26 N3 (Jun., 1959), pp. 190–197. "The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation." George J. Stigler, The American Economic Review V36 N3 (Jun., 1946), pp. 358–365. All peer reviewed. I'm having trouble figuring out why you jumped from stating, point blank, that the Card and Krueger studies shouldn't be considered, to posting various articles and studies about the minimum wage. Such a jump seems incredibly random and irrelevent.[QUOTE="savebattery"] No, they shouldn't be considered. They said that it possibly could have a small positive effect. But they're using a tiny sample size and ignoring market externalities. There are many more things than just minimum wage that affect unemployment, and attributing all changes in it to minimum wage is ridiculous. The Mises article I posted addresses the fallacy of their logic.savebattery
If they collude to keep worker's wages low, then the same thing that happens when producers collude to screw the consumer will happen in the labor market, new businesses will come onto the scene and start paying the workers a higher wage closer to what they actually produce. This relationship of supply and demand, along with competition, will keep the wages at a rate roughly equal to what workers contribute to a company.No. That is not a logical conclusion. With no one watching over business there is nothing that workers can do but get a job and hope they can care for their families. Consumerism is much different.:|[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
Dude seriously? The government stops collusion because then all the companies will do exactly what I stated. Lower the pay. Those needing a job have no recourse but to work for said companies at the low rate because THEY NEED A JOB. They have no social programs to help them maintain a decent standard of living. I highly recommend you read up on the history of business and why unions arose and why government got involved.
danwallacefan
I'm having trouble figuring out why you jumped from stating, point blank, that the Card and Krueger studies shouldn't be considered, to posting various articles and studies about the minimum wage. Such a jump seems incredibly random and irrelevent.-Sun_Tzu-You posted a single study based on a tiny sample size that was inconclusive by their own admission (they said it could POSSIBLY have a SMALL effect), and they thought they advocate goes against all empirical data. The studies I posted are peer-reviewed, and many separate economists came to the same conclusion.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm having trouble figuring out why you jumped from stating, point blank, that the Card and Krueger studies shouldn't be considered, to posting various articles and studies about the minimum wage. Such a jump seems incredibly random and irrelevent.savebatteryYou posted a single study based on a tiny sample size that was inconclusive by their own admission (they said it could POSSIBLY have a SMALL effect), and they thought they advocate goes against all empirical data. The studies I posted are peer-reviewed, and many separate economists came to the same conclusion. Okay, but that does not justify dismissing the results gathered by Card and Krueger when considering the effect that the minimum wage has on employment.
[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm having trouble figuring out why you jumped from stating, point blank, that the Card and Krueger studies shouldn't be considered, to posting various articles and studies about the minimum wage. Such a jump seems incredibly random and irrelevent.-Sun_Tzu-You posted a single study based on a tiny sample size that was inconclusive by their own admission (they said it could POSSIBLY have a SMALL effect), and they thought they advocate goes against all empirical data. The studies I posted are peer-reviewed, and many separate economists came to the same conclusion. Okay, but that does not justify dismissing the results gathered by Card and Krueger when considering the effect that the minimum wage has on employment. Yes it does, because they don't submit any empirical data. I can do a study claiming anything I want, but if all I have to justify it is an inconclusive result with a tiny sample size then it doesn't mean jack.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="savebattery"] You posted a single study based on a tiny sample size that was inconclusive by their own admission (they said it could POSSIBLY have a SMALL effect), and they thought they advocate goes against all empirical data. The studies I posted are peer-reviewed, and many separate economists came to the same conclusion.savebatteryOkay, but that does not justify dismissing the results gathered by Card and Krueger when considering the effect that the minimum wage has on employment. Yes it does, because they don't submit any empirical data. I can do a study claiming anything I want, but if all I have to justify it is an inconclusive result with a tiny sample size then it doesn't mean jack. Umm, they do use empirical data. And their conclusion that the minimum wage doesn't have a meaningful impact on employment was conclusive based on their data. What was inconclusive based on their data was whether or not an increase in the minimum wage would also increase employment.
lets see here: -they dont pay taxes -they take jobs away (11% unemployed or whatever) -they take legal immigrant jobs away also -anyone that defends them should just give their citizenship to them and get it over with SonKevthose are either problems with the government or you're points are nonsense I mean if their better at the job then ya it makes sense giving them the job. If you have an objection to that it obviously has to do with the government not illegal immagrants.
Not true. People have been fired from jobs they held that were then given to illegals. Don't believe the hype....hiring an illegal immigrant gives a company more profit. Cuts down on their overhead. It is false that no American would work those jobs....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]No, they take jobs that no one else would want to have.FatalFantasy206
I will not disagree with you that no American would work the jobs the illegal's are taking, however I believe that a great majority are jobs that American's are not jumping over each other to try and get. I think the backlash against illegal immigrants has more to do with racism than the jobs they are taking. I see it in the discussions I get into on the subject.
Illegals take jobs at a lower cost, tax free, than a legal citizen who would have to pay taxes.Yes it does, because they don't submit any empirical data. I can do a study claiming anything I want, but if all I have to justify it is an inconclusive result with a tiny sample size then it doesn't mean jack. Umm, they do use empirical data. And their conclusion that the minimum wage doesn't have a meaningful impact on employment was conclusive based on their data. What was inconclusive based on their data was whether or not an increase in the minimum wage would also increase employment. Their work was not peer-reviewed and it clearly contradicts many empirical studies.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Okay, but that does not justify dismissing the results gathered by Card and Krueger when considering the effect that the minimum wage has on employment.-Sun_Tzu-
why is this even discussed, its so dumb, this is why our nation sucks so much right now, we dont even focus on real issues...SonKevImmigration is a huge issue 70ish billion dollars a year in welfare programs/health costs devoted to illegal immigrants
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment