If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Massachusetts sets the state minimum wage to $11, suck it red state workers   (money.cnn.com) divider line 279
    More: Cool, Massachusetts, minimum wages, highest state  
•       •       •

735 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2014 at 2:45 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-20 03:31:09 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages


Wow...
 
2014-06-20 03:31:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

How can data be biased? Because it doesn't confirm your unscientific worldview?


He's just saying it hasn't been properly unskewed.
 
2014-06-20 03:31:13 PM

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


It's Obama's sekrit plan to turn us into subsistence farmers!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:31:37 PM

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


If that works, why don't we make hamburgers $1 mil each!!

lolololo I made a good point

//pfft
 
2014-06-20 03:31:58 PM
Whoops.... Should have been a link on that last post.

MassDOT board approves South Coast Rail contract for up to $210 million
 
2014-06-20 03:32:34 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?


Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.
 
2014-06-20 03:32:55 PM

d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.


When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:33:04 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages


Now if we are using public funds to subsidize the Walton family.... you know that's AOK!
 
2014-06-20 03:34:17 PM

d23: cman: 2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

No, but they do owe you a fair wage.  Every idiot that parrots this b.s. conveniently forgets that we these massive corporations hold orders of magnitude higher power.  When the corporations have enough power to pay starvation wages instead of free market wages and let the government pick up the tab with food stamps, it's DAMN SURE the government has an interest in making sure that fairness is restored.


But they don't. That's a myth believed by the left.

There are thousands of employers. Don't like your job at Walmart? Apply at target or Burger King or family dollar or a liquor store or a deli or party city or Home Depot or costco or chili's or the residence inn or any of the other hundreds of employers in the near vicinity of the vast vast majority of the workforce.

Heck, take the job at Burger King while continuing to look for something even better. Nothing is stopping you.

Employees have plenty of flexibility in their job searches. Just because fair market wages aren't as high as you'd like them to be doesn't make them not fair market wages.
 
2014-06-20 03:34:22 PM

chimp_ninja: Sara Lemos


Obviously not an economist since she contradicts our expert.
 
2014-06-20 03:35:04 PM

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.


But Unions are unfair to the business.  People are supposed to take what their betters deem appropriate for them and subsist off the scraps they may or may not be able to afford.
 
2014-06-20 03:35:21 PM

d23: CPennypacker: Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.


Completely untrue. Truly one of the silliest canards of the left.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:35:53 PM

Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


Yes.... the consumer should be paying that price.  If Wal-Mart can't pay their employees a fair wage and charge a low enough price at the same time then maybe they shouldn't be in business.  Every small business in the world has to do it.  It's not like it's unfair.
 
2014-06-20 03:36:17 PM

CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes


You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.
 
2014-06-20 03:36:45 PM

Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.
 
2014-06-20 03:37:15 PM
Something that really pisses me off in these discussions is the insinuation that prices will go up if companies have to pay their workers more.

NEWS FLASH, MORONS! The prices of commodities like food and oil are going up  anyway, and whether or not the minimum wage is raised is  not going to change that. What this means is that without a minimum wage increase, minimum wage workers (and those barely above) have to work harder and harder for less and less.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:37:26 PM

UncomfortableSilence: But Unions are unfair to the business. People are supposed to take what their betters deem appropriate for them and subsist off the scraps they may or may not be able to afford.


You know what is crazy about the anti-unionism right now?  It's that the people that are the biggest blowhards about Capitalism hate it.  Unions are a capitalistic reaction to too much power by large employers.  It *is* free market.  The people yelling about the free market the loudest only want the parts of the free market that suit them.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:03 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".


I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:04 PM

sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.


I wish we had $11 burgers

I like to open up every minimum wage thread with some variant of "Enjoy your $X hamburgers"

where x is the wage being discussed

Always gets a few bites :)
 
2014-06-20 03:38:04 PM

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.


You mean form a cartel to artificially restrict supply to increase prices, like OPEC or the old trusts of the gilded age?

Hmmm. Might work. Detroit and upstate NY and other rust belt areas should've tried that.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: chimp_ninja: Debeo Summa Credo: 1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply

"Sara Lemos has conducted a comprehensive review of the 30 or so academic papers on the price effects of the minimum wage. She concludes: "Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies reviewed above found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%"; and "[t]he main policy recommendation deriving from such findings is that policy makers can use the minimum wage to increase the wages of the poor, without destroying too many jobs or causing too much inflation." Neumark and Wascher agree with Lemos's assessment about the likely price effects (while disagreeing with her conclusions about the overall usefulness of the minimum wage): "Both because of the relatively small share of production costs accounted for by minimum wage labor and because of the limited spillovers from a minimum wage increase to wages of other workers, the effect of a minimum wage increase on the overall price level is likely to be small." Other recent research by Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and James MacDonald on restaurant pricing, a sector with a high share of low-wage workers suggests that the price effects are likely to be lower than the upper bounds suggested by Lemos. Aaronson, French, and MacDonald "find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases prices by roughly 0.7 percent."

Source: Schmitt, J. (2013) "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?"

So, oooh.  0.4-0.7% price increases in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands of people over the poverty line.  Everybody panic.

Mmm, science.


Fun fact: Science is completely invisible to our resident Internet Tough Guy Economist.

Why, a 0.7% increase would raise the price of a Big Mac meal from $5.69 to $5.73!  Society would surely crumble at such an insult, leaving our minimum-wage overlords to pick at our corpses.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:29 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?


Because that's never how it actually happens.  An employee's value is always higher than their pay.  If you listen to many corporate employers there's no bottom to how little people should be paid and it has nothing to do with an individual's value and everything to do with a the degree with which a line on a chart shoots upwards.  The law says if you want to take a person's waking hours to work for your profit, they have to be paid a minimum of X.  Sorrybro.

If you have a problem paying people $11 an hour, you need a better business model.  That goes for "mom and pop shops" and Wal-Mart alike.  If Wal-Mart will be financially crestfallen having to pay their workers (all of which on average work hard) a living wage, then it's time for Wal-Mart to face market reality itself, one in which they have to play by civilized society's rules.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:38:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.


The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.
 
2014-06-20 03:39:14 PM
All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 03:40:03 PM

sweetmelissa31: All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.


fark that.  They're moving to China.
 
2014-06-20 03:40:14 PM

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


Do they come with fries? This is semi-important.
 
2014-06-20 03:40:19 PM

sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.


You went to the wrong bars.
 
2014-06-20 03:41:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.

You mean form a cartel to artificially restrict supply to increase prices, like OPEC or the old trusts of the gilded age?

Hmmm. Might work. Detroit and upstate NY and other rust belt areas should've tried that.


If Wal mart puts its competition out of business, then demands more favorable prices, did the value of the goods they buy suddenly drop?

If Consolidated Almonds, Inc buys the other two major suppliers of almonds and raises prices by 20%, did the value of almonds go up 20%?

Why are those two perfectly allowable in a free market, but workers do the same thing and they some sort of evil cartel? Its the same shiat.

If you're going to whine about the free market being the answer to everything, you're just going to have to suck it up when it comes to unions, cuz its the exact same shiat. So pick your poison.
 
2014-06-20 03:42:31 PM

d23: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

Yes.... the consumer should be paying that price.  If Wal-Mart can't pay their employees a fair wage and charge a low enough price at the same time then maybe they shouldn't be in business.  Every small business in the world has to do it.  It's not like it's unfair.


I don't think the idea of a "fair price" (or "fair pay") was ever intended to convey a sense of fair play.  Rather, it is supposed to convey a price that is agreed on, between two parties, without coercion from either side.
 
2014-06-20 03:43:15 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If I had time or the photo posting ability on my phone I'd post a graph showing the deadweight loss to the economy that results from artificial price floors or ceilings such as minimum wages.


Charts like that make an assumption about the relationship between price and demand for labor that isn't necessarily true at lower wage levels.
Companies will demand labor at a price as long as the price is lower than the marginal productivity of labor. If workers and companies had "equal" bargaining power, then in a free labor market the price of labor would always be equal to the marginal productivity, and any forced increase would cause a deadweight loss.
However, if poor people don't have the ability to say no to a job, if they need to eat, for example, then the price of labor will be less than the marginal productivity of labor. A forced increase in the price won't affect the demand for labor, as long as you don't force it above the marginal productivity. I suspect this is why it's so hard to figure the effects of incremental increases in minimum wages; it's just too hard to separate those effects from normal economic noise.
Forcing a large increase in the minimum wage may very likely cause a drop in demand for labor. I don't know. There isn't really any data to work with, so it's all a bunch of speculation which ultimately rests on the biases of the speculators. That's why instead of a minimum wage increase, I recommend the peasants rise up and seize the means of production. But all the communists are busy watching soccer, so it won't happen this month.
 
2014-06-20 03:43:22 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.


You are obviously biased and unwilling to put facts and logic ahead of left wing partisanship (I know, welcome to fark, right?)

I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Every farking Econ textbook agrees that there is a deadweight loss from price floors and ceilings in the vast majority of instances. Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.
 
2014-06-20 03:44:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.

You are obviously biased and unwilling to put facts and logic ahead of left wing partisanship (I know, welcome to fark, right?)

I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Every farking Econ textbook agrees that there is a deadweight loss from price floors and ceilings in the vast majority of instances. Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.


So many people agree that you just can't seem to find one.
 
2014-06-20 03:45:11 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.


You're better than this. This is why I never offer anything but sarcasm, belittlement and 'Your Mom' jokes. It's never going to change his mind, so why not just ridicule instead? But you know this already. This is why I'm surprised. In conclusion, the correct response to his last post would have been, "Your mom is dead weight."
 
2014-06-20 03:46:10 PM
From the research cited by ORM above:
"On April 1, 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania before and after the rise. Comparisons of employment growth at stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant) provide simple estimates of the effect of the higher
minimum wage. We also compare employment changes at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (above $5) to the changes at lower-wage stores. We find no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment."

"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 check 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.

Source for both: Card and Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania"
 
2014-06-20 03:47:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.


I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.
 
2014-06-20 03:47:29 PM

sweetmelissa31: cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.

I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.


..touché.
 
2014-06-20 03:48:15 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.


Dude, there's ACTUAL DATA at both of those links. See, unlike Townhall and Investopedia, I showed my work. I provided you links to the raw data.

Also, it's freakin' Berkeley. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world. And it hasn't been a center of left-wing thought since the 60s. You should really get with the times.

 

Debeo Summa Credo: Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.


I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."

You're arguing against a strawman position and consistently failing to address the fact that the links I have provided have actual empirical data to back them up.

You're the one with his fingers in his ears saying, "nope, the world isn't warming, the science is wrong," when I'm pointing to charts of temperature readouts that are climbing.

Although I am pleased to see such an eloquent example of the Rovian dictum to accuse your interlocutor of what you yourself are guilty of. Your ideological bias is strong, ergo you must try to point out my ideological bias. Fine. I'll admit it. I'm a big, stinking lizard commie. You got me. But that's why I'm not telling you just to believe me or google random macro terms. I'm telling you there's the data in black and white. Don't believe me, double check it.
 
2014-06-20 03:48:22 PM

Lucky LaRue: When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course". Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


Umm you forgot PROFIT in your list. You know consumers pay for that too right? Why do you guys always pretend companies don't also set prices based on profit?

Oh I know why because it sort of shows the flaw in your argument that prices are inflexible and only are a function based on business costs.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:02 PM
Like evidence is going to sway him.  Is he presenting any?  Of course not.  Is he even responding to the stuff presented?  Of course not?  Is he still babbling and getting replies?  Of course he is.  Discussions like that are the very definition of wasting your time.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:07 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.


Wait.  You think an article from Town Hall is more reliable than a professional publication in The American Economic Review from two Princeton economists that happens to be hosted on a Berkeley server, among other locations?

I think I've found our problem.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:50 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: This is why I'm surprised. In conclusion, the correct response to his last post would have been, "Your mom is dead weight."


It's not for DSC's edification. He's a lost cause, and his mom might be a perfectly nice lady whose honor I don't want to impugn.

I just happen to have some data on this one, so I thought I'd share, and in doing so, my libby lib brethren can spread the wealth by using this the next time Drunk Conservative Uncle Jimbo starts yelling at the dinner table.
 
2014-06-20 03:50:22 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."


That's the BS strawman that they use again and again.
 
2014-06-20 03:50:34 PM
l.wigflip.com
 
2014-06-20 03:50:40 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!

Do they come with fries? This is semi-important.


This isn't Communist China, why are you expecting handouts
 
2014-06-20 03:51:57 PM

nijika: Debeo Summa Credo: Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because that's never how it actually happens.  An employee's value is always higher than their pay.  If you listen to many corporate employers there's no bottom to how little people should be paid and it has nothing to do with an individual's value and everything to do with a the degree with which a line on a chart shoots upwards.  The law says if you want to take a person's waking hours to work for your profit, they have to be paid a minimum of X.  Sorrybro.

If you have a problem paying people $11 an hour, you need a better business model.  That goes for "mom and pop shops" and Wal-Mart alike.  If Wal-Mart will be financially crestfallen having to pay their workers (all of which on average work hard) a living wage, then it's time for Wal-Mart to face market reality itself, one in which they have to play by civilized society's rules.


What if I want to hire a homeless guy to hold a sandwich board on the corner for me to advertise my deli. Based on his work I get an additional $15 in gross sales per hour and incur $10 in marginal expenses (food, etc.), leaving me $5 in incremental profit per hour before I pay the homeless guy.

If I pay him $4 per hour I make an additional $1 per hour for myself, but if I pay him $11 I'm losing $6.

Is there something wrong with my business model? Is society better off if I say, sorry go back to the gutter I can't pay you $11 per hour? Or is it better if I pay him the 4, keeping 1 for myself?

What should happen in this situation? Who gets hurt by a minimum wage that causes me to can the sandwich board guy? Who benefits?
 
2014-06-20 03:51:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Okay, name one. Show us the work.


What really gets me about this argument is that it's no longer a theoretical excercise. Minimum wages exist and have been raised in the past. Not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE has caused an inflationary bump of statistical significance. Not one. Never. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does flies in the face of reality.
 
2014-06-20 03:53:52 PM

chimp_ninja: Fun fact: Science is completely invisible to our resident Internet Tough Guy Economist.

Why, a 0.7% increase would raise the price of a Big Mac meal from $5.69 to $5.73!  Society would surely crumble at such an insult, leaving our minimum-wage overlords to pick at our corpses.


That reminds me of an American couple I saw at a McDonalds up here in Vancouver, BC flip their shiat at the cashier when they saw its almost $10 for any large sized meal over here at fast food places. Hell I think its almost $12 if you want a triple burger meal from Wendy's

/Our "dollar" menu at McDonalds is also $1.39
//$1.89 at Wendy's
///They call them "value" menus here
 
2014-06-20 03:54:41 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Like evidence is going to sway him.  Is he presenting any?  Of course not.  Is he even responding to the stuff presented?  Of course not?  Is he still babbling and getting replies?  Of course he is.  Discussions like that are the very definition of wasting your time.


I agree with, but really the whole purpose of this site is pretty much to waste time, no? : )
 
2014-06-20 03:55:11 PM

sweetmelissa31: cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.

I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.


img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-20 03:55:35 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?


Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

DSC, here's what you don't get. Yes, you, the deli owner, no longer employ the Sandwich Board guy.

But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.

That's why when people talk about MACROeconomics, we often use data across large scales of people and long stretches of time. Because policy is set at the macro-level, not the micro-level.
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report