|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 21 2014 09:46 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let me rephrase the question another way. I'm trying to understand why Grantland is in trouble and whether the ridicule that it is receiving for posting this article is even warranted. There seem to be two major sets of issues. The first are laid out well by Simmons: Show nested quote +Suddenly, a line like “a chill ran down my spine” — which I had always interpreted as “Jesus, this story is getting stranger?” (Caleb’s intent, by the way) — now read like, “Ew, gross, she used to be a man?” Our lack of sophistication with transgender pronouns was so easily avoidable, it makes me want to punch through a wall. The lack of empathy in the last few paragraphs — our collective intent, and only because we believed that Caleb suddenly becoming introspective and emotional would have rung hollow — now made it appear as if we didn’t care about someone’s life. These issues were all noticeable while reading and I am surprised they made it to the final version. But it seems even the harshest critics of the article deem these to be comparatively minor issues, as Kahrl does early in her piece. The real issue concerns outing, in particular whether it was acceptable to out Dr. V while alive to her investor or to out her to the public posthumously. On the latter point, I feel the pull of each side. As Simmons points out, it makes perfect sense in this type of piece to go into Dr. V's faked credentials, but there's really no way of doing that without explaining the complications that her name change makes to verifying these things. I'm not sure there is any good way of writing up an article that accounts for her fraud without revealing this fact about her. At the same time, outing is not to be taken lightly, especially in light of our culture's current level of thinking on trans issues and the trans community's horrifying suicide rate.
I think that most of the outrage from this article is inseparably tied up in the fact that Dr. V committed suicide (probably) as a result of this investigation. It rubs people the wrong way for anyone to profit from someone else's death, even more so when the person profiting apparently had a hand in it. If Dr. V. hadn't died and the piece had had a similar tone, there would have been some criticism from the LGBT community, but I don't think it would have blown up as much as it did, because any of the vindictive components of the article on the author's part would simply look like a reasonable emotional response to the over-the-top abuse by Dr. V as recounted in the article. But because Dr. V is ultimately dead, and the article kind of presents a triumphant tone of the reporter vanquishing the pathological liar, the whole thing smells morally repugnant to more people, especially those already sensitive to LGBT issues.
|
On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act.
I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act.
You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...).
Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA.
If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple.
Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices.
|
On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog. Show nested quote +
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread).
You have to admit that that tiny fluff blurb you posted from investors.com is a bit silly and doesn't really help your case.
|
On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. Show nested quote +You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. Show nested quote +If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices.
If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant.
The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China.
|
On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China.
Nice one-liner.
I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big.
|
I'm looking for good comparative data dealing with cost of living vs political affiliation; i.e. a couple of maps which show cost of living vs how red/blue a state is; with a 3rd map or some numbers showing correlation, if any.
I get the impression cost of living tends to be higher in blue states; but I want to confirm that before pondering why.
I've been having trouble finding good sources online, especially for political affiliation.
|
On January 21 2014 11:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). You have to admit that that tiny fluff blurb you posted from investors.com is a bit silly and doesn't really help your case.
I am too lazy to find Dangler's post but here is a counter point to his post about 'experts in the field' by another expert in the field: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/studying-the-studies-on-the-minimum-wage
|
On January 21 2014 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China. Nice one-liner. I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big.
I think its pretty clear that Wal-mart can set its own wage. Look at what it did in DC. And it's huge.
On January 21 2014 11:51 zlefin wrote:
I'm looking for good comparative data dealing with cost of living vs political affiliation; i.e. a couple of maps which show cost of living vs how red/blue a state is; with a 3rd map or some numbers showing correlation, if any.
I get the impression cost of living tends to be higher in blue states; but I want to confirm that before pondering why.
I've been having trouble finding good sources online, especially for political affiliation.
Red states are filled with unskilled laborers clinging to their guns and religion.
|
On January 21 2014 10:13 xDaunt wrote:
Here is one of the things that is on my mind: the LGBT community can't have it both ways. Either this stuff is going to be out in the open for public discussion (and, hopefully, public tolerance) or we are simply going to sweep it all under the rug.
Kahrl has a pretty extensive discussion of this issue, coming out strongly against the practice of psychiatrists suggesting lives of secrecy for trans people. I think we'd all like to get to a point where the secrecy wasn't felt to be important. That said, you're putting an amazing amount of pressure on the people who rightfully fear for their rights and safety upon being outed as opposed to the people causing those fears.
On January 21 2014 11:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 09:46 frogrubdown wrote:On January 21 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let me rephrase the question another way. I'm trying to understand why Grantland is in trouble and whether the ridicule that it is receiving for posting this article is even warranted. There seem to be two major sets of issues. The first are laid out well by Simmons: Suddenly, a line like “a chill ran down my spine” — which I had always interpreted as “Jesus, this story is getting stranger?” (Caleb’s intent, by the way) — now read like, “Ew, gross, she used to be a man?” Our lack of sophistication with transgender pronouns was so easily avoidable, it makes me want to punch through a wall. The lack of empathy in the last few paragraphs — our collective intent, and only because we believed that Caleb suddenly becoming introspective and emotional would have rung hollow — now made it appear as if we didn’t care about someone’s life. These issues were all noticeable while reading and I am surprised they made it to the final version. But it seems even the harshest critics of the article deem these to be comparatively minor issues, as Kahrl does early in her piece. The real issue concerns outing, in particular whether it was acceptable to out Dr. V while alive to her investor or to out her to the public posthumously. On the latter point, I feel the pull of each side. As Simmons points out, it makes perfect sense in this type of piece to go into Dr. V's faked credentials, but there's really no way of doing that without explaining the complications that her name change makes to verifying these things. I'm not sure there is any good way of writing up an article that accounts for her fraud without revealing this fact about her. At the same time, outing is not to be taken lightly, especially in light of our culture's current level of thinking on trans issues and the trans community's horrifying suicide rate. I think that most of the outrage from this article is inseparably tied up in the fact that Dr. V committed suicide (probably) as a result of this investigation. It rubs people the wrong way for anyone to profit from someone else's death, even more so when the person profiting apparently had a hand in it. If Dr. V. hadn't died and the piece had had a similar tone, there would have been some criticism from the LGBT community, but I don't think it would have blown up as much as it did, because any of the vindictive components of the article on the author's part would simply look like a reasonable emotional response to the over-the-top abuse by Dr. V as recounted in the article. But because Dr. V is ultimately dead, and the article kind of presents a triumphant tone of the reporter vanquishing the pathological liar, the whole thing smells morally repugnant to more people, especially those already sensitive to LGBT issues.
Yeah, this compounds with the lack of overt empathy in the closing paragraphs. Given the likelihood that the author of the piece was at least an indirect cause (however faultlessly) of Dr. V's suicide, he should have made a greater effort to display some compassion.
|
On January 21 2014 12:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China. Nice one-liner. I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big. I think its pretty clear that Wal-mart can set its own wage. Look at what it did in DC. And it's huge.
Eh? That was a shit law designed to just impact Wal-Mart. DC implemented a new min wage law instead of that.
|
On January 21 2014 12:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:51 zlefin wrote:
I'm looking for good comparative data dealing with cost of living vs political affiliation; i.e. a couple of maps which show cost of living vs how red/blue a state is; with a 3rd map or some numbers showing correlation, if any.
I get the impression cost of living tends to be higher in blue states; but I want to confirm that before pondering why.
I've been having trouble finding good sources online, especially for political affiliation. Red states are filled with unskilled laborers clinging to their guns and religion.
That's just a dick comment. Wealthy liberal areas like San Fran have huge cost of living poverty problems.
|
There aren't a whole lot of new competitors for Wal-Mart opening up in DC, it being a roughly 8 mile x 8 mile city square. It's not as if it was a bustling market and Wal-Mart was singled out from among many businesses that wanted to play.
This also proves my point that small localities cannot unilaterally up the minimum wage by a few dollars, which you so vigorously contested, as Walmart will just go elsewhere. If the federal government passed a new $10.10 minimum wage, Wal-Mart would be paying a lot of people more money. It might even be able to sell them some higher-priced "premium" goods that they can buy with those fancy new wages.
|
On January 21 2014 12:21 IgnE wrote:
There aren't a whole lot of new competitors for Wal-Mart opening up in DC, it being a roughly 8 mile x 8 mile city square. It's not as if it was a bustling market and Wal-Mart was singled out from among many businesses that wanted to play.
This also proves my point that small localities cannot unilaterally up the minimum wage by a few dollars, which you so vigorously contested, as Walmart will just go elsewhere. If the federal government passed a new $10.10 minimum wage, Wal-Mart would be paying a lot of people more money. It might even be able to sell them some higher-priced "premium" goods that they can buy with those fancy new wages.
Yes, Wal-Mart was singled out. The law was designed only to apply to "large retailers" with the higher wage only applying to them. Of course Wal-Mart wouldn't like that - it's was not only a cost but a competitive issue as well.
And DC really did raise the min wage there. It's a real thing that really happened in real life.
D.C. minimum wage hike is signed into law
Mayor Vincent C. Gray signed a bill Wednesday giving District workers one of the nation’s highest minimum wages, finally giving his wholehearted support to the measure after months of public skepticism.
The bill, passed by the D.C. Council in September, raises the wage in steps, culminating in an $11.50 minimum in July 2016. The rate will be reset on a yearly basis thereafter based on the region’s cost of living. ... Link
|
On January 21 2014 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 12:21 IgnE wrote:
There aren't a whole lot of new competitors for Wal-Mart opening up in DC, it being a roughly 8 mile x 8 mile city square. It's not as if it was a bustling market and Wal-Mart was singled out from among many businesses that wanted to play.
This also proves my point that small localities cannot unilaterally up the minimum wage by a few dollars, which you so vigorously contested, as Walmart will just go elsewhere. If the federal government passed a new $10.10 minimum wage, Wal-Mart would be paying a lot of people more money. It might even be able to sell them some higher-priced "premium" goods that they can buy with those fancy new wages. Yes, Wal-Mart was singled out. The law was designed only to apply to "large retailers" with the higher wage only applying to them. Of course Wal-Mart wouldn't like that - it's was not only a cost but a competitive issue as well. And DC really did raise the min wage there. It's a real thing that really happened in real life. Show nested quote +D.C. minimum wage hike is signed into law
Mayor Vincent C. Gray signed a bill Wednesday giving District workers one of the nation’s highest minimum wages, finally giving his wholehearted support to the measure after months of public skepticism.
The bill, passed by the D.C. Council in September, raises the wage in steps, culminating in an $11.50 minimum in July 2016. The rate will be reset on a yearly basis thereafter based on the region’s cost of living. ... Link
DC also coordinated with the Maryland counties around it in passing the minimum wage which doesn't fully take effect until 2016, 2 years down the road. Those counties also happen to be some of the richest counties in the country. It wasn't a unilateral action, it was more like a labor market coordinating in response to Walmart extortion. Something that is harder to do if you aren't the local governments for the nation's capital and situated in one of the few areas of the country not hit very hard by the 2008 crash.
|
On January 21 2014 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China. Nice one-liner. I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big.
2 million employees spread out and revenues in the half trillion dollar range, I think they have at least some noticeable impact on overall wages...
|
On January 21 2014 12:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 12:21 IgnE wrote:
There aren't a whole lot of new competitors for Wal-Mart opening up in DC, it being a roughly 8 mile x 8 mile city square. It's not as if it was a bustling market and Wal-Mart was singled out from among many businesses that wanted to play.
This also proves my point that small localities cannot unilaterally up the minimum wage by a few dollars, which you so vigorously contested, as Walmart will just go elsewhere. If the federal government passed a new $10.10 minimum wage, Wal-Mart would be paying a lot of people more money. It might even be able to sell them some higher-priced "premium" goods that they can buy with those fancy new wages. Yes, Wal-Mart was singled out. The law was designed only to apply to "large retailers" with the higher wage only applying to them. Of course Wal-Mart wouldn't like that - it's was not only a cost but a competitive issue as well. And DC really did raise the min wage there. It's a real thing that really happened in real life. D.C. minimum wage hike is signed into law
Mayor Vincent C. Gray signed a bill Wednesday giving District workers one of the nation’s highest minimum wages, finally giving his wholehearted support to the measure after months of public skepticism.
The bill, passed by the D.C. Council in September, raises the wage in steps, culminating in an $11.50 minimum in July 2016. The rate will be reset on a yearly basis thereafter based on the region’s cost of living. ... Link DC also coordinated with the Maryland counties around it in passing the minimum wage which doesn't fully take effect until 2016, 2 years down the road. Those counties also happen to be some of the richest counties in the country. It wasn't a unilateral action, it was more like a labor market coordinating in response to Walmart extortion. Something that is harder to do if you aren't the local governments for the nation's capital and situated in one of the few areas of the country not hit very hard by the 2008 crash.
Other cities have min wages too - and have been raising them.
|
On January 21 2014 12:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China. Nice one-liner. I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big. 2 million employees spread out and revenues in the half trillion dollar range, I think they have at least some noticeable impact on overall wages...
I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm disagreeing with the notion that Wal-Mart is a monopsony that can set its own price.
|
On January 21 2014 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On January 21 2014 11:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:42 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 11:04 WhiteDog wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). I have adressed everything that Jonny said. It is nothing more than a simple offer and demand model : if you put a minimum wage higher than its equilibrium, the employment level will be lower than that of equilibrium because of a shrinking demand and an excess offer. As I said, in reality the labor market does not strictly behave this way. Jonny just blatantly state that "employers will react negatively" like employers' actions are not define by the context in which they act. I'm not working with an offer - demand model here (why would you make that assumption??) and I stated that SOME employers will react negatively and some will have no difficulty paying higher wages. I'm absolutely considering the context in which they act. You read things that please you. Economy has become a field full of bullshit since 1970 it is not hard to find someone to defend a point of view against a higher minimum wage no matter what the context or whatever. Do you know why I know your point is wrong ? Because it's everything equal.
Reality doesn't work this way, it's always historical, what is true is always true in regards to the context in which assumptions are made. Our context is a context of unemployment, high output gap, rising productivity and stagnating wages. Neumark and Wascher is an article from 2006 : what do they know about current context ? Considering it was written before the crisis (and the data used most likely are even older, most likely 1990s...). Let's also not forget the historical context that the min wage was increased sharply in '07, '08, and '09 and that employer costs are going up with the ACA. If you see people such as Krugman backing up an increase in minimum wage, while Krugman himself actually wrote quite a lot of paper on the negative effect of minimum wage on employment, you might understands that you need to push your analysis further than a simple offer and demand model and actually think about reality.
I questionned myself the idea that it would create jobs, I think it is a candid dream to believe that a higher minimum wage would create a virtuous circle considering the (political) situation we are in right now. But on the other side, saying that a higher minimum wage will push us far from equilibrium - like we're in any equilibrium to begin with ! - is really nonsensical to me, and historical data (like Neumark's work) will not make me change my point of view.
I've heard an economists giving a shocking argument : today's biggest employer in the US is Wal-Mart, with an average wage at 8 dollars something an hour. In today's value, the biggest employer in 1950 was general motors with an average wage at 37 dollars an hour. Just looking at those number, one can see there is something to think about. Even Neumark actually did a study on the effect of the arrival of Wal-Mart in a state, showing that it had almost no clear effect on employment, and a huge negative effect on wages.
As I've stated before, the power Wal-Mart might have on wage, pushing them down as they wish far away from equilibrium, could be linked to a monopsone situation : Wal Mart has become so big that it can define its own wage, no matter the state of the demand. The same case could be made for other kind of company, such as McDonalds for exemple. Wal-Mart tends to pay around the industry average - which is reasonable considering that Wal-Mart tends to operate in low cost of living areas. According to Furman any decrease in local wages due to Wal-Mart's arrival is dwarfed by in increase in purchasing power from Wal-Mart's lower prices. If Walmart is essentially defining it's own wage then the fact that it tends to pay industry average would be irrelevant. The United States of Walmart, where you work for Walmart and have the freedom to buy any of Walmart's fine products made in China. Nice one-liner. I think it's pretty doubtful that Wal-Mart can set its own wage. It's not that big. 2 million employees spread out and revenues in the half trillion dollar range, I think they have at least some noticeable impact on overall wages... I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm disagreeing with the notion that Wal-Mart is a monopsony that can set its own price.
Obviously it is not a monopsony (there are other company demanding for work) but it is as if.
|
The vast walmart wage conspiracy: It has a not unnoticeable affect on overall wages. Am I supposed to gasp now or later? It really is politics if these one-liners are supposed to inspire shock and awe from the hearer. Got any articles on it?
On January 21 2014 11:59 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 11:38 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2014 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 21 2014 03:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I don't really think it will have any negative impact on employment. People who actually still tries to put a simple offer and demand market model on labor just don't understand the matter at hand today. Since 1990 we saw a global split between productivity and wage increase. Because of that (and many other things), many people think wages are lower than their equilibrium level - from this point of view, a higher minimum wage would not ends up in a higher unemployment (in fact that standard model would actually consider that it will end up in a higher employment... because more people will go out of their inactivity to work). The reality (as I see it) is that some employers will react negatively to the higher wage - reduce hours, number of employees, benefits, increase prices, reduce other spending, etc. Others will shrug it off, which will be fantastic for everyone. How that nets out throughout the economy isn't really known, and so there's policy risk associated with raising the minimum wage. Until unemployment is lower I have to err on the side of caution here. That of course leaves the risk that we'll leave low income workers in the cold. But we haven't been ignoring them these last few years so that's an acceptable risk to me. This is one of the reasons why I react negatively to the cloak of elitism present in your response, WhiteDog.
That is what first year students learn in class. Then when they grow up a little, they learn that markets behave differently in regards to their structure, and that the labor market is not a market that behave like a pure and perfect market - they read all the work on the idea that labor market might be a monopsone.
Add disincentives to job creation on top of that. Like Jonny said, there is great risk that side-benefits will not outweigh the immediate negative impacts. I read from various economists with doctorates in their field that go into great depth discussing the opposite: Current raises in minimum wage are not justifiable. Knowing the great disagreement amongst doctorates in the discussion proves that this is not just a novice understanding but a hotly debated topic (Note that you don't have to believe the 'banana market' is all there is to argue the macro negative effects are part of the net negative effect. That forcing the costs to rise above the market-clearing one will still reduce demand). The worrying condition of youth unemployment is more than enough to justify caution on raising the minimum wage at this time. Black teen unemployment at 35%+ (BLS)? Minimum Wages by Neumark and Wascher, Thomas Sowell, Economists from the Employment Policies Institute. I suggest particularly the book from Neumark and Wascher should you only want to listen to economists that are experts in their field and willing to discuss all options with the vocabulary and depth that you desire (and won't find much of in this thread). You have to admit that that tiny fluff blurb you posted from investors.com is a bit silly and doesn't really help your case. I am too lazy to find Dangler's post but here is a counter point to his post about 'experts in the field' by another expert in the field: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/studying-the-studies-on-the-minimum-wage Yes, Seb40Epm, both sides can make ridiculous claims. I don't particularly subscribe to those mass-survey types of data. I do argue and have argued that raising the minimum wage would increase youth unemployment at a time when it's already bad. That we aren't in a situation where its win-win like WhiteDog sees, but that the possible negative affects Jonny cited would be dominant. With workplace participation rate still falling in the jobless recovery, it's no surprise that there's very little reporting on the state economy right now (except when encouraging more government intervention). Obama owns it now, and Americans are starting to see this, lazy or not.
|
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and wife Maureen were indicted on federal corruption charges Monday, the Washington Post reports.
The couple is being charged for illegally accepting gifts while McDonnell was in office.
Earlier this month, McDonnell acknowledged the scandal during his final State of the Commonwealth address, saying he was "deeply sorry" for any pain caused.
More from the Associated Press:
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife have been indicted on federal corruption charges.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, says McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted Tuesday. The 14-count indictment includes conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges.
McDonnell left office earlier this month after four years in the governor's office. Virginia law limits governors to a single term.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
