|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Honestly jonny it seems like you do this every time the topic is brought up. You overstate the evidence and argue that we don't know what will happen, and that any possible impact on employment would outweigh the possible benefits. You should just skip to the point and say that you will fight against raising the minimum wage until the evidence shows a clear positive benefit on employment because you don't care about raising the wages of those working in low-skill jobs just for the sake of bringing up their wage earnings.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics.
This report examines the most recent wave of this research –roughly since 2000– to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.The report reviews evidence on eleven possible adjustments to minimum-wage increases that may help to explain why the measured employment effects are so consistently small. The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases. Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
No adverse effects on employment when minimum wage is higher in neighboring counties/states.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567072-evidence-mounting-moderate-minimum-wages-can-do-more-good-harm
America’s academics still do not agree on the employment effects. But both sides have honed their methods and, in some ways, the gap between them has shrunk. Messrs Card and Krueger moved on to other work, but Arindrajit Dube at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Michael Reich of the University of California at Berkeley have generalised the case-study approach, comparing restaurant employment across all contiguous counties with different minimum-wage levels between 1990 and 2006. They found no adverse effects on employment from a higher minimum wage. They also argue that if research showed such effects, these mostly reflected other differences between American states and had nothing to do with the minimum wage.
Messrs Neumark and Wascher still demur. They have published stacks of studies (and a book) purporting to show that minimum wages hit jobs. In a forthcoming paper they defend their methods and argue that the evidence still favours their view. But even they are no longer blanket opponents. In a 2011 paper they pointed out that a higher minimum wage along with the Earned Income Tax Credit (which tops up income for poor workers in America) boosted both employment and earnings for single women with children (though it cost less-skilled, minority men jobs).
Britain’s experience offers another set of insights. The country’s national minimum wage was introduced at 46% of the median wage, slightly higher than America’s. A lower floor applied to young people. Both are adjusted annually on the advice of the Low Pay Commission. Before the law took effect, worries about potential damage to employment were widespread. Yet today the consensus is that Britain’s minimum wage has done little or no harm.
The most striking impact of Britain’s minimum wage has been on the spread of wages. Not only has it pushed up pay for the bottom 5% of workers, but it also seems to have boosted earnings further up the income scale—and thus reduced wage inequality. Wage gaps in the bottom half of Britain’s pay scale have shrunk sharply since the late 1990s. A new study by a trio of British labour-market economists (including one at the Low Pay Commission) attributes much of that contraction to the minimum wage. Wage inequality fell more for women (a higher proportion of whom are on the minimum wage) than for men and the effect was most pronounced in low-wage parts of Britain.
What I meant when I said "floor" was that the market wage for all positions near the minimum wage also gets raised. The whole pyramid is raised, not just the bottom level. That is clear in the British studies.
|
On January 31 2015 15:40 IgnE wrote:Honestly jonny it seems like you do this every time the topic is brought up. You overstate the evidence and argue that we don't know what will happen, and that any possible impact on employment would outweigh the possible benefits. You should just skip to the point and say that you will fight against raising the minimum wage until the evidence shows a clear positive benefit on employment because you don't care about raising the wages of those working in low-skill jobs just for the sake of bringing up their wage earnings. + Show Spoiler +http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfThe employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics.
This report examines the most recent wave of this research –roughly since 2000– to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.The report reviews evidence on eleven possible adjustments to minimum-wage increases that may help to explain why the measured employment effects are so consistently small. The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases. Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfNo adverse effects on employment when minimum wage is higher in neighboring counties/states. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567072-evidence-mounting-moderate-minimum-wages-can-do-more-good-harmAmerica’s academics still do not agree on the employment effects. But both sides have honed their methods and, in some ways, the gap between them has shrunk. Messrs Card and Krueger moved on to other work, but Arindrajit Dube at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Michael Reich of the University of California at Berkeley have generalised the case-study approach, comparing restaurant employment across all contiguous counties with different minimum-wage levels between 1990 and 2006. They found no adverse effects on employment from a higher minimum wage. They also argue that if research showed such effects, these mostly reflected other differences between American states and had nothing to do with the minimum wage.
Messrs Neumark and Wascher still demur. They have published stacks of studies (and a book) purporting to show that minimum wages hit jobs. In a forthcoming paper they defend their methods and argue that the evidence still favours their view. But even they are no longer blanket opponents. In a 2011 paper they pointed out that a higher minimum wage along with the Earned Income Tax Credit (which tops up income for poor workers in America) boosted both employment and earnings for single women with children (though it cost less-skilled, minority men jobs).
Britain’s experience offers another set of insights. The country’s national minimum wage was introduced at 46% of the median wage, slightly higher than America’s. A lower floor applied to young people. Both are adjusted annually on the advice of the Low Pay Commission. Before the law took effect, worries about potential damage to employment were widespread. Yet today the consensus is that Britain’s minimum wage has done little or no harm.
The most striking impact of Britain’s minimum wage has been on the spread of wages. Not only has it pushed up pay for the bottom 5% of workers, but it also seems to have boosted earnings further up the income scale—and thus reduced wage inequality. Wage gaps in the bottom half of Britain’s pay scale have shrunk sharply since the late 1990s. A new study by a trio of British labour-market economists (including one at the Low Pay Commission) attributes much of that contraction to the minimum wage. Wage inequality fell more for women (a higher proportion of whom are on the minimum wage) than for men and the effect was most pronounced in low-wage parts of Britain. What I meant when I said "floor" was that the market wage for all positions near the minimum wage also gets raised. The whole pyramid is raised, not just the bottom level. That is clear in the British studies.
Hah! My position has not been that min wages should never be raised, nor has it been that the benefits never outpace the costs. What I've typically argued is:
- you shouldn't either ignore the costs or assume they don't exist
- consider alternatives that avoid the employment issue altogether (ex. ETIC)
- it is safer to raise min wages in a strong economy (when wages typically rise anyways) than in a weak economy
I've also said in the past that you can always say that while there may be some job losses, you think the benefits still outweigh the costs. I'm sitting at the closest thing there is to a consensus on the issue, really.
|
Oh my bad jonny, you should start all your posts with "I support a modest raise in the minimum wage [. . .]" then.
|
A perennial problem in these forum arguments, keeping track of what people's original statements/claims are, and what are merely responses to others' claims as counterarguments.
|
On January 31 2015 16:49 IgnE wrote:
Oh my bad jonny, you should start all your posts with "I support a modest raise in the minimum wage [. . .]" then.
Why the hell would I do that? I don't always support a modest raise in the minimum wage. It depends on circumstances and the alternatives available. I spelled that out pretty clearly.
|
Would you support a raise of the federal minimum wage to $9 right now?
|
On January 31 2015 17:41 IgnE wrote:
Would you support a raise of the federal minimum wage to $9 right now?
More of a US question so I'll reply in that thread.
|
H&M is the most successful European company I know of, economically speaking. They are situated in Sweden & have stores all over the world. Just bought some clothes from there a few days ago & they look great. I think that other firms, specifically those from Germany (besides BMW), could really learn a lesson from the H&M example.
[rest of post redacted due to threats]
|
|
|
Out of all the regions in the UK that was affected by the horror of New Labour a, Scotland without a doubt got the worst deal. New Labour has constantly disappointed their voting base with policies that seemed to contradict the working class and social democratic policies they promote by bringing liberal policies that would have horrified even Adam Smith. My observation about the SNP voters is that they are not voting out of nationalism, but rather out of a nostalgia for the social democracy that the Labour Party once promoted. And the disappointment of Nick Clegg certainly seems to be a huge factor to the SNP's growth.
|
On February 04 2015 09:42 A3th3r wrote:
H&M is the most successful European company I know of, economically speaking. They are situated in Sweden & have stores all over the world. Just bought some clothes from there a few days ago & they look great. I think that other firms, specifically those from GERMANY, could really learn a lesson from the H&M example.
What are you talking about? For example: Aldi in 2010 had already more than thrice the revenue of what H&M had in 2013. BASF in 2013 had more than four times the revenue while having 2.5 times the profit. And what about BMW, Volkswagen, etc? Must be fun, living under a rock.
|
The most successful firm in europe is most likely a bank.... Which is not a success. Most big firms now also make money playing on the financial market and not from producing goods
|
On February 04 2015 09:42 A3th3r wrote:
H&M is the most successful European company I know of, economically speaking. They are situated in Sweden & have stores all over the world. Just bought some clothes from there a few days ago & they look great. I think that other firms, specifically those from GERMANY, could really learn a lesson from the H&M example.
I thought Zara was a bigger retail clothing company than H&M?
|
|
|
I don't see IKEA on that list. Hard to believe it's not there
|
Netherlands6273 Posts
http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/
Forbes has the same company for Europe (RDS). To be fair though banks have a huge advantage in being the 'biggest' since they can get away with way more leverage.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
I m interested to see which part of total or BP revenu comes from their main productive activity, and which comes from any financial activity.
|
On February 08 2015 21:50 WhiteDog wrote:
I m interested to see which part of total or BP revenu comes from their main productive activity, and which comes from any financial activity.
Wot, this?
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/BP.JPG)
source
|
Thanks.
I thought financial assets would be more than epsilon. Financiarisation has limits I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
