Economy The Downside Of Minimum Wage

[Horse Style]

The weight of the evidence doesn't show what they claim, and as Austrians, they don't even believe in evidence (meaning that no matter what it shows, they're going to spin it or abandon Austrianism). Note that you didn't answer my question (does the concept of "revisionist evidence" make sense to you? What they're complaining about is that real economists have abandoned the previous dogma in the face of the evidence--which has caused updates to theory also. Most people would regard that as the appropriate response to surprising evidence).

We're not going to go on another tangent and discuss Austrians. The point was to highlight their argument and evidence, not talk about the people delivering the argument. Nice try.

You have to understand the argument to argue meaningfully against it, and you haven't gotten to that stage. So there isn't anywhere to go.



I'd say rather that you're hyperfocused on it because you don't understand it, while I brought it up as another example (in addition to low-end labor markets and monopolies) where there are market failures that require intervention.

The ol' "well, you just don't understand" gag. I do like how that always conveniently shows up when you can't argue the point. You had no problem going on tangents and partaking in a back-and-forth that focused on something that's not the main topic. However, when I addressed 6 points, including your tangent AND the main topic, it's suddenly "oh well, I'm just going to pretend you don't understand and not actually argue the points you made anymore."



Keep going. What other tangent are you going to try to divert to next?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Has anyone ever noticed the following overlapping positions and wondered about them? A group of people, we'll call them Set A, that opposes raising the minimum wage, also opposes companies hiring legal immigrants and paying them less and has an issue with companies using cheaper overseas labor because we need a certain standard of living for Americans.

They, Set A, oppose paying low wage Americans more and oppose paying high wage legal immigrants less. They don't seem to get the mixed message they're putting out there. They want a price floor for their labor but not for anyone else.

Yes. This is an operative double-standard I have seen on display multiple times.

Only those who have not yet come to terms with the fact that the value of all labor is subjective operate in the sort of boxes that produce those kinds of contradicting positions.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We're not going to go on another tangent and discuss Austrians. The point was to highlight their argument and evidence, not talk about the people delivering the argument. Nice try.

??? They didn't present evidence. The evidence here is strongly on the side of MW increases not having the effects that you claimed. Austrians don't believe in evidence. That's not an attack on them; that's a description of their belief system.

The ol' "well, you just don't understand" gag. I do like how that always conveniently shows up when you can't argue the point. You had no problem going on tangents and partaking in a back-and-forth that focused on something that's not the main topic. However, when I addressed 6 points, including your tangent AND the main topic, it's suddenly "oh well, I'm just going to pretend you don't understand and not actually argue the points you made anymore."

Keep going. What other tangent are you going to try to divert to next?

No, it's just going around in circles, and now you're just getting hostile and posting gifs, which generally means that you know that you're wrong. Every point you want addressed has been addressed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. This is an operative double-standard I have seen on display multiple times.

Only those who have not yet come to terms with the fact that the value of all labor is subjective operate in the sort of boxes that produce those kinds of contradicting positions.

The other big contradiction is people who say they support doing things because they believe in markets and capitalism, but then abandon that position when the logic of markets calls for regulations that are beneficial to the non-rich.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

We're not going to go on another tangent and discuss Austrians. The point was to highlight their argument and evidence, not talk about the people delivering the argument. Nice try.



The ol' "well, you just don't understand" gag. I do like how that always conveniently shows up when you can't argue the point. You had no problem going on tangents and partaking in a back-and-forth that focused on something that's not the main topic. However, when I addressed 6 points, including your tangent AND the main topic, it's suddenly "oh well, I'm just going to pretend you don't understand and not actually argue the points you made anymore."



Keep going. What other tangent are you going to try to divert to next?

If you're confused by the relevance of pollution you really don't understand, though.

Pollution is an externality -> an externality is a market failure -> other market failures include information asymmetry -> MW policies correct information asymmetries in markets for low-end labour.

I mean I guess the conversation has been a little windy, but you've got to be able to comprehend step 2 before you can make a judgement about step 4. It's a 100-level thought-process.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

read somewhere that minimum wage used to be a boomer guarantee that on that specific income you could buy a house and support a family.
now it's more "not dead yet" money.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The other big contradiction is people who say they support doing things because they believe in markets and capitalism, but then abandon that position when the logic of markets calls for regulations that are beneficial to the non-rich.

The only people I see falling for that are those who think "capitalism" is some sort of state of nature that can function as an economic system absent a state. The guy you're having the back-and-forth with may qualify.

 

[Horse Style]

??? They didn't present evidence. The evidence here is strongly on the side of MW increases not having the effects that you claimed. Austrians don't believe in evidence. That's not an attack on them; that's a description of their belief system.

They said MW increases led to less hirings rather than firings which is one response a company can have. It still leads to higher unemployment. I even quoted the part of that article that said as much but I'll quote it again:

Before the latest wave of revisionist studies, the idea that minimum wage hikes don’t cause unemployment received a substantial boost in 1994 from a study of New Jersey-Pennsylvania fast food workers. However, David Neumark and William Wascher re-evaluated the evidence and found that the “New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania group.”

Here's the study that was linked in that quote:
The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records

No, it's just going around in circles, and now you're just getting hostile and posting gifs, which generally means that you know that you're wrong. Every point you want addressed has been addressed.

I post gifs to laugh at people who use the same tactics everyone uses when they can't argue the point:

-Initially try to argue the point
-Divert to a tangent
-Focus heavily on the tangential topic
-Start claiming other person doesn't understand rather than addressing their points
-Attacking the people who make the argument and present the evidence rather than the argument/evidence itself
-Claim the other person is getting hostile because he's laughing (??)

I do find it convenient, you had no problem quoting and responding to every two sentences in my previous posts but suddenly stopped when I made that big post addressing the 6 points of our back-and-forth, while making sure to come back to the main topic.

No MW law ---> People can freely negotiate wages ---> More businesses can afford to enter the market ---> Increase in demand and competition for labor ---> More competition for labor increases wages naturally while more competition in the market lowers prices further ---> End result is more jobs, better wages and prices kept low

That's the main topic and argument. If you're not going to try to refute that, go run along into a corner and continue to delude yourself into thinking you were making intelligent points. I'm not interested in arguments on tangential issues.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you're confused by the relevance of pollution you really don't understand, though.

Pollution is an externality -> an externality is a market failure -> other market failures include information asymmetry -> MW policies correct information asymmetries in markets for low-end labour.

I mean I guess the conversation has been a little windy, but you've got to be able to comprehend step 2 before you can make a judgement about step 4. It's a 100-level thought-process.

Thanks. Hopefully, it'll help to have someone he's less hostile to point that out. But I'd quibble a little in that MWs don't correct the asymmetries as much as they just kind of side-step the problem. It's a rough tool that I think does a good-enough job of approximating a solution. That's my guess about why it doesn't have the effects that people used to fear (in combination with some other explanations).

 

[Horse Style]

If you're confused by the relevance of pollution you really don't understand, though.

Pollution is an externality -> an externality is a market failure -> other market failures include information asymmetry -> MW policies correct information asymmetries in markets for low-end labour.

I mean I guess the conversation has been a little windy, but you've got to be able to comprehend step 2 before you can make a judgement about step 4. It's a 100-level thought-process.

And as I said, pollution did create a market for businesses that would work to minimize it by properly disposing of waste or creating more eco-friendly products. Is that true or false?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Thanks. Hopefully, it'll help to have someone he's less hostile to point that out. But I'd quibble a little in that MWs don't correct the asymmetries as much as they just kind of side-step the problem. It's a rough tool that I think does a good-enough job of approximating a solution. That's my guess about why it doesn't have the effects that people used to fear (in combination with some other explanations).

I somehow doubt it, but that was becoming frustrating to read.

On topic, I started Good Economics for Hard Times after the Lounge discussion on housing policy. It's quite good - first chapter was on the effect of immigration on employment and it felt like a very high-quality Sherdog thread (minus the stupid egotistical stuff). The theory and evidence are laid out very nicely even when the results are counterintuitive.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

And as I said, pollution did create a market for businesses that would work to minimize it by properly disposing of waste or creating more eco-friendly products. Is that true or false?

True, but how do see that fitting into the discussion? It doesn't seem to address the concepts of externalities or market failure.

 

[Horse Style]

True, but how do see that fitting into the discussion? It doesn't seem to address the concepts of externalities or market failure.

Did you forget my main argument is in favor of free-market capitalism? The topic wasn't about externalities or whether some markets have negative consequences.

Because there was a need to limit pollution on environment, people answered that need with various businesses to address that problem. In other words, capitalism is naturally working to correct the problem.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Did you forget my main argument is in favor of free-market capitalism? The topic wasn't about externalities or whether some markets have negative consequences.

If your main argument is in favor of free market capitalism, you should by extension be in favour of keeping markets efficient. A market failure signals an inefficient market. You identified one example of a market failure here:

Monopolies go against one of the main tenets of capitalism which is competition, which is a principle capitalist economies need to operate.

...but you don't seem to understand that there are other kinds as well.

 

[Topguntrophey]

The rich keep getting richer and thats ok. Holy smokes, not everyone else.

 

[Horse Style]

If your main argument is in favor of free market capitalism, you should by extension be in favour of keeping markets efficient. A market failure signals an inefficient market. You identified one example of a market failure here:



...but you don't seem to understand that there are other kinds as well.

I did elaborate further and say natural monopolies CAN be detrimental to the economy, but not necessarily.

Do you have some real-world examples of natural monopolies in capitalist economies? And a monopoly is a company that has 100% of a market, by the way.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I did elaborate further and say natural monopolies CAN be detrimental to the economy, but not necessarily.

Do you have some real-world examples of natural monopolies in capitalist economies? And a monopoly is a company that has 100% of a market, by the way.

I think it would be quicker if you just renounced your position as a supporter of free-markets, since you don't seem to care how much information is actually conveyed by price or whether that's good or bad for market participants.

 

[Horse Style]

I think it would be quicker if you just renounced your position as a supporter of free-markets, since you don't seem to care how much information is actually conveyed by price or whether that's good or bad for market participants.

So instead of providing support for your argument, you're hoping against hope that I randomly abandon my position.

Keep hoping, bud.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

So instead of providing support for your argument, you're hoping against hope that I randomly abandon my position.

Keep hoping, bud.

But you don't understand my argument or yours.

 

[Horse Style]

But you don't understand my argument or yours.

I understand your argument. It's just awful. It's alright. It's not a big deal.

You tried to make a point with monopolies and I asked you for examples to support your point but that was too hard for you. It's alright.