Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Elixir]

Nobody has ever addressed the zero digits of precision issue.

You mean the unemployment “problem” remaining undetectable? I thought the phantom unemployment problem was your reason for believing that the statement “raising the MW does not cause unemployment” was false.
I concede; it would have been more precise to say “raising the MW does not cause detectable unemployment”. So … let’s raise the MW and see if the predicted benefits are realized (again). Agreed?

 

[laughing dog]

Possible, but the only data point we have shows a decrease. A system in which raising it sometimes produces an increase and sometimes a decrease is a considerably more complex system than where the relationship is more linear. No data has been presented to suggest that we need such complexity--apply Occam's razor.

No. You just insist that ALL the other data points are "invalid".

This is not the same thing, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really should just

All other data points have zero digits of precision. They're invalid.

Your double standard ( my example is the only one is valid) does not become true via repetition.

Nobody has ever addressed the zero digits of precision issue.

Quit evading the point of your double standard when it comes to acceptable evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Possible, but the only data point we have shows a decrease. A system in which raising it sometimes produces an increase and sometimes a decrease is a considerably more complex system than where the relationship is more linear. No data has been presented to suggest that we need such complexity--apply Occam's razor.

No. You just insist that ALL the other data points are "invalid".

This is not the same thing, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really should just

All other data points have zero digits of precision. They're invalid.

Your double standard ( my example is the only one is valid) does not become true via repetition.

Nobody has ever addressed the zero digits of precision issue.

Quit evading the point of your double standard when it comes to acceptable evidence.

I'm not evading anything. If you don't like my math present your own.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not evading anything. If you don't like my math present your own.

I am not referring to your pointless math. I refer to your double standard of “my example is the only valid example “ even though it is more flawed than any study.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not evading anything. If you don't like my math present your own.

I am not referring to your pointless math. I refer to your double standard of “my example is the only valid example “ even though it is more flawed than any study.

So you're not even going to try to defend your position?

Fundamentally: Because minimum wage workers are about 1% of the labor force when we measure unemployment in the labor force as a whole we lose two digits of precision. However, look at unemployment reporting--we normally have two digits but the last digit isn't solid. (Note how often it gets revised over time.) All studies that "show" no effect are simply showing it's less than 20% of MW jobs lost in a month. That's useless data.

Standard scientific reporting expects any result which includes zero within it's error range to report it as no effect. That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?" It's not useful in answering "Does X cause harm?" unless the error bars are very small. Look at the longstanding debate about the hazards of radiation--above IIRC 10 rem/day the results are clear. Below that threshold the data looks an awful lot like noise.

 

[Elixir]

That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?"

So you agree we should raise the MW.
But you think it might cause harm.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not evading anything. If you don't like my math present your own.

I am not referring to your pointless math. I refer to your double standard of “my example is the only valid example “ even though it is more flawed than any study.

So you're not even going to try to defend your position?

Been there and done that. In fact, you agreed with my position.(post 410)

Fundamentally: Because minimum wage workers are about 1% of the labor force when we measure unemployment in the labor force as a whole we lose two digits of precision. However, look at unemployment reporting--we normally have two digits but the last digit isn't solid. (Note how often it gets revised over time.) All studies that "show" no effect are simply showing it's less than 20% of MW jobs lost in a month. That's useless data.

Standard scientific reporting expects any result which includes zero within it's error range to report it as no effect. That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?" It's not useful in answering "Does X cause harm?" unless the error bars are very small. Look at the longstanding debate about the hazards of radiation--above IIRC 10 rem/day the results are clear. Below that threshold the data looks an awful lot like noise.

Not all studies use unemployment rates. For example, David Card and Alan Kruger’s famous paper on the effect of a minimum wage increase focused on actual site employment. It was published in the premier US academic economic journal the American Economic Review in September, 1994, pp 772 - 793. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with it - it helped Professor Card earn a Nobel Prize in Economics.

So your argument is based on a false premise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?"

So you agree we should raise the MW.
But you think it might cause harm.

How in the world do you reach this conclusion??

I am saying that it's virtually certain it causes harm but to date we have not found any way of quantifying the harm. Thus we are unable to compare the harm to the probable benefit.

 

[bilby]

That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?"

So you agree we should raise the MW.
But you think it might cause harm.

How in the world do you reach this conclusion??

I am saying that it's virtually certain it causes harm but to date we have not found any way of quantifying the harm. Thus we are unable to compare the harm to the probable benefit.

You are saying thaf it's virtually certain it causes harm, but you cannot provide a shred of evidence that it does.

You are virtually certain about an article of faith. Nobody else has any reason whatsoever to share your certainty, or even to suspect that you might be right - until you pony up some actual evidence.

 

[Elixir]

@Loren Pechtel what is the basis for your certainty that it causes harm? You already admitted that if it exists, such harm is undetectable.

(Please don’t tell me again that the American Samoa example is an accurate proxy for the US economy!)

 

[Worldtraveller]

There are 4 states, plus DC with a $15/hour or higher min wage, and a bunch of other states due to implement increased min wage in the coming years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. We should have the initial data soon (for a full year) for the first 4 states. LP, if the data shows you're wrong, which I'm willing to bet it will, are you still going to dismiss it as invalid, or noise, or will you finally cast off your religion?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?"

So you agree we should raise the MW.
But you think it might cause harm.

How in the world do you reach this conclusion??

I am saying that it's virtually certain it causes harm but to date we have not found any way of quantifying the harm. Thus we are unable to compare the harm to the probable benefit.

You are saying thaf it's virtually certain it causes harm, but you cannot provide a shred of evidence that it does.

You are virtually certain about an article of faith. Nobody else has any reason whatsoever to share your certainty, or even to suspect that you might be right - until you pony up some actual evidence.

American Samoa. When taken to an extreme it causes readily observable harm. There is no reason to think there's a no-harm threshold. Note that most regulation of hazardous material is based on observations of extremes and harm normally can't be measured anywhere near the permitted exposure levels. Thus regulation of undetectable hazards is the norm.

We have two data points. 0,0 (no action by definition produces no result) and American Samoa which is clearly in the +x, +y quadrant even if you quibble about exactly where it lies. What's the best fit for this data? A line that passes through 0,0 and x,y. Note that said line has a y of zero only at x = 0. What is there to suggest a higher order equation is needed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are 4 states, plus DC with a $15/hour or higher min wage, and a bunch of other states due to implement increased min wage in the coming years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. We should have the initial data soon (for a full year) for the first 4 states. LP, if the data shows you're wrong, which I'm willing to bet it will, are you still going to dismiss it as invalid, or noise, or will you finally cast off your religion?

Why should we expect any useful data? It's still going to be below the noise floor.

 

[bilby]

American Samoa

No.

Just no.

Stop pretending that this is data; It's not, and we have all seen the evidence proving that it is not.

 

[Elixir]

American Samoa. When taken to an extreme it causes readily observable harm.

TDMTP
Everything taken to extremes causes harm. You burden right now would be to demonstrate that raising the National minimum wage to $10, $12 or $15/hour would necessarily cause harm that would outweigh the benefits (which you refuse to acknowledge).


Once again, you extrapolate from an example that has nothing to do with the US economy.
Did you not understand that the first several times it was pointed out to you?

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT RAISING THE US MW CAUSES HARM.
You already admitted that. Now you are changing your mind and calling an island on the other side of the world an accurate proxy for the American economy?
Sounds pretty desperate to me.

 

[Worldtraveller]

There are 4 states, plus DC with a $15/hour or higher min wage, and a bunch of other states due to implement increased min wage in the coming years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. We should have the initial data soon (for a full year) for the first 4 states. LP, if the data shows you're wrong, which I'm willing to bet it will, are you still going to dismiss it as invalid, or noise, or will you finally cast off your religion?

Why should we expect any useful data? It's still going to be below the noise floor.

Your religious adherence to this certitude is amusing.

Your claim is that we won't be able to detect any negative economic impact?

Then why the fuck do you keep arguing against it? When we know for a fact that it will have a positive impact on every one of those people that get an effective raise?

 

[Elixir]

Why should we expect any useful data? It's still going to be below the noise floor.

That doesn't seem to bother you when you construe it as "evidence" that raising the MW causes harm.
Why the hypocrisy, Loren?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's useful when the question is "Should we do X?"

So you agree we should raise the MW.
But you think it might cause harm.

How in the world do you reach this conclusion??

I am saying that it's virtually certain it causes harm but to date we have not found any way of quantifying the harm. Thus we are unable to compare the harm to the probable benefit.

You are saying thaf it's virtually certain it causes harm, but you cannot provide a shred of evidence that it does.

You are virtually certain about an article of faith. Nobody else has any reason whatsoever to share your certainty, or even to suspect that you might be right - until you pony up some actual evidence.

American Samoa. When taken to an extreme it causes readily observable harm. There is no reason to think there's a no-harm threshold.

That is why we do a benefit v harm analysis. You are exclusively concentrating on the "harm" portion. You are excluding all the costs to the economy by allowing jobs that require people working them to have subsidized housing, health care, food. You also over rely on what companies can get away with paying verses what labor value is actually worth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

American Samoa. When taken to an extreme it causes readily observable harm.

TDMTP
Everything taken to extremes causes harm. You burden right now would be to demonstrate that raising the National minimum wage to $10, $12 or $15/hour would necessarily cause harm that would outweigh the benefits (which you refuse to acknowledge).

You are on the side proposing action being taken, the burden is on you to show it's safe.

Once again, you extrapolate from an example that has nothing to do with the US economy.
Did you not understand that the first several times it was pointed out to you?

Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it's not applicable. Normally politicians have enough sense to avoid minimum wage increases big enough to cause noticeable effects--but what I was showing is that normally you can have a big effect without it showing up in the statistics.

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT RAISING THE US MW CAUSES HARM.
You already admitted that. Now you are changing your mind and calling an island on the other side of the world an accurate proxy for the American economy?
Sounds pretty desperate to me.

We have one data point that shows the extreme case causes harm. We have no reason to think the effect goes away at smaller values--any reasonable projection shows it to be below what we can measure but that's not the same as no harm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are 4 states, plus DC with a $15/hour or higher min wage, and a bunch of other states due to implement increased min wage in the coming years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. We should have the initial data soon (for a full year) for the first 4 states. LP, if the data shows you're wrong, which I'm willing to bet it will, are you still going to dismiss it as invalid, or noise, or will you finally cast off your religion?

Why should we expect any useful data? It's still going to be below the noise floor.

Your religious adherence to this certitude is amusing.

Nobody's even tried to rebut the math.

Your claim is that we won't be able to detect any negative economic impact?

Then why the fuck do you keep arguing against it? When we know for a fact that it will have a positive impact on every one of those people that get an effective raise?

Because the inability to measure harm doesn't mean the harm isn't happening.

Most hazardous materials are regulated to levels far below where we can detect harm.