Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If we can't agree on the harm how can we do a benefit/harm comparison?

 

[ZiprHead]

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

That was done in the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

[

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.

You are using the royal “ we” incorrectly because “ we” agreed the net effect is an empirical effect. Moreover, there are studies with the result of no negative effect - studies that do not rely on macroeconomic data.

 

[bilby]

We have one data point that shows the extreme case causes harm

No!

This has been shown repeatedly not to be the case.

You do not get to keep using it; It's gone, exploded, no longer a thing.

We have ZERO data points that show any harm at all.

You don't get to cite American Samoa as data, for the same reason that in a discussion of combustion, you don't get to cite Phlogiston in support of your position.

Continuing to use falsehoods as though they hadn't been soundly refuted, is the hallmark of religion and propaganda. Phlogiston doesn't explain fire; Russia didn't defeat Ukraine in 2022; American Samoa is not an example the effects of minimum wage increases.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody's even tried to rebut the math.

What math?

How do you weight the undetectable effect you assert, within your math model, Loren?

You haven’t rebutted the math that predicts huge fiscal and societal benefits from raising the MW either.

 

[Elixir]

We have one data point that shows the extreme case causes harm.

Loren, seriously - that sounds so lame. Even if it was valid, one point is a datum, not data.

 

[TV and credit cards]

 

[Worldtraveller]

I love the fact that LP is arguing with at least one actual economist on this thread, insisting his single bad point is 'math'.

I mean, we can go read a creation/evolution debate and see the same sort of idiocy.

 

[Politesse]

I love the fact that LP is arguing with at least one actual economist on this thread, insisting his single bad point is 'math'.

I mean, we can go read a creation/evolution debate and see the same sort of idiocy.

Yeah but what you fail to understand is:

THE GRAND CANYON. THERE IS A DATA THERE.

Checkmate, evilutionists.

 

[Elixir]

I love the fact that LP is arguing with at least one actual economist on this thread, insisting his single bad point is 'math'.

I mean, we can go read a creation/evolution debate and see the same sort of idiocy.

Yeah but what you fail to understand is:

THE GRAND CANYON. THERE IS A DATA THERE.

Checkmate, evilutionists.

Zackly. I have to admit being a little disappointed in Loren, who often exhibits considerable smarts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

If we can't agree on the harm how can we do a benefit/harm comparison?

We aren't disagreeing on the harm. You are exclusively concentrating on it.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If we can't agree on the harm how can we do a benefit/harm comparison?

We aren't disagreeing on the harm. You are exclusively concentrating on it.

Exactly. Not only is LP ignoring all the possible positive ripple effects (in econ. jargon, that would be positive general equilibrium effects) or 2nd order effects), he is even ignoring the possible positive 1st order effects. Even in his limited partial equilibrium analysis, if a 10% increase in the minimum wages causes a less than 10% reduction in hours worked by minimum wage workers, the labor income of minimum wage workers as a whole has to increase! For some reason, that simple and obvious math has yet to be refuted.

 

[Elixir]

Even in his limited partial equilibrium analysis, if a 10% increase in the minimum wages causes a less than 10% reduction in hours worked by minimum wage workers, the labor income of minimum wage workers as a whole has to increase!

^that.
And as long as we are honoring a single datum as if it was predictive of a trend, I noticed this today: Wage increases are exceeding inflation by an unusual margin, and simultaneously, workforce participation is way up. That defies the dynamic upon which Loren relies to forecast doom if the MW goes up.

 

[EricH]

We have one data point that shows the extreme case causes harm

No!

This has been shown repeatedly not to be the case.

You do not get to keep using it; It's gone, exploded, no longer a thing.

We have ZERO data points that show any harm at all.

You don't get to cite American Samoa as data, for the same reason that in a discussion of combustion, you don't get to cite Phlogiston in support of your position.

Continuing to use falsehoods as though they hadn't been soundly refuted, is the hallmark of religion and propaganda. Phlogiston doesn't explain fire; Russia didn't defeat Ukraine in 2022; American Samoa is not an example the effects of minimum wage increases.

View attachment 44842

Bilby is making death threats again, and I am referring to the photo in the attachment. The rush of doing it once has gone to his head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

That was done in the OP.

It was claimed to have been shown. The noise floor says we can't prove it. Normally, when the relevant risk is below the noise floor we work with measuring the risk of a much higher threat and extrapolating down. Yet you reject this approach in this case, why?

 

[ZiprHead]

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

That was done in the OP.

It was claimed to have been shown. The noise floor says we can't prove it. Normally, when the relevant risk is below the noise floor we work with measuring the risk of a much higher threat and extrapolating down. Yet you reject this approach in this case, why?

The same can be said of you and your rejection/refusal to examine the benefits of raising the MW.

 

[laughing dog]

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

That was done in the OP.

It was claimed to have been shown. The noise floor says we can't prove it.

Your “ noise floor” has been shown to have gigantic holes in it. It only shows what lengths ideologues will go to mask their faith as rationality.

 

[Elixir]

It was claimed to have been shown.

What's the difference between that and your claim that raising the MW would cause more harm than good?
The difference is that you think the American fucking Samoa economy is a perfect proxy for that of the United States, and are therefore married to "raising MW causes harm" as if it were a proven fact.
Very religious.
On what basis though, do you dismiss all the sociological and economic benefits of raising the MW?
The basis for that dismissal is nothing more than your fear.
VERY religious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody's even tried to rebut the math.

What math?

How do you weight the undetectable effect you assert, within your math model, Loren?

You haven’t rebutted the math that predicts huge fiscal and societal benefits from raising the MW either.

Figure out what change in minimum wage employment can be detected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If we can't agree on the harm how can we do a benefit/harm comparison?

We aren't disagreeing on the harm. You are exclusively concentrating on it.

Exactly. Not only is LP ignoring all the possible positive ripple effects (in econ. jargon, that would be positive general equilibrium effects) or 2nd order effects), he is even ignoring the possible positive 1st order effects. Even in his limited partial equilibrium analysis, if a 10% increase in the minimum wages causes a less than 10% reduction in hours worked by minimum wage workers, the labor income of minimum wage workers as a whole has to increase! For some reason, that simple and obvious math has yet to be refuted.

That's a purely hypothetical case where we have no data for or against. You take it on faith that there will be a net benefit. If there's a sound basis for it why hasn't anyone actually provided evidence of it? Instead we see things like the OP which purport to say things which they do not. The repeated use of bad data by "experts" implies the lack of actual data.