Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[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.

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.

You keep repeating “ we have no data” canard as if that will make it true.

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

 

[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.

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

OMFG Loren, you already, repeatedly stipulated that
IT CANNOT BE DETECTED.

Why are you pursuing this charade?

I presume you want to spend all the money that raising the MW would have cost, in pursuit of detecting the harm that raising the MW would have wrought. /sarcasm

 

[robnisch]

Someone is stuck in a "do loop'.

 

[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.

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

It just occurred to me that I may have misread your meaning there.

Are you recommending that we raise the MW, @Loren Pechtel ?
Raise the minimum wage, then "figure out what change in minimum wage employment can be detected"?
Of course if there is a drop in MW employment, that means nothing in isolation. Overall employment could still be rising, or vice versa.
But I'm all for the idea of finding out.
And truly, there is no way to know the overall primary effects let alone secondary, tertiary etc. effects of raising the MW,
... without actually doing it.
So let's do it.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Someone is stuck in a "do loop'.

More like a 'duh' loop.

 

[Worldtraveller]

LP, do you acknowledge the relatively well accepted economic fact that more money in the hands of people at lower income scales have an economic impact >1? In some cases significantly so.

 

[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.

You keep repeating “ we have no data” canard as if that will make it true.

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been. Where? All I see are hypotheticals and misdirection.

Just because I blaspheme does make me wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Someone is stuck in a "do loop'.

Many someones. You (collective) don't like my blasphemy but have no actual rebuttal.

 

[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.

It just occurred to me that I may have misread your meaning there.

Are you recommending that we raise the MW, @Loren Pechtel ?
Raise the minimum wage, then "figure out what change in minimum wage employment can be detected"?
Of course if there is a drop in MW employment, that means nothing in isolation. Overall employment could still be rising, or vice versa.
But I'm all for the idea of finding out.
And truly, there is no way to know the overall primary effects let alone secondary, tertiary etc. effects of raising the MW,
... without actually doing it.
So let's do it.

In saying to figure out what effect that can be detected I'm saying to do the math. Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen. Understand that any study that says "no effect" really is only saying the effect is below that number.

And I don't advocate doing an experiment with as much downside as this could have. Your side wants it, the obligation of establishing safety in on your side.

 

[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.

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.

You keep repeating “ we have no data” canard as if that will make it true.

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been. Where? All I see are hypotheticals and misdirection.

Quit evading the point and address the content instead of your imagined implications.

 

[bilby]

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been.

Or just that he's quoting what you said...

 

[bilby]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

 

[Elixir]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

Loren crows that nobody has rebutted his “math” … which shows negligible undetectable harm caused …
which of course means lots of harm is being caused, but it is of a magical, undetectable nature and cannot be rebutted.

If a signal to the opposite effect were to emerge, it would be presumed to only be masking the massive undetectable effect that must underly any such study.

No need to reconsider the idea of paying poor people any more than the least amount that can get them off the couch.
EVER.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been. Where? All I see are hypotheticals and misdirection.

Quit evading the point and address the content instead of your imagined implications.

Quit acting Republican. I'm not the one evading.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

No--which direction it might be supposes you can measure it in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been. Where? All I see are hypotheticals and misdirection.

Quit evading the point and address the content instead of your imagined implications.

Quit acting Republican. I'm not the one evading.

Stop projecting. You pulled out an assumption out of your ass about the use of quotation marks and that I assumed a net benefit. You ignore the fact that your "unrebutted math" is really just mental masturbation because it is based on your ignorance about the many of the minimum wage studies (I even gave the citation of the most famous one which you have to even attempt to "rebut") look at firm level data to measure the effect.

Even though you admit that the effect is an empirical question in each situation, you continue to fling out excuses why the empirical answer can never be that there is a positive effect.

Your entire history on this subject is an evasion of reason, honest intellectual discussion and reality.

 

[laughing dog]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

No--which direction it might be supposes you can measure it in the first place.

That logically incorrect (one can suppose anything, one may not be able to measure one's supposed outcome), and factually incorrect (studies have measured it in specific instances and I suspect in the future with the advent of big data and AI advances, it will become easier to measure.

Interestingly, you steadfastly aver a particular direction. So clearly you do not really believe what you post. If you do not believe what you post, why should anyone pay attention to your posts on this subject?

 

[ZiprHead]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

No--which direction it might be supposes you can measure it in the first place.

And there goes your entire argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Figure out how big the signal would need to be in order to be seen.

You are getting ahead of yourself. The question is which direction the signal might be.

Your assumption that it would support your position (if big enough to be seen) is both unwarranted, and presumptuous.

How would you respond if a signal big enough to be seen were available, but it pointed in the opposite direction to your expectations?

Would you change your position to incorporate this new information?

No--which direction it might be supposes you can measure it in the first place.

Today on People That Invest too Much Fucking Time into Arguing Against Something They Say Can't Be Detected!

Funny how the last couple of years saw larger raises because of inflation, which created its own inflation and impacted the economy enough that the Fed had to raise interest rates to manage. Minimum wage went up and crickets from the Fed.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Your “ unrebutted math” is purely hypothetical but that does not stop you from promoting it.

It is an outright misrepresentation of my repeated position of “ it is an empirical question” to say I assume a net benefit. Your misrepresentation stands out given my comment explicitly refers to “ possible benefits”. It suggests that in your zeal to defend your ideological illusions that you don’t read with any comprehension the comments to which you respond.

Your use of quotes on "unrebutted" implies you feel it has been. Where? All I see are hypotheticals and misdirection.

Quit evading the point and address the content instead of your imagined implications.

Quit acting Republican. I'm not the one evading.

Yes. Yes you are. Or are you going to pretend that you haven't seen this:

LP, do you acknowledge the relatively well accepted economic fact that more money in the hands of people at lower income scales have an economic impact >1? In some cases significantly so.