Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There would be a very simple way to deal with this: rebut the math. Yet you continue to accuse me of derailing rather than do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

There would be a very simple way to deal with this: rebut the math. Yet you continue to accuse me of derailing rather than do so.

Evasion is not derailing- it is a form of disingenuous participation.

Your response is an example of reading comprehension and reasoning failure. There is no point in rebutting your math. It is logically correct but since it is based on a false premise, it is pointless. You believe that minimum wage research only looks or deals with data that cannot measure the effects. Your belief is wrong. In addition, you admit the effect in any situation is empirical but persist in insisting on one outcome.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

 

[Elixir]

In saying to figure out what effect that can be detected I'm saying to do the math.

WTF is “THE MATH”?
What is the source of the numbers upon which you are saying we should perform mathematical operations?
IMHO one would need real life examples from which to extrapolate, and no, American Samoa is not a real life example of causes and effects within the US economy.
You have already admitted that real life stats do not reveal any harm from raising the MW, so what math do you want us to “do”?
And by “do” are you saying “make shit up to plug into a model”, or do you have some novel way to interpret currently available data?
Simply repeating “do the math” isn’t helpful; a parrot can do that*.

Much math has been “done” and it does not reveal harm caused by raising the MW. So what is your “do the math” mantra really all about?

* A parrot can say do the math, but probably can’t do the math. YOU, on the other hand, have shown considerable numeracy. Why don’t you “do the math” and show it here? Please don’t tell us you did that, then fail to provide a link to the post where you showed your work. That would be a creationist tactic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There would be a very simple way to deal with this: rebut the math. Yet you continue to accuse me of derailing rather than do so.

Evasion is not derailing- it is a form of disingenuous participation.

Your response is an example of reading comprehension and reasoning failure. There is no point in rebutting your math. It is logically correct but since it is based on a false premise, it is pointless. You believe that minimum wage research only looks or deals with data that cannot measure the effects. Your belief is wrong. In addition, you admit the effect in any situation is empirical but persist in insisting on one outcome.

You have not shown otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

You're pretending the world will remain static and employers simply give the workers more money.

That discounts the workers replaced by automation and that discounts the businesses that close because they're no longer economic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

* A parrot can say do the math, but probably can’t do the math. YOU, on the other hand, have shown considerable numeracy. Why don’t you “do the math” and show it here? Please don’t tell us you did that, then fail to provide a link to the post where you showed your work. That would be a creationist tactic.

I already posted it long ago. Nobody has attempted to address it, just engage in repeated derails.

 

[Elixir]

I already posted it long ago

Creationism, anyone?
Frankly I don’t believe you EVER posted any reality-based math that proves raising the MW cause harm.
If it’s true that you posted such “proof” it should be no problem for you to C&P it here, but instead you’re telling others to “do the math” as if there were reliable numbers available to “do math” on.
It it was true that you somehow laid hands on such raw numbers I do not believe you’d be repeating “do the math”, nor would you admit that your hypothetical harm is undetectable.

 

[bilby]

That discounts the workers replaced by automation and that discounts the businesses that close because they're no longer economic.

It also discounts the economic growth due to poor people having more money to spend.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

There would be a very simple way to deal with this: rebut the math. Yet you continue to accuse me of derailing rather than do so.

Evasion is not derailing- it is a form of disingenuous participation.

Your response is an example of reading comprehension and reasoning failure. There is no point in rebutting your math. It is logically correct but since it is based on a false premise, it is pointless. You believe that minimum wage research only looks or deals with data that cannot measure the effects. Your belief is wrong. In addition, you admit the effect in any situation is empirical but persist in insisting on one outcome.

You have not shown otherwise.

Not only does your faith blind you to reason and economics, but to reading comprehension. I showed with a citation that premise that min. wage studies cannot show the effects because they lack the data at the right level is wrong. Your response had been evasion, misrepresentation, and risible reasoning (denying thateffrcts are measurable while insisting they have to in only one direction even though the effect is empirical). Your performance is reminiscent of YECs except they make more sense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

You're pretending the world will remain static and employers simply give the workers more money.

He isn't pretending that at all. He is recognizing that the cost of an employee for an employer is more than merely a wage. And if minimum wages increase across the board, corporations can increase the price of the service proportionally, which in the fields of minimum wage, is no where near 1 to 1. So prices increase at a small rate, pay increases notably, and the world continues to revolve around the sun.

The problem of automation involves the entire price (FICA, health care, wages, training) and "inconvenience" (competence, commitment, needing to be managed) of having low wage workers. Not because the wage went up some percentage.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

You're pretending the world will remain static and employers simply give the workers more money.

That discounts the workers replaced by automation and that discounts the businesses that close because they're no longer economic.

But you said raising minimum wage has no measurable effect on any of that?

What DOES it have a measurable effect on? The money in people's pockets.

 

[Elixir]

What DOES it have a measurable effect on?

The psychological well-being of certain “not poor” people who got that way without any UBI or high MW “handouts”, and who resent anyone else getting that kind of help to raise themselves out of the gutter?

… just a guess.

 

[bilby]

certain “not poor” people who got that way without any UBI or high MW “handouts”,

Yeah, these poor people should make do with just daddy's trust fund and their free introductions to wealthy and powerful potential employers, like normal people do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I already posted it long ago

Creationism, anyone?
Frankly I don’t believe you EVER posted any reality-based math that proves raising the MW cause harm.
If it’s true that you posted such “proof” it should be no problem for you to C&P it here, but instead you’re telling others to “do the math” as if there were reliable numbers available to “do math” on.
It it was true that you somehow laid hands on such raw numbers I do not believe you’d be repeating “do the math”, nor would you admit that your hypothetical harm is undetectable.

Long ago in this thread.

Never has anything been addressed, it's just constant deflections. You're the one playing creationist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He isn't pretending that at all. He is recognizing that the cost of an employee for an employer is more than merely a wage. And if minimum wages increase across the board, corporations can increase the price of the service proportionally, which in the fields of minimum wage, is no where near 1 to 1. So prices increase at a small rate, pay increases notably, and the world continues to revolve around the sun.

The problem of automation involves the entire price (FICA, health care, wages, training) and "inconvenience" (competence, commitment, needing to be managed) of having low wage workers. Not because the wage went up some percentage.

That's how it starts out--but in time it propagates through the system and you're right back where you started except with the economic harm of the inflation you caused. And that's the best case--you're ignoring the possibility that they can't pass the costs along and cut back/go out of business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Of course it does.

The problem is you are assuming that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in money in the hands of people that were earning minimum wage.

Well, I REALLY want to hear this part of your stupid idea!

You're pretending the world will remain static and employers simply give the workers more money.

That discounts the workers replaced by automation and that discounts the businesses that close because they're no longer economic.

But you said raising minimum wage has no measurable effect on any of that?

What DOES it have a measurable effect on? The money in people's pockets.

The problem is with what we can measure. I've already shown that it takes a truly huge signal to detect it at all. If your wage hike results in half the minimum wage workers being laid off over the course of the next year you won't see it.

 

[laughing dog]

He isn't pretending that at all. He is recognizing that the cost of an employee for an employer is more than merely a wage. And if minimum wages increase across the board, corporations can increase the price of the service proportionally, which in the fields of minimum wage, is no where near 1 to 1. So prices increase at a small rate, pay increases notably, and the world continues to revolve around the sun.

The problem of automation involves the entire price (FICA, health care, wages, training) and "inconvenience" (competence, commitment, needing to be managed) of having low wage workers. Not because the wage went up some percentage.

That's how it starts out--but in time it propagates through the system and you're right back where you started except with the economic harm of the inflation you caused. And that's the best case--you're ignoring the possibility that they can't pass the costs along and cut back/go out of business.

There is no empirical evidence to support your claim that a x% increase in the minimum wage causes an x% increase in inflation. Nor is there any reputable rconimic model or theory that allows that a x% increase in the minimum wage had exactly the same effect on inflation as an x% in the supply of money.

Your theory is bonkers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your theory is bonkers.

Please don't call it a theory. It's a conjecture, at best.