Minimum Wage Study - No Loss In Jobs

[Horatio Parker]

If recall my "debunking economics" correctly, classical supply/demand models are based on a single commodity and consumer. Additionally, these models in macro assume all producers and consumers behave identically iow an "economy" is a theoretical construction of identical individuals.

In models with multiple products/consumers, demand curves can take any shape.

The real world is much more complicated than fantasies built on the assumption that some magical equilibrium will produce the greatest benefit to society.

 

[dismal]

If recall my "debunking economics" correctly, classical supply/demand models are based on a single commodity and consumer. Additionally, these models in macro assume all producers and consumers behave identically iow an "economy" is a theoretical construction of identical individuals.

In models with multiple products/consumers, demand curves can take any shape.

The real world is much more complicated than fantasies built on the assumption that some magical equilibrium will produce the greatest benefit to society.

I'm not sure a single thing in there is correct. Perhaps seek to understand economics before studying how to debunk it.

 

[laughing dog]

If recall my "debunking economics" correctly, classical supply/demand models are based on a single commodity and consumer. Additionally, these models in macro assume all producers and consumers behave identically iow an "economy" is a theoretical construction of identical individuals.

In models with multiple products/consumers, demand curves can take any shape.

The real world is much more complicated than fantasies built on the assumption that some magical equilibrium will produce the greatest benefit to society.

I'm not sure a single thing in there is correct. Perhaps seek to understand economics before studying how to debunk it.

Anyone who was actually understood economics would be sure if a single thing in the post was correct. Perhaps you ought to take your own advice.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If recall my "debunking economics" correctly, classical supply/demand models are based on a single commodity and consumer. Additionally, these models in macro assume all producers and consumers behave identically iow an "economy" is a theoretical construction of identical individuals.

In models with multiple products/consumers, demand curves can take any shape.

The real world is much more complicated than fantasies built on the assumption that some magical equilibrium will produce the greatest benefit to society.

I'm not sure a single thing in there is correct. Perhaps seek to understand economics before studying how to debunk it.

The change from your typical monolithic certainty is refreshing, if nothing else.

 

[dismal]

If recall my "debunking economics" correctly, classical supply/demand models are based on a single commodity and consumer. Additionally, these models in macro assume all producers and consumers behave identically iow an "economy" is a theoretical construction of identical individuals.

In models with multiple products/consumers, demand curves can take any shape.

The real world is much more complicated than fantasies built on the assumption that some magical equilibrium will produce the greatest benefit to society.

I'm not sure a single thing in there is correct. Perhaps seek to understand economics before studying how to debunk it.

The change from your typical monolithic certainty is refreshing, if nothing else.

What do you imagine a demand curve represents? What do you imagine influences it's shape?

I have monolithic certainty you don't understand these things.

 

[laughing dog]

The change from your typical monolithic certainty is refreshing, if nothing else.

What do you imagine a demand curve represents? What do you imagine influences it's shape?

I have monolithic certainty you don't understand these things.

If you believe that demand curves must be continuous and/or slope downwards, then you don't understand economic theory. Demand curves have the traditional shape and slope downwards under certain assumptions but they are not mandated to be either continuous or downward sloping.

Furthermore, anyone familiar with economic theory would recognize your earlier posted graphical presentation as an example of partial equilibrium analysis (i.e. focusing on a single influence in an isolated market). And anyone familiar with economic theory would understand that real world effects are the result of general (dis)equilibrium analysis (i.e. integrated markets with multiple influences).
t

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

That analogy is adding insult to injury. Buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs because no one was willing to buy their services. Losing your customers because you can't keep up with their evolving needs is on you. Losing your customers because the transaction was outlawed by a third party is not on you.

Ok so now you're flipping the conclusion. The study certainly does not conclude that jobs were lost solely because of an increase in minimum wage. It can't conclude that. It is opining on the impact of zero salary. You and the study have no idea why those jobs were lost. They very well could have been buggy-whip manufacturers on their way out anyway. Profitable companies keeping people gainfully employed do not have issues with increases in minimum wage.

No. It's immaterial to some members of the bottom 25% of earners. It's highly material to other members of the bottom 25% of earners. And it's especially material to the non-earners who are poorer than the bottom 25% of earners and would like an opportunity to move up in the world by becoming part of the bottom 25% of earners.

That's not what the study shows at all. You are focusing on 2 charts that discuss the probability of zero salary. Yes that goes up inexplicably for people in the 8th percentile more than everyone else - but the study shows that income growth increases for everyone in the following year or following 5 years. These people get rehired and are better off.

It is clear from the study that increasing the minimum wage is a net positive to society

Who is "society"? When one and the same policy is a negative for some members of society and a positive for different members of society, who is in charge of defining whether the harm to some is outweighed by the benefit to others? Do you have some objective measurement of outweighing in mind? Or by "It is clear from the study", are you merely expressing a subjective feeling that you care more about what was done to the beneficiaries than about what was done to the victims?

and particularly the poorest in society. Is anyone going to address that

Been there, done that. You are wrong. The study says jack all about whether it's a net positive particularly to the poorest in society. There are two reasons its methods are intrinsically unable to address that issue at all. First, the results it's reporting are statistics about aggregates. The authors calculate that the Nth percentile collectively got X more money because of a minimum wage hike. That necessarily lumps together people who got Y less money with different people who got X+Y more money, for a net gain of X. It does not and cannot provide a reason to think "the poorest in society" are in the "X+Y more" subset rather than the "Y less" subset.

And second, as I noted earlier, the authors excluded from their analysis both first-time job seekers and people who lost their jobs because of the minimum wage hike and were never able to get new jobs. The study does not and cannot provide a reason to think "the poorest in society" are not in either of those groups, because it didn't look at them.

(The authors didn't give a reason for the exclusion; but presumably they excluded first-time job seekers because they weren't in the database at all, and excluded permanent job-losers because their database couldn't distinguish them from those who died, or became disabled, or left the country, or became stay-at-home moms, or...)

or are we just going to pick at straw?

Is "straw" what you call pointing out that the specific claims people have made about the study are false?

What the study provides is prima facie evidence that minimum wage hikes in the time period studied usually delivered more money to their beneficiaries than they stripped from their victims. If that had been what Alternet and CC said it showed, I wouldn't be picking. You got a problem with that?

You aren't looking at this study at all correctly. You are cherry picking one piece of data and jumping up and down on everyone for it - while simultaneously ignoring what the study actually shows. I encourage you to read through it again.

aa

 

[Horatio Parker]

The change from your typical monolithic certainty is refreshing, if nothing else.

What do you imagine a demand curve represents? What do you imagine influences it's shape?

I have monolithic certainty you don't understand these things.

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them.

In the real world, a demand curve represents the plotting of a demand schedule. In dismal economic fantasyland it seems to represents a set of levers that you can simply push to change the other side. As Homer Simpson might say, "Price go down, supply go up".

 

[dismal]

The change from your typical monolithic certainty is refreshing, if nothing else.

What do you imagine a demand curve represents? What do you imagine influences it's shape?

I have monolithic certainty you don't understand these things.

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them

Your previous post shows: no, you don't.

What a demand curve represents is Day 1, Minute 2 of the most basic economics course (right after the "what is economics?" discussion) and you have not a clue about it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them

Your previous post shows: no, you don't.

What a demand curve represents is Day 1, Minute 2 of the most basic economics course (right after the "what is economics?" discussion) and you have not a clue about it.

The other option for minimum wage would be a Laffer curve, but nobody wants to try and provide where in that curve we are.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them

Your previous post shows: no, you don't.

What a demand curve represents is Day 1, Minute 2 of the most basic economics course (right after the "what is economics?" discussion) and you have not a clue about it.

Because supply and demand exists and is a vital component of economics doesn't allow you to assert with your simplistic graph that minimum wages cause unemployment. If that were so, the empirical evidence would be overwhelming. But it isn't.

 

[dismal]

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them

Your previous post shows: no, you don't.

What a demand curve represents is Day 1, Minute 2 of the most basic economics course (right after the "what is economics?" discussion) and you have not a clue about it.

Because supply and demand exists and is a vital component of economics doesn't allow you to assert with your simplistic graph that minimum wages cause unemployment. If that were so, the empirical evidence would be overwhelming. But it isn't.

How do you know? You have no clue what a demand curve even is.

It's like you've entered an electrical engineering discussion without understanding what a light switch does.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Because supply and demand exists and is a vital component of economics doesn't allow you to assert with your simplistic graph that minimum wages cause unemployment. If that were so, the empirical evidence would be overwhelming. But it isn't.

How do you know? You have no clue what a demand curve even is.

It's like you've entered an electrical engineering discussion without understanding what a light switch does.

Another useless assertion.

 

[dismal]

Because supply and demand exists and is a vital component of economics doesn't allow you to assert with your simplistic graph that minimum wages cause unemployment. If that were so, the empirical evidence would be overwhelming. But it isn't.

How do you know? You have no clue what a demand curve even is.

It's like you've entered an electrical engineering discussion without understanding what a light switch does.

Another useless assertion.

Useless assertion, maybe. Unsupported assertion, no. You have clearly demonstrated you don't know what a demand curve is.

You're probably right that it's useless to attempt an economics conversation with someone who can't do that, so I will stop.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Another useless assertion.

Useless assertion, maybe. Unsupported assertion, no. You have clearly demonstrated you don't know what a demand curve is.

You're probably right that it's useless to attempt an economics conversation with someone who can't do that, so I will stop.

Demand curve. Prices rises, demand for that project drops. Maybe. Sometimes, demand drops due to economic problems, The Bush economic disaster saw unemployment rise to 10%. Demand for lots of products dropped. You don't buy a new car when you just lost your job. If a state legislature slaps a $1.00 per pack tax on say, cigarettes, demand may drop. But it does not appear from studies so far that raises in MW causes so much loss in demand it affects unemployment. Which is the issue. Raising MW a bit may not spur sales of new cars. But allows more people to buy a hamburger without making that purchase a major purchase decision. What may drag down demand is bad economics like we see happening in states like Kansas. Demand curve has to be analyzed carefully in context to make sense. It should not be used simplistically as a rhetorical hammer in an economic discussion. A $15.00 per hour in state A may affect things quite differently in state B. And then there are short term effects vs. long term effects to consider.

So analyzing that demand curve is not a simple thing so basic that we need not consider the many ifs, ands, and buts, and context involved.

And we can safely ignore reports on the issue from far right outfits that haven't gotten anything right over the last few decades as far as economics go. ALEC, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Club For Growth etc. Why? See my post above.

 

[laughing dog]

Another useless assertion.

Useless assertion, maybe. Unsupported assertion, no. You have clearly demonstrated you don't know what a demand curve is.

You're probably right that it's useless to attempt an economics conversation with someone who can't do that, so I will stop.

Then you need to stop talking to yourself. It is pretty clear that your command of economic theory does not extend even through economics 101. You are stuck in some simple partial equilibrium model that assumes no market power in the market from anyone. Which is not applicable to the real world of general disequilibrium and uncompetitive markets.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure I understand. There's not that much to them

Your previous post shows: no, you don't.

What a demand curve represents is Day 1, Minute 2 of the most basic economics course (right after the "what is economics?" discussion) and you have not a clue about it.

Wrong, day one is the discussion of the notion of costs and tradeoffs. Even in the most basic textbooks, demand does not start until chapter 3 at the earliest.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

No. Economics 101 says there will be both advantages and disadvantages.

You persist in only looking at the benefits and sticking your head in the sand about the downside (fewer hours/lost jobs.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

No. Economics 101 says there will be both advantages and disadvantages.

You persist in only looking at the benefits and sticking your head in the sand about the downside (fewer hours/lost jobs.)

Didn't see this earlier

Giving someone water follows a laffer curve for beneficial impact. Up to a point to the water gets absorbed, after that the body can't absorb any more water and eventually the person can die. Is there a Laffer curve mechanism for minimum wage?

 

[Bomb#20]

Giving a thirsty person a glass of water is a really bad idea, because if you dropped all the thirsty people into the middle of Lake Superior, where there is a lot of water, they would drown. Therefore giving them water is a bad thing, and the more you give them, the worse it is.

It's Economics 101, and can be easily proven by looking at a supply and demand graph. You simply cannot argue with this kind of logic.

<snip>

What does this have to do with proving that someone who cannot drink Lake Superior isn't going to benefit from a glass of water, to a greater degree than the rest of us will suffer if it is provided to him?

Hang on, was that Lake Superior business intended to be a serious argument? It appears for all the world to have been an Underseer-style content-free smear: a way for you to pat yourself on the back for having put your enemies in their place, without saying anything at all relevant to the issues in dispute.

If you seriously meant that to be an actual analogy for anybody's actual argument, then whom are you arguing against, what do the thirsty person, the glass of water, and Lake Superior correspond to in his or her argument, and where did he or she claim that a supply and demand graph implies that it's bad to do the thing corresponding to the glass of water?