Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No--the effects are logically expected and do show up in the few cases we can see better.

...[listing some anecdotes]...

There are literally anecdotes of so many different kinds of things that could conceivably support all kinds of irrational ideas.

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence you don't like.

No, you're paying attention to the evidence you like and not the evidence you don't like. That's the problem with anecdotes.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/I3CttIbGOcs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It wasn't question. YOU claimed that increasing the minimum wage causes rising unemployment and you've been casting around through 50 different highly varied explanations trying to justify that claim. Your latest claim is now that very efficient companies that don't depend on low wages will drive inefficient companies out of business or force them to rely on automation, which will force companies that remain inefficient out of business.

I'm not jumping around, I'm shooting down your repeated attempts to distort what I'm saying.

As fine a theory as this is, we're now down to talking about shifts in the balance of the labor market ITSELF, of which the minimum wage is no longer even the most significant factor. We're back to the "lost in the noise" effect you mentioned since you have now whittled your argument down to statistical anomalies.

While something may be lost in the noise in a specific case that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Shall we conclude you would have no problem with living inside a low level nuclear waste dump? Nobody has ever tied any bad outcome to anything less than several Rems/day.

We didn't expect any particular skills at hiring for most jobs.

That's because you suck at business.

I'm talking about the factory, jobs where the people hired could be quickly trained for the task.

Try again. You said the scanner saved 80 hours (2 weeks) of work. Apply that across 26 similar offices and you have a year's worth of labor saved.

I don't have a years' worth of labor that I need to do. I have an amount of work that can be reduced from 80 hours to, say, 8 hours. Adding more scanners reduces that even further. The copying of documents now takes less time.

You're missing the point. Yes, you don't need 26 scanners. But take 26 offices like yours--in combination they need 26 scanners and adding those will result in an expected loss of one job.

The only way it eliminates jobs is if we have someone on the staff whose ONLY JOB is to scan documents and record them.

No. In reality companies have a collection of things that must be done and a group of people to do them. It won't match up neatly into 2080 hours per employee--only very, very lucky businesses are perfectly staffed and that state will never persist in the long run. When you reduce the workload chances are some business will find themselves at a breakpoint and respond by eliminating a worker. Expect this to happen 1 in 2080 per hour of work eliminated. While you probably can't identify the workers that lost their job this way it doesn't mean they don't exist. Basic statistics says they do.

If you can't find something to do in the place you already work, it's because you're a shitty employee. If you can't find something for your employees to do after you've hired them, it's because you're a shitty boss.

And because you can't provide a perfect, detailed plan to operate the world you're a shitty person. (Hint: You are committing the standard leftist error of looking at an undesirable situation and automatically assuming it to be the fault of the entity with the most power.)

No, you're missing the point.

That is literally all you have left isn't it?

Your eternal attempts to distract from the issue aren't an answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a fine theory... too bad it's directly contradicted by all three of the articles I just quoted. One of them explicitly says that the SAME EMPLOYEES actually become more productive when their pay is RAISED, compared to workers who start out at the higher pay rate. Another one describes McDonalds giving pay raises and further incentives to existing employees as well as new ones; they AREN'T being more selective, they're motivating their best and most qualified workers to STAY ON THE JOB longer. Apparently, when working for McDonalds is actually worth the time put into it, people who could otherwise afford to find better jobs stay on a little longer, and McDonalds' sales -- and therefore profits -- improve.

You continue to miss the difference between being paid more than at the competition vs everyone being paid more. Proving that the former helps says nothing about the latter.

And then there's the example of Henry Ford, who was NOT being selective about his hiring process and was actually training workers who knew nothing about the auto industry (meaning "all of them") and turning them into kickass employees while also paying them higher-than-standard wages so they would stay with Ford longer, learn their skills better, and hold themselves to a higher standard on the job.

Leftist fantasy. The reality is that he had to pay more to keep employees because his factory was harder and more dangerous work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Indeed, therefore statistical noise might equally conceal a positive employment effect.

Of course--but there's no reason to expect positive effects.

1) a sudden, sharp increase where 75% of the population worked for the same canary. Duh, yeah anyone would expect some unemployment there (and even then, DelMonte Foods moved rather than eliminated jobs).

That simply is because the change was big enough to be obvious.

2) and 3) are entirely consistent with employment neutral or positive outcomes (as appears to have been the case in Seattle). Even if statistical noise conceals a positive effect, you'd expect reductions in the low wage/skill bracket. That's a feature, not a bug.

Higher teenage unemployment is a good outcome?

Lower paychecks are a good outcome?

Crude example : MW increase -> a few burger flippers at the margins are laid off -> the rest get their cars/plumbing/whatever fixed with the additional income -> a few mechanics/pumbers/whatever at the margins are taken on.

Whether or not the upside happens, you'd see the same downside looking at the burger flippers in isolation.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course--but there's no reason to expect positive effects.

Of course there may be reasons in a specific case to expect positive effects. Which is why intellectually honest people say that whether a proposed change in the minimum wage causes a net benefit or net harm is an empirical question.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

Yes you are. You have no problem with the market setting the wage at any low level.

 

[bilby]

While something may be lost in the noise in a specific case that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Shall we conclude you would have no problem with living inside a low level nuclear waste dump? Nobody has ever tied any bad outcome to anything less than several Rems/day.

I would certainly be happy to live in a low level nuclear waste dump, at least from a radiation exposure perspective. Low level waste is not generally hazardous unless ingested; If it's in tightly sealed containers, the only reason to be even vaguely concerned about living in a room full of it is that it would take up space you could otherwise use for furnishings.

The only reason it is treated as though it were actually hazardous is that the anti-nuclear lobby know that it adds a massive (and needless) cost to the nuclear industry, which suits their paymasters in the coal and oil industries very well indeed. When a vast bulk of things (like protective shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues, equipment and tools, luminous dials, medical tubes, swabs, injection needles, syringes, and laboratory animal carcasses and tissues, some, but not most of which are detectably but barely radioactive above background) which could be land-filled with general waste without adding one iota to the risk of land-filling, instead have to be expensively isolated and buried in specially licensed facilities, it adds a HUGE overhead to the nuclear industry. Of course, the actually deadly contamination produced by coal burning just gets blown out of a chimney and becomes someone else's problem.

Of course, High level waste, spent fuel and transuranic waste are a genuine hazard if not handled correctly - but there's not enough of that to be a major cost drain on the nuclear industry, so the antis have to keep up their insane adherence to the LNT hypothesis, that implies that if falling 60ft is life-threatening, then so is falling 3.6 inches every month for 17 years. Low level nuclear waste is almost all less hazardous to human health than regular household garbage; And in many cases is FAR less hazardous than that garbage.

You should no more balk at living in a low level waste dump than you would balk at living in a house with a garbage bin in the kitchen.

The nuclear power industry may be the only example (and is certainly the best example by FAR) of an industry that is actually being held back by needless government regulation.

/derail

 

[Crazy Eddie]

While something may be lost in the noise in a specific case that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you cannot prove it exists then we have no reason to account for it in policy decisions.

You're missing the point. Yes, you don't need 26 scanners. But take 26 offices like yours--in combination they need 26 scanners and adding those will result in an expected loss of one job.

Even in that case, FALSE. Each office has its own file clerk and each file clerk has the exact same circumstances: he has a machine that lets him spend way less time copying paper documents into archives and that gives him way more time to do other, more valuable work.

The only way those 26 machines result in one job loss is if all 26 of those officers were sharing a SINGLE file clerk who was doing the work for all 26 of them. In which case, sure, automation has eliminated the "Copying Paper Documents to Archives" guy because that is pretty much the only thing this guy EVER DOES for this company 24/7/365 and he has no other transferable skills because he spends all of his time archiving documents...

But raising the minimum wage isn't what killed his job. Technological innovation is what killed his job, and his inability to diversity his skill set is what kept him from getting another one.

Increased automation is significant to the minimum wage only to the extent that minimum wage jobs can be automated. Some of them CANNOT be, but even of the ones that CAN, a minimum wage cashier is just as likely to be replaced by a living-wage technician whose job is now justified by the fact that the automated system is WAY more productive than the cashier ever was.

In reality companies have a collection of things that must be done and a group of people to do them...

Exactly. Adding automation systems into the mix means that same group of people can accomplish a larger collection of tasks than they could before. Firing employees doesn't make economic sense in that case.

While you probably can't identify the workers that lost their job this way it doesn't mean they don't exist.

It also doesn't mean they DO. Loss of man hours is NOT the same thing as the loss of an entire employee. Three workers switching to a four-day work week has the same net effect as one of them being laid off.

And again, that's assuming your business is being run by idiots who are always looking for an excuse to cut labor costs even when those cuts aren't needed (and that's not just rhetoric, the business world has no shortage of such people). Smarter businessmen just push their existing team to move more units, see more clients, get more actual work done and let the automation do its thing. As with the McDonalds example: instead of firing all the cashiers and deliberately running short staffed, the cleverest managers will pay for his two smartest cashiers to get an IEEE certification and then get the rest of his staff to spend more time keeping the dining room and bathrooms clean, repairing the drink and ice cream machines, making sure the food is actually edible, rotating stock and inventory and generally making their restaurant a really nice place to be. He'll use the automation systems -- and the increased wages -- to his advantage, instead of treating them as an excuse to screw his employees.

And because you can't provide a perfect, detailed plan to operate the world you're a shitty person.

It's not the job of a "person" to find a way to "operate the world."

It is the job of bosses -- namely employers -- to make sure their workers' skills and time are being utilized correctly. If you put someone on your payroll and then sit him behind a desk for six hours with nothing really to do, that is because you are a shitty boss. There is a TON of things you could get that worker to do, and all of those things will help your business succeed.

If and only if you have assigned that worker to a set of tasks that he fails or refuses to do, THEN you can make the case that he is a shitty worker. But you don't get to blame workers for being unproductive when they work for a person who doesn't EXPECT them to be productive.

No, you're missing the point.

That is literally all you have left isn't it?

Your eternal attempts to distract from the issue aren't an answer.

An answer to what? You didn't ask a question.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You continue to miss the difference between being paid more than at the competition

Also wrong. In the field study, the more productive group was being paid EXACTLY THE SAME as the other two populations, but still wound up being 20% more productive than the other two populations. Why? Because they interpreted the $1 raise as a "gift" and were motivated to return the favor.

Likewise, McDonalds isn't actually paying its workers significantly more than its competitors are (in many cases, it's paying them quite a bit less). But paying more than they USED TO makes their most qualified workers want to stay longer and work harder and the result is a boost of quality and sales and a drastic increase in revenues and profits.

It's almost as if people work a little bit harder when they think their boss cares about them.

And then there's the example of Henry Ford, who was NOT being selective about his hiring process and was actually training workers who knew nothing about the auto industry (meaning "all of them") and turning them into kickass employees while also paying them higher-than-standard wages so they would stay with Ford longer, learn their skills better, and hold themselves to a higher standard on the job.

Leftist fantasy.

Yeah, we all know The Economist is a bastion of communist propaganda, right?

 

[LordKiran]

Yeah, we all know The Economist is a bastion of communist propaganda, right?

Better question: On what grounds does he contest your quote as 'fantasy'? he mentions something about working conditions but didn't bother to back up his assertion with anything concrete.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Of course--but there's no reason to expect positive effects.

Sure there is : income effect, increased velocity of money, reduced welfare bill, improved productivity.

As I said.

As economists increasingly say :

Dear Mr. President, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, Congressman Cantor, Senator McConnell, and Congresswoman Pelosi:

In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.

Sincerely,

Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution
Katharine Abraham, University of Maryland
Daron Acemoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Frank Ackerman, Synapse Energy Economics
Earl Adams, Allegheny College (retired)
Jacqueline Agesa, Marshall University
Tanweer Akram, ING Investment Management
Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Carolyn Aldana, California State University, San Bernardino
Mona Ali, State University of New York, New Paltz
Sylvia Allegretto, University of California, Berkeley
Elizabeth Ananat, Duke University
Bernard E. Anderson, University of Pennsylvania
Marcellus Andrews, Bucknell University
August Ankum, QSI Consulting
Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research and University of Leicester
Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University*+
Michael Ash, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Bevin Ashenmiller, Occidental College
Glen Atkinson, University of Nevada, Reno
David Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M. V. Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Ron Baiman, Benedictine University
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Erdogan Bakir, Bucknell University
Stephen Baldwin, Retired
Erol Balkan, Hamilton College
Jennifer Ball, Washburn University
Gustavo Barboza, Clarion University of Pennsylvania
David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico City
William Barnes, University of Portland
Charles Barone, Dickinson College
Alan Barreca, Tulane University
Chris Barrett, Cornell University
Robin Bartlett, Denison University
Donald Basch, Simmons College
Laurie Bassi, McBassi & Company
Francis Bator, Harvard University
William Baumol, New York University+
Amanda Bayer, Swarthmore College
Dale Belman, Michigan State University
Lourdes Beneria, Cornell University
Peter Berg, Michigan State University
Gunseli Berik, University of Utah
Eli Berman, University of California, San Diego
Alexandra Bernasek, Colorado State University
Jared Bernstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Nancy Bertaux, Xavier University
Charles Betsey, Howard University
David Betson, University of Notre Dame
Haimanti Bhattacharya, University of Utah
Carole Biewener, Simmons College
Cihan Bilginsoy, University of Utah
Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota
John Bishop, Cornell University
Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
Sandra Black, University of Texas, Austin
David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College
Gail Blattenberger, University of Utah
Robert Blecker, American University
Alan Blinder, Princeton University
Barry Bluestone, Northeastern University
Lawrence Blume, Cornell University
Peter Bohmer, Evergreen State College
Barry Bosworth, Brookings Institution
Howard Botwinick, State University of New York, Cortland
Heather Boushey, Washington Center for Equitable Growth
Roger Bove, West Chester University (retired)
Samuel Bowles, Santa Fe Institute
Elissa Braunstein, Colorado State University
David Breneman, University of Virginia
Marc Breslow, Massachusetts Climate Action Network
Dominic Brewer, University of Southern California
Nancy Brooks, Cornell University
David Brookshire, University of New Mexico
Christopher Brown, Arkansas State University
Clair Brown, University of California, Berkeley
Thomas Bruggink, Lafayette College
Michael Brün, Illinois State University
Luis Brunstein, Hiram College
Robert Buchele, Smith College
Nina Banks, Bucknell University
John Burkett, University of Rhode Island
Joyce Burnette, Wabash College
Gary Burtless, Brookings Institution
Paul D. Bush, California State University, Fresno (emeritus)
Al Campbell, University of Utah (emeritus)
Jim Campen, University of Massachusetts, Boston (emeritus)
Paul Cantor, Norwalk Community College
Marie-Louise Caravatti , American Federation of Teachers
Jeffrey Carpenter, Middlebury College
Michael Carter, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Dell Champlin, Eastern Illinois University (retired)
Richard Chapman, Westminster College
John Dennis Chasse, State University of New York, Brockport
Howard Chernick, Hunter College, City University of New York
Robert Chernomas, University of Manitoba
Victor Chernozhukov, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Cherry, Brooklyn College
Lawrence Chimerine, Radnor Consulting Services
Menzie Chinn, University of Wisconsin
Charles Chittle, Bowling Green State University
Mussaddeq Chowdhury, University of Redlands
Paul Christensen, Hofstra University
Kimberly Christensen, Sarah Lawrence College
Gary Clayton, Northern Kentucky University
Rachel Cleetus, Union of Concerned Scientists
Nathaniel Cline, University of Redlands
Richard Coe, New College of Florida
Jennifer Cohen, Whitman College
Steve Cohn, Knox College
William Comanir, University of California, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara
Sean Corcoran, New York University
Paul Courant, University of Michigan
Carolyn Craven, Middlebury College
John Crespi, Kansas State University
James Crotty, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
David Cutler, Harvard University
Sheldon Danziger, Russell Sage Foundation
Susan Davis, Buffalo State College
Charles Davis, Indiana University
Maarten de Kadt, Not affiliated
Charles de Seve, American Economics Group, Inc.
Angus Deaton, Princeton University+
Carmen Diana Deere, University of Florida
Gregory DeFreitas, Hofstra University
Will Delavan, Lebanon Valley College
Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Shanta Devarajan, World Bank
Sean D’Evelyn, Loyola Marymount University
James Devine, Loyola Marymount University
Geert Dhondt, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology*+
Ranjit Dighe, State University of New York, Oswego
John DiNardo, University of Michigan
Avinash Dixit, Princeton University+
Arthur Domike, American University
Dutkowsky Donald, Syracuse University
Peter Dorman, Evergreen State College
Asif Dowla, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Matthew Drennan, University of California, Los Angeles
Laura Dresser, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Richard Du Boff, Bryn Mawr College (retired)
Arindrajit Dube, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Amitava Dutt, University of Notre Dame
Gary Dymski, University of Leeds and University of California, Riverside
Susan Dynarski , University of Michigan
James Eaton, Bridgewater College (emeritus)
Peter Eaton, University of Missouri, Kansas City
John Edgren, Eastern Michigan University
Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell University
Rick Eichhorn, Coe College
Green Ekadi, Meharry Medical College
Justin Elardo, Portland Community College
Elizabeth Elmore, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Azim Essaji, Wilfrid Laurier University
Colleen Fahy, Assumption College
David Fairris, University of California, Riverside
Henry Farber, Princeton University
Sasan Fayazmanesh, California State University, Fresno
Rafat Fazeli, University of Redlands
Steven Fazzari, Washington University in St. Louis
Rashi Fein, Harvard University
Robert Feinberg, American University
Susan Feiner, University of Southern Maine
John Felton, University of Nebraska (emeritus)
William Ferguson, Grinnell College
Rudy Fichtenbaum, Wright State University
Alexander Field, Santa Clara University
Deborah M. Figart, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Kade Finnoff, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Peter Fisher, University of Iowa (emeritus)
John Fitzgerald, Bowdoin College
Sean Flaherty, Franklin and Marshall College
Kenneth Flamm, University of Texas, Austin
Maria Floro, American University
Frederick Floss, Buffalo State College
Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Gary Francis, California State University, Chico
Douglas Frank, Allegheny College
Robert Frank, Cornell University
Richard Freeman, Harvard University
Gerald Friedman, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Alan Frishman, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
James Galbraith, University of Texas, Austin
David Gallo, California State University, Chico
John Gallup, Portland State University
Emma Garcia, Economic Policy Institute
Irwin Garfinkel, Columbia University
Christophre Georges, Hamilton College
Teresa Ghilarducci, The New School for Social Research
Reza Ghorashi, Stockton College
Lisa Giddings, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse
Richard Gilbert, University of California, Berkeley
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
Norman Glickman, Rutgers University
David Gold, The New School
John Golden, Allegheny College
Lonnie Golden, Pennsylvania State University, Abington
Claudia Goldin, Harvard University+
Steven Goldman, University of California, Berkeley
Don Goldstein, Allegheny College
Fidel Gonzalez, Sam Houston State University
Jesus Gonzalo, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Neva Goodwin, Tufts University
Robert Gordon, Northwestern University
Elise Gould, Economic Policy Institute
Harvey Gram, Queens College, City University of New York
Ulla Grapard, Colgate University
Daphne Greenwood, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Ricardo Grinspun, York University, Toronto
Heather Grob, Saint Martin’s University
W. Norton Grubb, University of California, Berkeley
Christopher Gunn, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Robert Guttmann, Hofstra University
Darrick Hamilton, The New School
Joseph Harris, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury (emeritus)
Douglas Harris, Tulane University
Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women’s Policy Research and George Washington University
Mitchell Harwitz, University at Buffalo
Baban Hasnat, State University of New York, Brockport
Robert Haveman, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Carol Heim, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
John Henry, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Felix Hernandez, Queens College, City University of New York
Conrad Herold, Hofstra University
Adam Hersh, Center for American Progress
Stephen Herzenberg, Keystone Research Center
Donald Hester, University of Wisconsin, Madison
David Hewitt, Whittier College
Michael Hillard, University of Southern Maine
Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, University of California, Los Angeles
P. Sai-wing Ho, University of Denver
Geoffrey Hodgson, University of Hertfordshire
Emily Hoffman, Western Michigan University
Michelle Holder, Community Service Society of New York
Stephen Holland, University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Harry Holzer, Georgetown University
Christina Houseworth, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
David Howell, The New School
Candace Howes, Connecticut College
David Huffman, Bridgewater College
Thomas Hungerford, Economic Policy Institute
E. K. Hunt, University of Utah
Michael Hutchison, University of California, Santa Cruz
Saul Hymans, University of Michigan
Frederick Inaba, Washington State University
Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands
Sarah Jacobson, Williams College
Sanford Jacoby, University of California, Los Angeles
David Jaeger, City University of New York Graduate Center
Kenneth Jameson, University of Utah
Russell Janis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Marc Jarsulic, Center for American Progress
Elizabeth Jensen, Hamilton College
Tae-Hee Jo, State University of New York, Buffalo State
Jerome Joffe, St. John’s University (retired)
William Johnson, Arizona State University
Jon Jonakin, Tennessee Technological University (emeritus)
Barbara Jones, Alabama A&M University
Derek Jones, Hamilton College
Helene Jorgensen, Economic Consultant
Allison Kaminaga, Stonehill College
J. K. Kapler, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Peter Karl Kresl, Bucknell University
Harry Katz, Cornell University
Lawrence Katz, Harvard University
Roger Kaufman, Smith College
David Kaun, University of California, Santa Cruz
Mark Kazarosian, Stonehill College and Boston College
Melissa Kearney, University of Maryland
Daphne Kenyon, D. A. Kenyon & Associates
Valerie Kepner, King’s College
Haider Khan, University of Denver
Jaewhan Kim, University of Utah
Mary King, Portland State University
Christopher King, University of Texas, Austin
Marieka Klawitter, University of Washington
Lori Kletzer, Colby College
Janet Knoedler, Bucknell University
Thomas Kochan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Timothy Koechlin, Vassar College
Andrew Kohen, James Madison University
Ebru Kongar, Dickinson College
David Kotz, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Dan Kovenock, Chapman University
Philip Kozel, Rollins College
Brent Kramer, City University of New York
Kate Krause, University of New Mexico
Alan Krupnick, Resources for the Future
Adriana Kugler, Georgetown University
Edith Kuiper, State University of New York, New Paltz
Dr. R. Shashi Kumar Kumar, Bangalore University
Fidan Ana Kurtulus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Sumner La Croix, University of Hawaii
David Laibman, Brooklyn College, City University of New York (emeritus)
Melaku Lakew, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Andrew Larkin, St. Cloud State University (emeritus)
Gary Latanich, Arkansas State University
William Lazonick, University of Massachusetts
Ronald Lee, University of California, Berkeley
Frederic Lee, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Thomas Legg, University of Minnesota
Brandon Lehr, Occidental College
Paul Leigh, University of California, Davis
Charles Levenstein, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Margaret Levenstein, University of Michigan
Henry Levin, Columbia University
Mark Levinson, SEIU
Oren Levin-Waldman, Metropolitan College of New York
Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Arthur Lewbel, Boston College
David Lindauer, Wellesley College
Susan Linz, Michigan State University
Victor Lippit, University of California, Riverside
David Lipsky, Cornell University
Paul Lockard, Black Hawk College and Economic History Association
Mark Long, University of Washington
Mary Lopez, Occidental College
Daniel Luria, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center
Nora Lustig, Tulane University
Devon Lynch, University of Masschusetts, Dartmouth
Robert Lynch, Washington College
Lisa Lynch, Brandeis University
Frank Lysy, World Bank (retired)
Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts, Boston
John MacLennan, American Society for Public Administration
Allan MacNeill, Webster University
Craig MacPhee, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Diane Macunovich, University of Redlands
Mark Maier, Glendale Community College
Bernard Malamud, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Julianne Malveaux, Bennett College (former president)
Don Mar, San Francisco State University
Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota
Lawrence Marsh, University of Notre Dame
Ray Marshall, University of Texas, Austin
John Martinez, Midwestern State University
Alexandre Mas, Princeton University
Eric Maskin, Harvard University*
Patrick L. Mason, Florida State University
Andrew Mason, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Thomas Masterson, Bard College
Gabriel Mathy, American University
Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
Peter Hans Matthews, Middlebury College
Ann Mari May, University of Nebraska
Anne Mayhew, University of Tennessee
Roberto Mazzoleni, Hofstra University
Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont
Susan McElroy, University of Texas, Dallas
Richard McGahey, The New School
Richard McGregory, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater
Richard McIntyre, University of Rhode Island
Jo Beth Mertens, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Peter Meyer, The E.P. Systems Group, Inc.
Douglas Meyer, UAW
Peter Meyer, University of the Pacific
William Milberg, The New School
Ashley Miller, Mount Holyoke College
John Miller, Wheaton College
Ronald Mincy, Columbia University
Jerry Miner, Syracuse University
Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
John Mondejar, U.S. Federal Government
Edward Montgomery, Georgetown University
Mark Montgomery, Stony Brook University
Robert Moore, Georgia State University
Margaret Morgan-Davie, Hamilton College
Monique Morrissey, Economic Policy Institute
Fred Moseley, Mount Holyoke College
Philip Moss, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Eshragh Motahar, Union College
Akira Motomura, Stonehill College
Tracy Mott, University of Denver
Catherine P. Mulder, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Kranti Mulik, Union of Concerned Scientists
Alicia Munnell, Boston College
Richard Murnane, Harvard University
Michael Murray, Bates College
Marta Murray-Close, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Ellen Mutari, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Samuel Myers, University of Minnesota
Sirisha Naidu, Wright State University
Michele Naples, The College of New Jersey
Julie Nelson, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Yeva Nersisyan, Franklin and Marshall College
Reynold Nesiba, Augustana College (South Dakota)
Zohreh Niknia , Mills College
Eric Nilsson, California State University, San Bernardino
Roger Noll, Stanford University
Abdullah Noman, Nicholls State University
Nathan Nunn, Harvard University
Michael Nuwer, State University of New York, Potsdam
Seamus O’Cleireacain, Columbia University
Carol O’Cleireacain, Economic Consultant
Jeffrey O’Hara, Union of Concerned Scientists
Erik Olsen, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Paulette Olson, Wright State University
Paul Ong, University of California, Los Angeles
Paul Osterman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rudolph Oswald, AFL-CIO (retired)
Ozay Ozge, Dickinson College
Bora Ozkan, Tulane University
Aaron Pacitti, Siena College
Spencer Pack, Connecticut College
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Bard College
Jairo Parada, Universidad del Norte
Elliott Parker, University of Nevada, Reno
James Parrott, Fiscal Policy Institute
Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
Jennifer Pate, Loyola Marymount University
Eva Paus, Mount Holyoke College
Anita Pena, Colorado State University
Michael Perelman, California State University, Chico
Joseph Persky, University of Illinois, Chicago
Karen Pfeifer, Smith College (emerita)
Peter Philips, University of Utah
Bruce Pietrykowski, University of Michigan, Dearborn
Chiara Piovani, University of Denver
David Plante, Western State Colorado University
Mary Kay Plantes, Plantes Company, LLC
Jeffrey Pliskin, Hamilton College
Robert Plotnick, University of Washington
Karen Rosel Polenske, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Pollin, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Mark Price, Keystone Research Center
Kevin Quinn, Bowling Green State University
Codrina Rada, University of Utah
Steven Radelet, Georgetown University
Fredric Raines, Washington University in St. Louis
David Ramsey, Illinois State University (retired)
Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley
Wendy Rayack, Wesleyan University
James Rebitzer, Boston University
Mike Reed, University of Nevada, Reno
Michael Reich, University of California, Berkeley
Robert Reich, University of California, Berkeley
Siobhan Reilly, Mills College
Cordelia Reimers, Hunter College, City University of New York Graduate Center
Stephen Reynolds, University of Utah
Donald Richards, Indiana State University
Philip Robins, University of Miami
Michael Robinson, Mount Holyoke College
Malcolm Robinson, Thomas More College
Charles Rock, Rollins College
William Rodgers, Rutgers University
Dani Rodrik, Institute for Advanced Study
John Roemer, Yale University
Frank Roosevelt, Metropolitan College of New York
Samuel Rosenberg, Roosevelt University
Joshua Rosenbloom, University of Kansas
Stuart Rosewarne, University of Sydney
Sergio Rossi, University of Fribourg
Roy Rotheim, Skidmore College
Jesse Rothstein, University of California, Berkeley
Cecilia Rouse, Princeton University
David F. Ruccio, University of Notre Dame
Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University
Emmanuel Saez, University of California, Berkeley
Héctor Sáez, Holy Names University
Gregory Saltzman, Albion College
Isabel Sawhill, Brookings Institution
Peter Schaeffer, West Virginia University
William Schaniel, University of West Georgia
Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland*+
Ted Schmidt, State University of New York, Buffalo State
Stephen Schmidt, Union College
John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Geoffrey Schneider, Bucknell University
Juliet Schor, Boston College
Amy Schwartz, New York University
Elliott Sclar, Columbia University
Jason Scorse, Monterey Institute
Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute
Ian Seda-Irizarry, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Stephanie Seguino, University of Vermont
Renata Serra, University of Florida
Mohamad Shaaf, University of Central Oklahoma
Jean Shackelford, Bucknell University (emerita)
Harley Shaiken, University of California, Berkeley
David Shapiro, Pennsylvania State University
Robert Shapiro, Georgetown University
Rajiv Sharma, Portland State University
Dennis Shea, Pennsylvania State University
Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute
Lara Shore-Sheppard, Williams College
Steven Shulman, Colorado State University
Nicholas Shunda, University of Redlands
Laurence Shute, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Dan Sichel, Wellesley College
Perry Singleton, Syracuse University
Eric Sjoberg, University of Utah
Curtis Skinner, National Center for Children in Poverty
Peter Skott, University of Massachusetts
Courtenay Slater, Retired
Timothy Smeeding, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Niloufer Sohrabji, Simmons College
Aaron Sojourner, University of Minnesota
Robert Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology*+
Allen Soltow, University of Tulsa (retired)
Roger Sparks, Mills College
A. Michael Spence, New York University*
Peter Spiegler, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Janet Spitz, The College of Saint Rose
Case Sprenkle, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
William Spriggs, Howard University and AFL-CIO
Charles Staelin, Smith College
Brian Staihr, University of Kansas
J. Ron Stanfield, Colorado State University (emeritus)
K.C. Stanfield, DePauw University
Mark Stephens, Tennessee Tech University
Ann Stevens, University of California, Davis
Mary Stevenson, University of Massachusetts, Boston
James Stewart, Pennsylvania State University (emeritus)
Chace Stiehl, Bellevue College
Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University*
Chad Stone, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Diana Strassmann, Rice University
Cornelia Strawser, Bernan Press
Myra Strober, Stanford University
Woody Studenmund, Occidental College
David Sturges, Colgate University
Timothy Sullivan, Towson University
Lawrence Summers, Harvard University
William Sundstrom, Santa Clara University
Richard Sutch, University of California, Riverside and Berkeley
Paul Swaim, OECD
James Swaney, Wright State University (emeritus)
Sharon Szymanski, State University of New York, Empire State College
Michael Taillard, Bellevue University
Vis Taraz, Smith College
Linwood Tauheed, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Daniele Tavani, Colorado State University
William Taylor, New Mexico Highlands University
Lance Taylor, The New School for Social Research
Peter Temin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David Terkla, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Ranjini Thaver, Stetson University
Mark Thoma, University of Oregon
Frank Thompson, University of Michigan
Emanuel Thorne, Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Chris Tilly, University of California, Los Angeles
Renee Toback, Economy Connection
Jim Tober, Marlboro College
Mayo Toruño, California State University, San Bernardino
Scott Trees, Siena College
Marjorie Turner, San Diego State University (emeritus)
A. Dale Tussing, Syracuse University
Eric Tymoigne, Lewis and Clark College
Laura Tyson, University of California, Berkeley
Lynn Unruh, University of Central Florida
David Vail, Bowdoin College
Hendrik Van den Berg, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
William Van Lear, Belmont Abbey College
Andres Vargas, Texas Tech University
Ann Velenchik, Wellesley College
Eric Verhoogen, Columbia University
Matías Vernengo, Bucknell University
Paula Voos, Rutgers University
Jeff Waddoups, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Norman Waitzman, University of Utah
Lawrence Waldman, University of New Mexico
William Waller, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Robert Wassmer, California State University, Sacramento
John Watkins, Westminster College (Salt Lake City)
David Weiman, Barnard College and Columbia University
Scott A. Weir, Wake Technical Community College
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Charles Weise, Gettysburg College
Thomas Weisskopf, University of Michigan
Christian Weller, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Sarah West, Macalester College
Cathleen Whiting, Willamette University
Howard Wial, University of Illinois, Chicago
Jeannette Wicks-Lim, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Charles Wilber, University of Notre Dame
Sarah Wilhelm, SA Wilhelm Consulting
John Willoughby, American University
Valerie Wilson, National Urban League
Margrethe Winslow, University of San Francisco
Jon Wisman, American University
Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Edward Wolff, New York University
Max Wolff, The New School
Marty Wolfson, University of Notre Dame
Rossitza Wooster, Portland State University
Brenda Wyss, Wheaton College (Massachusetts)
Todd Yarbrough, Aquinas College
Yavuz Yasar, University of Denver
Anne Yeagle, University of Utah
Linda Wilcox Young, Southern Oregon University
Ben Young, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Helen Youngelson-Neal, Portland State University
Carol Zabin, University of California, Berkeley
David Zalewski, Providence College
Paul Zarembka, State University of New York, Buffalo
James Ziliak, University of Kentucky
Andrew Zimbalist, Smith College
Jeffrey Zink, Morningside College
Michael Zweig, State University of New York, Stony Brook

* Nobel laureate
+ Has served as American Economic Association president

1) a sudden, sharp increase where 75% of the population worked for the same canary. Duh, yeah anyone would expect some unemployment there (and even then, DelMonte Foods moved rather than eliminated jobs).

That simply is because the change was big enough to be obvious.

No, it was simply an artefact of what I said (except cannary - not canary ). What you'd need to show is that the jobs were either eliminated altogether - ie production cut - or moved to somewhere with an even lower wage than the pre MW wage hike. Which, as we established the last time you cited American Samoa, wasn't the case.

2) and 3) are entirely consistent with employment neutral or positive outcomes (as appears to have been the case in Seattle). Even if statistical noise conceals a positive effect, you'd expect reductions in the low wage/skill bracket. That's a feature, not a bug.

Higher teenage unemployment is a good outcome?

Certainly no worse than unemployment of breadwinners with families.

Lower paychecks are a good outcome?

The net effect would be higher paychecks if pro-MW arguments are right. Now, said arguments could be wrong, but what you've said remains an assertion rather than a counterargument.

Crude example : MW increase -> a few burger flippers at the margins are laid off -> the rest get their cars/plumbing/whatever fixed with the additional income -> a few mechanics/pumbers/whatever at the margins are taken on.

Whether or not the upside happens, you'd see the same downside looking at the burger flippers in isolation.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

Nah, see above.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there may be reasons in a specific case to expect positive effects. Which is why intellectually honest people say that whether a proposed change in the minimum wage causes a net benefit or net harm is an empirical question.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

Yes you are. You have no problem with the market setting the wage at any low level.

I recognize that setting the wage above the minimum chops off the bottom of the ladder and denies the least valuable workers entry into the job market. In practice the vast majority do not stay at minimum wage, I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course there may be reasons in a specific case to expect positive effects. Which is why intellectually honest people say that whether a proposed change in the minimum wage causes a net benefit or net harm is an empirical question.
Yes you are. You have no problem with the market setting the wage at any low level.

I recognize that setting the wage above the minimum chops off the bottom of the ladder and denies the least valuable workers entry into the job market. In practice the vast majority do not stay at minimum wage, I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

The "least valuable workers" enter the job market at the new minimum wage, one way or another. Employers do not look into their magical economic crystal balls to evaluate what an employee's actual worth is before deciding whether or not to hire him. Hiring decisions are a question of character and background, not market value.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you cannot prove it exists then we have no reason to account for it in policy decisions.

You're missing the point. Yes, you don't need 26 scanners. But take 26 offices like yours--in combination they need 26 scanners and adding those will result in an expected loss of one job.

Even in that case, FALSE. Each office has its own file clerk and each file clerk has the exact same circumstances: he has a machine that lets him spend way less time copying paper documents into archives and that gives him way more time to do other, more valuable work.

The only way those 26 machines result in one job loss is if all 26 of those officers were sharing a SINGLE file clerk who was doing the work for all 26 of them. In which case, sure, automation has eliminated the "Copying Paper Documents to Archives" guy because that is pretty much the only thing this guy EVER DOES for this company 24/7/365 and he has no other transferable skills because he spends all of his time archiving documents...

In other words, 2 + 2 + 2... can never add up to 52.

But raising the minimum wage isn't what killed his job. Technological innovation is what killed his job, and his inability to diversity his skill set is what kept him from getting another one.

Oh, I see, the same dispute I have had with many of you in the past. You define morality based only on personal actions, not results. As far as I'm concerned that's a close relative to that infamous road that's paved with good intentions.

Increased automation is significant to the minimum wage only to the extent that minimum wage jobs can be automated. Some of them CANNOT be, but even of the ones that CAN, a minimum wage cashier is just as likely to be replaced by a living-wage technician whose job is now justified by the fact that the automated system is WAY more productive than the cashier ever was.

Except it's likely 3 or more minimum wage cashier being replaced with the living-wage technician. The rest of the cashiers are screwed.

In reality companies have a collection of things that must be done and a group of people to do them...

Exactly. Adding automation systems into the mix means that same group of people can accomplish a larger collection of tasks than they could before. Firing employees doesn't make economic sense in that case.

Again, ignoring the job loss elsewhere. Out of sight really means out of mind to you, doesn't it?

While you probably can't identify the workers that lost their job this way it doesn't mean they don't exist.

It also doesn't mean they DO. Loss of man hours is NOT the same thing as the loss of an entire employee. Three workers switching to a four-day work week has the same net effect as one of them being laid off.

In the short run, sure. But if the company grows they'll go back to 5 day work weeks, not hire the workers that were displaced elsewhere.

And again, that's assuming your business is being run by idiots who are always looking for an excuse to cut labor costs even when those cuts aren't needed (and that's not just rhetoric, the business world has no shortage of such people). Smarter businessmen just push their existing team to move more units, see more clients, get more actual work done and let the automation do its thing. As with the McDonalds example: instead of firing all the cashiers and deliberately running short staffed, the cleverest managers will pay for his two smartest cashiers to get an IEEE certification and then get the rest of his staff to spend more time keeping the dining room and bathrooms clean, repairing the drink and ice cream machines, making sure the food is actually edible, rotating stock and inventory and generally making their restaurant a really nice place to be. He'll use the automation systems -- and the increased wages -- to his advantage, instead of treating them as an excuse to screw his employees.

Said manager will be fired because his place costs more to run but doesn't sell more.

And because you can't provide a perfect, detailed plan to operate the world you're a shitty person.

It's not the job of a "person" to find a way to "operate the world."

It is the job of bosses -- namely employers -- to make sure their workers' skills and time are being utilized correctly. If you put someone on your payroll and then sit him behind a desk for six hours with nothing really to do, that is because you are a shitty boss. There is a TON of things you could get that worker to do, and all of those things will help your business succeed.

So bosses aren't human? Or you're not human?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) a sudden, sharp increase where 75% of the population worked for the same canary. Duh, yeah anyone would expect some unemployment there (and even then, DelMonte Foods moved rather than eliminated jobs).

That simply is because the change was big enough to be obvious.

No, it was simply an artefact of what I said (except cannary - not canary ). What you'd need to show is that the jobs were either eliminated altogether - ie production cut - or moved to somewhere with an even lower wage than the pre MW wage hike. Which, as we established the last time you cited American Samoa, wasn't the case.

2) and 3) are entirely consistent with employment neutral or positive outcomes (as appears to have been the case in Seattle). Even if statistical noise conceals a positive effect, you'd expect reductions in the low wage/skill bracket. That's a feature, not a bug.

Higher teenage unemployment is a good outcome?

Certainly no worse than unemployment of breadwinners with families.

Lower paychecks are a good outcome?

The net effect would be higher paychecks if pro-MW arguments are right. Now, said arguments could be wrong, but what you've said remains an assertion rather than a counterargument.

Crude example : MW increase -> a few burger flippers at the margins are laid off -> the rest get their cars/plumbing/whatever fixed with the additional income -> a few mechanics/pumbers/whatever at the margins are taken on.

Whether or not the upside happens, you'd see the same downside looking at the burger flippers in isolation.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

Nah, see above.

You realize that the factory move that you are touting as the alternative to unemployment was to an area that didn't have the higher minimum wage?

And while teenage unemployment itself isn't that bad it's people cut off from access to the working world--and that's a very bad thing.

And just because the MW proponents say it will result in higher paychecks doesn't make it so. The Seattle data says otherwise. The liberals hated that answer, though, and promptly fired the researchers for not coming up with the politically correct results.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course there may be reasons in a specific case to expect positive effects. Which is why intellectually honest people say that whether a proposed change in the minimum wage causes a net benefit or net harm is an empirical question.
Yes you are. You have no problem with the market setting the wage at any low level.

I recognize that setting the wage above the minimum chops off the bottom of the ladder and denies the least valuable workers entry into the job market. In practice the vast majority do not stay at minimum wage, I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Thank you for confirming that you have no problem sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot above them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you cannot prove it exists then we have no reason to account for it in policy decisions.


Even in that case, FALSE. Each office has its own file clerk and each file clerk has the exact same circumstances: he has a machine that lets him spend way less time copying paper documents into archives and that gives him way more time to do other, more valuable work.

The only way those 26 machines result in one job loss is if all 26 of those officers were sharing a SINGLE file clerk who was doing the work for all 26 of them. In which case, sure, automation has eliminated the "Copying Paper Documents to Archives" guy because that is pretty much the only thing this guy EVER DOES for this company 24/7/365 and he has no other transferable skills because he spends all of his time archiving documents...

In other words, 2 + 2 + 2... can never add up to 52.

Your terrible grasp of math continues to impress me.

You have sex with a woman 2 times in a week; she gets pregnant and, 9 months later she has a baby.

How many children will you have if you have sex with that woman 52 times in a week?

Oh, I see, the same dispute I have had with many of you in the past. You define morality based only on personal actions, not results.

Pretty much. "The ends do not justify the means" is a well established moral position many people hold to. Why does that surprise you?

As far as I'm concerned that's a close relative to that infamous road that's paved with good intentions.

You DO realize that phrase was originally coined by Karl Marx, right?

Except it's likely

[citation needed]

Again, ignoring the job loss elsewhere.

... due to companies failing to innovate to remain productive. A company's ability or inability to do that is not dependent on the minimum wage, and therefore this line of thought is a red herring.

Said manager will be fired because his place costs more to run but doesn't sell more.

But it DOES sell more, according to the article, to the research, and according to McDonalds' own profit reports. The author explicitly lists this very action as one of the things that is helping McDonalds boost its sales nationwide.

So bosses aren't human? Or you're not human?

Are you an idiot?

 

[Canard DuJour]

1) a sudden, sharp increase where 75% of the population worked for the same canary. Duh, yeah anyone would expect some unemployment there (and even then, DelMonte Foods moved rather than eliminated jobs).

That simply is because the change was big enough to be obvious.

No, it was simply an artefact of what I said (except cannary - not canary ). What you'd need to show is that the jobs were either eliminated altogether - ie production cut - or moved to somewhere with an even lower wage than the pre MW wage hike. Which, as we established the last time you cited American Samoa, wasn't the case.

2) and 3) are entirely consistent with employment neutral or positive outcomes (as appears to have been the case in Seattle). Even if statistical noise conceals a positive effect, you'd expect reductions in the low wage/skill bracket. That's a feature, not a bug.

Higher teenage unemployment is a good outcome?

Certainly no worse than unemployment of breadwinners with families.

Lower paychecks are a good outcome?

The net effect would be higher paychecks if pro-MW arguments are right. Now, said arguments could be wrong, but what you've said remains an assertion rather than a counterargument.

Crude example : MW increase -> a few burger flippers at the margins are laid off -> the rest get their cars/plumbing/whatever fixed with the additional income -> a few mechanics/pumbers/whatever at the margins are taken on.

Whether or not the upside happens, you'd see the same downside looking at the burger flippers in isolation.

In other words, you are in favor of sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot of those above. I'm not.

Nah, see above.

You realize that the factory move that you are touting as the alternative to unemployment was to an area that didn't have the higher minimum wage?

Doesn't matter. What you need to show is that

a) production would have been cut if DelMonte didn't have that option, and

b) no competitor would have taken up the slack,

otherwise the alleged unemployment is an artefact of American Samoa's geographic isolation.

And while teenage unemployment itself isn't that bad it's people cut off from access to the working world--and that's a very bad thing.

Certainly no worse than for breadwinners with families.

And just because the MW proponents say it will result in higher paychecks doesn't make it so.

Nor arguments to the contrary, obviously. Only others don't keep repeating this because it's a pointless waste of pixels.

The Seattle data says otherwise. The liberals hated that answer, though, and promptly fired the researchers for not coming up with the politically correct results.

The Seattle data does not say otherwise, as has been shown ITT, and is entirely consistent my crude example of income effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I recognize that setting the wage above the minimum chops off the bottom of the ladder and denies the least valuable workers entry into the job market. In practice the vast majority do not stay at minimum wage, I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Thank you for confirming that you have no problem sacrificing those at the bottom to improve the lot above them.

<<Head explodes>>

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, 2 + 2 + 2... can never add up to 52.

Your terrible grasp of math continues to impress me.

You have sex with a woman 2 times in a week; she gets pregnant and, 9 months later she has a baby.

How many children will you have if you have sex with that woman 52 times in a week?

How many children will you have if you have sex with 52 women in that year? I'm talking about the savings over many offices, not just yours.

Oh, I see, the same dispute I have had with many of you in the past. You define morality based only on personal actions, not results.

Pretty much. "The ends do not justify the means" is a well established moral position many people hold to. Why does that surprise you?

And it's routinely used as a justification for turning a blind eye to evil. This is especially an issue as we are talking about government policy, not the decisions of individuals. The government is setting a minimum wage. It should be setting it with regard to the welfare of the population as a whole, not deciding to sacrifice a segment of the population to make the others better off.

As far as I'm concerned that's a close relative to that infamous road that's paved with good intentions.

You DO realize that phrase was originally coined by Karl Marx, right?

A saying is not responsible for it's origins.

But it DOES sell more, according to the article, to the research, and according to McDonalds' own profit reports. The author explicitly lists this very action as one of the things that is helping McDonalds boost its sales nationwide.

In the short run. When you take steps to bump productivity you tend to bump productivity whether or not the change you made matters. The change itself helps--for a while.

So bosses aren't human? Or you're not human?

Are you an idiot?

You are distinguishing the group of people from the group of bosses.

Which one isn't human?