nirgrahamUK: my theory is that umbrellas cause rain, look at the data for umbrella ownership against precipitation analysed across geographic regions.... what you have is lies, damned lies or statistics...
my theory is that umbrellas cause rain, look at the data for umbrella ownership against precipitation analysed across geographic regions....
what you have is lies, damned lies or statistics...
You'd have a point if we had the abuse of raw data or the use of data mining techniques. We do not. We have the correct use of the empirical process, using theory to construct hypothesis and then referring to econometrics to test for robustness. For a website that typed "I can show you where they went wrong", its a shame that you guys haven't made one valid criticism.
haha, its your study!
wow.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
There have been several valid criticisms. One, correlation does not mean causation. Two, there are plenty of other causes that may lead to higher employment despite a minimum wage increase, and there is no scientific way to account for these causes and control for them. Three, there is no way to predict where and when the effects of a minimum wage hike will cause disemployment. Unless the authors have been to Delphi and consulted an oracle, Four, sayinfg they've used the proper empirical method begs the question of whether or not it is even applicable/effective for the situation. Five, a problem arises because, if true, this means marginal utility is not a law but a circumstance and the last century's worth of economic thought from the marginal revolution on needs to be reworked. Six, I'd be very interested to see the study followed through and to count from 2005 on to what happened after the nice inflationary boom ended and the whole economy popped and did fart circles around the construction sector. Seven, the key weakness to all 'studies' done on minimum wage and unemployment: they don't have to account for jobs already lost. It's analogous to dropping a bomb on a town and only counting the deaths that occur after the smoke clears and/or within a certain predetermined perimeter. That may be an accepted empirical method for a bunch of state educated/paid toads who can't think themselves out of a paper bag, doesn't hold water for me.
my critcism is simply that you arent doing economics. as to whatever it is you are doing and the value you place on that... i simply dont value it, so i dont care to critique it either way.
but its not economics.
The real minimum wage in dollar terms is zero. Everything else is determined by the market participants. If you place the limit for certain jobs above what the employers are willing to pay, they'll hire fewer people - hence, more unemployment. It's really quite obvious, you don't need any studies to know it.
It's especially true in case of young and unskilled workers and various ethnical and religious minorities. Thomas Sowell points out that prior to 1950s unemployment of black laborers wasn't higher than that of whites despite well-known prejudice and lack of the anti-discrimination laws. Most employers simply couldn't afford turning away qualified blacks as this would mean holding a job position unfilled for longer and incurring more losses as a result. However, when they started to jack up minimum wage in late 1940s black unemployment started to rise since now it didn't cost anything to employers to discriminate against minorities. Government "help" only makes the situation worse for the recipients of such "generosity".
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
This is like supply-side laffer curve nonsense. The problem with laffer curves, is that I don't find them very funny.
Since the retail industry has ballooned due to the credit expansion policy it's stupid to use the retail industry as the base industry to find a coorelation of un-employment.
America's top industry is retail right now, this is directly because of our monetary policy. We encourage people to buy crap rather then save money. With walmart up in the fortune 500 list and other retail shops pulling in big numbers why would you use that sector as your basis to find un-employment?
process:Those that support the elimination of minimum wages are therefore effectively demanding greater unemployment.
Not necessarily.
process: This paper examines the impact of minimum wages on earnings and employment in selected branches of the retail-trade sector, 1990–2005, using county-level data on employment and a panel regression framework that allows for county-specific trends in sectoral outcomes. We focus on specific subsectors within retail trade that are identified as particularly low-wage. We find little evidence of disemployment effects once we allow for geographic-specific trends. Indeed, in many sectors the evidence points to modest (but robust) positive employment effects
Ceteris paribus, it is impossible for a raise in price to increase demand. One of the uses of economic reasoning is to enable us to perceive whether or not any of the given possible explanations for historical facts is plausible or possible. Employment can increase simultaneously with raises in minimum wage, but it is untenable to attribute this rise to an increase in minimum wage. Such an increase must lower the demand for wage-labor, to the extent it does anything whatsoever. Whether other effects increase demand is another question altogether.
"The first Accounts we have of Mankind are but so many Accounts of their Butcheries.All Empires have been cemented in Blood..."
- Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society
Quote:
nirgrahamUK: haha, its your study! wow.
You're still running full pelt from content. Perhaps you'd like to offer a critique of either the monopsony or efficiency wage explanations for the 'positive employment' finding?
nirgrahamUK: my critcism is simply that you arent doing economics. as to whatever it is you are doing and the value you place on that... i simply dont value it, so i dont care to critique it either way. but its not economics.
Still no content? Perhaps you'd like to refer to the work by Burdett and Mortensen (1998, Wage differentials, employer size, and unemployment. International Economic Review)? Here, we only have to acknowledge that workers are heterogeneous with regards their opportunity costs of employment (i.e. value leisure differently) for the minimum wage to raise employment
im not going to critique what doesnt even pretend to be economics. i am interested in economics.