US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[Athias]

Uh no. The labour market IS excluded. That's the whole point of the studies you are talking about.

The whole "price-control create distortions" is based on an increadibly simplistic model. Anyone know has studied economics knows that you need actually study data to back that idea up for it to mean anything.

And the thing is, the data doesn't back it up.

These "simplistic" models delineate a conceptual understanding of market dynamics. Study data isn't necessary in order to validate the concept:

Price Controls

The studies to which I was referring (the ones Suttree provided) do not state that the minimum-wage DOES NOT create a distortion (unemployment.) It suggests that incremental increases in the minimum-wage has not worsen or affected the unemployment rate negatively--and in some cases there were positive correlations. However, that's all rather trivial. I don't need data to back up the fact that when a minimum wage of--let's say--eight dollars is imposed, it means that those who have a marginal productivity of $7.99 or less are now legally unemployable. This may in practice create spillovers into informal or "black" labor markets--that I don't deny. However, the studies to which I was referring only captures data from legal employment--ergo, my assumption is that these studies are cautious in their interpretations. That is, these do not state that the minimum wage does not create unemployment, only incrimental increases has not worsened it.

For the sake of argument, however, let's indulge the notion that our knowledge of economics is trivial, one only need ask a few simple questions: if the goal of the minimum wage is to help laborers who are subverted to it maintain a certain standard of living, then why has the government not done what daskool mentioned and increase the minimum wage much more? Why not $100 dollars an hour? $1000 dollars an hour? If the "data does not back up" the minimum-wage's effect on distortions in the labor market, and any models created to capture a basic understanding of what could result are more or less trivial, then certainly there are no drawbacks in increasing the minimum wage to such an extent, right?

[Commodore]

the minimum wage is bad because it's a prohibition on voluntary human activity

[1918me]

the minimum wage is bad because it's a prohibition on voluntary human activity

Kind of like making things like murder illegal, right? Because the same argument could be applied.

[Ormond]

For the sake of argument, however, let's indulge the notion that our knowledge of economics is trivial, one only need ask a few simple questions: if the goal of the minimum wage is to help laborers who are subverted to it maintain a certain standard of living, then why has the government not done what daskool mentioned and increase the minimum wage much more? Why not $100 dollars an hour? $1000 dollars an hour? If the "data does not back up" the minimum-wage's effect on distortions in the labor market, and any models created to capture a basic understanding of what could result are more or less trivial, then certainly there are no drawbacks in increasing the minimum wage to such an extent, right?

That seems to be a rather overly simplistic argument to me. There probably is some level of "minimum wage" which would result in enough negative impact on employment of low skilled workers that it would definitely harm them more than it would help them. That level probably would be reached before the $100 an hour level. But that does NOT mean that increases in the minimum wage to the levels presently being proposed would lead to labor market distortions that would end up doing more harm than good.

[MerenthaClone]

Speaking of, I have heard hardly anything about how Seattle's minimum wage experiment is going for good or for ill. Anyone got any good info?

Honestly, its got to be too early to tell. There are probably anecdotes/data saying its good and bad in roughly equal measure, but who knows?

[Athias]

That seems to be a rather overly simplistic argument to me. There probably is some level of "minimum wage" which would result in enough negative impact on employment of low skilled workers that it would definitely harm them more than it would help them. That level probably would be reached before the $100 an hour level. But that does NOT mean that increases in the minimum wage to the levels presently being proposed would lead to labor market distortions that would end up doing more harm than good.

That's rather overly simplistic. The distortions in the labor market are there no matter which minimum-wage is being proposed. The price-control--minimum wage--creates a distortion. My argument isn't simple--it's narrow, as I realize that there are other factors that contribute to distortions in the labor market. Now while I can't convey to you with absolute certainty the extent to what a, hypothetically, $15 minimum-wage--I've seen it proposed--will distort, I can tell that those whose labor hours are valued at less than $15 dollars will find themselves legally unemployable. And yes, in my opinion, this does more harm than good. But I guess, that would depend on whether you're legally employed.

[Shryke]

That's rather overly simplistic. The distortions in the labor market are there no matter which minimum-wage is being proposed. The price-control--minimum wage--creates a distortion. My argument isn't simple--it's narrow, as I realize that there are other factors that contribute to distortions in the labor market. Now while I can't convey to you with absolute certainty the extent to what a, hypothetically, $15 minimum-wage--I've seen it proposed--will distort, I can tell that those whose labor hours are valued at less than $15 dollars will find themselves legally unemployable. And yes, in my opinion, this does more harm than good. But I guess, that would depend on whether you're legally employed.

According to what?

Cause so far all you are doing is saying "this simplistic model says it should be there, so it is there" and then ignoring the evidence suggesting otherwise.

More simplistically, there's no reason it has to be a smooth linear curve.

[Athias]

According to what?

Cause so far all you are doing is saying "this simplistic model says it should be there, so it is there" and then ignoring the evidence suggesting otherwise.

More simplistically, there's no reason it has to be a smooth linear curve.

Your "evidence" Shryke doesn't suggest otherwise. The evidence you proffer suggests that increasing the minimum wage hasn't worsened unemployment. I'm not making my argument against that statement.

I'm also familiar with non-linear curves--I've worked with them actually--and I don't see how that pertains to my rebuttal. You've also not answered my questions.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/208154-politics-not-economics-driving-minimum-wage

competition for low-wage jobs increases although high-paid jobs are unaffected. Young and inexperienced employees may accept $7 as a way to enter the workplace and gain experience. But if wages rise to $10, then the job seeker competes not only with everyone willing to accept $7, but also with those who will accept $10. Especially with high unemployment, employers become more selective and less likely to hire the inexperienced or those with disadvantages such as poor language skills.

This is a good point.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Kind of like making things like murder illegal, right? Because the same argument could be applied.

LOL, brilliant logic there :rolleyes:

[Fez]

So, its the final weekend before the election, anyone care to make their predictions? Mine are:

Senate:

Democrats win NH, NC, IA, AK, and GA. Orman wins in KS and caucus with them.

Republicans win SD, MT, WV, KY, AR, and CO.

LA goes to a runoff.

Result pre-runoff, Dems with a 51-48 majority (although we won't know it for days because it takes so long to count the votes in some places, particularly AK).

House:

Not going to try guessing specifics, but I think Republicans net around +4 seats.

Governors:

No major upsets.

Democrats win in KS, ME, CO, CT, FL, IL, RI, NH, and AK (the fusion ticket)

Republicans win in AZ, MI, AR, WI, and MA.

GA goes to runoff.

State Legislatures:

Not going to even try to be comprehensive. But I think the D Senate in NV is in serious trouble, as is the R Senate in PA.

[1918me]

LOL, brilliant logic there :rolleyes:

I'm not saying the situations are the same, just that the prohibition of human activity isn't something that should be avoided at all costs, as seemed to be the implication. I apologized apologize if I made an incorrect inference, but that seemed to be the message.

[TerraPrime]

I'm not saying the situations are the same, just that the prohibition of human activity isn't something that should be avoided at all costs, as seemed to be the implication. I apologized apologize if I made an incorrect inference, but that seemed to be the message.

No need to apologize for taking down a shitty argument. ;-)

[TrackerNeil]

Fez - Where's your prediction for governor in Pennsylvania?

Not that I love Charlie Crist, but I really want to see Rick Scott go down in Florida

And Brownback going down in Kansas would be so satisfying that it would take the sting off of losing the Senate.

Yes, it would be nice for Florida to have its first gay governor. :-)

Unless an awful lot of Pennsylvania Democrats die in the next few days, Tom Corbett is toast.

[Ormond]

I am not enough of an expert to make real predictions, but I know the Democrats here in Omaha are extremely hopeful that Brad Ashford can defeat incumbent Lee Terry for the District 2 U.S. House seat.

Nebraska is one of the states that has a raising the minimum wage proposition on the ballot. I think that will win because of all the effort that's being put into it. I have had two different people show up in person at my door for the campaign supporting the raise, with the latest one giving me a card that included the address of my polling place to make sure I knew where it was. I've never had such personal visits in support of any candidate running for office here.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'm not saying the situations are the same, just that the prohibition of human activity isn't something that should be avoided at all costs, as seemed to be the implication. I apologized apologize if I made an incorrect inference, but that seemed to be the message.

Now I feel bad - I was overly snarky, so I apologize.

The difference between what Commodore said and murder lies in the word "voluntary." Murder, by definition, involves an unwilling participant (the victim). Employment, on the other hand, involves two willing participants. If I am willing to pay $6 an hour, and someone is willing to work for that much, by what right does the government intervene? Now you can disagree with that reasoning (most people do), but it isn't comparable to "let's legalize murder/rape/theft!"

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Ah, Lee Terry, the congressman who was fine with NRCC going the "Willie Horton-ad" way and then got "endorsed" by that same guy shouting "Hey you guys, vote for Lee Terry! Best Republican ever!".

[1918me]

Now I feel bad - I was overly snarky, so I apologize.

The difference between what Commodore said and murder lies in the word "voluntary." Murder, by definition, involves an unwilling participant (the victim). Employment, on the other hand, involves two willing participants. If I am willing to pay $6 an hour, and someone is willing to work for that much, by what right does the government intervene? Now you can disagree with that reasoning (most people do), but it isn't comparable to "let's legalize murder/rape/theft!"

Ah, gotcha. I still can't say I agree with the argument (as people working minimum wage are doing so out of necessity, and would likely not be willing if they had other options available, implying a strong economic power-differential, etc.), but I can certainly follow the reasoning.

Also, no need to apologize; I think I just read too much/little from Commodore's post.

[Athias]

(as people working minimum wage are doing so out of necessity, and would likely not be willing if they had other options available, implying a strong economic power-differential, etc.),

The necessities of each party entering the contract is irrelevant. What a person would likely do out of one's own circumstances is not the liability of the other with whom one seeks to enter a contract. There's no misconduct when the contract is carried out willfully, peacefully, and freely. When the government imposes a minimum-wage it threatens the issuance of penalties--which countermands the volition and the freedom of the parties involved. Not to say--its intervention is not peaceful.

[Shryke]

Your "evidence" Shryke doesn't suggest otherwise. The evidence you proffer suggests that increasing the minimum wage hasn't worsened unemployment. I'm not making my argument against that statement.

No, you've side-stepped it in order to put forward a theory with no evidence at all.

You've literally just gone "Well, the evidence we have here suggests no ill effects, but there's totally other bad effects somewhere else in areas where there is no data!". You know, dodging the evidence we have on the subject and pulling shit out of your ass so you don't have to change your position in the face of facts.

I'm also familiar with non-linear curves--I've worked with them actually--and I don't see how that pertains to my rebuttal. You've also not answered my questions.

If you don't see how it pertains to your theory here I'm not sure how you can pretend to be arguing this at all. "The distortions in the labor market are there no matter which minimum-wage is being proposed." implies that whatever effect you are theorizing occurs at all points along the minimum wage spectrum and that it is non-zero or not-basically-zero at all those points. Which suggests you can't imagine that even if this effet exists it might be non-linear or piece-wise.

But given you've basically decided that a simplistic Econ 101 model means it must be true, despite all evidence, that may be attributing too much thought to your position.