$12 Minimum Wage: The Libertarian Proposal?????

Someone releases these meta-analysis about the effects of the minimum wage almost every year (sometimes twice a year). The conclusions always vary.

This is especially true if you look at studies abroad.

 

That's simply not true. There have only been two recent meta-analysis into disemployment effects. Both are in agreement (although the most recent, using only post-2000 studies, suggests some evidence of positive effects)

 

Not all meta-anaylsis look at disemployment effects.

There are some boarder studies with all different results and variables. I'm sure even the Federal Reserve has done a cross national analysis of the effects of the minimum wage.

 

I've referred to 3 key meta-analysis for the thread: 2 on employment effects and 1 on price. Reference these other meta-analysis. Don't go back to the bogus reviews by Brown, Gilroy and Kohen in the 80s mind you!

You haven't made any valid counter to the meta-analysis reviews referenced. I look forward to your references (please make sure they reference the primary research directly)

 

I recall a 2010 meta-analysis regarding the effects of employment and market regulation from the minimum wage from Boockmann. It indicates that positive effects are distrustful.

I didn't realise that I was trying to counter you.

 

I don't want vague comment. Please provide a reference. You've said that meta-analysis are common, so why can't you provide just one?

So far you're not achieving anything. The original comment was bogus. Still waiting for a reference!

 

I did. I even gave you the last name of the economist who conducted it.

Can't you just take my word for it... Or google like most people do...

I'm trying to achieve a goal now? I think you just want someone to argue with you.

 

Already know the article that you're referring to. Last time I saw it wasn't published. Its also irrelevant, given its focus on country-effects (e.g. collective bargaining co-ordination) really just says we can't have a cross-country panel analysis.

That you were not able to reference one article tells me that you can't defend your original comment.

If you haven't got anything to say, then that is indeed strange.

 

hasn't shown up that way in the US, in the past 40 years, I can tell you that much. In 1970, min wage cleared $1.25 an hour and an hour of it would buy 3 gallons of Shell regular (cause I was pumping same while going to college). Gold was $135 an oz, and a cheap apartment cost $40 per month. Now everthing costs 10x as much, and the min wage clears $6 an hour. when it should be clearing $12 an hour, if it had kept up with inflation, and to CLEAR that much, the gross would have to be $16 an hour. If you jacked it up enough to even be even with inflation, it would destroy the economy, most likely. we certainly couldn't be competitive in the world market.

 

A couple of problems. First, you're overstating the variation in minimum wages:



Second, as I said, the panel and time series analysis used doesn't support your stance.

 

We are probably not talking about the same study. There was certainly more to it than that.

.

I did reference one article. You can pretend it didn't happen if you'd like.

Anything to say to what?

 

Try referencing then!

Referencing isn't difficult: name, year, title, journal, page numbers. Clearly you can't support your position. I have no problem with that. Each to their own

 

So according to you, if I don't use APA format when it comes to referencing, then it didn't exist?

 

I asked for a reference. You can't give one, even though its exceedingly easy. Clearly you have nothing to say. Goodbye!

 

bs, what I said is the facts, anyone can check it. The prices and the wages are matters of public record.

 

No, you've referred to opinion. That opinion is neither consistent with the theory (given monopsony power is the norm) or with the empirical evidence. The 'facts' are simple: workers are underpaid and the minimum wage provides an efficiency enhancing 'partial' solution

 

good question, I am in favor of a 1 time 10.00 raise and tying it to inflation after, or a 3 year 12.50/hr raise in min wage, tying it to inflation afterwards or even doubling it over 5 years and tying to inflation., Tipped workers would see similar raises in their min wage, I'd say one time 3.00, 3 yrs 3.75, or 5 years 4.50 for tipped workers and tying it to inflation afterwards

 

Makes more sense to link it to wage growth!

 

I think inflation makes more sense, that way the buying power stays the same. The idea of minimum wage is not to keep it up with other sectors pay checks, but inflation so people can afford roughyl the same if they always make just minimum wage

 

Its quite common to tie in minimum wages with general wage shifts. Indeed, in some countries minimum wage rates are part of collective bargaining agreements. This stops from the lengthening of a low wage tail

 

At some point, you just have to let people own their decisions. Just let it happen, we'll see what really happens from there. Of course that would require media pointing out any bad part of certain decisions for the mass of sheep to understand, but I digress.

 

A. I'm not sure what would make Ron Unz a libertarian, he seems more like a republican to me

B. What many libertarians advocate for is a minimum income, which is more liberal than a minimum wage

 

Arguably, very few Americans that use the title libertarian are actually libertarian. Its typically just a tag within the right wing spectrum. In terms of libertarianism applied to economics, its very much a left wing concept (i.e. part of socialist political economy)

 

I believe he labels himself that, so since there isn't a Libertarian Pope, whose word is infallible on what a Libertarian is, then you have to consider someone a Libertarian who identifies themselves that way.

I think his argument comes down to the fact that most minimum wage jobs are in food service and retail, very few if any minimum wage jobs are associated with manufacturing. So foreign competition isn't a consideration.
My Whopper Burger might cost a few cents more, but I'm still not going to Asia to get a cheaper one.
Same with retail, I'm still shopping in the US, I'm not going to China to buy underwear because the salesperson makes less.
What it does do is provide a substantial rise in income to a lot of low wage people, people who currently receive food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, because even though they work 40 hours or more a week, they qualify for public assistance. In essence, the taxpayer is subsidizing those low wage employers, allowing them to displace decent wage employers, and increasing the demand on public assistance.

Boosting their wages reduces the demand on the social safety net
Why can't people agree that that is a good thing?
How is it a bad thing?

 

The evidence does suggest that manufacturing is still affected. Galbraith, for example, found that minimum wages did not just reduce family income inequality. It also reduced manufacturing wage inequality. This reflects how minimum wages, rather than just impacting on minimum wage earners, can also affect the overall structure of wages. This isn't a bad thing mind you. We can simply refer to how inequalities are not necessarily efficient.