Fast-food minimum wage, lies and lying liars ...

TIMEOUT: I do want to point out that there are economists that differ on what Doug is stating as unassailable fact. To say that there is only one economic school of thought at work about minimum wage is to say the least a Fatal Conceit... and some of those who disagree happen to also be Nobel laureates, in economics no less! The amount of economic theory that disagrees with Doug, could fill an entire school, in Chicago or Austria say... So let's not get too caught up in our own favorite paradigms here. I've read a thing or two once upon a time too. So let's chill with all the name calling, and argumentum ad hominem. It's getting pretty thick.

Ok Doug and Steve round... what page are we on?? GO!

I'll be waiting for an actual source and or a quote.

Sorry thought you were picking up what I was putting down. I'll let you read about em at your leisure. They are pretty famous economists so nothing too hard to come by.

I was making reference to:

Fatal Conceit was written by Friedrich Hayek co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science from University of Freiburg and later University of Chicago

Nobel Prize in Economic Science 1976 sole recipient and head of the University of Chicago school of Economics Milton Friedman

Also the Austrian School of Economics, and Later the Chicago School of Economics, which are large fields of economic thought that are often in opposition to Keynesian Economics.

Other alum and those from similar backgrounds:
Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Richard Timberlake, David Friedman, James Buchanan, Carl Menger, and on and on, those should get you started.

TIMEOUT: I do want to point out that there are economists that differ on what Doug is stating as unassailable fact. To say that there is only one economic school of thought at work about minimum wage is to say the least a Fatal Conceit... and some of those who disagree happen to also be Nobel laureates, in economics no less! The amount of economic theory that disagrees with Doug, could fill an entire school, in Chicago or Austria say... So let's not get too caught up in our own favorite paradigms here. I've read a thing or two once upon a time too. So let's chill with all the name calling, and argumentum ad hominem. It's getting pretty thick.

Ok Doug and Steve round... what page are we on?? GO!

I'll be waiting for an actual source and or a quote.

Sorry thought you were picking up what I was putting down. I'll let you read about em at your leisure. They are pretty famous economists so nothing too hard to come by.

I was making reference to:

Fatal Conceit was written by Friedrich Hayek co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science from University of Freiburg and later University of Chicago

Nobel Prize in Economic Science 1976 sole recipient and head of the University of Chicago school of Economics Milton Friedman

Also the Austrian School of Economics, and Later the Chicago School of Economics, which are large fields of economic thought that are often in opposition to Keynesian Economics.

Other alum and those from similar backgrounds:
Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Richard Timberlake, David Friedman, James Buchanan, Carl Menger, and on and on, those should get you started.

Touché!

TIMEOUT: I do want to point out that there are economists that differ on what Doug is stating as unassailable fact. To say that there is only one economic school of thought at work about minimum wage is to say the least a Fatal Conceit... and some of those who disagree happen to also be Nobel laureates, in economics no less! The amount of economic theory that disagrees with Doug, could fill an entire school, in Chicago or Austria say... So let's not get too caught up in our own favorite paradigms here. I've read a thing or two once upon a time too. So let's chill with all the name calling, and argumentum ad hominem. It's getting pretty thick.

Ok Doug and Steve round... what page are we on?? GO!

I'll be waiting for an actual source and or a quote.

Sorry thought you were picking up what I was putting down. I'll let you read about em at your leisure. They are pretty famous economists so nothing too hard to come by.

I was making reference to:

Fatal Conceit was written by Friedrich Hayek co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science from University of Freiburg and later University of Chicago

Nobel Prize in Economic Science 1976 sole recipient and head of the University of Chicago school of Economics Milton Friedman

Also the Austrian School of Economics, and Later the Chicago School of Economics, which are large fields of economic thought that are often in opposition to Keynesian Economics.

Other alum and those from similar backgrounds:
Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Richard Timberlake, David Friedman, James Buchanan, Carl Menger, and on and on, those should get you started.

*sigh*
Im familiar with Austrian and Chicago school of thought on economics.

Firstly Hayek isnt a pure subscriber to the Austrian school. Because Hayek was incredibly intelligent and understood subtlety, where as Mises and the predominance of the Austrian school said the needs of the individual and their freedom supersedes all. Which we know doesntly actually work in a functioning society, where individual needs are suppressed for the good of the whole (we calls these laws). So you're appealing to a school of thought that has never actually been put to the test and in the limited times it has, the results have been disastrous. And when I say disastrous please refer to: http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html
Which is what you really end up with when you allow the market to self police itself in areas affecting the common good, such as problems with environmental damage, without government interference. Because in the Australian school of theory, the humans in their theories always make the intelligent, perfectly rational choices, and as we know humans dont always do that. So their theories only work in a vacuum.

Even the Mises Institute (devoted to Austrian economic policy) admits most modern economists, even those among the Austrian school with which he is associated, dont subscribe to his beliefs.

The Austrians are oddballs among professional economists for their focus on methodological issues in the first place. Indeed, Mises's magnum opus, Human Action, devotes the entire second chapter (41 pages) to "The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action." There was no such treatment in the last Freakonomics book.

Although most economists in the 20th century and our time would disagree strongly, Mises insisted that economic theory itself was an a priori discipline.

Meaning he believed all humans were rational actors with perfect availability to information and that all one had to do was observe them in order to build theories on economics, rather than proposing hypotheses and testing them. Which as we most assuredly know in modern economics and research people are NOT always rational actors who can fathom all potential outcomes prior to making a business decision.

Secondly the book you are referring to is a source of debate in the economics community as to whether Hayek even wrote it. Most dont think he did, and that his editor was largely responsible for it.

Finally if you are going to take the time to engage with me why not actually contribute to the conversation and show me where and how you think the theories of the economists listed applies to minimum wage and the labor market. Rather than just list a bunch of economists you found on google who you hope support your own beliefs?

But since you've reduced the debate to an appeal to authority, here is a letter from 600 economists, including 7 nobel laureates who support raising the minimum wage for the same reasons I do, and go into detail (as I did) about why any effects on the job market will be marginalized.
http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.

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.

Edited to add: Last year the Chicago School, you are appealing to, actually polled economists in their IGM Forum regarding minimum wage on two questions.
If they thought raising the minimum wage would negatively affect minimum wage workers gaining employment. The majority either thought there would be no effect or were uncertain of any effect.
They were then asked if even if there was a negative effect on employment was it worth raising the minimum wage anyway and tying it to annual inflation. The majority said yes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/economists-think-the-minimum-wage-is-worth-it/


I'll look forward to your reply with anything other than another list of names.

I'm sorry for the delay. I had some Neanderthal activities to take care of, and then this website ate my first reply.

#1.
I would support a $50 minimum wage increase, but it would be dependent on its implementation. And would hinge on a number of factors, not the least of which would be the current jobs and labor market.
You cant simply increase the minimum wage to $50 tomorrow without expecting ripples in the economy, and yes with such a large immediate increase it would likely lead to both inflation and even more offshoring of jobs.

Yep. There are negative consequences to raising the minimum wage. They are there for smaller increases also, just proportionally smaller. If it was perfectly benign then we could all live in a land of milk and honey. It's like hitting the economy with a $50 weight instead of a $5 pound weight. They are both gonna hurt, it's just a question of where and how much.

But if that same $50 increase was incrementally increased over a thirty year time span with no single year contributing more than a 5% increase? We would most likely see minimal inflationary effects over the standard 2-3% annual inflation, and in all likelihood see an increase in jobs.

This isn't much different than what we do now, is it? Raise the minimum wage, wait for economy to absorb the negative effects, and then raise the minimum wage again. I guess it's marginal improvement over the incumbent politicians using it as an issue to garner attention and votes, but not much different than the periodic raises that happen now.

So, your plan looks like more of the same. Which has gotten us where, exactly?

Why an increase in jobs?
Because since the mid-70's starting with our garment industry, corporate management, has been offshoring US manufacturing jobs to low wage markets with fewer regulatory controls. This has gutted the high paying, union supported, middle class of the US, which is what drove our consumer industry.

We all know the history. And we would all like higher pay. But, you really still haven't covered how increasing the cost of labor will increase the number of jobs.

It is that consumer spending which accounts for 75% of our entire economy on an annual basis! It was a corporate bet that emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil and such would make up for the losses in the US sector. Unfortunately they bet wrong. US products have not done as well overseas as they anticipated and the emerging markets didnt grow as fast as they assumed.

Corporations have done some misguided things, and much of this offshoring is one of them. But, I'm not sure how increasing the cost of American labor brings jobs back to America.

Consequently, its turned into a race to the bottom with corporate management trying to squeeze more and more profits out by cutting labor costs lower and lower, thereby keeping their inflated (in relation to their P/E ratio) stock prices up. Which is why you see the Stock Exchange booming since the Great Recession even while the Middle Class falls further and further behind.

Or it could be the ridiculously low interest rates promulgated by the Fed providing virtually free capital to the banking industry and other large crony corporations. This allows them to cheaply pump up their balance sheets at the same time that middle class savings get decimated.

So, there's more than one possible explanation as to what we are seeing now.

So by starting the process of returning our minimum wage, to a livable wage (one that at least keeps the employed above the poverty line), we would see a resurgence in consumer spending which would lead to greater production needs and higher employment.

Increasing the cost of American labor improves the comparative advantage of foreign producers. More of this increased consumer spending will find it's way to foreign producers the more the costs of American producers are raised.

So, in a globalized world, it's difficult to see how increasing American labor costs will automatically lead any increased consumer spending toward American producers employing Americans. That positive feedback loop has been broken, ripped to shreds, and buried.

This would also be dependent on manufacturers bringing consumer product manufacturing jobs back to the US labor market, which is happening as China and Asia have started seeing more of a demand for better wages and the fuel costs associated with shipping from foreign markets have grown.

You have now described a scenario where increasing labor costs in Asia reduces their number of jobs, while increasing labor costs in America increases our number of jobs. Are the laws of economics taking sides? Or are they reversed in the Eastern Hemisphere?

Maybe we could close the borders? Autarky rules! Hey don't knock it! Thomas Jefferson tried it!


Followup question...
Please explain why increasing labor costs in Asia reduces employment, while increasing labor costs in America increases employment.

So long story short....my answer is I might support such an increase.

Might? don't go on a limb here!

#2.
It does. But what effect it has on that curve depends where we start on the scale based on what wages are currently at (where are they at compared to subsistence levels), where are consumer spending levels at, and what is the labor market currently doing.

I only half agree with you here. The magnitude of the effect does depend on where you start on the supply/demand curves; but, the direction of the affect does not. This means that based on standard supply/demand curves, an increase in cost will always reduce demand.

There are some social phenomena that can lead to reversed demand curves, like with wine for example. My favorite examples always involve wine, BTW.

Followup question...
As a commodity, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the entry level labor market has a reversed demand curve, or even a reversed interval on an otherwise standard demand curve. Maybe you are aware of one?

If not, then I must say that you haven't shown how increasing the cost of entry level labor will lead to more opportunities for entry level jobs.

Currently minimum wage is less than the subsistence level (in nearly all markets in the US an adult cannot survive working a typical full time job earning minimum wage).
Currently consumer spending is down, which one can pin on the declining middle class and median wages.
Currently the labor market is down due to off shoring jobs and depressed consumer demand.

All of these factors are orthogonal to the the relative competitiveness of American labor vis-a-vis the foreign competition. One would like to be able to increase wages to an arbitrarily high level, but short of exporting minimum wage laws, it's hard to see how American consumers would stop substituting foreign good for domestic products.

This is why you cant listen to some pundit or politician or corporate mouthpiece say something to the effect of, "Raising the minimum wage will have a disastrous effect on job growth!" Because its never that simple.

This is just another caricature that you dream up for folks who disagree with you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to do that.

I'm now gonna dig me up some ocher and paint some bison on my cave wall. I like bison. They're delicious!

Edited to add: Last year the Chicago School, you are appealing to, actually polled economists in their IGM Forum regarding minimum wage on two questions.
If they thought raising the minimum wage would negatively affect minimum wage workers gaining employment. The majority either thought there would be no effect or were uncertain of any effect.
They were then asked if even if there was a negative effect on employment was it worth raising the minimum wage anyway and tying it to annual inflation. The majority said yes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/economists-think-the-minimum-wage-is-worth-it/

That's a sneaky way to phase that. It looks like an even split.

Edited to add: Last year the Chicago School, you are appealing to, actually polled economists in their IGM Forum regarding minimum wage on two questions.
If they thought raising the minimum wage would negatively affect minimum wage workers gaining employment. The majority either thought there would be no effect or were uncertain of any effect.
They were then asked if even if there was a negative effect on employment was it worth raising the minimum wage anyway and tying it to annual inflation. The majority said yes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/27/economists-think-the-minimum-wage-is-worth-it/

And that is a sneaky way to word that. We really have to keep a close watch on you!

Here's the actual question. I have bolded the key phrase:

Question B: The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy.

So, they aren't even considering the ones who lose their jobs or can't find a job. This question is only asking if it is beneficial to index the minimum wage pay for people who have jobs. Of course it's beneficial to people to raise their pay. Who would disagree with this?

Here is the breakdown:

But since you've reduced the debate to an appeal to authority, here is a letter from 600 economists, including 7 nobel laureates who support raising the minimum wage for the same reasons I do, and go into detail (as I did) about why any effects on the job market will be marginalized.
http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

And I match your list of names with my list of names of idiot, Neanderthal economists who oppose increasing the minimum wage.

This is fun!

Apart from the minimum wage debate, I read the above article and I'm sorry, but I wager there is a heck of a great deal more going on in that circumstance that did not come to light in the article. Somewhere some vital aspect of the story was omitted. If not, all volunteers would be at stake and that isn't the case.

Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

State law prohibits for-profit businesses from using volunteers.

Nope. I got that part. I stand by my comment.

I really have no way to verify the original and other newspaper articles. It could all be some publicity stunt orchestrated by the winery.

I did find the section of the California Labor Code defining what makes a valid volunteer.

I'll look forward to your reply with anything other than another list of names.

Doug: Claims there is only one way to see an economic notion. "anyone who disagrees is dumb"
Adriel: Warns Doug that he may need to remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Doug: "Nuh uh."
Adriel: List of multiple dudes who take a different tact then Doug and have real credentials.
Doug: "Psssh, those dudes are so fake."
Adriel: Shrugs and goes on with day.

Good luck, bro.

I'm sorry for the delay. I had some Neanderthal activities to take care of, and then this website ate my first reply.


Yep. There are negative consequences to raising the minimum wage. They are there for smaller increases also, just proportionally smaller. If it was perfectly benign then we could all live in a land of milk and honey.

I dont know how many more ways to say it. NOT if wages are currently depressed because there is a supply glut in the labor market. How many times or in how many ways can I say it to get that fact through your thick empty head?

This isn't much different than what we do now, is it?

No thats not what we do know. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised since 2009.
There are presently only ten states (AZ, CO, FL, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, VT, and WA) that have minimum wages that are linked to a consumer price index and raise them on a yearly basis based on percentage increased in the CPI.

But, you really still haven't covered how increasing the cost of labor will increase the number of jobs.
But, I'm not sure how increasing the cost of American labor brings jobs back to America.

Yes, actually I have quite thoroughly. You are either to obtuse to understand or the more likely prediction is you are now just posting inanities in order to get a rise out of me. ie trolling.

But quite frankly it doesnt matter. Whether you are to obtuse to understand a logical train of thought, or are trolling, its apparent you arent going to learn anything. Which means Im simply wasting my time. Feel free to get the last word in, but I wont be conversing with you further.

I'll look forward to your reply with anything other than another list of names.

Doug: Claims there is only one way to see an economic notion. "anyone who disagrees is dumb"
Adriel: Warns Doug that he may need to remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Doug: "Nuh uh."
Adriel: List of multiple dudes who take a different tact then Doug and have real credentials.
Doug: "Psssh, those dudes are so fake."
Adriel: Shrugs and goes on with day.

Good luck, bro.

Except thats not what I did. I actually responded to your Googled list of names. And once again asked you to actually put some thought into it.
You didnt. So thanks for playing.

Fine... Here is your point by point retort. I hope it is everything you wanted it to be... How I slaved for you:

*sigh*

Awesome Doug. Start this off with some sweet condescension. If you find it so boring to deal with idiots then why are you spending all day formulating these responses?

Im familiar with Austrian and Chicago school of thought on economics.

Oh really? You could've fooled me with your initial response. Seemed like you had yet to google it. Glad you finally did because your copy pasta below is beautiful.

Firstly Hayek isnt a pure subscriber to the Austrian school.

Did I say that he was from the Austrian School. No... Now Doug your reading comprehension scores are dropping. But still you are wrong. Most folks associate him with it. Just check out:

NPR calling him and Austrian School Economist:
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142307737 ... s-new-fans
or Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Au ... economists

So I guess I pretty much still nailed it despite what anonymous23 said on minimum wage.com . But thanks for your pedantic attitude about someone you seemed to know nothing about. I'm sure those won't be Doug approved links. So just don't bother clicking.

Because Hayek was incredibly intelligent and understood subtlety...

Well I'll be diddly dipped Doug. Is that respect for someone who disagrees with you about economic theory? SMH... you're slipping buddy.

where as Mises and the predominance of the Austrian school said the needs of the individual and their freedom supersedes all. Which we know doesntly actually work in a functioning society, where individual needs are suppressed for the good of the whole (we calls these laws).

We don't "know" that in any empirical sense Doug. Unless you wanted to look at the entire world of private institutions on earth that do the same things as states with more efficiency and still turn a profit as functioning... but whatever you don't have to. Remember for Hayek the market is totally natural. It doesn't need a state to run it either. That is the same for anarcho-capatilists like Mises. Who would laugh at your blatant statism in all your responses. But please... Continue!

So you're appealing to a school of thought that has never actually been put to the test and in the limited times it has, the results have been disastrous. And when I say disastrous please refer to: http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html

Doug I didn't bring up this entire lexicon of economic theory to tell you it was right. I brought it up to tell you that you could not say YOU WERE RIGHT WITHOUT CHALLENGE. But if you so desperately need me to copy and paste rebuttals to all of this, here is a nice one. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/05/ ... -economics

And sense I know you don't follow links here is a sweet quote from the article since you asked for quotes as well:

But it is not the case, as Josh Barro recently argued, “that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles.” To say so is to misinterpret what Mises meant by the word praxeology and therefore fail to understand what he recommended as the appropriate methods for economists. It is also to rely on interpretations of what people like Mises and Rothbard had to say, as well as the pronouncements of various advocates of Austrian economics on blogs and Internet forums, rather than engaging with the professional research being published in the peer-reviewed journals by practicing Austrians. That research offers a very different picture of the way in which Austrian economics engages the real world.

Which is what you really end up with when you allow the market to self police itself in areas affecting the common good, such as problems with environmental damage, without government interference.

Just a second ago there was no way to prove any statement about free markets, and here you go ascribing real world problems to it... how would you know? If you say economist can't test free market solutions, you can't act as if you have... cake and eating it too...

Because in the Australian school of theory,

Typo... totally normal... I shan't tease... but just want to be clear... it's Austrian.

the humans in their theories always make the intelligent, perfectly rational choices, and as we know humans dont always do that. So their theories only work in a vacuum.

Doug the market exists whether there is a state there to manipulate it or not. Competition for limited resources is something that occurs even in the animal kingdom, whether you like it or not. So don't tell me it can't police itself, because species have died of starvation millennia before there was a state to set a price and start a bread line. You may not like the way supply and demand works, or how bottom up life really is. But all states do is manipulate markets for either perceived good, control, or profit. Same as any other market actor, whether it be a business, a bank, or Beyonce. BUT all that aside, you are still arguing with a Nobel Laureate in Economics in Hayek, and Van Mises who tons of folks subscribe to and write professionally about... Where do you work again buddy? Does F.A. Hayek come and ruin your McNugget count when you're doing inventory at your job? Couldn't you just couch all this bravado and admit you may not have it all worked out?? (Now that is appeal to authority, and ad hominem, and to be fair to you a strawman because I am sure you have a more meaty argument then I'm making it)

Even the Mises Institute (devoted to Austrian economic policy) admits most modern economists, even those among the Austrian school with which he is associated, dont subscribe to his beliefs.

People don't agree!?? GASP!

Cool. Fine. People are not rational actors. I agree. So governments I suppose are something different than a group of people. Governments must therefore be more rational actors because... wait... wait... no Doug, oh my god... GOVERNMENTS ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE TOOOOOO!!! Who is gonna control our economy now?? There are no rational actors left!! I mean really Doug... You can't say that these guys are bullshit and then take so long to respond to them... It makes you look crazy.

Secondly the book you are referring to is a source of debate in the economics community as to whether Hayek even wrote it. Most dont think he did, and that his editor was largely responsible for it.

Again you seem to know way more about it now that you've googled it, cause yesterday it seemed news to you. Sweet. Good for you. I guess the book doesn't contain any ideas that you want to comment on... does it Doug? Even if it was written by ghost writers I'm sure it doesn't contain anything that may contradict what you've been peddling? No... probably not. Moving on!

Finally if you are going to take the time to engage with me

I did not want to engage with you because you've been a dick to everyone that has...I did not engage you... YOU engaged YOU in a fake ME debate!!! Well that is fine Doug. Here is the response you craved.

why not actually contribute to the conversation and show me where and how you think the theories of the economists listed applies to minimum wage and the labor market.

I mean really do you feel that is what you are doing? Contributing to a discussion? Or does it look more like you are flaming Steve and lording your quaint talking points over everyone. Booo... you are keyboard bully bro. And it's lame. So I'm hoping some of your own delicious medicine helps it sink in... But probably not right?

Rather than just list a bunch of economists you found on google who you hope support your own beliefs?

LOL! Come on Doug. You ever heard of transference? It's like where a cheating wife accuses here husband all the time of cheating, cause she is pushing her secret guilt off on others. Dude, I grew up reading Rothbard, Spooner, Friedman, Hayek, and the lot. Hell I've even read the Bible once. It's not my first scholastic book mobile ride bro. I got a degree in a closet that says I know a thing or two about philosophy so you can take that google crack and stuff it. You love the ad hominem but can you take it? You know the crappy thing about hubris right Doug? It makes crow taste terrible when you have to eat it.

But since you've reduced the debate to an appeal to authority, here is a letter from 600 economists, including 7 nobel laureates who support raising the minimum wage for the same reasons I do, and go into detail (as I did) about why any effects on the job market will be marginalized.

I didn't appeal to authority Doug, I appealed to you to tone down the rhetoric. But you saw fit to wing a perceived fallacy I made back at me in the form of the same fallacy. I told you not to talk like people don't disagree with you... and then you disagreed with that. I know you are struggling to keep your composure for some reason on this whole minimum wage deal, but geez you don't have to make up things to be mad about. I know that you think anyone who says anything against you in this thread is a moron, but man you couldn't accept just the implication that others disagree without ascribing all these attributes to me... you made up arguments for me Doug, so you could then argue with yourself. It is wild wild stuff.

Edited to add: Last year the Chicago School, you are appealing to,

There you go again Doug... I didn't appeal to this entire school of theory to have you argue against them. I appealed to you to temper your rhetoric. Guess what it didn't work. Have you ever seen a dog bark at it's own reflection in a pond. It's weird, right?

actually polled economists in their IGM Forum regarding minimum wage...the majority said yes.

Good for you boss. All of the Chicago Shool of Economics agree... oh wait... no "the majority" agreed... So that means that some didn't. Someone disagrees with you Doug... ROAD TRIP!!

I'll look forward to your reply with anything other than another list of names.

No you don't, you look forward to giving your next big speech.

You know what sucks about Chess with Pigeons? They crap on the board, knock the pieces over, then strut around like they won.

Some pretty impressive point counter point stuff taking place in this discussion thread however, it would have risen to a much higher level had the personal attacks been omitted. One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion of the facts is that one side typically heads for the gutter in defense of their position, sad really. I also think it is a form of bullying that, from what I can determine by some of the other comments, is tolerated here. On the value of economist, I recall during the Gore/ Kemp debate in 1996, Gore was assailing the Dole/Kemp “risky tax scheme” and in support of his position said, "100 (or maybe 1000) leading economist agreed with him that their plan would not work". Then, a little later, in a preemptive move thinking Kemp was going to dink him for being in favor of the Federal Reserve going off the gold standard Gore said, “he thought it was good idea even though 100 (or maybe 1000) of the leading economist at the time disagreed with him.” Seems like a conundrum to me. To all that stood up to the bullying I commend you. To those that knew better but let the bullying continue well, you decide.

Yep. There are negative consequences to raising the minimum wage. They are there for smaller increases also, just proportionally smaller. If it was perfectly benign then we could all live in a land of milk and honey.

I dont know how many more ways to say it. NOT if wages are currently depressed because there is a supply glut in the labor market. How many times or in how many ways can I say it to get that fact through your thick empty head?

Perhaps I hadn't noticed such a clear statement of your position before. Apologies, if it was my oversight.

If, as you say, wages are depressed because there is an oversupply, then artificially raising the cost of entry level labor would both decrease demand and increase supply. Both these responses would cause an increase in the entry level unemployment rate over what it would have otherwise been. This is how supply/demand curves work.

Maybe this is my Neanderthal ignorance speaking again, but I'm still not getting it. I am trying though.

This isn't much different than what we do now, is it?

No thats not what we do know. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised since 2009.
There are presently only ten states (AZ, CO, FL, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, VT, and WA) that have minimum wages that are linked to a consumer price index and raise them on a yearly basis based on percentage increased in the CPI.

I'm pretty sure you haven't mentioned that your plan was indexing before. So, you are changing your point. You did bring in those polls of economists from the Washington Post, so maybe you are getting things confused a little?

Besides, the Federal Government has been telling us that inflation has been nil since the Great Recession got rolling. So, I don't think this new indexing idea of yours would have changed things much anyway.

But, you really still haven't covered how increasing the cost of labor will increase the number of jobs.
But, I'm not sure how increasing the cost of American labor brings jobs back to America.

Yes, actually I have quite thoroughly.

No. No you haven't. Asserting it doesn't make it true.

You are either to obtuse to understand or the more likely prediction is you are now just posting inanities in order to get a rise out of me. ie trolling.

Inanities are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Some people call them facts or maybe details. Clearly you're not big with details.

It looks like anyone who disagrees with you gets thrown in the troll bin. You really might consider getting your blood pressure checked.

But quite frankly it doesnt matter. Whether you are to obtuse to understand a logical train of thought, or are trolling, its apparent you arent going to learn anything. Which means Im simply wasting my time.

I'll put my logical abilities up against yours any time. And statistics too for that matter. Considering your current efforts though, well yeah, you are wasting your time.

One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion of the facts is that one side typically heads for the gutter in defense of their position, sad really. I also think it is a form of bullying that, from what I can determine by some of the other comments, is tolerated here.

Oh, there's a party line here unfortunately. Just look at the title of the thread itself. That kinda sets the tone doesn't it? I can't really fault Doug for following the party line. And I'm congenitally immune to bullying and vapid insults, so, no offense has been taken.

Since I joined this inclusive and welcoming community, I've learned that I grew up and live on the wrong side of I65 *and* I264 -- in the wrong kind of neighborhoods. Plus, it turns out that I hold unapproved political views, which I sometimes even dare mention. And I don't disapprove of Evangelical Christians or even large automobiles! I'm basically a Dalit of the Louisville HotBytes Forum. Please don't reply as the taint could spread.

Fortunately for me, my thick Neanderthal brow ridges protect me well.