Category: Data Analysis, Employment, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?”

  1. ecnels says:

    One other thing is for sure, forcing someone to pay anyone any amount violates my right to work for what I want to work for and the employers right to freely negotiate for what they want to pay me. This is the first principle of freedom – that no-one has a right to rob you of any amount in order to satisfy their view of the world. If the minimum wage is good, then prove it by making it voluntary. If people believe it’s worth it, they will pay it without coercion.

    One other thing is for sure, there are several people I haven’t hired, because of the minimum wage. Those small-impact shocks they talk about are of large importance to me.

    • You have the right to an unsafe work place
      You have the right to work full time even if you are a child
      You have the right to wild disparity of negotiating leverage
      You have the right to be discriminated against due to your race religion or sexual orientation
      You have the right to remain fully ignorant as to local laws and regulations
      You have the right to be sexually exploited
      You have the right to work overtime, weekend and holidays for no additional compensation
      You have the right to to be the subject of human trafficking
      You have the right to be forced work even if you are a child

      You DO NOT have the right to organize into unions
      You DO NOT have the right to child care
      You DO NOT have the right to receive equal pay for equal work
      You DO NOT have the right to even a poverty level wage
      You DO NOT have the right to health care

      • Iamthe50percent says:

        And, as of this morning’s ABC News, the New York police do not have a right to arrest you for violating US labor laws if you are one of our Indian masters. Instead the Secretary of State and the POTUS will profusely apologize for failure to recognize your aristocratic privilege.

      • Strip searching a diplomat (without probable cause to boot) is a pretty egregious policing error — its also a national embarrassment

      • John says:

        Hi Barry,

        I understand your point, but:

        Health care is not a right
        Child care is not a right

      • I dont get the sense you get my point

    • constantnormal says:

      Perhaps what is a small-impact/large importance shock to you might not be a small impact to the rest of the economy.

      While minimum wage changes have not been shown to have much of an impact on unemployment, they sure as hell can have a substantial impact on the business level of an economy … consider Henry Ford’s little “experiment” back in the early 1900′s, when high labor turnover was interfering with profitability, so he MORE THAN DOUBLED the hourly wage rate, from $2.34/.hr to $5 per hour, and at the same time, cutting the work day from 9 hours to 8 hours, and then a few years later, upped the ante by cutting the work week from 6 days/week to 5 days/week.

      Did Ford go broke? Did unemployment soar?

      History has a curious property of getting in the way of ideologues’ emotional anchor lines — which is probably one reason that historians are not more widely consulted — people tend to prefer to compose their own versions of history, as well as economics, finance, physics, you-name-it.

      What say we try a little “experiment”, randomly select some low-wage regional economies, crank up their minimum wage levels (let’s try Ford’s route, and double them for starters), and see what happens to their unemployment levels, and economic activity a year or two out, as compared to their peer low-wage regions, see whether or not the jobs flow from one area to the other, and in which direction they flow, as well as comparing the levels of economic activity.

      Texas governor Perry’s recent million-dollar media blitz to try and convince businesses in high-tax, regulated states like California and New York to move to no-rules, no-tax Texas has proven remarkably unsuccessful. Why was that? Was it the message, or the spokesman, or what?

      You are, of course, free to move to Buttscratch, Wyoming (pop 47) (or any other “independent-minded” spot in the nation), and pursue your own variety of no-rules, independent life-style … it IS a free country, after all (cough, cough). (Apologies to the fictional citizens of Buttscratch, Wyoming)

      • bytehead says:

        It is now a different time.

        As you point out, Ford wanted to stop labor turnover back then.

        Business seems to want labor turnover today. “We WILL train you how to do your job in under 15 minutes, and YOU (as well as the CUSTOMER) will like it! And if you cost us too much, we will fire you and replace you with another lower costing cog in the gear.”

        Employees are no longer assets, adding to a business’s worth. They are expenses that directly impinge on the bottom line.

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      I really gotta take a refresher course in US history, for some reason I don’t recall slavery being dissolved without coercion.

  2. DeDude says:

    The simplest explanation for why increases in minimum wages don’t hurt employment is that “the work is still there”. The day after a minimum wage hike McD still need the same number of burger flippers. The suggestion that employers simply fire (or don’t hire) people if they cannot underpay them, is just not happening in any observable amount. Most employers already work 60+ hours/week how are they supposed to absorb another 40h to compensate for just one single employee less.

  3. Livermore Shimervore says:

    the diplomatic worker that was strip searched flagrantly misrepresented the wages she was paying her servant. I doubt Preet Bharara would have moved against her without a damning paper trail of the issue.

    And as far as the U.S. Marshal’s service, if you should ever have the misfortune of being arrested for committing a federal crime, you are not treated with kid gloves. Belly chains, hand cuffs and leg irons are standard operating procedure of all criminal defendants, no matter if they’re a tax-cheating neuro surgeon or a billionaire ponzi scheming Wall Street mogul. Intake pending the bail hearing is no day at the Cricket Club.
    Also, the servant she was subjecting to “Republican right to work” wages figured out that her boss was paying her sub-first world pay, and presumably lying to the U.S. Govt about it, and apparently tried to leverage that into getting her backpay, which would have pretty much required her to find a new place to work for fear of retaliation and now probably political assylum in the U.S. since the Indian govt. has issued an arrest warrant for this worker bee with an understanding of U.S. Labor law. But apparently in the diplomatic worker’s case, lying on U.S. govt documents — where you are being paid to work, is not a crime in India.

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      I agree, don’t care that she was a diplomat, she commuted a crime worthy of arrest.

      I suspect India’s traditional caste system is one reason China surpasses them in growth despite similar size & demography.