Broke Wave
The GOAT
can you prove that that a high minimum wage results in low skilled workers making more money instead of resulting in low skilled workers being unemployed?
Ok sure
Why the Republicans just don't get it (Minimum Wage)
- Thread starter Liquid
- Start date
Ok sure
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Are you trying to sound smart?
What does this have to do with these companies paying more than the min wage?
because you cant accurately speak on what they do or dont have
this isnt a "smart" thing as much as it is me exposing the fact you dont do due diligence on what you're talking about.
You can accurately speak on what they can do because they are publicly traded companies the info is readily available
@Brown_Pride has already broken it down in this thread.
Ok sure
They found "all of the most precise studies show zero impact of minimum wage increases on job growth"... So we could set it at $100/hr and suffer no ill effects according to this precise empirical study...well damn...
I'm gonna have to research this study a little more...
Broke Wave
The GOAT
well damn...
I'm gonna have to research this study a little more...
You know, that is not what that graphs says or talks about, it's talking about the historical effect of minimum wage increases and the projected wage increases within the individual studies, and their predictions within the studies. You need to learn how to analyze things critically.
Also to your point about $100 an hour that you've been making this whole thread, it is probably the most tired argument of all time and the type of thing I could expect to hear posed as a question to a professor in a class before being answered condescendingly. The minimum wage has gone down in America, because adjusted for inflation it would be 10.25 if it had just stayed at the 40 year old level. Therefore these studies are talking about an INCREASE FROM THIS POINT, not an increase from 99 dollars to 100, that is such a terrible reasoning I begin to wonder whether you are genuine.
I am taking the graph at face value and quoting it, no link was given. 
and i said i'd look into it further.as to the $100/hr... again if it is stated that raising min wage has zero effect, then the amount of the wage doesn't matter, $2 or $1000 the rule would hold true if it was in fact true. Its not ridiculous, its a logical conclusion.
I agree with the inflation problem and think matching it without addressing it is silly.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
as to the $100/hr... again if it is stated that raising min wage has zero effect, then the amount of the wage doesn't matter, $2 or $1000 the rule would hold true if it was in fact true. Its not ridiculous, its a logical conclusion.
I agree with the inflation problem and think matching it without addressing it is silly.
You keep creating a straw man of "zero effect". This is what is driving me crazy. The graph shows that the studies themselves that are most precise show that the increases that they propose have zero effect on employment, and even the more imprecise studies show that to the extent they have an effect, the overwhelming majority show that the effect is negligible. I'm sure if you did a study of what a 10000anhour dollar minimum wage, it would show a great effect, but nobody in their right mind is doing that.
It's like saying raising taxes on the rich has no effect on employment, when people say that, it doesn't mean that there is no relationship between taxes and employment, they just mean that the context in which we are talking about, the evidence shows that there is no real effect and especially not the effect the detractors (you) are hinting about.
They should pay government officials minimum wage and see how they feel?
LebronsHairline
AKA Chief Green Leaf
Ok sure
Do you have the full version of this study? All i see is fukking abstracts and shyt on google
Im probably just retarded. Cause if you present me with 100 imprecise studies showing a negligible effect, and a precise study showing "zero effect", im going to conclude there is zero effect. This could just be a logic fail on my behalf... but precise empirical data > imprecise imhoThe amount the wage is adjusted by is nowhere on the graph(which again has no link attached) so where this small increase you reference is coming from I don't not know... It comes across to me as an increase period.
I'm listening though, please educate me.
looked into it... and it checks out.Ok sure
I stand corrected.
The following is from the British Journal of Industrial Relations written by Hristos Doucouliagos
Two scenarios are consistent with this empirical research record. First, minimum wages may simply have no effect on employment. If this interpretation were true, it implies that the conventional neoclassical labour model is not an adequate characterization of the US labour markets (especially the market for teenagers). It also implies that other labour market theories, such as those involving oligopolistic or monopsonistic competition, or efficiency wages, or heterodox models, are more appropriate.
Secondly, minimum-wage effects might exist but they may be too difficult to detect and/or are very small. Perhaps researchers are "looking for a needle in a haystack" (Kennan, 1995, p. 1955). In any case, with sixty-four studies containing approximately fifteen hundred estimates, we have reason to believe that if there is some adverse employment effect from minimum wage raises, it must be of a small and policy-irrelevant magnitude.
These corporations have budgets for labor. If you force increased min wages they will either raise prices or lay people off to offset the difference. Some of these companies have billions riding on their quarterly earnings....they are not going to risk tanking the stock price. This stuff sounds great in debates but it is not practical.
If you really feel this strong about wages then support small business or corporations that you have researched that pay decent wages.
Just screaming raise the minimum wage is naive.
If you really feel this strong about wages then support small business or corporations that you have researched that pay decent wages.
Just screaming raise the minimum wage is naive.
I wholeheartedly agree, but if people dont want to execute your plan, or dont share your vision, you dont force them to, because you think its better.
We just have different outlooks on morality... which supports the case for not forcing an objective morality on people.
Problem is, your idea of being "forced" to do something is having to follow a law (or pay a tax) that you don't want to pay. But like I said, if the government can't enforce laws that not everybody agrees with then it's not a government.
Nobody is advocating one individual forcing another to do something, but having to follow a law that the majority of the populace has consented to (such as paying your employees at least a certain wage) does not count in any meaningful way as being "forced" to do something.
I mean you might think that killing people isn't wrong, but most people do, therefore it's illegal and you are "forced" to obey laws preventing you from killing anybody. You can't just not follow the law because you don't agree with it.
History doesn't support this.
The minimum wage in the late 1960s was equivalent to about $10.50/hr in 2013 dollars. The way you all talk you'd think a minimum wage that "high" would have caused a depression or massive unemployment. But in the real world, the economy was significantly better at that time than it is now and unemployment was lower than it is now (for both whites and minorities). I think some of you are buying into all this rhetoric about how the min wage will destroy the economy or something without having looked at history at all.
What I'd say is naive is buying into the notion that most companies can't afford to pay people more than $7.25/hr, or that they'd be all be forced to lay a bunch of people off because they don't want to pay a few more dollars per hour. In more cases is simply that they don't want to, not that they can't afford to.