YahooFinance: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon (M.E.T.)

[hkHog]

Even at $8.55/hr- that is $342 per week- or $1470 per month- Before taxes.

try living on that as a single parent....

If you're making that much money maybe you should try not getting pregnant/impregnating someone.

[TMK9973]

Research demonstrates that the minimum wage actually hurts poor people. I posted a link a few posts ago that discusses this.

No, no, no....

A study that YOU linked to show that.

Research (In a general term) shows no such thing.

There are studies that argue both sides.

Here is one that demonstrates it HELPS poor people and HELPS unemployement.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/07/23_minimumwage.shtml

[techboy]

A study that YOU linked to show that.

Actually, if you look carefully, the link I provided includes reference to a metanalysis by Neumark and Washer, where they carefully surveyed all the available literature, and determined that most evidence points to the minimum wage doing more harm than good. One or two studies might give different results, but the overall picture is as I presented.

Besides, you can't correct me on that point, because I said that "research" shows, not "every single study" shows. Even if there was only one study, I'd still be right.

*EDIT* Here's the study. The abstract:

We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages – in the

United States and other countries – that was spurred by the new minimum wage research

beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing

estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage

employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that

recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the

employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies

surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically

significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among

the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative

employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.Two other

important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that

provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially

from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which

the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the

least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment

effects for these groups.

[TMK9973]

Actually, if you look carefully, the link I provided includes reference to a metanalysis by Neumark and Washer, where they carefully surveyed all the available literature, and determined that most evidence points to the minimum wage doing more harm than good. One or two studies might give different results, but the overall picture is as I presented.

Well - I disagree with that. I would say it's pretty even.

Besides, you can't correct me on that point, because I said that "research" shows, not "every single study" shows. Even if there was only one study, I'd still be right.

Well, research shows that I am Always right and you are always wrong because I just did a study that consisted of me asking 1 person who is always right and who is always wrong.

Granted, it may be a flawed study, but I never said only valid research shows this, so as long as there is 1 study, I'd still be right..... which I always am, according to research....

[techboy]

Well - I disagree with that. I would say it's pretty even.

And according to the economists that actually did a survey of the relevant literature, you'd be wrong. If you didn't see my last edit, look again.

[artmonkforHOF]

You arent seeing his point of view at all. Nice try at trashing it tho, sadly its totally wrong.

One must actually have a job to even consider what the wage will be. Minimum wage is detrimental to all involved, yes, even the poor low paid individual.

oh, I forgot it's a bad thing, that's why every other nation in the world has adopted some form of minimum wage. And if companies where forced to pay min wage to ANY worker, including illegals, then there would be no incentive to hire illegal workers, since there is no cost savings and also a possible communication barrier to deal with.

Set a min wage for general labour, have a different one for things like wait staff( who rely on tips), one for students under the age of 15 (they shouldn't be working hard jobs anyway)and another rate for farm workers and make it mandatory that every worker gets paid that min amount. For employers who break the rules, fine them 4 to 5 times the amount they short changed their workers, give the workers what they are owed and the rest goes to fund crackdown operations on other businesses.

There, in 1 paragraph, I just solved your illegal immigrant problem, helped reduce American unemployment, and created new higher paying jobs in form of the employment tax force all thanks to a minimum wage. How in the world can it be a bad thing? I do agree that each state should set their rate on their own, as cost of living varies, but once each state has set a minimum, then the lowest state rate then becomes the federal minimum, and will rise in accordance with inflation.

[techboy]

oh, I forgot it's a bad thing, that's why every other nation in the world has adopted some form of minimum wage.

"Common sense" doesn't always translate into economic reality, and the minimum wage "sounds" good. That is why it's been adopted many places, not because it actually helps.

How in the world can it be a bad thing?

Read the paper I cited above. It actually covers studies from around the world, so it's not just U.S. centric.

[IONTOP]

And once again, here in NC I'm still getting paid $2.13/hour...

I from Jan 1, 2007-July 24, 2007 I was making $3.13/hour

July 24 2007 they LOWERED my rate to 2.43/hour

Last year they LOWERED my rate back down to the original $2.13/hour....

All I know is that I'd get a $10-15 check every 2 weeks with the $3.13 & 2.43/hour, since the wage was lowered, I've gotten maybe 5 checks in the past year that weren't $0.00...

Which means that my hourly wage isn't even covering my taxes... So I'll probably owe at the end of the year, which isn't good for people in this industry who mostly can't save a dime because they live DAY to DAY, not paycheck to paycheck...

[TMK9973]

And according to the economists that actually did a survey of the relevant literature, you'd be wrong. If you didn't see my last edit, look again.

I saw your last edit and my only reply is

COME ON....Lets review. (Bold is mine)

We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages – in the United States and other countries – that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing

estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies

surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statisticallysignificant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. (If we include even BS studies that don't prove anything but look at them different, more studies agree with us) In addition, among

the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence,(Meaning - The papers we agree with more) almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that

provide convincing evidence (We are not convinced, therefore we dismiss their studies showing something we don't belive) of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which

the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment

effects for these groups.

[TMK9973]

And once again, here in NC I'm still getting paid $2.13/hour...

I from Jan 1, 2007-July 24, 2007 I was making $3.13/hour

July 24 2007 they LOWERED my rate to 2.43/hour

Last year they LOWERED my rate back down to the original $2.13/hour....

All I know is that I'd get a $10-15 check every 2 weeks with the $3.13 & 2.43/hour, since the wage was lowered, I've gotten maybe 5 checks in the past year that weren't $0.00...

Which means that my hourly wage isn't even covering my taxes... So I'll probably owe at the end of the year, which isn't good for people in this industry who mostly can't save a dime because they live DAY to DAY, not paycheck to paycheck...

I assume you are a tipped employee. Which means that you are making at least the minium wage with your tips over a 40 hour week.

If you are not, your employee is suppose to change your rate.

[techboy]

I saw your last edit and my only reply is

COME ON.

So in other words you can't refute the data, so you're going to spin the word choice?

If you read the study and can find a legitimate issue with their methodology (or better yet, find a response by a qualified expert that refutes their findings), then we can talk.

Incidentally, after the references, they list the studies they reviewed, their findings, and any criticisms they might have had about that study. One reason they placed less value on a study, for example, is that it did not control for other factors that might have led to a change in employment. That's not partisanship, as you suggest, that's good methodology.

[TMK9973]

I did. Post 52

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/07/23_minimumwage.shtml

Link directly to the many studies.

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/minimumwage.html

[techboy]

I did.

I didn't aks you to post a study saying that minimum wage had a positive effect. There's no dispute that some exist, as shown by the review paper I cited.

I asked you to back up your silly dismissal of a much more comprehensive study, which reviewed all of the available literature, and found that (despite individual results to the contrary) the research shows that minimum wage is harmful to low-skilled workers.

[PeterMP]

Is it really hard to believe that minuim wage has different effects at different times in different places?

[TMK9973]

I didn't aks you to post a study saying that minimum wage had a positive effect. There's no dispute that some exist, as shown by the review paper I cited.

I asked you to back up your silly dismissal of a much more comprehensive study, which reviewed all of the available literature, and found that (despite individual results to the contrary) the research shows that minimum wage is harmful to low-skilled workers.

But he found that conclusion, by his OWN ADMISSION, by only counting studies HE deemed credible, and by including studies that showed that effect even if it was less then statistically significent.

He stated that. He was honest. There is nothing to disprove. I agree that if he is going to decide which studies are credibile (and by default which ones are not) and then decide what conclusion each study shows, then sure, his conslusion is solid.

If I decide that I want to prove that all the experts think the skins will be a great team, and I alone get to define great and which experts are credibile, then I can eaisly prove my statement.

Doesn't really mean it's true.

[TMK9973]

Is it really hard to believe that minuim wage has different effects at different times in different places?

Nope. I agree 100%. And I think that THIS increase, in the 22 states it effects, will have next to NO impact since companies are already getting by with the smallest work force they can get by with and the increase of about $1400 per year is not significant.

[PeterMP]

But he found that conclusion, by his OWN ADMISSION, by only counting studies HE deemed credible, and by including studies that showed that effect even if it was less then statistically significent.

He stated that. He was honest. There is nothing to disprove. I agree that if he is going to decide which studies are credibile (and by default which ones are not) and then decide what conclusion each study shows, then sure, his conslusion is solid.

If I decide that I want to prove that all the experts think the skins will be a great team, and I alone get to define great and which experts are credibile, then I can eaisly prove my statement.

Doesn't really mean it's true.

I'd have to look at it more closely in terms of what studies he included, and which ones he didn't, but statistically the idea of including studies that don't show statistical significance is how meta-analysis works.

Essentially, the idea is that the power of any one study is limited by the size of their sample population. Their might be a significant result, but their sample size might not be large enough to detect it.

If you have 100 studies and they all show a slight "lean" in a single direction even if none show a signficant "lean", then it is most likely that there is in fact a significant result in the direction that they all show the lean in.

Even if you have a mixed bag w/ some studies showing one thing is significant, others showing something else, and others showing no significance, you can get a significant result in one direction w/ a meta-analysis based on the amount of significance in the different studies and the "leans" of those w/o a signficant result.

Meta-analysis are standard tools and frequently used when you have goups of studies that seem to show different and conflicting results. Normally, there is an associated p-value (or a similar value) w/ the meta-analysis, indicating that the combination of studies do show a significant result.

I don't much trust simple "reviews" of the literature, but if somebody has done a good job of gathering the data and properly doing the meta-analysis, there is no reason to disbelieve the result.

[techboy]

But he found that conclusion, by his OWN ADMISSION, by only counting studies HE deemed credible, and by including studies that showed that effect even if it was less then statistically significent.

If you look at the end, as I said, the studies the authors reviewed are listed, along with results and possible criticisms.

You are attempting to take good methodology (placing less weight on studies that, for example, failed to control for other economic effects on employment) and spin it into something sinister.

Further, you simply can't explain away the vast one-sidedness of the results by pretending that all the positive studies aren't significant and all the negatives are simply ignored. From the conclusion:

Although the wide range of estimates is striking, the oft-stated assertion that the new minimum wage research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. Indeed, in our view, the preponderance of the evidence points to disemployment effects. For example, the studies surveyed in this monograph correspond to 102 entries in our summary tables.118

Of these, by our reckoning nearly two-thirds give a relatively consistent (although by no means always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages, while only eight give a relatively consistent indication of positive employment effects. In addition, we have highlighted in the tables 33 studies (or entries) that we view as providing the most credible evidence; 28 (85 percent) of these point to negative employment effects.119 Moreover, when researchers focus on the least-skilled groups most likely to be adversely affected by minimum wages, the

evidence for disemployment effects seems especially strong. In contrast, we see very few—if any—cases where a study provides convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially among the studies that focus on broader groups for which the competitive model predicts

disemployment effects.

Out of 102 studies, eight show positive effects. Even if all of these studies were perfect, which they are not, you can't claim that it's "even".

What's more, you're ignoring the last line of the abstract:

Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

No qualifiers there at all. When researchers focus on the least-skilled, the evidence is that they are harmed. The very people that this is supposed to protect are the ones getting the shaft.

[IONTOP]

I assume you are a tipped employee. Which means that you are making at least the minium wage with your tips over a 40 hour week.

If you are not, your employee is suppose to change your rate.

Yes, I am, but when your paycheck isn't even covering your taxes most of the year, come April next year, I could owe $1 or $1,000... I honestly don't know...

[PeterMP]

Okay, I looked at this very quickly, but don't see any major issues w/ it:

"Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis"

"Abstract: Card and Krueger's meta-analysis of the employment effects of minimum wages challenged existing theory. Unfortunately, their meta-analysis confused publication selection with the absence of a genuine empirical effect. We apply recently developed meta-analysis methods to 64 US minimum-wage studies and corroborate that Card and Krueger's findings were nevertheless correct. The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."

Dealing w/ publication bias is a pain and somewhat controversial on the best approach, but practically different approaches tend to yield the same results.

[Hubbs]

So, this is gonna surprise anyone who knows my political views.

I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

I know, I know. "Whaaaat? Hubbs, the crusading libertarian, in favor of a minimum wage hike?"

See, even with the unemployment effect - which I've seen so much back-and-forth on that I can't say I can put full faith in either side being right - this hits another area, too. During the 20th century, there has generally been a relatively stable ratio of the average income of the top 1% of earners to the average income of the bottom 50% of earners. There are, in fact, only two times in the past hundred years when this ratio left its stable area - just before the Great Depression, and right now. When the ratio goes out of whack (towards the top 1%, obviously), that means that everyday consumers have to accumulate more debt to keep their economic activities going at the same pace. This debt accumulation has been going on for over 20 years now, and it seems to have reached a saturation point. Specifically, this:

This is an unsustainable trend. Debt can't grow faster than GDP forever. The bottom 50% have to start making more money. And while a minimum wage hike will affect a relatively small portion of them, it could very well be a necessary step.

[TMK9973]

Okay, I looked at this very quickly, but don't see any major issues w/ it:

"Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis"

"Abstract: Card and Krueger's meta-analysis of the employment effects of minimum wages challenged existing theory. Unfortunately, their meta-analysis confused publication selection with the absence of a genuine empirical effect. We apply recently developed meta-analysis methods to 64 US minimum-wage studies and corroborate that Card and Krueger's findings were nevertheless correct. The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."

Dealing w/ publication bias is a pain and somewhat controversial on the best approach, but practically different approaches tend to yield the same results.

Peter - Can you sum this up? The last line is throwing me off.

"Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."

little or no evidence of a NEGATIVE association.....

So their recap is saying that minimum wage does not negatively effect employment? It's almost a double negative. If No evidence of a negative assoicaiation, does that mean there IS evidence of a Possitive association?

[Prosperity]

TB, I skimmed over that paper and I have a question.

Doesn't it make sense to judge the effects on the low skilled labor work force not as purely employment but also based on how the worth of the entire demographic is worth? It seems like those studies only look at employment and not the value of the skilled workers in total (I skimmed so maybe I'm wrong)

example with simple math:

let's say the low skilled worker demographic has 100 workers at 5.15/hr before a hike and after the hike the rate is 7.25, but 10% lose their jobs

the demographic actually gains value

at 100 workers 5.15 gets a value of 515/hr

at 90 workers 7.25 gets 652.5/hr

so yes 10% lost their jobs, but as a whole the low skilled labor class is about 27% more valuable even with the 10% loss in employment. This seems to be a 'positive' effect on employment. Of course all my math is made up, but I think that should be a major part of how the question ought to be answered.

[PeterMP]

Peter - Can you sum this up? The last line is throwing me off.

"Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."

little or no evidence of a NEGATIVE association.....

So their recap is saying that minimum wage does not negatively effect employment? It's almost a double negative. If No evidence of a negative assoicaiation, does that mean there IS evidence of a Possitive association?

They find a slight negative relationship between employment and the minimum wage, suggesting that possibly the minimum wage might cause a slight increase in unemployment.

The finding is far from being significant though and most likely means there is no affect on employment levels w/ respect to minimum wage.

I will point out where meta-analysis lose their power is specificity. One of techboy's points above is that studies that specifically target low income workers show it has a negative result on employment. That is very possibily is going to be lost in this study, if it exist.

[Hubbs]

]let's say the low skilled worker demographic has 100 workers at 5.15/hr before a hike and after the hike the rate is 7.25, but 10% lose their jobs

the demographic actually gains value

at 100 workers 5.15 gets a value of 515/hr

at 90 workers 7.25 gets 652.5/hr

so yes 10% lost their jobs, but as a whole the low skilled labor class is about 27% more valuable even with the 10% loss in employment. This seems to be a 'positive' effect on employment. Of course all my math is made up, but I think that should be a major part of how the question ought to be answered.

That's pretty much why I think this could be a good thing.