Assorted links

Comments

I am confused by the minimum wage report:
2006 -min wage was 7.25
2010 - min wage... still 7.25 after several increases?

If the min. wage is 2010 is higher than 7.25 then of course the number of people making 7.25 or less should decrease, right?, 7.25 would be below the min. wage. Should they be comparing the 2010 min. wage level against the 2006 min wage level?

The best result of the "mistakes" posts has been how easily certain people have admitted there are left-wing economists and right-wing economists. In other words, they've inadvertantly stated what everyone else knows, but they've kept denying: economists are nothing more than political pundits.

Krugman and DeLing (yep) -- you're just Rush Limbaugh with a much smaller audience. And it is now a matter of record, according to your allies.

I'm also confused by the minimum wage post. Why would you look at the number of jobs at the minimum wage or less in each year? Of course there will be fewer "at $7.50 or less" after passing that minimum; presumably there will be more at just above $7.50 -- those people who got a "raise" due to the minimum wage increase (many employers paying $7.00 before the hike would offer $8.00 so as to offer jobs above the minimum wage, rather than exactly at the minimum wage).

Probably just as important - one can't look at total job losses during that period either, given that a recession hit right then (presumably not due to the minimum wage increase)! What am I missing?

I think Philip DIck also belongs on the SF list.

7. Isaac Asimov is missing?

I wouldn't be surprised if the minimum wage increases were responsible for some job losses, but that many? It seems just as likely that the sort of sectors that would have a lot of relatively low-paying jobs started shedding workers as the economy became worse.

I'm going to be a little less charitable than other commenters and say that the minimum wage analysis is either dishonest or worthlessly done. Concerns about differences in wages aside, it makes absolutely zero attempt to disentangle the effects of minimum wage hikes and the recession on unemployment. Insofar as it proposes an explanatory model -- and if it does not, it's either worthless or passive-aggressive -- it suffers from a significant hidden variable problem.

There are several posts at politicalcalculations that go into much more detail on the topic. If you're interested, it's probably worth searching on their site.

Why disentangle them? My question is that when 'wage stickiness' is the problem, why go out of our way to force wage stickiness?

Bryan,

You don't think a loss of 33% of the total number of jobs in the minimum-wage sector is worthy of note?

Cliff,

That's not what I am saying, at all. I'm simply saying other things could be bigger factors here.

#6

The comments...wow.

If you are going to disagree with #5, you need to show the numbers are in fact wrong. Otherwise, here was his actual point:

In terms of jobs lost, that means that 2,234,383 of the jobs lost in the U.S. economy since 2006 have been jobs that were directly impacted by the series of minimum wage increases that were mandated by the federal government in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

He isn't claiming a causation, just pointing out what he thinks is a fact.

#6, yeah. He's been sliding downhill for a while now. In this case, he spends a thousand words to basically say "I can't hear you, and you're worse anyway."

#6

The comments...wow.

Oh my. The first commenters got really angry when someone suggested they and their economists might not be perfectly correct. Also, the number of "I don't understand, but here I go talking about it" was almost funny.

to all policy domains and for all types of binding implementing measures (Article 2(3)) whereas the examination procedure would only be used when certain binding crite

7. Isaac Asimov is missing?

Comments for this post are closed