Register to Comment
Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 277
Like Tree83Likes
  1. #91
    pragmaticapproach pragmaticapproach is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,902

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnesiac View Post
    I am not opposed to them on ideological grounds. I would take a more pragmaticapproach.
    So you favour shortages of essential items?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #92
    niall78 niall78 is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,757

    Quote Originally Posted by pragmaticapproach View Post
    Im not bitter at all, Im now self employed as a forex and futures daytrader, couldnt be happier. I also read alot, rather than watch meaningless ************************e on the TV, economics being a favoured subject.

    Apprentices, usually first and second year would fit wire tray and conduit as well as bonding. The very fact that it was deemed neccessary to hire labourers indicates the lack of apprenticeship vacancies fiiled at that time.

    Conclusion, market wage rates far exceeded what was set by legislation.
    Electrical labours have always been part of the electrical business. In fact they have there own sectoral wage agreements. In most countries electricians and their apprentices aren't wasted doing non-electrical work like conduit and tray.

    Did you give up the electronics as well? There's a bit of a trend forming.

    As for you being a daytrader....well maybe you are, maybe you aren't. P.ie is full of Walther Mittys, the types who think they are professional poker players if they load up Paddy Power Poker or daytraders when they load some trading software to juggle a few of their own Euro.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #93
    Ramps Ramps is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14,465

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnesiac View Post
    I am not opposed to them on ideological grounds. I would take a more pragmaticapproach.
    I am opposed to them on ideological grounds. What right does govt. have to interfere with an agreement that two people have come to?

    Anyway, as others have said, if the MW is such an effective way to reduce poverty, why are its advocates so stingy? Lets introduce a MW in Calcutta of, say, 50 euro an hour. All those slums should be gone in no time.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #94
    pragmaticapproach pragmaticapproach is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,902

    Quote Originally Posted by niall78 View Post
    Electrical labours have always been part of the electrical business. In fact they have there own sectoral wage agreements. In most countries electricians and their apprentices aren't wasted doing non-electrical work like conduit and tray.

    Did you give up the electronics as well?

    As for you being a daytrader....well maybe you are, maybe you aren't. P.ie is full of Walther Mittys, the types who think they are professional poker players if they load up Paddy Power Poker or daytraders when they load some trading software to juggle a few of their own Euro.
    Couldnt give a ************************e whether you believe me or not, Im happy at what I do and earn a decent income, Im not in competition with anyone and content with my lot.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #95
    Ramps Ramps is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14,465

    Quote Originally Posted by pragmaticapproach View Post
    Why would an employer pay more than a workers labour is actually worth?
    Because a bureaucrat uses the force of the state to get him to engage in charity!

    I'm sure you remember: "A and B deciding what C should do for D".
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #96
    pragmaticapproach pragmaticapproach is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,902

    Quote Originally Posted by EPluribusUnum View Post
    Murray Rothbard was an inhumane lunatic. The Mises site is collection of such inhumane lunatics. And you might try instead a graph that is actually supported by real numbers and not some idiotic economic theory that has never been shown to have a basis in fact:



    Do you see the ever enlarging gulf between corporate profits and the minimum wage? And, nitwit, 2/3rds of minimum wage jobs are with large companies like Walmart and McDonalds.

    Now for a basis in fact, first:

    For the range of minimum wage increases over the past several decades, methodologies using local comparisons provide more reliable estimates by controlling for heterogeneity in employment growth. These estimates suggest no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United States. Our analysis highlights the importance of accounting for
    such heterogeneity in future work on this topic.--MINIMUM WAGE EFFECTS ACROSS STATE BORDERS: ESTIMATES USING CONTIGUOUS COUNTIES, Dube, Lester & Reich, 2010


    Next up:

    Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model of the minimum wage, but consistent with a number of recent studies based on cross-sectional time-series comparisons of affected and unaffected markets or employers, we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state. Regardless of whether we compare stores in New Jersey that were affected by the $5.05 minimum to stores in eastern Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant at $4.25 per hour) or to stores in New Jersey that were initially paying $5.00 per hour or more (and were largely unaffected by the new law), we find that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment. We present a wide variety of alternative specifications to probe the robustness of this conclusion. None of the alternatives shows a negative employment effect. We also check our findings for the fast-food industry by comparing changes in teenage employment rates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York in the year following the increase in the minimum wage. Again, these results point toward a relative increase in employment of low-wage workers in New Jersey. We also find no evidence that minimum-wage increases negatively affect the number of McDonald's outlets opened in a state.

    Finally, we find that prices of fast-food meals increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania, suggesting that much of the burden of the minimum-wage rise was passed on to consumers. Within New Jersey, however, we find no evidence that prices increased more in stores that were most affected by the minimum-wage rise. Taken as a whole, these findings are difficult to explain with the standard competitive model or with models in which employers face supply constraints (e.g., monopsony or equilibrium search models).--American Economic Review: Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Card & Krueger, 2000


    And here are some other inhumane lunatics weighing in to dispute those conclusions:

    According to economists Donald Deere (Texas A&M), Kevin Murphy (University of Chicago), and Finis Welch (Texas A&M), Card and Krueger's conclusions are contradicted by "common sense and past research". They conclude:

    Each of the four studies examines a different piece of the minimum wage/employment relationship. Three of them consider a single state, and two of them look at only a handful of firms in one industry. From these isolated findings Card and Krueger paint a big picture wherein increased minimum wages do not decrease, and may increase, employment. Our view is that there is something wrong with this picture. Artificial increases in the price of unskilled laborers inevitably lead to their reduced employment; the conventional wisdom remains intact.

    Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan responded to the Card and Krueger study in the Wall Street Journal, arguing:

    ...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

    See, it's "common sense". Which is what is usually said when when one cannot argue the case on the factual merits. Hence the appeal to "common sense". And by the way, there is nothing scientific whatsoever in economic theory. The laws of physics are immutable. Ditto the laws of organic and inorganic chemistry. They don't ever change. Again, your Econ 101 has never been shown to be demonstrably valid, instead, all it is a mutually reinforcing construct of a priori assumptions. Which brings me to the response to the inhumane lunatics:

    Alan Krueger responded in The Washington Post:

    More was at stake here than the minimum wage – the methodology of public policy analysis was also at issue. Some economists, such as James Buchanan, have simply rejected the notion that their view of economic theory possibly could be proved wrong by data [my note, hence the appeal to "common sense"].

    Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, has argued in favour of the Card and Krueger result, stating that Card and Krueger;

    ... found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in.


    All of that is from Wikipedia, which goes on to report:

    Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[75] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[76]

    In 2005, T.D. Stanley showed that Card and Krueger's results could signify either publication bias or the absence of a minimum wage effect. However, using a different methodology, Stanley concludes that there is evidence of publication bias, and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment. In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conducted a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on dis-employment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."


    And you can read Dube, Lester and Reich's 2011 piece, Allegretto, Dube and Reich's 2011 piece, and Katz and Krueger's 1992 piece as well.

    And let me leave you with:

    The Whole Truth about Minimum Wages | Economics Intelligence

    Sorry, here's another bit for you:

    “The paper presents a fairly irrefutable case that state minimum wage laws do raise earnings in low wage jobs but do not reduce employment to any meaningful degree,” said David Autor, Professor of Economics at MIT and editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. “Beyond this substantive contribution, the paper presents careful and compelling reanalysis of earlier work in this literature, showing that it appears biased by spatial correlation in employment trends.”

    Oh, for another reason why the Mises crowd are a collection of ill-informed nitwits:

    Minimum wage-unemployment studies - The Mises Community

    Now note again, 2/3rds of minimum wage workers do not work for small business but large corps like McDonalds and WalMart. But these nitwits claim the opposite. Note the remarks re small business being hurt by minimum wage increase. Actually not. Small business wants minimum wage increase since they already pay their workers more, since they don't have the luxury of economy of scale and really can't offer much otherwise in the way of employee discounts on all those things that folks like WalMart sell. So small business wants the rise, to make their inefficient selves, relatively speaking, more competitive, since Walmart would presumably have to pass on the cost of min wage hike to their consumers via price hike, which would make their small business competitors more competitive. In other words, your fellow nitwits at Mises don't really understand the world. And here's how dumb they are:

    What I would like to see is how their supposed statistical data can disprove a theory deduced from logic. It's really simple supply-and-demand.

    For how completely and utterly insane that is, there is more to life than supply and demand. Here's a word for you, and them, frictions. And a phrase, employers' market power. Learn them. And share them with your Mises crew.

    Which brings me to, frictions:

    Guest Post: Minimum Wage Laws and the Labor Market: What Have We Learned Since Card and Krueger

    And note that your Mises' heroes, Neumark and Wascher are roundly debunked. So, please, tell your crew. And note that you can find the links to the other described pieces in that piece, plus links to some other pieces as well.
    Have you a graph for market wage rates during the same period? For all your copy and paste, you have not bothered to include such figures. Do you understand that wages are a price?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #97
    Amnesiac Amnesiac is offline
    Amnesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,049

    I understand where you're coming from. I agree with the intuition. Theory says that ceilings/floors/taxes distort market prices. We can expect to see scenarios such as food shortages or a lack of available accommodation in New York city. We should see rising unemployment when minimum wage laws are enacted or rates increased. However, the evidence from the data is not crystal clear. The problem could be the econometric methods used by the researchers or it may be a flaw in the theory we use to motivate our expectations. Markets are not perfect, but I still believe that they are very useful. Understanding their weaknesses will help inform policy. My default position is not to have price controls, but I am open to persuasion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #98
    Ramps Ramps is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14,465

    I think the present rate meets that requirement nicely.
    I'm sure you do. Can you tell me what you think of the MW rate with regard to those people who are unable to find jobs because of it? Who represents them? Certainly not the Trade Unions; I wonder why?


    We should legislate to ensure that a person doing a week's work earns enough money to provide them with a standard of living that is adequately higher than the standard of living they would have if they were unemployed.
    So you are in favour of legislating for (enforced) charity...how generous and magnanimous you are.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #99
    pragmaticapproach pragmaticapproach is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,902

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramps View Post
    I'm sure you do. Can you tell me what you think of the MW rate with regard to those people who are unable to find jobs because of it? Who represents them? Certainly not the Trade Unions; I wonder why?




    So you are in favour of legislating for (enforced) charity...how generous and magnanimous you are.
    As a Hayekean libertarian(Non natural rights), I have no objection to targeted state welfare provision, However I oppose price fixing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #100
    Amnesiac Amnesiac is offline
    Amnesiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,049

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramps View Post
    I am opposed to them on ideological grounds. What right does govt. have to interfere with an agreement that two people have come to?

    Anyway, as others have said, if the MW is such an effective way to reduce poverty, why are its advocates so stingy? Lets introduce a MW in Calcutta of, say, 50 euro an hour. All those slums should be gone in no time.
    A problem with this is that both parties are not on an equal footing. A candidate employee may be struggling financial and be under duress to take a job paying lower than they deserve for their set of skills. The employer knows this and can exploit the situation.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment