Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 30 2017, @06:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the Lies,-Damned-Lies,-and-Statistics dept.

"In what has become a running joke amongst those skeptical of the claim that minimum wage increases have no effect on unemployment, a recent report by the Employment Policies Institute showed that 174 of the 184 co-sponsors of a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour hired unpaid interns."

"In a review of over 100 studies, economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that,A sizable majority of the studies surveyed ... 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." http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

"Yes, minimum wages still do increase unemployment."

https://mises.org/blog/seattles-minimum-wage-supporters-ignore-facts


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:18PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:18PM (#547221)

    You keep using the term "market failure" for something that is actually a market function. Firms seeking out affordable labour and friendly tax regimes are normal functions.

    Now, if you were to say that a desirable outcome would be the devaluation of the dollar to the point that midwestern american labour were justifiable again, that would at least be an open question in international finance. Arguably the dollar is overvalued for a number of reasons - but within that context, firms going overseas in search of affordable labour is a simple consequence of supply and demand.

    Actual market failures are not simply supply and demand at work, but situations where perverse incentives lead to destructive outcomes, such as pollution, or people eating seed corn or whatever. The fact that some guy somewhere can't get a job isn't a market failure.

    Now, if you're trying to make the case that an imbalance in labour rates and outcomes is a market failure, you have quite a hill to climb. For example, you'd need to illustrate that it's not just a temporary imbalance in a high friction market (which labour is well known to be).

    But maybe you have that proof on hand. The floor is yours.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:01PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:01PM (#547388)

    This isn't simply a case of supply and demand, this is a case of the virtual cartelization of employment by companies that have no incentive at all to negotiate over the wages offered as for many of them it's cheaper just to buy politicians that can change the rules for them. You see it all over the place with the spread of anti-worker language being required to be employed. Things like those non-disclosure and non-compete clauses that have been proliferating as well as the requirement that disputes be settled via binding arbitration rather than in the courts.

    They're probably not literally taking up these terms after talking with each other, but the people that write these contracts know each other and they see what the courts do with them. Everytime there's a new court ruling that says it's OK, those terms magically start to pop up elsewhere.

    A lot of this is because there's an inadequate supply of jobs being offered to allow the workers to participate in the market. You can't really negotiate if there isn't another job offer from somebody with different terms. It's basically, take it or leave it and the government itself isn't getting involved on behalf of the employees.

    Now, if the government weren't owned by corporations, I'd be more inclined to believe that this isn't a market failure, but it takes a herculean effort to come to any other conclusion. The system nearly ate itself in a literal sense only 6 years ago.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @11:31PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 31 2017, @11:31PM (#547410) Journal

      this is a case of the virtual cartelization of employment

      No, it's not. There's a vast sea of employers out there.

      You see it all over the place with the spread of anti-worker language being required to be employed.

      This is a perverse outcome of defending against litigation. Mere inappropriate language can cost a business tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US (with similar consequences in many EU countries as well). So now there's a business case for policing language at work.

      A lot of this is because there's an inadequate supply of jobs being offered to allow the workers to participate in the market. You can't really negotiate if there isn't another job offer from somebody with different terms. It's basically, take it or leave it and the government itself isn't getting involved on behalf of the employees.

      Well, there's a solution. Either decrease the supply of labor or increase the demand for it. The latter is nicer and more beneficial.