Talk:Minimum wage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Minimum wage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Portal:Business and Economics
 Business and Economics Portal
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Minimum wage was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Minimum wage is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] This paragraph should really go

I think the following paragraph should be deleted:

"The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning."

The proceeding pros and cons are not strictly empircal. The statements "reduces demand for workers" and "reduce worker exploitation" are not based on evidence.

And the section immediately following this paragraph is empirical.

It's totatlly backwards. Even if it were correct methinks it would add little

Burkander 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The words (and the points preceeding and proceeding) have morphed from what I originally wrote. The original intent was to distinguish between arguments that are theoretical (i.e., those which hinge on theoretical disagreement), and those that are empirical (i.e., those for which there is no disagreement as to theory, but which hinge on disagreement as to data and/or analytic methods). Those unfamiliar with economic theory will typically not be able to distinguish between the two types of arguments and so will regard the entire minimum wage debate as representing incomplete economic theory. Wikiant 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. As the original author, would you mind if it was deleted? Burkander 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurostat

Removed Greece and Belgium from the second paragraph, since they both have minimum wages, as Eurostat shows. Greetings

--capaman

ww.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

--Chris 20:25, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated "Comparison of State and Federal Minimum Wage" Map?

I noticed on a TV program, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" I believe, that there are states with their own minimum wage laws. These states were colored red on a map. One of those states was North Carolina. Yet, the map in this article shows blue for NC, denoting a minimum wage same as the federal. Is this map here flawed or outdated? Somebody please check. -Amit

I've deleted the 'short-term' comment in the 'debate' section and re-inputted the "personal element of labour transactions" section - these are important points. Large discrepancies in pay for the same job with very similar non-percuniary atributes in the same area of the country indicate pretty long-term market power.

In my experience, if one job has significantly pay discrepancy, there is also a difference in the quality of work being performed (which effectively means they are slightly different jobs), and the turnover rate. Neither of which indicates a long-term market power.
Furthermore, you are assuming that the higher price of labor is closer to equilibrium, when in fact, it is much more likely that the lower price is the equilibrium price, and the higher price is a business decision to attract a higher caliber of employee.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If the "higher price is a business decision to attract a higher caliber of employee," then the discussion of minimum wage becomes more complex. What you are really describing are two labor markets: one for lower skilled labor for which the minimum wage is binding (i.e. higher than the equilibrium), and one for higher skilled labor in which the minimum wage is not binding (or, perhaps, less binding). Wikiant 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I am describing. How does this make the discussion any more complex? Minimum wage already only binds itself to certain labor markets to the exclusion of others. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we not talk about this, but I am warning that if we do then we must be very careful in our wording. We could no longer speak of "the impact of minimum wage on employment," but must always specify "employment of whom." For example, your statement "min wage already only binds itself to certain labor markets," is inadequate. The correct statement is, "The likelihood of the minimum wage being binding is greater in the markets for lower-skilled labor." Wikiant 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless the minimum wage gets seriously jacked up, it has no likelihood of affecting most labor markets; just the labor markets for unskilled workers doing jobs which involve no risk of personal injury or death. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate section needed correction (on classical micro theory they were wrong) and clarification, some sections seem still seems wordy.

Why did someone delete what I wrote about the graphs - they are blatantly an extremely poor guide, ignoring the caveats that correlation does not imply causality at all, and fall prey to sample selection; extending the series further back in time to the 1950s would give a much less clear trend. DO NOT DELETE THIS! I WILL COMPLAIN TO WIKI.

Tidying up.

- I've tidied up the for/against section. Many in the 'against' section were duplicates of the same basic idea, and seemed to be included separately to simply 'bump up' the numbers of 'against' arguments. This is not an honest approach nor is it NPOV


Arguments for/against a Minimum Wage increase:

For:

  • It helps people that make the least money. -- How ?
  • It helps union workers because many union contracts are based on a fixed percentage/dollar amount over minimum wage. Indirectly helps union funds used for to pay union officials, retirement plans, and for lobbying political issues (such as an increase in the minimum wage) because union dues are a percentage of the hourly wage.

Against:

  • It increases the cost of basic goods and services in proportion to the increase in labor costs from an increase in the minimum wage. It is claimed to offset any increase minimum wage workers receive.
  • Minimum wage workers usually earn minimum wage only for a short period of time and move to higher paying jobs.
  • Many minimum wage jobs are performed by part time workers and students.
  • It harms the people who make the least money -- a minimum wage law doesn't create any jobs, it simply outlaws some jobs (those which create little value).

There have to be some real reasons to be for or against an increase in the minimum wage. Not some generic 'it helps the little guy' or some generic 'it costs jobs'

Can anyone list all off the things that are directly tied to the minimum wage level?

  • Social Security taxes paid (6.25 percent paid by wage earner and 6.25 percent paid by employer)
  • Medicare taxes paid (1.2 percent paid by wage earner and 1.2 percent paid by employer)
Half of SS and Medicare taxes are *collected* from the employer and employee, respectively. Economic studies suggest, however, that the bulk of the taxes are *paid* by the employee. Wikiant 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Union contracts based on a fixed percentage/dollar amount over minimum wage
  • Unemployment taxes ??
  • Worker's compensation insurance ??


Basically, the economic effects very much depend on the relevent supply and demand curves and monopoly or monopsony effects. Ignoring monopoly and monopsony effects, an increase in minimum wage will increase the amount of the wage (duh) and decrease the amount of labor demanded. This will result in a surplus of labor and cause a dead weight loss. On the other hand, if the employer is a monopsony in the labor market, (or at least has significant monopsony power), then sometimes both the wage and the amount of labor hired will increase. If the sellers of labor have a monopoly (i.e. maybe there is a strong union) then they may demand some kind of increased wage and this will increase the amount of money that the members take home, even if somewhat less labor is employed.

Clearly, there is some informed discussion guiding the creation of this article. However, the poor grammar in the Further economic issues section in the version of 29 October 2003 makes it unintelligible. The article needs a rewrite so that the rest of us can understand it. Rossami 02:10, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Card-Krueger Experiments

I just made some major revisions to the part of the article that deals with the Card-Krueger experiments, as it made no mention of the serious objections made to their methodology and conclusions.

I was wondering if it might ultimately be better to put everything regarding C-K in a new section or perhaps an entirely separate article.

Kurt Weber 23:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like it if you made it into a seperate article. I noticed you took more care to NPOV the pro C-K paragraphs than the con C-K paragraphs. --LegCircus 23:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with saying "Some subsequent attempts..." is that it implies that attempts were made to verify C-K that agreed with the original findings. As there are no known instances of this, the leading "Some" is incorrect.

Weber cut the possible theoretical explanations of why C-K may be right. That is totally unjustified, so I'm putting them back. No matter what one thinks of this literature, C-K have made a major step in pushing economists away from a dogmatic and _a priori_ approach to the minimum wage question. BTW, it's been known for quite awhile that the data indicating a negative employment effect due to the minimum wage is very shaky (showing low statistical significance).

Jdevine 16:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Economist Greg Mankiw lists several studies which dispute the Card-Krueger results here. --JHP 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EPI

I'm not sure how relevant this is, and perhaps it is ad hominem, but the link provided that further supports the Card-Krueger experiments was put out by the Economic Policy Institute. A substantial number of EPI's board of directors are affiliated with the AFL-CIO in some way or another.link. Union members benefit greatly from the minimum wage since A.) It eliminates low-income labor alternatives that compete directly with union members, B.) Many union wages are a function of the minimum wage as deliniated in the contracts. Since most of the board of directors are on the AFL-CIO's payroll, would this mean that EPI's findings shouldn't be considered objective since there is such a vested financial interest involved?

[edit] Minimum wage and unemplyment

If there were no minimum wage, there would be no unemplyment. Get rid of the minimum wage, and the unemployment problem is solved.--Jerryseinfeld 02:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not true. While I agree that the minimum wage does contribute to unemployment, other barriers still exist. Full employment would only be possible in a world of cost-less mobility and perfect information, where employer and employee would be able to meet instantly and without cost. --4.14.71.241 05:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem with all those unemployed people is that they're dying to work for less than minimum wage but the government won't let them, and they haven't heard of the black economy... Rd232 11:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Actually with a genereous welfare system even the lack of a minimum wage would not guarantee an end to unemployment. So long as marginal workers have alternate income options then the benefit of exchanging their time for low wages may still be outweighed by the cost. TERJE 2005-01-10.
How do you explain 19th century unemployment?


There's a tipping point where if the minimum wage is too low, there's really no point in working. Most working people for instance, make above the minimum wage. Htra0497 10.40, 8 March 2006 (AEST)
There's a new twist in the minimum wage debate... Illegal immigration. Many of the illegals work for much below the minimum and live well, including sending a portion to their home country. If a high minimum is needed, why are there still jobs at these low wages? If all of these low wages were brought up to par, how would the economy be effected? It is certain, if there were no illegal aliens, there would be more people working for the higher minimum wage. There should be something in the article to reflect the current reality accross the world. 68.48.174.136 14:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the introduction to the article, an international labor union (leftist) and an international covernment body (possibly leftist) are sited as saying that Minimum Wage does not cause unemployment. This part of the article is worded and placed to imply that this is the final word on the matter. Can someone provide the name of an international organization with an opposing viewpoint, because you can't convince me that none exist.--Drvanthorp 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum wage in Finland

Sorry, but seems like your sources really don't understand the complex systems we have in scandinavian countries. I do believe the finnish version of wikipedia with lots of local experts checking the article a bit more trustworthy than the US state bureau. Pls see [1] [2] [3] -- Tmh 12:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well then, please send some over to here! :) Hardern 08:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum wage raised in Virginia

Minimum wage was recently (sometime within the pased few months) raised in Virginia. I only know this because it recently caused some of my coworkers to get a raise to $5.75, the new minimum wage here. However, I can't find any online documentation to back this up. - July 2005


Reply: Trust me the minimum in July 2005 in VA was not $5.75, I live in the Southwest region and it was still $5.15.

Unfortunately even if you are correct, we cannot just trust you. Wikipedia depends on verifiable sources for statements like this. If you can find an official statement regarding minimum wgae in 2005 in Virginia I'd be happy to make the change myself, i kan reed 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton line wrong

"Clinton gave states the power to set minimum wages above the federal, &c" ... I can't find any corroborating quote on a non-wikipedia-clone website anywhere on google, and besides:

"In 1979, only Alaska had a minimum wage set above the federal level"

Also, under what power of office could Clinton make that kind of choice? It seems fake to me.

Before I edit, maybe whoever wrote it can clear up my confusion.

This line might be misstated, Clinton promoted and signed into law a bill passed by congress that allowed states to increase the minimum wage. Clinton was influential in the passage of the bill. LegCircus 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Logical Flaw In This Application of Efficiency Wage Hypothesis

"On the other hand, if Card and Krueger's empirical research is valid, it may be explained by the efficiency wage hypothesis which states that higher wages may "pay for themselves" by increasing worker efficiency (i.e., labor productivity). Higher wages encourage a higher willingness of low-skill workers to stay with their current employers and to gain experience and skill, while the employers are more willing to train them." This does not conform to economic rationale, at least as I understand it. If higher wages truly did accomplish such effects, a contention that I have no opinion on as of yet, employers would raise their wages to increase their productivity; no business 'needs' regulation to undertake profitable & productive policies, implying the government knows better than companies themselves as regards the correct practices. Competition ensures such behavior. This seems to be a glaring logical flaw. I ask that others either enlighten me as to how I am wrong, or delete the quoted passage if they concur with my reasoning.

The argument that higher wages may increase productivity and therefore not increase unemployment does conform to economic rationale. You are correct that economists assume that producers are profit maximizers. The standard models do not, however, assume a link between wages and productivity.

Productivity is measured by the Marginal Productivity of Labor. It decreases as more labor is added (too many cooks in the kitchen), wich means that the Marginal Productivity of Labor decreases. The demand for labor is equal to the MPL times the price (if we are looking at the relationship between wages and labor). If higher wages cause an increase in MPL the demand for labor schedule will shift upwards, thereby cancelling out potential unemployment.

If producers believed that there was a link between wages and productivity then I think your analysis would be completely correct. However, even economists aren't sure of such a link, and certainly don't assume one. Producers have an information advantage in knowing precisely what their wages and prices are. Let me know if I'm not being clear. Burkander 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not a higher wage rate elicits higher productivity but whether the increase in the wage rate results exceeds the value of the marginal revenue product (i.e., the increase in the value of what the labor produces). The potential argument for the minimum wage, as I hear it, is that it is possible that the value of the marginal revenue product is less than the increase in the wage rate. The fallacy in that argument is that, were this true, employers would *willingly* pay their labor more. Wikiant 14:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I'll stick with Marginal Product of Labor, because it's more descriptive of what we're talking about. Product assumes revenue, and by saying marginal product of labor we distinguish it from the marginal product of capital, which of course doesn't change as a result of the minimum wage.
Second, you'll note from the first sentence in this section that the issue is very much productivity. That is because Card and Kreuger's findings could be explained within the basic labor model if it were demonstrated that increased wages led to increased productivity. This would effectively cause a shift in the demand for labor up.
Third, on your point, which I consider distinct from the point of this section: As a result of our assumption that firms are profit maximizers, they will by definition hire labor/produce goods (the decision is one and the same in the short run where capital is fixed)at the point where wages are equal to the marginal product of labor times the price. THis is the same as saying marginal costs (unit costs of labor with capital fixed) equal marignal benefit (price times marginal product). Therefore the increase in wage will precisely equal increase in the product of prices and marginal product. Burkander 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I just added {{NPOV}} to the article, as I don't understand why the estimates should be given in USD. I agree there has to be some comparison, but what about euro? In the list Euro is used far more than USD (bar estimates) so why does it give the estimes in USD?, surely it would make more sense to give them in euro? - RedHotHeat 20:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just make the computations yourself? All currency translations go out of date quickly, but you are free to run the numbers and type them in. There are more minimum wages set in Euro because there are more countries that use the Euro, but USD is the world's most traded currency (see, e.g., exchange rate) and most popular reserve currency, so I don't think it's "pushing" USD as some sort of hegemonic currency as acknowledging that USD is probably the most common denominator for international prices. Are you going to add NPOV to, for example, list of countries by GDP (nominal) and every other article making international comparisons in dollars? But as I said, I doubt anyone would mind if you added Euro quotations as well. Afelton 21:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought here, MediaWiki could really use a standard way to express currencies, and a localization feature for users. For example, if the article reads USD$150 and my preference is set to EU, the value would automatically be shown in today's Euro rate, either alongside or replacing the original text. If the user isn't logged in or has no preference, the value would be presented as a link you could click on and see a table of conversions. Ideas? Lkoziarz 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
That would indeed be awesome. I hope someone implements that -- maybe you could suggest it in a more widely-read forum than this one. In the meantime, I am going to take off the NPOV tag unless someone objects. Afelton 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting that once (the curreny thing), but the problem I see is that the use of currency names like Dollar, or Pound, escpecially when people dont use things like US$ as they would guess the "dollar" they are reffering to is implied by the page it's on. Also, there are many people on Wikipedia, who seem to have a problem with using symbols ($, €, £ etc) and constantly write things like 10 dollars, 20 euros (although it is more frequent with euro. I think it's because of the kind of people who insist that euros is correct and they're trying to highlight it) - RedHotHeat 11:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What does %GDP mean on the table

I couldn't understand what %GDP means on the table?. Beats me.

It is the % of per capita GDP that someone would earn working full-time for the minimum wage. For example, working 2000 hours (about a year's worth of work, all figures are rounded) at $5/hr in the U.S. -> $10,000/year. U.S. GDP per capita (according to Economy_of_the_United_States) is a bit over $40,000/year, so that works out to about 25%. This is a useful measure because GDP per capita is about what the "average" person gets in income (with all the problems of averaging and income distribution understood) which can tell a reader how someone earning minimum wage compares to the "average" person in that country. Afelton 02:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
In other words, it is the minimum wage to average wage ratio. Htra0497 10.37, 8 March 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Danish minimum wage wrong

US$29/hour seems a bit much to me, but I have no sources to correct it. laug 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] minimum wage in India

[edit] French and Irish Minimum

French €7.61 (US$9.18) per hour

Irish €7.65 (US$10) per hour

The US estimates can't both be right. How can €7.61 = $9.18, but the greater value of €7.65 = $8? I don't know which numbers are correct, the euro values or the US ones.Humpelfluch

[edit] Moving sections to separate pages

I think that Minimum wage in the United States, Minimum wage in the United Kingdom and Minimum Wages in Australia sections should be moved to their own articles to shorten this article. Does anyone agree or disagree to this proposal?--Clawed 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate having the worldwide comparison table here with the main article, but more detailed articles on individual countries seem a logical extension of this. Perhaps limit them to non-theoretical topics such as Minimum wage legislation (United States), Minimum wage legislation (United Kingdom), etc. This technique seems to be working for Fox hunting legislation. - Rorybowman 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax void

Added this introducing sentence: "The difference between the net minimum wage and gross minimum wage costs is not only a tax wedge but also a tax void." Colignatus 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cited survey of economists

I find the reference to the Winter 2005 JEP survey of economists cited in the Debate section of the main page to be rather misleading. Having (eventually) found the article to which it refers (David Colander, The Making of an Economist Redux, pp.175-198 link link), there are several qualifiers that I feel should be added to the main page, if this survey is to continue to be cited.

  • The survey is of graduate students from seven top-ranking US graduate economics programmes (Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale and Princeton). Of the 800-900 possible respondents, 231 students replied. The use of "academic economists at top universities" implies to me a rather wide-ranging survey of lecturers/professors, rather than a more limited one of students themselves.
  • The students were asked (amongst other things) seven questions on their economic opinions, including the one mentioned on minimum wages. Possible responses to the questions were: Agree, Agree with reservations, Disagree and No Strong Opinion. 33% agreed, 38% agreed with reservations, 23% disagreed and 7% had no strong opinion. I therefore feel it's misleading to report that "that exactly two-thirds ... agree with the statement" without any qualifiers or even citation to the original article.

Perhaps the sentence could be revised to something like:
"Of the respondents to a 2005 survey <insert citation> of graduate economists at seven top US universities, 71% agreed or agreed with reservations with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled."
although I accept this reduces its force (which was perhaps not the original author's intention...)
--Ejr 19:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion too late. I already replaced this survey by a more serious one and hope it's alright for you. Hardern 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Why is a summary of 50 years of research not valid? - Centrx 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this is for me because I deleted the link while I was cleaning up a bit. I threw it out because it is more than 10 years old, and it's very POV, suggesting that all empirical evidence for minimum wages not increasing unemployment were based on three researchers. This is definitely not up to date, since there is a strong yearly report done by the UK Low Pay Commission after they re-invented their national minimum wage in 1999. Also, a lot of European economists did some further research on this issue, leading to the result that there is neither clear empirical evidence for exacerbated unemployment after rising minimum wages, nor for growing employment. You may, just to mention one example, also see
Reynis, Lee A., Myra Segal und Molly J. Bleecker (2005): Preliminary Analysis of the Impacts of the  
$8.50 Minimum Wage on Santa Fe Businesses, Workers and the Santa Fe Economy - Revised, 27. Dezember
(PDF)
All in all, the link provides a quite long list of articles related to the issue and it might therefore stay inside, but it is also out of date and POV and thus not really sophisticated, so it should probably stay outside. I wasn't really sure on this, but I gave the latter arguments more weight for some reason. What should we do now? Hardern 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you support a link to a site that supports minimum wage, because it is your idea that minimum wage works (which it doesn't), but it is unacceptable for there to be a link to a Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress because it proves that minimum wage does not help. Minimum wage does not help the economy because it causes prices for basic goods to rise, because of the increased cost of employment. Therefore, non-minimum wage earners must spend more on goods, which raises costs throughout the economy. Minimum wage earners are the ones that aren't really affected by the minimum wage. Minimum wage also stifles competition (it can stifle competition significantly or not very much), because it sets a standard that most businesses will keep close to for basic workers. Minimum wage (and especially minimum wage increases) hurt small businesses because small businesses do not have anywhere near the money that large businesses do, and therefore are hurt significantly by minimum wage hikes, whereas large companies are not. The simple fact is that while a minimum wage gives the workers who earn minimum wage the illusion that they are earning more money, the effect of minimum wage on the entire economy offsets the minimum wage, while competition and small businesses are hurt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.146.39 (talk • contribs) --Hardern 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

I really think it is a bit more complex than that, and I suggest you carefully read what the UK Low Pay Commission has to say about this - or what the empirical evidence shows in the source I posted above from the University of New Mexico, or what's happening in 18 of the 25 EU member states that have a minimum wage.
The Low Pay Commission, for example, stated that while small and medium businesses have been partly challenged by the rises of the national minimum wage in the UK in the past, they are dealing more than well with it now, and it's the big companies who will have to adapt in the future. Also, the economy consists of a lot more things than just the basic goods needed in everyday life, and giving the "working poor" a few dozen, let's say a few hundreds of Dollars or Euros or whatever more each month is definitely not screwing up the economy of developed countries like the US, like the UK, or like France or Germany. But, to stick to what we in person think is true about minimum wage, I think people earning minimum wages are better off with them than without, and that is because there is clearly no evidence for the rigid support of the thesis that minimum wages are causing unemployment - or exacerbating inflation, as you suggested.
Economists are definitely debating about the exact effects of minimum wages and its risings, and thus it remains a contested topic. As I said, I wasn't really sure about the weblink I deleted for the reasons I explained above and asked for what to do now. Hardern 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
PS: About the competition thing: In the UK increases in the minimum wage also increased productivity of affected companies, and it helped increasing the income of workers slightly above minimum wage level as well. Why? Because the companies did not want to be blamed for "just paying the minimum wage". This is called "spill-over effect" in Political Science. And, as the evidence in the UK (or in Santa Fe, if you like that more) suggests, not only affected companies, the whole economy is better off with the minimum wage. Anyway, of course there are things you should not do with minimum wages and that can have negative effects. Among these things are unpredictable and too sharp rises in the minimum wage level. However, if a government is using this economic and social instrument wisely, it can do a lot of good things.
If there is no negative effect from a minimum wage, why not just raise the minimum wage to like a billion gazillion dollars per hour? Or infinite?--Rotten 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That argument makes no logical sense. Everyone agrees that a very high minimum wage would be a bad idea. But just because an awful lot of something is bad it does not follow that the optimal level is zero. For example, everyone agrees that eating 10,000 calories a day is bad for your health. But it does not follow that 0 calories is the optimal level; indeed, you would die on 0 calories/day. Crust 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that there is no underlying theory as to why (except in rare cases of extreme monopsony) a minimum wage is beneficial. Therefore, the "gazillion" argument is, indeed, a logical extension of the minimum wage argument. Wikiant 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When wages are held stagnant for 10 years, while inflation occurs over this period, it's quite obvious there are benefits to raising the minimum wage. ~ UBeR 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What is "obvious" is that you do not understand that the relationship between an employer and an employee is mutually beneficial rather than 'class warfare'. Wages are not being held down. In a free market, a worker can earn what his labor is worth. Imposing price controls on labor as elsewhere does not enable anything; it only deprives people of constructive possibilities. JRSpriggs 09:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't waive your hands and say, "it's obvious that there are benefits." The situation is more complex than that. Raising the minimum wage is beneficial only to one group of people -- low income workers who retain their jobs after the minimum wage hike. Workers who are laid off due to the hike are worse off. Now, what's the difference between the first group (the "retained workers") and the second group (the "laid off workers")? The difference is that the first group contribute enough to firms' revenues to be worth the hike in the wage. Why is this so? Usually because those workers are better educated, more motivated, more contientious, etc. In short, all of the attributes that cause the first set of workers to retain their jobs are also attributes that eventually would have led to those workers to earn more than the minimum wage anyway. Wikiant 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign links

I propose these campaign links simply be abolished. They are not informative about the minimum wage, their purpose can be accomplished by just a single line in the article about people supporting the minimum wage. - Centrx 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess so too. I was just putting them all under this headline in order to separate them from the rest of the links. Though sometimes these campaign sites may provide us with special insights into minimum wage issues (as is partly the case in Germany with the current trade union campaign for the introduction of a national minimum wage), we would probably have 50 or so links just for the US in here soon. So let's throw them out, if nobody has any objections. Hardern 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected Minimum-wage job

I just deleted the above named article, since it was requested to merge both articles and I could not find very helpful information in it. Anyway, here is the article so that anyone who likes it more than I do can work on it. It should be noted that the article had the famous {{neutrality}}-button... Hardern 14:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--Start of article--

The American expression "minimum-wage job" refers to one that pays only the minimum wage, which is never enough for an adult to live on. This has been studied and reported widely, for instance here, here, here, here, here and here.

Logically then, the only people who can live on the minimum wage are those whose living costs are in some way subsidized, such as teenagers whose food and housing are paid for by parents, or illegal immigrants who are staying with legal relatives.

Minimum wage jobs virtually never include health insurance coverage (as noted here and here), although that is changing in some parts of the USA where the cost of living is high, such as California, and at some companies. For instance, Trader Joe's supermarkets do give workers health coverage to part-time employees (link). Other companies such as Starbucks pretend to offer it, and even advertise that as being a fact, but in reality hold back from offering it to all but a few workers, typically the managers themselves (as noted here).

The minimum wage is to be contrasted with the concept of a Living wage, which pays enough to provide for shelter, food, health care, electricity.

Companies pay workers minimum wage in order to minimize costs and maximize profits. Most businesses in the USA care about profits primarily, and put responsibility for basic survival onto workers.

See Also

--End of article--

[edit] United States section

The section on the United States doesn't mention what the federal minimum currently is. (Did I miss it?)

The Graphic needs to be changed, as of July 2006 NC just raised its minimum wage above the national wage to 6.15.

[edit] removal of France section

the France section only states the minimum wage in France, the list of countries already does this. Thus, rendering the France section pointless. Anyone object? BadCRC 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First MW laws in NZ and Australia

Our article states that in 1894, the first minimum wage lage was enacted in New Zealand, followed by Australia in 1896. Now this source says it was 1896 and 1899, respectively. Can anyone confirm one of the two versions? Hardern 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum Wage and Illegal Immigration

There's a new twist in the minimum wage debate... Illegal immigration. Many of the illegals work for much below the minimum and live well, including sending a portion to their home country. If a high minimum is needed, why are there still jobs at these low wages? If all of these low wages were brought up to par, how would the economy be effected? It is certain, if there were no illegal aliens, there would be more people working for the higher minimum wage. There should be something in the article to reflect the current reality accross the world. 68.48.174.136 14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro comment

Cut from intro:

It is usually different from the lowest wage determined by the forces of supply and demand in a free market, and therefore acts as a price floor, but it's not necessarily a living wage.

Are any of the four linked concepts mentioned later in the article? And should we say that "economists generally agree that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment" or that it's disputed? --Wing Nut 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear that it's disputed, given the work of Card/Krueger and of the UK Minimum Wage Commission. Hardern 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to restore the "cut from intro" sentence into the newly entitled "debate over consequences" section. Then I'll see if I can amplify the dispute over "minimum wage and unemployment". --Wing Nut 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, it adds nothing to the debate. And there's nothing else in the article that talks about it.
The main thrust of this article seems to be that Advocates want a minimum wage and have succeeded in much of the industrialized West. There's a little bit by opponents, but not nearly enough.
I'd like to see more about the reasons advocates advance in favor of minimum wage laws. Such as "redistribution is good for society" (i.e., socialism). Or "it will increase employment" (debatable). Or "it is the first step to a living wage" (socialism?).
I'd also like to see more about opponents' arguments, particularly facts and figures. The Mises Institute has some info. [4] In a free market economy - particularly a democracy without too much centralized control, such as the U.S. - what has been the consequence of each successive rise in the minimum wage (or any revocation or lowering)? Has unemployment gone up or down? Have wages of the poorest segment of workers increased or dropped? How about welfare payments? Have they dropped or risen? --Wing Nut 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy in the United States

Christian Weller, senior economist at the Center for American Progress, said that a minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25 would increase minimum wage earners' share of the nation's overall wealth:

"Profits are at their highest levels, but the purchasing power of the minimum wage is at its lowest since the 1950s. I think it is only fair to take a bit from the top and give it to the bottom," Mr. Weller said. [5]

Can we call this a socialist or redistributionist point of view? --Wing Nut 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Howard Dean said,

"This is a moral nation, so the first thing we must do is convince people that poverty is a moral problem. It is a moral principle to raise the minimum wage. It is nothing but economist mumbo jumbo to say raising it will hurt jobs." [6]

A private citizen wrote this in a letter to an editor:

Is the minimum wage a “moral” issue? Yes. Is it an “ethical” issue? Absolutely! Where freedom reigns, if A wants to hire B and they both agree on a wage, what moral basis can be cited for restricting that voluntary action? If B believes the wage is not high enough, he will not accept it. And, if A believes it is too high, he will not offer it. Voluntary action is not only essential for a sustainable system, it represents the ultimate in moral and ethical principles. [7]

[edit] GA failed

These reasons were given:

  • The article will also need to have its citations in accordance with the Cite.php guideline, thus removing the inline external links.
  • The text says British Columbia allows employers to pay as little as $6/hour to an inexperienced worker. but it is not compared the fixed minimum wage of BC.
  • The dollar & pound and etc. signs should be linked to appropriate pages for the currency conversion to be easily found by the readers.
  • The article should order the minimum wage fixing chronologically, with australia first, then maybe UK or UK first. It is now too pele-mele.
  • Costs and benefits section needs to be turned to prose.
  • Recent trends in the U.S. is too ethnocentric ... it should include various contries.
Where did that trend data come from? Do those numbers apply to median or average wage? Not only is that section ethnocentric, but it seems more confusing than informative. --65.202.132.51 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't go into african, middle-eastern or asian minimum wage. Lincher 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opponents contend minimum wage raises unemployment & inflation

Can opponents claim anything or do their claims need to be substantiated to be included as though they're plausible? I've yet to see a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation. If one looks at minimum wage increases in constant dollars one will find no correlation.[8] [9] Based on these two pieces of information we can see that some of the most dramatic increases were followed by times of prosperity and some of the worst recessions had no minimum wage increase before or during it. Could we word the opinion (one might argue propaganda) that there is a correlation more neutrally? Because I'm a proponent of considerably larger increases than any being discussed, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to phrase more objectively but am willing to try if no one else does. I think that the American and British experiences show quite conclusively that minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment or inflation. They merely improve the quality of life for those in the bottom fifth, as is evidenced by the fact that this country's lowest poverty rate (11.1) in 1973 came shortly after the peak in minimum wage rate. Since, the poverty rate has never returned to 11.1.

Pure logic shows that there is a problem with minimum wage, where do you think that the money is supposed to come from? You're going to give a substantial portion of the population an increase in wages and the money is going to come from nowhere? Productivity will hardly cover the increase. As for those studies, I have my doubts.--Rotten 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking for some quick-and-dirty evidence, take a look at [10]. This is not a rigorous statistical analysis, but the pictures are rather compelling. What you'll see is that increases in the minimum wage are associated with increases in unemployment *most strongly* among the uneducated and *not at all* among the educated. Wikiant 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning seems to ignore both economic theory and social science research methods. Opposition to the minimum wage is based on mainstream economic theory regarding price floors. As far as social science research methods are concerned, simply looking at correlations and then assuming cause-and-effect relationships can lead to incorrect conclusions. Failing to control for independent variables can also lead to incorrect conclusions. You seem to be making both mistakes. If you want to see "a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation," you can start by reading the research listed here. --JHP 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most economists would agree that a minimum wage law increases unemployment among low income workers -- those who would have been paid below the minimum wage if the law did not exist. However, except for a temporary one-time price shock, minimum wage does not cause inflation. Inflation depends on the growth rate of the money supply. (Yes, I have a PhD in economics, thanks for asking.) --lk 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, we're going to create a significant misunderstanding among the 99% of readers who are not economists if we say, "the minimum wage does not cause inflation." It may be better to capture the idea of the one-time price shock while avoiding the technical particulars of inflation-as-a-growth-rate by saying something like, "the minimum wage causes an increases in prices." Wikiant 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question!

Can someone tell me where does the minimum wage reside as a legal document? Also, what is required to change the minimum wage or wages if there is more than one?

[edit] Minimum Wage In Michigan

Minimum Wage in michigan went up this week and the map and other information needs to be updated

[edit] Theoretical vs. Empirical Arguments

I reverted an edit that removed notation as to the distinction between theoretical and empirical arguments. The editor suggested that the statement was "contentious." I fail to see the contention -- it is simply a statement of fact. Wikiant 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The "contentious" point concerns the logically absurd or very poorly written claim that the "veracity (of both side's claims) can be established by data". Many claims have been made, accuracy/veracity/truth is yet to be established. FakeTango 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I said, "can be" established, not "will be" established. If you have a problem with some of the arguments listed, then deal with those arguments. You're beating up on definitions that have nothing to do with arguments for or against the minimum wage. The sentence you keep deleting simply states the distinction between an empirical and a theoretical argument. Wikiant 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the particular issue at hand has nothing to do with the arguments themselves. It is irrelevant whether we are using "can" or "may". The problem concerns the bit which states that the veracity of any or all of the stated claims may be empirically established. I now see from the edit history that this is your particular handiwork, so I hope we can work out a rational compromise if you are adamant that the existence of an empirical/theoretical distinction must be mentioned. Can you please have another go which does not appear to state that the arguments are based on valid premises which can be empirically proven. FakeTango 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that good faith effort just now. I still think there is a problem with suggesting that some of the arguments are empirical in nature ("workers not worth the min wage" is a real hoot), but this is good enough for me for now. Cheers. FakeTango 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I didn't take a close look at the particular arguments. I'll go through and delete/move those that aren't empirical. Nonetheless, the statement "workers are not worth the minimum wage" while rude, can be recast into an empirical argument: "the marginal contribution of the worker to the firm's profit is less than the minimum wage." Wikiant 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon?

I'm confused by this sentence: "As of 2006, Oregon has the highest minimum wage: $10.45 per hour, with additional state-sponsored minimum wages for single parents." I thought that meant that the minimum wage for everyone is $10.45, plus there is additional money (on top of $10.45) for single parents. But according to the wikipedia page on List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages, the minimum wage is actually $7.50. According to the table in that article, Washington is the state with the highest minimum wage in the country with $7.63/hr. Does anyone else find this confusing? 209.150.227.50 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

"The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894"

How can something in 1894 follow something that happened in 1896? -Schrodinger82 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphs

Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I don't really understand the graphs in the Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws section. Can someone improve them, or put a link to "How to Read These Graph Type Graphs?" Jerimee 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The graphs suggest that the higher the relative minimum wage, the higher the unemployment for low-skill workers.
  • Given the knowledge required to understand the subject matter of this article, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to include instructions on how to read a graph. As a compromise, I'll include a one-sentence summary in each caption of what the graph demonstrates. Wikiant 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the summaries are good, particularly if we can make them even more concise. However, I think that both the articles and the graphs need to be made more accessible. The easy way to do this would be to wikify it, so that technical terms can be used, and uninformed folks can link to their relative articles in order to learn them. The same should be done with the graphs; a link should be inserted so that folks can learn how to interpret the data themselves. Your graph's depiction, as well as it's summary, may not be the universal interpretation of the data.
I'm not saying you have to do this; maybe I can do it. Do you agree that it would be good improvement of the article? Jerimee 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what "wikify" means, but if it improves the article, go for it. Wikiant 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
A graph with data points and a regression line will always be hard to read for people not familiar with the concept. I don't think there's much you can do except explain what's in the graph and what the graph shows (which the article does). Every article relating to economics shouldn't have to have an econ 1 primer appended to it.

[edit] Location of graphs

The four graphs in the section "Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws" are located: right-side, left-side, right-side, left-side. This makes it difficult to read the section. Especially since one of them seems to be covering the lower half of a line of text. Does anyone know how to fix this? JRSpriggs 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro comment

I think it's important to keep the introduction on wiki articles short, and I think text that doesn't pertain to the core essence of the topic should not be in the introduction. For example, I find the following section very interesting and it deserves to be in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction:

"Minimum wage legislation may be interpreted as making it either unlawful for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage, or unlawful for workers to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[7] Although it is the employer who is fined and/or imprisoned for violations, the workers also lose their freedom, albeit indirectly."

I think the first form of legal implementation is the norm and, and the comment on South Africa, while fascinating, doesn't directly have to do with the difference. Almost the exact same economic effect would exist if the sanction for hiring workers below the minimum wage fell on the employers. (The only difference occurs in who bears the burden if the law is broken.) The point that a high minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the labor force is a very valid one though. I think the high unemployment rate of unskilled immigrants in the Banlieues of France has a lot to do with a high effective minimum wage created by French labor law. The marginal product of these workers is lower than their marginal cost to employers once firing rules etc... are all accounted for. For France, this is undoubtedly an unintended effect of their generous social system, but the point remains that high minimum wages can be quite discriminatory against unskilled workers, who often tend to be minorities and more vulnerable members of society. Maybe the S. Africa example should be incorporated into the critique of the minimum wage, or maybe it should get a very small subsection, but I don't think the relevance of it is properly understood in the introduction. (I'll agree though that the place I moved it to was probably incorrect...)Mgunn 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The first form appears to be the accepted norm among non-economists. That's precisely why this example should appear in the intro. From an economic perspective, both forms are equally valid interpretations. The distinction of the "sanction falling on employers versus employees" is artificial. As with the burden of taxation, the burden of the minimum wage sanction is determined by market forces. The law has no power to determine the distribution of the sanctions. Wikiant 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with the content of everything you just said, I think this point requires more text to properly made and understood by the average reader... What type of law was the S. African one? the former? (it's not explicit) Maybe the whole point would be clearer if you replaced the last sentence with, "Economics says that banning employers from paying workers less than a minimum wage and banning workers from working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects." Or maybe use the more provocative, "Economics says that jailing employers for paying workers less than a minimum wage and jailing workers for working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects." (I think some people might dispute the precise equivalence in an environment where cheating was commonplace.) I still think this point should be put in a subsection though. I'm not going to go to the mat for this; I just like intros to be as short as possible, and this intro is quite long.Mgunn 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose, upon reflection, what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that the minimum wage can equally well be viewed as an infringement on property rights. Specifically: The labor is my (the worker's) property, and yet the government is telling me that I can't sell that labor for a lower price than that which the government dictates. Wikiant 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And for many good reasons. ~ UBeR 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking Problems in Article

The "Edit" links in this article do not match up to the sections they are with.72.145.220.191 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked a few and it seems to be working fine. Give me the exact link that doesn't work. Leotolstoy 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moral arguments

The debate outlined on this page seems to be heavily based around positive arguments, rather than normative ones. Even, for example "The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning." Both the "empirical" and "theoretical" arguments are positive ones, and in the article, normative positions on the issue are just assumed, if mentioned at all, when of course, all empirical/scientific/'logical' arguments are are pointless in a discussion of whether something is "right" or "wrong" unless accompanied by normative arguments. The minimum wage is treated here as a conflict over various scientific empirical facts, when ultimately it is a moral argument. - Matthew238 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The economics informs our moral judgement. If minimum wages laws are shown to cause unemployment, then we might conclude that such laws are immoral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.57 (talk • contribs).
They are immoral because they authorize and require the use of force against innocent people. Not only do they cause unemployment, but they do not raise wages except temporarily for a few people who can substitute their skilled labor for a larger amount of unskilled labor. JRSpriggs 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The moral question is to what degree the well off should subsidize the lives of the less well off. After that question is decided, the next question is "What is the most efficient way to provide that subsidy?" This second question should be purely a scientific one. How do you provide income to the poor in a way that doesn't destroy the incentives to work, doesn't hurt other poor people, and fairly shairs the burden? That is why I added the section on alternatives to the minimum wage. Economic arguments have shown a negative income tax (or earned income tax credit) to be dramatically more efficient at providing income for the less well off than a minimum wage. Unfortunately, a negative income tax, though incredibly simple, is not quite as simple as a minimum wage, and it doesn't evoke the same kind of reflexive political appeal. A politician can get elected campaigning on a higher minimum wage, but no one knows wtf a negative income tax is. Mgunn 08:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for historical data

I was praying Wikipedia would have some of the earliest figures, but no such luck. I think it might be worthwhile, where a single figure is concerned, that the article try to include it. In England, where four boards set wages, this isn't feasible. For Massachusetts' 1912 law for women and children, it probably is. --Thatnewguy 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog

Why is a blog being spammed on this page? There are millions of blogs on the minimum wage. Lets add them all! ~ UBeR 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Mankiw is an Economics Professor at Harvard and was the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. This isn't some random blog, but the blog of, by any measure, an extremely smart, influential, and well regarded economist. Mgunn 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
And... it's still a blog. It has no use here. ~ UBeR 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This link explains key points in easy to digest language. The Mankiw blog is probably the highest credentialed econ blog out there (with the exception of the Becker-Posner blog with nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker). I think there's strong support for the inclusion of this link and its relevance. Mgunn 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what this article is for? ~ UBeR 08:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with UBeR that the link should be removed. Wikipedia policy is that links be kept to a minimum and that they be highly relevant. Mankiw's blog is titled, "Random Observations for Students of Economics." The title alone shows that the blog (as a whole) is not highly, but only tangentially, relevant. I suggest that the link be relegated to the Open Directory Project. Wikiant 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"the blog (as a whole) is not highly... relevant." That's a bogus argument. The wiki already links to a Christian Science Monitor article on the minimum wage, and the Christian Science Monitor (as a whole) is not highly relevant to the minimum wage. Maybe that should be removed too? Of course not, because what matters is if the article is relevant.

The link goes to a post on the minimum wage that asks, what would you think of the following policy:

1. A wage subsidy for unskilled workers, paid for by

2. A tax on employers who hire unskilled workers.

Mankiw then says that the combination of these two policies is equivalent to the minimum wage, and these two policies work against eachother. This is an important point! From an economics perspective, the minimum wage is a self contradicting policy.

The discussion on this blog post is both: (1) Highly relevant (2) Conducted by an exceedingly prestigious economist. The only possible thing you can criticize this link for is that it is a blog. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that blogs should never be linked to, this link should remain. Mgunn 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If the point is to quote Mankiw, then quote him. Don't link to the blog. And, yes, the Christian Science Monitor link (along with probably all the others) should also be removed. The list is *exactly* what Wikipedia policy says the article should not be -- a collection of links. Wikiant 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiant is right. If feel content should be added to the article, then add. Don't spam random links. Just because he shares the same viewpoint as yours, does not mean you can go around vandalizing articles. To say oomgomgzomz he's a Harvard economy professor, he's the ultimate godly authority on the macro economy is simply erroneous and little more than the fallacious appeal to authority. ~ UBeR 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please follow WP:Civil I added the link because it makes the point about the self-defeating nature of the minimum wage in a clearer way than anything in the current article, and Mankiw's analysis is entirely consistent with the mainstream view of the minimum wage among economists (from surveys there is "substantial concensus" that minimum wage increases unemployment) . Describing my actions as "vandalism" is libelous and 100% incorrect. Mgunn 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mr. Mgunn, it looks like your reasoning of "relevance" is unsubstantiated and unsupported by Wikipedia. If your case were the case, there would be literally hundreds of thousands of links to blogs on the minimum wage here. However, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate nor a collection of links. This list, already too large, no longer needs your spam or vandalizing. It will definitely need a prune. Needless to say:
  1. Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  2. Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See Minimum wage at the Open Directory Project (suggest site) .) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page.
What should be linked
  • 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  • 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  • 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  • 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Links to be considered
  • 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
  • 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
  • 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
Unfortunately, your blog does not fall under any of these. ~ UBeR 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Card and Krueger section should be tossed or re-written

It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight? It's ONE BOOK among many. I'm sure we can come up with better scholarly works that don't base their results on error prone data gathering methods like telephone interviews. Seems the only reason it's featured is that is has served as a vehicle to politically justify minimum wage laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.145 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I think mostly because a lot of new studies still use their book in references. At least, I see pop up a few times. ~ UBeR 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but does it contribute to resolving the unemployment question? I don't think it does at this point. As follow-up studies have shown, their technique of using telephone interviews provided false data. The pretty much makes their conclusions worthless. The entire book becomes a waste of time. Besides, we already have the data comparing the minimum wage relative to the mean wage against the unemployment rate for certain groups (contained in the graphs). That's pretty hard evidence that unemployment often does increase with higher minimum wages. At this point I think we should model the minimum wage article after the Global warming article. We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs. Sure, unemployment may not be caused by higher minimum wages, but the consensus of most economists is that it is. This is very much like the global warming debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.149.130 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
I don't think many argue at all that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment among teenagers and the unskilled. To what extent and to that consequences (both negative and positive) is much debated, indeed. I do not believe, however, the entire section should be scrapped. I still find their work significant for the inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the minimum wage. ~ UBeR 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it should be scrapped. The article is predominantly cited by two groups: (1) non-economists who want empirical support for the minimum wage, and (2) economists who want to demonstrate how empirical studies should not be done. NOTE: I have no problem with including articles the support the minimum wage. A major problem (for proponents) with this article is that it actually undermines proponents' arguments via severely flawed research methods. Wikiant 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a majority of economists thinks the minimum wage decreases unskilled employment, but saying that this is the consensus among academic economists is probably overstating it. There is a fair amount of dissent at least for a relatively low minimum wage (everyone should agree that a sufficiently high minimum wage decreases employment for the unskilled). And from the current article it sounds like this dissent has been growing not shrinking:

A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed.

The statement that "We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs" is true for the data currently displayed in the article, but of course it depends on which dataset you look at. E.g. from a pro-minimum wage site here are some stats arguing in the opposite direction based on cross-sectional data:

The minimum wage increase will not destroy job growth. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment increased by 9.4 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 6.6 percent in states at the federal level. The minimum wage increase will not shut down small businesses. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses increased by 5.5 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 4.2 percent in states at the federal minimum wage level.5

As an aside, I think it would be good to compute some measure of statistical significance for the graphs in the article. Crust 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New US Minimum Wage Law

I propose all reference is removed to it and 1 sentence gets put in when/if the bill becomes law (passes house, senate, and president signs or congress overrides veto). Having a political fight over Pelosi and canneries isn't really relevent imho. This is an article about the minimum wage, not US politics.Mgunn 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The existing write-up was misleading and so I revised it. I wouldn't be sad to see the issue dropped from the article but I do worry about the potential for it to later be re-added in a misleading way in the future. Settler 12:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I do believe newly proposed (and passed) bills for the minimum wage in the United States is, in fact, quite relevant to the minimum wage article in the section of the United States. I do also believe it's quite notable to include areas that exempt to the new bill, where there would ordinarily be assumed applied. I also believe it's notable, for the section, to include why this might be. ~ UBeR 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to admit, the version I read 1 minute ago looks pretty good. On a hot button topic like this, some degree of political football is inevitable, but I just hope it can be kept at a minimum. My initial reaction on reading an earlier version was that almost nowhere else in Wikipedia (or on any other topic) do you get discussion and announcement of partially passed legislation, but I'm fine with the current version as long as it stays reasonably succinct. Mgunn 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is "To become law, the bill would also need to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. If the bill is vetoed by the President, Congress can attempt to override the veto." Needed? It seems to just be reciting standard practice of passing laws in the United States. DeMyztikX 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is I think 1 billion random people we're adding "a minimum wage bill was just passed that will..." or other phrasings that implied the bill has been passed and is ALREADY law. It's a bit silly, but putting the full requirements for bill to become law makes it explicit and I think has kept out a lot of bogus edits by people who don't really know how the government works. Mgunn 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
At the current time, it lacks any long time importance; I would not oppose its removal. ~ UBeR 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AEA Membership, American Economists distinction

The current construction of the sentence serves only to obfuscate, and it isn't even quite right. Fuller surveyed only economists that are members of the American Economic Association, not all members.

An individual not familiar with the American Economics Association might read the sentence and discount it by believing the AEA is not representative. Please review: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl5AEAmem.pdf http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl2AEAmem.pdf etc... An absolutely huge proportion of economists are members and a survey of AEA members is basically equivalent to a survey of American economists. That is why the title of the article is "Concensus Among Economicsts: Revisited" and not "Concensus Among AEA members who are Economists: Revisited"

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason not to shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists." -- Mgunn 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists.", as you quote, which makes it look like you were removing redundancy. You changed "American Economic Association members" to "American economists". Regardless of how significant of a subset of the latter the former is, they are not equivalent. More importantly, while it is possible to verify the viewpoint of the organization. It is not possible to verify the viewpoints of each and every American economist. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Unless you have a reference for every American economist, I'm reverting it to AEA members.Divinus 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(1) The survey was a random sampling of members of the American Economic Association that are economists (they didn't survey student members).
(2) If 50-90% of economic faculty members are also members of the AEA, then it's going to very closely track the overall population of American economists. Once the proportion of the population becomes that large, you have to have extraordinarly high levels of selection bias for the sample to be unrepresentative. For example, if a newspaper runs a poll, they doesn't report that "40% of Americans with telephones believe X" or "40% of Americans with listed street addresses believe Y." They report "40% of Americans believe blahblahblah." This is how polling works. Your assertion that you need a "reference for every American economist" is absolutely insane. If you don't believe polling and statistical techniques can ever be accurate, then you are representing a very skewed non-mainstream view.
(3) In the interest of brevity, I prefer the simple and accurate "American economists." If you want to load up on the footnote and say that only 60, 70% (or whatever it roughly is) of economics professors are AEA members, go ahead. -- Mgunn 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(4) In the meantime while we argue this out on talk, I fixed the sentence so that it is actually accurate. -- Mgunn
How does the current change look? I was uncomfortable with "more than 70%", so the new version incorporates the data you provided, is more specific, and includes both the numbers of American economists in general and AEA economists specifically (as both were surveyed). The more information the better, I say. Divinus 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
fine with me Mgunn 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The AEA and the fallacy of appealing to authority

Lest another revert war, let us discuss the issue of the lead. In the lead, it states, "Detractors and a majority of American economists contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." This is not whether it not it should say "American economist believe", or members of the "AEA believe," (though the report is on AEA members, and we should be precise about that. False statements with a source does entail plagiarism, after all).

The problem is about whether that should be there at all. First and foremost, it entails of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Second, and probably more importantly, it is egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic, etcetera. It's not much different than stating, "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad," as if Americans were the ultimate authority on the issue and if they dare say otherwise, they are wrong. That is a false belief. Third, it does not entail a global or worldwide view (because, again, America is not the only place that has a minimum wage). Fourth, it's unnecessary.

My regards, ~ UBeR 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't say "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad" because most Americans believe in the minimum wage. I'm open to changes in structure, but the views of economists should be represented.
Economics is supposed to be a scientific topic (or at least as scientific as possible), and it is fully relevant to discuss the views of experts in the field. A discussion of gravity would involve the views of physicists. A discussion evolution would involve the views of biologists. A discussion of global warming should involve climatologists. A discussion of the minimum wage should involve the views of economists.
On the topic of polling the AEA, there is no directory of "all economists." Therefore what several of these "poll the economists" type studies do is to survey the faculty at specific universities or use a professional organization, the AEA, as a proxy. This is reasonable to do especially because the AEA has such broad membership. At Stanford University, MIT, and Harvard, 80-90% of faculty were AEA members in 96 (last date of big survey.) I'll agree that there are potentially some selection bias issues (in some literature I've read, it's been suggested that AEA membership has become slightly more skewed towards the left), but the idea that it isn't a reasonable proxy is dead wrong. To survey voters, pollsters call people on the telephone. The pollsters report it was a telephone poll, but the interpretatino of results is that roughly X% of Americans think Y. This is reasonable because such a high percentage of Americans have telephones. It's the same concept.
The edits I've added are a factual representation of how economists view the minimum wage. If you have time, I advise reading http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinDompeEconomicsInPracticeJanuary2007.pdf It has a very nice roundup of a number of economists surveys over the years. As it turns out, the surveys tell largely the same story. As a policy question, the economics profession is split into almost a bimodal distribution with a large numbers of economists believing it should be abolished, slightly smaller but large numbers calling for its increase, and relatively few in the middle. Even many of the pro-minimum wage economists will acknowledge the unemployment effect, but they discount its magnitude/significance and believe the policy gains outweigh the losses.
How do you feel about the sentence I added? "As a policy question, the minimum wage has to some extent split the economics profession with just under half believing it should be eliminated and a slightly smaller percentage believing it should be increased, leaving rather few in the middle." The precise numbers from Whaples (2006) were 46.8% eliminate, 1.3% decrease, 14.3% keep same level, 5.2% increase 50 cents per hour, 15.6% increase a dollar, and 16.9% increase more than 1 dollar. I didn't put in precise percentages because the survey only had 77 respondants on the minimum wage, and I thought using percentages in this case would imply a false level of accuracy. -- Mgunn 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I'm not the best writer, but I'm just trying to represent in a concise way the general view of the economics profession. A strong majority thinks it causes unemployment. As a total policy question, the profession is rather split. -- Mgunn 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think you fully understood what I was saying. My point wasn't about whether it should say "American economist" or "AEA members," (even though I do believe it should be the latter!). Rather, it was about whether the information belonged in the lead. I gave my reasons above. Mostly, it would be inappropriate to added it because it's fallacious and nationalistic, which is something Wikipedia does not strive to be. There's is nothing wrong with the sentence "Detractors contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." Do you understand my point? ~ UBeR 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I may butt in, it sounds like you're concerned with properly attributing the view that a minimum wage increases unemployment. Right? --Uncle Ed 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, well to try to simplify further: my point is that detractors' beliefs are independent of the AEA. The AEA is just an American organization. Saying "detractors believe so and so" is just fine. You can list those detractors in a appropriate place, however; there's nothing wrong with that. We just must keep in mind that Wikipedia is a worldwide project, not just an American one. ~ UBeR 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laws and principles

I propose to spin-off the first two sections into Minimum wage law or List of minimum wage laws. Anyway, the 'cost and benefits' section should come before the 'debate' section.

Whether the noble aims of social justice, a living wage and a guaranteed minimum income will be advanced by such laws, or the result is just increased unemployment and reducted upward mobility, is debatable. (That's why there's a 'debate' section.) I don't think we should try to settle the argument by saying what "most economists" believe. Anything less than 95% agreement in science indicates a significant degree of uncertainty. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of spinning the list of minimum wage laws into a different article, as the ginormous list is beginning to take this article over. On the view of economists, I don't think the point is to say X is true, but to describe the structure of the debate, what the significant viewpoints and who is behind them. -- Mgunn 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I never knew one agreeance constituted a consensus. ~ UBeR 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with moving the costs benefits section to the debates section.

[edit] Registering my Objection to a comment in edit history

I don't think the Fuller text needs to repeated, so I'm not going to revert, but I am going to register my objection to Divinus's characterization of the Fuller article in the American Economic Review as not a scholarly article and instead "a professional organisation article." This is wacky and wrong. The American Economic Review is a scholarly journal. I hope this was just an off the cuff mistake and not a sign of gross unfamiliarity with the topic of economics and academic research in general. -- Mgunn 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main rejection is that the study has already been discussed elsewhere in the article. ~ UBeR 06:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the redundant objection which is why I didn't revert again. -- Mgunn 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourg

Should there be a mention of Luxembourg? It has the highest minimum wage in the world, yet the unemployment rate is a mere 4.1%, less than that of the US (40th of 198 lowest). Moreover, a whopping 18% of the population earns minimum wage, which should emphasise the correlation between minimum wage and unemployment.Divinus 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If we mention it, let's make it clear that this is an anecdote (and let's verify the figures). There are two serious issues here. (1) The level of the minimum wage, itself, is meaningless. What matters is the level of the minimum wage relative to the average hourly wage rate. For example, a country with a minimum wage of $1 and an average hourly wage of $2 has a higher effective minimum wage (with respect to the effect on unemployment) than a country with a minimum wage of $10 and an average hourly wage of $100. (2) The relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment is subject to noise. Therefore, a single observation (i.e. Luxembourg) neither supports nor refutes the theory. What's needed is a set of data -- either time series (as shown in the graphs we currently have) or cross-sectional (i.e., including lots of countries). Wikiant 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said Wikiant, but I'm going to slightly disagree with "what matters is the level of the minimum wage relative to the average hourly wage rate." It's the relationship between the minimum wage and a specific worker's marginal productivity. If the minimum wage (including benefits) rises above a worker's marginal productivity, that worker will lose his/her job because the worker costs more to employ than he/she benefits the business. Just to pick an extreme example, a minimum wage of $40/hour would do nothing for doctors, because a doctor's marginal productivity is going to be far above $40/hour. On the other hand, an enforced minimum wage of $40/hour would likely eliminate employment in the fast food industry (and potentially the industry itself) because a kid flipping burgers isn't generating $40/hour in value for the business. Over time, wages and productivity track each other.
Mgunn, I agree with you. I was commenting more from an empirical and aggregate perspective. What you are describing is the underlying dynamic that drives what I'm claiming folk will tend to see empirically. For myself, I try to avoid the economic arguments in favor of the empirical arguments assuming that 99% of the people reading this article will be non-economists. Wikiant 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the link to high average wages? It's evidence you're in an environment with high levels of productivity because wages and productivity track each other. A $6 minimum wage is going to do less harm in downtown Manhattan than it's going to do in rural Arkansas because even basic unskilled manual labor is going to be valued higher in downtown Manhattan. Luxembourg is a tiny, rich principality with a robust banking sector and probably has few workers that are less productive than the minimum wage. Interestingly, it appears that Luxembourg has a lower minimum wage for workers under 18. This would reduce the harm of a minimum wage because younger workers are going to be less skilled and have lower productivity. Reducing the minimum wage would lower unemployment even further.
Also, it's worth noting that Luxembourg has low tax rates and remarkably free market policies by European standards. I actually met the Prince of Luxembourg once, and I found him to be very impressive. He explained how Luxembourg was doing quite well because it was essentially forced to have low tax rates and a favorable business climate. Companies don't HAVE to be in Luxembourg and if tax rates get high, they can quickly move away. Because the country is so small, these movements are quickly felt. Luxembourg's small size impacts tax rates in another ways as well. For example, if a legislator wants to raise taxes, he has to explain to his neighbors why his tax rates need to go up! -- Mgunn 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also what does "yet the unemployment rate is a mere 4.1%" really mean? Are 95.9% of its population actually employed (not likely). Or does it mean that only one person is actively looking for work for each 24 who are working? How many are discouraged to the point that they do not look? JRSpriggs 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The unemployment rate is calculated as the percent of the people not working, but looking for work, in the labor force. You'll have to find out who exactly is considered in the in the labor force for Luxembourg, but in the U.S. it's 16 years of age and looking for employment. Discouraged people are typically not counted in the labor force. ~ UBeR 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EITC

Economist critics of the minimum wage wouldn't call the EITC a "viable alternative" because this implies indifference between the two policies. Nothing is further from the truth. In a recent opinion piece, Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker wrote, "The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15 -- a 40% increase -- is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public's ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian." And later when discussing the EITC, "As a means of raising people from poverty or near poverty, the minimum wage is inferior to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which compensates for low wages without interfering with the labor market or conferring windfalls on the nonpoor." -- Mgunn 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it implies indifference, but whatever floats your boat. I thought the previous version was not NPOV, however, as if it were saying the EITC was a cureall. ~ UBeR 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it isn't a cureall. You don't have direct labor market distortions, but you do have distortions from generally higher tax rates. (Deadweight loss proportional to the square of the tax rate yadda yadda yadda.) -- Mgunn 09:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Graph?

 It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Seeing as there is no graph to help explain the minimum wage and its effects on employment, what would you guys think of this simplified textbook model:?

~ UBeR 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a good idea to include a graph showing the theory behind the claim. Wikiant 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Just an idea, you might also want to wikilink to supply and demand in the explanation of the graph so people unfamiliar reading these types of graphs have some help if they want to get into it. You might want to have the supply curve a different color from the demand curve. Then you could say something in the text or possibly in the caption like:
The blue line shows the supply of labor at various wages and the green line shows the demand for labor at various wages. The intersection of these two lines is the equilibrium point. At this point, the supply of labor matches the demand for labor. As the graph shows in this simple model, setting a minimum wage above the equilibrium wage induces workers to offer more labor and employers to demand less labor, leading to higher unemployment. -- Mgunn 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of making the graph as clear as possible, I'd make the D and S curves solid and the rest of the lines dashed. Wikiant 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I can do that, and use different colors for the lines too, if need be. I can also make a more detailed graph (i.e. add D1 > S1 = unemployment and D1 - S1 = unemployed), if need be. ~ UBeR 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be great coupled with a graph showing the effects of the minimum wage on employment in monopsony conditions to be fair, in which a minimum wage hike might have no effect or even a positive effect on employment. Anyone know how to do this? JohnC

Even if there were only one employer, the demand for labor would be a downward sloping curve due to the law of diminishing returns. Thus the minimum wage will ALWAYS reduce employment, i.e. monopsony would not change the situation. JRSpriggs 09:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in cases of monopsony, this is not true. Even in a regular market, it sometimes incorrect to assume the supply curve is always upward sloping. ~ UBeR 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
To UBeR: When was the law of diminishing returns repealed? The marginal utility of each man-hour consumed by a business is less than the previous one because it would otherwise have been used for what the other one was used for. (Except for small fluctuations due to the two-eggs needed to bake a cake effect.) Also the marginal dis-utility of paying a dollar in wages increases as the expenditure increases, which also tends to the same effect. How can you doubt this law of economics? JRSpriggs 05:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Monopsony. ~ UBeR 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Graph looks good, I would agree that it should be included. Under the theory section of course.Burkander 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Minimum Wage as a Social Security Issue

The minimum age question is especially hurting in Brazil, whose problems arise mostly from the fact that the social security system must pay at least R$ 300,00 monthly (which is the same as the minimum wage for active workers). As the population grow decreases (from 2.5% yearly in the sixties to about 1.5% now) the percentage of elderly people in need of social security soars, pressing on the INSS budget. When the system was created there was a 6:1 relation between active and retired workers, which is now at 3.5:1 and decreasing. Social security deficit is of about 40% and needs to be paid by the Treasury, which reduces the country's ability to invest on infrastructure, education, health-care, etc. Despite this dire situation, nobody wants to discuss the issue in either way: disconnecting social security from the minimum wage or else changing retirement rules. Only time will tell whether this will be solved or else Brazil must go bankrupt first before people will accept discuss the matter maturely. jggouvea 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice that new sections of talk are supposed to be added to the bottom of the page. So I moved this one down. JRSpriggs 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This really has little to do with the Mimimum Wage. I understand you say Social Security benefits are pegged to minimum wage, but the problem is in the pay-as-you-go system and changes in demography. When you speak of decoupling it from minimum wage, you're talking about reducing social security benefits, which has nothing to do with the benefits of a minimum wage.Burkander 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh, Some Major Concerns

Two major concerns:

Under "costs" it reads

"Reduces economic growth by skewing factor-choice incentives away from the optimum choice" I was curious about this statement, because it's non-sensical. Skewing factor-choice incentives could make the economy less efficient, but there's no reason to believe it would hinder growth. Indeed, it would spur investment in capital, which could improve growth. Anywho, I wanted to look at the original article cited entitled "Does Regulation Affect Economic Outcomes? The Case of Dentistry." By the first part of the title it seems relevent, but the second part of course does not. I pulled up the article and found absolutely no mention of minimum wage regulation or the effect of factor-choice incentives on economic growth. If you're interested in the effect of regulation on Dentistry, I highly recommend it. For our purposes however,

I'm Deleting that line

Second major concern:

I was curious about all the graphs oddly tossed into the "Debate" section, and for no apparent reason one was thrown in the card kreuger section. At first glance they look like they're pulled off the BLS website, listed as the source on the graph. If this were the case, I'd be disappointed in the BLS. The graphs cover a short period, make no mention of other variables, and don't even list all the years. Turns out they were in fact created by Antony Davis, Ph.D., of Duquesne University.

This research is not published, it is the work of on individual (PhD notwithstanding) and therefore violate the wiki policy against posting original research, defined as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

I am therefore Deleting these graphs

Burkander 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Some Minor Concerns

First two paragraphs under "debate" would fit really well under the "theoretical" section.

Reason: there is no debate that in simple econ analysis price floors above equilibrium cause surpluses There is no debate that in monopsony minimum wage may not affect unemployment

I recommend they be moved.

Why does "scholarly articles" section include one book and responses to it? There have been hundreds of actual articles written on this subject.

The section "Benefits" is mostly from an EPI policy brief. I think because this organization is clearly biased. For instance, if instead of cited bullet points it were written out and attributed in the paragraph to EPI, I think that would be more honest.

The Gary Fields part, while interesting, probably belongs under either debate or scholarly articles . Come to think of it, maybe debate and scholarly articles should be combined.

"Equivilence to tax subsidy" part probably belongs under debate. Is it really published work if it's in a blog?!?

Burkander 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's been said here. On Mankiw's blog part about tax subsidies, I've been against inserting it into the article. However, Wikipedia does allow for blogs to be a reference when it is made by "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." ~ UBeR 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture Question

At what point is it legitimate to make a change? I see lots of room for improvement, and I agree with suggestions posted above. If someone proposes a suggestion, and no one objects, is it reasonable for me to make the changes?

E.g., I'd like to incorporate the costs benefits section into debate, as suggested above. I think I'll do that soon if no one objects.

As noted in my above entry, I deleted particularly egregious entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burkander (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Be BOLD. ~ UBeR 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid sequence of major edits

I've reverted a rapid sequence of major edits by Burkander. I suggest that we discuss the edits first. My major issue is with characterizing the graphs as original research. The data sources listed are the actual data sources. The only thing that is original is that the data is displayed in graphic format rather than in tabular format (as displayed in the source). Wikiant 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

data sources listed where? It lists the BLS, which does not break down unemployment by age, nor does it have the minimum wage. It doesn't say whether it's real minimum wage or nominal, or whether it factors in state minimum wage.
The data have also been manipulated, so it is not just that "the data is[sic] displayed in graphic format rather than tabular." No where will you find a table that lists the ratio of unemployed 16-19 year olds as percentage of the population to unemployed 20-60 year olds as percentage of the population. Minimum wage to hourly wage is also a calculated ratio.
It combines data from multiple tables, without listing where the data are from, manipulates that data and suggests a correlation. I quote again, original research is "...unpublished ...synthesis of published material"

Burkander 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the attribution page under "What is not original research?" you will find the following:
"Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source."
The graphs are simply pictoral representations of published, freely available data. Wikiant 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think these graphs are illustrative, and the general story they tell isn't controversial. A number of economists disagree on the magnitude of unemployment effects from the minimum wage, but from the surveys I've looked at, not too many dispute their existence. -- Mgunn 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Do you believe that population to unemployment of 16-19 year olds to population to unemployment of 20-60 year olds is a "straightforward calculation"? Do you think that the signifigance of the unemployment to population ratio isn't changed when made part of a ratio to another unemployment to population ratio? It may well be useful, but it's useful precisely because it changes the signifigance.
I think it's worth continuing the quotation you cut off. The full text reads "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."
To this I quote a post from your usertalk page: "Thanks for adding the graphs to the Minimum Wage article. Can you add a link that explains their significance or indicates how to read them? What type of graphs are they; what is the name of this type of graph? Jerimee 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)" Also above the clarity of the graphs is questioned.
Obviously it is not possible for this reader to understand the calculations made. Non-specialists don't necessarily even appreciate what economists mean by "unemployment."
Your above comment that "Given the knowledge required to understand the subject matter of this article, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to include instructions on how to read a graph.." doesn't seem fair. Is this page for people with some prerequisite knowledge? Or is it for everyone?
I can only find teen unemployment on a monthly basis. Was the population used the annual average or the monthly? Was the unemployment averaged out for the year? This doesn't strike me as straighforward.
Burkander 21:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, as Partridge and Partridge note in "Are teen unemployment rates influenced by state minimum wage laws?", the "proper minimum wage measure is in some dispute."
Yet these graphs rely on one poorly explained minimum wage measure and lead readers to conclude causation, as someone did in this discussion thread above
Burkander 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The teen unemployment figures I show are annual. They come from the BLS, Table B-36, "Civilian employment and unemployment by sex and age, 1959–2005." If your point is that the proper minimum wage measure is in some dispute, then I would include discussion relevant to that point. To your question, "Do you believe that population to unemployment of 16-19 year olds to population to unemployment of 20-60 year olds is a 'straightforward calculation'?," I'd have to say, "yes within the context of the topic." If we eshew all complexity, then we're left with an article comprised of a single sentence: "The minimum wage is the legally imposed lower limit on wages." Of course, we then have the problem of some readers not knowing what "legally imposed lower limit" means, etc. Wikiant 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Whether a calculation is adequately straightforward is not dependent on "the context of the topic." The test is clearly stated. It's whether any reader can understand it. If the audience for whom we write were comprised of economists we could make allowances for the complexity of the topic. Our job, however, is to convey this material to a general audience.

True, if we didn't allow any complexity this article would not be very informative. Complexity is allowed, even welcomed, but not in original research. With a topic as controversial as the Minimum Wage, it's better to rely on published material. I think the reasons for not allowing the posting of original research are valid.

We could link to "legally imposed lower limit." Where's the explanation of why the graphs use minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage? It may seem self evident to you or I, but that's not the point. How did you make the line? Is that obvious and clear to any reader? What's the deviation from that line? Are these simple calculations?

My real problem with these graphs, the reason I looked into them, is because the relationships depicted don't look significant to me. What's the strength of the relationship? It looks weak to me. I'm used to confidence intervals and stated deviation and variation. In contrast these graphs are highly suspect. Burkander 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if the beta estimates were statistically non-zero that you'd favor the graphs being included? How is that discussion less complex than what we have now?? Wikiant 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a distinction between what we have now, which is cited, and the graphs, which are original! There's a different test of complexity for the two!
Burkander 12:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for appearing to go in circles, but I come back to my original statement: The graphs are not original research; at best they are an original *representation* of established research. Wikiant 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for going in circles, but again Orginal Research is defined as unpublished synthesis of published material.
Clearly you and I are not going to agree on this. This is leading me to question the way in which decisions are made at wiki. I feel as though numerous people have complained about these graphs. You've disagreed with their complaints. And so they've stayed.
But is that fair?
Are our decisions supposed to be consensual, in which case you, even if as a lone dessenter, can prevent them from being removed? But where was the consensus to put them there in the first place? Did you, like the above creator of a graph, submit it first to this page for review?
Or are our decisions by majority? In which case, you and I, having exhausted our arguments, should appeal to the masses.
Or is there some other authority to whom we appeal?
I feel that if this continues it makes sense to ask the administrators of wikipedia to act as impartial judges.
Burkander 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look through the talk history you'll see that you are the *only* person who has complained about the existence of the graphs. The only other comment on the graphs was a request to make them *more* readable. Wikiant 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Feedback about the Davies Graphs

I've gone through this page to collect all the feedback about the (to me contentious) graphs and have reproduced that feedback below, along with my interpretation. I'm leaving out most of my feedback.

I inlude the following two quotes, from two different users, as an indication that these graphs do not meet the established test for acceptable math or deduction of original research. The test is that "[i]t should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."

Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I don't really understand the graphs in the Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws section. Can someone improve them, or put a link to "How to Read These Graph Type Graphs?" Jerimee 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the summaries are good, particularly if we can make them even more concise. However, I think that both the articles and the graphs need to be made more accessible.

I include the following two quotes because they're demonstrative of the fact that the graphs promote conclusions. Original Research is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position"

It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight?
The entire book becomes a waste of time. Besides, we already have the data comparing the minimum wage relative to the mean wage against the unemployment rate for certain groups (contained in the graphs). That's pretty hard evidence that unemployment often does increase with higher minimum wages.

The following quote suggests that the reader believes a point is being promoted, and not in a neutral manner:

The statement that "We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs" is true for the data currently displayed in the article, but of course it depends on which dataset you look at. E.g. from a pro-minimum wage site here are some stats arguing in the opposite direction based on cross-sectional data:

The below quote rails against the graphs for being suggestive and not covering a sufficient period.

Why did someone delete what I wrote about the graphs - they are blatantly an extremely poor guide, ignoring the caveats that correlation does not imply causality at all, and fall prey to sample selection; extending the series further back in time to the 1950s would give a much less clear trend. DO NOT DELETE THIS! I WILL COMPLAIN TO WIKI.

The below quote makes a complaint I made as well, that the graphs do not indicate the degree of statistical significance [I ask though, would such a measure meet the test of straight forward calculations?]

As an aside, I think it would be good to compute some measure of statistical significance for the graphs in the article. Crust 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The below quote is a positive one. The reader finds the graphs helpful.

I think these graphs are illustrative, and the general story they tell isn't controversial. A number of economists disagree on the magnitude of unemployment effects from the minimum wage, but from the surveys I've looked at, not too many dispute their existence

Burkander 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some text I've temporarily deleted

Below is some text that I've taken out for now, lest it be lost. I don't have any objection to it, and I (or someone else) may put it back soon. I just needed to move stuff around.

[edit] Theoretical arguments

The traditional economic argument views the labor market as perfectly competitive. In perfectly competitive markets, the market price settles to the marginal value of the product. Therefore, under the perfect competition assumption, absent a minimum wage, workers are paid their marginal value. As is the case with all (binding) price floors above the equilibrium, minimum wage laws are predicted to result in more people being willing to offer their labor for hire, but fewer employers wishing to hire labor. The result is a surplus of labor, or, in this case, unemployment.

Gary Fields argues, however, that the standard "textbook model" for the minimum wage is "ambiguous," and that the standard theoretical arguments incorrectly measure only a one-sector market. Fields says a two-sector market, where "the self-employed, service workers, and farm workers are typically excluded from minimum-wage coverage… [and with] one sector with minimum-wage coverage and the other without it [and possible mobility between the two]," is the basis for better analysis. Through this model, Fields shows the typical theoretical argument to be ambiguous and says "the predictions derived from the textbook model definitely do not carry over to the two-sector case. Therefore, since a non-covered sector exists nearly everywhere, the predictions of the textbook model simply cannot be relied on."[1]

An alternate view of the labor market has low-wage labor markets characterized as monopsonistic competition wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more market power than do sellers (workers). Such a case is a type of market failure and results in workers being paid less than their marginal value. Under the monoposonistic assumption, an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both wages and employment, with the optimal level being equal to the marginal productivity of labor.[2] This view emphasizes the role of minimum wages as a market regulation policy akin to antitrust policies, as opposed to an illusory "free lunch" for low-wage workers. Detractors point out that no collusion between employers to keep wages low has ever been demonstrated, asserting that in most labor markets, demand meets supply, and it is only minimum wage laws and other market interference which cause the imbalance. However, it is important to note that collusion is not a pre-requisite for market power; segmented markets, information costs, imperfect mobility and the 'personal' element of labour markets all represent movements away from the idealised perfectly competitive labour market.

I don't see any reason to do so. ~ UBeR 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Talk%7EMinimum_wage_9ce5.html"