Talk:Minimum wage

Is this Krugman quote relevant?

Found this interesting Krugman observation from a March 2000 NYT column, about how happiness research has shown that higher incomes have very little effect on happiness, but being married and employed does.

For example, how do you feel about the living wage movement, which in effect wants a large increase in the minimum wage? That would certainly increase the incomes of the lowest-paid workers; but it would also surely have at least some adverse effect on the number of jobs available. You may think that a price worth paying - but the equations say that the extra unemployment would be a very bad thing for those who lose their jobs, while a higher wage would make only a small difference to the happiness of those who remain employed.

Should this argument be made in the article somewhere? Relevant or no? LK (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant. It's relevant for the living wage article, but not here, because the living wage movement calls for increases in the minimum wage that are much larger than anything envisioned by minimum wage advocates, as Krugman seems to be saying in your quote. Academic38 (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant as there isn't any substantive difference between living wage and minimum wage. Wikiant (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe anyone who has earned, or paid, a minimum wage understands very clearly the difference between a minimum wage and a living wage. There is a very substantial difference between the two, Wikiant. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I keep hearing that "there is a substantial difference," yet no one seems to be able to tell me what that difference is (apart from the magnitude of the numbers employed). Can you? Wikiant (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. A minimum wage is the least amount a worker may legally be paid by an employer, almost always in terms of an hourly wage. A "living wage," on the other hand, is an amount of pay deemed (by someone, by law, etc.) to be necessary to maintain the minimum acceptable (by someone, by law, etc.) standard of living, either for an individual or for a typical family. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the difference is irrelevant with respect to the economics. Following your explanation, a living wage is merely a specific minimum wage whose number is derived a certain way. As far as the economic analysis is concerned, the two are indistinguishable. Wikiant (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, “[T]he difference is irrelevant with respect to the economics.” I don’t understand what you mean. If a so-called living wage is supposed to provide for a family, it is almost certainly going to be multiples of a standard minimum wage. I grant you that the living wage is purely political, but not that there is no difference between a minimum wage and a “living wage” in economic terms. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is indeed relevant to the *economy* (i.e., there is a potentially large quantitative difference in outcomes). The difference is irrelevant to the *economics* (i.e., qualitatively, economics employs identical models and attains identical outcomes whether one calls the animal "living wage" or "minimum wage"). Wikiant (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia article about the minimum wage, not the living wake. You have already admitted they are two different concepts. Bringing in discussion about similar, but different concept would serve only to confuse readers. 88.193.125.178 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote about living wages is relevant because the minimum wage is inextricably linked to living wages. However, I'd like to see a more reliable source demonstrating that large increases in minimum wages causes a decrease in the number of jobs available before we add another argument against minimum wages to our "debate" section. I'm sure there are better sources out there than opinion pieces. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Most not worth a living wage

"...thousands of thoroughly educated people have never been appraised by their contemporaries as worth a living wage. T.S. Eliot, Harvard-schooled and widely hailed as the most significant poet writing in English in the past half century, earned his living as a bank teller and, much later, as a publisher's reader. Financially speaking, Eliot as poet, teller or editor wasn't worth so much as a cuss word. Yet it seems probable that his writings will be appreciatively read long after every single existing American corporation and bank, and the memory thereof, has passed out of existence. Curious...." Ferdinand Lundberg, "The Rich and the Super-Rich." Stars4change (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Real World: Hong Kong

We're currently deep into the debate about where to set our first minimum wage. The battle over whether or not was lost on the political front, but the range of (almost totally unsupported) rates is huge: HK$22.50 to $38 an hour (US$2.88 to $4.87). What I'm trying to inject into the discussion is an understanding that without a minimum wage we had 4.1% average unemployment (2006-07, pre-crisis), and that any amount above the market rate will necessarily increase the unemployment rate. Most worrying, there are over 400,000 (11% of labor force) women employees in the lowest wage group, and they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the new policy. Advice and comment welcome. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please find suitable forum elsewhere. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. 88.193.125.178 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood.And, please sign your comments with four tilde, after registering with Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy there 88, yes it would have been more appropriate for DOR to place his on the reference desk. However, DOR is a frequent contributor to this article, so (provided people respond to him privately) I'm willing to cut him some slack in posting the request here. Wikiant (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Negative effects

I reverted the revision by Lawrencekhoo, as the source isn’t dealing with introducing a minimum wage, but increase the minimum wage rate. Very, very different issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you reversion. Most of the studies that find negative effects are looking at increases in the minimum wage rate, not the introduction of a minimum wage. I dare say that most economics literature, with whatever empirical result, looks at changes, not introduction. So I think the source is perfectly acceptable in this table. Of course, I think we should replace the table with normal text, but I don't have the time right now to propose a concrete revision. Academic38 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Academic38's analysis. Also, the paper is talking about the effects of a minimum wage. The political context of the paper is not that important here. LK (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Academic38. Introducing a minimum wage *is* increasing the minimum wage -- it is increasing from zero to something positive. The difference between "introducing" and "changing" is merely one of magnitude. Wikiant (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a change in magnitude. But DOR (HK) wanted to exclude anything not based on "introduction" of the minimum wage from the table of positive and negative effects. His reversion removed a study based on "increasing" the minimum wage from that table, on a basis you have just rejected. Academic38 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what we have are two very distinct subject: the effect of imposing a minimum wage, and the effect of changing that wage rate. Given that the categories in that table are Arguments in favor of Minimum Wage Laws and Arguments against a Minimum Wage Laws, might we not agree that the subject is imposition of such a price-fixing mechanism, rather than its periodic adjustment ? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of arguments given by parties in favor and opposed to the minimum wage, regardless of their merits. Personally, I think many of the arguments are illogical, but let's not censor anyone's arguments. It's meant to be a comprehensive list. LK (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, I don't think there's any censorship here, just separate issues that need to be dealt with separately. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still unbalanced?

It seems to me that we have fought most of the battles anyone has wanted on the economics of the minimum wage. The article has been mostly stable, except for vandalism reversion, for months. Perhaps it is time to remove the "unbalanced" tag.

This is not to say that the article is perfect. For example, we still need a section on the politics of the minimum wage. Maybe a few changes in emphasis would be helpful. But overall, it seems that we no longer have any big problems of undue emphasis in the article, especially when one takes academic citations into account.

What do other folks think? Academic38 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I support removal of the tag. There are currently no serious POV problems. LK (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why the tag was there in the first place. I asked several months ago, and nobody answered. IMHO, the problem isn't so much that the article is unbalanced, but that it's just not a very good encyclopedia article. As an example of its suckiness, I offer the fact that the table summarizing the results of an extensive academic literature review was removed as having "undue weight," while numerous bullet points about the opinions of individual scholars remain.

The whole point of undue weight is that individual opinions/results don't belong in the encyclopedia unless they gain a wide following. This article is full of them. On the other hand, there is very little in the article that actually helps readers understand the big picture. The study summary does that, but people take it out. The endless quotes from individual people do nothing to illuminate the big picture, yet editors keep piling them on. Lou Sander (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of (against) Minimum Wage Laws

We’ve been through a lot of this, but I’m going to have one more go at some that I find inappropriate. Both sides are under my fire, and I propose the bullet points cited below be deleted:

Pro: “Does not have budget consequents” –- true, and irrelevant. Smiling has no budget consequences, either, but I doubt anyone would consider it a valid argument. The fact that this is in contrast to a non-minimum wage law alternative (such as negative taxes) is irrelevant, too, as it would be if it were in contrast to a no-swimming law. Similarly, “does not have a substantial effect on unemployment as compared to most other economic factors” is equally irrelevant. Doing nothing also has no impact on unemployment, or the social welfare system.

Con: Reducing demand for workers, reducing profits and increasing inflation are possible outcomes, but it is also entirely possible that by selecting one (e.g., raising prices / inflation), another may be avoided (reducing profits). I also take exception to the phrase “. . . causing inflation and increasing the costs of goods and services . . .” –- seems redundant. Next, the point on out-sourcing cites an article on the differences between American and Chinese / Indian labor which is irrelevant to the topic (China has a minimum wage, just not as high as America’s. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How does an "argument" make it onto this list? Does somebody just have to publish a paper that an editor discovers, then selects to achieve "balance" in this section? That's what it seems like to me. This whole list seems to be an unencyclopedic list of selected arguments from selected papers. Some of the arguments are important and widely recognized/discussed, but most of 'em aren't. Mostly it's just cruft, IMHO. BTW, I favor the proposal to remove the bullet points mentioned above. Lou Sander (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "pro" side has a lot of useless "it doesn't cost very much" points that were probably put there to try to make the list visually balanced and the "anti" side has some duplicate arguments, both sides framed in a point-scoring rather than informative way. I'm just going to go ahead and streamline the list, deleting the really blatant cruft on both sides, and see what's left. --Blogjack (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument should come from a reliable source. The problem is that, when talking about economic phenomena, what is "reliable" by WP standards is not necessarily reliable by economists' standards. Knowing the difference requires an economics background. Wikiant (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't just list arguments from reliable sources. They explain topics for non-specialist readers, backing their explanations with citations from reliable sources. None of it can give undue weight to minor/non-mainstream/etc. material. The problem, IMHO, is that for the most part the editors of this article don't do that; they just present a lot of material. "Economist X says Y." "Organization A says B." Unencyclopedic cruft, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree here. There were a lot of marginal arguments in the list before, which I think contributed to the unbalance before LK's last edit. But marginal arguments remain. I still think this section would be improved by putting it in paragraphs summarizing the main arguments for and against, rather than the current format. I do want to disagree with DOR (HK) on one point, however: the fact that some alternatives to the minimum wage have budgetary consequences, and the minimum wage does not, is an important political consideration. Academic38 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that, but only for an article about, say, alleviating poverty, or expanding the tax base. My point is that there is a never-ending list of things that are not as good as (or, better than) the minimum wage, and there is no useful point in just citing one. In fact, it makes that one point somehow seem to be the key alternative, rather than just one of dozens. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But one of the key arguments for the minimum wage is that it helps alleviate poverty. Therefore, IMO, arguments about feasible alternatives and why it is better or worse than those alternatives belong in the article. Academic38 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Last call: Am I welcome to rewrite the entire list, into a more encyclopedic format? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay by me. We can always edit some more when you're done if need be. Academic38 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see the re-write and then we can edit from there. Wikiant (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I reverted the removal of some very well-sourced basic material from the Background section. The editor who removed it said he was moving it, but he just deleted it. He claimed POV without any justification. IMHO, it is carefully presented material from a standard reference in economics. It expresses, clearly and without bias, and in historical context, some very mainstream thinking about the minimum wage. If someone disagrees with that assessment, (as distinguished from disagreeing with the ideas expressed in the material), please discuss it here. Lou Sander (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delete. It clearly doesn't belong in the background section, since it's the exposition of one POV. But it was harder than I thought to find a new place to put it. I'll have another go when I get some time. JQ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. ;-) ... I think pretty strongly that this material DOES belong in the Background section. It expands on the other material there, and flows naturally from it: The section starts with a short paragraph on history, followed by discussion of the social appeal of a minimum wage and the fact that there is disagreement/tension about the social goals and the actual effects. The Stigler material briefly and articulately describes the basic arguments about the actual effects. That which follows discusses some other aspects, including empirical studies. Both the Stigler and the follow-on are from a strong standard reference in the field. None of it, IMHO, is "POV" in the sense of presenting something unfairly or in a biased way. It is merely a statement of facts about some mainstream thinking about minimum wage. IMHO it is presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Also, IMHO, much of the rest of the article is pretty weak, which reinforces the idea that this solid stuff belongs up front. Most of "the rest" consists of "this fellow/study says this, while that fellow/study says that," very little of it summarized in an encyclopedic way. Fairly much of it could be deleted, IMHO, on the grounds of undue weight, since it represents one guy's opinion or analysis or conjecture on some aspect of minimum wage. Doing better isn't easy, since the subject is difficult and slippery, not to mention able to arouse strong emotions about the aforementioned social appeal. Lou Sander (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

2008 and 2009 increase in unemployment?

How come there is no mention of the increase in unemployment in 2008 and 2009? In 2007, Congress changed the federal minimum wage that would span two years (raised it from $5.15 to $7.25 by July 2009). This clearly shows that there was a high correlation(most likely causation) between an increase in minimum wage to increase in unemployment. However, there is no mention because this article seems to like to kiss Krueger's a**. Seriously, the consensus of economists still believe that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment. Its a freaking scientific law. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article because the most recent increase on the minimum wage is the most relevant to people today.199.17.94.166 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the case that an increase in the minimum wage increases unemployment (and moreso among the less educated/skilled). However, it is not possible to look at single year and say that the increase in unemployment we observed was due to the change in the minimum wage. Apart from the minimum wage change, there were many things going on during 08 and 09 that also affected the unemployment rate. How much of the change was due to the increased minimum wage is unknown. Wikiant (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of a single reason why unemployment would rise during the worst economic environment in many decades. Just doesn't make sense that a collapse in housing markets, financial markets, consumer confidence, investor risk-appetite and regulatory over-sight would have an impact on employment. Then again, maybe it does . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with you 199.17.94.166 that is not mentioned in the News on the spike of unemployment and the Congress rasing the minimum wage in 2008. California when from $7.00 to $8.00 an hour and so did the unemployment along with it. I greatly that is poor recession economy is related to upping the minimum wages, affecting small businesses everywhere nation wide. It is a daisy chain affect, once you raise the minimum wage the firt thing that fallows is health insurance and higher wages want an increase as their wage becomes smaller from example. Great point.--24.176.224.206 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, total nonsense. Without a doubt, the latest US recession was unrelated to any change in the minimum wage rate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it must have just been a coincidence then that unemployment rose at the same time minimum wage did. Even though the law of supply and demand states that is what will happen when you raise minimum wage. Also, we aren't in recession any more, but unemployment is still rising. If you are blaming it on the recession as the sole reason why unemployment is high, then how do you explain that. The last two quarters we have risen 2.5 and 6 percentage points respectively. Here is a link that states how the 2007 minimum wage increase hurts the economy. [1][2]96.18.60.204 (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WND as a source

I read the back and forth edit summaries on WND as a reliable source and looked at the linked discussion. I actually think there is a consensus in that discussion: WND is a reliable source for opinions it publishes, but it is not a reliable source for facts. I would add that it is even less a reliable source for economic theory. The author of the article cited to WND, Ilana Mercer, has no academic publications that I could find on Google Scholar. That said, the point she is cited for is something for which a WP:RS could surely be found, so I'm not going to delete it at this time.

I'm also going to move the last purported "pro" argument into the text below, since it actually reports on a study rather than making an argument. Academic38 (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is WND ? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not WorldNet Daily? Here are the top “stories” –

• Not again! Meet Obama’s new controversial pastor
• 2012 Forecast: 8.8 Chile quake just the beginning! What Happens in 2012?
• Can Obama be stopped from destroying America?
• City that banned Bible studies has Judgment Day
• Pat Boone’s financial plan (my personal favorite)

DOR (HK) (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the WND business has been the easy and deceptive impeachment of WND as a source. The first guy called it a "disallowed" source. I couldn't see that anybody had disallowed it. Somebody else quoted a "consensus" of a small number of people in some discussion somewhere. Come on, guys... it's understandable that people want to find confirmation of their hopeful dreams that minimum wages have wonderful social benefits, but it really ought to be done by finding evidence of it, rather than by picking away at sources of the opposite conclusion. If crappy sources claim that the costs of minimum wages are higher than their benefits, readers can see the crappiness for themselves. Lou Sander (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this ought to be a question of sides (in fact, I'm not clear, coming in late, what side WND has been quoted on). But quoting sources like this is undesirable. Obviously, it's not a reliable source for facts, and quoting its opinions will tend, for readers who know the source, to discredit those opinions. WP:WEIGHT suggests we should not include the opinions of WP:FRINGE groups and sources on an issue where there are plenty of mainstream opinions on both sides.JQ (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. "Obviously" it's not a reliable source for facts. Please. That's not obvious at all. And don't you mean "... for some readers..."? (Not everyone has the same Point Of View about this.) Lou Sander (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk... It's not very encyclopedic to say "According to [name your source here] such and such is true." When an editor does that, he/she reveals a lot about his/her editorial skills and outlook, I think. The way it works is that the encyclopedia says X, and shows its source in a footnoted citation. Sometimes people whose point of view is offended by X try to do it differently. But encyclopedia editors have an obligation to suppress their points of view when putting material into the encyclopedia. They have this obligation even when they wish with all their heart that minimum wages have a net positive social value. (Full disclosure: I, myself, wish that minimum wages had a net positive social value.) Lou Sander (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no great fan of minimum wage laws, but I have to believe that if Prof. Mercer has to publish her views in WND, there's something suspecious going on. Either she's not credible, or her work isn't up to academic journal standards. I don't know which, but it should be one of the two. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of like Prof. Paul Krugman, much of whose work is published in opinion pieces rather than academic journals. Either it's not credible, or it isn't up to academic journal standards. In fact, MOST of his work is published in opinion pieces. Lou Sander (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that The New York Times and WND are of the same caliber? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)