Do you have a link for that data? I get a headache whenever I try to navigate around the BLS website.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=get_data&reformat=true&from_results_page=true&from_year=1948&to_year=2004&Go.x=18&Go.y=13&include_graphs=true&initial_request=false&data_tool=other&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=specific_years&delimiter=

This is my link for the overall seasonally unadjusted unemployment data, not the minimum wage data. If you compare month to month for 1991 and 1992 it shows each and every month being a higher unemployment than the year before, for both 1992 and 1991. If your data actually show increasing employment at or near the minimum wage it is going in the exact opposite direction as the general unemployment rate. Perhaps the original thesis of minimum wages causes unemployment is better supported by the data than your suggestion that it helps employment.

Of course the real thing going on during 1991 is a recession, or at least the aftermath of one.

1998 the economy was expanding, and so was employment. A better comparison might be between the recession years begining the 1990's and beginning the 2000's so that you aren't comparing apples and oranges.

Again, assuming your data is accurate, I have an alternative explanation. People who were paid above the old minimum wage are now employed at the minimum wage, thus increasing minimum wage employment. A better comparison would therefore be comparing people who made at or above the new minimum wage in the years you want to study, rather than at or below the old minimum pre-raise and at or below the minimum post-raise. I expect you'll see a radically different picture than the one your weird math is trying to paint.

That is a very interesting point!!

I had not thought about that, but it makes sense and I think there is evidence to support it. For example, in Sweden there is so much unionization that there is very little individual negotiation in any industry. Obviously workers want to negotiate both long contracts and high wages. Unions promise both – but they only get long contracts– wage sin Sweden are incredibly low. Part of the reason is that there is no competition over labor – there aren't a thousand individual negotiations and searching around the job market for a better deal. The companies just say "I pay the industry union rate."

Nope. We have a much lower rate of "long term unemployed" than other rich countries. Perhaps it is higher than poor countries, I don't know. But for "long term unemployed" = 1 yr or longer, we have about 8% – that is, 8% of the unemployed in the country have been unemployed for 1 yr or more. It is 20-30% in much of Europe and 40-50% in certain European countries. It does not usually make sense to compare rich and poor countries as the jobs available and the pay and so many factors are so very different.

>I unfortunately am not aware of a source that gives me minimum wage levels for various countries.

I know of some sources.
One good one is here: http://www.lisproject.org/publications/welfaredata/welfareaccess.htm

It has min wage, unionization and a bunch of other data for OECD countries plus some others.

Ahem.

Now THAT is some of the strangest math I've ever seen. No wonder we see some weird theories in here…

in 1998 the minimum wage rose from $4.38 to $5.15,a 17.7% increase. this was accompanied by an increase in employment at or below the minimum wage from 3.724 million to 4.427 million, an 19.7% increase.
Consequently, minum wage employees were 38.4% better off.

But you claim this can not happen
Yon say a minimum wage increase must always make minimum wage employees worse off.

Now who do I believe — your theory or the data published by the BLS.

You argue that an increase in the minimum wage must cause minimum wage employment to fall. Can you explain why the BLS data says you are completely wrong.

this is why I accuse you being an ideologue
you calim your theory is correct in the face of overwhelming evidence that is is completely wrong.

Tell me why I should believe you rather then the BLS.

What are the rest of the associated costs? Because that surely isn't the end of the story.
The remaining workers will work less hours, work harder, work under less pleasant circumstances, customers will get less, pay more, enjoy it less, business owners will make less, grow less, hire less, teenagers forgo education due to immediate gain, more difficult (more skill intensive jobs) have to raise wages to compete against actual minimum wage jobs, rises in inflation.

All are plausible answers that are impossible to determine (just as impossible as the 1% of people fired for 10% raise).

In the meantime no one has even asked if these people need helping. 75% of them are above the poverty line, many are teenagers, many are part time. What is the minimum wage increase supposed to accomplish exactly?

Because there is a minimum wage on this side of the border, that doesn't impose a penalty on the illegal status

Economists favor free trade because the
benefits are greater then the costs."

Economists do not like the minimum wage law because it impedes efficiency. They do not like protective tariffs for the same reason.

I think you've got it wrong. Minimum wage is a positive action that immediately criminalizes free & voluntary association and contract between individuals. Any harm done by such legislation is directly attributable to those who enacted it. On the contrary, free trade is simply that – the removal of any harmful legislation/regulations that would otherwise impede economic progress. It also happens to be more efficient, benefitting from specializations and divisions of labor.

The removal of a harmful restriction (even if it benefits some people) cannot truly be said to cause a positive harm to anyone.

That's best illustrated by considering a $15/hr minimum wage. People would stop many newspaper deliveries and watch more TV news (possibly). Or they would get less pizzas ordered in and cook more instead. They would then do less of whatever other work they were doing because of the time needed to prepare food at home. All kinds of misallocation of resources starts to occur.

One interesting thought that I've heard before is that the minimum wage may be a very negative thing for those affected by it b/c it provides a gounding point and reduces negotiation. A lot of employers can just say "I pay the minimum wage" and know that has a certain weight with people who would explore the market further otherwise.

That is not true at all. Both sides oppose the government passing laws that help some at the expense of others. I oppose min wage laws because it helps those who were making min wage, and now are still working at the higher min wage, at the expense of everyone else. Likewise I oppose tariffs because they help people in the protected industry (sometimes) but hurt everyone else.

Point taken.

Perhaps a better comparison for me would be to compare rich countries unemployment rates with other rich country unemployment rates, while comparing poor country vs poor country as well.

I unfortunately am not aware of a source that gives me minimum wage levels for various countries. But I do know that France, Germany, Italy etc. have worse such laws than we (the US) do, while Bangladesh has no minimum wage. I'm willing to bet that those poor countries that have high unemployment rates also have minimum wage rates that act as devastating price floors on the ability of employees to bargain for a job.

We can play number games and say "what if we made minimum wage $100/hr" such that even those who are in favor of increasing the wage can see there are consequences to that action, but unless you can get those people to understand that initiating force against someone is wrong, they'll just come up with some arbitrary increase that they personally think be a net benefit. I'm more interested in the psychological reasons behind why many people think they can dictate what other people may do against their will.

I don't consider that a good tradeoff. Now imagine that the one person out of one hundred that are hypothesized to be unemployed may never get a job as a result. You have in effect destroyed that person almost as effectively as murdering him.

Additionally the bulk of those helped are teens who frankly have no real need for help, while the bulk of those hurt long term are not teens, since those teens have greater chances to improve their job skills via education.

In fact, if it encourages marginal teens to work instead of doing more to further their education (and thus their future wages), then the minimum wage increases hurt those employed teens on the margin.

Most of my arguments about unemployment were meant to explain why the temporary unemployed can remain that way for a longer period in the U.S. They do not accept the first available job, or even look for it. Instead they continue to look for the job that will exactly replace the one they left.

I work for an airline that laid off thousands the past four years. Some of my friends remained unemployed for many months, seeking the pay levels they had earned in old jobs. I'm told by financial counselors that many former employees did take on debt to tide them over.

I do not believe the 5 percent who are unemployed at any one time represent permanently unemployed workers. I suspect that we have more of the latter in the U.S. than do other nations. But I think it's our wealth rather than our minimum wage that permits us to have so many.

Moreover, I have no idea if the benefits outweigh the costs and I have not said that.

But you do not know if the costs outweigh the benefits either and that is my point.

You are claiming to know something with 100% certainty that you do not know.

Half sigma 12:18 – I believe (but have no evidence to support) that about 3% or less of the population is on the min wage. Since many states have min wages that are higher than the federal rate, even less than 3% of the population would be subject to the federal increase. If the increase led to a 20% decline in unemployment among those people (“horrible unemployment?), the unemployment rate would change by about ½%. So while it would not result in “horrible unemployment” it would hurt 20% of the people affected by the law.

Paco – Even if I agreed with your analysis of the Professor’s job – which I do not – it is irrelevant. You attack the integrity of speaker to deflect the argument which you are unable to counter and which is the entire point of the conversation.

Spencer 1:46 – you claim that the professor had to search long and hard for his information, suggesting that evidence to the contrary is abundant. Yet you provide no evidence.

1:50 – Why would you take the time to write such a meaningless and childish post. This is the equivalent of a 7 year old yelling in the playground “I know you are but what am I?” when another calls him a kootieburger.

Half sigma 2:06 – How often are you asked what your taxes should be applied to? I disagree with many laws and still have to pay for their enforcement. What makes this any different? I’d rather pay to give society extra education than many other things my earnings pay for.

Half sigma 2:09 – The argument was not about wealth. The claim was the effect of min wage on employment rate. It is possible that the unemployment rate is higher than it would be without it and we would still be the richer than Mexico.

That means that out of every 100 minimum wage employees 99 would get a 10% wage increase and one would become unemployeed.

OK, at no time have I seen Don acknowledge that the minimum wage debate should be looked at in this way. He says because one person loses his job we should not have a minimum wage. He refuses to acknowledge that 99 people have gotten a wage increase.

Consequently his analysis if fundamentally dishonest. If he wants to argue that the minimum wage is bad he is going to have to argue that it causes more harm then good
not just that it causes some harm.

there are many ways he can make this argument but until he makes an honest attempt to compare the benefits and the costs his analysis is fundamentally dishonest.

International trade is a positive sum game. Minimum wage regulations are a zero sum game at best. Employee gains are employer losses. But if you accept the common sense logic and evidence that minimum wage legislation reduces employment, then the minimum wage is not a zero sum game, but a negative sum game.

Minimum wages mean less choice for individuals. International trade means more choice for individuals.

Free trade, a positve sum game. Minimum wage laws, negative sum game.