Here’s a letter of mine published in the August 7 edition of the Baltimore Sun:
The Sun should rethink its editorial "Rethinking minimum wage" (Aug. 4).
The editorial’s account of history is flawed; the federal minimum wage began in 1938, not in the 1950s.
More important, it’s untrue that the data are "compelling" that "a minimum wage is helpful in the fight against poverty."
Economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, in research published last year in the respected journal Contemporary Economic Policy,
found that "minimum-wage increases (1988-2003) did not affect poverty
rates overall, or among the working poor or among single mothers."
This
finding is consistent not only with the fact that just a tiny fraction
of workers (less than 5 percent) are paid wages as low as the minimum
wage and the fact that 80 percent of minimum-wage workers live in
non-poor households but also with the findings of other rigorous
studies.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
Facts are indeed stubborn things, unless one sees oneself as a 'progressive.'
Good response Don.
Minimum wage makes as much sense as price controls.
Minimum wages are price controls.
The fact that a large segment of the population is to damn stupid to realize the mafia (aka gub'ment) is not capable of increasing real wages (the ones that matter) only nominal wages is so disheartening.
Gutenberg never should have shared his invention with gub'ments.
I think minimum wage is a great idea. We should set minimum wage to $100 per hour, and eliminate poverty! The evil corporations can afford to pay $100 per hour to even the most unproductive employees, they just choose not too for the sake of their bottom line. Evil, they are!
Even if a worker is willing to work for less than $100 per hour, we should "protect" that worker from exploitation and not allow him to work for the lower wage, since the worker is clearly not smart enough to know what his or her labor is "worth". Protect that stupid worker!
I have a bright future in politics.
Eric,
Not exactly, each will have different results in the market place.
Price controls typically create shortages of goods and services.
Minimum wage creates labor surpluses or unemployment.
Rudy….min wage is a price control. Some price controls are "floors" and some are "ceilings."
Main question: How can the press continue to print falsehoods? Every econ 101 text I've looked through states that the min wage is a poor, poor device for fighting poverty.
I understand why politicians love it (since min wage increases are really transfers to middle class teens), buy why does the press love them so much?
Stupid? Lazy? Evil?
Rudy,
Price controls and Minimum wage are the same thing.
Very often price controls are introduced to suppress prices to below the market, where as minimum wages are introduced to raise the prices above what the market is willing to pay.
But when government introduces floor on prices of certain goods ( agriculture ) or subsidizes certain industries, it usually has an effect similar to the introduction of minimum wage.
Even if a worker is willing to work for less than $100 per hour, we should "protect" that worker from exploitation and not allow him to work for the lower wage, since the worker is clearly not smart enough to know what his or her labor is "worth". Protect that stupid worker!
I have a bright future in politics.
Your future in politics could be even brighter if you understand that all employment by private companies is exploitation regardless of wage. It's only when you work for the one true State and the common good that you break free of the chains of exploitation.
Laffe,
I concur! A 100$ min-wage would be great, but then we should also forbid employers to fire their employees and maybe even force them to hire more people, maybe with quotas. Now that I think about it, we should then abolish bankruptcy so that the firms we have now can continue employing and producing for ever. Of course this isn't enough because growth is a good thing, so maybe the government should also create new firms on a regular basis, so that everyone will finally get according to his/her needs!
Minimum wage (MW) is a direct affliction on hour pay, it may have a round about affect on price. Immediate typical business behavior is hiring less of the un-skilled employees (because their productivity is below, say, $7.15 an hr). This would create a higher unemployment rate among young and un-skilled.
Price Controls (PC) have direct afflictions on prices. PC’s, artificially keeping prices low, creates shortages of goods/services. Say with rent controls or capping gas at $2 a gallon.
There is more of a similarity with government subsidizing and MW. When government artificially raises commodity prices for wheat, milk, or cheese, consumers end up with higher prices and the government ends up with huge surpluses of those commodities in storage (surpluses of labor, surpluses of goods).
Can anyone explain to me what this woman means:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014281.php
…."This is the first election I ever actually looked at someone else other than the Republican candidate," said Rodriguez, 33, who is studying to be a teacher and is a fixture at the lawn chair hobnob here on Greely Court, a quiet cul-de-sac in a Pasco County subdivision called Wrencrest.
"I've had enough with the Republican economics," she added, as her husband, Danny, who had just driven from his banking job in Tampa, piped in: "No more Bush."
What is "republican economics"? More detailed, what is it there that "Screwed her over" in her mind? Does she think Republicans robbed her or something? I'd really like to know what she's thinking here. Or maybe she's not thinking and wants to lash out like a little child having a rant.
Minimum wage "makes sense" because it's all about good intentions. All the studies that prove it doesn't work, but makes things even worse in the immediate term falls on deaf ears. We live in a culture that is steeped in "good intentions, road to hell paved that way".
Can anyone explain to me what this woman means
Who cares what she means. Did you not notice that they're going to let her teach?
of course she's going to teach. what else is she capable of doing?
…that's probably not fair. I'm assuming she's studying to be an elementary or high school teacher, who apparently are statistically among the worst in terms of test scores throughout universities.
Who cares what she means. Did you not notice that they're going to let her teach?
Posted by: Methinks | Aug 12, 2008 3:14:19 PM
Of course she should be filling up young skulls o' mush with her liberal group-think ideology. It's all about social justice man!
BTW, that linked article has a pretty spirited debate going on too. Apparently the biggest "moral" defense of MW is that it keeps greedy/evil employers in check.
You jerks! $100 an hour is a good start but what about vacation? I say we need a minimum vacation as well: Six weeks.
We need social justice. Even more important then guaranteed income is "screw the rich", hang the kossacks(methinks that's for you), all that good stuff man!
I'm curious what arguments you can provide against the theory that a (increasing) minimum wage "is vital in discouraging low-productivity firms. Moreover, regular increases are required in order to encourage investment in productivity-enhancing technologies." ?
A forum I visit has this argument advanced by a poster with more economics education than I.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/30247-poverty-policy-2.html#post1057580516
I apologize if it is against policy to link to other discussion forums.
J
"is vital in discouraging low-productivity firms. Moreover, regular increases are required in order to encourage investment in productivity-enhancing technologies."
In a free market, high productivity firms put low productivity firms out of business.
All that minimum wage does is to put people out of employment. If the productivity of a particular worker is $5 per hour and if the minimum wage law requires paying him $8 per hour, employer will not hire for that position.
minimum wage "is vital in discouraging low-productivity firms
A firm could raise productivity through automation (capital), or hire low-wage workers (labor), and achieve the same profit.
In an environment of available capital (and expectations of non-appropriation of capital), the automation-dominated companies will probably end up being able to out-scale the labor-dominated companies over time.
But during the process, there will be an equilibrium of sorts. Labor-dominated firms will hire more and more people until they run out of labor supply. There may even be a short spike up in labor costs, followed by firm failure, and a dramatic drop in labor demand as the industry becomes dominated by automation.
The US lost most of its labor-dominated sock manufacturing overseas, but recent automation advances in sock toe sewing may return some of the industry to the US, which could very well eventually kill off labor-dominated sock manufacturing.
I'm certain the minimum wage does price out many labor-dominated industries in the US (although there is still a thriving below-minimum wage informal sector of non-citizen labor).
The question is whether we'd prefer these people to be unemployed or in the informal sector, or employed but hopefully working on themselves or their children to prepare for a less labor-dominated, more automation-dominated future.
hang the kossacks(methinks that's for you), all that good stuff man!
Thanks, Crusader. While I love a good hanging Cossack as much as the next exploited worker, nothing warms the cockles of my proletariat, social justice-yearning heart like a hanging Kulak.
Damn! I forgot they hung kulaks, not cossacks. However, weren't the Cossacks on the White Army's side?
Some Cossacks fought for the whites, some for the reds. They sided with Germany in WWII and even fought with the Germans. Of course, you know that Russian peasants greeted the Germans with flowers at first. That pussycat Stalin inspired such loyalty!
Anyway, regardless of who fought for whom and when, they all got their opportunity to hang. The Soviet Union was very egalitarian when it came to human slaughter.
The thing to remember about the minimum wage is that there is little empirical evidence that modest increases reduce employment. The harm is unseen in the noise, while the higher pay is seen. People untrained in economics cannot see the harm and perceive our opposition as hard-heartedness.
Stalin was originally from Georgia.
I think newspapers should be required to pay at least one hundred times the minimum wage to all their employees.
If the wage increase is too much for them then they can just raise their prices.
This was actually a good read, thanks for writing it.
What is "republican economics"?
Posted by: Crusader
Republican Economics in a nutshell;
Enron (manipulate legislatures and markets and your own accounting to defraud the public of billion of dollars.) They were the largest single contributor to Republican Texas Governor George W Bush.
Spend other peoples money and if that's not enough spend their children's money too.
It is also
Privatize profits socialize losses.
Do you actually want to defend Republican economic policies as Free market, Hayekian or classically liberal?
Basically Republican economics is corporatism.
The thing to remember about the minimum wage is that there is little empirical evidence that modest increases reduce employment.
It only changes who is employed and advocates of minimum wage don't much care if it's the lowest skilled workers with the least number of options that get the boot.
muirduck,
As you understand neither the word republican or the word economics, instead of trying to tell people more of what you don't know, how about you concentrate on explaing the muirpidities I listed on the last thread. Do you need them repeated here?
Tell us again about "Invisible hand, you're fired!" How does that work?
You may be totally devoid of intellectual capability and understanding, but you're even useless as a community joke as well.
Moveon.org is looking for your presence, you fit in there.
I love this little gem culled from the Sun's editorial:
A growing number of states have stepped in to fill the void. Maryland lawmakers set the wage at $6.15 two years ago. "The effect of the law was modest – a lot of employers already paid more." (quotes mine) Its chief accomplishment may have been to give Democrats more sway with blue-collar voters.
Imagine that, a lot of employers already paid more! What does "a lot" consist of, hmmmm? Like 95%, maybe?
And, oh my God, "Its chief accomplishment may have been to give Democrats more sway with blue-collar workers."
Hey, SteveO, maybe I do want to become a hermit after all, wonder what the minimum wage is for that…..well off to the dept of labor statistics to research.
Hey Vidyohs. =)
I'm surprised at your lashes at Muirgeo(duck?). I have to assume he's been a nut in the past. Based on this post though, I actually agree with what he says (for the most part).
Although I think he's just blabbing what he's been fed, the stopped clock is right when the time comes around.
One of the things that always surprises people I talk to after some time; they assume I'm defending Bush or Republicans, or that I am a republican. (I do very occasionally defend Bush, only because the attacks are constant and have little to do with reality in some cases). I frequently extol the virtues of Wal-Mart also.
So, after people get to know my arguments and assume I'm a little to the right of Attila the Hun, they're surprised when I say I'm against Wal-Mart taking eminent domain, and against Enron and a lot of Repulican corporatist nonsense.
I think it's become very difficult for people to differentiate, discriminate, and determine issues one at a time. For lack of a real general theory, I'm jokingly positing that a generation raised on simple comic book villains require primary colored good guys and bad guys in order to understand the world.
Hey SteveO,
Don't try to engage muirgeo. he operates from a template and can't continue a discussion once that template is blown up either logically or with facts. Ignore him please.
Ok, who is who? Is Martin the same person as Muirgeo?
SteveO – smart people can differentiate things in the world AND enjoy comic-book movies. Ever hear of multitasking?
No way, Rudy. Martin may be out in left field, but he can cobble together a pretty good paragraph. You can ask Martin to clarify his position and actually get a clarification. Muirdiot is capable only of poorly copied, misspelled and garbled socialist talking points. Given this, I'm sure it makes you feel better to know that Muirdiot's name is George and he's a pediatrician. I know I'm relieved that so many children fall prey to this disorganized mind. The AMA is doing a great job protecting patients with licensing.
I frequently extol the virtues of Wal-Mart also.
*sigh*
Now, you must die.
There's a simple reason why liberals will never admit the truth about the minimum wage. They'd have to admit they're wrong, and their human pride can never allow that.
Human pride? Perhaps, but I am more inclined to think it has to do with the rather surprising tendancy of theirs to rely on "narrative" and faith to develope their view of the world, rather than facts or rigorous investigation. Feelings, faith and stories do not respond well to evidence that proves them wrong, and such a shakey structure requires everything to be set, for one narrative falling apart casts others into serious doubt.
What is surprising is that they attack the religious (well, Christians) for being dogmatic and tied to a belief system only by faith and ignoring facts and science, but then they do the same thing with faith in socialism.
Methinks,
Thx for that info. I didn't think anyone topped Martin, so I thought it was one in the same.
Hammer,
Very true, faith is faith.
SteveO,
This is careless talk:
"Hey Vidyohs. =)
I'm surprised at your lashes at Muirgeo(duck?). I have to assume he's been a nut in the past. Based on this post though, I actually agree with what he says (for the most part)."
Thats fuzzy, vauge, and wishy washy. What actually do you agree with? For the most part?
For instance, do you agree that Enron was the largest single contributor to Geoprge Bushes gubinatorial campaign? If so, so what" And, how is that relevant to this thing called Republican Economics?
If you deem that relevant than wouldn't you expect muirduck to also mention the fact that Democratic Economics had Bill Clinton running interference and blocking for Enron for eight years, hosted Ken Lay in the Lincoln bedroom over 11 times in 8 years and received millions in donation from Enron. But no, in muirduck's world there is the glorious goal of the socialist victory and to all else he gives the lie.
But wait SteveO, maybe it's the "spend other people's money…." statement. But SteveO, muirduck is a devout socialist which means he believes devoutly in stealing other people's moeny and spending it, and he believes in stealing their children's money as well…..why would he be calling the pot black?
Maybe it's the "privatize profits and socialize losses"? You mean as in the system set up by democrats where corporations are forced into dealing with people they know are going to renege, but having the safety net constructed by democrats. Now that the safety net has been triggered, it is suddenly the republicans fault?
Maybe in this discussion of republican economics we should talk about the 1993 Clinton administration gifting Archer Daniels Midlands with 600 million dollars so they could "advertise" their products overseas; or, 300 million to the Popcorn Council of America for the goal? You'll never hear a democrat besmirched by muirduck.
Last, maybe SteveO, you agree that republican economics is corporatism? Hmmm, which party created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, federal corporations? Where would Enron be today without the inflexible support of the Clinton administration. Where would the unions be? Gosh corporation after corporation owes its existence to the democrats.
I direct your attention to Don's last post just previous to this one. "Force may protect, it never creates."
On it I posted the collected idiocies of muirduck. Look toward the end of the discussions. His muirpidities are numbered so the post won't be hard to find.
No SteveO, muirduck has never made sense on anything. muirduck sees the world through the heavily enculturated lens of the socialist evangelical and all of his expression is nothing more than a twisting of all to fit his idiot's view of the world.
Irrelevancies, red herrings, lies, distortions, and misrepresentations of the whole truth are muirduck's stock in trade.
Go back to the last thread and read those muirpidities, choose any of them and ask yourself, "How can any intelligent person come up with this shit?"
If you have by now formed the opinion (shared by many) that martinduck can hijack the topic on this cafe, let me advise you that he is still junior to muirduck.
If you think martinduck can take an obscure point out of a post and fabricate an extended pontification on that while ignoring the thesis of the essay he is attacking, wait until you see muirduck in action. Only with muirduck it is always about twisting things to advance socialism.
Nuff said about the duck.
Faith is faith, unless you're talking about certain Eastern religions. Then you're a racist if you say anything about it.
True, Crusader. My spouse and I have the mack daddy of exemptions – he's African and of a certain religion. You should see the look on white liberal sychophants' faces when he lays into all the problems of the certain religion and culture they had just finished sympathizing with. Something tells me you'd enjoy that.
What is surprising is that they attack the religious (well, Christians) for being dogmatic and tied to a belief system only by faith and ignoring facts and science, but then they do the same thing with faith in socialism.
Posted by: Hammer
Hammer,
It is a fact that what most "believers" here tout is the ideology of classical liberalism. It exist successfully no where in the world. ALL of the most successful world societies that have advanced and continue to advance the human condition are social democracies.
Any basic understanding of the nature of Homo sapiens sapiens reveals the obvious fact of our success is our social nature. You guys live the lie that convinces you that we are solitary creatures individually successful and even more successful the less we plan because you believe in the Great Invisible Hand that always plans better then our evolved intelligence.
The facts, history and basic common sense shows the evidence is against the libertarian position as the natural or best state of human societies. Indeed its quirky that some people likely hold your position based on evolved genetic traits that give preference to you left brain over your right ( the opposite of your politics). Concrete black and white thinking likely had and still has some adaptive genetic advantage for war making and playing out one side of the prisoners dilemma scenarios for short term success. It was indeed important in the history of man to have totalitarian regimes and concentrated autocratic powers to continue the advance of the human condition. To control the masses. Now I believe the conservative/classic liberal position is likely to be less adaptive and less successful to conditions of the modern world that require better and more right-sided planning. The future of human culture lies in the left and its right sided nuanced contemplative brain.
You have a misguided understanding of Liberty. Yes, we are social creatures who depend on many others of our kind. But where your "thinking" goes astray is when you want to herd of all of us into thinking and acting in a way as to fulfill your vision of the world.
Libertarians believe in co-operation and community based on voluntary contract. They believe in partnerships based on voluntary contract. They also believe in voluntary exchange of thoughts, ideas, goods and services.
Where as forces of socialism herds every one to their vision of the world, regardless of how each individual wants to live his/her life. Individual desires, wishes, dreams, aspirations are not important to socialist. If something is good for majority, it is good for everybody – the minority is just collateral damage in the search for "common good".
Vidyohs:
Slow down partner. You didn't have to write me a Gordon Lightfoot song. I didn't feel like going point-by-point over his post. I don't give him as much attention.
I simply wanted to indicate that I don't support Wal-Mart, Enron, airline companies or anyone else taking advantage of rent-seeking. Let me rephrase that, I completely understand their behavior, taking advantage of those things- I don't support the gubmint opening the trough.
I have too defended certain elements of Enron in the fiasco. Not all.
Wal-Mart has done much good, and some stupid. A tiny bit of evil. But mostly good. I differentiate. I don't play black hat, white hat, gotch politics.
So I'm not taking any of your bair about Clinton V. Bush doing this or that. When either does stupid, it's stupid.
I'm against rent seeking. I'm against force and redistribution of wealth. I do believe that both parties favor corporate interests when they can. I think it's a little more the Republican's forte, whereas the Dems lean more towards hippie causes.
If Muirgeo is a nut, give me enough respect to find that out for myself. But I appreciate the warning.
In this last post, I again agree with sometihng he said. Our social nature as a major benefit. Now, I don't extrapolate that to defend totalitarianism. I think he also displays what I recently mentioned about the perception of Libertarians/ Republicans/ Classical Liberals/ Free traders/ Laizes Fairegoers etc. whathaveyou… to sometimes come across as hermit like individualist- or demanding such.
In my work on Personality Type, one thing I've found is that a lot of the behaviors that we don't like about people are their type defense mechanisms. Maybe he's a strong NF (idealist, feeler-type) or a strong SP (action oriented, we must DO something). Those are both valid feelings. Giving him room to spool out, he may have the chance ro explain his values, and maybe we can find little places to convince him of things- or, heaven forbid, learn something from him.
By slamming someone in the corner, you will generally get fight or flight behavior. In Type, a similar thing happens- otherwise delightful cocktail party guests suddenly feel threatened to the core of their being, and behave with maladaptive responses.
I've worked with snakes a lot. They are beautiful and amazing animals, and I don't fear them. However, I don't back them into a corner and keep poking at them.
Right, I forgot, typing people into neat little pigeon holes. Works to only a slight degree, my friend, then people just surprise the hell out of you.
"In this last post, I again agree with sometihng he said. Our social nature as a major benefit."
The problem, SteveO, is that muirduck's statements do not exist in a vacumm, they are all constructed to take you somewhere and that somewhere is sympathy for socialism. While you may think of "social nature" as being an inclination to cooperate with others and enjoy their company, muriduck sees it as the behavior of an ant bed or bee hive, compulsory.
You're correct, I should have let you just find out yourself, but I was amazed that you could read his drivel on such a surface level. And, state any agreement in such a vague way.
Later I thought to myself, why not just ask SteveO if he agreed with muirduck that corporatism is strictly a republican phenomena. Your answer would have told me all I needed to know about your thought process.
Anyway, here is something I stumbled on yesterday that is very appropriate in understanding muirduck. As methinks has told you, he is a doctor in California named George Bella and he is a stauch advocate of socialized medicine.
Here:
http://www.freemarketcure.com/
is what he wants for you. Check out all the info there.