Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 4

NOTE: The discussion page didn't have any 2008 entries before April 30. This is puzzling, but it's what existed when I made this archive. Lou Sander (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Opponents all focused on a 'binding' minimum wage.

There is the case that the minimum wage may not be 'binding', or binding in all industries. Where it is non-binding the minimum wage [may] send[s] a signal to businesses that this is the likely rate going to be paid by other businesses, they pay less than the free market rate. It may enable a factor price fixing by business, particularly in a full employment environment.

This is a real concern, don't have access to journals at the moment though to provide cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.142 (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

American economists in the intro

Quite frankly, I don't give two stuffs what 75% of American economists think. Why is this statistic therefore put in the intro? 75% of Americans change their mind with every poll conducted, and 85% of statistics are made up on the spot.

What about the rest of world's economists? Has anyone got figures on them? America has peculiar problems with any form of labour law, so I think it's rather disingenuous to let the article speak from that rather narrow perspective. And has nobody heard the argument that putting more money into the hands of workers makes them more productive - and that redistribution of wealth will simply mean a shift of production to other sectors of the economy: those products poorer people want to buy? I think some guy called Keynes might have mentioned that. Wikidea 09:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The qualifier "American" reflects the data set, not a philosophical disposition. From a theoretical standpoint, almost no economists would disagree with the statement that a binding minimum wage causes unemployment. From an empirical standpoint, you may find disagreement across countries' economists. However, the disagreement arises due to the *combination* of a minimum wage and the specific country's labor laws. Wikiant (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're just saying this because you disagree with the idea that a minimum wage might be good. That's got nothing to do with the article. Loads of economists disagree with you and the idea that a minimum wage causes unemployment. The qualifier "American economist" is most certainly a philosophical disposition. My point is that it is pretty stupid to have this loaded factoid in the intro, which should summarise the article. Wikidea 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying this because to claim, from a theoretical standpoint, that a minimum wage does not cause unemployment requires rejecting almost all of the underlying theory on which economics is based. It is the same as a creationist saying that the world is 6,000 years old -- for that statement to be correct requires that almost all of the theory underlying modern geology (and a lot underlying physics and astronomy) is wrong. Wikiant (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejecting the underlying theory on which economics is based?!?? Of course it does!!!! Well done!! This is precisely what economists everywhere are trying to do every waking day!!! I can't find the webpage for you, but a couple months back I read Paul Krugman saying that every other week somebody sends him a paper claiming to have destroyed the theoretical foundations of economics. A famous snippet of Winston Churchillian wisdom was that if you put two economists in a room then you'd get two opinions, and if one of them was Keynes you'd get three. Wikidea 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is only half of what economists (those who espouse heterodox theory) do. The other half is to propose an alternate theory. If you aren't prepared to suggest an alternate theory, then you're going the "creationist route" -- holding the orthodox model to a more rigid standard than the heterodox model. Wikiant (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a great deal of debate among economists about this point. See this, for instance.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as I indicated earlier, the document you cite shows debate not about the underlying theory, but about the effects of *combining* a minimum wage with the US's specific labor laws, demographics, etc. Wikiant (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any surveys from economists in other countries? I don't see where the economists in the document I just cited say that their view about the impact of the minimum wage on employment applies only to the United States. That seems to be an inference that you are drawing that is not expressly stated (see wp:NOR). The reality is that many economists are reevaluating the neoclassical assumptions of the theory based on empirical data. You cannot separate the two. The analogy to creationism is a straw man argument.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no surveys at all. The questions in your document did not ask about the theory, but the practice of raising the minimum wage. Hence, the respondents' answers reflect the raising of the minimum wage against the current social/political/economic background of the US (as they are US economists). The creationist analogy isn't a straw man. What I heard Wikidea say was that, if economic theory predicts that the minimum wage causes unemployment, then the economic theory should be thrown out. My response was: Fine, but if you don't propose an alternate theory, then you're holding orthodox economic theory to a different standard than you are the criticism of the theory. Wikiant (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no sources for your claim that this view is particular to American economists. Let's just leave that out to avoid poisoning the well. And yes, you can criticize a theory without presenting an alternative. A theory is presented. It is shown through empirical evidence to be an inadequate explanation for a phenomenon. You go back to the drawing board. Example: people wonder what causes rain to fall. Somebody says, every time my bones ache it starts to rain, so maybe my bones are causing it to rain. Then somebody says, okay, but it was raining before you were born, and it rains in places where you've never been. That can't be it. The theory is proven wrong, although no alternate theory has been presented. Currently, many economists are saying that the neo-classical theory about what happens to employment when a minimum wage rises is too simplistic to be useful and further, doesn't hold up in many empirical studies. Don't poison the well by saying "well, they're just American economists."Notmyrealname (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say, "well, they're just American economists." I said, their answers were given "against the current social/political/economic background of the US." Forces in that background can mitigate (and sometimes counteract) what theory would predict. For example, theory predicts that when I release a ball it falls to the ground. If the ball is connected to the ceiling by a string, then the ball won't fall. There are two possiblities: (1) the theory is wrong, (2) there are additional forces that counteract the theory. My original statement was that, among mainstream economists, the *theory* is undisputed. What is disputed are the additional forces. Wikiant (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and you're wrong. The *theory* is disputed, and therefore straw polls don't belong in the intro. Wikidea 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Give me a citation from a mainstream economics journal. Wikiant (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor Kim Swales's work

Someone has removed the material I put in on this. Why? It seems apposite, and unless there is a sound reason, if I reinstate it and it gets removed again, that sounds like vandalism. P.M.Lawrence203.194.54.27 (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summary, you'll see that I removed the passage and asked that you submit a (reputable) journal reference. The passage looks like ego-spam. Wikiant (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it sufficient that the Kim Swales's page links to his work, with the faxfn site cited there referencing papers submitted to the EC? And how is it "ego-spam", when I went to some trouble not to cite my own work but rather his? This is not the first time I have tried to mention his work on this page, so I am afraid that unless I see a positive reason - not a "looks like" - I am going to have to counter with "repeated removals without a positive reason 'looks like' vandalism". If you want a citation, follow the link to his page and then to his sources and put in one that satisfies you - don't simply delete. To my mind, putting Kim Swales was a sufficient citation; if you want more, go and get it. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.28.105 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't sufficient. The WP:Verifiability policy states, "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source." The onus for providing the reference is on you, not the reader. Wikiant (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But how isn't "Kim Swales" a sufficient reference? I will shortly put a suggested wording here, and invite comments. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.83.29 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kim Swales" isn't a reference -- it's the name of the author. A reference cites a reliable printed source. In this case, I'd expect a journal article (journal name, article title, date of publication, etc.) Wikiant (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't give the name of the author, I gave a link to a wikipedia page about him, that has those external links; how isn't that a reference? P.M.Lawrence 203.220.42.115 (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, what you provided isn't a reference. A reference (in this case) would like this: "Friedman, M., 1942. The inflationary gap. American Economic Review 32(2), 314-320." The reference lists the journal, article, volume, and page numbers for the research paper that contains the information you are citing in the wikipedia article. A link to a page that talks about the author is not a reference. Wikiant (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I suggested you look at the page was so that you could see for yourself what was there. Kim Swales is not a "link to a page that talks about the author", it is a link to a page that has some material about him and his work and has links to his work - making it, in my view, just precisely what a reference is. If you think that page needs work, go for it - but at least look at the trail I left rather than shooting down the whole idea without checking to see if it adds up under the range of possibilities the standards allow. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.31.124 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Verifiability policy says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." and, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Kim Swales has authored a number of peer-reviewed articles (note: reports to government bodies are not peer-reviewed articles). Again, the onus is on you to find the *specific* (peer-reviewed) article that details his tax policy theory and to quote that. Wikiant (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"(T)he onus is on you to find the *specific* (peer-reviewed) article that details his tax policy theory and to quote that" - wrong, actually. The standards allow more flexibility than the criterion you are seeking to impose unilaterally - go and read them. You do not require a peer-reviewed article as a source. So, again, I ask: bearing in mind what the standard actually does require, and that the Kim Swales page links to internet archives of his relevant work, how does giving the Kim Swales link fall short of what is required? "It isn't a peer-reviewed article" isn't an answer - the standards already allow for other backing. The more you fail to answer that, or the more you insist on your unilaterally stronger criterion, the less reasonable you will appear as, when and if this goes to arbitration. P.M.Lawrence 203.194.51.184 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past each other as I am hearing you repeat the same argument which I believe I have adequately addressed multiple times. So, let's try a different approach. Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether or not the EC report constitutes a "reliable resource." Give us a link to the specific report that you are citing as support for the Kim Swales work. Wikiant (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On a point of information, I have not been repeating an argument, I have been repeating a question - I stopped presenting the argument and moved on, trying to be constructive. Instead of ever addressing the question, you have continually repeated an unfounded assertion about what is acceptable according to the standards, giving one acceptable method of citation and ignoring everything else the standards allow. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I intend to put a new second paragraph in "Minimum wage alternatives". The following is a draft for discussion:-

Professor Kim Swales of the University of Strathclyde has, with others, outlined an alternative approach to encourage a minimum wage using tax breaks per employee for the value added tax paid by employers. Modelling indicates that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase GDP, i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and deadweight loss effects of a mandated minimum wage, acting as a Pigovian subsidy.

I may then provide a reference to his report on the topic to the EC: "First of web pages detailing The Employment Effect of Subsidies, Report to the Directorate General Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, Commission of the European Communities, SOC 94 100018 05A01". Alternatively, "Employment friendly VAT, Professor Kim Swales, 23rd February 1998, summary at Faxfn" or "Taxation and Jobs page at Faxfn" may be sufficient to quell criticism. After editing this article, I will make similar edits to the basic wage article. I will then email Professor Swales to ask him if he wants to add more current references or otherwise edit the articles. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The three links appear to point (basically) to the same piece of work. Based on your first link, the correct citation (i.e., what I've been asking for all along) is:

Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities.

What I've been suggesting all along was that you go and look and then state what would suit you. Up to now, all I've been seeing was "a peer-reviewed journal citation", which wasn't available (that isn't one either). P.M.Lawrence 203.220.83.164 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This citation seems adequate for your statement "(Swales has) outlined an alternative approach..." because the citation itself is evidence that Swales has outlined an alternative approach. (Ignoring for the moment whether simply outlining an approach, as opposed to having that approach endorsed by a reliable third-party, warrants inclusion in this article.) However, the citation is not adequate support for the statement, "Modelling indicates that this would..." This second statement claims a research result. You'll need a peer-reviewed journal citation for this.

Wikiant (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"This second statement claims a research result" - no, that's why I put indicates rather than something stronger like demonstrates. May I suggest that it would be constructive for you to look at what appears within the report and then suggest a wording that would allow me to allude to what Kim Swales states there? Please refer to the wikipedia standards to see that these do not absolutely require "a peer-reviewed journal citation". P.M.Lawrence 203.220.83.164 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the average reader is not going to appreciate the distinction between "indicates" and "demonstrates." No, wikipedia standards do not *require* a peer-reviewed journal citation, but the standards do say that peer-reviewed journals are the best sources for citations for science articles. Given that researchers have published thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the minimum wage, I don't see the sense in citing non-peer-reviewed work. (FYI, JSTOR lists 14,721 peer-reviewed articles dealing with the minimum wage.) Wikiant (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have not offered an alternative wording as requested, I am now offering the following second draft:-

Professor Kim Swales of the University of Strathclyde has, with others, submitted an alternative approach to the EC. This seeks to encourage a minimum wage using tax breaks per employee for the value added tax paid by employers. The report of the team's modelling states that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase GDP, i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and deadweight loss effects of a mandated minimum wage, acting as a Pigovian subsidy.

I will provide a reference after leaving it up for a while with "citation needed", in case anyone else comes forward earlier with a better one. If they do not, in due course I will provide "Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities." (using your suggested phrasing).

Here is why I have chosen that wording for this draft. It does not say "outlined" but describes the historical fact that the team submitted a publicly accessible policy description to a particular organisation, not a paper to a journal (which is why it is absurd to insist on the latter; this wording bypasses any absurd challenge to produce one by making clear what it does cover instead). The report on the team's modelling does indeed state that, in these words under "3.3 Simulation": "In all the simulations reported here there is an increase in total employment and output... The pattern of employment change is such that output increases by less than employment but in no case does output fail to increase". Please bear in mind that verbatim excerpts would be unwieldy; this paraphrase seems both accurate and verifiable. And please, no more jumping the gun by assuming ego spam, insisting on a work of supererogation and shooting things down that you find suspicious rather than inviting constructive effort. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.83.209 (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, run it up the flag pole and let's see who shoots it down. Regardless of the impact on the quality of this wiki article, you seem fixated on including the Swales work. Given that the point of this wiki article is to provide reliable information on the minimum wage, and given that there exists a huge number of available peer-reviewed articles on the subject, I can see only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam. Wikiant (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get "Regardless of the impact on the quality of this wiki article"? The whole point of the section "Minimum wage alternatives" is to cover this sort of thing. Just as it would be wrong to omit Negative income tax and Earned income tax credit, it would be wrong to omit the Swales work. As for quality - I've repeatedly suggested you do something towards making it suit you rather than being, how shall I put it, fixated on deleting it (and notice, far from my being fixated on inserting it, I've been doing my damnedest to work it up into something that meets your objections on these talk pages, or alternatively to let you persuade me of any substantive objection, despite the difficulty of teasing out just what you do object to). As for "Given that the point of this wiki article is to provide reliable information on the minimum wage", well, if it is suitable to have a section on "Minimum wage alternatives" at all, it has already been settled that they should be covered. Given that I only know of this one non-ego-spam source (I've done work on it myself, and clearly I shouldn't cite that), it's irrelevant that many other peer-reviewed articles exist; either they do not cover this area, or I do not know the ones that do. But then, that's what other contributors could work on - but only once the material is there. Your inability to see any possibility but ego-spam is hardly evidence of it; by that reckoning, nothing could ever be entered provisionally, to be worked on. Look, I'm going to leave it up here for a few days for you to work on or provide specific criticism. If none occurs, why, I fail to see any substantive reason why it shouldn't go forward in the way I described (provisionally, with "citation needed" for a while, then with what I offered if nobody else offers better). If you delete it in those circumstances, I don't see how anybody could back that. P.M.Lawrence 203.194.50.235 (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just now inserting a new second paragraph in "Minimum wage alternatives". as follows:-

Professor Kim Swales of the University of Strathclyde has, with others, submitted an alternative approach to the EC [citation needed]. This provides incentives for a minimum wage without mandating it, by using tax breaks per employee to reduce the value added tax paid by employers. The report of the team's modelling states that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase GDP, i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and deadweight loss effects of a mandated minimum wage, acting as a Pigovian subsidy.

Since my last draft, this further clarifies that the Swales approach, unlike Negative income tax and Earned income tax credit, is not a complete alternative to a minimum wage but only to implementing one by mandating it. As I stated before, if nobody provides a better citation soon, I shall then provide "Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities.". P.M.Lawrence 203.220.80.64 (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone (Wikiant again, perhaps?) has removed the last part of my comments describing why I made the precise edit I did. I am reinstating it so that there is a proper record, in case it does have to go to mediation or arbitration or whatever. Also for the record, I am about to email Professor Swales and his colleagues to ask them if they want to provide a citation. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.81.200 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy there bud. I don't appreciate being accused of underhanded editing. Wikiant (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested a third opinion on this disagreement after noting that the Swales reference does not appear on a government web site, but on a site that describes itself as having "...started out challenging conventional wisdom on unemployment - but has diversified into a platform for unheard voices." This suggests that the Swales citation represents a minority view. Wikiant (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: I'm not sure how this dispute still applies. Any published work by Swales would be considered a reliable source. Citing a name only is a terrible idea, works with page numbers should be cited. The purpose of verifiability is to enable the reader to check the statement as easily as possible (that is why we use things like ISBN and publisher information). Linking to a biography article, and then having to read that and all its external links is.. awful. User:Krator (t c) 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. The Swales' work isn't published in a journal. It is a report to a government body. Wikiant (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

May I point out, that's not a problem? What User:Krator just wrote is precisely the sort of detail I was asking for when I wanted to know what was wrong; it suggests what to do to fix it, while "just delete it" isn't actually constructive. But eventually I found out what appeared to be your objection and addressed it. Now you have another objection. Where faxfn was coming from was the idea of pushing policy, sure. That was precisely my own idea in my own articles (which I have not used as references precisely so as to avoid this sort of conflict of opinion). But so what? There is a reputable economist who has carried out modelling and made his results available. It doesn't become invalid or incorrect because it was not done as formal academic work. Sure, vested interests might make for presenting incorrect or unsound work - but on the one hand, that is what people can check if they care, and on the other hand, verifiability isn't about the truth of the position, only about whether the position is "out there". One might as well object to having an article on the Flat earth society on the grounds that the earth isn't flat. And why the long delay before objecting? I had just reached the point where I could draft similar edits for other articles over our Australian long weekend. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries

I'm curious here, why is special interest given to N.America and especially Australia & NZ?--128.240.229.3 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O

My opinion is that since Kim Swales is a Professor of Economics, she can be cited on here. Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He, actually. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The entry requesting third-party opinion has not been removed. Have you taken on this case, or are you offering opinion? If the former, please address the criticisms in the talk page. Simply saying, "Swales is a Professor of Economics" isn't adequate. Among mainstream economics journals, a formal review process exists. It doesn't matter whether or not one is a professor -- if one's work does not pass the review process, it doesn't get published. Wikiant (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...okay, I saw this on Third Opinion too, and I'm inclined to think that the other contributors are missing the point of the dispute: whether Swales' work is proper to include in the article. Never mind citation styles and rules - of course Swales can and should be cited if used, but should the passage be included at all?

I'm inclined to agree with Wikiant here and say that the passage should be at the Kim Swales article, and not here. Arguing that labor should be subsidized for social reasons is nothing new, but Swales seems to say that it'd be win-win and would make economic sense with the only tradeoff being a general tax that Swales doesn't think would be much concern at all. I'm not an economist, but to my amateur understanding this is outside the mainstream of economic thought.

For what it's worth, the general tax is already in place in the EC, and this sort of thing - Pigovian subsidies - has been mainstream since the 1920s, which is why I provided that link. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.53.20 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but if this paper wasn't peer-reviewed, then that makes it all the more likely that this isn't a majority opinion among economists (yet?). SnowFire (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, this moves the problem back one. How can someone looking at this (sub)topic be told about the stuff in question? It's not a good thing to have the information somewhere else with nothing about it here. Even if something should be moved to that page, there still has to be something here - and that was precisely what I tried first time around, with just a short sentence and a link to Kim Swales. But tyhat was objected to. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the third-opinion, I am removing the Swales reference. If there is to be any further discussion, it should probably occur at the next level of dispute resolution. Wikiant (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall do precisely that, unless we can sort something else out first, particularly since you have also removed my disagreement at Wikipedia:Third_opinion, which was different to yours. Suppose the main material went into Kim Swales; what would you feel an adequate entry would be under this subtopic? What I am after is enough coverage here that people know about that part of his work just from coming here. Something like "See also Kim Swales" wouldn't achieve that. Please, I am asking for assistance, not "don't do it". I also want finality, not a delay long enough to lead me to suppose it was OK, followed by yet another objection. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.53.20 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion is occurring at User talk:Wikiant. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.30.201 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That discussion does not belong on my page. I am copying the discussion below. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether the technique is a viable alternative to minimum wage is irrelevant. Within the body of minimum wage research, the technique appears to represent a minority viewpoint because the technique is not described anywhere among the thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on the minimum wage. Thus, it is not appropriate for the technique to be referenced on minimum wage but it is appropriate for the technique to be referenced on Kim Swales. Wikiant (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice you were changing the subject? I answered your objection about whether it was an opinion or not, and you switched to objecting that its viability was irrelevant. So it is, although that is not what you objected to just before and I have never for one moment claimed that in support of it going in, let alone just there above (in other words, it is a straw man). What is relevant is that it is an alternative, and that is just precisely what that subtopic is for. Since it is not a minimum wage thing as such, naturally it won't appear among the articles you want it to be in. You might as well insist that an article on physics appear in a chemistry journal. I would certainly not have considered putting it in minimum wage if someone else hadn't already put in a subtopic about alternatives - and something has to go there, or people will never find their way to the material. Quite simply, it will be worse at the job of an encyclopaedia. You didn't address that side of things at all. Again, I ask you to suggest what sort of wording you would accept; I have in mind going back to something like the original, since the detail is now at Kim Swales. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Brainwashing the poor into believing that they are wealthy is also an alternative. The question is: Has the proposed alternative appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, then the alternative (IMO and the third-party negotiator's) represents a minority opinion and does not belong in the minimum wage article. Wikiant (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are again talking past each other again. Of course there is a minority opinion - but about the policy, not the technique. I have no intention of covering anything but the technique, and I am asking you for suggestions about how to do that, i.e. how to put in something that refers to the technique and lets people find the detail - the job of an encyclopaedia. From my reading of the third-party negotiator's comment, he or she was against it being in the article as it was an alternative and/or that using subsidies this way is not mainstream (but conceded being an amateur), and did not object that this material itself was a minority opinion, just that this use of subsidies in general was. But that objection falls, because there is a subtopic about alternatives and because Pigovian subsidies have actually been mainstream since the 1920s (they fell out of fashion with Ronald Coase's work but are now being revived by the likes of the Pigou Club). Furthermore, a peer-reviewed journal article is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the technique not to be a minority opinion. We can see that it is a matter of fact and not of opinion from two things, that research has been done and - in something like ten years - nothing has come up to rebut let alone refute it. Please make suggestions about how to move forward. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.30.201 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the technique belongs in the "alternatives" section, no problem. Just find peer-reviewed sources that describe the technique. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should we apply this narrower test than those the wikipedia standards require? I have already met those, and furthermore you have been changing your position each time I address the grounds you present (I long ago demonstrated that this wasn't ego-spam, for instance). P.M.Lawrence 203.194.54.27 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Outsourcing and cost of operation

Something completely ignored by this article is the effect of a minimum wage on loss of manufacturing jobs and the outsourcing of service jobs able to be conducted by phone or internet to other countries with lower wages.--Loodog (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[1][http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32895][2]--Loodog (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Santa Monica

I remember reading and watching news reports on how the City Council of Santa Monica, California had required businesses making over 5 million a year to pay all employees more than twelve dollars an hour. The law caused economic problems and was eventually repealed but I think if someone wanted to sort through old news articles online it definitely warrants mention, since it provides an example of what happens with the most extreme examples of minimum wage laws. I checked online but most of the news articles I found predated the law, I would say a good source should have to be from after the laws repeal, doing a final analysis of the impact of the law. Monsuco (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Reference

Reference #7, used four times, doesn't support the statements with which it is used. It is a general index page to EPI's minimum wage information. If some of that information actually supports the claims in the article, it should be referenced directly instead of through a general index page. Lou Sander (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is a neutrality tag on the article, but no discussion of it on this page. I don't see any lack of neutrality. I propose waiting a day or two for some justification, and if none appears, deleting the tag. Lou Sander (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but I do think there's a bit of myopia reflected in the article. It seems to imply a connection from "minimum wages cause unemployment" to "minimum wages are bad". I don't see any discussion of more creative alternate positions, like, "It's better to be unemployed (and flagged for government intervention and/or retraining) than to be trapped forever in miserable underemployment." (I think that America in particular probably has a lot of nominal employment that does not provide a decent quality of life.) That's just my personal attempt; surely there are some scholarly opinions out there that consider why a minimum wage might be good despite the fairly obvious connection with unemployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.208.179.163 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pursuing this argument, let's suppose that (1) there is no minimum wage and the going wage rate is $5 per hour, and (2) it is better to be unemployed than to hold a $5 per hour job. Were this true, then workers would choose not to work. Hence, firms would be forced either to raise wages or go out of business. Hence, the minimum wage is superfluous. In short, if not working is a better solution, the free market will generate the solution. The minimum wage fails because precisely because it prevents freedom of choice. Wikiant (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not follow logically. It might be true that for the individual, they'd rather pick the $5 job ... but it might simultaneously be true that the presence of $5/hour jobs masks labor market problems: and because those problems are masked, there's less pressure on the government to do something about them. Alternately, one might set forth an argument about inequalities between employers and employees in terms of bargaining power. (E.g., it's a nuisance to replace an employee but disastrous to lose your job.) The minimum wage acts as a floor to prevent this inequality from driving wages too far down. (Purist economics is elegant, but it ignores the basic fact of power relationships.) But my point is not so much these arguments specifically as it is that I suspect the literature hasn't been checked thoroughly enough. At present, it pretty much just says, "The only reason to favor a minimum wage is because one is stupid." --219.208.179.163 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to jump in here, but am restrained since this is not a discussion forum. I've never seen the IP poster's point made. There are other possible arguments that minimum wage can be good even if it does cause unemployment, but I'm not immediately recalling any good references. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the {{pov-check}} tag based on the description. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to see if there was any reason to consider this non-NPOV. I do think that this article would benefit from some research into opposing viewpoints -- this was my main point, that the article's silence about such arguments does raise some POV concerns. That said, I don't disagree with pulling the tag; it smacks more of "natural" incompleteness than a positive bias. --219.208.179.163 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with finding opposing viewpoints is that they will (almost) always lack any basis in economic theory -- very much akin to finding opposing views to evolution. You will find plenty of disagreement among economists as to the magnitude of the effects of minimum wage and under what conditions those effects might be enhanced or mitigated. But those discussions will tend to require the reader to have more of a background in economic theory than should be expected in an article of this sort. Wikiant (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,I'm the person who put the tag on in the first place.Silly me,didn't mention it here!

But the article does seem non-npov to me,there's a lot of "minimum wage is bad" stuff,which I don't think should belong in this article,nor are things praising it. This article should be neutral,and it seems biased to me.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem biased to me, but how things "seem" to us, and how we "feel" about things aren't what encyclopedias are about. There actually IS broad consensus among economists about the negative effects of the minimum wage. Lou Sander (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs citations, if so. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinna

Just wondering -- the U.S. minimum wage is $6.55 per hour, or $52.40 per 8-hour day. What if the far-off country of Chinna had no minimum wage, and workers there earned only $1.00 per 14-hour day? Would it be possible that a few U.S. jobs would move overseas to Chinna? Lou Sander (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but that's only part of the story. The Chinese would then be producing the good more cheaply than the Americans and so American consumers gain because they can now purchase the same good at a lower cost. When they purchase from the Chinese, the Chinese now have US dollars that they use to buy things from the Americans -- thereby creating US jobs. So, US jobs aren't lost, they are shifted from one US industry (one in which the US is not competitive) to another (one in which the US is competitive). (PS: This is a great question, but should be posted on the Humanities page. Wikiant (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what good would those lower cost Chinnese goods be for the Americans whose jobs went overseas? I guess they could spend their idle time walking through Wal-Mart and wishing they could afford to buy cheap Chinnese television sets. Lou Sander (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) (And it's Chinna, not China. This is completely hypothetical, and no offense to any nationality is intended.)

Clearly, it would be bad for the Americans whose jobs went overseas, but it would be good for the Americans whose jobs were created by the corresponding Chinese demand for US goods. This game isn't one of China vs. US -- it is one of one US industry vs. another. Here's an example: Removing tariffs on steel destroys steel jobs in Pittsburgh but creates tire jobs in North Carolina (one of the more expensive components of tires is steel). (PS: Only one "n" in China) Wikiant (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there IS only one "n" in China. But as explained at the end of my last post, this is a hypothetical example, not intended to indict, impugn, or offend any country, society, or culture. RTFP, and PLEASE don't inadvertently pin any of our economic misery on any specific group of people. (Also, I have no information about wages or employment practices in China, and if I did, I wouldn't want to get into any big discussions about it.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC) ;-) <-- That is a smiley face, indicating a certain amount of lightheartedness.

Please, y'all. Remember, this is not a forum. A controversial topic like this can easily attract a lot of debate on the talk page, which won't be likely to help the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Plus, anybody whose job moves to Chinna can get a customer support job in the booming high-tech sector of the economy. The only downside is that they have to move to low-cost-of-living places like Inndia or The Philllipppines. I am going to shut up now. Lou Sander (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive discussion in intro?

Reading this article seems a bit awkward because after the first paragraph, the intro drops straight down into the discussion amongst economists about its effects. I propose moving the whole second paragraph down into the "Minimum_wage#Economics_of_the_minimum_wage" section and expanding the intro with a bit more light history; possibly touching on the fact that there is some discussion and reference the economics section. What do you think? —Memotype::T 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much economics in the intro, and that it belongs down below. The last three sentences are probably worth keeping up there, if augmented by a bit of explanation. They are the ones that say "Supporters claim...," "Opponents claim,..." and "Both assert...," (but not in that order). Lou Sander (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)