Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 7

Neumark and Wascher

Ever since findings from their book were included in this article (apart from simply mentioning the authors, the first addition of their results, I believe, was made here), it has been stated that Neumark and Wascher had analyzed over 300 studies. Later it was added, that these studies were covering a period of over 50 years. However, in the introduction of their book the authors state: "This book describes the findings of nearly two decades of research on minimum wages. It synthesizes and presents the evidence we have accumulated across nearly thirty research papers and provides a comprehensive discussion of other research that touches on the same questions we have considered, as well as on other topics central to the debate over minimum wages."

Can anyone please point me to the pages of the book that provide evidence for the claim of "300 papers" and "over 50 years"? 77.186.12.118 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This claim is probably based on the references section of the book (pages 335-357). I haven't counted exactly, but I estimate somewhere between 300 and 400 references are given. A quick check shows that this includes Stigler's 1946 paper, so that can count as "over 50 years". (I interpret the 'nearly thirty' above as papers they've written themselves.) Colin zr (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. No such claim should be made unless the claims has already been made in a reliable source. Counting references given is unreliable, and it's OR to boot. LK (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Time for good article reconsideration?

The article has been stable for quite some time now, has an illustration, and is well verified; it seems to me that it meets the qualifications for good article status. Do others agree? If so, what is the process? Academic38 (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable to suggest that this article is in any way "good". It is stable only because many capable and knowledgeable editors will not touch it. In fact, some academics at CU use it as an illustration of the weaknesses of Wikipedia as a serious reference work. This discussion page itself is a good example of the foolishnes that can reign in the Wiki world. 174.16.215.88 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to make a substantive answer? While it is certainly true that Wikipedia is not reliable enough (I don't let my students use it as a source), you don't actually point to a single thing that is wrong with the article. One of the editors who has contributed quite a bit to this article is a well-known Australian economist writing under his real name, John Quiggin. Princeton University Press apparently considers him capable and knowledgeable, since it published his last book. Academic38 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready for good article consideration. However, to check, we should put this article up at peer review first. This I have done. LK (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,LK. Academic38 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kim Swales argument

I am Geoff Beacon and I have just come across an archive discussion in Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 04.

I think the moderator gave Peter Lawrence an unnessarily hard time: "I can see only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam." The "non-peer reviewed article" was a report that was commissioned by the European Commission.

I was aware that Wikipedia had become more prone to credentialism but this case highlights a problem - it is difficult for a non-academic with a bright idea like Peter Lawrence to get anything published - let alone with peer review. They must reference academic work to make perferctly sensible and obvious ideas credible to policy makers.

But the idea he references is so ******* obvious that it shouldn't need any reference - subsidise labour at the bottom end of the labour market (That is where unemployment hits!) and the poor find jobs and get paid more. Obvious to taxi drivers and that "man on the clapham omnibus". I should know I have been asking them since the late sixties. I wasn't until sometime in the eighties, when I met Kim Swales, that I found an academic enconomist that got the point.

He agreed to follow up the idea an we got funding from the European Commission to work on the report referenced by Peter Lawrence. Kim and Darren Holden did an excellent job of improving previous work that actually was peer reviewed. (Beacon, G. and Monk, P., "Employment Creation with Very Large Scale Labour Subsidies", Northern Economic Review, No. 15, Summer, 1987.)

I started with this proposal in 1969 and have had decades of brush-offs but with few sensible suggestions from academics. The standard response was "X has done work on that" but they never had. Even Nicholas Kaldor seemed to forget he had made a similar proposal in the 1930s and replied with a reference to his book "An expenditure tax".

I suppose the moderator was a academic economist.

Want to argue whether utility is denumerable or non-denumerable?

Could Is Wikipedia too credentialist be a new topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.19.40 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

This one seems to be an opinion, rather than something that is obviously a disadvantage:

* Encourages the automation of industry.[44] DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would this be an opinion? A min-wage raises the relative cost of low-skill labor to capital (machinery). This incentivizes firms to substitute away from labor and into capital. This is basic isocost/isoquant curve analysis and seems completely obvious to me. The obvious parallel layman's argument would be that if the US raised the min-wage to $15 per hour, McDonalds would invest in consumer operated registers (like self-checkout machines at the grocery store). 99.3.163.55 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit by 77.42.151.31; is this in Oxford Dictionary of Economics or something just slipped in?

77.42.151.31 made the last substantive edit to the article that was not reverted (I agree with Lou's reversion, BTW), but it seems a little squirrely to me. He/she added in a new negative argument, but no new source. It's possible that claim is also in the Oxford Dictionary of Economics, but as I don't have a copy I am not in a position to judge. Could someone who has it check? Thanks in advance. Academic38 (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

citation 11

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/blogs/and-rightly-so.asp

is completely trash , in fact this entire article appears to be one big libertarian wet dream — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.166.41 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of Economics citation in the lead

The connections of claims to references in the two lead paragraphs became corrupted over time. I've corrected the material in the second paragraph so it accurately represents what is stated in the citation from Oxford.

There is no reference currently in the first paragraph, but that paragraph seems to me to be accurate and noncontroversial. I kind of recall that there WAS a good reference for it at one time. It probably could be found by looking through the History, but I don't have time right now to do it myself. Lou Sander (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Economics says nothing whatsoever about the material in the first paragraph of this article. Yet an editor reverts an edit that correctly removed ODE as a source, making the ODE the reference for the entire paragraph. One wonders why this happens. I will remove this paragraph's false and misleading reference to the ODE, and will vigilantly resist efforts to re-insert it.

An editor also makes significant changes to the second paragraph, adding material that does not appear in the ODE, and falsely attributing that material to that impeccable source. I scratch my head over what to do about such misrepresentation. Lou Sander (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Labour tag

Somebody recently added a tag indicating that this article is part of a series on Organized Labour. Looking at the box produced by the tag, this article is NOT a part of that series.

Thinking about the matter, it doesn't seem that this article ought to be part of that series: the minimum wage is a legitimate concern of organized labour, and organized labour often advocates for it, but it isn't connected to them in the same mainstream way that the other subjects in the box are. Lou Sander (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Milton Friedman not really for the basic income

In the citation given in the article under the section headed “Alternatives” under sub-section headed “Basic Income”, it states that Milton Friedman is in support of the principle of the basic income. However, Friedman wasn’t explicitly for the addition of this program. He was only for this program if it was included along with the reduction or elimination of the current welfare programs. He says, "The negative income tax would be a satisfactory reform of our present welfare system only if it replaces the host of other specific programs that we now have. It would do more harm than good if it simply became another rag in the ragbag of welfare programs.” p.122 ^ Friedman, Milton; Rose Friedman (1990). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Harcourt. pp. 122. ISBN 0-15-633460-7. Citation #90 (I am referring to the citation already given within the article).

As Milton Friedman is a free-market economist, and the basic income or negative income tax is somewhat a non-free-market principle, I suggest that it is clarified that Milton Friedman was not coming out explicitly in favor of the negative income tax, but in favor of using it as a substitute to the massive entitlement welfare programs that already exist. I haven’t done the research yet, but I would venture to bet that F.A. Hayek was not explicitly in favor of adding this system either as it is written in the article.

Could someone help with this discussion or help to clarify/edit the article please? I would edit the article, but I am unfamiliar with the editorial process and would not want to offend anyone within the community by making a change that is not agreed upon. 69.243.45.181 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon some further research, I have found that a good explanation of Friedman’s views were on the Negative income tax article. Is it possible to include the description of Friedman’s views in the negative income tax page as a distinct category within the “Alternatives” section of the Minimum wage article?

It says, "One model was proposed by Milton Friedman, as part of his flat tax proposals. In this version, a specified proportion of unused deductions or allowances would be refunded to the taxpayer. If, for a family of four the amount of allowances came out to $10,000, and the subsidy rate was 50% (the rate recommended by Friedman), and the family earned $6,000, the family would receive $2,000, because it left $4,000 of allowances unused, and therefore qualifies for $2,000, half that amount. Friedman feared that subsidy rates as high as those would lessen the incentive to obtain employment. He also warned that the negative income tax, as an addition to the "ragbag" of welfare and assistance programs, would only worsen the problem of bureaucracy and waste. Instead, he argued, the negative income tax should immediately replace all other welfare and assistance programs on the way to a completely laissez-faire society where all welfare is privately administered. The negative income tax has come up in one form or another in Congress, but Friedman opposed it because it came packaged with other undesirable elements antithetical to the efficacy of the negative income tax. Friedman preferred to have no income tax at all, but said he did not think it was politically feasible at that time to eliminate it, so he suggested this as a less harmful income tax scheme”

In my opinion, this would be far more descriptive of his beliefs than simply saying he was in support of a basic income scheme and would further illuminate some other perspectives within the minimum wage article. 69.243.45.181 (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

One viewpoint is missing from article: worker is also an consumer

Workers are also consumers. Letting wages go down means letting demand for products&services go down. --Pasixxxx (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing this in relation to this article's topic? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)