Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent Changes and Added Studies

I've attempted to add and/or flesh out sections subsequent to Card and Krueger to show that the debate is still ongoing within the field. I removed the section on Reactions section, which essentially lacked any substantive rebuttals/affirmations on the evidence or methodology. I took out a bit on the 2008 study by Neumark because it's already addressed a few paragraphs above.

This article still needs a lot of work (to start with, the section on meta-analysis appears to need some tone fixes,) but I'm afraid a complete overhaul is a little beyond my abilities.

12.208.4.65 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is tons of information missing from the following papers:

Dube, Lester, and Reich (2010) "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties" The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010, 92(4): 945–964

Allegretto, Dube, and Reich (2011) "Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data" Industrial Relations, Vol. 50, No. 2 pg 205-240

Hirsch, Kaufman, Zelenska (November 2011) "Minimum Wage Channels of Adjustment" Discussion Paper No. 6132 ITZ

Schmitt, John (February 2013) published "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?" Center for Economic and Policy Research--216.31.124.188 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dube, Lester, and Reich (2010) is cited in footnote 52, they're just not mentioned by name in the article. 12.208.4.65 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Further application of the methodology used by Card and Krueger by other researchers yielded results similar to their original findings, across additional data sets." That sentence is so vague you could slap the other three papers as references and call it a day.

"First, minimum wages may simply have no effect on employment... Second, minimum wage effects might exist, but they may be too difficult to detect and/or are very small." That is a quote straight from Dube, Lester, and Reich (2010) WHERE IS THAT in this article, hmm?--

While we are at it where is the FACT that "Calculated in real 2012 dollars, the 1968 minimum wage was the highest at $10.51." (Oregon State University anth484 online reference) in the article?--216.31.124.161 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information about first country to have minimum wage

It says Australia in the first Paragraph, but then further down it says New Zealand. Reference material also supports New Zealand (http://www.reference.com/browse/minimum+wage?s=ts) Willuknight (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The information has been updated with a reference. Guest2625 (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New analysis worthy of consideration

“The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments.” Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics by Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West. NBER Working Paper No. 19262. Issued in August 2013 [2] DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Consider

I find the discussion of Card and Kruger, and subsequent developments, to be lacking. In particular I would reference:

Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics Vol. 3, No 1–2 (2007) 1–182 �c 2007 D. Neumark and W. L. Wascher DOI: 10.1561/0700000015 Minimum Wages and Employment David Neumark1 and William L. Wascher2

Revisiting the Minimum Wage-Employment Debate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater? IZA DP No. 7166 January 2013 David Neumark J.M. Ian Salas William Wascher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxparrish (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Add hyperlink to pdf of citation

Can someone add the pdf for "States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth " http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTsams (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Labour series

I removed the "Labour Series" tag from the Basic income section, since it is not a part of that series. This tag was questioned some time ago, with no response for many months. The question is now part of Archive 7. Lou Sander (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

• This section is repeated from Archive 7, due to the recent comment. Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

I believe the opinion s/he is identifying is "automation is a disadvantage." One might believe that encouraging automation is an advantage. The article currently states that one original intent of the American minimum wage was to eliminate less automated production methods in the South that relied on low wage labor. Zubon (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also this:

• Increased job growth and creation.

The two given sources merely mentioned correlation between minimum wages and job growth. Correlation is not causation so this could be misleading and I have removed this point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.

References

Minimum Wage Affected

There are no definitions of this concept on the internet that I can easily find, maybe it should go here. Jdblick (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

No wonder this wasn't nominated as a good article. Wiki articles SHOULD NOT READ like a damn forum thread!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John11235813 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes by Guest2625

Guest2625 will need to explain these changes – [3]. Why is the theory propounded by Card and Krueger (which is more suitable for their section) been moved back to the section on the theory of "supply and demand"? It doesn't make sense to me. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Monopsony and minimum wage is not some economic theory that is specific to Card and Kreuger. It was proposed long before Card and Krueger's work and is a standard economic theory that is taught in mainstream economics textbooks. That is why I added reference [40]. Please take a look at the reference. Here is a link to that textbook reference. Guest2625 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the characterization of the "monopsony" and "minimum wage" issue as a part of some "modern" economic theory is an accurate description. Is there a school of "modern economics" that is somehow differentiated from the vanilla supply-and-demand "textbook" economics? There is no way I can access that particular text-book on economics, so can you please produce some evidence that is publicly available and categorically establishes what "modern economic theory" says? Interesting that you use an arbitrary term "modern" to describe a particular theory that throws around vague terms such as "excessive" and "reasonable" while the traditional supply and demand model is relegated to the status of "textbook" (meaning simplistic?) economics. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

More Pros and Cons

Under cons, information regarding the living wage needs to be included because a con of minimum wage law is that it is less than the living wage. For example, in the US a person working full-time for the minimum wage earns $15,080 a year which is below the living wage. The living wage is composed of seven parts: housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, taxes, and necessities. This results in a con for minimum wage laws because it is not providing enough to survive.

Under cons, a reason for being against minimum wage laws would be a lower level of skill acquisition and little to no further education completed. This means that people will be forced to work minimum wage jobs instead of moving up due to the fact they have no skills and no education.

Under cons, one example is "Hurts small business more than large business". A recent study found that 61% of small business employers favor the minimum wage. Sklar,Holly. "St Louis Post Dispatch: Holly Sklar, Small Businesses Want Minimum Wage Increase." Business for a Fair Minimum Wage. N.p.,n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Under pros, it is said that the minimum wage reduces poverty. Statistics and factual information needs to be added because according to other sources minimum wage is not effective at alleviating poverty. Kosteas, Vasilios D. "Minimum Wage." Encyclopedia of World Poverty. Ed. M. Odekon.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2006. 719-21. SAGE knowledge. Web.

Suene34 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The citation you give for the 61% study just refers to an opinion article in a newspaper, and the author of that article fails to properly cite or really give any information at all regarding the supposed study. And even if you could find the actual study, a survey of opinions does not disprove a falsifiable statement.

But regardless of that, the way the article is currently structured, the Pro and Con section merely lists arguments made by supporters and opponents, many of which are mutually exclusive. The place to discuss the accuracy of those arguments is in the other sections. I'm not necessarily a fan of this structure, but it is the structure we currently have, and changing it would probably require a substantial rewrite. If all you're interested in doing is addressing specific arguments in the pro/con section, then those edits shouldn't be made within the section for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.24.19 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add only relevant critiques

So, apparently someone went in and added a bunch of "However" weasel rebuttals to some of the recent studies. There's nothing wrong with addressing all sides of the argument, but don't add a contrary statement supported by nothing but a bunch of news articles editorializing. I cleaned up the one that was actually relevant and tried to properly represent (in a short fashion) what the much longer blog post said regarding the story. The "references" that were either ad hominem attacks on the authors or general criticisms of minimum wage opponents in general were removed. 12.208.4.65 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FDR quote

The quote from FDR at the end of the History section, though it seems to be properly sourced, appears without any discussion, and is therefore IMHO unencyclopedic. Also it powerfully expresses the non-neutral point of view that it is improper to pay less than living wages. I propose to delete it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the quote. There is already one quote in the section, and for information and layout, two quotes is not necessary. Guest2625 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Classical model

The classical Land/Labour/Capital analysis of the minimum wage actually gives quite a sensible explanation of why the minimum wage causes unemployment in some cases but not in others. It would be worth adding to the article. Anybody know where we might get references for it? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor recently claimed that increased employment is a benefit of the minimum wage. The references do not say that. They merely say that in some cases, an increase in minimum wage was accompanied by an increase in employment. No causality was implied, and the references caution against it. Lou Sander (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous editor recently removed some properly sourced material by George Stigler, claiming, without sourcing, that it is outdated and discredited. I have reverted the edit, pending some reliably sourced support for those claims. Lou Sander (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricardo material

David Ricardo, the economist of 18th century who advocated against the interference of legislation in market mechanism also acknowledged the concept of minimum wages (a contemporary term to Ricardo’s ‘natural prices’). Ricardo's The Principles of Political Economy and Taxationmentions, “LABOUR, like all other things which are purchased and sold, and which may be increased or diminished in quantity, has its natural price and its market price. The natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race. While, the market price of labour is the price which is really paid for it, from the natural operation of the proportion of the supply to the demand.”

References

I have placed the above nonsourced material that was placed in the article last week here on the talk page. --Guest2625 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Minimum wage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130907002313/http://www.davidson.edu/academic/economics/foley/eco324_s06/Neumark_Wascher%20AER%20(2000).pdf to http://www.davidson.edu/academic/economics/foley/eco324_s06/Neumark_Wascher%20AER%20(2000).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Brown's comment on this article

Dr. Brown has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is a good coverage of a big field, but is rather USA centred. It would be appropriate, for example, to have a comment on the very extensive and authoritative UK evidence on the impact of its National Minimum Wage since 1999. Richard Dickens would be good on that as a current academic member of the Low Pay Commission which sets it. In the theoretical section it would be helpful to summarise the argument (used at times by the UK Low Pay Commission) that the major sources of productivity growth of less-skilled labour are demand-side determined - that is, labour productivity owes more to how well it is trained, managed and equipped, so that gradual increases in the minimum wage relative to average wages encourage employers to manage better and raise productivity. Since most product markets for minimum wage labour are unaffected by international competition, and many are (as the note says) relatively price-inelastic, economies can manage substantial increases in minimum wages without employment loss provided they are both gradual and enforced (in order to maintain employer credibility).

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Brown has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Brown, W., 2002. "The Operation of the Low Pay Commission," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0223, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Schnabel's comment on this article

Dr. Schnabel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Sometimes too much focused on the US; the introduction of minimum wages in the UK and Germany also offer interesting insights, as does the (bad) experience of France.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Schnabel has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Brenzel, Hanna & Gartner, Hermann & Schnabel, Claus, 2013. "Wage Posting or Wage Bargaining? Evidence from the Employers' Side," IZA Discussion Papers 7624, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Minimum wages and Living wages

I just removed this recent addition as it appears fringey, and I'm sure that some of the refs are being used incorrectly. Discussion please. LK (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. In some cases the minimum wage can be lower than cost of living (living wage), in this scenario, and instead of gaining money, workers loose money every month that work for a company, and employees decay in a poverty trap, and governments become servants to banks while force minimal wage workers (the biggest proportion of workers) to increasing loans and credit request whit high interest rates in order to subsist converting them initially in poor workers since them subsist bellow the poverty line since they have an income deficit and at the end they loose their houses by foreclosure when taken by banks or lenders and they become homelessness. To avoid those scenarios minimum wage should be over the living wage line.

IMHO the whole thing is very weak and not worth trying to save. Lou Sander (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Countries without minimum wage

There's a section "Countries without minimum wage" on Minimum wage in the United States that seems misplaced there, but could fit here. Ablaut490 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at Talk:Minimum wage in the United States#Section "Countries without minimum wage" seems misplaced here. Please discuss there rather than here so we only have one discussion ongoing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of view"

The (controversial) claim that "progressives" enacted minimum wages laws to hurt the South is not supported by the article. It is instead claiming that the progressive movement was based on bigotry. Yet, the civil rights movement supported minimum wage laws.

This is obviously a heavily biased source from a "conservative think tank".

The phrase in the text containing this issue is:

was intentionally set at a high, national level to render low-technology, low-wage factories in the South obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingfractal (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Religious Classification

Where in this article should the religious support of the minimum wage be added, toward the bottom or the top? Also, there may be a special tax designation for religious supporters of the minimum wage in countries which support religious minorities. Should be here but need to know where to place in article. Please advise. 24.176.43.70 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minimum wage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111120719/http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203440104574402820278669840 to https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203440104574402820278669840
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/economy/employment/national-minimum-wage/national-minimum-wage-%24366581.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Minimum wage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114075901/http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/28013/history-of-the-uk-s-minimum-wage.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/28013/history-of-the-uk-s-minimum-wage.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119120419/http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/rbo/Assessment.pdf to http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/rbo/Assessment.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622155415/http://www.risep-fiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FL-Minimum-Wage.pdf to http://www.risep-fiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FL-Minimum-Wage.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084704/http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/report/pdf/DTi-Min_Wage.pdf to http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/report/pdf/DTi-Min_Wage.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025024423/http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/qanda to http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/qanda
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108090912/http://www.epionline.org/studies/epi_minimumwage_07-2007.pdf to http://epionline.org/studies/epi_minimumwage_07-2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717034550/http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/livingwages/americaneedsaraise.cfm to http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/livingwages/americaneedsaraise.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707030847/http://showmeinstitute.org/docLib/20070411_smi_study_2.pdf to http://showmeinstitute.org/docLib/20070411_smi_study_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Simple" and "Basic" models

These terms "simple" and "basic" describing the economic models are not a neutral point of view - it implies that economics is not an effective science in explaining the economy, and there is no source given.

I have removed the "simple" term and recommend the removal of all "basic" descriptions with regards to the models.

If you have a source saying these models are ineffective because they're too "simple" or "basic" then please provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agreed1179 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Research Section could use some re-org and addition

The research section currently has an entire sub-section for Card and Kreuger. While that study was certainly popular in the press, it had relatively small influence to economists. I would recommend that the section to better align with the rest of the article into sections by findings. IE: "Disemployment Effect, labor reorganization effect, no observable effects, etc"

C&K would definitely fit into that list reference category, but there is a far more detailed discussion in economics about the effect than just "it has an effect" vs K&C.

Any objections or thoughts?

Squatch347 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased!

This article is biased, which ought to be a no-no. The bias can be seen clearly just from the table of contents:

3 Economic models

   3.1 Supply and demand model
   3.2 Monopsony
   3.3 Criticisms of the supply and demand model

So, criticism of one model, but not the other? One is left to conclude that Monopsony is God-given and above criticism. How is this even-handed? If there is no reputable criticism of Monopsony out there, I'll eat any garment you choose to name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.24.68 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: It took me all of 15 seconds just to find one example of such criticism: https://mises.org/wire/austrian-critique-neo-classical-monopsony-theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.24.68 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Morning, I am the primary recent editor of the monopsony paragraph. While I enjoy Mr. Block's work (I would identify as an austrian as well), I don't think his viewpoint represents mainstream Austrian thought on the issue. Austrians, generally, hold that Monopsony power is the result of market interference and a better solution would be to remove the underlying cause of the monopsony rather than compound it with further interventions. They don't, generally, hold though that the effect described in that section won't happen though so the article is accurate from an austrian perspective. Rather,they argue other, unintended consequences will occur (correctly), but that is beyond this article's scope. It would be difficult to cover this section from an Austrian perspective by elucidating the underlying cause of the monopsony because, as pointed out, we don't have examples of monopsony power in the US (except in some small labor markets, which I pointed out in the monopsony section and pointed out their underlying causes, in line with an austrian or chicago analysis).

To the extent that these policies have unintended consequences as well, I think that that is referenced in the article as well, though I'm open to their being addition in those areas if something is pointed out.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Too US centric

This article is seen from the point of the U.S there is a near consensus in the UK that the minimum wage did not reduce employment levels. Indeed the UK currently has the lowest levels of unemployment ever despite massive increases in the minimum wage in the last few years.

While general unemployment levels are at historic lows, youth unemployment (the primary demographic impacted by minimum wages) are well above 2000 levels, let alone 1990s levels: https://www.statista.com/statistics/280263/youth-unemployment-rate-16-17-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-year-on-year/ Squatch347 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Higher national minimum wage and impact on local relative minimum wage

The relative minimum wage section has been moved from the article and placed on the talk page. The content needs to be properly sourced. As it was originally written, the paragraph did not correctly summarize the research paper. Also, the paragraph as it stands should not have its own section. The section does not focus on relative minimum wages in general and does not give a broad overview. The paragraph focuses on one specific research paper about local relative minimum wages, and how they can be studied to see the impact that a higher national minimum wage will have on different local income regions in the United States. If the paragraph is added to the article, it should be pared down and placed in the "Research subsequent to Card and Krueger's work" section.

Original:

Relative minimum wage is the ratio of the national median wage. This varies from country to country. A higher relative minimum wage means that there is a large gap between the minimum wage of that given area and the national median wage. This occurs in low income areas. The national U.S. national relative wage is about .36, which is the lowest out of any industrialized country. Recent studies have shown that there is evidence to suggest that minimum wage does not increase unemployment, which is contrary to the believe up until the 2000s. Recent studies show that the areas which have a higher national median wage are considered “high impact areas.” High impact meaning that these areas are at a higher risk for minimum wage policy to directly impact that community. In these high impact areas studies show that an increase in minimum wage increases employment, wages, and decreases poverty. These new studies help show how minimum wage can help reduce the gap in low income areas as well as increase the standard of living.[ref]Godoy, Anna. "Minimum Wage Effects in Low Income Areas" (PDF). Institute for Research Labor and Employment. Retrieved 28 October 2019.[/ref]

Revised:

Relative minimum wage is the ratio of the national minimum wage to median wage. This varies from country to country. A larger local relative minimum wage means that there is a smaller gap between the median wage of that given area and the national minimum wage. This occurs in low income areas. The U.S. national relative wage is about .36, which is the lowest out of any industrialized country. There is evidence to suggest that minimum wage does not increase unemployment, which is contrary to the believe up until the 2000s. Areas which have lower local median wages are considered “high impact areas.” High impact means that these areas are at a higher risk for minimum wage policy to directly impact that community. In these high impact areas, an increase in minimum wage increases wages and decreases poverty. Minimum wage can help reduce the gap in low income areas as well as increase the standard of living.[1] [non-primary source needed]

Thank you for contributing to wikipedia. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, good editing. I'm not so sure this paragraph can be saved. It introduces a completely new (and frankly non-standard) concept (relative minimum wage related to median wage) to the page. That concept would need its own explanation and sourcing I think. Also agree with the lack of secondary sources detailing the topic. I think that might be because the original source is more of a advocacy group than anything else. There is a reason that this paper wasn't published anywhere imo. Squatch347 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of the content of the paragraph could most probably be saved. The main problem with the paragraph is that it is in the wrong section and too long. It should be in the section with the results of current research. The referenced source is not an advocacy group. The two researchers on the paper are from the labor economics department in UC Berkeley. Michael Reich is a very well respected labor economist. Relative minimum wage is a very old concept. The last section in this wikipedia article in fact provides relative minimum wages for the different OECD countries for different years.

The study in a nutshell looks at the effect of a high minimum wage in low income regions (i.e. high impact regions). This is accomplished by studying the wage and employment levels in local counties with relatively high minimum wage to median wage, in comparison to the wage and employment levels in the other local counties in the US. The study finds that a high minimum wage causes no significant effect on employment but does cause an increase in wages and a reduction in poverty in low income regions. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside our disagreement on IRLE's status a NPOV RS, this is still a primary source that is a working paper. It isn't even the finalized paper by the authors, nor published in a source reviewed by competent peers. Ideally, we'd want a secondary source so the paragraph isn't our interpretation of what the paper is finding and the paper's relative merits and weaknesses. Squatch347 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we include hedging language for non-peer reviewed inclusions in this article?

There is an ongoing discussion above about several works included on the main page that recieved popular press attention, but were not submitted to academic review, nor published in any journal. I think ideally we wouldn't include sources of that nature in this article, which is more technical in focus, and would rely on peer-reviewed academic work, specificially peer-reviewed secondary sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But at a minimum, we need to include language clarifying that these works recieved no academic review and have recieved some criticism from economists.

However, another editor has argued that retention for retention of the source, arguing that it meets WP:RS guidelines, and does not want any hedging language included for fear of not presenting WP:NPOV.

I'd like to request comments on whether inclusion of this type of work is warranted here, and what the best language to include might be to clarify its relative standing with other academic works a la WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Squatch347 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Define incoherent

The Criticisms section says that various economists claim that the supply / demand analysis of min wage laws is incoherent. Could this comment be a bit more specific? Does the analysis imply incorrectly that different groups that are similar from a supply / demand point of view get markedly different consequences? Or does the analysis imply a bunch of conflicting things about the same group of employers and workers? Or what? As it stands, the remark about incoherence just seems like pointless name-calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Dumping/storing some text and references removed from Seattle's minimum wage ordinance article

This was created by user:UniStudent18. I thought the text was well-worded and the references looked good so I thought it might be of some use in slightly improving THIS article. (I removed it from the Seattle's minimum wage ordinance article because it doesn't belong there.)

According to neoclassical economic theory, the forces of supply and demand will move into equilibrium and determine the market clearing wage in the labour market. At the market clearing wage there is no unemployment as the number of workers seeking employment and the number of jobs being offered by firms are equal. The minimum wage acts a price floor which prevents the market from reaching equilibrium. If the minimum wage exceeds the equilibrium price in the labour market, it will result in an excess in supply of labour as more workers look for employment because they have the opportunity to earn a higher wage. Businesses are also discouraged from employing new workers as higher wages increase their costs. This results in a rise in unemployment as individuals are unable to find employment.

In neoclassical economics it is assumed that firms operate to maximise their profits and that the low skilled labour market is highly competitive. The implementation of a minimum wage above the equilibrium wage will increase the production costs for firms and reduce their profits as it becomes more expensive to pay workers. As firms look to maximise their profits they will reduce their demand for labour and increase their demand for capital. This can reduce employment opportunities for those looking for work in the labour market and result in employed workers being made redundant. This will cause an increase in unemployment.

---Avatar317^(talk) 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Addition of Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics work

CJ Griffin, I saw that you added a reference to the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics work. I'd like to talk about that a bit more if possible, we have addressed that work here on the talk page recently and decided against inclusion for a variety of reasons. The first is that it generally was not well received by other economists, who were critical of its methodology. It also has some POV issues coming from a labor oriented policy center rather than an economics department. Finally, it wasn't actually published anywhere reputable and so definitely cannot be fairly called a study.

More broadly, I think we need to be wary of treating this article like a list of studies for and against the minimum wage. The article should stick to the academic consensus more than highlighting the specific examples of one study or another.

Curious your thoughts on the merit of its inclusion.

A 2018 study from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without hampering job growth.

I did not see any discussion on the study prior to adding it. Accusations of POV aside, it certainly appears to be a WP:RS by my estimation. And the citation is actually a report on the study by a mainstream media source that has no ax to grind on this issue (Bloomberg), and they do refer to it as a "study". If what it says is accurate, why should it not be included in the article? I would argue that it goes against WP:NPOV that only studies which buttress a supposed consensus should be included. Would it be more appropriate in an article which pertains to the Minimum wage in the United States?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you brought up a fair point about the article calling it a study, regardless of whether that is the correct term, you are right that the source references it as such. I definitely don't think we should scrub the page for anything that isn't scientific consensus, but we need to be fair in how we are presenting the state of the evidence. If we really want to do a more holistic survey of the evidence in this article, it would be more appropriate to reference a longitudinal scan of the literature like: http://people.tamu.edu/~jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf

Rather, if we want to include that paper because of its notability (IE it was referenced in a lot of newpaper articles) I think we need to make that criteria more explicit and cover the alternative views by notable economists like David Autor and Jonathan Meer or Forbes' analysis of the paper. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/uc-berkeley-takes-issue-with-seattle-minimum-wage-study/ Or David Neumark of UC Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article29582665.html

In the end it really comes down to what the purpose of this page is about, if it is about the understanding of the minimum wage and its effects by mainstream economics, we need to be wary of using generic media sources in favor of more technically focused sources. If it is about the debate around the minimum wage, I think the paper would definitely be an appropriate fit as it played a large role in that public discussion.

Squatch347 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is the text added. I would like to discuss possible modifications to better reflect the standing of this work in wider economics circles. At a minimum we need to note that this underlying document was never peer reviewed and has been criticized by notable economists (see above). Ideally, we would also note the timing of its work (it began after it was clear the UW study would find negative effects and timed to release before the UW study completed peer review), which is suspect and pretty rushed for any real evaluation of evidence.

The restaurant industry is commonly studied because of its high number of minimum wage workers. A 2018 study from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without hampering job growth. A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business, and broke out results based on the restaurant's rating on the review site Yelp. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants (regardless of the expensiveness of the cuisine) but those with increasingly lower ratings were increasingly likely to go out of business (for example a 14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that the Yelp star rating was correlated with likelihood of minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. The minimum wage increases during this period did not prevent growth in the industry overall – the number of restaurants in San Francisco went from 3,600 in 2012 to 7,600 in 2016. An August 2019 study from The New School's Center for New York City Affairs found that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Modifications would require citing reliable sources, and some critiques you linked to above appear to be right-wing screeds on reactionary websites like California Political Review (I briefly looked at some of the posts on the site, and couldn't help but LOL) or op-eds by pundits (Michael Saltsman) who work for right wing think tanks (Employment Policies Institute, established by Richard Berman of all people). I don't think their opinions reflect any consensus on this issue. I think removing the text for discussion here was inappropriate, and the text should be restored while discussion takes place here. So far you've added nothing in terms of reliable sources to include here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the concerns. You are asking us to include nearly a paragraph of text for a primary sourced, non-peer reviewed work that is criticized by notable economists (see the Sac Bee article, clearly a WP:RS by a Bloomberg Economics contributor referencing David Neumark of UC Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, California Political Review is certain not an unbiased source, but it wasn't presented as one. Rather, it was presented as a quick summary link of several reliable sources; MIT economist David Autor in the Washington Post[4], Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M on a site run by three notable economists [5] or Forbes [6]. Presenting this work as part of the scholarly discussion without noting that it has never been published and has been criticized by notable sources is WP:UNDUE. This article is not a list of individual studies related to the impact of the MW, it is about the general consensus view on its impact, as related by longitudinal literature (http://people.tamu.edu/~jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf), not individual non-peer reviewed publications. Squatch347 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is more than one study being presented in that paragraph, and discussed in notable and reliable secondary sources, making it WP:DUE material. Secondly, the Sac Bee piece you keep pushing was published on July 30, 2015, whereas the UC Berkeley study discussed in the paragraph by Bloomberg was published on September 6, 2018. How does a op-ed from 2015 critique a study published in 2018? If there was such fierce criticism by notable economists of these particular studies (or just the one study from 2018), why is it that the only sources you are presenting here include an outdated op-ed by an associate of the disreputable corporate lobbyist Richard Berman and a political piece posted on a site that apparently promotes conspiracy theories about global warming (among other things)? The study you posted from 2015, while notable, does not seem to reflect any consensus on this issue, and clearly, given the date of revision (2015), does not say anything about the studies in the paragraph. In fact, the very first sentence in this study says there is "little consensus" on the issue of how minimum wage hikes impact employment, even though you are asserting that there is one.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that there were two different "studies" linked. Neither are peer-reviewed, and the latter was from the National Employment Law Project, a notably left of center think tank with no economics bona fidas and three authors, the most tenured of which is an NYU gradstudent that is explicitly pro-minimum wage [7]. Hardly a scholarly source. Again, putting forward two works that couldn't be bothered with Peer Review fails the basics of WP:Scholarship. Citing theses sources as if they were academically equivalent to peer-reviewed work with a large impact factor is borderline negligent. Doing so without noting that they weren't reviewed and met with criticism from economists (MIT economist David Autor in the Washington Post[8], Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M on a site run by three notable economists [9] or Forbes [10]) absolutely meets the standard of WP:UNDUE.

Here is my recommended change to account for the issues I think this paragraph has:

A 2018 working paper from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without detectable effects on job growth.[1] This paper was ciriticized by several economists including Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M and David Autor of MIT for its data limitations and weak statistical power [11], [12], [13] A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business, and broke out results based on the restaurant's rating on the review site Yelp. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants (regardless of the expensiveness of the cuisine) but those with increasingly lower ratings were increasingly likely to go out of business (for example a 14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that those businesses most affected were correlated with likelihood of minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. [2] An August 2019 paper from The National Empoyment Law Project, a pro-minimum wage think tank, claimed that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.[3]

And, again, you present the anachronism of rebutting a 2018 study with sources (mostly op-eds and some piece from Tyler Cowen's libertarian blog MRU that is dressed up as peer-reviewed scholarship) that were published prior to 2018; literally every single one was from 2017. And I see Richard Berman sycophant Michael Saltsman makes another appearance, and without the biased attribution that you give to The National Empoyment Law Project as "a pro-minimum wage think tank." The headline of another op-ed from WaPo's "wonkblog" that you use as a source even includes an attack on "liberals". You lecture me about WP:scholarship and sourcing when you propose to stuff the article full of outdated op-eds? So no, this version, which includes anachronistic rebuttals and biased and uneven attributions, is not acceptable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification, the 2018 date you are citing seems to be based on the news article, which was based on a press release about the updated version of the working paper. The original working paper, and the initial findings were available in 2017, so I'm not sure the date objection holds. As for your other objections, The National Employment Law Project a pro-minimum wage think tank, they hold that as one of their avowed policy positions. Do you have a different recommended adjective for them? We generally attempt to frame the position of think tanks when using them as sources since they aren't bound by strict academic review and, by definition, aren't wp:NPOV. I didn't add an adjective to the Saltsman article because it appears to be published under the Forbes name proper rather than as an externally submitted opinion piece. Happy to add clarification if you can propose some. Finally, I'll note that the WAPO piece isn't from their "wonkblog" the author of the article contributes there as well, rather it is a published article from the Economic Policy section. Poor headline writing aside, you aren't asserting that the Washington Post isn't a WP:RS are you?

I want to get to a version we are both happy with, can you offer some proposed edits to the version below that might address your concern?

I've made a few edits (mostly to clean up language, some to expand on what was found in the work). Squatch347 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A 2018 working paper from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose resulted in higher hourly earnings for workers without detectable effects on job growth rates.[1] This paper was met with some criticism by several economists including Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M and David Autor of MIT for its data limitations and weak statistical power [11], [12], [13], but gained popular attention for its findings that differed from the official City of Seattle study published by the University of Washington. A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business in relation to the restaurant's rating on the review site Yelp. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants, but found an increased likelihood of closure correlated with lower ratings (14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that less expensive restaurants were proportionally more likely to close with an increased minimum wage. The authors noted that those businesses most affected were correlated with minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. [2] An August 2019 paper from The National Empoyment Law Project, a pro-minimum wage think tank, claimed that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.[3]

I object to the sourcing used, and I fail to understand why you can't find articles by these particular economists you wish to include in the article as rebuttals, but only op-eds where another author, usually someone with an agenda like Saltsman et al, cites their opposition to an older study. If you are going to cite these opinion sources, then the text of the body should not read as if you are citing the work of these economists. And I still take issue with the dating of these sources, as the study itself was published in September 2018. That you can't find any criticism of these studies aside from old op-eds attacking an older study is quite telling in and of itself, and I find such additions wildly WP:UNDUE. One source you referenced early on was from 2015! Come on! It's like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find sources to rebut these studies, and this is all that you can find. WaPo is certainly a reliable source (and it is the "Wonkblog", just look at the URL which includes "wonk"), but per Wikipedia policy on sourcing, op-eds and blogs, regardless of where they are published, need to have proper attribution. This is certainly not the case in your proposals. And if you are going to attribute bias on part of those publishing these studies, then the biases of those publishing critiques of these studies should be included as well, or that would tend to make this paragraph pretty lop sided in terms of POV. Why attribute bias at all? If anything, it constitutes WP:OR as the description you wish to include of The National Employment Law Project being a "pro-minimum wage think tank" cannot be found in the sourcing used. UPDATE: I have added that NELP was also a contributor to this study and is a think tank, per cited source. I have also added that the think tank is for raising the minimum wage upon investigation of the NELP website. Hopefully this will resolve the issue as far as this study is concerned.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can cut through a lot of this by recognizing the first document referenced in the section just didn't have a huge impact in the field of economics. There is a reason it wasn't published, hasn't been cited by any other economist or economics paper, and really only made some small waves in the popular press. The question is about sourcing here, do we elevate work that has no academic review as if it were mainstream? I would argue no, this isn't a page about the popular press' understanding of the minimum wage, but about the academic views on it. Similar to how we handle global warming, we don't include working papers released without scientific review and we don't generally include one off papers with low to no impact factor.

I saw the edit related to NELP, I think that language makes sense and is good.

No argument here that OpEd authors have an agenda, I mean basically by definition right? But when they are quoting reputable academics their agenda is moot, unless you can show that the quotes are incorrect, which there is little reason to think is true. I'd also point out that none of the sources I added were OpEds. Perhaps the Marginal Revolution site could be considered an oped since it is a blog by some noted economists, but the WaPo link and the Bloomberg link are in their economics reporting sections, not the opinion sections.

One small correction on your objection to dating. The paper was never published, it was released. Those have very different contexts when referring to academic work. Also, the 2015 reference by Meer wasn't a direct response to this work, of course, it was an example of the kind of peer-reviewed work that should be the primary sourcing for this page, longitudinal scans, which are secondary sources of academic findings rather than us listing exhaustive lists of every paper published (and in this particular case, not published) in the field (Per WP:Scholarship: "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context"). Without the clarifications related to the popular press mentions, as I added, the paper is being treated as WP:Scholarship when it doesn't meet those criteria. To whit: "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper...Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses...If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule...Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context... If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content...Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context...Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

So, given WP's policy against relying on non-published, non-peer reviewed primary sources that aren't cited by academic sources, I think we need (at a minimum) a pretty heavy dose of hedging to include this on the page. To be honest, it probably should be removed as there are other, peer-reviewed works (akin to Card and Krueger) that could be referenced. Squatch347 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources cited in that particular section, including a paper from the aforementioned Employment Policies Institute, among others, that I believe are on par or of inferior quality to the mainstream media articles pertaining to this study. I don't think this is going to be resolved just between the two of us, because I am obviously in favor of keeping it while you want to remove it. Given that no other editors have offered their views on this, I think an RfC might be helpful here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right about the RFC request, it is probably the best (and fastest) way to resolve the issue. I'll post one below. Feel free, of course, to add additional context or let me know if you don't think I summarized the issue correctly. Squatch347 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

After reading through this thread, I agree that this content does not belong in this article, it is non-scholarly work. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I dislike the structure of this article

I don't like how academic content on the effects of the minimum wage are dispersed across multiple sections. I dislike that one section lists pro- and anti- arguments, as if Wikipedia was supposed to be a resource for a debating club rather than express the state of a literature on a given topic. Ideally, there should just be one big "Impact" section which may contain (i) surveys that give an impression of how views are shifting about the impact of the MW, (ii) the chronology of research on the topic (economists used to be bullish on the MW but shifted their views after Card and Kruger), and (iii) summarize the enormous literature that exists on the impact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The pro/con is NOT the way this article should be written. Your points 1 & 3 could be combined into a chronology of academic views/polls on the topic, (since these should track with the research results- not be disconnected with the state of research) if we can find enough of that type of stuff. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I request that we do this through a series of many smaller edits rather than one or two large re-writes, so as to give people the opportunity to object to some changes while retaining others. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We should also go further in saying that two things can be true at once- for instance, a rise in minimum wage will result in some people seeing a rise in wages while others will have more trouble finding employment. I have had trouble finding non-ideological research on the topic. Most scholars are either theoretical or they seem to have an ideological viewpoint that they then fit the data to (which is easy enough to do, since most wage and employment changes are from factors other than the minimum wage). If there are studies with real data then I'm all for including them to help ground the discussion. I agree the article is a bit of a mess right now, I plan on investing some time in it. Efbrazil (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317 I see you moved some US-only content to the US section, but of course there's lots more US-only content scattered through the article, and I don't know that it all should be moved. The US clearly has outsized importance on the minimum wage issue as it is the largest economy and the minimum wage is of critical importance there (as opposed to the EU and China, which are also major but for which the minimum wage is not as significant an issue). It raises the question of where all US content should go, and my personal view is that instead of being sectioned out it should probably be scattered through the article. Maybe we should even be looking to eliminate the "US movement" section entirely, to eliminate confusion. What are your thoughts on the issue? Efbrazil (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"We should also go further in saying that two things can be true at once". That's one of the dilemmas that these pro- and anti-sections create: A new study gets published with a nuanced/mixed result, where should it go? If there were an "impact" section instead of a "pro- and anti-" section, there would be no dilemma. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

1) I fully support an "Impact" section. I tried to make a start on doing that conversion by getting rid of the table but I don't want to delete any well sourced statements and so that will take time to re-do. Many of those studies may have more nuance to them than their associated statements talk about, and could be reworded, but I don't know without reading them.

2) I was intending to MOVE the content from the "US movement" section to the Minimum wage in the United States article's "Political" section, since I don't think any of that content belongs in this article...there is already a Fight for 15 article about the political movement, and I will replace that section with a brief summary of the Minimum wage in the United States article that I wrote up yesterday in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, with a link to the Fight for 15 article.

3) I think that US studies/research belong scattered throughout here, for two reasons: one: the US is the most wealthy country and therefore funds the most scientific research, and as with medical studies, tends to produce the most published research, and two: the US is arguably the most free capitalistic market in the world, and therefore min wage does matter more in the US than in more socialized countries, so it would be relevant to the min wage notion overall, being that its current reason for existence is as a government tool intended to help the poor. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)