Talk:Minimum wage

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Some text taken from released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. See for attribution. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

monopsonistic oligopoly[edit]

Why not just call it an oligopsony? Unless you're saying that there are few workers selling to one employer. Tisane (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's because there are actually multiple buyers of labor (oligopoly), but they show imperfect competitive effects - the cost to switch jobs - monopsonistic. I don't think oligopsony is a word, but if it was, it would be the right word. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"I don't think oligopsony is a word" Google (or heck, for that matter, even Wikipedia) would have been happy to be your friend, but no, you had to go it alone... Tisane (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

Lot's of dead links here. Are there plans for pages in the future? If not I think they should be plain text. Dkristopherw (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed the dead links Dkristopherw (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Quote[edit]

We cannot be in the business of using dubious quotes and the authenticity of that quote and the letter it was in has been questioned most notably by Snopes which rates it as false here: <>. Hence if there are no objections I will remove it within a week. Alsto003 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Alex

I've taken it down now. If we know it's wrong, why wait a week? BicyclewheelModerator 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well we didn't know it was wrong and in light of quotes that can definitively be connected to Lincoln it does kind of fit.
To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.— Abraham Lincoln 1847
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. — Abraham Lincoln December 3, 1861 State of the Union Address
Federal Civil False Claims Act of 1863 known as the "Lincoln's Law", which gave individuals the right to sue companies who defrauded the Government and receive 50 percent of any recovery from the defendant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


We currently just quote their abstract, but their actual study is much more revealing: (from

Dividing equation (1) by this measure of the heteroscedasticity (Sei ) gives:

ti =β0 +β1(1/Sei)+ νi (2)

where ti is the conventional t-value for the estimated minimum-wage elasticity, ei. The intercept and slope coefficients are reversed, and the independent variable becomes the inverse of its previous incarnation. Equation (2) is the WLS version of MRA model (1), and it can provide a valid test for both the presence of publication selection and for genuine effect beyond publication selection (Stanley 2005; Stanley 2008).

The conventional t-test of the intercept of equation (2), β0, is a test for publication selection, and its estimate, 0βˆ4, indicates the direction and magnitude of this bias—see Egger et al. (1997), Doucouliagos and Stanley (2008), and Stanley (2008). Thus, testing β0 may be considered the funnel graph’s asymmetry test (FAT).

Column 1 Table 1 reports FAT for Card and Krueger’s original data on minimum-wage effects. It contains evidence of publication selection (that is, selection for negative employment effects of the minimum-wage) in minimum-wage research (reject H0: β0=0; t=-3.49; p<0.01).5 Thus, Card and Krueger’s (1995a) view and our interpretation of the funnel graph (Figure 3) that there is publication selection in the minimum-wage literature is confirmed by explicit meta-regression tests for publication selection.


This MRA (Column 1 Table 1) can also be used to test for a genuine effect beyond publication selection. The coefficient on precision, β1, can be considered an estimate of empirical effect corrected for publication selection (Stanley 2005; Stanley 2008).6 Applying this precision effect test (PET) to C-K’s data finds no evidence of an employment effect from minimum wages (accept H0: β1=0; t=0.06; p>>0.05). Thus, our FAT-PET-MRA, equation (2), entirely confirms Card and Krueger’s (1995a) interpretation of minimum-wage research. There is clear evidence of publication selection bias in C-K’s data; yet, there is no evidence of any minimum-wage effect on employment.

Right now, we almost just appeal to authority (Look! Economist says this!), but this shows (one of multiple ways) how they statistically proved their point.

I can't find any free-access published versions of this working paper. Help? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

$15 minimum wage in California[edit]

Okay, so this is my first time really suggesting something on an article. I'm a big fan of this site and what it stands for and I really don't want to fuck that up. I read this piece earlier ( ) that hopefully clears up some of the issues with raising the minimum wage and maybe adds another perspective. Some of the ideas could also go into the article on trickle-down economics. Either way, I just wanted to put that here in case anyone thought it might help. Thank you. Daftpunk909 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say the article is very informative. The "The biggest flaw in the standard economic models is that they never account for the increased consumer demand generated by a higher minimum wage." part is particular interesting--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Developed countries with no minimum wage[edit]

As you can see in the above map, Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Iceland don't have a nationwide minimum wage, and instead set it in a social corporatist tradition. This has a benefit in that wages can be fined-tuned to maintain the competitive advantage of certain industries, but requires that business and union associations sit down in the first place.

THIS. Certain libertarians who offer those countries as proof of that with no minimum wage salaries are higher ignore that part (and since they're against unions and would prefer every employer negotiating with the boss their wages it's easy to see why).

Germany at least has introduced a minimum wage; I'll update the article in consequence. --Panzerfaust (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

One issue[edit]

The strongest argument I've heard against increasing minimum wage is that it doesn't really aid the people it's supposed to help: in the United States, for example, according to this, 62% of those in poverty in 2014 did not have a job at all and another 27% were under-employed (part-timers, seasonal jobs, ec), and so the increase would only affect about 12% of those in poverty (presumably rounded figures given they add up to 101%). In the meantime, any price rises from increasing the minimum wage would affect 89% of those in poverty negatively.

Is there a decent counter-argument to this anywhere? Nog Bogmire (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that minimum wage and employment are two different things. After all, those who don't even have a wage logically won't benefit from minimum wage hikes. In addition to raising minimum wage, we should also be aiding employment too (mind you it's pretty difficult to even get a job in the first place). The price increases, if any, seem to be modest, and I don't think minimum wage in of itself is the reason the costs of living are getting more and more untenable in the U.S.. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much the problem as the argument's exact point, as far as I can see. Minimum wages aren't the only reason prices can go up and employment can go down, but however mild the effect may appear, it's not helping either, at least in those two areas. If you can get everyone a job, then you can use a higher minimum wage to effectively alleviate poverty to an extent (though there's a limit to how high you can push it of course). But if there's a big chunk, even a majority of poor people without a job, then higher wages aren't gonna do those people any good. (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Empirical evidence is mixed."[edit]

Yet the rest of that subsection seems, to me, to point toward benefits outweighing the costs of raising minimum wage. Contrary studies are said (in the passage) to have publisher bias and the Luca study is said to be very limited in scope.

Also, uh, the "quotes" section. A lot of these pertains to income inequality. While it's strongly related, it's not really about minimum wage in of itself. I think we can trim that section, as it's pretty verbose. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)