There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Some text taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minimum_wage&action=history for attribution. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 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)
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: <http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp>. 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? Bicyclewheel 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 http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2008_14eco.pdf)
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.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
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.
$15 minimum wage in California
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 ( http://civicskunkworks.com/the-real-lesson-from-15-americas-trickle-down-experiment-has-failed/ ) 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
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).
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.