Talk:Minimum wage/Archive1
Some text[edit]
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)
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)
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: <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)
Doucouliagos[edit]
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.
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 ( 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)