[crdoconnor]

>The economics of a minimum wage is much debated.

The economics of minimum wage among 'respectable' economists is debated in a similar way that the global warming "controversy" is debated by big oil. It's good for business to make people believe that there's a strong link between job losses and raising the minimum wage.

Meta-analyses of studies find an embarrassingly low level of statistical significance between job losses and raising the minimum wage:

"Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[87] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[88]"

Profits, on the other hand - the elephant in the room when it comes to studying minimum wages - almost always take the brunt of the rise in wages:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-increases-likely-to...

>It's not hard to think of other ways to top up incomes that don't involve setting a minimum wage.

Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

[richdougherty]

> The economics of minimum wage among 'respectable' economists is debated in a similar way that the global warming "controversy" is debated by big oil.

I know climate scientists are pretty much agreed on global warming. I thought economists disagreed about minimum wage still. That Wikipedia page seems to suggest that more and more economists are supporting a minimum wage over time, but there is still not a consensus. Does that sound right to you?

> Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

I was just trying to make a technical point about the existence of alternatives to the minimum wage. Many of the people who advocate these alternatives have good intentions about helping people in need.

[crdoconnor]

>I know climate scientists are pretty much agreed on global warming. I thought economists disagreed about minimum wage still. That Wikipedia page seems to suggest that more and more economists are supporting a minimum wage over time, but there is still not a consensus. Does that sound right to you?

Let's just say that I'm very impressed with the incorruptibility and dedication to the scientific method that ~95% of climate scientists hold. Especially since it's not like the oil companies haven't tried to tempt them to stray.

Not every profession is as upstanding as theirs when money and power enters the mix.

[oconnor663]

> Right, if you particularly wanted to avoid cutting into the profits of companies like Walmart, there are other ways you could top up incomes.

I don't know enough about the literature to comment on that part, but this is an uncharitable summary that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side.

Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient too. You can make the same argument about paying for transfers, even if you don't have any particular love of Walmart.

[crdoconnor]

>that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side.

I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda.

I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs:

http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro...

Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562...

What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it?

>Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient

Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes.

[tropo]

I've seen the opposite in recent respectable economics textbooks.

In any case, a thought experiment: the 99% should get a $99/hour minimum, don't you think?

[crdoconnor]

>I've seen the opposite in recent respectable economics textbooks.

I bet it wasn't Greg "the rich can do no wrong" Mankiw's textbook ;)

>In any case, a thought experiment: the 99% should get a $99/hour minimum, don't you think?

What's the thought experiment designed to achieve?

Hiking to $99 / hour immediately would likely trigger a bout of extremely high inflation - likely to a level which would hamper growth (as people would be more scrambling to protect their wealth rather than spending their money on useful products and services).

Personally, I'd hike to $20 and then put the wage up by $1 / hr every three months until inflation hit ~10% (~12-15% is the point at which inflation starts hampering growth) and from then on target that level of inflation via the minimum wage and welfare payments.

That would drive a huge amount of economic growth (spending would jump) and bring down inequality to more manageable levels.