My point was that I don't think either 1 or 2 accurately reflects the position of either side. For #1, I've never heard of anyone who wants this. #2 better reflects the Republican position than the Democratic one. My #3 is the Democratic position. And it wouldn't be a "short term effect," (sure, it would require passing only one law, but that's missing the point): it would be permanent, and its consequences to the economy would be permanent.Gokul43201 said:russ, phat, kat, etc..
I'd really like to know if you disagree with my previous post...in the context of long term treatment of the minimum wage. It's clear what the left wants - they mostly want #2 in the long run. But from those on the right, I hear choice #1 mentioned, but in the context of leaving the minimum wage where it is. That seems inconsistent to me.
russ, your comment on the 3rd option is noted, but that would only be a short term effect (until the minimum wage matches a "livable wage").
Gokul43201 said:russ, phat, kat, etc..
I'd really like to know if you disagree with my previous post...in the context of long term treatment of the minimum wage. It's clear what the left wants - they mostly want #2 in the long run. But from those on the right, I hear choice #1 mentioned, but in the context of leaving the minimum wage where it is. That seems inconsistent to me.
So, again, what would be the point of leaving it the way it is ? Eventually that'll turn the minimum wage into a vestigial organ or it will cause widespread outcry demanding a rather sudden increase that may well be undoable (because that would be disastrous).
russ, your comment on the 3rd option is noted, but that would only be a short term effect (until the minimum wage matches a "livable wage").
While I don't share this opinion, there is a good logic to it: the cost of living and cost of employing is different everywhere and a national minimum wage doesn't reflect that.phatmonky said:Bring it back to a states rights issue, including the ability for each state to choose NOT to have a minimum wage if they wish not to.
Aquamarine said:You are ignoring those other studies mentioned by Stigler. See also his lists of references.
More:
http://www.cato.org/tech/competitionandantitrust.html
gravenewworld said:I don't believe there should be a minimum wage at all. The free market should decide "minimum wage." The minimum wage is $5.15/hr, but honestly who really gets paid this much? Hardly anyone. Even teenagers who work at McDonald's get paid higher than that because the labor markets have decided a wage that is higher than 5.15/hr. Raising minimum wages wouldn't cause inflation, however, unemployment may increase.
Maybe since the economy has severe atherosclerosis due to reduced capitalism, for example regulations like minimum wage and benefits like social security.Lawrence Albano said:I am sure all the illegal mexicans will eat that up! Then the americans unemployment rate will be like 20%
It was you who introduced oligopolies and monopolies as examples of market failure in this thread about the minimum wage. This had nothing to do with the minimum wage except for guilt by association.Locrian said:What other studies? He mentions a few facts, such as taxi drivers and the problem with anti-trust, but these are not studies. What list of references? He has further reading at the bottom, but he doesn't reference hardly anything, and certainly doesn't have a citations. Some of those are followups (such as the Kessel paper, maybe?) but since they aren't correctly cited it takes reading to be sure.
If this was supposed to convince me that our economy is a pure market system without govt intervention, it is not working. Judging by the front page of the Oct 18 Wall Street Journal, I'm not the only one having serious doubts. I still object to the constant references to "letting free market" do the price setting in this thread, because I don't necessarily believe it will run efficiently (and I am certain they are implying that). How is discussing anti-trust legislation (which does not apply to oligopolies) going to affect my opinion there?
Sorry its taking so long to reply, hopefully my typing be back to normal soon.
Several kinds of evidence suggest that monopolies and small-number oligopolies have limited power to earn much more than competitive rates of return on capital. A large number of studies have compared the rate of return on investment with the degree to which industries are concentrated (measured by share of the industry sales made by, say, the four largest firms). The relationship between profitability and concentration is almost invariably loose: less than 25 percent of the variation in profit rates across industries can be attributed to concentration.