http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsfe_s9dZcU
I know that according to AE, and to most economists, the higher the minimum wage the less jobs.
So what’s the rebuttal to this?
I’m not going to watch that. But I know what it will be. Some biased economist will make a graph showing employment over time overlayed with real minimum wage. The rebuttal is, jumping does not debunk the theory of gravity.
guess again
Wow, that’s really bad. He compares Spokane, WA to Coeur D’alene, ID. Now, I happen to live up in this neck of the woods. Spokane’s a decent-sized city by Northwest standards (pop. 500,000). Coeur D’alene is in the sticks (pop. 35,000 watch Napoleon Dynamite to get an idea). He cites the fact that a $3 difference in minimum wage didn’t cause Spokane businesses to relocate to Coeur D’alene. Are you serious? This is science?? Who would move their business out of a population center, where there’s a robust infrastructure and an existing market for goods and services into a rural ghost-town, in order to save $3 on labor?? This isn’t science or economics. It’s voodoo trash.
Clayton -
I guess right. I watched the first 20 seconds of the economist talking and that is exactly what he did. After all, that is the only argument ever used. Change the minimum wage to $100/h then get back to me on the employment rates in 8 states.
Obviously, he doesn’t understand ceteris paribus. If the restaurant raises is prices for meals, then the scenario has changed. What the guy doesn’t understand is that the focus is on the employment of the workers, not whether anything else will change to compensate for the minimum wage. Also, there is the unseen. The minimum wage might have forestalled or cancelled the employment of future potential employees.
What is more, he contradicts himself by saying that there was no de-employment and then saying that there was negligible de-employment, which is to say that there was de-employment. He says, “one does not find the kind of job loses that one would have expected.” Is he not admitting that there was de-employment? The expectation is that there would have been de-employment at all, not some specific amount, percentage, or standard deviation.
Oh, and he only focused on fast food restaurants.
I stopped watching after 8 minutes.
And who the hell goes to Daly City just to get a burger?
Thank you for the ceterus parabis observation, Daniel. I was typing as you posted, apparently:
The argument contains the same fundamental error that is commonly observed in mainstream arguments against labor freedom - no study of labor markets can possibly isolate and control all variables which influence employment rates. What they do is take a number of geographical locations and see if there are any correlations between unemployment and minimum wage laws.
It is an exercise in flawed methodology; anybody who studies economics can tell you there are all kinds of variables which affect employment rates - taxes, interest rates and savings, investment, laws and regulations, natural phenomenon (disasters, etc…) just to name a few. And, of course, all economic actors in a market count as variables as well.
If these variables cannot be controlled (which they cannot), then any conclusion about the existence of a relationship between minimum wage laws and employment cannot be drawn without committing methodological error. (This is why minimum wage arguments are an excellent example of why positivism ultimately fails as a methodological foundation for the derivation of economic theory. It’s pretty easy to see.)
In other words, did employment change/not change because of the laws or in spite of the laws? There is no way to tell with a simple correlative study.
Ironically, economists seem to understand this when examining price levels. For some reason, however, many (ideologically biased) seem to forget that wages are prices, as well.
And I notice comments are disabled for the video. Surprised, anyone?
I refuse to watch the video where comments and ratings are disabled. It 9 times out of 10 shows huge quackery and bias. It is often practiced by creationists, 9/11 truthers, new agers and other quacks.
I noticed that too. The user is attempting to smear Peter Schiff. I watched another video of his where he shows a clip of Peter Schiff says that he did not call for hyperinflation in 2010 and then shows a clip of Schiff saying that inflation could/will be at 20% in 2010 in an attempt to show that Schiff did predict hyperinflation. But, since when is 20% considered hyperinflation?
“I refuse to watch the video where comments and ratings are disabled. It 9 times out of 10 shows huge quackery and bias. It is often practiced by creationists, 9/11 truthers, new agers and other quacks.”
Hey! Don’t insult ducks. What did ducks ever do to you?
Yes, all that guy’s posts are anti Peter Schiff, and all have comments disabled.
The reply I most understood is Clayton’s.
About the ceteris perebis argument. I think he was trying to get around that by using places close to each other. And Clayton showed how foolish that is.
When you look at statistics all you see is white noise until you exacerbate a factor to make its effect relative to other effects distinct. A biased professor would pinch a water dropper over a tsunami.
What’s wrong with it? Everything.
“We actually found absolutely no evidence of any kind of disemployment effect in other words jobs being killed when the minimum wage went up…As I said the short and the long run effects were actually negliable.”
Immediately after denying correlation, he admits to correlation.
The study included only restaurants which makes the results irrelevant when discussing the actual real world effects of minimum wage laws. Restaurants were deliberately chosen because they are labor intensive and are going to show less sensitivity to minimum wage laws than the economy as a whole.
Oh,and thanks to whoever started this thread, I had at one time thought perhaps The Real News might turn out to be a reliable news source based on a few good anti-war videos of theirs I had seen. Guess it turns out they’re just the left-wing arm of the DNC on YouTube. yawn
Clayton -
“Immediately after denying correlation, he admits to correlation.”
How does he admit to correlation? By saying the effects were negligible?
Can the author of the video delete comments at will? Otherwise, how can one defend against YouTube trolls?
Yes, authors have ability to delete comments. That’s another reason not to disable comments entirely without letting people to criticise the video. But well, as I said, those who disable comments already knows they are gonna be criticised because of their bullshit.
Okay, then I’d say it’s better to keep comments open, but with moderation.
If gravity is true how come baseballs move UP half the time, since gravity says baseballs should come down.