Jump to content

Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Report by Republican House members

Wikiant, in your your edit summary, you said it was 'inaccurate' to describe this talking points memo as "a report published by Republican members of the U.S House of Representatives". This is indeed a report by a group of House Republicans. Please explain explain why you believe it is inaccurate to label it as such. Actually it does not appear to fit the criteria of WP:RS and probably shouldn't be in the article at all. Dlabtot (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Joint Economic Committee is comprised of Republicans and Democrats. It appears that the authors of this particular report are Republicans, but the report is a report of the JEC, hence it is not published by Republicans, but endorsed and published by the JEC as a whole. Wikiant (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You assertions don't appear to me to be correct. I've posted a notice on WP:RSN. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grotesque

This article is a mess. It copiously cites politicians and ideologues — many of whom have no economics training at all — in order to push one particular point of view. Why were Republican congressmen cited in the introduction while Paul Krugman, a respected economist and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is not? Sure, some economists are against the minimum wage. That should be reflected — laissez-faire advocates with real reputations, like Milton Friedman, should indeed be cited. But this is an academic article; we shouldn't be citing party hacks and random guys on the Internet. *** Crotalus *** 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does become kinda a mess as a contentious topic. Still, minimum wage is every bit as much a political issue as an economic issue--politicians' comments can be extremely relevant, and ideologues are relevant to the degree they represent or influence the debate. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course the viewpoints of politicians can be relevant, but they should be attributed, rather than stated as fact. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the JEC report is not relevant as a publication by a governmental body, but rather for the economic studies it cites. Wikiant (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you review WP:RS. If, after that review, you still believe that this self-described talking points memo qualifies as a reliable source, you should engage in the discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Grotesque" is a good description. I'm going to be bold and start hacking at the POV pushing. Academic38 (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you be specific about what Point of View you think is being pushed? DCLawyer (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's an entire section titled "criticism of minimum wages by economists" with no corresponding section praising it. It's WP:Listcruft, but I think some of the quotes should be retained elsewhere in the article. The talking points of Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee are given equal weight with Nobel prizewinners Stiglitz and Krugman. There are a lot of references to libertarian and conservative think-tanks and only a couple to liberal think-tanks. Those are probably the worst remaining examples; a lot has already been fixed. Academic38 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
On a creationism page, I would expect to find criticism from biologists with little corresponding praise -- that wouldn't mean that the page was POV. Wikiant (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
An entirely specious comparison. Dlabtot (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out what Point of View somebody thinks is being pushed. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Employer of last resort - Why was my edit reverted/deleted/expunged?

In the section of alternatives to minimum wage, I added a new sub-section where instead of outlawing all hiring at less than minimum wage, the government provides WPA-style jobs at what would have been the minimum wage. This is truly an alternative, because it has almost the same effect (by different mechanism), because if any employer offers employment at less than minimum wage, he finds it difficult to attract employees because they'd rather take a WPA job at higher wage instead. So why was my new text deleted??

198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info

I can't recall, but it is possible I may have reverted your edit. Let me suggest a re-focusing of your edit. The important issue (within the context of this article) is not that the government is an employer of last resort, but rather that a government can maintain a minimum wage either by fiat (as is done now) or by the government increasing demand for labor via the government hiring. In fact, it is this latter technique that governments use when enforcing a fixed exchange rate. Because a government's currency is traded outside of the government's legal jurisdiction, then only way to maintain a fixed exchange rate is for the government to alter the demand (or supply) of its currency. Wikiant (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Supporters and Opponents

I'm trying to understand Minimum wage by reading an encyclopedia article. Mainly, I'm looking at the first few paragraphs, to see if it's worth reading further. The first paragraph is pretty good: it gives a definition, some history, and several examples, all in six short sentences.

The second paragraph isn't nearly as good. It talks about supporters and opponents, and briefly states some of their key assertions. It doesn't say why there are supporters and opponents, and it doesn't say who they are, why they are making their assertions, why there's an ongoing debate, etc.

Then the article goes on and on and on, yammering about various assertions and debates, to the point that some have called "grotesque." WTF? Surely there's somebody here who can non-grotesquely summarize the various aspects of the debate and debaters in a paragraph or two, then put that stuff in the lead section. Lou Sander (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the problem is one of economist vs. non-economist editors. There are debates among economists as to whether the minimum wage hurts low-income workers, but those debates invoke rather than ignore accepted economic principles, and always end with clear questions that can be addressed empirically. In contrast, much (though not all) of the debate on the page is of the "economist vs. non-economist" variety. This sort debate is an exercise in futility as the two sides don't have a common understanding from which to begin. Wikiant (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll give an example of what's "grotesque" in this article. We have a section called "Empirical studies" which, instead of citing any of the time series analyses that underpin the pre-Card and Krueger consensus, reports on surveys about what economists think about the issue. It ends with a table of some events used as "natural experiments" in the minimum wage debate, but cites no sources. And it begins with a chart that is sourced to a listing of all the values of the minimum wage in the U.S. and to the home page of the Economic Report of the President, neither of which contains the information conveyed in the chart. Wikiant, you need to give an actual source for this if you want it to remain in the article. I should mention that I agree with you that this talk page is a mess because some people don't understand the issues. (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so either of you know how to archive a bunch of it, let me know so we can move it out.) But the real problem with the article itself is that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. We have really got to clean it up. Academic38 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. What you're seeing is the result of an evolution wherein an editor introduced phrasing suggesting disagreement among economists. Another editor altered this to reflect that the disagreement was minimal. The original editor sought a citation, so I provided the cited list. I agree that a better approach is to cite the individual components of the list rather than the list itself. Perhaps an even better approach is to drop the whole question of disagreement among economists as being somewhat disingenous. Wikiant (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
There are accusations of undue weight and of non-neutral points of view, but there isn't any information about WHAT is given undue weight, or about WHAT non-neutral point of view is being advanced. It's like a tale told by a you-know-what... full of sound and fury, and signifying not all that much. IMHO, at least.
Somebody needs to paraphrase the overview of the "minimum wage" chapter in a current basic economics textbook (again IMHO). Lou Sander (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article, in places, reads like an anti-minimum wage screed, and the anti-minimum wage view is given undue weight. The description of Card and Krueger's work does not accurately reflect what they did or argued. The point of view of economists is not the only one relevant to this public policy issue. Academic38 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've gotta say that I thought the opposite about screed-dom (but I'm not an expert). I studied this stuff many, many years ago, and at that time the economists were pretty unified that the minimum wage promoted unemployment among the unskilled. It's not clear from the article if they still think that way. A good article would be clear about it, and would present both sides in proportion to their acceptance by experts. Lou Sander (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I partially disagree with Academic38. With respect to the economic impact of the minimum wage, the point of view of economists is the only one that is relevant. Wikiant (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Card and Krueger subsection refers to the PA wage as a dollar amount. It refers to the NJ minimum wage in terms of a percentage increase, without mentioning the pre- and post-increase dollar amounts. This isn't exactly grotesque, but it's borderline, at least. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed that. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You would think they would want to lower it considering the recession we're in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmost (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Wage and Unemployment Graph

Editors keep deleting the minimum wage vs. unemployment graph (first arguing that it lacks references, then arguing that it is original research). You'll find discussion on this topic on this page as far back as a year or two ago. The graph is a depiction of publicly available data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the BLS publishes the numbers, not the graph, creating a graphic of reliably sourced data does not constitute OR. Wikiant (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read the previous discussion in full. Under "Rapid sequence of major edits" above, you keep talking about population by age, but the graph in question is titled "U.S. workers with less than a high school education (1984-2004)." So where is that data from? Am I supposed to guess which edition of the Statistical Abstract it's from? What table(s) it's from? That's not a proper citation. Where does the data for ratio of minimum wage to average hourly wage come from? It's not from the Department of Labor link which just gives the various levels of the minimum wage. If it can't be given a full citation, it's got to go, but I won't revert until you've had a chance to respond. Oh, and the critics mentioned in the graph description aren't cited, either. Academic38 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also read the earlier discussion in full. It's original research and as such it doesn't belong in this article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the "no original research" article and I now agree that this constitutes original research. The relevant issue is synthesis that advances a position WP:SYN. Here is the text from the NOR article:

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2]

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about "Jones":

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor."

What Wikiant has done is synthesized data from two sources, neither of which comments on the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment (whether in general, for a specific age group, or a specific educational attainment level). Thus, it's original research, end of story. Academic38 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The example you give is one of juxtaposing *arguments* from two sources to infer a third argument. First, the graph does not pose arguments, it merely shows data. Second, the data does not come from two sources, but the same source. There is no difference between including this graph and including a table of unemployment rates and minimum wage figures save for the fact that the graph is easier to read. Wikiant (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time for an RfC. The prospects here for compromise and collaborative editing seem pretty dim. The simple repetition of spurious arguments already made smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dlabtot (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If editors want to go form an RfC, that's ok with me. But, before we jump to accusing folk of not listening, I'd like the opportunity to hear how displaying two non-controversial data sets in a graph is original research whereas displaying the same data in a table is (I presume) not. Wikiant (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Synthesis is original research. It doesn't matter whether you put it into a table or a graph or text or whatever. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To make sure I understand your argument, are you suggesting the following: (1) to combine unemployment and minimum wage data into a single table/graph constitutes original research, but (2) to show unemployment in one table/graph and minimum wage in a second table/graph does not constitute original research? Wikiant (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything other than what I have explicitly said, which is that this specific graph constitutes original research. Further attempts to get me to argue about a strawman will be similarly unsuccessful. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I heard that statement. I'm attempting to explore what, in your opinion, would not constitute original research. Wikiant (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of prolonging what appears to be a pointless and totally unproductive discussion, material that does not constitute original research is material that is verifiable to reliable sources, and not a synthesis of material from disparate sources. If this graph were to fit that description, it would need to have a citation to a source where a user could verify it. That is not the case here, what we have instead is your original work. Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
We may need an RfC for this issue, but Wikiant has not objected to any of my other edits so I think you may be underestimating the potential for collaborative editing. For the record, I agree that a table would also constitute original research if it's not in any of the sources individually. I would also point out that even if all the data came from BLS, it would still be multiple sources, just as my various publications constitute multiple sources. Moreover, the listing of the level of the minimum wage is not sourced from BLS, but the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. Academic38 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

At WP:Attribution under, "What is not original research" is the following: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." I propose that the chart in question falls under this category as the graph neither changes the significance of the data nor requires additional assumptions. If editors still have a problem with this, I propose that the data be presented in two charts -- both of which are highly relevant to the article. Wikiant (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no way, without seeing the charts you produce, to prejudge them. But the data in each chart would have to be clearly attributable to a specific source - unlike the graph we are discussing. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The current graph clearly "changes the significance of the data," because it suggests that there is a relationship between the two. That's quite possible, but for an encyclopedia we should be citing sources who make the argument, rather than adding something that, in the context of Wikipedia, is new -- but may very well exist in already published work, which is where it should come from.
Moreover, the graph is not even referred to in the text; it's just sitting there. It's not clear that anything would be different with the two charts you propose. We would do a lot better to add a discussion of the articles that created the pre-Card and Krueger consensus than to add a non-published chart of unemployment rates (for any group) or the minwage/avgwage ratio. I think graphs are useful for presentation, but they should be from published material. Academic38 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I buy your argument. On a different note, the Card and Krueger work is controversial among economists so we should take care how it is presented (to both be fair to C&K but also to recognize those who have pointed out the numerous flaws in their study). Wikiant (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Grotesque editing in Card & Krueger

If an encyclopedia discusses fine points of economics, maybe it should do so in sentences and paragraphs that connect to one another in some sort of rational way. Most of these do not:

  • The first paragraph under Card and Krueger ("In 1992, the...") is fine, except that there's a citation needed.
  • The second paragraph ("The more common debate...") doesn't connect at all with the first. Its grotesquely placed first two sentences seem to pick up from some unidentified far-away paragraph. Then its third sentence ("In their 1997 book...") brings up C&K all over again, as though the first paragraph didn't exist.
  • The third paragraph ("Critics, however...") picks up where the second one leaves off, but it doesn't seem to anticipate the existence of the "Reaction to Card and Krueger" subsection a paragraph below it.
  • The fourth paragraph ("Another possible explanation...") is pretty grotesque by itself. It doesn't mention C&K at all, and it cites no sources for its original-research-like claims.

As my high-school math teacher used to say, "A duck, because the vest has no sleeves." Lou Sander (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I just archived all the remaining 2007 material, and clarified the labels on the "archive box." Lou Sander (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak coverage of basic economics

The article has REALLY weak coverage of the basic economic theory underlying the minimum wage. There are a few graphs and a bunch of bullet points, but that's about it. There's virtually nothing explaining it for the encyclopedia reader.

On the other hand, there is a huge amount of discussion about studies and opinions that contradict the basic theory. Sure looks like undue weight to me.

You don't even have to get into economic theory to understand some of the things that happen when a minimum wage is instituted or raised. You can find an enlightening case study HERE. Read it and do the questions, if you dare. Lou Sander (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterizations here. Further, I don't see the utility of linking to a questionnaire on your own website. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be more specific about the characterizations you disagree with. On the questionnaire, we're only linking there from a talk page, and there's a lot more to it than just the questions. Lou Sander (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, I disagree with your comment in its entirety. I don't know how to make that more plain. Perhaps you should just make the changes to the article that you think it needs, and then if need be we can discuss those changes. see WP:BRD Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's odd that you would describe that as a 'case study' considering that it is not actually a study of anything.... in reality, no such organization called 'Help Humanity' exists - correct? Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you're being specific at all. You can call the Help Humanity paper an "example," or even a "contrived example," if that makes you feel better about it. You aren't even obligated to look at it. It DOES illustrate some things that happen when wages are artificially increased, though. Lou Sander (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, all it illustrates is that it is possible to construct a hypothetical example that bears absolutely no relation to reality. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is an example of a real study of what happens when the minimum wage is increased: Assessing the Economic Impact of Minimum Wage Increases on the Washington Economy: A General Equilibrium Approach Dlabtot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice article. I like the part where it says "An important contribution of this study is the establishment of a range of expected job loss associated with a representative minimum wage shock of five percent increase. The range is on the order of two to perhaps four thousand jobs." Lou Sander (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you do need to get into economic theory. You also need to understand that there is more to economic theory than microeconomics. As to undue weight, you should take a look at Google Scholar, and see how many times Card and Krueger are cited (Myth and Measurement alone is cited 1008 times) compared to, say, Neumark and Wascher (218 for their top article) or Finis Welch (116 times for his top minimum wage paper). The basic story line is simple. Supply and demand says if you raise the price of something, less of it will be bought. A whole raft of time series studies from about 1973 to 1990 confirmed this for the minimum wage, generating a consensus. Card and Krueger conducted a new type of analysis (natural experiment), and they extended the previous time series studies and found that the results were no longer statistically significant. End of consensus. What Card and Krueger have failed to do, AFAIK, is theoretically account for their finding. That's why there's no new consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic38 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't state the basic story very well, does it? Lou Sander (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a little bit hidden amongst all the heavy-handed advocacy for the former consensus. Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article? I'd advise you to be Bold and just make the edits that you think will make the article better. If other editors disagree, they can Revert your edits and the details can be Discussed here on the talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Bad advice. Article needs too much work. Read Help Humanity and do the math. Also, what would happen if the minimum wage for editing Wikipedia articles were $1.00 an hour? Or even half of that? Lou Sander (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the Minimum wage article, not to debate the minimum wage. Please review WP:TALK. I'd also like to request that you please refrain from further spamming of this talk page with links to your website. Dlabtot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but it will when I'm finished. Sorry I can't rewrite the article wholesale all at once. What I call the "basic story" is how I see the outline for a major portion of the article. Academic38 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
And so far, you are doing an excellent job. Kudos. Dlabtot (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it. Such things have a certain air of undue weight about them. Lou Sander (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You already said that. But you're wrong. Please either (a) edit the article or (b) make specific suggestions for improving it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is NOT discussion when somebody smart makes a point and somebody else just says "you're wrong" or call it spam. Neither is it discussion when an editor who thinks they know a lot keep giving unsolicited advice, request and suggestion to other editors. The Minimum wage article would be improved if such folk just stayed away from it. No wonder the article is so groatesque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birfday (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If Lou Sander wants to make some concrete suggestion rather than just repeating an assertion that the article is flawed in some fundamental but uncorrectable or indescribable way, we can move forward. As to the intimation that certain editors should 'stay away', but I don't think it is in the spirit of WP:FIVE. Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of "The main problem with the article is that it pays only minor, and somewhat incoherent, attention to the basic supply and demand matters that underlie all discussion and debate about the minimum wage, while devoting screen after detail-laden screen to critiques of it." are you having trouple with??? It seem to me you just gotta pay alot more attention to the basic supply an demand matters. An get rid of a lot of the critigues. Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birfday (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, the problem is that I disagree. The article clearly explains the supply and demand curve, in my opinion. And what are characterized as 'critiques' as if they were some sort of op-ed pieces are real-world empirically-based academic studies. Personally, I don't find it surprising that the data does not precisely fit the incredibly oversimplistic one-variable supply-demand model. Anyway, unless someone has some specific suggestion as to how, in their opinion, to improve the article, there's not really much else to be said. How about you? Would you like to try improving the article, in some way? Go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdated reference

In the lead paragraph, the sentence "Both supporters and opponents assert that the issue is a matter of ethics and social justice involving worker exploitation and earning ability" cites a 96-year-old reference. The sentence is misleading, since none of those supporters or opponents are still alive. I propose to delete the sentence until a more recent reference can be found. (The other use of the same reference is fine -- it talks about early minimum wage laws.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than deleting the sentence, I suggest putting a "fact" tag on it until a new reference can be found. The sentence (IMHO) is pretty important. Wikiant (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some ideas on the page

I think we need to get rid of the section, "Criticism of minimum wage by economists," based on WP:Listcruft. However, I think some of the quotes could be used elsewhere, so I don't plan to chop it immediately.

That section consists of quite a few important papers, books, etc., each boiled down to a sentence or two accompanied by a reference. Why isn't Card & Krueger also boiled down to a sentence or two accompanied by a reference? After all, the undue weight section of the Neutral Point of View Policy says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." You need to greatly expand Samuelson (for example) and others, or greatly shrink Card & Krueger, or both. The critical analysis of minimum wage by economists is huge and longstanding. The Card & Krueger stuff is smaller and recent. The article gives a few words to the former and a hugely prominent exposure to the latter. Maybe start with your "big picture" idea from this page, then support it with appropriately-sized and -weighted material from the literature. Lou Sander (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding undue weight, I again refer you to the relative citations of contemporary labor economists. Samuelson was not a labor economist, and that quote just comes from a textbook. Gorman is a think-tank person; Bradford's quote is from a WSJ op-ed, not an academic article. As I said, I still think some of this stuff should be retained, just not in a section of "criticism" not balanced by a section of "praise" for the minimum wage. Academic38 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The importance of a century's work on minimum wage is NOT counterbalanced by that of a recent study that found possible contradictions to it in an extremely limited study, no matter how many citations the recent material has. Neither is it "some of this stuff." It is the very basic economics that a few recent studies have begun to call slightly into question. Lou Sander (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
While you are certainly entitled to you point of view, it should be noted that it is no more that that - a point of view, not a fact. Let's examine your characterizations. "A century's work on the minimum wage" - I assume by that you are referring to the simplistic view that "minimum wages cause unemployment"? what do you mean by "a century's work"? Was there a century of empirical studies or was there a century of complacent acceptance of the prevailing viewpoint? The latter could hardly be described as 'work'. Dlabtot (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of the "empirical studies" section, what do people think about the untitled table of 5 minimum wage studies? It's unsourced and probably overkill. I propose killing the table and adding some of the info as text in the Card and Krueger section. Academic38 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. One change I'd make if I felt qualified is rewriting the for/against table in a narrative form, more suited for an encyclopedia article. As it is it resembles a scoreboard, not an explanation of the debate. Dlabtot (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Kill the unsourced table, but stop inflating the bloated Card & Krueger section. Lou Sander (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not that Card/Krueger is bloated, but that we need a previous section (which I'm willing to write) on the earlier articles that created the consensus. Academic38 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we need the previous section. Please make sure that its size and the size of the C&K stuff are in proportion to their importance. Lou Sander (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of Economics

Somebody removed this clearly specified reference and replaced it with a fact tag. Justification was that the link in the reference only went to the Amazon page on the book and not to the book itself. Please assume good faith. This material IS on page 300 of the cited book, just as specified. The Amazon link is to help people find the book. There is no requirement that citations be available online.

I replaced the fact tag with the very thorough citation of a reference to back up the claims. Lou Sander (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for adding a citation to the book itself. Academic38 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I only replaced what had been removed. You are doing good work here, but there's a LOT of it to be done. Lou Sander (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

The first sentence says "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s established a consensus among economists that the minimum wage reduced employment, but this consensus was weakened based on work by David Card and Alan Krueger in the mid-1990s." This might be true, but unless a reliable source has published it, it amounts to original research. The article as a whole has lots of individual opinions about various aspects of the minimum wage, but it's pretty devoid of sourced summaries. Lou Sander (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not original research, it's just a summary. The studies (including report on surveys of economists, which is the evidence a consensus existed) will go in below, as I've said. I'm not sure if we will need to put a footnote in the introduction to cite that info or not. Academic38 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Empirical studies

This section doesn't even define what empirical studies are. (In economics, "empirical" generally refers to statistical or econometric analysis of numeric data -- click the link.) Then over half the section is devoted to non-empirical stuff like the opinions of economists and labor organizations.

The first two paragraphs have nothing to do with empirical studies, so they belong elsewhere. The third is fine, but needs wikilinks; it would be a good introductory sentence for the section. The next two (about polls of economists) belong elsewhere. So does the last one (about the opinions of labor organizations and political parties). If the remaining paragraphs are about empirical studies, you can't tell it from what they say.

Some of the stuff that "belongs elsewhere," IMHO belongs in the trash can. Some of it has good content and good citations, but where the heck do you put it?

The whole thing may or may not be grotesque, but it sure isn't very good work. Lou Sander (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wikified the third sentence. It's way better than it was, but it lacks references. Somebody else will have to rearrange all this stuff. Lou Sander (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I already made the point that this section does not contain empirical studies, but surveys of economists. I completely agree with you that this is where we need to put in the econometric studies. Academic38 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Supply/demand graph

I don't know how to fix graphics, but the supply/demand graph is incorrect. The amount of unemployment created in the abstract is only the difference between equilibrium employment and the lower level of employment at the higher price. Only the amount to the left of equilibrium is unemployment, not the amount to the right. Those people were not working prior to the minimum wage, so they did not become unemployed because of it. Academic38 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of interpretation and explanation, but the graph is correct. Unemployment is an economic surplus--the difference between the amount supplied and the amount demanded. A price floor simultaneously raises the quantity supplied and lowers the quantity demanded, so it creates a surplus on both sides of the equilibrium. That's the standard economic take, and it matches measures of unemployment--how many are looking for jobs (supply) but can't find them (demand).
You make a good (although extremely tricky) point about only considering the unemployment to the left of equilibrium is sensible as part of discussion of the impacts of minimum wage, and I expect you can find someone who's written about it. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look for something like that. The area to the left of equilibrium would appear to correspond to what is often termed in the literature as "disemployment." Perhaps that should be indicated on the graph. Moreover, as some of the studies I've cited found, an increase in the minimum wage sometimes leads to a decline in labor supply and therefore no change in the unemployment rate, even as disemployment occurs. Academic38 (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're right about that. When the wage goes up, not only does demand go down, but supply goes up... i.e. someone may not be working, but also not seeking work at the lower wage, seeks work at the higher wage. Suddenly they are counted by unemployment statistics, because they are actively seeking work. Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not edit-war, please

Regarding the recent series of edits, when someone writes something in a book, it does not make it a fact, it makes it something someone has written in a book, and that's how it should be cited. WP:V is clear: When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Terrible example, since the Beatles were unambiguously the greatest band ever...) The bit from Sowell needs to be attributed to Sowell unless there's further evidence that it's a standard bit of analysis and Sowell's book was just the one used as a reference. That isn't the case with this bit, though, because "the real minimum wage is always zero" is either a very non-standard analysis, or more likely pure rhetoric intended to make a point. As such, as this article continues to get into shape, I don't think that quote should get the prominence it currently has, perhaps instead being in one of the "arguments against" areas. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. The source for the Thomas Sowell material is carefully provided in the reference citation. This is NOT something like asserting that a band is great. It's a qualified person stating accepted facts about a social science. If an editor disputes such a sourced claim, it's an easy matter to provide a counterbalancing sourced claim. Just find a reliable source that disputes that the real minimum wage is greater than zero, put it in, and provide the reference.

Quite a bit of the material in this article is not referenced at all. Maybe we need to spend our energies on removing it or finding sources. Lou Sander (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing something isn't the same as attributing it. Attribution restored. Lou, this really seems very clear-cut to me. If you strongly disagree, you should perhaps seek comments from WikiProject Economics or somewhere. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted some properly-sourced material. A minor edit war ensued. There was a plea to stop the edit war. I have now reverted the material to a somewhat-clarified version of the original posting. If other editors have a problem with the material, I invite them to discuss it here for discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is invited about this paragraph: "Regardless of custom, pressure or law, the real minimum wage is always zero, and zero is what some people receive when a minimum wage is imposed or escalated. They fail to find jobs when they try to enter the workforce, or they lose the jobs they already have. She whose productivity is worth less than the mandated minimum compensation is likely to be unemployed."
  • The material in question is a short statement of an elementary economic principle. It is very thoroughly sourced, including a link to a full-text copy of a previous edition of the source. Someone wants the author's name to appear in the article, but they provide no justification other than stating their own opinion. They need to provide something more than that. Lou Sander (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You have been edit-warring to the extent of violating WP:3RR. Unfortunately, this leaves the article in the state you prefer unless another editor jumps in or one of us violates 3RR. I'd request you to undo your most recent reversion while you wait for input. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this is continuing, I might as well get deeper into criticism. The above argument from Sowell isn't economics, it's rhetoric. A wage of zero is either slavery or volunteering, not unemployment. And what's so special about zero? Why should the "real minimum wage" not be negative? There are volunteers who contribute money as well as time, so they could be said to have a negative wage. Regardless of attribution, this isn't a useful contribution to the discussion of what minimum wage is or economic analysis, but is part of an emotional argument against having a minimum wage. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cretog: I'm having a hard time following your argument. People who are unemployed receive zero income. It is a basic proposition of economics that imposing a minimum wage causes some people to be unemployed. It's pretty hard to see how that is an emotional argument against having a minimum wage. Maybe you can be more specific about your concerns. Lou Sander (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone who is unemployed does not receive any wage--it's not that their wage is zero, it's that their wage is non-existent. A zero wage would mean (at its most basic) that you are contracted to perform labor for zero pay. As I say above, that matches slavery or volunteering to some extent, but not unemployment. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me try a metaphor: Saying that the wage of someone without employment is zero is akin to saying that the price of a Rolls-Royce is zero because I'm not going to buy one. A wage is a price for labor--it's part of a two-sided transaction between specific parties. If there's no such transaction, then the wage isn't zero, it's null. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree to replacing the word "zero" in the paragraph with the word "null?" Or maybe "no wage at all?" (It is in there twice.) Lou Sander (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that's not the argument that Thomas Sowell made, is it? So no, that would not be appropriate. What would be appropriate, would be to attribute this argument to the person who made it. Dlabtot (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a notice on WP:3RR. Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Cretog and Dlabtot: At 14:13, I proposed a discussion of our differences, posted a verbatim copy of the paragraph in question, and started the discussion myself. Subsequent to that, Cretog posted something on my user page that encouraged me to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Huh??? Even later than that, Dlabtot posted some sort of 3RR warning. I hope both of you agree that I'm trying to have a rational content discussion here on the talk page. You are invited to engage in it, as is anybody else who wants to participate. Lou Sander (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much point there is in repeating what has already been said and ignored, but I'll try. WP:V is quite clear: When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. We don't repeat peoples arguments and opinions as if they were facts. We attribute them. It is appropriate to attribute this bit of sophistry to the person who stated it, Thomas Sowell. I suggest you review WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR. Dlabtot (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that the paragraph in question is somebody's mere opinion. I believe very confidently that it is a statement of elementary, mainstream economic thought. I base my confident belief on recent reading in several books, and on graduate training in economics many years ago, and on teaching a basic economics course last year. WP:V IS quite clear that material needs to be verifiable. Are you concerned that the citation provided doesn't let you verify something? And by the way, I'd really appreciate it if you'd use a more civil tone, and stop scolding, making suggestions, etc. Thanks for listening. Lou Sander (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Ill considered and false accusations of incivility are in themselves a form of disruption. Perhaps a review of WP:CIVIL is also in order. Dlabtot (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed someone's mere opinion and not fact. Sowell is not a labor economist or an academic economist, but basically a political pundit now. Assuming we keep this section, the claim must be attributed. The confidence of your belief is not the relevant determinant, but Wikipedia rules and policies. Academic38 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Academic 38: I think your view is that these points (paraphrasing Sowell) are NOT elementary, mainstream economic thought: 1) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. 2) The unemployment takes two forms: some workers lose their jobs, and some people fail to get hired. 3) People whose productivity is less than the minimum wage are likely to be unemployed. Do I have it right? Lou Sander (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are questions about the article as a whole, not the issue of this section: whether "the real minimum wage is always zero" is a fact or an opinion. My edit and comment above obviously show that I think it's the latter. Academic38 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It's really not that obvious to me, but we ARE beginning to understand your thought processes. Interesting. By the way, Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution, Stanford University. IMHO, that pretty much makes him an academic economist. Lou Sander (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Hoover Institution is a think tank that happens to be on the Stanford campus. According to Sowell's Wikipedia article, he last held an academic job in 1980 (when he left UCLA for the Hoover Institution). So he's no more an academic than a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute. What empirical research has he conducted on the minimum wage? Pronouncements don't count. Academic38 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your novel views. Lou Sander (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Condescending comments aren't really helpful here. Dlabtot (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Show us what YOU have done that's helpful. I don't see anything. But maybe that's just me. Lou Sander (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a 151-page 2006 review of minimum wage studies by Neumark and Wascher: http://www.economics.uci.edu/docs/2006-07/Neumark-08.pdf. Card and/or Krueger are cited 8 times, Sowell 0. N&M agree with you on the effect of the minimum wage, but they obviously don't think Sowell is relevant. That's what I meant by "pronouncements don't count." Academic38 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia at its best is a tertiary source. We don't just rely on published research papers, but on sources like textbooks, compilations and popularizations. Sowell's book falls into the last category. Sowell also is a proponent laissez-faire economics, and that needs to be taken into account when using him as a source. Regardless, you can't dismiss a source just because they haven't published original research on the topic. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about eliminating Sowell, just saying that his assessments count for less than, say, minwage opponent David Neumark. If you'll recall, all I did in the initial edit was to attribute a claim to Sowell rather than have it stated as a fact. Academic38 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to follow you, but I think you are saying that the very extensive citation, including a link to a full-text copy, isn't "attributing." IMHO that's a pretty novel point of view. It's also pretty novel to include your personal judgment on the relative merits of reliable sources. That has a way of demoting the value of the sources you judge less worthy. Some might see it as promoting a non-neutral point of view. Lou Sander (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not novel at Wikipedia to attribute something to someone as an opinion rather than treating it as a fact, when it's not a fact. That's not the same thing as citing a source, which has never been in dispute. Obviously, you cited Sowell, but as a fact, not opinion. Academic38 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! It happens to be a fact. Any editor who aspires to improve on a minimum wage article needs to be able to figure that out. Anyway, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You can look it up. I don't think verifiability applies to self-descriptions on user pages, but it DOES apply to articles. We make our own judgments about user page claims, but we rely on verifiability for encyclopedia articles. Lou Sander (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates by consensus; in this instance, the consensus is against your position. If you really want to press the issue, the correct course is not argumentum ad nauseam or belittling and condescending comments, but rather, dispute resolution. Perhaps you could file a request for comments or you could request mediation. Dlabtot (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • De-indenting and returning to the passage in question--I'm sorry if we've gotten over-emotional about one snippet. I don't understand what's so important about this snippet. I've expressed above why I think it should be treated carefully, since it's not solid economics. Other than that, I don't see what it contains which isn't already addressed within the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cretog: Thanks. I'm having a hard time understanding why people think the Sowell material isn't solid economics. All they do is assert that it isn't, without supporting their assertions. Please help me understand. Lou Sander (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can explain any better than I have above. The part which I refer to as "not solid economics" is the bit about "the real minimum wage is always zero", which I've explained above. Without that bit, the snippet has other problems. (1) It's in a section on "informal minimum wages", which seems unrelated. (2) It expresses what is common (though not universal) analysis as empirical fact. (3) What it says (minimum wage causes unemployment) is elsewhere in the article, and so I don't see what's added by having it here. The bit about productivity might be useful, as that could possibly use clarification in the body of the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the explaining. As asked above, (but lost in the great walls of text), would you go along with substituting "no wage at all" for the two instances of "zero" in the paragraph in question? That would make it read: "Regardless of custom, pressure or law, the real minimum wage is always no wage at all, and no wage at all is what some people receive when a minimum wage is imposed or escalated. They fail to find jobs when they try to enter the workforce, or they lose the jobs they already have. She whose productivity is worth less than the mandated minimum compensation is likely to be unemployed."
Maybe better would be "Regardless of custom or pressure, some people do not receive any wages at all when a minimum wage is imposed or escalated. They fail to find jobs when they try to enter the workforce, or they lose the jobs they already have. She whose productivity is worth less than the mandated minimum compensation is likely to be unemployed." Lou Sander (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The second version you have would make it more accurate. But it keeps the other problems (wrong section, empirical assertions, redundant with other material, POV tone). It's arguable (as Dlabtot does above) that it's also not properly what Sowell says, but I think your version is OK in that regard. I still don't think it belongs. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm REALLY having trouble understanding you. What empirical assertions are made? What point of view is being expressed? (It would be great if you can just say it clearly here, rather than referring to something in an unspecified place up above.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Given your modified version, "Regardless of custom or pressure, some people do not receive any wages at all when a minimum wage is imposed or escalated. They fail to find jobs when they try to enter the workforce, or they lose the jobs they already have. She whose productivity is worth less than the mandated minimum compensation is likely to be unemployed."
  1. It's not about "informal minimum wage", so it doesn't belong in that section
  2. The implication is that minimum wage causes unemployment. That's an empirical matter.
  3. The tone is POV--it's clear upon reading it that this is part of an argument against minimum wages.
  4. The matter that minimum wages (may) cause unemployment is already addressed elsewhere in the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Responses:
  1. "Custom or pressure" is what makes for an informal minimum wage. The point being made is that the effects of an informal minimum wage are the same as those of a legally-imposed minimum wage.
  2. The notion that a minimum wage causes unemployment isn't "an empirical matter," (whatever that is). It's basic, elementary economics, based on supply and demand. In a nutshell, the basic principle is that minimum wages increase the incomes of some of the employed, but cause some unemployment. Minimum wages also cause changes in the total output of goods and services. Economists do empirical studies to investigate the relative magnitude of all these effects, and their benefits or detriments to society. They look at the benefits that come from higher incomes, and the negatives that come from increased unemployment. They look at the good or bad effect on total output. Because it isn't possible to separate minimum wage effects from other factors, the studies often contradict one another. Some find that increasing the minimum wage produces a net good. Others find that it produces a net bad. No study fails to consider the unemployment generated by the minimum wage. These are pretty elementary things, IMHO. But that doesn't make them easy to understand, and many people misunderstand them. One might hope that an encyclopedia can explain them to non-economists.
  3. It's not a part of any argument. It's a basic principle of economics. (Metaphor: To say that driving fast uses more gasoline is NOT an argument against driving fast.)
  4. I agree that it appears elsewhere. The article, IMHO, gives HUGE undue weight to the matter that minimum wages (may NOT) cause unemployment. Very little of it is devoted to explaining the complex interaction of factors involved.
You can find a decent article on the minimum wage HERE. It isn't a "Good Article," but it was good enough at least to be considered as such. IMHO, nobody would offer today's version as anything approaching "Good"--it doesn't demonstrate much understanding of basic economics. But of course I might be wrong. Lou Sander (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The oversimplification of the issue into "a minimum wage causes unemployment" is what I see as the crux of the dispute here. Yes, one can conduct a thought experiment that eliminates all real-world variables except wages, and in such an unrealistic scenario, the issue is indeed that simple. But the evidence from actual studies show a much more complicated picture. It is that more complicated and sophisticated reality that the article needs to reflect, rather than an ivory-tower theory divorced from the data. Dlabtot (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The article won't reflect sophisticated reality until it's edited by people who understand basic economics. It's a hard subject, and even some encyclopedia editors can't handle it. Lou Sander (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

De-indenting again--I think we've talked this one to death. There's no need for this snippet to be in the article, it adds nothing and subtracts some. I will come back to it being "an empirical matter". There are multiple questions

  • On the theory side, what model do we use, and what are the results within that model? The dominant model in the debate is a simple static partial equilibrium supply-demand model, which gives a clear result of minimum wage increasing unemployment. Most more sophisticated models do come up with similar results. That can, should be, and is in the article. When it's in the article it should be described as the result of theory.
  • On the empirical side, what actually happens? Theory can be part of this, but it needs to be based on actual studies of what has happened. So, simply, rather than stating "minimum wage causes unemployment", one should be able to say "most studies of the minimum wage show it causes unemployment [cite x, y, and z]". CRETOG8(t/c) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A challenge

We are sittin around Panera lookin at y'all and scratching our heads. We wonder if the Three Musketeers have any ability to have a coherent thought and express it in words. So far all we see is that you can talk about deleting stuff. We are students at our community college, and WE know how to do this Couldn't do it a year ago, though. Can you put two or three sentences together on some subject and assemble them into a paragraph? We havent seen any of it yet. Can you put two paragraphs together to express the thought? Don't think so. Can you come up with references that support your work? Haven't seen it. This means Outdoor Guy, "Academic" and Cret. Here's the challenge: The three of you work up a short section on something and post it in the article. We don't think you can. Economiss is just 2 tuff 4 u. Sincerely, Birfday, TJail, and Pork. P.S. - We think you all the same person. Or maybe only two. Birfday (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpupptetry are pretty serious here and shouldn't be engaged in lightly. The appropriate forum to make such an accusation is WP:SSP. Here on this talk page, such accusations are nothing but personal attacks, and should you persist in such tactics, you may find yourself sanctioned. As to the content of the article, you are encouraged to edit it, or make concrete suggestions as to its improvement. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't accusing anybody of anything. They are "calling you out." Lou Sander (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read Birfday's post a little more closely. His P.S. is an accusation. Academic38 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive sourcing

The article says "minimum wage laws are now enforced in more than 90% of all countries", and gives a source. The source says nothing at all about enforcement. In fact, a deeper reading shows that these laws are often unenforced, because of the problems they cause for the poorest of the poor. I will fix the problem. 72.95.129.107 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Brown et al

Every sentence of the paragraph explicitly discusses teenagers. But Brown also studied young adults, a completely different class of worker. I added a sentence specifically about young adults. Someone reverted it on the basis of redundancy. The young adults material is not redundant, and is important in the study since the teenagers who removed themselves from the labor market are not formally counted as "unemployed." I propose to restore the sentence. 72.95.129.107 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright... Dlabtot (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I see Academic38 already put it back in. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimum wage law

The article provides a list of US state minimum wages. It's kind of listcrufty, and there's a note in the editing panel that specific regional wages should be put into the main Minimum Wage Law article. Also the US minimum wage is mentioned twice. I want to retain mention that there are state minimums higher than the US federal minimum, and specify the highest state minimum. Then I want to move the other state minimums to the main article. I mention it here first because there seems to have been contentious editing in this article. DCLawyer (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with this proposal. Academic38 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Lou Sander (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Krugman quote

Regarding this edit, material cited and placed in quotation marks should actually be a quote. I don't own Conscience of a Liberal so I can't look it up, but what does Krugman actually, literally say? That's the only thing that should appear in quotation marks. Dlabtot (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do own COAL, and I undid LaidOff's good faith edit, as it wasn't what Krugman said. Academic38 (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mankiw citation needs fixing

I'm sure Mankiw doesn't buy the Card/Krueger findings, but the source given doesn't exactly say that. He's actually quoting a Krugman book review of a book on the living wage, at a time when Krugman pretty clearly hadn't yet understood that C/K's findings wouldn't apply to a 57% increase of the minimum wage. Is there some place where Mankiw says in his own voice, "I don't buy it"? Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I searched his blog and substituted a more appropriate source. Academic38 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag in second paragraph

I restored the Fact tag on "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s...." If you're going to claim this, you need to provide references. I think they exist and are already in the article, but they need to be up here, too. This is a contentious article, and every important claim needs to be sourced as it is made. Lou Sander (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see it more as a summary of the contents, so it's not clear to me why we need to cite everything again that is cited in the "Surveys of Economists" section. Most WP articles I've read only give citations in the introduction for claims not later sourced, and many introductions have no citations at all. Academic38 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Just put the references in, please. We need to be able to verify the claim. Find one or more reliable sources that have said this, and show us what they are. We can't just synthesize from a bunch of studies. Lou Sander (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't ignore my questions. I'm not clear on what it is that you are challenging. WP:V states: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The sentence states two related ideas, one, that there was a consensus, and two, that consensus was weakened by C & K. Are you challenging the idea that there ever was any consensus? Or are do you agree with the idea that there was a consensus, and you are challenging the idea that it was weakened by C & K? Dlabtot (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The whole sentence is likely to be challenged. In fact, it HAS been challenged by the inclusion of a fact tag. If somebody can support the sentence with proper citations, they should just do it. If they can't, they should just remove the challenged sentence. The verifiable citations will insure against future challenges. Lou Sander (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree stylistically, but I have put in a reference from The Economist. I think we should move it elsewhere if we ever get consensus on the style question. Academic38 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Minimum Wage is a subject on which there is widespread disagreement among experts. We have to back up our claims. If for some reason you don't like having to back this one up because it's in the introduction, you need to move the whole claim elsewhere where you CAN back it up. The sentence in question specifies a range of dates. Does the Economist mention that range of dates, or is it original research by an editor? Lou Sander (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you quit attacking me; WP:NPA is an important policy. Here is a quote from the article; if you don't think it's enough, I'm going to an ask for an RfC.

"Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view. But a series of studies in the 1990s—including a famous analysis of fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania by David Card at Berkeley and Alan Krueger of Princeton University—challenged that consensus, finding evidence that employment in fast-food restaurants, actually rose after a minimum-wage hike. Other studies though, particularly those by David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher at the Federal Reserve, consistently found the opposite. Today's consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst." Academic38 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What "personal attack" are you talking about? Lou Sander (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the questioned sentence says: "Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s established a consensus among economists that the minimum wage reduced employment, but this consensus was weakened based on work by David Card and Alan Krueger in the mid-1990s."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything in the Economist stuff about "...numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s," let alone that those studies were the basis for establishing a consensus. If one is going to use a reference in an encyclopedia article, one really should paraphrase the reference (or quote it), without embellishing it or adding stuff that isn't there. The idea is that the encyclopedia shouldn't say things that others haven't already published. Lou Sander (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Andre Gorz in "Basic Income" section

Does anyone else think that a three paragraph quote on this issue is excessive? I propose shortening it substantially. Academic38 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some agenda items

Hopefully we will have this able to meet "Good Article" criteria before long. I'd like to suggest that there are several things still to be done, in no particular order:

  • Discussion of post-Card/Krueger empirical studies;
  • Discussion of surveys of the public on the minimum wage (we can't understand the politics of the minimum wage without this discussion, IMO);
  • The controversy over whether there were flaws in the C/K studies, especially the NJ/PA fast food restaurant study, as a whole lot of ink was spilled over this;
  • Whether the minimum wage disproportionately hurts African-Americans;
  • Making the article less U.S.-centric, to the extent possible;
  • Briefly mentioning the "650 economists support raising the minimum wage" statement, which is discussed in the "Surveys of Economists" section;
  • Make sure our style (including citations) conforms to the Good Article criteria;
  • Fixing the "Arguments for and against" section which is pretty Listcrufty right now;
  • Making sure we comply with NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

Comments, suggestion and BOLD edits all welcome. Academic38 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too US-centric. I came here looking for information relating to minimum wages internationally for comparisons sake and I didn't get any info on either of the countries I was interested in, nor an explanation of what this might mean. Instead I get information about minimum wage changes on a local level in a country I was not interested in and controversies I didn't care about since, the figures being talked about were about 1/4 the figures I was interested in.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does intro need a citation

Editors disagree on whether the final sentence of the introduction simply summarizes fully cited content in article, thereby needing no citation; or is itself a claim requiring citation. I am in the former camp; others' opinion is appreciated. Academic38 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment and question Although Lou Sander has not responded to my question above, it seems that his objection is (correct me if I'm wrong) to the phrase " Numerous studies from the 1970s through the early 1990s established a consensus ". My question is, was that consensus actually based on numerous empirical studies? Or was it simply a result of theory? Dlabtot (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a very good question. Just where does that 1970s through early 1990s stuff come from? It don't seem to come from the Economist. Maybe it is somebody's unpublished analysis or synthesis. Or if it isn't, maybe somebody will do us the favor of citing the publication it appeared in. Somebody could also just point out the fully cited content in the article that it's believed to be a summary of.Birfday (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment The 1970s through early 1990s stuff comes from the content of the article. The introduction's job is to summarize the content of the article. I don't even think we need the Economist cite there; I was just trying to compromise with Lou Sander. The section "Empirical Studies" begins with empirical studies from the 1970s to the early 1990s that helped establish the old consensus. (And Dlabtot, yes, the fact that these results conformed with most economists' theoretical priors contributed to the existence of consensus.) We could put a dozen studies there, but this is an encyclopedia article, not an article for an academic journal. So I put in a selection and cited those. The section "Surveys of Economists" section lists surveys pre-C/K showing a high degree of consensus, and more recent studies showing no consensus. These are fully cited. So I don't think it is necessary to repeat all these citations in the introduction: obviously we could, but I believe that stylistically we can rely on the fact that the introduction is a summary of the contents of the article, and not put a dozen citations in for one sentence in the introduction. Academic38 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment It seems like the statement is inspired by the "surveys of economists" section. The "empirical studies" section contains a couple of examples, but not enough to state "numerous studies" or "consensus" in the intro. I'd suggest that the intro should distinguish between the theoretical mainstream position (which surely can be traced back much further than the 70s), empirical studies, and alternative labour market theories on why minimum wages may not (always) have the predicted effects. Rd232 talk 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. There's not much doubt that there was once a consensus. There's not much doubt that it has been weakened. There is nothing at all that connects the establishment of the consensus to those carefully selected studies from that carefully selected time period. One can state a thousand studies in favor of the former consensus, but one CANNOT then claim, based on one's own analysis of the studies, that they established the consensus. This is basic common sense. DCLawyer (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed revised sentences "Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment, but this consensus was weakened based on work by David Card and Alan Krueger in the mid-1990s." This gets rid of the ambiguity of what caused the consensus, but the stylistic question still remains of whether this is a summary of the article, needing no citation, or a claim that needs citing. Academic38 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The claim that there was a consensus is not supported by body of the article, it therefore should be supported by a reference which specifically states that there was a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't call 90% a consensus? (Not literally, of course, but in context.) From the article: "Survey results show that agreement over the effect of minimum wages has weakened over time. According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[55]" Also, footnote 2 specifically states there was a consensus; see section above for the quote. I think this citation actually should be elsewhere in the article, which would obviate its need in the introduction. Academic38 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it a consensus is something of an assumption. The quote above has, '...of the economists surveyed', which makes it weaker that it might otherwise appear. Could we not put something along the lines of, 'it was considered by many economists...'? This clearly is supported by the body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin makes a good point. It is NOT up to editors to "call 90% a consensus." That would be original research. We CANNOT look at a study and draw our own conclusions or put words in the author's mouth. All we can do is to quote or paraphrase the study; we must provide a verifiable citation so readers can assure themselves that we aren't changing things, saying things that have not been said, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Economist piece, currently cited in the introduction of the article, says: "Elementary economics would suggest that if you raise the cost of employing the lowest-skilled workers by increasing the minimum wage, employers will demand fewer of them. This used to be the consensus view." The word "consensus" is already in an author's mouth. I have already given this quotation, at further length, in the section, "Fact Tag in Second Paragraph." So you can quit already with your unfounded accusations of original research. Academic38 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Life is easier for all of us if editors just provide citations for what they add to the article. Lou Sander (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This certainly makes the case for using the word 'consensus' stronger but the way it is used in the article does not seem to square with the way it is used in the quote. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I found the cited reference online, and IMHO it totally supports the proposed revised sentence. Lou Sander (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for taking the time to look it up. Academic38 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinion. I don't have a particular problem with the accuracy of the proposed revision. I think that in a general way it summarizes things that are in the article, and right now I wouldn't challenge it. But this is an article on a very difficult subject about which there is extensive disagreement among professionals, and strong feeling among non-professionals. In that situation, it is a very good idea to provide solid references for every single thing one puts in the article. If they are provided, people can't easily challenge what is said. If they are NOT provided, everybody who disagrees with what is said can challenge it, and probably should. Lou Sander (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinion: In my view, the lede should summarize the article, giving an at-a-glance introduction to the subject to be discussed in more detail by the argument. That being so, if the statement at issue is a fair summary of the article, it should not require any citation. If the statement is not a fair summary of the article, it should not be a part of the lede at all; it should be deleted or moved further into the article, and replaced with a statement that is a fair summary of what the article says on the point. In neither instance, then, is a citation required. Simon Dodd (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinion: I agree completely with the above from Simon Dodd. I also see that the lead doesn't include much that is actually covered in the article. The first paragraph is fine, and accurate, and it's thoroughly referenced, but where's the rest of the lead? All that's there is one isolated sentence about consensus among economists. That's only one minor point among many more important ones in the article. It probably should be moved (with it's reference) to the proper place in the body of the article, then maybe moved back when all the other points from the article can be made part of the lead. In other words, leave the introductory paragraph in the lead, but remove the other things until a more complete lead is created. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Idea: How about addding something like "see below" or "see section XXX"? --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I added this section based on Palgrave. Somebody deleted it, citing "anti minimum wage people," and "NPOV," and "undue weight." I restored the section because none of those things apply. Palgrave is an impeccable source of information about economics. Please do not remove properly cited material from authoritative sources. This is not in any way a matter of pro- or anti-minimum wage. It is a solid discussion of background material on the subject of the article. If you have something that contradicts it, please just add it to the article. Lou Sander (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I put some "citation needed" tags in the section on Economics of the minimum wage. No source is given for these paragraphs, and they sound suspiciously like they were lifted from a textbook. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I undid the tag. The section has enough grammatical errors that it is unlikely that it came from a textbook. Wikiant (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs more history

There should be a section dealing with the history of minimum wage laws. I believe it was one of the Progressive reforms of the turn of the 20th century. I'd like to see more. CFPeterson (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

is the agitation over minimum wage realistic?

if anyone can help answer this question please do.your efforts will be well appreciated.

how did the introduction of the minimum wage legislation generally affect the union's activities?Phebean (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the minimum wage article, not for general discussion or or questions about the minimum wage. Dlabtot (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

chart of Neumark and Wascher's opinions

A chart is not the way this material should be presented. Rather this should be integrated into the body of the article. Placing it in this chart gives the opinions of these two economists undue weight. It is not at all made clear that this is only their analysis of the data, opinions which they themselves don't claim are definitive. I quote from the introduction, page 7: " We state these conclusions bluntly here because we believe they are justified based on the evidence. Nonetheless, as will become clear during the reading of this book, research on the many facets of minimum wages is characterized by continuing disagreement and controversy. As a result, we are under no illusion that all readers of this book will agree fully with our conclusions."[1] Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? They are not opinions. They are research results, published in a book from a respected academic press. The chart is great. Birfday (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the quote above from the authors of the book? They disagree with you. Dlabtot (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the phrase: "The authors summarized their findings as follows:". A specific citation would be useful. On which page of the book did they do so? Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't familiar with research methods in the social sciences. Scholars study the evidence, present their findings, and draw conclusions. Scholarly etiquette demands, especially when the research involves controversial areas, that the scholars refrain from claiming absolute certainty about their conclusions (not to mention that there are few if any "certain" conclusions in the social sciences). What these scholars reported was what they found after studying 300+ publications in the field. Birfday (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you aren't familiar with WP:CITE, which states If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage.. Dlabtot (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's keep the chart but add a page number(s). What's the problem?radek (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said there's a problem? I raised two separate issues, one of which is the question of where exactly in the cited source "The authors summarized their findings as" presented in the article. So now User:Lou_Sander can provide that citation. Collaborative editing is a process. Hopefully a fun, collegial and pleasant one. Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. It just seemed like your reply to Birfday was a bit of a non sequitur. But yes, the page number should be provided.radek (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, looking at the article history, this is where the non sequitur took place. I think perhaps he meant to post this in reply to my other point. Dlabtot (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely WP:UNDUE. Moreover, since this was published after Card and Krueger, it should come after them in the section. Academic38 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The chart in the article is taken from a chart in the final chapter of the book. Regarding the page number, I just took the book back to the library, so I don't have it. (The previous references to this book didn't include page numbers, and nobody said anything.) I would have included it if I thought it was needed.
The chart is a serious summary of 20 years worth of empirical research, done by well-known labor economists from a university and the Federal Reserve Board -- please help us understand why you say it gives undue weight to something. Lou Sander (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My sense of the issue here is that the only problem is that the exact page number is not provided. This can be easily remedied sooner or later. And yes, maybe it should go after Card and Krueger - but come on, it's Card and Krueger that is just one study out of many, discussed so much precisely because it's results were so different from, well, the all the other studies. So if there's an UNDUE weight in the article it's not on Neumark and Wascher (which is a META study) but C&K.radek (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I found it, it's on page 287, and in addition to being a problem of style and undue weight, more importantly, it's a blatant copyright violation, so I've removed it. I again suggest incorporating this material into the text of the article, per WP:MoS and WP:WEIGHT. Dlabtot (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored it. Please do not remove properly cited material with unsubstantiated accusations of copyright violation. Your accusations must be discussed here first. The removed material is a paraphrase of material in the chart. If you want it to be paraphrased even further, please make suggestions here. Lou Sander (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Material does not have undue weight because editors say it does. Please provide justification for your assertion of undue weight. Lou Sander (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I said in my original comment that the reason it is lent undue weight is because it is placed in this chart. Pretending I did not give a reason adds nothing to the discussion. Present your own views. Please refrain from misrepresenting mine. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The text in the chart in the article appears to be sufficiently different in wording then the text in the chart in the book. Essentially the article just uses the organization found in the book and describes the research contained in it. There's neither an UNDUE nor a COPYVIO problem here. radek (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the text isn't different in wording; some sections have been left out, that's all. The article certainly should present the views of Neumark and Wascher and cite this work for support. But that doesn't mean cutting and pasting a chart that they put in their book. Rather, our article should explain their conclusions and how they came to them. Would you please do me the courtesy of telling me why you object to having the material incorporated into the text of the article? Why must it be presented in chart form exactly as it appears in the original book? Isn't it our job, not to regurgitate sources but cite them in support of the portion of the article that presents their pov? Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please give a few examples of what you call "cutting and pasting." I'm reasonably aware of copyright matters, and I rewrote every cell in the table (or tried) Except the three column headings. Maybe I missed something.
I don't have any objection at all to the material in the chart being included in the article. I just don't see any reason for anybody to do it, and I don't think anybody could improve on what the researchers did. Lou Sander (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please give a few examples of what you call "cutting and pasting. OK.
Original: Columns: Effects Considered, Summary of Evidence, Strength of Conclusions, Rows: Employment, Wage distribution, Income distribution, Training, Schooling, Longer-run earnings, Prices and profits
Article: Columns: Effects Considered, Summary of Evidence, Strength of Conclusions, Rows: Employment, Wage distribution, Income distribution, Training, Schooling, Longer-run earnings, Prices and profits
Original: "Minimum wages reduce employment of low-skilled workers"
Article: "The minimum wage reduces employment of low-skilled workers."
Original: "The preponderance of evidence points clearly to negative effects, and even more so when one focuses on the most convincing evidence"
Article: "The preponderance of evidence clearly shows negative effects, especially when one looks at the most convincing evidence."
Original: "Minimum wages increase wages of workers bound by the minimum."
Article: "The minimum wage increases the wages of covered workers."
Original: "Effects on wages of bound workers unambiguous"
Article: "Unambiguous for workers covered by the minimum wage."
Original: "No compelling evidence that the minimum wages on net help poor or low-income families, and some evidence that minimum wages adversely affect these families."
Article: "No compelling evidence that the minimum wage helps low-income families. Some evidence that it harms them."
There's plenty more but I see no reason to prolong this tedious exercise. This stuff was clearly cut and pasted, and a few words changed to make it sound different. That's called plagiarism. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
When you rephrase, it isn't cutting and pasting. When you rephrase, it doesn't violate copyright. If you rephrase short paragraphs too much, you change their meaning; it's a line you walk when you work with material like this. When you attribute authorship, it isn't plagiarism. Lou Sander (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Another way to think about this issue is this: suppose that there is some article which has a table describing regression results (coefficients, t-stats and all that). An editor then takes this table and changes the presentation but at the end of the day, in order to represent the article accurately the table in Wiki looks a lot like the table in the article. In that case there just isn't much room for a dramatic paraphrasing of the information. At the same time, in general, reproducing tables from scholarly work isn't considered plagiarism, as long as it is properly attributed and cites, which is the case here.radek (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Or are you just inventing a hypothetical example that has no relationship to reality? If you point to a specific example, we can examine it to see if it is a copyright violation. Dlabtot (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does the Neumark and Wascher chart violate WP:COPYVIO and WP:UNDUE?

Please see this section above for the earlier discussion, and this link for the original chart. Dlabtot (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC) To summarize my position, I believe that the material should be incorporated into the text of the article, rather than reproducing a chart used in the source and changing a few words. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - may not be copyvio (attribution should be clearer though) but it does seem undue. It would be much better to summarise in text form (and thereby open up possibility of splitting the empirical discussion into those headings, so that other opinions can be included in a more structured way). Rd232 talk 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It sounds like there are several issues here. (1) I don't see a copyright infringement. There are only so many ways to phrase a simple sentence. (2) The question of whether the material belongs in a text or chart does not seem to rise to a level of importance that requires input. This is a matter of editorial style only -- some people glean information from charts better than from text and vice-versa. (3) If anything, the material is the opposite of undue weight. The cited material contains results from many studies. In contrast, the Card and Kreuger study (which gets an entire section to itself) is a single study. If there is an undue weight problem here, it is due to the Card and Kreuger section. Wikiant (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Response. No! Card and Krueger is not a single study. Card and Krueger introduced an entirely new methodology into the study of the minimum wage, a "natural experiment" approach where they analyzed what happened when the minimum wage changed (or changed more) in one jurisdiction rather than another, instead of using time series with (manipulable) statistical controls. C&K did their own studies of NJ/PA restaurants, California's increased minimum wage, the differential effects of the federal minimum wage hike of 1991 on states that had higher and lower minimum wages, and found in all cases that the states with the (biggest) increases had no disemployment effects, or even positive employment effects. Then they demonstrated, quite conclusively in my opinion, that the previously published time series studies were characterized by researchers continually changing their specifications until they got statistically significant negative effects, because journals don't like to publish non-significant results. They did this in two ways, which you as a statistician should be able to see the logic to (and I'd be interested to hear your comments if I'm wrong): first, they showed that despite the fact that some studies had only 15-ish years and the most recent (at that time) studies had about 30 years of data, they all had virtually the same t-score of 2, rather than having t rising as the standard error fell; second, they took the multiplicity of specifications from the previous studies, brought their data up to the (then) present, and showed that the statistically significant negative effect disappeared.
As to the RfC question, I agree with Rd232. The chart presentation presents Neumark and Wascher's findings as THE TRUTH, rather than two person's interpretations of the studies summarized. BTW, I don't know who said it elsewhere on this page, but that chart is not a meta-analysis, but merely a summary. A meta-analysis is what Card and Krueger did, analyzing the statistical features of a number of studies (comparing t-scores with amounts of data); another type of meta-analysis I've seen is to use aspects of analyses (logged vs. not-logged data, one measure of tax rate rather than another, etc.) as independent variables to predict the outcome of estimates of the impact of taxes on investment. Academic38 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Copyright. There are no copyright violations here. Weight. I agree that there is NOT undue weight given to the Neumark and Wachter findings. If somebody thinks there IS, they need to be specific about it. The chart is pretty specifically presented as conclusions from a retrospective study of empirical research, not as any sort of "truth." I also agree that Card and Krueger ARE given undue weight. There hasn't been any big revolution based on their few and questioned studies. Theirs is a "minority view," at best, inappropriatly presented as "truth," at worst. It needs to be cut in half, at least. There are WAY too many details of their work compared to others. Chart vs. text. If somebody wants to rework the chart into a text presentation, they should do it on a sandbox page, then let the other editors see it and comment on it. It would be a big job, requiring knowledge of economics, careful study of the Neumark findings, and more skill in exposition than is usually found on Wikipedia. DCLawyer (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The Neumark & Wascher findings do a lot to demonstrate the undue weight that is given to Card & Kreuger's stuff here. C&K's work should be mentioned, but put into the proper context, which is that they achieved some notoriety because their results were different from the great mass of other results. Subsequent studies have generally failed to confirm their findings. C & K are interesting outliers. The article needs a lot less about them and a lot more about the hundreds of studies that contradict them. 173.75.41.215 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I highlighted a couple of comments above. Hope it's O.K. to do that. 173.75.41.215 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply The only problem is that if you do a literature review of a literature that is littered with publication bias, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. There's a 2008 working paper available here ([2], citable only with permission of the authors) which shows that publication bias in the minimum wage literature is as bad as when Myth and Measurement was published in 1995; moreover, it uses meta-regression techniques to derive what it claims are true disemployment effects that are virtually 0. If this is right on even just the publication bias issue, then it's indeed Neumark and Wascher who are the ones being given undue weight. And if you look at Google Scholar, you'll see that C&K's book is cited about 3 times as much as the next most cited works on the minimum wage. Even if they're wrong, they carry a lot of weight. Academic38 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply The problem here is that you're citing a working paper (i.e., an unpublished work) as evidence that the results in a published work (N&W's) are biased. Is that not the essence of WP:UNDUE? Wikiant (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - They ARE notable. They also seem to be wrong, in spite of many people here and elsewhere who so earnestly want them to be right. In an encyclopedia article about the minimum wage, you've got to go with reliable sources as defined by the encyclopedia. You can't just start finding obscure reasons why they aren't so reliable. This whole article seems to have a publication bias in favor of the idea that minimum wages are a wonderful thing that helps people, especially the poor. They are not that, as theory predicts and as study after study confirms. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply - Citing unpublished working papers? Horrors! That is original research in its oldest, truest, and most prohibited form. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply Um, if it meets WP:V, by definition it's not WP:OR. And since it's openly available on the web, it meets WP:V. Wikiant is on the right track when (s)he suggests that citing an unpublished paper might be WP:UNDUE. But one of the two authors has a 2008 article with the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics and a 2005 article in The Journal of Economic Surveys with similar results, but less data, so it's a fair bet this will be published in due course. Finally, might I point out that the data we present in the "Surveys of Economists" sections shows that C&K changed a lot of economists' minds? That wouldn't be so if the slew of studies cited by N&W were so convincing. Wikiant, do you not believe in meta-analysis? Academic38 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Grotesque. This is grotesque. Verifiability and original research are different things. We can verify that the stuff you refer to is original research that is self-published on the internet. Thus we can verify that it is in no way a reliable source for material in an encyclopedia. That one of the authors has had a paper published somewhare doesn't enter into it. And "the data you presented" that "shows" something consists of somebody saying that their results are "likely" due to Card and Kreuger and its fallout. Give us a break. This is a very bad article that fails to present much important material about minimum wages. The Card and Krueger disinformation is only part of the problem. Birfday (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Turns out the paper isn't unpublished; it's in the British Journal of Industrial Relations 2008. I got that misimpression because I looked at a free version on a university website. Hence your previous comments are irrelevant due to my bad. As for whether C&K is disinformation, I suggest you look at the comments below by our academic economist interlocutor LK, the number of citations they get compared to anything else on the minimum wage, or the data in the article showing how much the opinions of academic economists have changed since they published. Sorry again for my error. Academic38 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Definitely keep the chart. It's the most useful thing in the article. Also expand on it by creating sections and subsections that further expand on what the chart contains. In most cases, the article doesn't even mention the "effects considered" categorized by Neumark et al. It doesn't say much about disemployment, either. As many know (but not those who rely on this article), unemployment occurs when you lose your job and are looking for another one. Disemployment occurs when you lose your job and give up looking, or when you never get a job in the first place. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sad. We have had exactly one comment by an identified editor (an admin at that) who has not been involved with this article. All the rest is comments by involved parties (and an anonymous editor). The RfC process could be useful if we actually got some comments. As it is, we're just restating our various points of view. I suggest, as a way of moving forward, that we take the uninvolved admin's (Rd232) view seriously and break up the chart into text. Academic38 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I disagree. The consensus here appears to be that we keep the chart. I'm not comfortable weighting editors' opinions based on their lack of involvement in an article. Wikiant (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the official definition of an RfC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." I have highlighted the key word. Lack of involvement is in fact the actual criterion. Academic38 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply. Give us an example of what you propose to do. How will you show all the interconnections between the material in the chart? If you can do a better job of presenting the information, that's great. If not, you should leave it alone. It takes talent to do such a thing, as well as the ability to think clearly about complex matters. Those things are pretty rare. BTW, there are some obvious reasons why so few responded to the RfC. Lou Sander (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The editors at my various academic publishers obviously think I can present complex matters clearly, but I'm not going to put something in a sandbox just to satisfy you. When we resolve the RfC, I'll edit. Academic38 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do whatever you want, of course. Just don't remove properly cited material from the article. Using a sandbox isn't just to satisfy ME. It's to let people see your work and comment on it before it goes to press. Sort of like when one's academic publishers circulate one's submissions among one's peers before they publish it. It makes for a better article, as I'm sure you've seen with your publishers. Lou Sander (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. My outside input is keep the chart. My other outside input is that this article is heavily biased in favor of the point of view that minimum wage is good public policy. Much of the bias comes from undue emphasis on Card & kreuger. Other comes from suppression of contrary points of view such as those backed by the material in the chart. Those who would change the chart might like to do so by weakening what it says. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply.That brings outside comment to 1-1, though I must admit that I believe an administrator's view should count for more than an anonymous editor's (why don't you register? you're a constructive contributor here and elsewhere). If you look at the opinion of the involved editors, there is a clear majority who believe negative things about the minimum wage. This is in contrast to the opinions of actual economists, which have become substantially more favorable to the minimum wage since Myth and Measurement. Moreover, if we are to believe the anti-minimum wage survey article (Klein and Dompe 2007), labor economists are even more supportive of the minimum wage than economists in general. The question of WP:UNDUE turns not on what we think, but on what the economics profession thinks.
BTW, I have no problem with the material in the chart being included, but doing it as a chart makes it a lot harder to weave other relevant material together with it. Academic38 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. (1) Reprinting the chart, with some rephrasing, and appropriate attribution given, would not be COPYVIO. (2) It's only undue WEIGHT if there is substantial economic disagreement with the conclusions in the chart, which I do not believe there is--it's a restatement of mainstream economic views on the issue; (3) the article gives undue weight to the idiosyncratic, and discredited, findings of Card and Kreuger. Card/Kreuger should definitely have a role in the article, since their paper has unfortunately distorted the discussion, but the multiple refutations need to be made manifestly clear. THF (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not copyvio if attributed, but definitely undue. Either get rid of the chart, or incorporate findings (properly cited) from all studies mentioned in the whole article, not just findings from one study. LK (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? The chart is a summary of all studies. Are you saying the chart is inaccurate? THF (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The chart is a summary of the findings in a book from an academic press, written by a research-oriented academic and a researcher for the Federal Reserve Board, neither of whom seem to have any particular biases. The book seems to be an impeccably reliable source. It details a study of 300+ articles representing a broad spectrum of worldwide writing on the minimum wage over 50 years, but emphasizing work since the 1990s. In Wikipedia, undue weight has to do with inappropriate emphasis on one particular viewpoint. Please be more specific about what viewpoint you think that might be. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The chart is a summary of a lot of studies by two authors. Its prominence in the article gives the impression that it is Wikipedia's summary of all studies. This violates WP:UNDUE. Again, breaking up the chart into prose form is probably the only viable way to deal with this, since I can't see WP agreeing on amending the chart to reflect more opinions/sources (which is what a normal encyclopedia could and would and should do). Rd232 talk 13:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's only UNDUE if the summary is contested by reliable sources or is a minority view. The summary reflects mainstream economic thinking on the issue. THF (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The two paragraphs preceding the chart give a detailed explanation of what it is and where it came from. It is very carefully cited. How could a reader think that it's "Wikipedia's summary of all studies?" Lou Sander (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification OK, I've changed my mind. I think chart can stay, but the article should state clearly that it's the findings of one group of researchers, and not necessarily a NPV statement of fact. The chart is a summary of evidence on minimum wage in the opinion of one group of researchers. I'm sure researchers on the other side of the question have a different opinion about how to summarize the evidence. Also, THF, I can assure you that as far as academic economists are concerned, the jury is very much still out on Card and Kruger. AFAIK, their work has not been discredited, and still generates much active research and debate. LK (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The chart, as used in the article as it stands currently, violates WP:UNDUE. I'm sorry to see LK change his mind -- the first comment gets it right, and adding some text that says it summarizes only one group of researchers won't do much to alleviate the problem of readers perceiving the chart as a definitive portrayal of the state of economic research on the minimum wage. BTW, this article is too long and detailed, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that it is the product of an on-going battle between different points of view. So I'm not sure the solution is more text; this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for clarification.You have not said why you believe the article violates WP:UNDUE. Please tell us what point of view is being given undue weight. Also please tell us how it is that how this material causes a problem with reader perception. BTW I agree that the article is too long and detailed. Skyrocket654 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The chart and the associated text do NOT have any discernable problem with undue weight. To quote the relevant policy, "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That is exactly what this material does. It is a clearly-explained summary of decades of empirical research. If an editor thinks the material is unfair, or wrong, or whatever, it is up to the editor to find reliably sourced material to that effect. At the very least, such an editor must be specific about his or her concerns. The chart does NOT violate copyright in any way. It does NOT give any incorrect perception about its source. If someone claims that it does, they need to do more than just assert their opinion. Skyrocket654 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced "Standard theory criticism"

In this article, criticisms of the economic theory about the minimum wage are given almost as much space as the theory itself! The explanation of the theory is kind of shaky, with quite a few unreferenced points. The voluminous criticisms contain arguments and speculations of individuals seemingly with minority views, all meticulously referenced. All this seems to give undue weight to the criticisms. The situation continues in the rest of the article, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The answer is to beef up and clean up the standard theory presentation. If anyone has time, any of the standard Economics textbooks should have a good discussion. The two most popular undergraduate-level economics textbooks right now are probably:
Economics by Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate!) & Robin Wells, and
Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw
LK (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The prices of those textbooks are $127.11 and $163.16, respectively. Based on those two data points, I surmise that the price elasticity of demand for basic textbooks by well-known economists is quite a bit less than one. Maybe close to zero, in fact. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is, professors don't have to pay for the books they assign, so their price elasticity is near zero. The students suffer for it. The international editions are much more reasonable, not that I care of course, I get mine free. ;-
Let me consider about how to send you the appropriate sections on unemployment. --LK (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've requested the Mankiw book on interlibrary loan. It would be good to have Krugman's and one other. Maybe these books are Giffen goods -- the more expensive they are, the more the professors assign them, so the more of them the consumers have to buy. Lou Sander (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Demand inelasticity: factual accuracy

Two difference people claim that the reference says two different things; demand for workers can be inelastic, or demand for their product can be inelastic. Which does it actually say? Also, IMHO this is hardly "standard theory criticism." It's the provision of further detail. Lou Sander (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another editor put the citation and talked about inelastic demand for labor. What followed was factually incorrect. The argument that the editor was trying to make was more clearly made by talking about the elasticity of the product rather than the elasticity of the labor. I made the switch but left the citation. I haven't looked at the citation and it is possible that it is not relevant to elasticity of the product. If so, I suggest removing the citation. Wikiant (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO we shouldn't put anything into this article unless it is very clearly sourced, and unless the material in the article clearly and unequivocally matches what is said in the source. Lou Sander (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In particular elasticity for a good is not going to translate 1-4-1 into elasticity for a factor of production. Technological conditions (ease of substituting one factor for another) are likely to also be very important.radek (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
My first response was simply to delete the paragraph, but the original editor reverted. I don't see that the paragraph contributes that much anyway -- but, better to contribute zero than to contribute negatively. Wikiant (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I (not the original contributer of the para) put the paragraph back in and added the reference; I took the example to be an explanation of why the demand for labor might be inelastic, not a claim about inelasticity of demand for the product. The citation discuss elasticity of demand for labor in the context of a minimum wage, and is from an introductory economics textbook, which I think is some evidence that this is a common caveat in relation to the standard theory, which would make it worth including in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Economics of the minimum wage

I've consolidated the material in this section and altered some headings. IMHO, the material under "Simple supply and demand" and "Complicating factors" is basically that which existed before, but better organized and coordinated. Also, everything is referenced and seems to accurately describe the basics of labor supply and demand.

One problem is that the drawing, which is originally from a site intended to show somebody's graphic skill, shows the supply and demand curves in light colors and shows meaningless shading below them. It's beautiful, but suboptimal. Maybe someone can fix it. I don't know how.

The "Standard theory criticism" section is, IMHO, still a wee bit incoherent. Lou Sander (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Surveys of economists" ? Why?

The section "Surveys of economists" is not only irrelevant to the article's topic, it is also fallacious, and constitutes an appeal to authority and belief. The article also largely speaks of "economists" as though they are an indistinguishable mass of experts who can arbitrarily and anonymously be called upon to weigh in on the topic of minimum wage. We're left with an article full of "dueling experts", which is really just a sophisticated form of "some people say". --70.131.52.222 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, basically. Lou Sander (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. An "appeal to authority" occurs when one says, "X is true because experts say so." That is not what this section says. An article on a controversial medical procedure would likely contain a section summarizing medical doctors' opinions. This section is no different. Wikiant (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The closer one looks at that section, the worse it appears. The topic sentence, "Survey results show that agreement over the effect of minimum wages has weakened over time" is original research, in that it is an editorial synthesis of the selected information that follows. Where is the citation for that claim?
The "supporting" paragraphs then talk about different things. One asks if minimum wages increase unemployment. Another asks if the respondents support an increase in the minimum wage (a totally different question), and speculates that C&K are involved(!). Another talks about other grounds for supporting or not supporting the minimum wage. The last talks about the respondents' "values."
The bottom line is that this section starts with original research, then supports it with a disjointed array of quotations from selected studies. IMHO this is more than a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Lou Sander (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the wording could use some cleaning. As I recall, an editor (not me) introduced this section some time ago in response to the growing number of citations claiming that economists were in disagreement as to the effects of minimum wage. In total, it left the impressions that economists in general had no idea. Wikiant (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it probably IS true that consensus about the effects of the minimum wage has changed over time. But if that's the case, we need to find a reliable source that says so. It's not up to a bunch of encyclopedia editors to say it. Lou Sander (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't the editors who are saying this. The survey was conducted by the American Economic Association (probably to economists what the AMA is to medical doctors, though absent regulatory power). Stripped of POV wording, I believe the section is useful. Wikiant (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something. Please provide the citation that says "Survey results show that agreement over the effect of minimum wages has weakened over time." Lou Sander (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we did have a citation, to The Economist, but it disappeared when part of the introduction was cut a while back. Academic38 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That sentence should be removed as OR. I removed it as well as reference to a study of signatories of a "Raise the Minimum Wage" petition. The latter represents a biased sample. Wikiant (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the removal of that one sentence, though it is a summary of what follows. I don't understand the rationale for removing the Klein/Dompe study and will revert if you don't persuade me otherwise. Of course it is a biased sample, but that is what the minimum-wage opponent authors wanted. They wanted to provide insight into why minimum wage supporting economists do so, and their article accomplishes this. Where's the problem? Some research studies men only and some research studies women only, but there is scientific value in those biased samples, too.
Lou, I don't understand why you seem to think all the studies have to ask the same question. Just as there are lots of aspects to the issue, there is room for surveys to ask different things. In addition, the reference to C&K's influence was not speculation on my part; it's straight from the article. No WP:OR involved. Academic38 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It's like you say "dogs have become less popular lately," then follow it up with paragraphs about dog food, different breeds of dog, the rising popularity of cats, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the Klein/Dompe study, but it needs to be presented in the proper context. The way it was presented hid (not intentionally, but hid nonetheless) the fact that the study was intended to explore attitudes among economists *who believed the minimum wage was beneficial*. The problem might be fixed with some appropriate introduction. But, (1) following a paragraph on attitudes among economists in general, and (2) not explicitly identifying the subset of economists being surveyed can lead the reader to easily misinterpret the studies conclusions. Wikiant (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page, then. I've added it back and tried to make it clearer who was surveyed and put it at the end of the surveys. How does it look to you? Academic38 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is now a reference about the weakening of consensus. It was long overdue. A problem with the referenced article, which is a good one, is that it has nothing to do with "Surveys of economists." This sentence needs to be deleted or moved to somewhere more appropriate.

The original point of this discussion is that a section of surveys isn't appropriate. Maybe somebody could tell us why they think it is. IMHO, the surveys don't make any coherent point, nor does the section. It's just a selected list of people's opinions on various aspects of the minimum wage. Because they are selected, and not even claimed to be representative of any mainstream view, each of the survey is given undue weight. They belong in footnotes, if anywhere. Lou Sander (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Surveys published in academic journals go through peer review, and one of the points reviewers will assess in the case of a survey-based article is whether the sample is representative. Peer reviewers at four different journals (see footnotes 68-71) obviously judged that the articles cited met that criterion (Klein/Dompe, as already noted, was designed not to be representative of the profession in general). According to WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories." So, contrary to your statement, it is indeed being claimed that the results of the surveys are representative of the profession as a whole. Wikiant has already given the general justification of why surveys of specialists are useful on controversial topics. I will just add that it is impossible to determine what is undue without knowing what economists actually think.
Almost half of the Economist article discusses consensus or lack thereof among economists. As I said, it had already been in the article, so your comment "long overdue" does not make sense. When it was in the introduction, it coordinated with the sentence we recently struck from the Surveys section. Academic38 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
They are definitely peer-reviewed articles about surveys. But the point is that the "Surveys of economists" section shouldn't even be in the article. All it is is a laundry list of selected surveys. It makes no coherent point about surveys of economists. (Or if it does, somebody needs to state it.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The Economist article surely does discuss consensus. But it isn't about surveys. The question is: Why is it in a section about "Surveys of economists?" Lou Sander (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What evidence do you have for your claim that the studies are "selected" rather than representative? It's not like economists get surveyed every week on their opinions. You can feel free to do a Google Scholar search if you don't believe me. Statistically valid surveys of economists (especially labor economists) are a better guide to whose arguments are most persuasive in the profession than one book by two people giving their opinion of which empirical studies are best, which is another reason in addition to that made by Wikiant on why the section belongs in the article. As for the Economist article, it summarizes the trend. Do you suppose they reached their judgment without considering the surveys? Do you really think it makes that big of a difference if the section is called "Surveys of Economists" rather than "Opinions of Economists" (in which case your objection to the Economist article being in the section would be clearly ridiculous)? You are quibbling over minutiae.
Please do not make suggestions as to what other editors might do. Please do not criticize other editors or characterize their remarks as other than valid. Please be very careful about using words like "ridiculous," "makes no sense," "quibbling over minutiae," etc. To do so is to be incivil. Lou Sander (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please DO tell us, in some coherent fashion, why the "Surveys of economists" section belongs in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You can pretend that Wikiant and I haven't already said why the section should be in the article, but doing so is WP:IDHT. Academic38 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop saying things like "you can pretend." IMHO, it's pretty uncivil. I'm just asking you to say why it should be in there. Lou Sander (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Both Wikiant and I have now answered this question at least twice. Stop with the WP:IDHT. Academic38 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The studies ARE selected. The article makes no claim that they are representative. If you want to make that claim, please make it in the article and back it up with references. (As we all should know, it is original research for an editor to decide what is representative in such a contentious field as this.) Lou Sander (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it makes "that big of a difference" when material not about surveys of economists appears as the topic sentence in a section entitled "Surveys of economists." And by the way, the reference absolutely does NOT say that the consensus was "weakened based on the work of C&K." What it actually says is that the consensus was challenged by studies including theirs, and that other studies consistently found the opposite of what they found. It goes on to say what today's consensus actually IS, insofar as there is one. Lou Sander (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You have conveniently forgotten that one of the journal articles itself says it is "likely" that C&K's work was the cause. Academic38 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop saying uncivil things like "conveniently forgotten." Also please stop turning somebody saying "likely" into a strong statement of fact. You have said that the consensus was weakened "based on work by C&K." The reference you provide mentions them briefly as part of a much more complicated situation. When that is pointed out to you, you say that somebody else said "likely." If you want to make such a strong claim, you need to back it up with a strong reference. Lou Sander (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize. Academic38 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I believe that the studies are relevant in that they reflect the opinions of experts as to the effects of the minimum wage. I don't see that the studies represent a biased sample of economists. Wikiant (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Lou, when you say, "the studies are selected" am I correct that you mean "WP editors have selected these studies for inclusion in this article" as opposed to "the studies' authors selected the study participants"? Wikiant (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. This section is just a bunch of editor-created mini-reviews of editor-selected papers about surveys. "John's survey found this, Mary's found that, Foo's found something else." So what? They don't support anything that the encyclopedia says -- they are just there. In addition, the first sentence of the "Surveys of economists" section cites a reference that doesn't mention surveys. (At least one editor feels they MUST have consulted surveys, but doesn't provide any support.) Very unencyclopedia-like, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While we do need to guard against "cherry picking" our studies, it is reasonable to include the AER study. The American Economic Association is the premier organization for research economists (at least in the U.S. -- possibly in the world). I'd be hard pressed to believe that including that study constitutes "cherry picking." Wikiant (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a collection of studies, or a collection of editor-created abstracts of studies. An encyclopedia provides information about a subject, and if it's Wikipedia, it backs its claims by citing references. Somebody has chosen this AEA study out of all the studies in the world, and plopped it into an article. Nothing in the article says anything specific about why this mini-abstract is there (in other words, it isn't there to support a claim). All we see is an editor-created (= original research) summary of some of the study's results. Nobody is disputing the study. They (me) ARE disputing the (unspecified) reason for including it, the synthesis of its results by a Wikipedian, and the inclusion of the edited synthesis in the body of the article, rather than referring to the study in a footnote. The same complaint applies to all the other studies in this section. Lou Sander (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
By these criteria, it would be impossible to discuss academic journal articles in Wikipedia at all. Summarizing an article is not WP:OR. Academic38 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a place for discussion of academic journal articles. Lou Sander (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, the study first appeared in response to a growing NPOV (fueled primarily by the Card & Kreuger section) that pushed the idea that economists were in disagreement as to whether or not minimum wage was beneficial to low wage workers. The benefit of the AER study is that it provides a counterweight to that argument. One approach is to omit all discussion as to the effects of the minimum wage. That would leave us, however, with an article limited to the economic theory and perhaps some history. Inevitably, someone is going to want to add a discussion on the empirical effects. That then re-opens this whole discussion. Wikiant (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a featured article in which numerous studies are discussed: FairTax. Note that few of these studies are in academic journals, however, which in my mind actually weakens its claim to be a featured article. Such is life. There is no other featured article about a truly controversial economic topic, as far as I can tell. Academic38 (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to see the difference between A) the use of studies to illustrate the substantive points made in a well-written article and B) an entire section made up of mini-abstracts of studies, with not a word about their meaning, context, etc.? Lou Sander (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the compromise here is to add words to make the meaning of the studies more explicit. IMO, the reason for the studies is to summarize economists' opinions on the effect of the minimum wage on low income workers. Wikiant (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You are on the right track. Those words to be added are the whole point of an encyclopedia. And if you are to avoid original research, you cannot do a summary of economists' opinions yourself. You need to find a reliable source that does it in an NPOV way. Your own words can summarize what is said in that source, but it is not up to you, or any editor, to do the summarization. It is also your responsibility to be accurate in summarizing the source. You can't twist its words. If the source says "might be," you can't say "is." Lou Sander (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your recent edits have improved the section. Thank you. Academic38 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll like to offer a third opinion here, if it's still needed. I've just read through the discussion here, and the section in the article. I think that surveys of academics on a controversial subject are relevant and notable. The section as it now stands needs a bit of reorganization and cleanup, but I think the sources cited are good and should be included. LK (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neumark and Wascher

Minimum Wages, The MIT Press, 2008, draws the following conclusions:

§ Minimum wage laws reduce job opportunities for less-skilled workers;

§ Higher minimum wages tend to reduce earnings of the lowest-skilled workers;

§ Minimum wages do not reduce poverty, but rather tend to redistribute income among low-income families and may actually increase poverty; and

§ Minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings through the loss of investment in skills and education.

DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I've (re)removed several top-level categories such as "Economics" from this article. It is still massively overcategorised. Remember that an article should not be in a high-level category if it is can be assigned to a subcategory.JQ (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagre. If minimum wage -- i.e., price fixing -- is not an economic topic, what is it? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is an economic topic, which is why it is in a subcategory of economics. But as Wikipedia:Category explains, high-level categories like economics would be unmanageable if every article in the field (thousands of them) were included at the top level. That's why only a small number of articles about economics in general belong there, along with subcategories for the different fields of economics. This article belongs in the Labor economics subcategory (and maybe some others). JQ (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Weekly

I removed "weekly" from the first line, since as I recall it isn't in the reference. If I'm wrong, or if you can provide a reference for it, I'm all for putting it back in. (I've never heard of a weekly minimum wage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just give us a place to verify its existence.) Lou Sander (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How to enforce this law

How can the minimum wage law be enforced in, for example, USA when there is a language barrier? Many immigrants don't speak English, who are business owners & employees, & law enforcement usually only speak English? Isn't that impossible? Should this be commented on? Stars4change (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your question. A language barrier has no impact on the enforcement of a law. Wikiant (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, the minimum wage is generally enforced simply because people generally follow the law. There are, of course, exceptions. And, those exceptions frequently (IMHO) involve workers who are forced to accept less than minimum wage because of linguistic limitations. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Barring slavery, no one is *forced* to accept a wage. If you don't like the offered wage, walk away and seek an alternative offer. The higher the wage is, the fewer the alternative offers. The less skilled the worker, the fewer the alternative offers. The greater the cost of hiring the worker (e.g., in the case of fines for hiring undocumented workers), the fewer the alternative offers. Wikiant (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A language barrier means it's impossible to enforce this law, so the business owner might be living in a mansion & traveling the world while their employees in America might be earning, for example $.10 an hour because they can't know the minimum wage law even exists. And I read in "Fast Food Nation" that in the 1950's Walt Disney, who was getting rich & there was no language barrier, paid the authorities to look the other way so he could pay below the so-called "minimum wage law" which was only about $2.50 an hour which no one could live on even in 1950's dollars. I'm saying It's impossible to enforce any minimum wage laws. Stars4change (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are misusing "enforce." The language barrier has no impact on the enforcing of the law (where "enforcement" is what happens after a violation of the law is discovered). In your example, the language barrier makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to monitor compliance. Further, your example rests on two unrealistic assumptions: (1) that the only way the government would be informed of the minimum wage violation is via worker complaints, and (2) because of the language barrier, the workers never discover that there is a minimum wage and/or that their wages are less than the minimum. In fact, neither of these assumptions is reasonable. Wikiant (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A “language barrier” doesn’t mean it is impossible to enforce any law any more than it means someone “can’t” know the law. If one person doesn’t speak the language necessary to know the rules, perhaps someone else – who does – will explain it to him or her. More difficult, but not impossible!

If “Fast Food Nation,” is your source of knowledge, and you think the minimum wage in the 1950’s [sic] was $2.50 an hour, you probably need to study more, rather than wasting time here.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

@Stars4change: If you can find a few reliable studies which conclude that there is a significant relationship between language barriers and minimum wages, show them to us and we can discuss incorporating them into the article (be mindful of WP:UNDUE though). Although, I would oppose the inclusion of any comment which implies that language barriers make it impossible to enforce this law. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. I'll find many to show you. Stars4change (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is from "When Corporations Rule the World" refers to workers in San Francisco today: "Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers.....(shows us that minimum wage can't be enforced): Many of the [modern clothing shops] are dark, cramped and windowless.... Twelve-hour days with no days off and a break only for lunch are not uncommon. And in this wealthy, cosmopolitan city, many shops enforce draconian rules reminiscent of the 19th century. 'The workers are not allowed to talk with each other and they didn't allow us to go to the bathroom,' Says one Asian garment worker. ...Aware of manufacturers' zeal for bargain basement prices, the nearly 600 sewing contractors in the Bay Area engage in cutthroat competition--often a kind of Darwinian drive to the bottom..... Manufacturers have another powerful chip to keep bids down. Katie Quan, a manager of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in San Francisco, explains, 'They say, If you don't take it, we'll just ship it overseas, and you won't get work and your workers will go hungry.' In 1992 a [Department of Labor] investigation of garment shops on the U.S. protectorate of Saipan found conditions akin to indentured servitude: Chinese workers whose passports had been confiscated, putting in 84-hr weeks at subminimum wages." Stars4change (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I find this hard to believe. San Francisco county has a population of 800,000. How can "millions" of San Francisco workers be working in sweat shops? Wikiant (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's referring to the surrounding cities too, because they all run together, & I'm sure it happens to millions nationwide in US, & most people worldwide do have to suffer in those conditions, & they die in those conditions, even in USA, as the slaves did in the past,because this is slavery. Stars4change (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 75,000 workers *in the entire state of California* making minimum wage or less. Further, it isn't "slavery" if the employer and worker both agree to the wage. Wikiant (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Labor Statistics don't know any Truth. Stars4change (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is intended as more than personal opinion, you'll need to provide evidence. When attempting to measure something this large (i.e., the number of unemployed people in California), invariably there are transcription errors, missed observations, and fuzzy definitions. Economists know that BLS figures are estimates. However, comparing numbers over time, across states, and to related data sets, BLS figures tend to be reasonable estimates. What you're suggesting, however, is that (1) BLS is off by a factor of *hundreds to thousands* in its count of the unemployed, and (2) BLS is off (again by hundreds to thousands) in its report of California's population. Given that there are many groups who have strong incentives to know unemployment and population figures precisely, I find your original statement unacceptably hard to believe. Wikiant (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I changed the wording of the book & made the error. Here's how it's written: Modern Slavery: Descriptions of the working conditions of MILLIONS of workers [meaning worldwide], even in the "modern and affluent" North, sound like a throwback to the days of the early industrial revolution. Consider this description of conditions at contract clothing shops in modern affluent San Francisco: [then it says...] Many of them are dark, cramped and windowless...] Anyway there are millions worldwide, & thousands in San Francisco, & I don't see how the minimum wage law can be enforced in any US city because of the language barrier, & those conditions are modern slavery, about a 9, on a scale of 1 to 10. Stars4change (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between "poor working conditions" and "slavery." Slavery is a condition in which a person's labor is stolen from him. It is possible (though perhaps more the exception than the norm) that one could be a slave and not experience poor working conditions. Conversely, it is possible to experience poor working conditions and not be a slave (e.g., miners). If an employer cannot force a worker to work, then whatever else you might have, you don't have slavery. Wikiant (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No; slavery means being "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation" and "a person who is controlled by someone or something" so the wage system is also slavery. Study child labour until you see it. I can prove the wage is slavery to every Supreme Court & judge & lawyer & person on earth, & it wouldn't be difficult to do. Also, the wage is the cause of world poverty; see multinational corporations. And look at Haitian slaves working for Disney here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/WorkingForRAt_DisneyHaiti.html and this place shows USA must change for any other nation to change: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html. That's earthshaking news, but it's true we're all slaves. Stars4change (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've altered the definition. Read slavery: "Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others." If you have the license to change the word to mean anything you want, then you can prove anything you like. My suspicion is that you're being incredibly insulting to those who have experienced true slavery. Wikiant (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You can take a slave out of the field & put him in an office, but he's still a slave. We'll be free when every person on earth owns all things, & only when we end world poverty. 69.228.192.184 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look up the meaning of slavery in a dictionary to see the definition I gave is from the dictionary? It is NOT MY definition. As for me being "incredibly insulting to those who have experienced true slavery" I say you are being incredibly insulting to those who are still slaves (all of us) & you're being ignorant. I'm trying to get Wikipedia to admit that the wage is also slavery, real slavery, & we must end the wage to end world poverty immediately. Stars4change (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Webster's definition for "slave" is: "a person held in servitude as the chattel of another." In turn, Webster's definition of "chattel" is "an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property." This doesn't square with your claim that a slave is "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation." In fact, I can think of many examples that fit your definition and are clearly not slaves: parents, the majority of actors, volunteers. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stars4change, in December 2007, the combined total employment in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties was 2,072,400. [Source: http://stats. bls.gov/ ro9/ qcewca.pdf] If “millions” of workers are slaving away in sweat shop conditions, then we must believe only 72,400 – that’s 3.5%, folks! – are taking care of Silicon Valley and a couple of world class universities, not to mention the local, state and federal government offices, teachers, bus drivers . . . I think you get the idea. This source is not credible.

Of course, it could be that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t know any Truth [sic], but that would be even more incredible, wouldn’t it? The bottom line is that you cannot change definitions and discard credible sources to fit your preconceived notions, and expect to go unchallenged. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the next definition of slave. Workers in Haiti making stupid Disney shirts for $.30 an hour isn't slavery??! The minimum wage law is a bandaid on CANCER!! You don't think $7 an hour, where rent is $1,000 a month, is oppression either! Stars4change (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you been to Haiti? Unfortunately, people who wish to impose their US values on Haiti led to the almost complete shut down of the garmet industry, with subsequent loss of large numbers of jobs and a skyrocketing in poverty and food scarcity. As an alternative, deforrestation for charcoal production has led to loss of ag land and conflicts with neighboring DR. What a white American whose never been off the continent thinks is low pay the Haitians thought were well paying jobs, and seeing how the situation has been made vastly worse by the exodus of the garment industry its hard to argue with them about the danger of naiive do gooders who instead helped ruin their country. Fuzbaby (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is the WAGE system is the problem worldwide. The wage is the CAUSE of world poverty. The WAGE system is not the solution, it is the Problem, because it is slavery, but most people still don't know that. The wage is slavery, but a Guaranteed Income for every person (or better yet, all people OWN ALL things) is the RIGHT way that the whole world should do things. Because no one can enforce a ridiculous "minimum wage law" anywhere on earth. Stars4change (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument isn't at all clear, but what I hear implies an imaginary world in which there are no constraints. Take a simple case of a world in which there is only one person -- a farmer. The farmer's circumstances are such that he can produce 100 units of food per year. If the farmer needs 150 units of food to live, then he dies. Passing laws that the farmer must produce 150 units of food doesn't alter anything. A minimum wage is no different than legislating that the farmer produce 150 units of food. Expanding the case to multiple people who have specialized jobs and who use money instead of barter does not change the outcome, though it seems to add to your confusion. Wikiant (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Useless - Should be Retitled "Minimum Wage Ideological Blather"

this article seems to be a sandbox for a few ideologues, it seems to violate all the Wikipedia norms of encyclopedic and sticking to the subject, it is not helpful for anyone looking for basic info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.94.195 (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're free to edit the article. What do you seek that isn't here? If you are seeking something here, then how can it be that you know enough about the topic to conclude that what is said here is the result of ideology versus theory and observation? Wikiant (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest you register and sign your comments when trolling? It detract from your credibility to be known as merely 98.234.94.195. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipdedia DOES have policies that require us to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. If you continue to violate these policies as you have with this comment, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Also, Wikipedia has specifically and repeatedly rejected the idea that editors should be logged in users. Dlabtot (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
By, "personal attack," are you referring to 98.234.94.195's calling the editors "ideologues"? The indentation makes it look like you are referring to DOR's use of "trolling" (which isn't a personal attack as it describes the person's actions, not the person). Wikiant (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a personal attack to call another editor a troll. Whether this is expressed as a gerund or a noun is irrelevant. E.g., it is just as unacceptable for one editor to say that another is lying as it is to to call them a liar. It is also highly inappropriate to attack an editor for editing anonymously. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's only a personal attack if you apply the name to someone who isn't a troll; otherwise it's merely a statement of fact. Calling editors "ideologues" is clearly trolling. Wikiant (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, I’m inclined to stand by my comment about “register and sign your comments when trolling” simply because the comment about “ideologues” was totally unsubstantiated, and met with direct attack rather than reasoned discourse.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic Income

I am not sure this section belongs in the article. There is no citation for the key claim that it has been advocated as an alternative to the minimum wage. It has numerous 10-month old fact tags. The quotation from Andre Gorz is too long, IMO. How do others feel about this section? Academic38 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a valid concept, and should be discussed as an alternative to minimum wage. However, the current basic income section is way too long, and rather messy.
It's equivalent to a negative income tax, and very similar to an earned income tax credit, as such, all three should probably be discussed in the same section. I think the current text needs to be drastically shortened, cited sources saved and then merged with the section on the negative income tax. LK (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs in this article. Wages are the price of labor; minimum wage laws are legal price fixing. The alternative is not to fix the price of labor, period. And, since there is no recent evidence that a minimum wage does anything to improve living standards, any other issue is aimed at some other subject. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Wikiant (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that there shouldn't be an "alternatives" section. The minimum wage was introduced for specific reasons, and there may be other means to achieve those policy goals, such as the EITC or an NIT. DOR (HK), the most common claim I have seen is that the EITC is better than the minimum wage for reducing poverty because it is better targeted, not that the minimum wage has no effect on decreasing poverty. We actually need a section on the politics of the minimum wage, because a) the public at large is far more supportive of it than economists are; and b) it might therefore be more politically feasible to raise the minimum wage than to raise the EITC (and we've obviously never introduced an NIT).

As for "Basic Income," I agree with LK that the section needs to cleaned up and shortened. Academic38 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure how the discussion moved from fixing the price of labor to dealing with poverty, but it is an entirely different subject, at least in economic terms. The evidence I’ve seen (and cited: Neumark & Wascher’s Minimum Wage [MIT: 2008]), shows that a poor minimum wage law may very well increase poverty. I recognize there are political folks who want to play with poverty reduction by way of the minimum wage, but the evidence says they're wrong, so let's not confuse readers who may not know that. I suggest we keep this article about minimum wage, write a new one about the politics of minimum wage, and (if necessary) put issues related to reducing poverty in the “see also” section. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The basic income and other "alternatives" should be mentioned in the article, but not discussed there. That's what wikilinks are for. Reduce the "alternatives" section to a few sentences, max, with links to the appropriate articles. If there aren't articles, it's probably because the topics aren't notable. Lou Sander (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the suggestion that the minimum wage and poverty are separate issues. It's true that Neumark & Wascher (and others) argue that minimum wages don't (or may not) reduce poverty, but they present this as a reason for opposing minimum wages. Most supporters claim that minimum wages reduce poverty and present this as the/a main reason for advocating it. Maybe there are some minimum wage supporters who advocate the policy for reasons independent of poverty reduction and agree that minimum wages increase poverty, but I'm not aware of them. Following on from this, I think we should have a separate section on Minimum wages and poverty. The material currently under "Alternatives" could be folded into this, being presented as alternative ways of reducing poverty. The exception is the reference to Sweden, which I'm going to delete since, if the description is correct, it's not really an alternative, just the outcome when you have unions and no statutory minimum wage. JQ (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As an alternative, what about a section titled something like "Minimum Wage Advocates"? We can include here those who claim that the minimum wage is an appropriate tool to fight poverty. We can also include labor unions who advocate for the minimum wage (and point out economists' view that the real effect is a reduction in labor competition). If I were in a more ornery mood, I'd also include government welfare agencies (and point out economists' view that the real effect is to slow people's movement off of welfare programs). Wikiant (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

JQ, you agree that the most recent comprehensive work on the subject takes the position that a minimum wage does not reduce poverty. And, yet, you still want to have a section on poverty. I don’t get it; am I missing something? Why would we include in this article something that it doesn’t do? As for Sweden, the situation is the same in Germany: strong unions and no statutory minimum wage.

Odd. I don't recall describing N&M as "the most recent comprehensive work on the subject", and I doubt that you can find a reliable source for such a description. You could say "the most prominent recent critique of the minimum wage takes the position that a minimum wage does not reduce poverty. ", but then that has always been true.JQ (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, I don’t want to be insulting, but your suggestion sounds like adding a section to the Evolution article on Creationism. Why bother? Would the article on Poverty include “minimum wage laws have been shown not to reduce poverty” right along side “vanilla ice cream has been shown not to reduce poverty?” Do we list every single item that doesn’t affect a subject? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. As an economist, I agree that discussion of poverty doesn't belong here. However, given that the non-economist editors likely outnumber (or come close to doing so) the economist editors, this topic is going to keep coming up. I was attempting a second-best alternative. Wikiant (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As a real economist (look me up) I'm unimpressed to put it mildly. We shouldn't put “minimum wage laws have been shown not to reduce poverty” in the article not because it's obvious but because it isn't true. What is true is "Supporters of the minimum wage have argued that it reduces poverty, while opponents have denied this". Further, it's silly to exclude this since (along with effects on employment) the effects of the minimum wage on poverty are central to the argument. Here's a centre-ground position by some well known economists [3].JQ (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'ld like to back JQ up on this. Mainstream economic thinking (as found in popular undergraduate textbooks) is that the goal of minimum wage is to reduce poverty, and that it does reduce poverty, but that it has drawbacks (eg. a possible increase in the unemployment rate), and that there are better ways to reduce poverty (eg. a negative income tax). LK (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll need to provide some citations re achieving a reduction in poverty. In turn, I'm sure we'll find a reasonable number disputing the reduction in poverty. Citations re the intent being a reduction in poverty (apart from the actual effect) are also in order. In turn, we'll also find plenty stating that the real intent is a restriction in competition. Wikiant (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right. There are three main positions, and the article should present each of them
(i) Minimum wages reduce poverty
(ii) Minimum wages don't reduce poverty
(iii) Minimum wages reduce poverty but alternative instruments are better
Obviously, in terms of the Wikipedia project, we want to find the clearest and most representative statement of each position, not find back-and-forth quotes supporting our own preferred views. JQ (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Labor economists Neumark and Wascher, after a thorough review of decades-worth of literature, all of which is referenced in their recent book, found "some evidence" that the minimum wage is harmful to poverty-stricken families, and "virtually no evidence" that it helps them. Maybe Wikipedia editors could start with the sources that N&W used, and come up with something of their own. Maybe they could use N&W's book as a source, too. All we have from them now is a highly summarized "scorecard." Or maybe they could start again from scratch. Lou Sander (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Newumark and Wascher's book and journal articles provide a pretty good source for viewpoint (ii). But a lot of editors seem to be under the impression that NW give an authoritative statement of mainstream consensus. They don't - they are longstanding partisans on one side of the debate. Card and Krueger [4] would probably be the best single source for a generally favorable assessment of the minimum wage in the US. JQ (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were just asking whether the minimum wage reduces poverty. Maybe there is some evidence that it does, but Neumark and Wascher found virtually no such evidence, in spite of looking high and low for it. Maybe that's why they hold viewpoint ii. Or maybe they are just kidding themselves, and there's LOTS of evidence that the minimum wage reduces poverty. Lou Sander (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Lou, presumably you're aware of how academic controversies go. Whether NW read the evidence as showing little effect on poverty because they oppose the minimum wage for other reasons, or whether they oppose the minimum wage because of their reading of the evidence on poverty is not relevant here. As I mentioned, other economists read the evidence differently and conclude that the minimum wage does reduce poverty. Still others agree that it reduces poverty, but prefer alternative policy measures. None of this is a problem for Wikipedia. We don't need to resolve the issue, just report the main views taking account of their WP:WEIGHT of support within the economics profession.JQ (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it shouldn't be hard to find some reliable sources showing that the minimum wage reduces poverty. I've suggested that some of them might be listed in the NW book's huge bibliography, and that NW probably discussed them in the book itself. IMHO, they are probably as elusive and as credible as video footage of Bigfoot. But of course I could be wrong--I haven't seen them. Lou Sander (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not hard at all to find them. But presenting them in the article right now doesn't fit well with the "Scorecard" format currently in place. To amplify on something JQ said above, not only are NW partisans, they are partisans who take money from the restaurant-industry sponsored Employment Policies Institute. [5] is a study Neumark wrote for this EPI itself. NW's acceptance of industry money is not evidence of their authoritativeness, but exactly the opposite. Academic38 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article section on "arguments for and against the minimum wage," you will note that the second argument (sourced) given in favor is that it reduces poverty. While economists obviously disagree about this, it seems clear to me at least that this is a very important question about the minimum wage and absolutely belongs in this article. Academic38 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Let's be honest: Card and Krueger represent the political view "minimum wage laws help reduce poverty;" Neumark and Wascher represent the political view "there is no evidence that the old consensus, that minimum wage laws help reduce poverty, is correct."

Neither should be called mainstream, simply because you can't have a "main" stream that is exactly between the (only) two positions. More important, it is intellectually dishonest to go searching for contrary views that can be said to be "mainstream."

So, since this is an article on Minimum Wage, and not "The Politics of . . . ," we should be able to agree to strip this article down to the bare minimum (*ahem*) and put the political arguments in another article.

Opinions? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are just making the point that the minimum wage is a political issue, so obviously discussion of it will be politicised to some extent, even if it takes the form of academic disputes. I don't see any value in trying to separate "minimum wage" and "the politics of minimum wage", and more than you would for say "income tax". There's no general problem in handling issues of this kind - we just describe the main views which in this case can be linked to CK & MW respectively.JQ (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many aspects to this not-so-simple topic: 1) What the minimum wage is, the history of its adoption, etc. 2) Its "social policy" side: the hopes and contentions of its advocates that it is beneficial to the poor, or whatever; plus its political aspects, e.g., the notion that raising the minimum wage is popular among the people regardless of its actual effects. 3) The theoretical aspects covered in many elementary texts. 4) The academic studies of its actual effects, including arguments about the validity of various studies.
If there's going to be an encyclopedia article on the subject, it seems to me that all of these should be discussed in some way. It is not easy to write such an article. Lou Sander (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Opposition to Min. Wage

This is a pretty minor detail but I think that the "Apartheid" bulletpoint is just invalid. The point being made is that the only way black workers could get hired under apartheid if they sold their labor for less than the white workers. Unfortunately, this argument is a false dichotomy (a type of logical fallacy that has a well-written wiki-article, just do a search). It implies that they were only two choices for South Africa: to either have a minimum wage and disenfranchise black workers or not have a minimum wage and allow black workers to sell their wages at lower levels. This completely leaves out several other options; one of them is to eliminate apartheid, which is what actually happened. Additionally, while apartheid does still exist (or similar programs) in the world, it should be clarified that this argument only applies to such countries. After all, this is the English-speaking wiki and America currently has the largest number of English speakers in the world; it also has no apartheid system. This argument is pretty meaningless in that sense. Again, I'm not denying that apartheid still exists, but this point is irrelevant for a large number of people viewing this page. So to recap, it's a false dichotomy that is at least fairly irrelevant. Anyone agree/disagree? Also, let me point out : I know that Wikipedia is not the place to DETERMINE whether an argument is right or wrong, just to post it. YET, we have to have some discretion when we post arguments. I could post a pro-min. wage argument stating that it's a good idea because Barack Obama likes it. Yet, this would be a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). Discuss?


The bullet point reads, "Is a limit on the freedom of both employers and employees, and can result in the exclusion of certain groups from the labor force. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites." I believe that your counter argument re eliminating apartheid is a red herring. Perhaps eliminating apartheid would have changed the situation. Certainly magically increasing all workers' skill sets would have changed the situation. Neither of these things, however, happened. Within the background as it existed, the minimum wage ended up disenfranchising the black workers. Wikiant (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neumark and Wascher Restored

I've restored the recently-removed NW material, which was deleted without discussion, and on grounds that do not seem very solid.

NW's work is not a mere "literature review," but is an important book from an important academic press with a strong reputation in economics. It is a pretty high-end reliable source. The restored material is, IMHO, an even-handed summarization of what NW found. (I deleted the characterization of Card & Krueger as "outliers," in case some found that distasteful.) The restored material makes no claims that NW's findings represent a consensus—the findings are presented as what they are: the results of a study by scholars in the field. As far as I can see, they are presented clinically and from a neutral point of view. There are no peacock words that I can see. If others disagree with me on this, it would REALLY be good if they could present their reasoning here.

Arguments that NW are partisans, or biased, or whatever, don't diminish them or their book as a reliable source. NW are who they are, and they found what they found, and an extremely reliable source saw fit to publish it. Editors who disagree with NW's conclusions should, instead of trying to remove the conclusions or mischaracterize them, present opposing work, explain it, summarize its conclusions, etc., just as has been done with NW. Lou Sander (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the NW material should remain. It comes from MIT Press and the authors are from UC Irvine and the Fed -- pretty respectable all the way around. Wikiant (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I am inclined to disagree based on WP:UNDUE. While we should certainly refer to it as a "book" rather than a "literature review" when describing it, the fact is the book presents no original research. It's just the authors' reading of the literature. Since they have done important research in the field, if I ran an academic press, I would certainly have accepted this as a book I'd be happy to publish. The book is clearly notable enough to be mentioned, and if it does become the post-Card and Krueger consensus one of its blurbs says it will, it will deserve a lot of weight. But that is still in the future, and it deserves much less weight now. Looking at Google Scholar today, the book has been cited 8 times. Obviously, it's early, but that's my point! Myth and Measurement has been cited 1080 times now. Since it had 1008 citations when I mentioned it on December 31, 2008, we know that it has been cited 9 times as often as NW this year alone. Bottom line: NW does not yet deserve a section of its own. Academic38 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to present the NW 2000 criticisms of Card and Krueger and their earlier work on the topic, making their role in the debate clear. A literature summary on a controversial issue, presented by partisans on one side, is of little value, at least for the purposes of Wikipedia. It's not suitable as a secondary source. For the moment, I'll add a sentence making the position a bit clearer.JQ (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I too feel that the space currently allocated to N & W is undue. It should be trimmed down. LK (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's the scorecard that is most problematic. It's a restatement of the text in a format that makes it seem more authoritative than is justified by WP:WEIGHT. I've deleted it. What remains is a clear statement of the N&W position, as leading opponents of Card and Krueger.JQ (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is restored again. Please do not delete reasonably stated, well-sourced material that sheds quite a bit of light on the minimum wage. Please do not attempt to recast this work as being mostly in opposition to Card & Kreuger. Please do not assert, without any sort of rationale, that undue weight is given to this important work, or that it "seems" to inspire improper conclusions. If you "feel" that it is something other than what it is, please find opposing material and add it to the article in a separate section. Skyrocket654 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skyrocket654. I don't see the WP:UNDUE argument, and the argument that the book is "just the authors' reading of the literature" is non sequitur. WP:UNDUE refers to WP editors cherry picking references so as to present a biased view -- it does not apply to the references themselves. In fact, for us to claim that the book's authors give undue weight to certain studies is to commit WP:OR. The book is a WP:RELIABLE source. I don't see any reason why the book should not be included. Wikiant (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the book being mentioned, but "weight" obviously includes how much space a particular source gets. Myth and Measurement has stood the test of time, with 1080 total citations and 72 this year alone. NW only has 8 citations as of today and deserves nowhere near the ink it has gotten in the article. Citations are the currency of academia, and NW have not yet shown that they deserve the weight the article currently gives them. You and Skyrocket654 are trying to substitute your judgment of the book's worth for that of the academic community. If the book gets cited a lot, we can give it more space, but it isn't justified now. BTW, Wikiant, the book was included in JQ's version of the article, so you are raising a straw person when you say you don't see why it shouldn't be included. Academic38 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (my emphasis) NW has too much text in Skyrocket654's edit, and the scorecard is, by its very nature, prominent. The scorecard needs to go. Academic38 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, citations are the currency of choice in academic publishing, but not so here. WP policy provides a reliability ranking (starting with peer reviewed academic journals), but (as near as I can tell) does not qualify the ranking on the basis of citations. In terms of space, N&W occupies about as much as C&K (though the table is visually more attractive). What's compelling (to me) about the N&W work is that it is a summary of other studies -- hence, the space is not occupied by N&W so much as by the authors of the studies N&W reviews. Wikiant (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
But a summary is much less compelling when it is compiled by one side in a debate. It's rather like reading a report of a sporting match in which errors by the referees/umpires are listed. Potentially useful information, rather less so if it's written by one of the players.JQ (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with JQ and Academic38. Citations show notability, and show how much weight and space a particular viewpoint deserves. The current amount of weight is undue. The table is particularly egregious. If it was a summary by a more reputable, less partisan source, it would deserve more space. But a non-statistical lit review by one side of the debate to boster it's argument against the other side doesn't deserve as much space as it currently has. Inclusion violates balance per WP:UNDUE. From WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view." A book with 8 citations is a minority view. LK (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Give us a break here. There is absolutely nothing cited in the article to show that what you say is true. The NW book is notable because it is a major work in the field, written by recognized experts. Please demonstrate that this book from MIT press is somehow unreputable or partisan. ("Partisan" does NOT mean "it disagrees with what *I* think.") There is no "argument" or "dispute" involved here. This is serious analysis of serious literature spanning 50 years, most of it published since Card & Krueger. If you assert it's something else, you really do need to back your assertion with something from a reliable source. Please be more specific about this serious book being some sort of "view held by a small minority." And do try to help us by stating the "majority view." The article itself makes it pretty clear that there's a lack of consensus about matters involving the minimum wage. As far as I can see, the problems with NW are all in the minds of a few encyclopedia editors. Skyrocket654 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, few of the editors here ever make any positive contributions to the article. A lot of them don't seem able to find appropriate material and add it in an encyclopedic fashion. Just my opinion, of course. Cleome (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Skyrocket654, based on the surveys we present, I agree that opposition to the minimum wage is not a minority view among economists, although it seems to be slightly in the minority among labor economists. However, that doesn't mean this particular book deserves much space yet. What would be better, and what would make it easier to accommodate dissenting views than the scorecard did, would be to add a section on post-C&K studies. I'm willing to help with that, but can't do it alone as I have some very pressing deadlines right now. Academic38 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not for any of us to judge what is or is not a minority view. We certainly can demonstrate that such and such is a minority view by citing sources that say so, though, or by showing overwhelming opposition by reliable sources. NW don't have minority views just because a high school kid with a screen name says they do. In fact, NW do not have "views," at all. They have research results. Their book has quite a reasonable amount of coverage, considering its scope and importance. Opposition to its inclusion seems to come from encyclopedia editors who are made uncomfortable by its conclusions. Skyrocket654 (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, again I have to agree (in spirit) with Skyrocket654. According to WP rules, NW is a reliable source and appears not to represent a minority view. Apart from the (IMHO, non sequitur) argument re number of times NW has been cited, I'm not hearing any clear substantitive argument as to why NW should not be in the article. (PS: And, if we're going to push the "number of times cited" argument, we had better be prepared to apply the same scrutiny to every other reference in the article.) Wikiant (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, hows this for an argument. Both sides of the debate are significant. In order not to take sides WP:NPOV, we should present the arguments from both sides with about equal weight – and we should do so not in the encyclopedic voice, but stating clearly that they are from the arguments from a particular side. Also, on each side, there are important arguments, and not so important arguments. In academia, the metric of citation tells us which arguments are important.
The way I read the article now, the 'minimum wage is BAD' side has about 2/3rds of the article space. This is clearly unbalanced. If some of the editors here think that the NW discussion should be expanded, then it should be made clear that they are participants in the debate, and not neutral referees, and other parts that support the 'minimum wage is BAD' arguments should be trimed down. The 'minimum wage is not so bad' side should have more weight, as the article is currently unbalanced towards the other side. LK (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because there are two sides to a debate does not, de facto, make a 50-50 split of article space "balanced." From the article (and paraphrasing), a 1978 study found that 90% of economists thought the minimum wage was bad; a 2000 study found that 73% of economists thought the minimum wage was either bad or bad with provisos; a 2006 study found that 62% of economists wanted the minimum wage either left unchanged, reduced, or abolished. Thus, it appears that if we really want an unbalanced article, we need to devote 60%+ of the space to the "BAD" argument. Wikiant (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How does wanting the minimum wage left unchanged or reduced come out to an argument that these economists think the minimum wage is BAD? That is clearly a non sequitur. Wikiant, you keep emphasizing that NW is a reliable source, which is obviously true and why it has been in the article even after JQ and LK's edits, but please keep in mind that every single study NW cite is also a top-tier (i.e., peer-reviewed academic journal or academic press) reliable source as well. What is the basis for choosing that reliable source over any of the hundreds with far more citations? I am certainly happy to apply the citations standard to every academic source mentioned in the article. And Skyrocket654, it absolutely is the job of editors to figure out whether a view is majority, minority, fringe, etc. How else would it be possible to have a meaningful discussion of undue weight? And we have all the evidence we need on this from the surveys conducted over time, reported in the article. Academic38 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My point simply was that "50-50" does not imply balanced. I hear you re counting citations of the original articles. I'm just not sure that's a path we should be pursuing -- I've never seen that rule invoked elsewhere in Wikipedia. Plus, it suggests that the next logical step is to weigh the quality of the journals doing the citing (how does 1 AER cite weigh against 10 C-journal cites?). (Sidenote: "Left unchanged" = "minimum wage bad" given the assumption of rising nominal wages. Over time, an "unchanged" minimum wage fades to irrelevance as the equilibrium nominal wage rises.) Wikiant (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"'Left unchanged' = 'minimum wage bad' given the assumption of rising nominal wages." They were not asked if the minimum wage should be left unchanged forever. I frankly cannot believe you said this. It is ludicrous beyond belief as an approach to interpreting survey responses. Academic38 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant study is the 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson, where 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. Since Card and Kruger themselves would likely be in the second category, I would interpret that at 45.6% disagree with Card and Kruger (minimum wage is bad all the time), and 54.4% agree with Card and Kruger. Hence the current version is unbalanced against Card and Kruger. LK (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Skyrocket654. If one disagrees with a well-reasoned, well-researched and well-documented statement in a article, one needs to counter the argument. Deletion is not in keeping with the traditions of Wikipedia.
However, I have to return to the as-yet undecided direction of his article. Since this is an article on Minimum Wage, and not "The Politics of . . . ," or “Alternatives to . . .” (such as basic income) we should strip this article down to the bare subject that is in the title, and put the political arguments and alternative ways of transferring income into another article. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, deleting material that is considered not notable enough is an integral part of the traditions of Wikipedia. Just have a look at the AfD pages. LK (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressives and eugenics

I'm not sure this article is the right place to lambaste the Progressives for any eugenics views some of them may have harbored. Therefore, I have reverted what I assume were good faith edits, and would be happy to discuss them per WP:BRD. Academic38 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Princeton essay in which I used information pertaining to the eugenic case made by early Progressives for the minimum wage was not a "lambaste." It is a historical fact that many leading Progressive economists wanted to cull the "unemployables" from the wage market. I supported this fact with quotes from leading early Progressives. It is part of history. Agbook (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair bit of WP:SYN here. Apart from other problems, Sidney Webb wasn't an American, let alone a Progressive. I think this material belongs in the articles on the people and groups in question, not here.JQ (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of Thomas Leonard's body of work and research into the eugenic roots of progressive thought on the minimum wage is acceptable? It was a clear strain of thought during that time that dealt specifically with the issue of the minimum wage.

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Eugenics.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf

While it may be unpalatable, it is part of factual history that deserves to be part of Wikipedia.

I can certainly improve my previous post, however I feel it is an important part of history that needs to be brought to light concerning the minimum wage. Agbook (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Leonard piece from which you derive the Webb quote, and it's obviously both polemical and only tangentially connected to the minimum wage. The minimum wage article is interesting but makes no reference to the Progressives, which rather suggests that even Leonard doesn't think this is a central point, or one that would carry much weight with an audience of economists.JQ (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked at one of the Leonard papers. There's certainly material in it that belongs in the article. There's nothing inherently tangential or polemical about it. I think you should put it in, provided you can summarize the material accurately and provide proper references. Be prepared for the high school kids to delete it, since it goes against their Point Of View about what belongs in the article. They will find many specious reasons why it doesn't belong. But just keep putting it back in. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablilty. Cleome (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Cleome, drop the attitude. Calling other contributors "High School Kids", is silly and unproductive. Since I'm not anonymous, it's easy to check just how silly you are being in this case. If you can't make more constructive comments (or better still, some actual contributions to Wikipedia [6]) I suggest you keep silent.JQ (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call the piece polemical, but Leonard himself acknowledges that he is putting forward an argument that is outside of the mainstream. Thus, if if we do include it in the article, we should be careful to explicitly present it as Leonard's position, rather than a position with broad consensus, and be careful not to give more weight than we should to the position of a single (although reliable) source. I can see an argument that including it in the argument at all would be undue weight; however, it might be useful is the article included a broader history of minimum wage legislation, in which Leonard's position might warrant brief mention.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for two different articles

I’ve asked Lawrencekhoo and Waveology to please consider writing an article about alternative ways of transferring wealth within society, rather than just cluttering up this one. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, an article on Alternatives to Minimum Wages would only be a stub, and the current article isn't overly long. So, such a split seems premature. Let's wait and see how big this section gets before talking about splitting it off. Obviously, we shouldn't create a WP:POVFORK JQ (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In particular, if we did spin out a separate article, it's clear from WP:POVFORK that we would need to keep a summary in this one.JQ (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe DOR is questioning whether alternatives to the minimum wage should be mentioned in the minimum wage article. I'ld like to point out that in textbooks, when the minimum wage is discussed, more 'market friendly' alternatives are usually discussed as well – since many economists that object to the minimum wage, do not object to income redistribution per se, but rather the possible negative side-effects (unemployment, etc) of a minimum wage regime. LK (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to question whether a minimum wage is good or bad, but my request is related to transferring wealth within an economy, and particularly with an objective of reducing poverty. The works I’ve read have a very strong underlying theme that a minimum wage is a very bad way of reducing poverty, and since that side issue seems to be a major point of contention, I just thought it would be worth putting elsewhere. For example, the articles on basic income and Redistribution (economics) would likely benefit from including some of the discussion here, and IMHO this article would greatly benefit by sticking to the subject: fixing the (minimum) price of labor in an otherwise free market. (And, apologies if I was too bold in my edits.) DOR (HK) (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a textbook. It's an encyclopedia article. In encyclopedia articles, things that aren't directly related to the subject are handled by mentioning them in the "See also" section. Lou Sander (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but together with the see also, there should be also a discussion of how the topic is related. So, there should be a short discussion of how basic income is relevant, and a see also to basic income. You can't just stick random 'see also's throughout the article. BTW, the reason I mentioned the textbook, is that that is a reliable source for what is directly relevant to a particular topic. LK (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A minor point that might influence the discussion a bit. It's definitely the majority view (of economists, not necessarily of other groups) that minimum wages reduce poverty. However, lots of critics argue that there are better alternatives, so that opinion is fairly evenly divided on whether (higher) minimum wages. So, if you want to exclude alternatives, a properly encyclopedic article will read favorably to the minimum wage, reflecting the majority view that it reduces poverty, with a "see also" to alternatives (which themselves will be discussed mainly on their own merits, not as minimum wage alternatives). JQ (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely the view that min wage reduces poverty?? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Particularly given that such a belief requires either (a) that laws of demand and supply do not apply to labor markets or (b) that the demand for labor is perfectly inelastic. Wikiant (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is your training in economics? If so, you should know that it is standard theory that a price floor that is set marginally above the equilibrium price will transfer surplus from buyer (employer) to seller (employee). At the margin, efficiency of the transfer is nearly 100% as dead weight loss is near zero when the price floor is near equilibrium. Therefore, a minimum wage that slightly increases the wage rate above equilibrium will transfer income from employers (likely to not be poor) to min wage employees (likely to be poor), and hence will reduce poverty rates with very little efficiency loss. LK (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There is one way that your statement may make sense, if you assume that anyone who has a job is automatically 'not in poverty', and anyone who is unemployed is automatically 'in poverty' and so since any price floor above equilibrium will reduce employment, it will raise poverty rates. However, you assume that an employer will cut back on the number of staff (keeping hours per worker constant), rather than just cutting back on hours hired. Even with the above assumptions about poverty and unemployment, your analysis no longer holds if any of the following are true: a) employees may work fewer hours keeping number employed constant, b) possibility of income sharing among the poor, c) existence of an unregulated informal sector that hires without reference to the minimum wage. LK (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

JQ, was that a misprint? I find the majority view among economists that minimum wage laws have either increase poverty or have no effect. The layman’s view is that paying above market-clearing rates reduces poverty, but that seems to be because the job losses are ignored.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) (talk • contribs)

"I find the majority view among economists that minimum wage laws have either increase poverty or have no effect". This is incorrect. It's easy to find statements to this effect from rightwing thinktanks and from some (not all) Chicago School economists, but it's definitely a minority view among economists. The main line of criticism is that the minimum wage yields poorly targeted benefits at relatively high efficiency costs. This was the position taken by Stigler 60 years ago, and still widely suppoorted today [7]. As the survey evidence shows though, there are plenty of economists who think that the poverty reduction associated with higher minimum wages is worth the cost. Looking at the discussion above, it seems pretty clear that the reverse of your characterization is true. Several non-economists are making strong claims about the evils of minimum wages based on what looks like a fairly casual/selective reading of the literature. Professional economists, mostly editing under their own names, are presenting a much more nuanced view.JQ (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LK, I can’t argue with your technical analysis about a minimum wage marginally above the market rate, but that is in a theoretical world. Poverty is real world, and in the real world, minimum wages tend to get confused with other concepts to the result that they are set considerably above the market-clearing rate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) (talk • contribs)

JQ, the "I'm an economist and you're not" and "right wing think tank" arguments are not helpful. So far, all I've heard you say is that there are some empirical studies that show that an increase in the minimum wage reduces poverty. What I'm more interested in is a theoretical argument. How does the "minimum wage reduces poverty" argument manage to get around the laws of demand and supply? Wikiant (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, these kinds of personal criticisms and expert bashing are not conducive to improving wikipedia. Please remember to address the arguments, not the people. As for how minimum wage laws reduce poverty, please refer to my above comments about the economic theory concerning the welfare effects of price floors. LK (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


I agree with DOR (HK) and Wikiant that the majority view is not that minimum wages reduce poverty. It may be the majority opinion that the minimum wage has a net positive effect on the poor, helping those who are employed sufficiently to compensate (a la Kaldor-Hicks) for those who become unemployed. I certainly don't think the statement is obvious to be included without good citations.

The interesting issue is whether alternatives to the minimum wage can (1) consume fewer societal resources and (2) provide more benefits to the poor. But the *relevant* issue is whether we need to summarize information on alternatives to the minimum wage and spin out an article, or keep the information here. The first way seems better to me, because I think that there's a lot to be said and I wouldn't want that to compete with information on the minimum wage itself on this article.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the Minimum Wage, not about all the economic policies that are proposed to help society. The "alternatives" already have their own articles. They should be removed from this one, since they have nothing to do with the Minimum Wage. I'll be happy to do it. BTW, the talk page is a place to discuss the article, NOT economics, or who is better trained than whom. Skyrocket654 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I find no value in the argument that putting non-minimum wage arguments into a new article would result in that article being a stub. This talk page is about this article, not some possible stub. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Lawrencekhoo, Decreases educational levels among the poor ?? I might accept “discourages economically poorer students from remaining in school,” but that isn’t the same as actually decreasing their level of education. I think you need one needs a blunt blow to the head to achieve that effect. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to raise the treat of blunt force trauma. Just go ahead and edit it if you think it's unclear. LK (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply "you" need to be hit on the head! Edit made.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't diminish the article by twisting the meanings of references. The reference says "that more students drop out of school, lured by fatter pay-packets;". The point is that they drop out of school, not that they enter the job market. Many students enter the job market without dropping out of school. (They're the teenagers that so many studies show are such great beneficiaries of the minimum wage.) Lou Sander (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
students enter the job market without dropping out of school. I have no idea where you live, but where I live a student entering the job market is, in fact, no longer in school. We don't do part-time teenage jobs in Asia, simply, and this isn't an article called "Minimum Wage in America." DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
As requested before, please don't diminish the article by twisting the meanings of properly sourced statements. The reference is not Asian, and explicitly talks about "dropping out of school." I hope you agree that it's improper for an editor to change the explicit meaning of a sourced point by adding their own cultural Point Of View. Lou Sander (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, "cultural Point of View" ? I'm not Asian; I just live here. Oh, and Wikipedia isn't American, either. If you want to write an article entitled "Minimum Wage in the United States," go right ahead. This one is about the principle, the concept and the idea of fixing wages. Anywhere. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Third time: PLEASE don't twist the clear meanings of properly sourced statements. The statement is about dropping out of school. You made it be about something else, and used some sort of Asian stuff to justify it. The article is about the minimum wage. The statement and its source WERE about dropping out of school. The source still IS. The statement in the encyclopedia has been twisted, warped, distorted, etc. by somebody to say something that is not in the source. Lou Sander (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimum_wage/Archive_5&oldid=1064236036"