Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Minimum wage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Is this Krugman quote relevant?

Found this interesting Krugman observation from a March 2000 NYT column, about how happiness research has shown that higher incomes have very little effect on happiness, but being married and employed does.

For example, how do you feel about the living wage movement, which in effect wants a large increase in the minimum wage? That would certainly increase the incomes of the lowest-paid workers; but it would also surely have at least some adverse effect on the number of jobs available. You may think that a price worth paying - but the equations say that the extra unemployment would be a very bad thing for those who lose their jobs, while a higher wage would make only a small difference to the happiness of those who remain employed.

Should this argument be made in the article somewhere? Relevant or no? LK (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant. It's relevant for the living wage article, but not here, because the living wage movement calls for increases in the minimum wage that are much larger than anything envisioned by minimum wage advocates, as Krugman seems to be saying in your quote. Academic38 (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant as there isn't any substantive difference between living wage and minimum wage. Wikiant (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe anyone who has earned, or paid, a minimum wage understands very clearly the difference between a minimum wage and a living wage. There is a very substantial difference between the two, Wikiant. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I keep hearing that "there is a substantial difference," yet no one seems to be able to tell me what that difference is (apart from the magnitude of the numbers employed). Can you? Wikiant (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. A minimum wage is the least amount a worker may legally be paid by an employer, almost always in terms of an hourly wage. A "living wage," on the other hand, is an amount of pay deemed (by someone, by law, etc.) to be necessary to maintain the minimum acceptable (by someone, by law, etc.) standard of living, either for an individual or for a typical family. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the difference is irrelevant with respect to the economics. Following your explanation, a living wage is merely a specific minimum wage whose number is derived a certain way. As far as the economic analysis is concerned, the two are indistinguishable. Wikiant (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, “[T]he difference is irrelevant with respect to the economics.” I don’t understand what you mean. If a so-called living wage is supposed to provide for a family, it is almost certainly going to be multiples of a standard minimum wage. I grant you that the living wage is purely political, but not that there is no difference between a minimum wage and a “living wage” in economic terms. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is indeed relevant to the *economy* (i.e., there is a potentially large quantitative difference in outcomes). The difference is irrelevant to the *economics* (i.e., qualitatively, economics employs identical models and attains identical outcomes whether one calls the animal "living wage" or "minimum wage"). Wikiant (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia article about the minimum wage, not the living wake. You have already admitted they are two different concepts. Bringing in discussion about similar, but different concept would serve only to confuse readers. 88.193.125.178 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote about living wages is relevant because the minimum wage is inextricably linked to living wages. However, I'd like to see a more reliable source demonstrating that large increases in minimum wages causes a decrease in the number of jobs available before we add another argument against minimum wages to our "debate" section. I'm sure there are better sources out there than opinion pieces. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Most not worth a living wage

"...thousands of thoroughly educated people have never been appraised by their contemporaries as worth a living wage. T.S. Eliot, Harvard-schooled and widely hailed as the most significant poet writing in English in the past half century, earned his living as a bank teller and, much later, as a publisher's reader. Financially speaking, Eliot as poet, teller or editor wasn't worth so much as a cuss word. Yet it seems probable that his writings will be appreciatively read long after every single existing American corporation and bank, and the memory thereof, has passed out of existence. Curious...." Ferdinand Lundberg, "The Rich and the Super-Rich." Stars4change (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Real World: Hong Kong

We're currently deep into the debate about where to set our first minimum wage. The battle over whether or not was lost on the political front, but the range of (almost totally unsupported) rates is huge: HK$22.50 to $38 an hour (US$2.88 to $4.87). What I'm trying to inject into the discussion is an understanding that without a minimum wage we had 4.1% average unemployment (2006-07, pre-crisis), and that any amount above the market rate will necessarily increase the unemployment rate. Most worrying, there are over 400,000 (11% of labor force) women employees in the lowest wage group, and they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the new policy. Advice and comment welcome. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please find suitable forum elsewhere. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. 88.193.125.178 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood.And, please sign your comments with four tilde, after registering with Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy there 88, yes it would have been more appropriate for DOR to place his on the reference desk. However, DOR is a frequent contributor to this article, so (provided people respond to him privately) I'm willing to cut him some slack in posting the request here. Wikiant (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Negative effects

I reverted the revision by Lawrencekhoo, as the source isn’t dealing with introducing a minimum wage, but increase the minimum wage rate. Very, very different issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you reversion. Most of the studies that find negative effects are looking at increases in the minimum wage rate, not the introduction of a minimum wage. I dare say that most economics literature, with whatever empirical result, looks at changes, not introduction. So I think the source is perfectly acceptable in this table. Of course, I think we should replace the table with normal text, but I don't have the time right now to propose a concrete revision. Academic38 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Academic38's analysis. Also, the paper is talking about the effects of a minimum wage. The political context of the paper is not that important here. LK (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Academic38. Introducing a minimum wage *is* increasing the minimum wage -- it is increasing from zero to something positive. The difference between "introducing" and "changing" is merely one of magnitude. Wikiant (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a change in magnitude. But DOR (HK) wanted to exclude anything not based on "introduction" of the minimum wage from the table of positive and negative effects. His reversion removed a study based on "increasing" the minimum wage from that table, on a basis you have just rejected. Academic38 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what we have are two very distinct subject: the effect of imposing a minimum wage, and the effect of changing that wage rate. Given that the categories in that table are Arguments in favor of Minimum Wage Laws and Arguments against a Minimum Wage Laws, might we not agree that the subject is imposition of such a price-fixing mechanism, rather than its periodic adjustment ? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of arguments given by parties in favor and opposed to the minimum wage, regardless of their merits. Personally, I think many of the arguments are illogical, but let's not censor anyone's arguments. It's meant to be a comprehensive list. LK (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, I don't think there's any censorship here, just separate issues that need to be dealt with separately. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still unbalanced?

It seems to me that we have fought most of the battles anyone has wanted on the economics of the minimum wage. The article has been mostly stable, except for vandalism reversion, for months. Perhaps it is time to remove the "unbalanced" tag.

This is not to say that the article is perfect. For example, we still need a section on the politics of the minimum wage. Maybe a few changes in emphasis would be helpful. But overall, it seems that we no longer have any big problems of undue emphasis in the article, especially when one takes academic citations into account.

What do other folks think? Academic38 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I support removal of the tag. There are currently no serious POV problems. LK (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why the tag was there in the first place. I asked several months ago, and nobody answered. IMHO, the problem isn't so much that the article is unbalanced, but that it's just not a very good encyclopedia article. As an example of its suckiness, I offer the fact that the table summarizing the results of an extensive academic literature review was removed as having "undue weight," while numerous bullet points about the opinions of individual scholars remain.

The whole point of undue weight is that individual opinions/results don't belong in the encyclopedia unless they gain a wide following. This article is full of them. On the other hand, there is very little in the article that actually helps readers understand the big picture. The study summary does that, but people take it out. The endless quotes from individual people do nothing to illuminate the big picture, yet editors keep piling them on. Lou Sander (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of (against) Minimum Wage Laws

We’ve been through a lot of this, but I’m going to have one more go at some that I find inappropriate. Both sides are under my fire, and I propose the bullet points cited below be deleted:

Pro: “Does not have budget consequents” –- true, and irrelevant. Smiling has no budget consequences, either, but I doubt anyone would consider it a valid argument. The fact that this is in contrast to a non-minimum wage law alternative (such as negative taxes) is irrelevant, too, as it would be if it were in contrast to a no-swimming law. Similarly, “does not have a substantial effect on unemployment as compared to most other economic factors” is equally irrelevant. Doing nothing also has no impact on unemployment, or the social welfare system.

Con: Reducing demand for workers, reducing profits and increasing inflation are possible outcomes, but it is also entirely possible that by selecting one (e.g., raising prices / inflation), another may be avoided (reducing profits). I also take exception to the phrase “. . . causing inflation and increasing the costs of goods and services . . .” –- seems redundant. Next, the point on out-sourcing cites an article on the differences between American and Chinese / Indian labor which is irrelevant to the topic (China has a minimum wage, just not as high as America’s. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How does an "argument" make it onto this list? Does somebody just have to publish a paper that an editor discovers, then selects to achieve "balance" in this section? That's what it seems like to me. This whole list seems to be an unencyclopedic list of selected arguments from selected papers. Some of the arguments are important and widely recognized/discussed, but most of 'em aren't. Mostly it's just cruft, IMHO. BTW, I favor the proposal to remove the bullet points mentioned above. Lou Sander (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the "pro" side has a lot of useless "it doesn't cost very much" points that were probably put there to try to make the list visually balanced and the "anti" side has some duplicate arguments, both sides framed in a point-scoring rather than informative way. I'm just going to go ahead and streamline the list, deleting the really blatant cruft on both sides, and see what's left. --Blogjack (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument should come from a reliable source. The problem is that, when talking about economic phenomena, what is "reliable" by WP standards is not necessarily reliable by economists' standards. Knowing the difference requires an economics background. Wikiant (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't just list arguments from reliable sources. They explain topics for non-specialist readers, backing their explanations with citations from reliable sources. None of it can give undue weight to minor/non-mainstream/etc. material. The problem, IMHO, is that for the most part the editors of this article don't do that; they just present a lot of material. "Economist X says Y." "Organization A says B." Unencyclopedic cruft, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree here. There were a lot of marginal arguments in the list before, which I think contributed to the unbalance before LK's last edit. But marginal arguments remain. I still think this section would be improved by putting it in paragraphs summarizing the main arguments for and against, rather than the current format. I do want to disagree with DOR (HK) on one point, however: the fact that some alternatives to the minimum wage have budgetary consequences, and the minimum wage does not, is an important political consideration. Academic38 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that, but only for an article about, say, alleviating poverty, or expanding the tax base. My point is that there is a never-ending list of things that are not as good as (or, better than) the minimum wage, and there is no useful point in just citing one. In fact, it makes that one point somehow seem to be the key alternative, rather than just one of dozens. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But one of the key arguments for the minimum wage is that it helps alleviate poverty. Therefore, IMO, arguments about feasible alternatives and why it is better or worse than those alternatives belong in the article. Academic38 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Last call: Am I welcome to rewrite the entire list, into a more encyclopedic format? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay by me. We can always edit some more when you're done if need be. Academic38 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see the re-write and then we can edit from there. Wikiant (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I reverted the removal of some very well-sourced basic material from the Background section. The editor who removed it said he was moving it, but he just deleted it. He claimed POV without any justification. IMHO, it is carefully presented material from a standard reference in economics. It expresses, clearly and without bias, and in historical context, some very mainstream thinking about the minimum wage. If someone disagrees with that assessment, (as distinguished from disagreeing with the ideas expressed in the material), please discuss it here. Lou Sander (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delete. It clearly doesn't belong in the background section, since it's the exposition of one POV. But it was harder than I thought to find a new place to put it. I'll have another go when I get some time. JQ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. ;-) ... I think pretty strongly that this material DOES belong in the Background section. It expands on the other material there, and flows naturally from it: The section starts with a short paragraph on history, followed by discussion of the social appeal of a minimum wage and the fact that there is disagreement/tension about the social goals and the actual effects. The Stigler material briefly and articulately describes the basic arguments about the actual effects. That which follows discusses some other aspects, including empirical studies. Both the Stigler and the follow-on are from a strong standard reference in the field. None of it, IMHO, is "POV" in the sense of presenting something unfairly or in a biased way. It is merely a statement of facts about some mainstream thinking about minimum wage. IMHO it is presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Also, IMHO, much of the rest of the article is pretty weak, which reinforces the idea that this solid stuff belongs up front. Most of "the rest" consists of "this fellow/study says this, while that fellow/study says that," very little of it summarized in an encyclopedic way. Fairly much of it could be deleted, IMHO, on the grounds of undue weight, since it represents one guy's opinion or analysis or conjecture on some aspect of minimum wage. Doing better isn't easy, since the subject is difficult and slippery, not to mention able to arouse strong emotions about the aforementioned social appeal. Lou Sander (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

2008 and 2009 increase in unemployment?

How come there is no mention of the increase in unemployment in 2008 and 2009? In 2007, Congress changed the federal minimum wage that would span two years (raised it from $5.15 to $7.25 by July 2009). This clearly shows that there was a high correlation(most likely causation) between an increase in minimum wage to increase in unemployment. However, there is no mention because this article seems to like to kiss Krueger's a**. Seriously, the consensus of economists still believe that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment. Its a freaking scientific law. This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article because the most recent increase on the minimum wage is the most relevant to people today.199.17.94.166 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the case that an increase in the minimum wage increases unemployment (and moreso among the less educated/skilled). However, it is not possible to look at single year and say that the increase in unemployment we observed was due to the change in the minimum wage. Apart from the minimum wage change, there were many things going on during 08 and 09 that also affected the unemployment rate. How much of the change was due to the increased minimum wage is unknown. Wikiant (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of a single reason why unemployment would rise during the worst economic environment in many decades. Just doesn't make sense that a collapse in housing markets, financial markets, consumer confidence, investor risk-appetite and regulatory over-sight would have an impact on employment. Then again, maybe it does . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with you 199.17.94.166 that is not mentioned in the News on the spike of unemployment and the Congress rasing the minimum wage in 2008. California when from $7.00 to $8.00 an hour and so did the unemployment along with it. I greatly that is poor recession economy is related to upping the minimum wages, affecting small businesses everywhere nation wide. It is a daisy chain affect, once you raise the minimum wage the firt thing that fallows is health insurance and higher wages want an increase as their wage becomes smaller from example. Great point.--24.176.224.206 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, total nonsense. Without a doubt, the latest US recession was unrelated to any change in the minimum wage rate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources that state this or are you just assuming this because you have not heard it in the media? Economic theory states that minimum wage would effect a recession. Less worker means less productivity.199.17.94.164 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it must have just been a coincidence then that unemployment rose at the same time minimum wage did. Even though the law of supply and demand states that is what will happen when you raise minimum wage. Also, we aren't in recession any more, but unemployment is still rising. If you are blaming it on the recession as the sole reason why unemployment is high, then how do you explain that. The last two quarters we have risen 2.5 and 6 percentage points respectively. Here is a link that states how the 2007 minimum wage increase hurts the economy. [1][2]96.18.60.204 (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WND as a source

I read the back and forth edit summaries on WND as a reliable source and looked at the linked discussion. I actually think there is a consensus in that discussion: WND is a reliable source for opinions it publishes, but it is not a reliable source for facts. I would add that it is even less a reliable source for economic theory. The author of the article cited to WND, Ilana Mercer, has no academic publications that I could find on Google Scholar. That said, the point she is cited for is something for which a WP:RS could surely be found, so I'm not going to delete it at this time.

I'm also going to move the last purported "pro" argument into the text below, since it actually reports on a study rather than making an argument. Academic38 (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is WND ? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not WorldNet Daily? Here are the top “stories” –

Not again! Meet Obama’s new controversial pastor
2012 Forecast: 8.8 Chile quake just the beginning! What Happens in 2012?
Can Obama be stopped from destroying America?
City that banned Bible studies has Judgment Day
Pat Boone’s financial plan (my personal favorite)

DOR (HK) (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the WND business has been the easy and deceptive impeachment of WND as a source. The first guy called it a "disallowed" source. I couldn't see that anybody had disallowed it. Somebody else quoted a "consensus" of a small number of people in some discussion somewhere. Come on, guys... it's understandable that people want to find confirmation of their hopeful dreams that minimum wages have wonderful social benefits, but it really ought to be done by finding evidence of it, rather than by picking away at sources of the opposite conclusion. If crappy sources claim that the costs of minimum wages are higher than their benefits, readers can see the crappiness for themselves. Lou Sander (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What you call "some discussion somewhere" is on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is the official place where issues like this are hashed out. Even defenders of one particular use of WND in that discussion conceded it wasn't reliable for facts. Academic38 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this ought to be a question of sides (in fact, I'm not clear, coming in late, what side WND has been quoted on). But quoting sources like this is undesirable. Obviously, it's not a reliable source for facts, and quoting its opinions will tend, for readers who know the source, to discredit those opinions. WP:WEIGHT suggests we should not include the opinions of WP:FRINGE groups and sources on an issue where there are plenty of mainstream opinions on both sides.JQ (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. "Obviously" it's not a reliable source for facts. Please. That's not obvious at all. And don't you mean "... for some readers..."? (Not everyone has the same Point Of View about this.) Lou Sander (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk... It's not very encyclopedic to say "According to [name your source here] such and such is true." When an editor does that, he/she reveals a lot about his/her editorial skills and outlook, I think. The way it works is that the encyclopedia says X, and shows its source in a footnoted citation. Sometimes people whose point of view is offended by X try to do it differently. But encyclopedia editors have an obligation to suppress their points of view when putting material into the encyclopedia. They have this obligation even when they wish with all their heart that minimum wages have a net positive social value. (Full disclosure: I, myself, wish that minimum wages had a net positive social value.) Lou Sander (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no great fan of minimum wage laws, but I have to believe that if Prof. Mercer has to publish her views in WND, there's something suspecious going on. Either she's not credible, or her work isn't up to academic journal standards. I don't know which, but it should be one of the two. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of like Prof. Paul Krugman, much of whose work is published in opinion pieces rather than academic journals. Either it's not credible, or it isn't up to academic journal standards. In fact, MOST of his work is published in opinion pieces. Lou Sander (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you arguing that The New York Times and WND are of the same caliber? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think that? Lou Sander (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Even more so, are you arguing that a winner of the Nobel Prize and the JB Clark Medal has the same weight as an opinion writer for a far-right rag, with no qualifications in economics whatsoever? If we can't find a better source than this, the point should be dropped altogether. Honestly, this shouldn't be too hard. There are plenty of highly qualified economists, including Nobel Prize winners, who are critical of minimum wage laws. Let's quote them, and drop fringe sources like this. I'm writing this in fairness to the anti-minimum wage case - presenting material from sources like this gives the impression that only extremists oppose minimum wages. JQ (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think I was arguing that? Somebody said that if a person had to publish their work in opinion pieces, it's either not credible or isn't up to academic journal standards. I just mentioned someone the bulk of whose work is published in opinion pieces. If the either...or statement applies to one person, it ought to apply to the other one, shouldn't it?

And why do people keep talking about stuff like "the anti-minimum wage case"? For the most part, it's not a matter of being "for" or "against" the minimum wage, but a matter of whether it has the positive social result that everyone hopes it does. Lou Sander (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I said, Lou Sander, was if Prof. Mercer has to publish her views in WND, there's something suspecious going on. Either she's not credible, or her work isn't up to academic journal standards. Nothing about op-eds (which is mostly what Krugman write, too) being any more or less credible than scholarly articles. Oh, and actually, there are those of us who are "against" the minimum wage. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If one is against (or for) the minimum wage, one should be VERY careful about editing encyclopedia articles on it. It's a difficult subject to begin with, and I don't think that most people could suppress their point of view about it when working on an article. Good Cop (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the editors who are actual economists, on both sides of the issue, agree that WND is not a reliable source, I am removing the claim in question. Academic38 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WND is not a reliable source. However, surely it must be possible to find a reliable source somewhere that argues that higher minimum wages in developed countries increase the practice of off-shoring? I myself lean somewhat in favour of minimum wages, but find that argument reasonably uncontroversial. LK (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

LK, surely we can find a source somewhere to defend any notion, but that's not what we're trying to do here. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

I heavily edited the external links section, cutting the last of the links added yesterday because I don't think it contributed anything beyond the article, then cutting a bunch of dead links. Having done all that, the section is now plagued by problems of undue emphasis, with one pro-minimum wage website (which actually provides links to both sides of the argument) and four anti-minimum wage websites, three of which are libertarian organizations, and the fourth being the National Restaurant Association's anti-minimum wage front group, the Employment Policies Institute. How should we fix this imbalance? Academic38 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A first step would be to make the case that there is undue weight here. Lou Sander (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The case is a simple one. Based on recent surveys published in academic economics journals, about half of economists in the US support the minimum wage and half oppose it. Among labor economists, support for the minimum wage is a little higher. These two statements are both found with sources in the "Surveys of Economists" section of the article. We know from this data that the breakdown of academic opinion is about 50-50, whereas the links break down 80-20 opposed. And none of the five links in question is academic, although the Show-Me Institute article is by a well-respected "anti" labor economist; however, he is already well represented in the article text itself. 80%>50%, so I conclude there is undue emphasis. Your thoughts? Academic38 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Well argued, and well done. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the "recent surveys published in academic journals"? I find it extremely hard to believe that 50% of economists believe that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to labor markets, therefore their support of the minimum wage is likely based on some consideration other than the accepted theory. It would be nice to see what that is. Wikiant (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the "Surveys of Economists" section of the article, particularly the two paragraphs associated with footnotes 56-58. Academic38 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of worrisome when editors talk in terms of "supporting the minimum wage" and "opposing the minimum wage." It's pretty obvious that the situation is much more complex than that.

Regarding undue weight, where does it even say that external links need to be, or even should be, "balanced" as to one opinion or the other? If you want to see undue weight, take a look at the first two paragraphs under "Criticisms of the textbook model." They are just quotations from some guys who have problems with the textbook model. Encyclopedias don't include things like that. --Lou Sander (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct from WP:EL

"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight." Academic38 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Now that we all understand that the links should be balanced in some way, maybe we could discuss what "points of view" we are dealing with here. As I understand it, some of the editors think that there are "support" and "oppose" points of view regarding the minimum wage. That really ought to be clarified. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lou Sander, some editors do support (and, others do oppose) the concept of a minimum wage. What's the problem, as long as the article is balanced? DOR (HK) (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem, at least in part, is that some editors attribute "supporting" or "non supporting" to various aspects of the subject that have nothing to do with that. For example, when an economist doubts that imposing a minimum wage leads to increased unemployment, some editors seem to say (or think, or whatever goes on in their minds), that he "doesn't support" the minimum wage. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whaples 2006 has the category "completely eliminate." This maps on to "oppose" pretty well, don't you think? "Support for increasing" the minimum wage, as in Fuchs et al. 1998 or Klein and Dompe 2007 tends to presuppose "supporting" the concept of the minimum wage. The only complication is that some economists do think that the minimum wage reduces employment, but still support (or even support increasing) the minimum wage. But here we are talking about external links, where it is even clearer that the five links in question either support (raiseminwage.org) or oppose (Philip Lewis, Cato, Show Me Institute, and Employment Policies Institute) the concept of the minimum wage. Per WP:EL, links must reflect the weight of informed opinion, and they currently don't. It really is that simple. Academic38 (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My eyes glaze over. Lou Sander (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't hear that is not a valid response. Perhaps it is time we moved to a WP:RFC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic38 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A good first step may be to categorize the external links into 'neutral' (purely informative), 'support', and 'opposed'. This not only makes it easier for readers to navigate the links, but will also make clear any imbalance that needs to be addressed. Could someone who's familiar with the links do that? Thanks. LK (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, with the proviso that not all positions can be fitted into this classification, as Academic38 suggests. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that the present external links can be classified as pro or anti and that excess weight is being given to the "anti" side at present.JQ (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What you claim is not at all clear to ME. Maybe you and the others could be more specific about what you say. For example, somebody could give an example of what they call "anti," and an explanation of why they call it that. Skyrocket654 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the link to the Employment Policy Institute, we find "This new wage will make it difficult for the most vulnerable employees in the workplace to compete with higher skilled applicants." I would interpret this (and other points made on the site) as "anti". Do you need further explanation?JQ (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is no explanation at all. It's just quoting from the external site. What's missing is the link between the words on the site and the conclusion that it is somehow "anti" minimum wage. It's a bit like like seeing "The temperature outside will freeze the water in the puddles," and concluding that the speaker is anti-cold, or anti-going-outside, or pro-puddles. Skyrocket654 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously unsure that the Employment Policy Institute and the Cato Institute are opposed to minimum wages? I don't think anyone else is.JQ (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

JQ: That's no explanation, either. It's a point of view. I might possibly share it, if anyone were able to explain it. The article isn't much help. Somebody said that it is "clear" that the present links can be classified as "pro and anti." There is no explanation (that I can find) of what those terms even mean, let alone how they can be applied to external links. Clear? Not in any way. Skyrocket654 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The raison d'etre of the Employment Policies Institute is to oppose the minimum wage. Take a look at their web site or any of their hundreds of press releases. If you look for it on Wikipedia, you are redirected to Rick Berman, who runs a string of front groups including this one. Basically, it shills for the National Restaurant Association. For more information, try this article from Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute. As for being clear that an organization is pro-minimum wage, what other conclusion is there about an organization called raiseminwage.org? Academic38 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's getting closer to an explanation, but really it's just an illustration of what somebody believes is "pro." It's troubling that the illustration includes such words as "string of front groups" and "shill." (Troubling because those emotional words seem to indicate a strongly-held point of view about the minimum wage.) That that point of view might possibly permeate, or at least be present in, the article itself. That wouldn't be good. Maybe there could be a section in the article about "pro" and "anti," if such things actually exist. Editors could find material about them in reliable sources, then work that material into the article in some sort of NPOV way. Skyrocket654 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire for "pro" and "anti" viewpoints -- it's like asking for "pro" and "anti" viewpoints on gravity. Among mainstream economists, there is no question as to the qualitative effect of a minimum wage (when the minimum wage exceeds the equilibrium wage, unemployment results). There is, however, much debate among economists as to the quantitative effect -- how much unemployment, which types of labor are affected, how long does it persist, etc. Unfortunately, non-economists latch on to this disagreement and make it look like what is a specific and focused debate is really a debate about the minimum wage in general. I'm afraid that pursuing a "pro" vs. "anti" approach will merely feed this sort of disinformation. Wikiant (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You speak very knowledgeably about the views of all mainstream economists, despite (I'm guessing) not being one yourself. You are correct that there is not much disagreement that an increase in a wage floor above equilibrium causes unemployment (although there are some circumstances where this result doesn't hold, e.g. the existence of an informal sector). However, that is not the relevant question; the relevant question is, does the minimum wage help or hurt poor families overall. One has to weigh the redistributive effects versus the unemployment effects, of particular changes in the minimum wage. Hence, the survey result that about 50% of professional economists support the minimum wage. LK (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Does the minimum wage help or hurt poor families" may be the relevant question but, it isn't the question underlying the minimum wage. The underlying question is, "are the poor who are harmed by the minimum wage harmed more or less than the poor who are helped by the minimum wage?" Wikiant (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiant, the way you would choose to frame the question is not relevant. In a Wikipedia article, what matters is the way in which economists have framed the question. LK, who is (I think) an economist, gets much closer to this than your formulation.JQ (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that what economists understand when they say (to each other), "Does the minimum wage hurt the poor overall" is not what non-economists hear when we repeat the question. Without misrepresenting the economists, I'd like to avoid contributing to the nonsensical misinformation surrounding economists' views of the minimum wage. Wikiant (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the professional economists on both sides of the debate agree that these sites can be classified by their broad orientation to the minimum wage, I have added POV identifications for all the non-governmental external links, per WP:EL: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view" (full quote earlier in this section). Academic38 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In my view, we’re evaluating “undo weight” using the wrong measuring stick. At the beginning of this discussion, it was decided that “undo weight” would be based on economists’ opinions from past surveys. But economists weigh in on a lot of controversial topics for reasons that have nothing to do with economic research. They have opinions about politics and policy, but those opinions can sometimes be formed on subjective judgments rather than economic research (think: Paul Krugman). Instead of using surveys, I think the only fair way to measure “undo weight” is by how the economic research on the subject breaks down. I’m open to a discussion on that, but I think that Neumark & Wascher’s 2006 summary of the new minimum wage literature explains really clearly what we’re dealing with:

“Although the wide range of estimates is striking, the oft-stated assertion that the new minimum wage research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. Indeed, in our view, the preponderance of the evidence points to disemployment effects.

For example, the studies surveyed in this monograph correspond to 102 entries in our summary tables. Of these, by our reckoning nearly two-thirds give a relatively consistent (although by no means always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages, while only eight give a relatively consistent indication of positive employment effects.”

Again, I think there’s an important distinction between a “survey of economists” on whether raising the minimum wage is a good idea, and a “survey of the research” on the actual impact of the minimum wage on employment and income. If we’re going to decide whether “undo weight” is given in an external links section, I think an objective measure is far superior to a subjective one. I think this reflects WP:ELYES. LightSParker (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your main argument would be more persuasive if it weren't for the fact that labor economists, the subgroup of the profession that actually conducts minimum wage research, are more favorably disposed towards the minimum wage than the average economist. (See the Klein and Dompe survey in the article.)

Ultimately, what I think you're not seeing is that we can categorize economists into three main views of the minimum wage: 1) economists who think the disemployment effects are so severe that the minimum wage is a bad policy that should be repealed (about 50% of Ph.D. members of the AEA); 2) economists who don't buy the evidence for disemployment effects and think it's a good policy (20-25% of Ph.D. members of the AEA); 3) economists who think there are disemployment effects, but think they are of small enough magnitude that they don't outweigh the beneficial effects of a minimum wage, so they support the minimum wage (25-30% of Ph.D. members of the AEA). To put it another way, you are assuming that every economist who thinks that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment opposes the minimum wage, and that is simply not the case. That's why I conclude that about 50-50 is the actual balance of informed opinion, and the figure that should be reflected in the balance among the external links.

Finally, let me an update an argument I have made earlier. Neumark and Wascher's 2008 book has now been cited 45 times, according to Google Scholar. In the same period, Card and Krueger's 1995 book has been cited over 300 times. This gives us a pretty good indication as to who academic researchers think it is more important to respond to. Academic38 (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic 38: You are just one editor, and IMHO you have some idiosyncratic ways of evaluating things. In my opinion, when they work their way into your editing, they are harmful to this article. Specifically, I think that you often synthesize material to advance your position. You say "A and B and C, and therefore D," then you impose that judgment on your edits to the article. You particularly do it in assessing "undue weight." A specific example of this arose some time ago when you evaluated the table of Neumark and Wascher's results as giving undue weight to something (I don't remember what, particularly), so you removed it. I do not think it is helpful to do such things.

In your comments above, you conclude that labor economists are more favorably disposed toward the minimum wage than the average economist. Neumark and Wachter's rigorous studies shout the opposite, yet you cite somebody's survey as proof of your conclusion. Not good, IMHO, especially when this extremely questionable conclusion, supported by a "survey" weaves itself into the fabric of the article. Whenever I look at this article, which IMHO is of rather low quality, I shake my head at the contortions it uses to make its (often invalid, IMHO) points. For example, I definitely agree with you that every economist who thinks that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment does not oppose the minimum wage. Yet it seems to me that such an assumption is often made in the body of the article. I'm sorry not to be more specific, but this stuff is so pervasive that it's hard to pull specific examples out of the stew. Lou Sander (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, if I remember correctly, I argued that the currency of importance in academia is citations. You continue to talk about Neumark and Wascher's book as if it is a neutral collection of studies, when it is in fact a selection made by partisans in the debate. As it happens, only 45 articles cite their book, according to Google Scholar. Since December 31, 2008, there have been 300 additional citations to Card and Krueger's book. (On that date, I noted how many citations the C&K book had received up to that date; you can see that number in the archive of this talk page.) That tells you who economists think is more important. That's why it was undue weight to include the table from a book that had only been cited 8 times at the time (and only 45 times a year and a half later).

You contradict yourself in your second paragraph. Once you admit that not every economist (or labor economist) who thinks there is a disemployment effect opposes the minimum wage, it follows that Neumark and Wascher's results don't tell you anything about what labor economists think about the minimum wage. So it isn't the balance of the outcome of studies that tells you what the balance of opinion is. It's surveys of economists that do. You talk as if "survey" were a bad word. The surveys were published in peer-reviewed academic journals, which by WP:RS is the top tier of reliability. So establishing the balance of informed opinion on the issue for weight purposes is precisely done via surveys of economists. Academic38 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Academic 38's item #3, "economists who think there are disemployment effects, but think they are of small enough magnitude...so they support the minimum wage (25-30% of Ph.D. members of the AEA)." When we say, "they support the minimum wage," we should be clear that the support is not for the minimum wage, but for the current manifestation of the minimum wage (or better, the current manifestation versus the previous manifestation). In acknowledging the disemployment effects, these economists will admit that there are conditions under which specific minimum wage legislation could result in a net social loss versus no minimum wage. If we classify these economists as "supporting the minimum wage," readers will incorrectly interpret this as support for the concept in general. Wikiant (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you think the position of these economists implies they ought to believe. What matters is their verifiable statements. If you have a cite to an economist saying "I support the current manifestation of the minimum wage vs the previous manifestation", by all means include it. But otherwise, we should report actual responses to the survey questions, and assess questions of weight relative to those responses.JQ (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn’t we say that experts in labor economics are more likely to oppose minimum wage increases for the same reason that evolutionary biologists are more likely to believe in Darwinian evolution? It’s because they’re experts in the field. Also, I have a few problems with your line of thinking on citations, all of which I’d file under the heading “apples to oranges.” The Neumark and Wascher book was a review of over 100 studies; Card and Krueger's 1995 book was an extension of a single study. If we were to match the citation of every study that Neumark and Wascher review (most of which find employment loss) against the citations of Card/Krueger, it would balance out very heavily in favor of the Neumark & Wascher conclusion. If that doesn’t convince your point needs a reconsideration, it’s also worth noting that Card & Krueger’s book has been around for 15 years. The Neumark & Wascher book has been here for 2 years. We would expect that a book in existence for 13 additional years would have more citations (many of those citations are critical, by the way). As this applies to the external links section--It’s easy to find non-profit groups who hold opinions on both sides of this issue, and I have no problem listing equal numbers and grouping them as supporting or opposing the minimum wage. But I think people also need links to key research on both sides of this issue, and I think the section should reflect the breakdown that exists in the economic research, and not the breakdown that exists in an opinion survey of economists. LightSParker (talk) 02:56, 02 July 2010 (UTC)

LightSParker, hope you had a good fourth of July. I already addressed the point that C&K has been out longer than N&W. On December 31, 2008, C&K had been cited 1008 times (see my comment in Archive5). Now it has been cited 1342 times. In just the last 18 months, it has been cited 334 times. N&W has been cited 46 times since its 2008 publication, total. You would think that if a 15-year old book weren't important, it would not be cited 7 times as often as a 2-year old book just in the period since the latter book was published. Another way of looking at your characterization of N&W is to say that it does no new research, unlike C&K. I do agree with you that we need summaries of the most important new research. Up for it? Academic38 (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

N&W are serious labor economists who wrote a serious book published by a serious academic press. Their book analyzed and summarized decades of research on the minimum wage. They are scholarly researchers who do solid work. It is not helpful to mischaracterize them as partisans, or to allude to a "debate" that seems to be present only in the minds of a handful of editors, or to invoke counts of citations in order to make their work and the hundreds of studies that they investigated seem less important than they are, or to claim publication bias when publications fail to support an editor's point of view. DCLawyer (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"N&W are serious labor economists who wrote a serious book published by a serious academic press. Their book analyzed and summarized decades of research on the minimum wage. They are scholarly researchers who do solid work."Equally C&K are serious labor economists who wrote a serious book published by a serious academic press. Their book analyzed and summarized more recent peer-reviewed research on the minimum wage. They are scholarly researchers who do solid work.

C&K reach conclusions that are opposed, in crucial respects to those of N&W. So, whether or not you use the word "partisan", the factors you cite give no reason for preferring one to the other. And, as shown by the survey evidence, economists in general and labor economics specialists, are divided more or less evenly on the issue. All the professional economists working on this article know this. The fact that amateurs with strongly held political views think economists ought to agree with them on this issue is of zero relevance. The application of WP:WEIGHT here is clear and Academic38 has it right. JQ (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The distribution of opinion among the population of Wikipedia editors is not the same as the distribution of opinion among reliable sources. Let's remember that the latter is the relevant point of reference . LK (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please. An editor who calls serious economists "partisans in a debate" cannot back it up with any sort of reference. Another editor refers to editors as "professional economists," and talks about "the issue," but doesn't seem to be able to say what "the issue" is. "Strongly held political views" are invoked, but not identified. Somebody says that the application of WP:WEIGHT is "clear," but can't say why. This editor doesn't see much evidence of clear thought here, let alone clear thought by professional economists. One is reminded of 1) a very bad high school debate team, and 2) the Essjay controversy. DCLawyer (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One can be a serious economist and still be a partisan in a debate. Krugman for instance, is pretty undeniably both. The point is, the conclusions of N&W are not widely cited by the academic community. Thus, their conclusions should not be given undue weight in this article. And please watch your tone, remember our policy of No Personal Attacks. LK (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one can be a serious economist and still be a partisan in a debate. The problem is with editors who call N&W partisans in a debate, and cannot or will not provide any backup for what they say. (They can't even explain what "debate" they are talking about.) Then they use their unexplained personal conclusions as grounds for dismissing N&W's research as having undue weight. N&W did solid, scholarly research on decades worth of work in economics. As any professional economist would do, N&W stated their conclusions and explained them. That is seldom done by editors of this article. DCLawyer (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. "The debate" is whether the minimum wage is a good policy or not. A "partisan" is anyone who takes a position on that debate, for or against the minimum wage. C&K are partisans on the "pro" side of the debate, N&W are partisans on the "anti" side. I'm not using "partisan" in a pejorative sense, but in the sense of "being parties" to a debate. Some partisans on the "pro" side of the debate do believe that raising the minimum wage reduces the number of low-wage jobs, but that problem is outweighed by what they see as beneficial aspects of raising it; see what Klein and Dompe 2007 (discussed in the "Surveys of Economists" section of the article) found when they surveyed a group of "pro" partisans. Their finding means you cannot presume opposition to the minimum wage from believing or even finding disemployment effects. That's why the surveys are so important; they summarize what educated opinion on the minimum wage is, which is what WP:NPOV tells us to do in order to decide "weight" questions. BTW, your continued refusal to acknowledge the importance of citations verges on violating I didn't hear that; I would recommend you take a look at the article bibliometrics to see for yourself that we academics take citations very seriously. Academic38 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Pro and Con, in a nutshell: I have no problem with a minimum wage 20% below the market rate, but at 20% higher, I would strongly oppose it as a job destroyer that hurts the less well-paid the most. However, once it is an established fact (e.g., the US or Australia), then the only real question is the adjustment: how frequently it changes and how the magnitude of change is determined. Very complicated stuff, which I won’t try to boil down just now. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimum wage articles

Here are the minimum wage articles listed in Category:Minimum Wage:

Maybe they contain something that can be used in this article, or can be referenced it it, or... --DCLawyer (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)