That’s the New York Times which has been repeatedly asserting that higher minimum wages do not affect employment? It is indeed possible to have the most lovely arguments about how much a higher minimum affects whom but the assertion that there is no unemployment effect is simply an untruth.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayDecember 17th, 2016 |
 15 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It is not widely known, but the minimum wage was basically a Progressive eugenics plot. It was invented to eliminate jobs for blacks, the handicapped, and women.
Does the QOTD have a point? Something is missing.
The point of the quote was pretty obvious to me, even before I followed the link, given the inescapable blather lately about “fake news”. The NYT is a major purveyor of fake news itself.
The assertion that the NYT posts fake news – as opposed to editorial opinions – about the effect of the minimum wage on unemployment needs an example. It isn’t there in the cited article. That leaves “has been repeatedly asserting” open to interpretation.
Not that they don’t post such ‘news’, but treating it as something everybody knows is just lazy writing.
Good article, PapayaSF, thanks.
. . .
Despite the observation that nowadays I always feel as if I should put in the caveat: “Good piece … if true or accurate, and if footnotes and quotes are honest (counterexample: Chomsky, if anti-Chomskyites are right, and I think they are), and are not ‘cherry-picked,’ if that term has any meaning.” :>(
It would be pleasant if one became less rather than more inconvenienced by the realization that such things go on even by putative members of one’s own “side,” when they are disputing others’ opinions or alleged “facts.”
Edit: “It would be pleasant if with age one became less rather than more inconvenienced….”
It’s just a quote of the day, so follow the fucking link or that is just lazy reading 😉
A wage is a price – the price of labour.
What the New York Times is saying is that price of something does not effect how much is bought. Either they are incredibly stupid – or they are liars.
Ditto the rest of the international establishment elite.
And it is not just on this matter – it is on just about everything.
Yeah, but the New York Time’s fake news is “fake but accurate.”
I very much like John B’s comment under the source of the SQOD at the ASI:
In fact, where appropriate (ie not irony etc), I think it would be better to label such ‘news’ as propaganda: it might put off some posters. In particular, just how much would the BBC be able stomach their news and current affairs output being so labelled.
Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda: so iffy they bored us thrice!
Best regards
Any discussion about the effect of minimum wage without any mention of labour market elasticity is pointless
Indeed the “price elasticity of demand” Mr Halyard.
Only the most stupid of Marxists wouldn’t be able to understand that if Sally is only capable of producing $10/hr worth or widgets, then she’s not going to be hired by any private company to produce widgets whilst paying her $15/hr. (keeping the numbers simple by not including FICA, etc). This is not even a controversial point. Wages are labor cost. Labor cost comes directly out of profits. Less profits means less hires.
Paul Marks wrote:
Great way to put it.
“Any discussion about the effect of minimum wage without any mention of labour market elasticity is pointless”
That’s true in the specific sense, but in the general sense, increasing the cost means less will be “purchased”. And even if it is afforded in any particular case…for now, technology may find a way of circumventing the new, more expensive conditions. Consider, minimum wages increased in Europe, and now McDonalds is leading the way on having meal order kiosks instead of order-takers and servers because it’s now cheaper in the long run to automate the process. This was predictable. They’re doing to fast food joints what grocery stores are doing with cashiers by replacing them with automated check-out machines. Kinda hard to argue that this cashier “deserves” $15/hr (paid for by me the customer) when I, a complete novice walking in the door, can do her job myself for free.