Jump to content

Talk:Minimum wage: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,053,271 edits
m →top: Task 24: template substitution following a TFD
No edit summary
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=1|units=year|minthreadsleft=3}}
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=B}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
Line 15: Line 14:
|currentstatus=FGAN
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Organized Labour|importance=High}}
{{WP1.0|WPCD=yes|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 31: Line 30:
}}
}}


== Minimum Wages Table ==
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-09-03">3 September 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-12-09">9 December 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Rhode_Island/445_Poverty,_Inequality,_and_Discrimination_(Fall_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Adam conlon|Adam conlon]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Chiqueno|Chiqueno]], [[User:PaigeCarmichael1|PaigeCarmichael1]], [[User:MrrrAndersonnn|MrrrAndersonnn]], [[User:Regoc14|Regoc14]], [[User:Tcharwood73|Tcharwood73]], [[User:Osa225|Osa225]], [[User:Alex Horley|Alex Horley]].


@[[User:Avatar317|Avatar317]] I don't have a strong opinion which rates should be in the article, however I just checked the number for Spain in the cited OECD stats page and it is given there equal 10.6 USD PPPs / hour in 2020; for other countries the numbers also do not seem to match. Maybe I got something wrong, maybe the entire table should be double-checked and corrected. [[User:Birdofpreyru|Birdofpreyru]] ([[User talk:Birdofpreyru|talk]]) 19:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 04:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Addition of Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics work ==


:That's strange; you're right, some of the numbers are off. I thought I double-checked some of the entries when this table was added and they were correct...I wonder if the OECD possibly revised their PPP inflation deflator? Wow! Maybe they did; this InternetArchive link shows different numbers on 2021-12-01 than now (I can't seem to get the hourly on the archive, but the yearly is different between then and now) [https://web.archive.org/web/20211201151637/https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RMW] - maybe we should list the day the source was read? That's a little funky that they are (potentially) revising their inflation numbers (at least that's my best guess as to why these numbers are different)...strange... ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 20:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
{{u|CJ Griffin}}, I saw that you added a reference to the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics work. I'd like to talk about that a bit more if possible, we have addressed that work here on the talk page recently and decided against inclusion for a variety of reasons. The first is that it generally was not well received by other economists, who were critical of its methodology. It also has some POV issues coming from a labor oriented policy center rather than an economics department. Finally, it wasn't actually published anywhere reputable and so definitely cannot be fairly called a study.

More broadly, I think we need to be wary of treating this article like a list of studies for and against the minimum wage. The article should stick to the academic consensus more than highlighting the specific examples of one study or another.

Curious your thoughts on the merit of its inclusion.

A 2018 study from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without hampering job growth.

:I did not see any discussion on the study prior to adding it. Accusations of POV aside, it certainly appears to be a [[WP:RS]] by my estimation. And the citation is actually a report on the study by a mainstream media source that has no ax to grind on this issue (Bloomberg), and they do refer to it as a "study". If what it says is accurate, why should it not be included in the article? I would argue that it goes against [[WP:NPOV]] that only studies which buttress a supposed consensus should be included. Would it be more appropriate in an article which pertains to the [[Minimum wage in the United States]]?--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
::I think you brought up a fair point about the article calling it a study, regardless of whether that is the correct term, you are right that the source references it as such. I definitely don't think we should scrub the page for anything that isn't scientific consensus, but we need to be fair in how we are presenting the state of the evidence. If we really want to do a more holistic survey of the evidence in this article, it would be more appropriate to reference a longitudinal scan of the literature like: http://people.tamu.edu/~jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf
::Rather, if we want to include that paper because of its notability (IE it was referenced in a lot of newpaper articles) I think we need to make that criteria more explicit and cover the alternative views by notable economists like David Autor and Jonathan Meer or Forbes' analysis of the paper. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/uc-berkeley-takes-issue-with-seattle-minimum-wage-study/ Or David Neumark of UC Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article29582665.html
::In the end it really comes down to what the purpose of this page is about, if it is about the understanding of the minimum wage and its effects by mainstream economics, we need to be wary of using generic media sources in favor of more technically focused sources. If it is about the debate around the minimum wage, I think the paper would definitely be an appropriate fit as it played a large role in that public discussion.
::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is the text added. I would like to discuss possible modifications to better reflect the standing of this work in wider economics circles. At a minimum we need to note that this underlying document was never peer reviewed and has been criticized by notable economists (see above). Ideally, we would also note the timing of its work (it began after it was clear the UW study would find negative effects and timed to release before the UW study completed peer review), which is suspect and pretty rushed for any real evaluation of evidence.
::The restaurant industry is commonly studied because of its high number of minimum wage workers. A 2018 study from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without hampering job growth.<ref>{{cite news |last=Eidelson |first=Josh |date=6 September 2018 |title=Higher Minimum Wage Boosts Pay Without Reducing Jobs, Study Says|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/higher-minimum-wage-boosts-pay-without-reducing-jobs-study-says|work=Bloomberg |location= |access-date=20 September 2018}}</ref> A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business, and broke out results based on the restaurant's rating on the review site [[Yelp]]. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants (regardless of the expensiveness of the cuisine) but those with increasingly lower ratings were increasingly likely to go out of business (for example a 14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that the Yelp star rating was correlated with likelihood of minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. The minimum wage increases during this period did not prevent growth in the industry overall – the number of restaurants in San Francisco went from 3,600 in 2012 to 7,600 in 2016.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-minimum-20170519-story.html |title=Minimum wage increases can kill businesses — if they already stink |date=19 May 2017 |author=Michael Hiltzik |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref> An August 2019 study from [[The New School]]'s Center for New York City Affairs found that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.<ref>{{cite news |last= Akhtar|first=Allana|date=August 10, 2019 |title=NYC's $15 minimum wage hasn't brought the restaurant apocalypse — it's helped them thrive|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-restaurant-industry-thriving-after-15-dollar-minimum-wage-2019-8|work=[[Business Insider]] |location= |access-date=August 10, 2019}}</ref>
:::Modifications would require citing reliable sources, and some critiques you linked to above appear to be right-wing screeds on reactionary websites like California Political Review (I briefly looked at some of the posts on the site, and [http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/climate-change-and-backdoor-socialism/ couldn't help but LOL]) or op-eds by pundits (Michael Saltsman) who work for right wing think tanks ([[Employment Policies Institute]], established by [[Richard Berman]] of all people). I don't think their opinions reflect any consensus on this issue. I think removing the text for discussion here was inappropriate, and the text should be restored while discussion takes place here. So far you've added nothing in terms of reliable sources to include here.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::::You haven't addressed any of the concerns. You are asking us to include nearly a paragraph of text for a primary sourced, non-peer reviewed work that is criticized by notable economists (see the Sac Bee article, clearly a [[WP:RS]] by a Bloomberg Economics contributor referencing David Neumark of UC Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, California Political Review is certain not an unbiased source, but it wasn't presented as one. Rather, it was presented as a quick summary link of several reliable sources; MIT economist David Autor in the Washington Post[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/], Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M on a site run by three notable economists [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html] or Forbes [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsaltsman/2017/06/21/the-problems-with-a-new-study-on-seattles-15-minimum-wage/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/]. Presenting this work as part of the scholarly discussion without noting that it has never been published and has been criticized by notable sources is [[WP:UNDUE]]. This article is not a list of individual studies related to the impact of the MW, it is about the general consensus view on its impact, as related by longitudinal literature (http://people.tamu.edu/~jmeer/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf), not individual non-peer reviewed publications. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::First of all, there is more than one study being presented in that paragraph, and discussed in notable and reliable ''secondary'' sources, making it [[WP:DUE]] material. Secondly, the Sac Bee piece you keep pushing was published on July 30, 2015, whereas the UC Berkeley study discussed in the paragraph by Bloomberg was published on September 6, 2018. How does a op-ed from 2015 critique a study published in 2018? If there was such fierce criticism by notable economists of these particular studies (or just the one study from 2018), why is it that the only sources you are presenting here include an outdated op-ed by an associate of the disreputable corporate lobbyist [[Richard Berman]] and a political piece posted on a site that apparently promotes conspiracy theories about global warming (among other things)? The study you posted from 2015, while notable, does not seem to reflect any consensus on this issue, and clearly, given the date of revision (2015), does not say anything about the studies in the paragraph. In fact, the very first sentence in this study says there is "little consensus" on the issue of how minimum wage hikes impact employment, even though you are asserting that there is one.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 02:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::You are correct that there were two different "studies" linked. Neither are peer-reviewed, and the latter was from the National Employment Law Project, a notably left of center think tank with no economics bona fidas and three authors, the most tenured of which is an NYU gradstudent that is explicitly pro-minimum wage [https://www.nelp.org/campaign/raising-the-minimum-wage/]. Hardly a scholarly source. Again, putting forward two works that couldn't be bothered with Peer Review fails the basics of [[WP:Scholarship]]. Citing theses sources as if they were academically equivalent to peer-reviewed work with a large impact factor is borderline negligent. Doing so without noting that they weren't reviewed and met with criticism from economists (MIT economist David Autor in the Washington Post[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/], Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M on a site run by three notable economists [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html] or Forbes [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsaltsman/2017/06/21/the-problems-with-a-new-study-on-seattles-15-minimum-wage/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/]) absolutely meets the standard of [[WP:UNDUE]].
Here is my recommended change to account for the issues I think this paragraph has:
::A 2018 working paper from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose gave workers higher pay without detectable effects on job growth.[1] This paper was ciriticized by several economists including Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M and David Autor of MIT for its data limitations and weak [[statistical power]] [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/06/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html], [https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsaltsman/2017/06/21/the-problems-with-a-new-study-on-seattles-15-minimum-wage/#34345e6b156a], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/] A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business, and broke out results based on the restaurant's rating on the review site Yelp. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants (regardless of the expensiveness of the cuisine) but those with increasingly lower ratings were increasingly likely to go out of business (for example a 14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that those businesses most affected were correlated with likelihood of minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. [2] An August 2019 paper from The National Empoyment Law Project, a pro-minimum wage think tank, claimed that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.[3]
:::And, again, you present the anachronism of rebutting a 2018 study with sources (mostly op-eds and some piece from Tyler Cowen's libertarian blog MRU that is dressed up as peer-reviewed scholarship) that were published prior to 2018; literally every single one was from 2017. And I see Richard Berman sycophant Michael Saltsman makes another appearance, and without the biased attribution that you give to The National Empoyment Law Project as "a pro-minimum wage think tank." The headline of another op-ed from WaPo's "wonkblog" that you use as a source even includes an attack on "liberals". You lecture me about [[WP:scholarship]] and sourcing when you propose to stuff the article full of outdated op-eds? So no, this version, which includes anachronistic rebuttals and biased and uneven attributions, is ''not'' acceptable.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 03:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Just a quick clarification, the 2018 date you are citing seems to be based on the news article, which was based on a press release about the updated version of the working paper. The original working paper, and the initial findings were available in 2017, so I'm not sure the date objection holds. As for your other objections, The National Employment Law Project a pro-minimum wage think tank, they hold that as one of their avowed policy positions. Do you have a different recommended adjective for them? We generally attempt to frame the position of think tanks when using them as sources since they aren't bound by strict academic review and, by definition, aren't [[wp:NPOV]]. I didn't add an adjective to the Saltsman article because it appears to be published under the Forbes name proper rather than as an externally submitted opinion piece. Happy to add clarification if you can propose some. Finally, I'll note that the WAPO piece isn't from their "wonkblog" the author of the article contributes there as well, rather it is a published article from the Economic Policy section. Poor headline writing aside, you aren't asserting that the Washington Post isn't a [[WP:RS]] are you?
::::I want to get to a version we are both happy with, can you offer some proposed edits to the version below that might address your concern?
::::I've made a few edits (mostly to clean up language, some to expand on what was found in the work). [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::A 2018 working paper from the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley focusing on food services showed that minimum wage increases in Washington, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose resulted in higher hourly earnings for workers without detectable effects on job growth rates.[1] This paper was met with some criticism by several economists including Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M and David Autor of MIT for its data limitations and weak [[statistical power]] [11], [12], [13], but gained popular attention for its findings that differed from the official City of Seattle study published by the University of Washington. A 2017 study of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area examined the period 2008-2016 and the effect that a minimum wage increase had on the probability of restaurants going out of business in relation to the restaurant's rating on the review site [[Yelp]]. The study found no effect for 5-star (highest rated) restaurants, but found an increased likelihood of closure correlated with lower ratings (14% increase at 3.5 stars for a $1 per hour minimum wage increase). It also noted that less expensive restaurants were proportionally more likely to close with an increased minimum wage. The authors noted that those businesses most affected were correlated with minority ownership and minority customer base. Importantly, it noted that restaurants below 4 star in rating were proportionally more likely to hire low-skilled workers. [2] An August 2019 paper from The National Empoyment Law Project, a pro-minimum wage think tank, claimed that the restaurant industry in New York City has been "thriving" following an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.[3]
::::::I object to the sourcing used, and I fail to understand why you can't find articles by these particular economists you wish to include in the article as rebuttals, but only op-eds where another author, usually someone with an agenda like Saltsman et al, cites their opposition to an older study. If you are going to cite these opinion sources, then the text of the body should not read as if you are citing the work of these economists. And I still take issue with the dating of these sources, as the study itself was published in September 2018. That you can't find any criticism of these studies aside from old op-eds attacking an older study is quite telling in and of itself, and I find such additions wildly [[WP:UNDUE]]. One source you referenced early on was from 2015! Come on! It's like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find sources to rebut these studies, and this is all that you can find. WaPo is certainly a reliable source (and it is the "Wonkblog", just look at the URL which includes "wonk"), but per Wikipedia policy on sourcing, op-eds and blogs, regardless of where they are published, need to have proper attribution. This is certainly not the case in your proposals. And if you are going to attribute bias on part of those publishing these studies, then the biases of those publishing critiques of these studies should be included as well, or that would tend to make this paragraph pretty lop sided in terms of POV. Why attribute bias at all? If anything, it constitutes [[WP:OR]] as the description you wish to include of The National Employment Law Project being a "pro-minimum wage think tank" cannot be found in the sourcing used. UPDATE: I have added that NELP was also a contributor to this study and is a think tank, per cited source. I have also added that the think tank is for raising the minimum wage upon investigation of the NELP website. Hopefully this will resolve the issue as far as this study is concerned.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I think we can cut through a lot of this by recognizing the first document referenced in the section just didn't have a huge impact in the field of economics. There is a reason it wasn't published, hasn't been cited by any other economist or economics paper, and really only made some small waves in the popular press. The question is about sourcing here, do we elevate work that has no academic review as if it were mainstream? I would argue no, this isn't a page about the popular press' understanding of the minimum wage, but about the academic views on it. Similar to how we handle [[global warming]], we don't include working papers released without scientific review and we don't generally include one off papers with low to no impact factor.
:::::::I saw the edit related to NELP, I think that language makes sense and is good.
:::::::No argument here that OpEd authors have an agenda, I mean basically by definition right? But when they are quoting reputable academics their agenda is moot, unless you can show that the quotes are incorrect, which there is little reason to think is true. I'd also point out that none of the sources I added were OpEds. Perhaps the Marginal Revolution site could be considered an oped since it is a blog by some noted economists, but the WaPo link and the Bloomberg link are in their economics reporting sections, not the opinion sections.
:::::::One small correction on your objection to dating. The paper was never published, it was released. Those have very different contexts when referring to academic work. Also, the 2015 reference by Meer wasn't a direct response to this work, of course, it was an example of the kind of peer-reviewed work that should be the primary sourcing for this page, longitudinal scans, which are secondary sources of academic findings rather than us listing exhaustive lists of every paper published (and in this particular case, not published) in the field (Per [[WP:Scholarship]]: "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context"). Without the clarifications related to the popular press mentions, as I added, the paper is being treated as [[WP:Scholarship]] when it doesn't meet those criteria. To whit: "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper...Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses...If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule...Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context... If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content...Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context...Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."
:::::::So, given WP's policy against relying on non-published, non-peer reviewed primary sources that aren't cited by academic sources, I think we need (at a minimum) a pretty heavy dose of hedging to include this on the page. To be honest, it probably should be removed as there are other, peer-reviewed works (akin to Card and Krueger) that could be referenced. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::There are other sources cited in that particular section, including a [https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/120228_EPI_CanRaisingtheMinWageReducePovertyandHardship.pdf paper] from the aforementioned [[Employment Policies Institute]], among others, that I believe are on par or of inferior quality to the mainstream media articles pertaining to this study. I don't think this is going to be resolved just between the two of us, because I am obviously in favor of keeping it while you want to remove it. Given that no other editors have offered their views on this, I think an RfC might be helpful here.--[[User:C.J. Griffin|C.J. Griffin]] ([[User talk:C.J. Griffin|talk]]) 00:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you are right about the RFC request, it is probably the best (and fastest) way to resolve the issue. I'll post one below. Feel free, of course, to add additional context or let me know if you don't think I summarized the issue correctly. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::After reading through this thread, I agree that this content does not belong in this article, it is non-scholarly work. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 06:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Dumping/storing some text and references removed from [[Seattle's minimum wage ordinance]] article ==

This was created by [[user:UniStudent18]]. I thought the text was well-worded and the references looked good so I thought it might be of some use in slightly improving THIS article. (I removed it from the [[Seattle's minimum wage ordinance]] article because it doesn't belong there.)

According to neoclassical economic theory, the forces of supply and demand will move into equilibrium and determine the market clearing wage in the labour market. At the market clearing wage there is no unemployment as the number of workers seeking employment and the number of jobs being offered by firms are equal.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|url=https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/books/LE/LEChapter4.pdf|title=Labor Economics|last=Borjas|first=George|publisher=2016|pages=144–150}}</ref> The minimum wage acts a price floor which prevents the market from reaching equilibrium. If the minimum wage exceeds the equilibrium price in the labour market, it will result in an excess in supply of labour as more workers look for employment because they have the opportunity to earn a higher wage. Businesses are also discouraged from employing new workers as higher wages increase their costs. This results in a rise in unemployment as individuals are unable to find employment.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=C. Leonard|first=Thomas|date=January 2000|title=The very Idea of Applying Economics: The Modern Minimum-Wage Controversy and Its Antecedents|url=https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/minimum_wage.pdf|journal=History of Political Economy|volume=32|pages=117–144|doi=10.1215/00182702-32-suppl_1-117}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_microeconomics-theory-through-applications/s14-02-the-effects-of-a-minimum-wage.html|title=The Effects of a Minimum Wage|website=saylordotorg.github.io|access-date=2019-05-16}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite book|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1020677057|title=Minimum Wages|last=Neumark, David Verfasser|isbn=9780262280563|oclc=1020677057}}</ref>

In neoclassical economics it is assumed that firms operate to maximise their profits and that the low skilled labour market is highly competitive.<ref name=":0" /> The implementation of a minimum wage above the equilibrium wage will increase the production costs for firms and reduce their profits as it becomes more expensive to pay workers. As firms look to maximise their profits they will reduce their demand for labour and increase their demand for capital. This can reduce employment opportunities for those looking for work in the labour market and result in employed workers being made redundant. This will cause an increase in unemployment.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" />

---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

== I dislike the structure of this article ==

I don't like how academic content on the effects of the minimum wage are dispersed across multiple sections. I dislike that one section lists pro- and anti- arguments, as if Wikipedia was supposed to be a resource for a debating club rather than express the state of a literature on a given topic. Ideally, there should just be one big "Impact" section which may contain (i) surveys that give an impression of how views are shifting about the impact of the MW, (ii) the chronology of research on the topic (economists used to be bullish on the MW but shifted their views after Card and Kruger), and (iii) summarize the enormous literature that exists on the impact. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:I agree. The pro/con is NOT the way this article should be written. Your points 1 & 3 could be combined into a chronology of academic views/polls on the topic, (since these should track with the research results- not be disconnected with the state of research) if we can find enough of that type of stuff. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:I request that we do this through a series of many smaller edits rather than one or two large re-writes, so as to give people the opportunity to object to some changes while retaining others. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 03:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
::We should also go further in saying that two things can be true at once- for instance, a rise in minimum wage will result in some people seeing a rise in wages while others will have more trouble finding employment. I have had trouble finding non-ideological research on the topic. Most scholars are either theoretical or they seem to have an ideological viewpoint that they then fit the data to (which is easy enough to do, since most wage and employment changes are from factors other than the minimum wage). If there are studies with real data then I'm all for including them to help ground the discussion. I agree the article is a bit of a mess right now, I plan on investing some time in it. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Avatar317}} I see you moved some US-only content to the US section, but of course there's lots more US-only content scattered through the article, and I don't know that it all should be moved. The US clearly has outsized importance on the minimum wage issue as it is the largest economy and the minimum wage is of critical importance there (as opposed to the EU and China, which are also major but for which the minimum wage is not as significant an issue). It raises the question of where all US content should go, and my personal view is that instead of being sectioned out it should probably be scattered through the article. Maybe we should even be looking to eliminate the "US movement" section entirely, to eliminate confusion. What are your thoughts on the issue? [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::: "We should also go further in saying that two things can be true at once". That's one of the dilemmas that these pro- and anti-sections create: A new study gets published with a nuanced/mixed result, where should it go? If there were an "impact" section instead of a "pro- and anti-" section, there would be no dilemma. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::::1) I fully support an "Impact" section. I tried to make a start on doing that conversion by getting rid of the table but I don't want to delete any well sourced statements and so that will take time to re-do. Many of those studies may have more nuance to them than their associated statements talk about, and could be reworded, but I don't know without reading them.

::::2) I was intending to MOVE the content from the "US movement" section to the [[Minimum wage in the United States]] article's "Political" section, since I don't think any of that content belongs in this article...there is already a [[Fight for 15]] article about the political movement, and I will replace that section with a brief summary of the [[Minimum wage in the United States]] article that I wrote up yesterday in [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]], with a link to the [[Fight for 15]] article.

::::3) I think that US '''studies/research''' belong scattered throughout here, for two reasons: one: the US is the most wealthy country and therefore funds the most scientific research, and as with medical studies, tends to produce the most published research, and two: the US is arguably the most free capitalistic market in the world, and therefore min wage does matter more in the US than in more socialized countries, so it would be relevant to the min wage notion overall, being that its current reason for existence is as a government tool intended to help the poor. ---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

== Good faith edits ==

I made a number of edits, the mass reverting and edit warring without leaving any comments within edit notes or on the talk page is inappropriate. Please discuss rather than edit war before we need to visit ani. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:3C80:B60:2071:8EBC:E1CB:A1EA|2600:1702:3C80:B60:2071:8EBC:E1CB:A1EA]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:3C80:B60:2071:8EBC:E1CB:A1EA|talk]]) 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

:Please give reasons for your changes, and remember that Wikipedia says what Reliable Sources say: [[WP:RS]], not what any one of us thinks is the "correct" or accurate thing to say, please see [[WP:OR]] regarding that policy.---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:48, 10 December 2024

Former good article nomineeMinimum wage was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Minimum Wages Table

[edit]

@Avatar317 I don't have a strong opinion which rates should be in the article, however I just checked the number for Spain in the cited OECD stats page and it is given there equal 10.6 USD PPPs / hour in 2020; for other countries the numbers also do not seem to match. Maybe I got something wrong, maybe the entire table should be double-checked and corrected. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange; you're right, some of the numbers are off. I thought I double-checked some of the entries when this table was added and they were correct...I wonder if the OECD possibly revised their PPP inflation deflator? Wow! Maybe they did; this InternetArchive link shows different numbers on 2021-12-01 than now (I can't seem to get the hourly on the archive, but the yearly is different between then and now) [1] - maybe we should list the day the source was read? That's a little funky that they are (potentially) revising their inflation numbers (at least that's my best guess as to why these numbers are different)...strange... ---Avatar317(talk) 20:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimum_wage&oldid=1262269449"