Hacker News Reader

> The reason many economists are unsure or against the minimum wage is not because they're some agents of bourgeoisie capitalists, but because arguments in favor of it tend to be moral, not economic.

All policy arguments are moral. Economics (to the extent it is a useful, predictive, empirical science) can tell you what outcomes to expect from what actions, but not tell which actions should be preferred, without first assuming some moral values.

(OTOH, some of what passes for economics is itself not a predictive, empirical science but a form of moral advocacy in itself; but in that sense, you can't distinguish "moral" from "economic".)

All policy arguments are political, but not necessarily emanating from a moral philosophy. To the extent morality can be reduced to cause-effect propositions, it can also be subject to analysis.

> All policy arguments are political, but not necessarily emanating from a moral philosophy.

Insofar as they can be called arguments at all, they rest on moral -- or at least, "subjective value", which some would see "moral" as a subset of, with other subsets including "aesthetic" and probably some others; these distinctions are not well-defined and, ultimately, I don't think actually meaningful -- bases.

> To the extent morality can be reduced to cause-effect propositions, it can also be subject to analysis

To the extent something can be reduced to cause-effect proposition, it is a fact question, not a value question. Morality consists of the space of value questions. It may be necessary to answer a fact question to address a value question in a particular value framework, but ultimately a question that can be reduced to cause-effect propositions is not a moral question, but a fact question (which may also have utility in addressing a moral question.)

Your first sentence is phrased too extreme :)

People who agree about objectives can still have (non-moral) policy arguments. That may be due to a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge by some of the parties, or simply because society (and hence the economy as part of it) is an extremely complex dynamic system that we only understand in broad strokes. That's when the good kind of economics happens. (Unfortunately, most economics that you see in public is the bad kind perpetuated by "think tanks".)

I agree that they should not tell what outcomes should be preferred, but they absolutely should tell what policies should be preferred in order to achieve a given outcome.

I'm not at all concerned about economists who are "for" or "against" the minimum wage. They can hold whatever opinions they want if they don't lie.

It's the economists who poorly design studies with the intent of demonstrating that it either causes prices to rise uncontrollably (which it doesn't), causes unemployment to rise (which it also doesn't) and who pointedly never, ever, ever look at the effect it has on profits (it is savage towards profits, which is why the marketing budgets for stuff like this gets approved: http://kron4.com/2014/07/18/new-sf-billboard-says-workers-wi...).

They all know where the money is in their profession: it's at ideological corporate think tanks. If you can tread the fine line between not lying and saying things which they really like you've got a good career ahead of you.

As it happens, 'moral' arguments that say that you shouldn't raise the minimum wage work better when you can claim that it will hurt the people it is designed to help. Those arguments fall flat on their face when it becomes apparent that raising the minimum wage just transfers profits into workers' pockets directly.

Economists are agents of bourgeoisie capitalism, then. Alright, I'll end here.

Well, we shouldn't pretend that they don't respond to incentives.

A well-sourced argument you've got there.

What else is there to say about the GP's blanket assertions of opinion being bought out by corporate think tanks and a link to an article about labor-related strife? It's a predetermined conclusion.

It sounds like you've dismissed any economist who doesn't agree with you.

You claim raising the minimum wage would never raise prices nor cause unemployment to rise. Ok, let's set it to $1000 a hr. Do you really think that would have no effect on either of those? Maybe there's some range on increase where the effects are offset by other effects but it's not lying to believe those effects will become real at some point.

It hits profits first and hardest. Raise it significantly and it also causes prices to rise. Raise it to stupendous levels (in the US probably > $40-50 hr) and it eventually causes unemployment.

Realistically speaking, though, most arguments are over minimum wage hikes that only affect profits and won't even have a minimal effect on prices. $10 -> $12 isn't even going to cause prices to rise, let alone have an effect on employment. It'll go straight from profits to paychecks.

I can think of only one instance where raising the minimum wage actually affected employment, actually, and that was because it was set at first world levels in a third world environment.

If something is going to have an effect on profits, you can bet on the fact that a company will fight against it, hard. Because SHOCKER the point of a business is to generate PROFITS.

I think you're wrong in thinking that businesses will just give up, and take lower profits. No. They're going to cut hours, fire anyone they can, etc. to maintain their existing profit levels.

If you have a laser like focus on maximizing profit (and supposedly most businesses do), you've already fired everybody you can and cut all the hours you're able to already.

But no, they don't just sit there and take it. They pile money into think tanks and advertising campaigns in order to try to sway public opinion (see above).

One of my favorite tactics is when they pretend that robots that do minimum wage jobs all cost $minimum wage + $1 and raising wages is simply going to make them all go out and buy those magical robots.

Please read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ulzdy/e...

Raising the minimum wage WILL increase unemployment. That's Economics 101. Companies are going to find ways to fire people, or give them fewer hours. Raising the minimum wage to something like $15 would be ludicrous.

Nonsense. That's simply wrong.

And if Econ 101 states it's true, then Econ 101 is wrong too.

Here's a more fact-based explanation, with links to studies and comments by economists:

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

> Raising the minimum wage WILL increase unemployment.

Reality disagrees :) Germany introduced minimum wage recently and the opposite of your prediction happened.

The argument didn't match reality because it completely ignores the growth of purchasing power that is a consequence of higer wages.

Econ 101 is "look at what happened in Australia". The commenter addresses that actually but his response is really lame. "Things are just different there". Uh huh.

Actually this is pretty much a model for what would happen to McDonalds in the US:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-in-australia-vs-amer...

"agents of bourgeoisie capitalists"

I don't wonder about the sincerity of most economists

I do wonder if there are selection pressures to becoming an economist that prevent a diversity of viewpoints on certain issues

sometimes those neatly line up with the bourgeoisie capitalists (who just coincidentally disproportionately have their names on university building and have levers on which university departments get generous funding)

Would you like a socialist society? Do you want a welfare state? I don't. Why shouldn't some people be able to afford luxuries like names on buildings?

> Would you like a socialist society? Do you want a welfare state? I don't.

I do. And I spend time and money on the political process.

> Why shouldn't some people be able to afford luxuries like names on buildings?

Let's talk about everyone being fed, clothed, and sheltered before you bring your straw man out.

Minimum wage has been around for a long time, and there are plenty of counter examples like restaurant workers and soldiers who could be studied who often get paid less than the minimum wage that has been around for decades.

You also cannot ignore that when the social safety net exceeds the value of working wages, particularly for women, there's a strong incentive to not work. Given the unavailability or high cost of health insurance, Medicaid makes that a no brainier for any woman with one or more children.

> You also cannot ignore that when the social safety net exceeds the value of working wages, particularly for women, there's a strong incentive to not work. Given the unavailability or high cost of health insurance, Medicaid makes that a no brainier for any woman with one or more children.

Which is why basic income, single-payer health insurance, and free college are such compelling ideas.

There is obviously an economic impact from not paying workers a living wage, irrespective of how certain arguments can be parsed. There is also obviously an economic cost associated with paying a living wage.

The alternatives to the minimum wage that you listed are pretty much variations on the mimimum wage in that they seek to achieve the same goals and also have attendant costs. They are, essentially, no more or less moral vs. economic in nature than is the minimum wage, though their invocation may be less charged at present.

The latter point is evidenced by your juxtaposition of the "moral" minimum wage with its presumably amoral (and thus economics-based) alternatives. But, in truth, if any of these have valid economic arguments, then so does the minimum wage.