Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on CNN

[Valmy]

Why the wacky face Alcibiades?  Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.

Again...1938.  If her statement is reasonable then why can we not point to an example of full employment in a place or time where there was no minimum wage law?  Shouldn't a reasonable point require some evidence to support it...or at least not extensive counter-evidence?

[Neil]

Why the wacky face Alcibiades?  Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.

It really isn't.  Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.

If that is the case, what is the need to set the minimum wage at that point?

I don't really understand the argument that a minimum wage of X is not a detriment to employment because X really isn't all that much. That makes no sense.

Either a minimum wage IS a brake on employment by forcing business to pay more than they would otherwise, in which case basic econ 101 says that there will be less employment, or it IS NOT a brake on employment because the "natural" floor for wages determined by the market is higher than the minimum anyway - in which case you don't really need a minimum wage to begin with.

You can make some arguments for minimum wage being worth the brake on employment, but the argument that it is NOT such a brake seems kind of specious.

Employment isn't a social goal in and of itself.  Even if a minimum wage is a brake on employment, it would be immoral to allow people in the civilized world to work for starvation wages, no matter what the market decides.

[Berkut]

Why the wacky face Alcibiades?  Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.

Again...1938.  If her statement is reasonable then why can we not point to an example of full employment in a place or time where there was no minimum wage law?  Shouldn't a reasonable point require some evidence to support it...or at least not extensive counter-evidence?

Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.

But I will pre-emptively say that would be a pretty stupid thing to say, if in fact someone said it....

[Alcibiades]

Why the wacky face Alcibiades?  Her statement is flawed, primarily because we think there is a natural rate of unemployment even at quote unquote full employment, but on balance her statement is pretty reasonable and certainly not deserving of your response.

It really isn't.  Not only is it factually incorrect, but acting like $7.25/hr is some sort of terrible restraint on employment is silly, especially since inflation has turned $7.25/hr into virtually nothing.

Especially when you consider that the real minimum wage is actually lower than 1970 levels.

[Valmy]

Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.

No the claim was that having no minimum wage laws would lower unemployment to the point it would be virtually non-existant.  Therefore some data or evidence should show that periods without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment but I see zero evidence for that to be the case...at least to the extent that law has existed in the US.

On the contrary all the highest rates of unemployment in our country have all happened without a minimum wage law.  It may not be the only factor but it is at least being claimed as being a factor no?  So where is the evidence?

[Gups]

The UK only introduced a minimum wage in 1997. Even after the latest recession we've not hit close to our unemplyment highs of the 1980s.

While it seems ridiculous to suggest that a minimum wage won't have some effect on employment it is even more ludicrous to say that abolishing the minimum wage will get virtually get rid of unemployment. Wages are only a part of the cost of employing someone and only one of many disincentives for employing *anyone*.

[Caliga]

Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.

Am I: unemployable? 

[Caliga]

Am I: unemployable? 

Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make.

[Razgovory]

Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.

Hi!

[Berkut]

Also, a significant number of people that are unemployed are unemployable... adjusting the minimum wage isn't going to make them magically employable.

Hi!

[Berkut]

Uhhh, I don't think anyone has claimed that the sole source of unemploymnet is the existence of minimum wage laws.

No the claim was that having no minimum wage laws would lower unemployment to the point it would be virtually non-existant.  Therefore some data or evidence should show that periods without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment but I see zero evidence for that to be the case...at least to the extent that law has existed in the US.

On the contrary all the highest rates of unemployment in our country have all happened without a minimum wage law.  It may not be the only factor but it is at least being claimed as being a factor no?  So where is the evidence?

If you are honestly interested in evidence about the impact of minimum wage laws on employment, there is a LOT of research and documentation out there. It is not exactly unexamined territory from a academic/research perspective.

[The Brain]

Am I: unemployable? 

Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make.

Overqualified on the domestic market?

[Valmy]

If you are honestly interested in evidence about the impact of minimum wage laws on employment, there is a LOT of research and documentation out there. It is not exactly unexamined territory from a academic/research perspective.

I am actually.  The minimum wage has always been so low that I do not see that it ever had a big effect on unemployment.  Naturally the point when it was introduced, the end of the GD, unemployment only went down but even in the 20s unemployment was not signifcantly lower that it has been in any other economic boomtime.  It certainly was never virtually zero.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Am I: unemployable? 

Seems unlikely to me, since you've worked before and, among other things, demonstrate basic literacy skills with every post you make.

Overqualified on the domestic market?

In the South, yes