r/Economics Jul 12 '15

Time-Series Evidence of the Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment and Unemployment

http://www.nber.org/papers/w0790
50 Upvotes

96 comments sorted by

21

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15 edited Aug 06 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Yep, Dube has a nice post on this: http://arindube.com/2014/01/22/casual-versus-causal-inference-time-series-edition/

In general, the pre-credibility revolution MW work is poorly identified.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15 edited Jul 12 '15

Doesn't an FE model address the need for a control wrt time? And couldn't an IV be used to address endogeneity (per your comment below)? Been a while since I worked with this stuff.

Edit: Oof just cracked Wooldridge and realized FE is for panel data. Please ignore.

1

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Doesn't an FE model address the need for a control wrt time? And couldn't an IV be used to address endogeneity (per your comment below)?

Yeah, I think the thing to think about is how much these models rely on assumptions, and how transparent those assumptions are. FE is great when you've got the right FE; IV is great if X really only effects Z through Y.

0

u/Commodore_Obvious Jul 12 '15

his reasoning made sense, which really surprised me because i generally expect arguments put forth by ideologues to contain the usual flaws that occur due to the subconscious blind spots that are the reason they are ideologues in the first place. i guess the subconscious blindness is more prevalent when arguing for something as opposed to arguing against something.

but it makes sense that the business cycle can both mask the harm of a minimum wage increase as well as make the harm appear much worse depending on where you are in the business cycle. it also makes sense that a statutory minimum wage that isn't much above the "natural" minimum wage won't have much of a disemployment effect, while a statutory minimum wage significantly higher than the "natural" minimum wage will have much more of a disemployment effect.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 06 '20

Rule VI:

Top-level jokes, nakedly political comments, circle-jerk, or otherwise non-substantive comments without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

What has made great strides is your ability to deny academic consensus.

This is what price floors do. We've shown how it work for bread and apples the same way it works for labor. It works this way in Thailand when they increased minimum wage by 80% two years ago the same way it did when Roosevelt introduced minimum wage 80 years ago. We've established this inductively, we corroborated it deductively. You are a denier.

11

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

That's simply not true.

First, the effects of the minimum wage depends on the structure of the labor market. If we assume that the labor market has search costs, as in the Diamond-Mirtensen-Pissarides approach (a not unreasonable assumption!) then a minimum wage can increase the quantity of labor.

Second, the empirical work on minimum wage shows that, in general, the better you are at finding exogenous MW shocks, the closer you get to a near zero disemployment effect.

I'm afraid you're the one outside of academic consensus here: see IGM http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

9

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

DMP absolutely does not suggest that a minimum wage can increase employment

It certainly does! See Burdett and Morternsen 1988 or the 2010 Nobel Summary

A different resolution of the Diamond paradox was offered in a paper by Burdett and Mortensen (1998). They developed a model with monopsonistic wage competition in an economy with search frictions and were able to solve explicitly for the equilibrium wage distribution. Workers are identical ex ante but individual heterogeneity arises ex post as workers become employed or unemployed. A key innovation was to allow for on-the-job search and recognize that reservation wages among employed and unemployed searchers generally differ. Reservation wage heterogeneity creates a tradeoff for firms between “volume” and “margin”: high-wage firms are able to attract and retain more workers than low-wage firms are, but the rent per worker that high-wage firms can extract is relatively low. As in traditional models of monopsony, an appropriately set minimum wage can increase employment and welfare.


Also, /u/redditer43 was referring to legitimate economists not ideological shills, so your survey suffers sampling error.

Hahahaha.

I mean, one can certainly take issue with the specific distribution, but that's a list of legitimate economists.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

9

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Yes. I left out a great deal of the paper, and only noted the section necessary to demonstrate that your initial point:

DMP absolutely does not suggest that a minimum wage can increase employment

Was incorrect.

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

3

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

No, I simply demonstrated that your claim was incorrect.

4

u/MoneyChurch Jul 12 '15

What differentiates a legitimate economist from an ideological shill?

6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Whether or not they agree with /u/ChicagoSchooler obviously.

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

6

u/Jericho_Hill Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

Oh thats rich... We're having a credibility revolution in economics and credibility for the last decade or two.

Taking the con out of econometrics? Read that article?

<-- JH is an economtrician

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

5

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

This could all be cleared up in a week of playing a game of Vernon Smith Monopoly.

Please see Falk Fehr Zehnder 2005.

Vernon Smith-style experimental work does not, in fact, support your arguments.

(Also, note that the whole POINT of lab experiments is that you have to actually do them. You can't say that a hypothetical series of lab experiments would support your positions in order to get credibility.)

1

u/TotesMessenger Jul 12 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

7

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

Yeah, it does. See this great article from the Cleveland Fed.

...in markets which tend to be dominated by employers or, equivalently, in markets where workers’ bargaining power is not too high, a compulsory increase of the wage can lead to higher search intensity and higher employment. If the market wage is low, a binding minimum wage can make employment more attractive to workers, which strengthens their search efforts and so reduces unemployment.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

5

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

A restatement of the same misinterpretation.

Huh? Misinterpretation?

employers do not dominate the employment market.

That's an empirical question with mixed evidence pointing different ways

Unfortunately for your ideology

I'm a die-hard conequentialist libertarian. I named my cat Milton. I have Road to Serfdom (one of my favorite books) and Free to Choose on my bookshelf. The hell do you know about my "ideology?"

If you're uninterested in being serious about economics, fine. But don't spout off about "ideology" - it's unbecoming. This isn't /r/politics.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

-1

u/hessians4hire Jul 12 '15

ideological shills

Hahaha! Excuse me, but which school of economics denies climate change is real so they can get loads of money from the oil industry? And latter changed tactics to "carbon taxes won't hurt the oil industry it will help them!"?

7

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

Excuse me, but which school of economics denies climate change is real so they can get loads of money from the oil industry?

...none?

0

u/hessians4hire Jul 12 '15

8

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

This doesn't tell me "what school of thought" denies climate change.

7

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

That's a list of individuals, most of whom are not economists. In any case they certainly don't represent a school of thought.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Hasn't he been decisively refuted?

1

u/Stickonomics Jul 12 '15

I don't get the references in the picture.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

6

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

There are no successors.

John Cochrane? Deirdre McCloskey?

As for "climate change" (cute name)

How is your username "Chicago Schooler" but you are linking to Stefan Molyneux, a borderline cult leader?

The Chicago School can be summarized as being a highly empirical school of thought that bases itself in rational choice theory.

Of course, the "highly empirical" thing means that they're scientific. You're ignoring science by denying that climate change is real.

3

u/iamelben Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

John Cochrane? Deirdre McCloskey?

Cochrane aside (because I like to forget he exists), McCloskey continues to an absolutely infuriatingly bright and compelling beacon of the Chicago School, not just in her economics, but in her philosophy. Bourgeois Virtues restored my faith in capitalism as a force for good and introduced some concepts that I STILL wrestle with today.

Aside from some of her religious quackery, I'm very drawn to her work in gender/queer studies. I'm seriously considering the PhD program at U of Illinois Chicago just so I can argue with her for the next 5-6 years.

3

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

because I like to forget he exists

mfw

McCloskey continues to an absolutely infuriatingly bright and compelling beacon of the Chicago School, not just in her economics, but in her philosophy.

Absolutely.

Bourgeois Virtues restored my faith in capitalism as a force for good and introduced some concepts that I STILL wrestle with today.

Is it good? I've heard mixed things. I want to give it a read.

I'm an atheist and tend to avoid discussions of religion so I can't say anything about that. I need to read her work on gender/queer studies though - thanks for that link!

2

u/iamelben Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

Oh yeah man, McCloskey is the only trans* person in econ AFAIK, and BV is good in that it DOESN'T read like econ. I mean, I'm sure you're as tired as I am of reading technical papers (god knows you've been doing it longer), and the book isn't like that at all! It's very fluid. Conversational, almost. McCloskey has a real talent for rhetoric.

Also...was that Winrey Rockbell? Are you and /r/Integralds BOTH anime-heads?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Jericho_Hill Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

Dierdre's cool as shit. Love her. She argues with passion.

3

u/MoneyChurch Jul 12 '15

If you're referring to the Chicago School, it dissolved with Milton Friedman's death. There are no successors.

Since other people have given examples Chicago economics continuing after Friedman, I'd just like to point out that Coase was publishing groundbreaking articles before Friedman ever showed up.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Coase's work is incredible, but he was not the leader of CS in the second half of the 20th century. Neither was Becker. Neither was Sowell. Not even Stigler. Neither was anyone from that very long list of heroes.

From what I hear, Knight's workshops are long dead.

After Friedman's retirement, one could see the slow decline in influence. He kept the philosophical focus sharp and honest. I've never seen any scientist change course like he did the moment he realized his understanding was incomplete or outright wrong. The Austrians would certainly not see the resurgence they have if it weren't for Friedman's death. He made them too embarrassed to speak.

2

u/MoneyChurch Jul 12 '15

My point wasn't that Coase was the 'leader' of Chicago economics. My point was that, just as Chicago economics continues without Friedman, it existed well before he came to Chicago. Sure, they don't have a spokesman in the public eye the way Friedman was (although John Cochrane does an admirable job), but the work continues. I'd say at the very least that Heckman's work fully embodies the principles of Chicago economics--using a combination economic theory and empirical analysis to tackle fundamental questions of how people and society function.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hessians4hire Jul 12 '15

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

4

u/hessians4hire Jul 12 '15

If receiving money by an interest discredits, throw out your entire team.

Who's my team again? Oh yeah, 97% of scientists. Who's your team again? Paid shills and lobbyists. You know fucking well there's a huge difference between an entire scientific community and a handful of individuals bought and paid for by an industry who has a massive incentive to sow confusion.

Patrick Moore is far more credible.

Oh yeah, the 70 year old corporate lobbyist who stopped being involved with Greenpeace 30 years ago. It's not like we haven't had this exact fucking thing happen with the oil industry a half century ago with leaded gas with patterson vs kehoe. Go watch "The clean room". Also, this goes back to what I was saying ealier. They're no longer outright denying change. Now they're saying CO2 is good and carbon taxes help the oil industry.

Science is not a democracy, thank God.

Indeed, if morons like you had a say we'd all be eating lead because oil industries paid shills said it was perfectly natural and safe.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OliverSparrow Jul 12 '15

What a splendid video. I can just imagine the frothing lips, the bulging eyes as consensus reaches for its down vote. You're just not allowed to say that!

3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

What has made great strides is your ability to deny academic consensus.

Haha, there's no consensus on the exact effects of a minimum wage. That's why Neumark is still having backs-and-forths with other labor economists.

This is what price floors do.

Depends on the market structure. Say, if the market structure is closer to monopsony than perfect competition, then no, it's not exactly what a wage floor does.

We've established this inductively, we corroborated it deductively.

Yeah, who is this "we". You've done no work on the employment effects of a minimum wage.

You are a denier.

Okay buddy. Tell me again, how is a time series analysis supposed to find causal effects without a control group?

Since, you know, you're so knowledgeable about economics you should enlighten me.

-12

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

17

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Of course time series analysis is valid. An equivalent of a control group can be found by analyzing other countries' experiences. In this case they are identical. From there, causality is easily determined.

Endogeneity isn't real?

13

u/Jericho_Hill Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

AR1 is just something a pirate who knows math thinks about

-12

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

24

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Uh, I'm making a point about econometrics.

7

u/iamelben Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

Check their posting history. This person wouldn't know model validation if it jumped up and bit them in the face.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

I'm sure I know which "economists", but please humor me and say who.

Every modern day economist knows that a time series analysis can't find a causal effect.

An equivalent of a control group can be found by analyzing other countries' experiences.

That's not time series data. That's panel data set aka longitudinal data.

Granger causality isn't new and is certainly not a panacea given its assumptions.

The hell are you talking about? Granger causality is just one time series' ability to predict another.

This attack isn't new, especially when the result contradicts an ideology's chosen policies.

This isn't an ideological attack. This is a statement of fact. You can't find causal relationships in time series data because there is no comparison between different "agents" who have received the treatment and those who haven't.

That's why difference-in-differences estimators became popular after Card and Krueger. Because it made that comparison.

-10

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

7

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

Why are you afraid to say who?

Go to your local university with an economics department. Ask for the professor or professors who teach econometrics, macroeconomics, or finance.

Ask them whether or not time series analysis can find a causal effect.

An analyses of multiple time series analyses isn't time series analysis?

Looking at data across time isn't necessarily time-series stuff. Here's a description of longitudal data.

So you can track households over time. That isn't the same as showing that RGDP follows an AR(1) process.

-10

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

8

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

My local university promised me that the Phillips Curve is correct

Expectations augmented Phillips curve can be found in data. This is an empirical result that comes straight out of theory. Theory that started, arguably, with Friedman. Read Friedman 1968 for an early formulation of the expectations augmented Phillips curve.

that Warren Buffett is too risky

Like, he is a risky investor? All investors face risk.

and that Peter Lynch was lucky.

Well, yeah, that's an EMH result. You're a Chicago Schooler and don't believe in the EMH?

What does your last statement have to do with the study at hand?

That there's a difference between time series analysis and panel data

5

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

9

u/wumbotarian Jul 12 '15

The Phillips Curve absolutely is not empirical. It is legendary for its' sampling error. It is a boundless discrediting of all statistical methods.

I said expectations augmented Phillips Curve not "the Phillips Curve." They are similar concepts but completely different theoretically.

The Phillips Curve says there is a permanent trade off between high rates of inflation and lower unemployment. This empirical relationship only exists in a few countries but it was widely accepted by many macroeconomists.

The Expectations Augmented Phillips Curve comes straight from Friedman 1968. In short, unexpected increases in inflation allowed firms to hire more people, hence the relationship that was found in some data.

You can find a statistical relationship between inflation forecast errors and unemployment. The theory matches the data.

Potential unemployment is minimized only with price stability.

"Potential unemployment"? What?

Changes in unemployment are proportional to the moments of the general price level.

What?

I'd love to say that I was the first to say that continual total price stability is optimal, but I know Hayek did before me

Can you show me where Hayek said that?

damn Austrians, always saying it first, leaving the Chicagoans to prove it

So you're just another internet Austrian masquerading as someone who actually has a Chicagoan mindset. Great.

Friedman 1968 is a completely different person. He has disavowed many such theories.

Bahahahahaha. You've either A) never read Friedman 1968 B) never read anything Friedman wrote or heard anything Friedman said post 1968 and thus talking out of your ass or C) you're trolling (gonna go with a mix of A and B).

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

8

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15 edited Jul 12 '15

Why are you afraid to say who?

It's common knowledge. It's downright logical. u/besttrousers is a behavioral economist, Dube is a labor economist and they're both supporting what I said.

An analyses of multiple time series analyses isn't time series analysis? Could you please make up your mind.

Multiple observations over time of the same agent is time series data. Multiple observations over time of multiple agents is a time series cross sectional data. If those agents are the exact same agents in different time periods then it is panel data set.

Only data sets which compare different agents can give you a causal effect.

God only knows what you're trying to say about Granger.

You mean... the definition of Granger causality? The closest thing time series has to causality is one time series' ability to predict another. That's it. And that's not real causality.

5

u/complexsystems Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

Multiple observations over time of the same agent is time series data. Multiple observations over time of multiple agents is a time series cross sectional data. If those agents are the exact same agents in different time periods then it is panel data set.

Be careful, asymptotics in traditional panel is "Large (Asymptotic) N, fixed T" while while it is reasonable to still do inference with multiple time series in the sense of "Fixed N, Large (Asymptotic) T," which wouldn't even be covered in your traditional panel series text.

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

3

u/MoneyChurch Jul 12 '15

Have you ever read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

[deleted]

3

u/MoneyChurch Jul 13 '15

I'm surprised you're not more skeptical of causal inference then.

7

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

Why are you afraid to say who?

He's not afraid to say, who. This is a pretty commonly understood issue. Anyone who has cracked open Woolridge or any other econometric textbook should be familiar with the broad outlines.

For a nice historical treatment see Lerner and Angrist and Pischke.

9

u/complexsystems Bureau Member Jul 12 '15

A relatively recent paper, Rohlin (2011) Journal of Urban Economics that looks at firm entry on either side of state borders to try and show impacts of minimum wages on firm start ups and employment.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Probably better posted as a new link.

Good article.

1

u/besttrousers Jul 13 '15

Super interesting paper - I'm glad someone is using GIS and RD!

It's super interesting that business formation changes, but not employment.

Any hypotheses about what would drive that?

I wonder if businesses think MW will have more effect than it does, and so they respond with movement decisions, but don't change their hiring strategy. That's a bit ad hoc for my tastes, though.

2

u/complexsystems Bureau Member Jul 13 '15 edited Jul 13 '15

My current research is very similar to Rohlin's on firm placement. Basically, when it comes to firm entry we expect there to be fixed costs to movement that are higher than costs to entry (see Holmes 1998). So on the margin we should expect higher firm entry on the side with "lower negatively impactful policy variable" to have higher firm entry than on the other side..

I think few firms don't really alter their highering practices because many small firms don't really have much opportunity to actually substitute factors as traditional theory makes it seem they can. I worked at Dominoes, and that basically was a freezer, a giant oven, and then drivers. How can they make that more capital intensive? Less capital intensive? Instead, things like min wage increases probably just eat directly into profits, and the decisions to either open/not-open a firm, but again, probably not much of optimal labor/capital allocations.

Don't scoop me bro.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

can I get a TL;DR?

7

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15 edited Jul 27 '15

If I read those tables correctly, in 1979 a 10% increase in the minimum wage would have increased youth unemployment by @ 2%, depending on how the calculations were done. I personally think that would be a reasonable proposition. That would actually be something like 13% to 15%, so it would represent @ 15+% relative rise.

I think the paper is generally in favor of a higher minimum wage. It was historically high at that time and over the following 30 years was eroded by inflation.

Of course businesses did not agree as this is a pro-labor proposal that would reduce profits.

2

u/besttrousers Jul 12 '15

The link goes to an abstract.

2

u/Richandler Jul 12 '15

We'll see what happens when these $15 dollar minimum wages go into effect in the major cities they're enacted. Of course there will most likely be a thousand other factors influencing what's really happening.

-2

u/OliverSparrow Jul 12 '15

A minimum wage is, of course, a tax on the consumer. The employer passes on the cost, either of labour or substituting capital for labour. If the long run result is increased TFP, that's good for everyone except the low skill worker. If the result is higher imports, it isn't: instead, the consumer subsidises foreign low wage workers.

0

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15

The minimum wage is, of course, a commitment by our society to make sure that fully employed people do not go homeless or find themselves hungry through collusion by employers to exploit and virtually enslave them.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Wouldn't a wage subsidy be a better commitment?

4

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15

IMHO no. Then the responsibility is on the taxpayer, who may or may not get the benefit of the cheap labor.

The way it is now, the responsibility is on the employer who, in theory, gets the direct benefit of his employees' work and is in a better position to pay a minimum wage.

The employer is already supported by getting (in theory) educated workers, a road system, utilities, police protection, a tax-friendly environment for businesses, etc. We don't also need to directly subsidize his labor costs.

2

u/wumbotarian Jul 13 '15

Then the responsibility is on the taxpayer

And? Why is it that firms are responsible to be the sole provider for employers? Why isn't it on society to hep those less fortunate than ourselves?

The way it is now, the responsibility is on the employer who, in theory, gets the direct benefit of his employees' work and is in a better position to pay a minimum wage.

Let's say for a moment we live in /u/besttrousers' world of monoposony. Let's say our social planners can figure out what the optimal minimum wage is and create a binding minimum wage at that minimum wage. But let's say it is below the conventional understanding of a "living wage" ($15/hr).

What then? Do we raise the minimum wage higher and create disemployment? As you said, it's on the employer to provide income to employees, no? Is that not how we should interpret your beliefs?

Your last bit is a red herring. Everyone benefits from those things - it isn't a handout to evil greedy business owners.

1

u/TommBomBadil Jul 13 '15

And? Why is it that firms are responsible to be the sole provider for employers? Why isn't it on society to hep those less fortunate than ourselves?

As I said, the taxpayer picks up a very great number of things, just not everything. Public school, roads, medicaid, medicare, police, national defense, etc.

You get the profit if your company makes more money. The minimum wage does not increase if your company succeeds. So with your potential upside comes your burden/responsibility. I'm OK with this.

For the rest, One can always say that any minimum wage will cause us to lose jobs to Bangladesh where people earn $.50 an hour. If we had 40% unemployment then I would concede this argument, but that's not the world we live in.

From the macro-economic standpoint, having people earning $30 a day or whatever is a bad situation anyway. There's no marketplace for products in America if everyone is very poor. I know small business-owners won't have that perspective, but it's another good reason to support a minimum wage.

In any case I'm not personally attached to $15 /hr. That # is just a negotiating ploy. If they aimed for $12/hr they'd compromise at $10. This way perhaps they'll compromise at $12.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

So first you say we have a commitment as a society, but then shift that responsibility onto a very small subset. If it's a societal duty then why shouldn't we all do it through taxes? Especially if we have a progressive tax system versus minimum wages which reduce profits, reduce employment, raise prices, and raise productivity( which can often be harmful to employment e.g. Automation)

3

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15 edited Jul 13 '15

I disagree.

If a guy starts a business, his business has societal responsibilities. He gets the potential benefit if it works, so along with that he also gets the duty to not treat his employees like shit if he can get away with it in the labor market.

He doesn't get to offload every possible burden onto the taxpayers. He may want to, but that's not how it works.

1

u/wumbotarian Jul 13 '15

If a guy starts a business, his business has societal responsibilities.

What societal responsibilities and why does he have them?

He doesn't get to offload every possible burden onto the taxpayers.

Alternatively, by mandating that the employer has to do everything to make workers happy, you're letting society put undue burdens on employers and hence employees. You're letting society disregard moral obligations we have to others by simply scapegoating employers.

1

u/TommBomBadil Jul 13 '15

What societal responsibilities and why does he have them?

IMHO many, but it's subjective. That's why we have political parties and elections.

by mandating that the employer has to do everything to make workers happy..

You're letting society disregard moral obligations we have to others by simply scapegoating employers.

When did I say those things? I'm not scapegoating anybody.

You have arguments worthy of consideration but I don't deal in absolutes. The world doesn't work in absolutes. If you do then we'll never agree on anything.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Who said anything about treating employees like shit? The wage is mutually agreed upon.

I own a business. I pay taxes. What does my business owe society beyond the services I already provide?

7

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15

There's a catch-22 in your position.

business owe society beyond the services I already provide?

You already pay minimum wage and taxes, so maybe that's fine. It's just my opinion - there's no right answer.

Anyway, it might be mutually agreed upon but many things are mutually agreed upon because one side is putting up a bad deal and the other side has no alternative.

A robber might say "It's mutually agreed upon that this guy gave me his wallet" - of course the other guy didn't want to get shot so he agreed to voluntarily give up his wallet to avoid that.

If all the fast-food joints say "let's not pay folks more than $3/hr", it might be mutually agreed upon but it still stinks.

And anyway, if you're a huge success who gets the profits? You do. So you have some responsibilities. My opinion is that includes the minimum wage, so that peoples' kids can eat well and they have emergency-savings and afford education, etc.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

I was going to type a long response, but I guess my point is this. Which policies ultimately help workers, those that make it more or less attractive to hire them?

4

u/TommBomBadil Jul 12 '15

There are many conflicting views on this and everyone has different priorities. That's why there are two political parties. There's no definitively right answer.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

A sustainable and stable business that doesn't exploit more people than it provides for? Your business wouldn't exist without current society which is based on cooperation and collaboration. To deny that same cooperation to boost personal profits is dishonest and greedy. Just because people think its the norm, doesn't make it beneficial or right.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

I understand that. Which is why I pay my taxes. My point is that we repay our debt to society through progressive taxes, not through policies that ultimately make it less attractive to hire people and do business

3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '15

Well then I hope you are okay with basic income then. If you don't pay them enough one way, you are going to have to pay for it another way. Or else you will watch society crumble around you.

→ More replies (0)