I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[The Mad Monk]

With $9 beers, I don't think they're attracting the non-wealthy public.

[Al B. Sure!]

With $9 beers, I don't think they're attracting the non-wealthy public.

You can get baseball tickets for a little more than that.

[The Mad Monk]

Not if you want to see without a telescope.

[Ben Kenobi]

Politically speaking, raising the minimum wage is obviously low hanging fruit.

It's still very bad policy. Just because most people fail to understand economics doesn't mean that the state should pursue policies that are detrimental to the same subset of people craving it. Minimum wage hurts poor people the most when they cannot find paying work that would pay their bills. The difference between someone working for 5 dollars an hour 40 hours a week, is substantially different from the person who at 7 dollars an hour is only working 20 hours a week.

How does the poor benefit having their hours cut even if they are paid more per hour?

[gribbler]

It's still very bad policy. Just because most people fail to understand economics doesn't mean that the state should pursue policies that are detrimental to the same subset of people craving it. Minimum wage hurts poor people the most when they cannot find paying work that would pay their bills. The difference between someone working for 5 dollars an hour 40 hours a week, is substantially different from the person who at 7 dollars an hour is only working 20 hours a week.

How does the poor benefit having their hours cut even if they are paid more per hour?

I don't think you're using a plausible estimate of the elasticity of labor demand.

[The Mad Monk]

Major endorsement, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

We recommend Walker; his removal isn't justified

No governor in recent memory has been so controversial. No governor in America is so polarizing. Everyone has an opinion about Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Here's ours: We see no reason to remove Walker from office. We recommend him in the June 5 recall election.

Walker's rematch with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was prompted by one issue: Walker's tough stance with the state's public-employee unions. It's inconceivable that the recall election would be occurring absent that. And a disagreement over a single policy is simply not enough to justify a vote against the governor.

A Marquette Law School Poll in January showed that many people in the Badger State agree. In that poll, 72% of Republicans, 44% of independents and 17% of Democrats said recalls should be limited to criminal wrongdoing. Republican state Rep. Robin Vos has proposed tightening the recall mechanism; he should continue to push for that after the election, regardless of who wins.

Walker brought some of this animosity on himself. He chose an in-your-face style from the start. To his credit, the governor now acknowledges that he did a poor job of building support for his policies. "The one thing if I could go back in time is I would try to spend a little bit more time building the case," he told the Editorial Board earlier this year.

Whether any amount of explaining would have made a difference is questionable considering the breadth of Walker's vision. We think his limits on collective bargaining went too far. We think Republicans generally took an unfortunate sharp turn to the right on social issues. That led to bills in the Legislature promoting abstinence-only education, limiting women's health options and creating a concealed-carry law with insufficient training requirements.

At the same time, legislators couldn't build consensus on far more important legislation, including a bill to allow additional mining in northern Wisconsin and another to create a pool of funds for promising start-up companies. Both bills were casualties of legislative arrogance by the party Walker leads.

Walker came to office promising that 250,000 new private-sector jobs would be created on his watch. But even considering the more favorable statistics released by the Walker administration last week, job creation has been sluggish.

There are several possible reasons for this: 1) Walker overpromised, forgetting that there is only so much that any one politician can do to promote private-sector job growth; 2) the political turmoil in the state is inhibiting job creation (Walker's argument); or 3) Walker's policies are killing job growth (Democrats' argument).

We think choices 1 and 2 are the most likely reasons. Walker's policies simply haven't been in place long enough to know whether they are to blame. Our view is that global trends, including the turmoil in Europe, have much more to do with whether Wisconsin's companies succeed than the policies of a single politician. We also believe that, at the margins, the yearlong tantrum over Walker has been harmful.

To his credit, Walker has helped to right the state's finances with a minimum of gimmicks - the governor reported recently that the state may be able to book a $154 million surplus next year. This good news has been lost in the clutter surrounding an unnecessary recall election that will cost as much as $18 million just to stage, according to the Government Accountability Board.

The governor also has made a good-faith attempt to shore up the state's economic development efforts through the creation of a public-private entity to head up those efforts, through reform of the state's tort laws, through a series of business tax breaks and by improving Wisconsin's image with business leaders outside the state.

And while we think Act 10 - the law that clipped the wings of most public-employee unions in the state - was an overreach of political power, we understand and supported the need to rein in the state's labor costs. Municipalities and school districts as well as the state needed more control over their budgets, which Act 10 provided.

But Walker's zeal to give governments more control over their destinies was, we believe, matched only by his zeal to deal a harsh blow to a key Democratic constituency. That has made him a national hero to Republicans.

Democrats claim the recall election is about far more than Act 10. The most serious of the charges on their bill of particulars is the ongoing John Doe investigation being conducted by the Milwaukee County district attorney's office. The investigation, which has been going on for nearly two years, has looked into a variety of activities during the time Walker was county executive. Prosecutors have charged three ex-Walker aides and two others; more charges may be coming. Walker has set up a legal-defense fund.

But the governor has insisted that he is not a target of the investigation and that he is cooperating. While the investigation surely is troubling, no evidence revealed so far implicates Walker. Overzealous political associates sometimes get in trouble. The John Doe probe doesn't justify a vote against the governor.

As for Barrett, we think he has been a good steward of Wisconsin's largest city. Taxes and fees are up, but that's hardly unreasonable given the depth of the budget restraints. Services remain solid. Barrett and his team have helped shepherd new development in the Menomonee Valley, downtown and in the neighborhoods. The mayor has helped heal the often raw relationship between Milwaukee and its suburbs.

But as a leader, the mayor can be tentative and slow to act. While building consensus is admirable - the opposite of the approach Walker often takes - the mayor can be risk-averse to a fault. One example: He has been slow to articulate a vision for economic development in the city and to develop a strategic economic plan for Milwaukee that dovetails with regional efforts.

On the campaign trail, Walker has tried to blame rising taxes and poor job growth in Milwaukee on Barrett. In a campaign stop last week, Walker said that people do not want to see Wisconsin "become another Milwaukee."

But Walker's attacks on the state's largest city are overblown and divisive. He forgets to mention the fallout from the worst recession in 80 years or his own responsibility in cutting state shared revenue. Or the fact that he was Milwaukee County executive during the downturn.

Strip away such purple rhetoric, and you find that Barrett, like Walker, is a capable and honorable public servant. But this election isn't about Tom Barrett. It's about Scott Walker.

Even if you disagree with Walker's policies, does that justify cutting short his term as governor? And if so, where does such logic lead? To more recall elections? More turmoil?

It's time to end the bickering and get back to the business of the state. We've had our differences with the governor, but he deserves a chance to complete his term. We recommended him in 2010. We see no reason to change that recommendation. We urge voters to support Walker in the June 5 recall election.


Whom do you favor in the gubernatorial recall election and why? To be considered for publication as a letter to the editor, e-mail your opinion to the Journal Sentinel editorial department.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion...152111305.html

[Jaguar]

I don't think you're using a plausible estimate of the elasticity of labor demand.

Hey look! A coherent argument from the economic left!

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think you're using a plausible estimate of the elasticity of labor demand.

Well then. What would you see as a plausible estimate? All fine and well to say my argument sucks without providing an alternative...

[C0ckney]

Well then. What would you see as a plausible estimate? All fine and well to say my argument sucks without providing an alternative...

pointing out that you just pulled some numbers out of your arse does not require providing an alternative.

[Ben Kenobi]

pointing out that you just pulled some numbers out of your arse does not require providing an alternative.

Saying, "you're wrong but I can't exactly explain why," doesn't inspire confidence in your position. Feel free to provide a plausible alternative.

Where you are clearing a marginal profit off labour at 5 dollars an hour for an entire day can make all the difference at 7, if that same person is only providing a profit when business is high enough to warrant having them in. This is why a small shift in the minimum wage can result in drastic differences in the hours that they work.

[gribbler]

Well then. What would you see as a plausible estimate? All fine and well to say my argument sucks without providing an alternative...

I don't care because I don't expect anything to change your mind. I don't mind pointing out that your argument is based on empirical assumptions that you can't even be arsed to prove.

[C0ckney]

no. you posted some numbers, the onus is on you to provide credible numbers and if necessary back them up with evidence. pulling them out of your backpassage and then saying 'here are some numbers i made up, prove me wrong!' is not an interesting basis for a debate.

x-post: obviously a response to ben.

[kentonio]

Where you are clearing a marginal profit off labour at 5 dollars an hour for an entire day can make all the difference at 7, if that same person is only providing a profit when business is high enough to warrant having them in. This is why a small shift in the minimum wage can result in drastic differences in the hours that they work.

Except that in the real world it never has these drastic effects that you naysayers bleat about.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't care because I don't expect anything to change your mind. I don't mind pointing out that your argument is based on empirical assumptions that you can't even be arsed to prove.

As opposed to bleating, "implausible!" That is so much more difficult to type out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that in the real world it never has these drastic effects that you naysayers bleat about.

Except that it does, and there are many examples of precisely this. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that almost all of the wage increases associated with the minimum wage increase goes to people who aren't even making minimum wage. Which is why they support policies that hurt poor people, but help them.

[Ben Kenobi]

no. you posted some numbers, the onus is on you to provide credible numbers and if necessary back them up with evidence. pulling them out of your backpassage and then saying 'here are some numbers i made up, prove me wrong!' is not an interesting basis for a debate.

The only way to have a constructive disagreement is for you to provide numbers that you do see as 'plausible'. Otherwise, there's simply no point. What, am I supposed to read your mind? You have a critique that is entirely unfounded.

[kentonio]

Except that it does, and there are many examples of precisely this. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that almost all of the wage increases associated with the minimum wage increase goes to people who aren't even making minimum wage. Which is why they support policies that hurt poor people, but help them.

Provide some evidence that the introduction of a minimum wage has caused mass unemployment or STFU.

[C0ckney]

The only way to have a constructive disagreement is for you to provide numbers that you do see as 'plausible'. Otherwise, there's simply no point. What, am I supposed to read your mind? You have a critique that is entirely unfounded.

there is no basis for constructive disagreement because you simply made up your numbers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Provide some evidence that the introduction of a minimum wage has caused mass unemployment or STFU.

That wasn't even my argument. Call me when you actually bother reading my posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

there is no basis for constructive disagreement because you simply made up your numbers.

Then you should have no difficulty providing reasonable figures to back up your argument.

No, your objection is because I hit a chord and you have zero evidence backing up your claims that minimum wage increases are actually beneficial to poor people.

[kentonio]

That wasn't even my argument. Call me when you actually bother reading my posts.

Whilst reading your posts is always painful, I did actually bother. Your argument appeared to be that raising minimum wage could lead to job losses. The same argument that was used against the introduction of minimum wage laws. You believe one, you believe both, they're the same thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument appeared to be that raising minimum wage could lead to job losses.

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

[C0ckney]

I don't think you're using a plausible estimate of the elasticity of labor demand.

.

[C0ckney]

Then you should have no difficulty providing reasonable figures to back up your argument.

No, your objection is because I hit a chord and you have zero evidence backing up your claims that minimum wage increases are actually beneficial to poor people.

i have provided evidence in this thread about the effects of the minimum wage in the UK.

you have invented some numbers and then spent several posts asking why no one wants to discuss your made up numbers.

[kentonio]

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

Ie, exactly the same damn argument, which hasn't held to up examination whenever the minimum wage is implemented.

[gribbler]

Then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

My precise argument is thus. Someone working 40 hours a week who's marginal labor value is close to what he earns at 5 dollars an hour - isn't going to see 40 hours a week of work at 7. Instead - they are going to see 20 hours a week at 7, to compensate for the time that their labour is actually worth that much during the day.

Which is what most businesses do when the minimum wage goes up - they cut back on the hours that staff works to save labor costs. In this case - the worker who was making 200/week and 800 a month is now making 140 a week and 560 a month. A huge difference. Instead of helping the poor - you've taken away over 1/4 of their pay.

Okay. My argument is that they will have their hours cut back to 35 hours a week and so they will be earning $245 a week working 35 hours instead of earning $200 a week working 40 hours. Extra money and free time. So far we've provided an equal amount of evidence for our positions (zero evidence) so it looks like our arguments are equally valid.

[DinoDoc]

On the original topic: Scott Walker leads new Wisconsin recall poll

[Elok]

Ie, exactly the same damn argument, which hasn't held to up examination whenever the minimum wage is implemented.

That argument doesn't sound like it'd go very far even in the abstract; the owner of the Seven-Eleven or other crap-job-provider needs to have a certain minimum number of warm bodies to keep his store running a certain number of hours. If he can cut back staff hours without sacrificing too much service quality, he'll do it regardless of how much they were making (Lord knows they do IRL). If he can't, he won't, because a poorly run store will drive away customers. And if he cuts so many employee hours that he can't operate the store during profitable times, what has he gained? That's just a crappy way to run a business, or so it seems to me.

Now, I do sometimes wonder if the minimum wage might not cause some sort of inflation by increasing the value of crummy labor, which feels (to my terrible economic intuition) like it ought to happen. I mean, if all the McDonald's workers are making X + 1 where they would normally be making X, doesn't that get passed on to the final product? And given the number of minimum-wage jobs, does that have some kind of final effect on the value of a dollar? If someone can explain to me, using the economic equivalent of "See Spot Run" language, why it does or doesn't, that would be awesome.

[gribbler]

Now, I do sometimes wonder if the minimum wage might not cause some sort of inflation by increasing the value of crummy labor, which feels (to my terrible economic intuition) like it ought to happen. I mean, if all the McDonald's workers are making X + 1 where they would normally be making X, doesn't that get passed on to the final product? And given the number of minimum-wage jobs, does that have some kind of final effect on the value of a dollar? If someone can explain to me, using the economic equivalent of "See Spot Run" language, why it does or doesn't, that would be awesome.

Remember the overall level of inflation is determined by the monetary policy of the central bank. So goods and services that require a relatively large amount of unskilled labor will inflate faster than the overall inflation rate while goods and services require relatively little unskilled labor will inflate slower than the overall inflation rate. Consumption patterns will shift slightly from the more expensive goods to the less expensive ones.

Think of it as a cartel: if OPEC raises the oil price, it has to sell somewhat less oil, but the demand for oil isn't very responsive to a price change so it gains more money. The oil price increase can create inflation, but the central bank can keep the overall inflation rate the same by tightening a bit so that everything other than oil increases in price a little less.

[Kuciwalker]

The Fed can't fully offset all fiscal policy, in the case of slightly wonky things like price controls. e.g. if Congress set the minimum wage to $100/hour the Fed couldn't really do anything to prevent a manyfold increase in the price level.

Also, in your scenario to push down inflation the Fed would have to create unemployment. That argues strongly against raising the minimum wage.