A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Kidlicious]

There certainly is good and bad policy. A good policy for the wealthy is not necessary a good policy for labor though.

There's evidence that increases in the minimum wage have resulted in higher employment rates. It's also explainable using neo-classical principles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's evidence that increases in the minimum wage have resulted in higher employment rates.

By themselves? States jacking up minimum wage during the prosperous 90s doesn't prove the point, btw.

It's also explainable using neo-classical principles.

Go ahead... explain this, especially considering the minimum wage is set above equilibrium in the first place.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There's evidence that increases in the minimum wage have resulted in higher employment rates.

By themselves? States jacking up minimum wage during the prosperous 90s doesn't prove the point, btw.

That's evidence

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's also explainable using neo-classical principles.

Go ahead... explain this, especially considering the minimum wage is set above equilibrium in the first place.

As I said before it's the elasticity of demand for labor. You have to look at a graph. The elasticity of demand for labor determines how workers income will change as the price of labor changes. The demand for labor is inelastic so there is an increase in wage income which increases aggregate demand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I said before it's the elasticity of demand for labor. You have to look at a graph. The elasticity of demand for labor determines how workers income will change as the price of labor changes. The demand for labor is inelastic so there is an increase in wage income which increases aggregate demand.

Look at a microeconomic graph (where minimum wage is usually explained). If you set a wage higher than equalibrium, demand (for labor) will be much less than supply. Increase that floor, and the gap between demand and supply will only grow. Of course this also fits with common sense. Increasing the minimum wage leads to more people being laid off, because those businesses which pay minimum wage can't afford the same number of workers at a higher wage.

In the end, workers income as an aggregate DECREASES. Because of all the people who have been laid off and the businesses that have had to close because of the much higher minimum wage. Those that still have a job are doing better, but a substantial amount more have just lost whatever income they had.

[Japher]

There's evidence that increases in the minimum wage have resulted in higher employment rates. It's also explainable using neo-classical principles.

That's because what people won't do for a dime, they may do for a buck and a half. Proving once again, that poor people are lazy, since they are poor because they won't work...

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As I said before it's the elasticity of demand for labor. You have to look at a graph. The elasticity of demand for labor determines how workers income will change as the price of labor changes. The demand for labor is inelastic so there is an increase in wage income which increases aggregate demand.

Look at a microeconomic graph (where minimum wage is usually explained). If you set a wage higher than equalibrium, demand (for labor) will be much less than supply. Increase that floor, and the gap between demand and supply will only grow. Of course this also fits with common sense. Increasing the minimum wage leads to more people being laid off, because those businesses which pay minimum wage can't afford the same number of workers at a higher wage.

In the end, workers income as an aggregate DECREASES. Because of all the people who have been laid off and the businesses that have had to close because of the much higher minimum wage. Those that still have a job are doing better, but a substantial amount more have just lost whatever income they had.

I think that if Kid was not in agreement with this clear explanation, he would have answered. Qui ne dit mot consent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I think that if Kid was not in agreement with this clear explanation, he would have answered. Qui ne dit mot consent.

No I'm not bothering. I'm too lazy to make up some graphs to post to demonstrate. Even if I did Imran would still contend it.

[Vesayen]

I swear, every thread I make about politics or religion grows faster then I can keep track of it... I lost this one at page 4 lol.