Talk:Minimum wage and KC College of Engineering, Thane: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
←Created page with '{{Infobox College | name = K C College of engineering (Thane) | established = 2001 | type = Private | city = Thane ...'
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox College
{{talkheader}}
| name = K C College of engineering (Thane)
{{WP1.0|WPCD=yes}}
| established = 2001
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Top|class=B}}
| type = [[Private university|Private]]
{{WikiProject Business & Economics}}
| city = [[Thane]]
{{WikiProject Economics|class=B|importance=High}}
| state = [[Maharashtra]]
{{FailedGA|2006-07-10, 15:34:07|oldid=63004215}}
| country = [[India]]
{{archive box|
| campus = [[Urban]]
*[[/Archive 01|Archive 01, up to GA failure]]
| affiliations= [[University of Mumbai]]
*[[/Archive 02|Archive 03, up to February 8th]]
| website = [http://kccoe.org/home.html Kccoe.org]
*[[/Archive 03]]
}}
}}


'''K C College of engineering''' ('''KCCOE''') is a [[Private university|private]] [[engineering]] college located in [[Thane]], [[Mumbai]], [[Maharashtra]], [[India]]. The college is affiliated to the [[University of Mumbai]] and approved by Directorate of Technical Education (DTE), Maharashtra State and [[All India Council of Technical Education]] (AICTE), New Delhi.
==Consensus among economists==


K.C college of Engineering was established in 2001 which is under MUMBAI university, comprising the faculties of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Computer Engineering and Information Technology Engineering.A dedicated and qualified staff, plays an inspirational and instrumental role in maintaining high academic standards
The opening had this "The magnitude of the costs and benefits of minimum wage laws are well-understood by economists, yet are debated in the popular press and by politicians. When economist Milton Friedman was asked "Is there any value -- at all -- to the minimum wage?" Friedman asserted emphatically "No, not at all -- none whatsoever."[3]" This makes it sound like "experts understand and have a consensus on this issue, it's the stupid people who don't get it". Like Climate Change.


==History==
Anyway, this is directly contradicted by the part in the debate section which says things like "A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed." and "In the debate about minimum wage it is rarely mentioned by how much the quantity of labor demanded may fall if the minimum wage is raised."


The college was established in 2001 by Excelsior Education Society offering three branches namely Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Computer Engineering and Information Technology Engineering.Later On 2008 Electronics Engineering was introduced.
Thus, the sentence in the intro to the article is at best misleading, and at worse completely wrong. There is no consensus, and it doesn't seem well understood, and the debate section seems to list sources and facts, while there is nothing to back up the original sentences.


==Departments==
I've deleted that sentence. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Indefual|Indefual]] ([[User talk:Indefual|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Indefual|contribs]]) 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Department is well established with 18 highly qualified faculties ready to guide the students. Personal attention is given to students to ensure their overall development along with academics. The computer department offers very promising future for its students in the field of software development, hardware and information Technology. It prepares students to enter the world of computing and make them ready for productive employment in the public or private sectors.
The sentence, as stated, should be deleted. However, it should be replaced with a quote to the effect that, "73.5% of economists agreed (either in total or with provisos) with the statement, 'a minimum wage increases...'." [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


==Academics==
The question as to whether there is a 'consensus' among economists perhaps misses the point somewhat. Firstly, it is generally acknowledged that there has been an ongoing debate among economists on the minimum wage for quite some time. That a majority of economists fall one way (presumably against the minimum wage), even if this is 73.5% (a puzzlingly precise figure), does not negate that there is a debate meaning that there are, in fact, divergent opinions even amongst the experts. What is more important is that the contrasting debate positions arise from distinct schools of thought. A significant portion of the article, a summary of which should be given at the header, is how the differing intepretrations of economics lead to distinct positions regarding the minimum wage.


KCCOE offers undergraduate courses of study in engineering. The four year undergraduate programme leads to the degree of [[Bachelor of Engineering]] (BE). The courses offered are:
From my limited understanding, Keynsians and supply-side economists generally, but probably not always, take differing sides on the argument. In order to be a quality article, this should examine and trace the theoretical assumptions as well as the empirical studies that would lead to supporting or opposing the minimum wage. Currently, the article has only a cursory explanation from economic theory and then focuses on recent empirical studies. However, the debate is really much deeper than this and concerns diverging interpretations of economics.
* [[Electronic Engineering]]
* [[Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering]]
* [[Computer Engineering]]
* [[Information Technology]]


==Intakes==
To anticipate, claiming that supply-side economics is now the orthodoxy and therefore it is unnecessary to look at other interpretations of economic theory would do this article a great injustice. Firstly, Keynsian economics still has considerable influence upon contemporary economists and on public policy. Secondly, it is important to outline the theory to which supply-side economists are reacting towards. Thirdly, there should generally be a historical vantage point to allow for more perspective on the part of the reader beyond the debates from the last ten years, which ten years from now will probably be much forgotten anyway.
[[Electronics and Telecommunication]] - 90
[[Computer Engineering]] - 90
[[Information Technology]] - 60
[[Electronics]] - 60


==Contact==
I would advocate then a more careful look at the theoretical roots of this debate, which this article is lacking. Given the lack of depth and the overwhelming tendency to a supposed consensus, this leads this article to have a bias somewhat to the supply-side perspective. <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.0.124.120|86.0.124.120]] ([[User talk:86.0.124.120|talk]]) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
K.C. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.
<br />MithBunder Road,
<br />Near Sadguru Gardens,
<br />Kopri, Thane(East) 400 603


*Phone :022-2532 7100 OR 022- 25326062
:It's not a supply-side perspective. It's an economic perspective. Arguing with this is like saying that biology has a tendency to display an "evolutionist" perspective. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
*Fax No:022-25326775


==External Links==
: Economics hardly ranks as a science in the same way as biology or physics. Supply-side economics is not the only valid model in economics. Other models are still accepted and taught (especially outside of the United States). <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.0.124.120|86.0.124.120]] ([[User talk:86.0.124.120|talk]]) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


* [http://kccoe.org/home.html UnOfficial Website created by students]
:I don't believe you can support that proposition. Economics is based on observation, hypothesis formation, and statistical testing. In what way is that not a science? [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
* [http://www.excelsioreducation.com/in.htm Homepage of Excelsior Education Society]


[[Category:Education in Navi Mumbai]]
==Laws and principles==
[[Category:Engineering colleges in Mumbai]]

I propose to spin-off the first two sections into [[Minimum wage law]] or [[List of minimum wage laws]]. Anyway, the 'cost and benefits' section should come before the 'debate' section.

Whether the noble aims of social justice, a living wage and a [[guaranteed minimum income]] will be advanced by such laws, or the result is just increased [[unemployment]] and reducted [[upward mobility]], is debatable. (That's why there's a 'debate' section.) I don't think we should try to settle the argument by saying what "most economists" believe. Anything less than 95% agreement in science indicates a significant degree of uncertainty. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:I like the idea of spinning the list of minimum wage laws into a different article, as the ginormous list is beginning to take this article over. On the view of economists, I don't think the point is to say X is true, but to describe the structure of the debate, what the significant viewpoints and who is behind them. -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::I never knew one agreeance constituted a consensus. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with moving the costs benefits section to the debates section.

==Registering my Objection to a comment in edit history==
I don't think the Fuller text needs to repeated, so I'm not going to revert, but I am going to register my objection to Divinus's characterization of the Fuller article in the American Economic Review as not a scholarly article and instead "a professional organisation article." This is wacky and wrong. The American Economic Review is a scholarly journal. I hope this was just an off the cuff mistake and not a sign of gross unfamiliarity with the topic of economics and academic research in general. -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think the main rejection is that the study has already been discussed elsewhere in the article. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 06:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with the redundant objection which is why I didn't revert again. -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

==Luxembourg==
Should there be a mention of Luxembourg? It has the highest minimum wage in the world, yet the unemployment rate is a mere 4.1%, less than that of the US (40th of 198 lowest). Moreover, a whopping 18% of the population earns minimum wage, which should emphasise the correlation between minimum wage and unemployment.[[User:Divinus|Divinus]] 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:If we mention it, let's make it clear that this is an anecdote (and let's verify the figures). There are two serious issues here. (1) The level of the minimum wage, itself, is meaningless. What matters is the level of the minimum wage relative to the average hourly wage rate. For example, a country with a minimum wage of $1 and an average hourly wage of $2 has a higher effective minimum wage (with respect to the effect on unemployment) than a country with a minimum wage of $10 and an average hourly wage of $100. (2) The relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment is subject to noise. Therefore, a single observation (i.e. Luxembourg) neither supports nor refutes the theory. What's needed is a set of data -- either time series (as shown in the graphs we currently have) or cross-sectional (i.e., including lots of countries). [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with most of what you said Wikiant, but I'm going to slightly disagree with "what matters is the level of the minimum wage relative to the average hourly wage rate." It's the relationship between the minimum wage and a specific worker's marginal productivity. If the minimum wage (including benefits) rises above a worker's marginal productivity, that worker will lose his/her job because the worker costs more to employ than he/she benefits the business. Just to pick an extreme example, a minimum wage of $40/hour would do nothing for doctors, because a doctor's marginal productivity is going to be far above $40/hour. On the other hand, an enforced minimum wage of $40/hour would likely eliminate employment in the fast food industry (and potentially the industry itself) because a kid flipping burgers isn't generating $40/hour in value for the business. Over time, wages and productivity track each other.

:::Mgunn, I agree with you. I was commenting more from an empirical and aggregate perspective. What you are describing is the underlying dynamic that drives what I'm claiming folk will tend to see empirically. For myself, I try to avoid the economic arguments in favor of the empirical arguments assuming that 99% of the people reading this article will be non-economists. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

::::: According to 2004 data, Luxemburg's minimum wage was 43.4% of the average wage, about normal. Highest in Europe was Malta (56.4%), and lowest Portugal (34.5%).[[User:210.176.69.125|210.176.69.125]] 06:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DOR Sept 11, 2007

::What's the link to high average wages? It's evidence you're in an environment with high levels of productivity because wages and productivity track each other. A $6 minimum wage is going to do less harm in downtown Manhattan than it's going to do in rural Arkansas because even basic unskilled manual labor is going to be valued higher in downtown Manhattan. Luxembourg is a tiny, rich principality with a robust banking sector and probably has few workers that are less productive than the minimum wage. Interestingly, it appears that Luxembourg has a lower minimum wage for workers under 18. This would reduce the harm of a minimum wage because younger workers are going to be less skilled and have lower productivity. Reducing the minimum wage would lower unemployment even further.

::Also, it's worth noting that Luxembourg has low tax rates and remarkably free market policies by European standards. I actually met the Prince of Luxembourg once, and I found him to be very impressive. He explained how Luxembourg was doing quite well because it was essentially forced to have low tax rates and a favorable business climate. Companies don't HAVE to be in Luxembourg and if tax rates get high, they can quickly move away. Because the country is so small, these movements are quickly felt. Luxembourg's small size impacts tax rates in another ways as well. For example, if a legislator wants to raise taxes, he has to explain to his neighbors why his tax rates need to go up! -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Also what does "yet the unemployment rate is a mere 4.1%" really mean? Are 95.9% of its population actually employed (not likely). Or does it mean that only one person is actively looking for work for each 24 who are working? How many are discouraged to the point that they do not look? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
::::The unemployment rate is calculated as the percent of the people not working, but looking for work, in the labor force. You'll have to find out who exactly is considered in the in the labor force for Luxembourg, but in the U.S. it's 16 years of age and looking for employment. Discouraged people are typically not counted in the labor force. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

== EITC ==
Economist critics of the minimum wage wouldn't call the EITC a "viable alternative" because this implies indifference between the two policies. Nothing is further from the truth. In a recent opinion piece, Nobel Prize winning economist [[Gary Becker]] wrote, "The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15 -- a 40% increase -- is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public's ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian." And later when discussing the EITC, "As a means of raising people from poverty or near poverty, the minimum wage is inferior to the Earned Income Tax Credit, which compensates for low wages without interfering with the labor market or conferring windfalls on the nonpoor." -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think it implies indifference, but whatever floats your boat. I thought the previous version was not NPOV, however, as if it were saying the EITC was a cureall. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::I agree it isn't a cureall. You don't have direct labor market distortions, but you do have distortions from generally higher tax rates. (Deadweight loss proportional to the square of the tax rate yadda yadda yadda.) -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 09:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

==No Graph?==
Seeing as there is no graph to help explain the minimum wage and its effects on employment, what would you guys think of this simplified textbook model:?
[[Image:Minimumwage.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]
~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)<br style="clear:both" />

:I believe it is a good idea to include a graph showing the theory behind the claim. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:Looks good to me. Just an idea, you might also want to wikilink to [[supply and demand]] in the explanation of the graph so people unfamiliar reading these types of graphs have some help if they want to get into it. You might want to have the supply curve a different color from the demand curve. Then you could say something in the text or possibly in the caption like:

:The blue line shows the supply of labor at various wages and the green line shows the demand for labor at various wages. The intersection of these two lines is the equilibrium point. At this point, the supply of labor matches the demand for labor. As the graph shows in this simple model, setting a minimum wage above the equilibrium wage induces workers to offer more labor and employers to demand less labor, leading to higher unemployment. -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::In the interest of making the graph as clear as possible, I'd make the D and S curves solid and the rest of the lines dashed. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah I can do that, and use different colors for the lines too, if need be. I can also make a more detailed graph (i.e. add D<sub>1</sub> > S<sub>1</sub> = unemployment and D<sub>1</sub> - S<sub>1</sub> = unemployed), if need be. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be great coupled with a graph showing the effects of the minimum wage on employment in monopsony conditions to be fair, in which a minimum wage hike might have no effect or even a positive effect on employment. Anyone know how to do this? JohnC

:Even if there were only one employer, the demand for labor would be a downward sloping curve due to the law of diminishing returns. Thus the minimum wage will ALWAYS reduce employment, i.e. monopsony would not change the situation. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] 09:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, in cases of monopsony, this is not true. Even in a regular market, it sometimes incorrect to assume the supply curve is always upward sloping. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::To UBeR: When was the law of diminishing returns repealed? The marginal utility of each man-hour consumed by a business is less than the previous one because it would otherwise have been used for what the other one was used for. (Except for small fluctuations due to the two-eggs needed to bake a cake effect.) Also the marginal dis-utility of paying a dollar in wages increases as the expenditure increases, which also tends to the same effect. How can you doubt this law of economics? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] 05:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::[[Monopsony]]. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Graph looks good, I would agree that it should be included. Under the theory section of course.[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I clenaed it up differentiating colors for the supply and demand, converting them into areas and other aesthetical modifications; removed request for image

[[Image:wage_labour.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]
[[User:Yupi666|Yupi666]] 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::By the way, one thing I was meaning to do but never did was changing the x-axis label from "employment" to "labor," because we're talking about the supply and demand of labor. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction is needed to the graph. The unemployment bracket on the x-axis is incorrect; the correct change of employment is from the old equilibrium (the red line) to the new equilibrium (the gray line at left). Consulting any microeconomics textbook would allow you to verify this & possibly put in some dead-weight loss, lost wages, gained wages & so on that might make the graph more instructive. Hope this helps. [[User:pab]] 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:Unemployment is the surplus of labor -- i.e., quantity supplied of labor less quantity demanded. This is what the graph shows. You are correct that the *change in employment* is the difference between the old equilibrium and the lesser of Qd and Qs under the minimum wage. However, the change in employment is not the same as the unemployment. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

==The Minimum Wage as a Social Security Issue==

The minimum age question is especially hurting in [[Brazil]], whose problems arise mostly from the fact that the social security system must pay at least R$ 300,00 monthly (which is the same as the minimum wage for active workers). As the population grow decreases (from 2.5% yearly in the sixties to about 1.5% now) the percentage of elderly people in need of social security soars, pressing on the [[Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social|INSS]] budget. When the system was created there was a 6:1 relation between active and retired workers, which is now at 3.5:1 and decreasing. Social security deficit is of about 40% and needs to be paid by the Treasury, which reduces the country's ability to invest on infrastructure, education, health-care, etc. Despite this dire situation, nobody wants to discuss the issue in either way: disconnecting social security from the minimum wage or else changing retirement rules. Only time will tell whether this will be solved or else Brazil must go bankrupt first before people will accept discuss the matter maturely. [[User:Jggouvea|jggouvea]] 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:Notice that new sections of talk are supp
osed to be
added to the bottom of the page. So I moved this one down. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::This really has little to do with the Mimimum Wage. I understand you say Social Security benefits are pegged to minimum wage, but the problem is in the pay-as-you-go system and changes in demography. When you speak of decoupling it from minimum wage, you're talking about reducing social security benefits, which has nothing to do with the benefits of a minimum wage.[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== Sigh, Some Major Concerns ==

Two major concerns:

Under "costs" it reads

"Reduces economic growth by skewing factor-choice incentives away from the optimum choice"
I was curious about this statement, because it's non-sensical. Skewing factor-choice incentives could make the economy less efficient, but there's no reason to believe it would hinder growth. Indeed, it would spur investment in capital, which could improve growth. Anywho, I wanted to look at the original article cited entitled "Does Regulation Affect Economic Outcomes? The Case of Dentistry." By
the fir

st p
art of the title it seems relevent, but the second part of course does not. I pulled up the article and found absolutely no mention of minimum wage regulation or the effect of factor-choice incentives on
economic growth. If you're interested in the effect of regulation on Dentistry, I highly recommend it. For our purposes however,

'''I'm Deleting that line'''

Second major concern:

I was curious about all the graphs oddly tossed into the "Debate" section, and for no apparent reason one was thrown in the card kreuger section. At first glance they look like they're pulled off the BLS website, listed as the source on the graph. If this were the case, I'd be disappointed in the BLS. The graphs cover a short period, make no mention of other variables, and don't even list all the years. Turns out they were in fact created by Antony Davis, Ph.D., of Duquesne University.

This research is not published, it is the work of on individual (PhD notwithstanding) and therefore violate the wiki policy against posting original research, defined as
"unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

'''I am therefore Deleting these graphs'''

[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== Just Some Minor Concerns ==

First two paragraphs under "debate" would fit really well under the "theoretical" section.

Reason: there is no debate that in simple econ analysis price floors above equilibrium cause surpluses
There is no debate that in monopsony minimum wage may not affect unemployment

I recommend they be moved.

Why does "scholarly articles" section include one book and responses to it? There have been hundreds of actual articles written on this subject.

The section "Benefits" is mostly from an EPI policy brief. I think because this organization is clearly biased. For instance, if instead of cited bullet points it were written out and attributed in the paragraph to EPI, I think that would be more honest.

The Gary Fields part, while interesting, probably belongs under either debate or scholarly articles . Come to think of it, maybe debate and scholarly articles should be combined.

"Equivilence to tax subsidy" part probably belongs under debate. Is it really published work if it's in a blog?!?

[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with most of what's been said here. On Mankiw's blog part about tax subsidies, I've been against inserting it into the article. However, Wikipedia does allow for blogs to be a reference when it is made by "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Culture Question ==

At what point is it legitimate to make a change? I see lots of room for improvement, and I agree with suggestions posted above. If someone proposes a suggestion, and no one objects, is it reasonable for me to make the changes?

E.g., I'd like to incorporate the costs benefits section into debate, as suggested above. I think I'll do that soon if no one objects.

As noted in my above entry, I deleted particularly egregious entries. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Burkander|Burkander]] ([[User talk:Burkander|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Burkander|contribs]]) 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Be [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]]. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Rapid sequence of major edits ==

I've reverted a rapid sequence of major edits by Burkander. I suggest that we discuss the edits first. My major issue is with characterizing the graphs as original research. The data sources listed are the actual data sources. The only thing that is original is that the data is displayed in graphic format rather than in tabular format (as displayed in the source). [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:data sources listed where? It lists the BLS, which does not break down unemployment by age, nor does it have the minimum wage. It doesn't say whether it's real minimum wage or nominal, or whether it factors in state minimum wage.

:The data have also been manipulated, so it is not just that "the data is[sic] displayed in graphic format rather than tabular." No where will you find a table that lists the ratio of unemployed 16-19 year olds as percentage of the population to unemployed 20-60 year olds as percentage of the population. Minimum wage to hourly wage is also a calculated ratio.

:It combines data from multiple tables, without listing where the data are from, manipulates that data and suggests a correlation. I quote again, original research is "...unpublished ...synthesis of published material"

[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:If you look at the attribution page under "What is not original research?" you will find the following:

:"Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source."

:The graphs are simply pictoral representations of published, freely available data. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::I think these graphs are illustrative, and the general story they tell isn't controversial. A number of economists disagree on the magnitude of unemployment effects from the minimum wage, but from the surveys I've looked at, not too many dispute their existence. -- [[User:Mgunn|Mgunn]] 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


:::Do you believe that population to unemployment of 16-19 year olds to population to unemployment of 20-60 year olds is a "straightforward calculation"? Do you think that the signifigance of the unemployment to population ratio isn't changed when made part of a ratio to another unemployment to population ratio? It may well be useful, but it's useful precisely because it changes the signifigance.

:::I think it's worth continuing the quotation you cut off. The full text reads "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."

:::To this I quote a post from your usertalk page: "Thanks for adding the graphs to the Minimum Wage article. Can you add a link that explains their significance or indicates how to read them? What type of graphs are they; what is the name of this type of graph? Jerimee 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)" Also above the clarity of the graphs is questioned.

:::Obviously it is not possible for this reader to understand the calculations made. Non-specialists don't necessarily even appreciate what economists mean by "unemployment."

:::Your above comment that "Given the knowledge required to understand the subject matter of this article, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to include instructions on how to read a graph.." doesn't seem fair. Is this page for people with some prerequisite knowledge? Or is it for everyone?

:::I can only find teen unemployment on a monthly basis. Was the population used the annual average or the monthly? Was the unemployment averaged out for the year? This doesn't strike me as straighforward.

:::[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 21:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::: Additionally, as Partridge and Partridge note in "Are teen unemployment rates influenced by state minimum wage laws?", the "proper minimum wage measure is in some dispute."

::: Yet these graphs rely on one poorly explained minimum wage measure and lead readers to conclude causation, as someone did in this discussion thread above

:::[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::::The teen unemployment figures I show are annual. They come from the BLS, Table B-36, "Civilian employment and unemployment by sex and age, 1959–2005." If your point is that the proper minimum wage measure is in some dispute, then I would include discussion relevant to that point. To your question, "Do you believe that population to unemployment of 16-19 year olds to population to unemployment of 20-60 year olds is a 'straightforward calculation'?," I'd have to say, "yes within the context of the topic." If we eshew all complexity, then we're left with an article comprised of a single sentence: "The minimum wage is the legally imposed lower limit on wages." Of course, we then have the problem of some readers not knowing what "legally imposed lower limit" means, etc. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Whether a calculation is adequately straightforward is not dependent on "the context of the topic." The test is clearly stated. It's whether any reader can understand it. If the audience for whom we write were comprised of economists we could make allowances for the complexity of the topic. Our job, however, is to convey this material to a general audience.

True, if we didn't allow any complexity this article would not be very informative. Complexity is allowed, even welcomed, but not in original research. With a topic as controversial as the Minimum Wage, it's better to rely on published material. I think the reasons for not allowing the posting of original research are valid.

We could link to "legally imposed lower limit." Where's the explanation of why the graphs use minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage? It may seem self evident to you or I, but that's not the point. How did you make the line? Is that obvious and clear to any reader? What's the deviation from that line? Are these simple calculations?

My real problem with these graphs, the reason I looked into them, is because the relationships depicted don't look significant to me. What's the strength of the relationship? It looks weak to me. I'm used to confidence intervals and stated deviation and variation. In contrast these graphs are highly suspect.
[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::Are you suggesting that if the beta estimates were statistically non-zero that you'd favor the graphs being included? How is that discussion less complex than what we have now?? [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::There's a distinction between what we have now, which is cited, and the graphs, which are original! There's a different test of complexity for the two!
:::[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 12:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Forgive me for appearing to go in circles, but I come back to my original statement: The graphs are not original research; at best they are an original *representation* of established research. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Forgive me for going in circles, but again Orginal Research is defined as unpublished synthesis of published material.

::::Clearly you and I are not going to agree on this. This is leading me to question the way in which decisions are made at wiki. I feel as though numerous people have complained about these graphs. You've disagreed with their complaints. And so they've stayed.

::::But is that fair?

::::Are our decisions supposed to be consensual, in which case you, even if as a lone dessenter, can prevent them from being removed? But where was the consensus to put them there in the first place? Did you, like the above creator of a graph, submit it first to this page for review?

::::Or are our decisions by majority? In which case, you and I, having exhausted our arguments, should appeal to the masses.

::::Or is there some other authority to whom we appeal?

::::I feel that if this continues it makes sense to ask the administrators of wikipedia to act as impartial judges.

::::[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Actually, if you look through the talk history you'll see that you are the *only* person who has complained about the existence of the graphs. The only other comment on the graphs was a request to make them *more* readable. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Summary of Feedback about the Davies Graphs ==

I've gone through this page to collect all the feedback about the (to me contentious) graphs and have reproduced that feedback below, along with my interpretation. I'm leaving out most of my feedback.

I inlude the following two quotes, from two different users, as an indication that these graphs do not meet the established test for acceptable math or deduction of original research. The test is that "[i]t should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions."

:Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I don't really understand the graphs in the Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws section. Can someone improve them, or put a link to "How to Read These Graph Type Graphs?" Jerimee 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think the summaries are good, particularly if we can make them even more concise. However, I think that both the articles and the graphs need to be made more accessible.

I include the following two quotes because they're demonstrative of the fact that the graphs promote conclusions. Original Research is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, '''which appears to advance a position'''"

:It's clear from the both the graphs and from "critics of this research" that the Card Krueger book is fatally flawed. Why do we give it so much weight?

:The entire book becomes a waste of time. Besides, we already have the data comparing the minimum wage relative to the mean wage against the unemployment rate for certain groups (contained in the graphs). That's pretty hard evidence that unemployment often does increase with higher minimum wages.

The following quote suggests that the reader believes a point is being promoted, and not in a neutral manner:

:The statement that "We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs" is true for the data currently displayed in the article, but of course it depends on which dataset you look at. E.g. from a pro-minimum wage site here are some stats arguing in the opposite direction based on cross-sectional data:

The below quote rails against the graphs for being suggestive and not covering a sufficient period.

:Why did someone delete what I wrote about the graphs - they are blatantly an extremely poor guide, ignoring the caveats that correlation does not imply causality at all, and fall prey to sample selection; extending the series further back in time to the 1950s would give a much less clear trend. DO NOT DELETE THIS! I WILL COMPLAIN TO WIKI.

The below quote makes a complaint I made as well, that the graphs do not indicate the degree of statistical significance [I ask though, would such a measure meet the test of straight forward calculations?]

:As an aside, I think it would be good to compute some measure of statistical significance for the graphs in the article. Crust 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The below quote is a positive one. The reader finds the graphs helpful.

:I think these graphs are illustrative, and the general story they tell isn't controversial. A number of economists disagree on the magnitude of unemployment effects from the minimum wage, but from the surveys I've looked at, not too many dispute their existence

[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Some text I've temporarily deleted ==

Below is some text that I've taken out for now, lest it be lost. I don't have any objection to it, and I (or someone else) may put it back soon. I just needed to move stuff around.

==Theoretical arguments==
The traditional economic argument views the labor market as perfectly competitive. In perfectly competitive markets, the market price settles to the marginal value of the product. Therefore, under the perfect competition assumption, absent a minimum wage, workers are paid their marginal value. As is the case with all (binding) price floors above the [[Economic equilibrium|equilibrium]], minimum wage laws are predicted to result in more people being willing to offer their labor for hire, but fewer employers wishing to hire labor. The result is a [[surplus]] of labor, or, in this case, [[unemployment]].

Gary Fields argues, however, that the standard "textbook model" for the minimum wage is "ambiguous," and that the standard theoretical arguments incorrectly measure only a one-sector market. Fields says a two-sector market, where "the self-employed, service workers, and farm workers are typically excluded from minimum-wage coverage… [and with] one sector with minimum-wage coverage and the other without it [and possible mobility between the two]," is the basis for better analysis. Through this model, Fields shows the typical theoretical argument to be ambiguous and says "the predictions derived from the textbook model definitely do not carry over to the two-sector case. Therefore, since a non-covered sector exists nearly everywhere, the predictions of the textbook model simply cannot be relied on."<ref>{{cite paper |author= Gary Fields |title= The Unemployment Effects of Minimum Wages |version= |publisher= International Journal of Manpower |date= 1994 |url= |format= |accessdate= 2007-02-12 }}</ref>

An alternate view of the labor market has low-wage labor markets characterized as [[monopsonistic competition]] wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more [[market power]] than do sellers (workers). Such a case is a type of [[market failure]] and results in workers being paid less than their marginal value. Under the monoposonistic assumption, an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both [[wages]] and [[employment]], with the optimal level being equal to the [[marginal productivity]] of labor.<ref>Alan Manning (2003) Monopsony in motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets ([[ISBN 0-691-11312-2]])</ref> This view emphasizes the role of minimum wages as a [[regulated market|market regulation]] policy akin to [[antitrust]] policies, as opposed to an illusory "[[free lunch]]" for low-wage workers. Detractors point out that no [[collusion]] between employers to keep wages low has ever been demonstrated, asserting that in most labor markets, [[Supply and demand|demand meets supply]], and it is only minimum wage laws and other market interference which cause the imbalance. However, it is important to note that collusion is not a pre-requisite for market power; segmented markets, information costs, imperfect mobility and the 'personal' element of labour markets all represent movements away from the idealised perfectly competitive labour market.
:I don't see any reason to do so. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)



I think the largest omission is that of any discussion of '''changes''' to the minimum wage. Upwards is easy; down is . . . unprecedented? Further, the rate of movements sets a benchmark for other wage negotiations.[[User:210.176.69.125|210.176.69.125]] 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DOR Sept 11, 2007

==Gary Fields==

I deleted the paragraph on Gary Fields as being original research. Yes, the paragraph provides a citation to the International Journal of Manpower. This is not a mainstream economics journal. In fact, in my listing of 800+ business and economics journal rankings, this journal isn't even listed. I suggest that this paragraph be deleted. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:Gary Fields is Ph.D. at Cornell who has published papers on the subject. Seeing as his paper is published in a (peer-reviewed?) journal, I think it holds weight and his study should be included. This, especially considering blogs are being allowed here. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::Anyone can start a peer reviewed journal. What's important is the journal's ranking. Ranking includes, for example, how frequently articles in the journal are cited in other journals. The fact that I could find no listing of IJM at all among the collections of rankings tells me that it is probably a vanity journal. Externally cited articles should come from reputable journals. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 22:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If we're going to allow blogs from economists, we can allow peer-reviewed papers written by economists that have been cited at lest six times by other published papers. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiant I'm surprised at you.

Where does wiki policy state the importance of journal ranking?!?

Orignal research is "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

If it's published, you can't possibly call it original research. No matter the "ranking."

I might point out that there's no likewise compelling argument for the graphs.

[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. OK, leave it in. But, we may get flack on this in the future -- I doubt that anyone who has done serious work in this area has ever heard of this journal. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hey! I've read a few good papers from the IJM, like Richard Freeman's. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

==clearly inaccurate or taken out of context quote==
This sentence: "Does not have budget consequence on government. "Neither taxes nor public sector borrowing requirements rise." (Contrast with negative income taxes such as the EITC.)[12]" The taxes portion is most definately wrong, a direct consequence of paying someone say 11K a year instead of 10K a year is they'll now pay taxes on the additional 1K of income earned. [[User:Joncnunn|Jon]] 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Just to chime in, here's the entire quote:
::''The first is that the minimum redistributes income with no immediate budgetary consequence. Pass a minimum wage law and neither taxes nor public sector borrowing requirements rise. The direct consequences of the regulation are on market participants, not on the government budget. Contrast this with negative income taxes for low-wage workers, such as the American earned-income tax credit, or subsidies to firms which hire low-wage workers, both of which come out of the Government budget.''
:~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it to mean that the tax rate doesn't change, unlike with an EITC. I agree that it isn't very clear.
[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Perhaps a longer version of this quote should be in the article. [[User:Joncnunn|Jon]] 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== bad things about minimum wage ==

Yes I know that there is a section on it in the article but I need to do a paper on this stuff and I wana know what other people think about it. So pretend theres not already a section on it and tell me what you think about minimum wage.[[User:Jampend|Jampend]] 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussions about the topic, and especially not to help people write papers. :-) What people think about the issue is, in fact, written it the article. I also suggest reading some of the peer-reviewed literature. (Wikipedia shouldn't be a source for research, quite frankly.) I hope this helps. Cheers. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==same thing but I dont need it for a paper==
I was just wondering if there is any reason why we should just get rid of minimum wage?
Because it actually might be a good idea.
:Again, it's all in the article. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::Price fixing is generally frowned upon by mainstream economists. [[User:210.176.69.125|210.176.69.125]] 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DOR Sept 11, 2007

== Graphs axis naming incorrect? ==

Most graphs have on the x-axis "minimum wage as a percentage of average hourly wage" has values less than 1%. I think this should read "... as a proportion of average...". Can someone please change it?

[[User:60.234.130.7|60.234.130.7]] 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
:I believe [[User:Wikiant]] is author of those graphs. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:Fixed. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

==Oh dear==
As one could probably have predicted, this page has been largely made useless, with all this economic stuff having taken over, and someone in their undoubted drive to economise on word usage, removing the sections on particular countries to another page altogether. Can I remind everyone that minimum wages only exist in [[LAW]]. The idea of a minimum wage is not a theory, it's a reality and if people click on the minimum wage links then it might, just maybe, be useful for them to read something about it. The debate carried on here is entirely based on the particular experience of the United States. That theory, that debate, is irrelevant to most of the rest of the world, and it makes the article almost entirely bias on a worldview level. It's pretty bias on a bias level as well, as most of this stuff comes straight out of Chicago School neo liberal agenda. It is somewhat sad that such a choice to expand this was made. I suggest that precisely the opposite be done to what has happened since I last looked - that the bulk of this economics discussion be removed to another page, for instance titled "Economic analysis of the Minimum Wage". That's what it is, that's where it should be. Only I would not do anywhere near the disservice to readers as to remove everything on the topic - as has been done for the real stuff on the minimum wage, the stuff that has some factual basis in particular countries' experiences - and replace the economic analysis with a neat summary.

I've added archive boxes as well, and will put most of this lengthy discussion above on the economics there. But as I say, I recommend it be moved shortly to a new page on economic analysis. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:Unless there's some discussion going soon, then I'm going to change the page as I've suggested above, and create a new article for the economic waffle. I love the way that the debate is conducted in terms of economic efficiency vs. social justice, as if there are no economists suggesting it's beneficial for the economy to not have people working for a pittance, and as if social justice has nothing to do with efficiency. But I suppose these things don't come up in first year text books anymore. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:Of course the minimum wage is a law. If we restrict discussion to the law, then the page becomes a single sentence perhaps followed by a list of the minimum wages in each country. Predictably, 90% of the words involve the economic consequences of the minimum wage law. Yes, the data shown in the examples are US data, but to say that the discussion is US-centric is like saying that an explanation of gravity that uses a falling apple as an example is really a discussion about fruit. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
::People will want to know how the law works in different countries. You saying that a general overview involves a single sentence I'm afraid shows a lack of understanding. You've said nothing to argue why the economics doesn't belong in it's own page. You seem to think economics is a Newtonian science. We aren't going to get far if that's the case. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::You stretch my analogy. The point is that the examples, not the economic theory, are US-centric. If there are significant differences in how the law works in the different countries, certainly that is worth explanation. However, there isn't going to be much variation -- a minimum wage law is a relatively straightforward thing. As to why the economics belongs in its own page, what page do you suggest? The economic theory is the theory of the minimum wage. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I was being a bit sharp, just ignore my bad manners. I'm going to do some changes now, and you can see what you think - I'm making a new article called [[Economic analysis of the minimum wage]] or maybe [[Minimum wage economics]]? The latter sounds more snappy doesn't it? I'll make another page for [[Minimum wage law]] which can replace that list one, because it's not a real list, it's just got loads of subsections. I think on this main page however, equal weight should be given to history, law and economics. I'm not sure about the debate sections at all, and think they should either go, or be integrated with the main body. Raw tit for tat opinions aren't very encyclopaedic, even if they are sourced, are they? '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::To discuss the minimum wage without discussing how it impacts an economy would be foolish for an encyclopedia. If you're looking for a list of the minimum wage in different countries, we have an article for that. I do not see any point in deleting fully referenced information on the minimum wage as it is discussed in the scientific literature. I don't really see what you're trying to do here... your current article called minimum wage economics is an inappropriate fork and should be deleted. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well I don't agree, and it's done now, so if you would like to add anything to the talk page about the economics of the minimum wage, then please direct your attention there. If you don't really see what I'm trying to do then please read what I have written above, which I think is pretty clear (e.g. equal weight to history, law and economics). And just so you aren't confused, I'll repeat what I wrote already which is that of course I don't propose to delete all the economic analysis of the minimum wage, as was unjudicially done for the section dealing with law. Readers need it all. In any case, thanks for your concern, and I hope you can keep up helpful comments. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Titling the page [[minimum wage economics]] doesn't make sense as this is a term no one uses. To economists, the minimum wage is a special case of price controls and is a topic covered in the fields microeconomics and labor economics. To non-economists, the minimum wage is a number. No one refers to "minimum wage economics." I very much appreciate attempts to clean up wikipedia articles, but as a lot of people have contributed to this article over a long period, it would have been more constructive to throw your idea for a new page up for discussion. I suggest that the [[minimum wage economics]] page be deleted as the title is a misnomer and the information contained therein is a duplicate of the information contained on this page. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You should concentrate first on summarising the content on this main page, because there's too much. If you don't like the name, minimum wage economics, then please rename it, and set up a redirect. I can guarantee you that outside the hallowed corridors of economic thoerists, people (although clearly they aren't as enlightened as those endowed with the viewpoint of objective analysis) think the minimum wage is much more than a number. A lot of termites having contributed to a termite mound doesn't make it worthwhile keeping. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree fully with Wikiant. [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%22Minimum+wage+economics%22&btnG=Google+Search "Minimum wage economics"] is a neologism created by Wikidea to create a fork. Within the scientific literature discussing the minimum wage, one discusses its role in an economy and society. Thus, your fork article should be deleted and the economic discussion of the minimum within this article should remain. You're free to expand on part of the article if you think it would be appropriate (e.g. minimum wage history), but please do not delete fully referenced material because you are uneasy with the economics of the minimum wage. Thanks. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no law without a reason to make the law, and in the case of minimum wage the reasons are especially of an economic nature (like for 99% of laws). A law is not a self-sustaining thing. To indicate that a law exists ''because'' it is enacted is at best fallacious. --[[User:Childhoodsend|Childhood&#39;s End]] 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, but frequently the true reason that a law is enacted is often hidden. For example, in the United States, the first federal minimum wage was instituted in 1938 following political pressure from *manufacturers* in the northern states. The problem was that labor was cheaper in the south, therefore southern manufacturing firms were able to underprice northern firms. The northern firms lobbied for a minimum wage so as to eliminate the competitive advantage of the firms in the south. The true reason had nothing to do with workers' standards of living -- it had to do with firms restricting competition. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 11:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh you're absolutely right, more than often the reasons for a law are political at first. Only, political reasons often arise from some economic or social concern, and it is usually because politicians are economically illeterate that they make laws for such concerns, unaware of or ignoring [[unintended consequences]]. --[[User:Childhoodsend|Childhood&#39;s End]] 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Citations needed in the debate section ==

The Debate section currently has several citation needed tags that were all inserted almost 6 months ago. Both the 'Support' and 'Opposition' subsections have citation needed tags. As per [[WP:Citing Sources#Unsourced_material]], the unsourced material needs to be removed after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed without an editor finding the sources. Does anyone have sources, or is it time to start snipping away? --[[User:76.7.143.51|76.7.143.51]] 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed. The "three times" item on the "opposition" side of the argument was a single reference from a bias source. Deleted. [[User:210.176.69.125|210.176.69.125]] 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DOR Sept 11, 2007

== Why information about other countries was removed?????? ==

I started this section and my intention was to create a template where people can add information about minimum wage in "other" (read poor asian and african) countries. Obviously there is lot of information about minimum wage laws in US, Canada and Europe and sections on those countries can be created easily, but please provide some place to write about other countries too. (Yes. It can start with just one sentence, but any informed person who reads it and decides it is insufficient can add more information). [[User:Leotolstoy|Leotolstoy]] 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

== Minimum wage economics ==

Hello, I was just wondering why the [[Minimum wage economics]] page has gone - I saw the discussion on that, and it didn't seem like it came to any clear conclusion. Can I ask everybody, to please reconsider - at least having the relevant link restored for the topic to expand there? I think there's plenty of good material, and no doubt it'll need even more space for the good work to be done. Can I have your thoughts? '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 00:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:The article was nominated for deletion. There was discussion and a vote (see the archived debate). Unless you are offering new evidence that wasn't previously considered, there is no reason to reconsider. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asking the same question, there should be a section on the minimum wage economic, how wages here are in US and other countries. Since Congress passed the minimum last year and we our economic issues, there should be a lot of things to talk about here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.128.18.84|75.128.18.84]] ([[User talk:75.128.18.84|talk]]) 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==NPOV dispute==

An editor has placed an NPOV dispute warning, yet has offered no explanation as to why. I am removing the waring pending discussion. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:I am again removing these tags. They need to have a clearly stated reason on the talk page for their appliction. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 15:19 [[15 August]] [[2007]] (GMT).
::Except Wikiant got one first. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 15:22 [[15 August]] [[2007]] (GMT).

== OR tags added ==

I added OR tags to the graphs. I still believe that these graphs represent original research. I believe the argument above is rather compelling. Since no one else has weighed in on this issue, it seems a fair compromise to have the tags, rather than delete the graphs or leave them there without a tag.
[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The data is maintained by the US government and freely accessible. The alteration is that the government's data is shown in tabular form. Here, it is presented in graphic form. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 01:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:I think you have a clear conflict of interest in this conversation. What you say above is false, or at least incomplete: there's a regression line in the graph. It's suggestive. And it's original research.

:I don't think it's fair for you to post something and prevent any attempts to question it. This is a communal project. You're not the final arbiter.

:Marking them OR is designed to stimulate discussion and review. You shouldn't stifle that process. If the community concludes that it is not OR, then the tag should be removed.
:[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:Wikiant, you said it yourself "A regression line would raise issues about causality and correlation, neither of which are germane to the picture. The point is simply to show the historical data. Wikiant 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"

:I agree with what you said then.

:Again, Original research "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

:The regression line is analysis. It is not attributed to any reputable (i.e. published) source.

:[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:There is no regression line analysis. There is a trend line shown -- something that is simplistic enough as to require no citation. There is no claim as to p-values (though even that wouldn't constitute original research). I'm going to (once again) remove the original research tags. If you have further issue, I suggest you submit for arbitration. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

::Trend lines are made using Least Squares. As Dr. Gujarati wrote in Basic Econometrics Fourth Edition, "it is the method of ordinary least squares that is used extensively in regression analysis..." Thus, it is correct to call this a regression line. Note that typically linear relationships will include a measure of covariance or correlation to support any apparent relationship.

::You even call it a regression line on your talk page! [[User talk:Wikiant]]

::[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

::I don't disagree that the line is a regression line. I disagreed with your statement that "the regression line is analysis." Without stating probability values associated with the regressor, there is no analysis. Absent these p-values, there is no statement as to the significance of the relationship shown.[[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:absent probability values the line is misleading. You leave us to believe that these graphs make statements about the relationship between these variables without demonstrating the significance of the relationship.

:Moreover you calculate the Minimum Wage as a proportion of the average hourly wage. That's not public data listed in tabular form that you display in graphical form; that's data that you've created using public data. Is that really the relevant metric? Have peer reviewed journals weighed the use of that metric?

:As I'm sure you know, I've submitted this for third party review. As such, it's not appropriate for us to discuss this further. I hope we can call a truce until that process ends.

:[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I've reviewed the article, and the arguments, and have come to the following conclusion. The graphs in question are difficult to understand, and the value added to the article is difficult for me to see [[Image_use_policy#Content]]. I feel the first graph provides the most value, and some work to the description and content (including a direct link to the raw data and clarification of the purpose of the graph) would add great encyclopedic value. I also feel the section is too short to include this many pictures, and feel that the best solution would be to move all three graphs in question to the talk page [[Image_use_policy#Image_queuing]] until the section can be expanded, or until the first graph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Min_wage_low_education.gif] can be improved. [[User:Jaredbelch|Jaredbelch]] 07:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

:Here is what I heard [[User:Jaredbelch|Jaredbelch]] say: (1) delete graphs 2 and 3; (2) link to the raw data for graph 1; (3) improve description accompanying graph 1. I have no problem with this as a compromise solution. In fact, (while I claim that a regression line (sans p-values) doesn't come close to constituting original research) I'm willing to go further and remove the displayed regression line from graph 1. [[User:Burkander|Burkander]], what say you? [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm glad we could come to some agreement.
[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of town for a couple of days, but will get the appropriate changes in for editors' review by Monday. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

== Temporary Removal of Graphs ==
In accordance with the above agreement, I am moving all three aforementioned graphs to the talk page, below.
[[User:Burkander|Burkander]] 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Min_wage_low_education.gif|thumb|200px|left|Comparison of the minimum wage to unemployment among low skill workers in the U.S. The two lowest points are for the years 1999 and 2000. Unemployment for all workers in those two years was the lowest since 1970. The data show a correlation in this [[data set]] between the level of the minimum wage and unemployment among lower-educated workers.]]
[[Image:Min_wage_high_education.gif|thumb|200px|center|Comparison of the minimum wage to unemployment among college educated workers in the U.S. In this data set, there is essentially no correlation between the minimum wage and unemployment among higher-educated workers.]]
[[Image:unemp_by_race.gif|thumb|200px|left|Comparison of the minimum wage to unemployment-population ratio among blacks relative to whites in the U.S. The data shown here indicate almost no correlation, or perhaps a weak positive correlation, between the level of the minimum wage and unemployment among black workers relative to white workers.]]

== Quick Note ==

No mention that it may more easily enable cartel like activity. A non-binding minimum wage may very well indicate to employers the going rate to pay(that all the other guys are likely to be paying) rather than pay the MPL.

There are papers on this I'm sure if not I might right one! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.96.65.142|58.96.65.142]] ([[User talk:58.96.65.142|talk]]) 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Jobless Label ==

The jobless label (recently added to the minimum wage graph) is incorrect. Joblessness is the same as unemployment. I can't figure out how to revert to the previous version. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:Never mind; I made the change. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Remove Debate from Question Time? ==
Should the excerpt of the debate from the political tv show, Question Time be removed? I feel that it distracts, is appeals to emotion and adds nothing substantive to the debate. --[[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

== Americanisms ==

I do realize that the americans are the largest single nation that contributes to wikipedia, I'm not so sure of the statistics but I'm sure non-americans are a majority. Reading this article every time i came across "labor" it made pause, its a real distraction! I suggest translating this article into the correct world recognized form of english, i.e. labour. Considering this is not just an american source. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rickibal|Rickibal]] ([[User talk:Rickibal|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rickibal|contribs]]) 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Opponents all focused on a 'binding' minimum wage. ==

There is the case that the minimum wage may not be 'binding', or binding in all industries. Where it is non-binding the minimum wage [may] send[s] a signal to businesses that this is the likely rate going to be paid by other businesses, they pay less than the free market rate. It may enable a factor price fixing by business, particularly in a full employment environment.

This is a real concern, don't have access to journals at the moment though to provide cites. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.96.65.142|58.96.65.142]] ([[User talk:58.96.65.142|talk]]) 03:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==American economists in the intro==
Quite frankly, I don't give two stuffs what 75% of American economists think. Why is this statistic therefore put in the intro? 75% of Americans change their mind with every poll conducted, and 85% of statistics are made up on the spot.

What about the rest of world's economists? Has anyone got figures on them? America has peculiar problems with any form of labour law, so I think it's rather disingenuous to let the article speak from that rather narrow perspective. And has nobody heard the argument that putting more money into the hands of workers makes them more productive - and that redistribution of wealth will simply mean a shift of production to other sectors of the economy: those products poorer people want to buy? I think some guy called Keynes might have mentioned that. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 09:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:The qualifier "American" reflects the data set, not a philosophical disposition. From a theoretical standpoint, almost no economists would disagree with the statement that a binding minimum wage causes unemployment. From an empirical standpoint, you may find disagreement across countries' economists. However, the disagreement arises due to the *combination* of a minimum wage and the specific country's labor laws. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::You're just saying this because you disagree with the idea that a minimum wage might be good. That's got nothing to do with the article. Loads of economists disagree with you and the idea that a minimum wage causes unemployment. The qualifier "American economist" is most certainly a philosophical disposition. My point is that it is pretty stupid to have this loaded factoid in the intro, which should summarise the article. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm saying this because to claim, from a theoretical standpoint, that a minimum wage does not cause unemployment requires rejecting almost all of the underlying theory on which economics is based. It is the same as a creationist saying that the world is 6,000 years old -- for that statement to be correct requires that almost all of the theory underlying modern geology (and a lot underlying physics and astronomy) is wrong. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Rejecting the underlying theory on which economics is based?!?? Of course it does!!!! Well done!! This is precisely what economists everywhere are trying to do every waking day!!! I can't find the webpage for you, but a couple months back I read Paul Krugman saying that every other week somebody sends him a paper claiming to have destroyed the theoretical foundations of economics. A famous snippet of Winston Churchillian wisdom was that if you put two economists in a room then you'd get two opinions, and if one of them was Keynes you'd get three. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::::No, it is only half of what economists (those who espouse heterodox theory) do. The other half is to propose an alternate theory. If you aren't prepared to suggest an alternate theory, then you're going the "creationist route" -- holding the orthodox model to a more rigid standard than the heterodox model. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::There is actually a great deal of debate among economists about this point. See [http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinDompeEconomicsInPracticeJanuary2007.pdf this], for instance.[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yes, but as I indicated earlier, the document you cite shows debate not about the underlying theory, but about the effects of *combining* a minimum wage with the US's specific labor laws, demographics, etc. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Do you have any surveys from economists in other countries? I don't see where the economists in the document I just cited say that their view about the impact of the minimum wage on employment applies only to the United States. That seems to be an inference that you are drawing that is not expressly stated (see [[wp:NOR]]). The reality is that many economists are reevaluating the neoclassical assumptions of the theory based on empirical data. You cannot separate the two. The analogy to creationism is a [[straw man]] argument.[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I have no surveys at all. The questions in your document did not ask about the theory, but the practice of raising the minimum wage. Hence, the respondents' answers reflect the raising of the minimum wage against the current social/political/economic background of the US (as they are US economists). The creationist analogy isn't a straw man. What I heard Wikidea say was that, if economic theory predicts that the minimum wage causes unemployment, then the economic theory should be thrown out. My response was: Fine, but if you don't propose an alternate theory, then you're holding orthodox economic theory to a different standard than you are the criticism of the theory. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay, so you have no sources for your claim that this view is particular to American economists. Let's just leave that out to avoid [[poisoning the well]]. And yes, you can criticize a theory without presenting an alternative. A theory is presented. It is shown through empirical evidence to be an inadequate explanation for a phenomenon. You go back to the drawing board. Example: people wonder what causes rain to fall. Somebody says, every time my bones ache it starts to rain, so maybe my bones are causing it to rain. Then somebody says, okay, but it was raining before you were born, and it rains in places where you've never been. That can't be it. The theory is proven wrong, although no alternate theory has been presented. Currently, many economists are saying that the neo-classical theory about what happens to employment when a minimum wage rises is too simplistic to be useful and further, doesn't hold up in many empirical studies. Don't poison the well by saying "well, they're just American economists."[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I didn't say, "well, they're just American economists." I said, their answers were given "against the current social/political/economic background of the US." Forces in that background can mitigate (and sometimes counteract) what theory would predict. For example, theory predicts that when I release a ball it falls to the ground. If the ball is connected to the ceiling by a string, then the ball won't fall. There are two possiblities: (1) the theory is wrong, (2) there are additional forces that counteract the theory. My original statement was that, among mainstream economists, the *theory* is undisputed. What is disputed are the additional forces. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, and you're wrong. The *theory* is disputed, and therefore straw polls don't belong in the intro. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Prove it. Give me a citation from a mainstream economics journal. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Professor Kim Swales's work ==

Someone has removed the material I put in on this. Why? It seems apposite, and unless there is a sound reason, if I reinstate it and it gets removed again, that sounds like vandalism. P.M.Lawrence[[Special:Contributions/203.194.54.27|203.194.54.27]] ([[User talk:203.194.54.27|talk]]) 09:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

:If you look at the edit summary, you'll see that I removed the passage and asked that you submit a (reputable) journal reference. The passage looks like ego-spam. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

::Isn't it sufficient that the [[Kim Swales]]'s page links to his work, with the faxfn site cited there referencing papers submitted to the EC? And how is it "ego-spam", when I went to some trouble not to cite my own work but rather his? This is not the first time I have tried to mention his work on this page, so I am afraid that unless I see a positive reason - not a "looks like" - I am going to have to counter with "repeated removals without a positive reason 'looks like' vandalism". If you want a citation, follow the link to his page and then to his sources and put in one that satisfies you - don't simply delete. To my mind, putting [[Kim Swales]] <I>was</I> a sufficient citation; if you want more, go and get it. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.221.28.105|203.221.28.105]] ([[User talk:203.221.28.105|talk]]) 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

:::No it isn't sufficient. The [[WP:Verifiability]] policy states, "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source." The onus for providing the reference is on you, not the reader. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 14:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

::::But how isn't "[[Kim Swales]]" a sufficient reference? I will shortly put a suggested wording here, and invite comments. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.83.29|203.220.83.29]] ([[User talk:203.220.83.29|talk]]) 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

::::"Kim Swales" isn't a reference -- it's the name of the author. A reference cites a reliable printed source. In this case, I'd expect a journal article (journal name, article title, date of publication, etc.) [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant#top|talk]]) 11:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::But I <I>didn't</I> give the name of the author, I gave a <I>link</I> to a wikipedia page about him, that has those external links; how isn't that a reference? P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.42.115|203.220.42.115]] ([[User talk:203.220.42.115|talk]]) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Again, what you provided isn't a reference. A reference (in this case) would like this: "Friedman, M., 1942. The inflationary gap. American Economic Review 32(2), 314-320." The reference lists the journal, article, volume, and page numbers for the research paper that contains the information you are citing in the wikipedia article. A link to a page that talks about the author is not a reference. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 11:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The reason I suggested you look at the page was so that you could see for yourself what was there. [[Kim Swales]] is <I>not</I> a "link to a page that talks about the author", it is a link to a page that has some material about him and his work <I>and</I> has links to his work - making it, in my view, just precisely what a reference <i>is</I>. If you think that page needs work, go for it - but at least look at the trail I left rather than shooting down the whole idea without checking to see if it adds up under the range of possibilities the standards allow. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.221.31.124|203.221.31.124]] ([[User talk:203.221.31.124|talk]]) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The [[WP:Verifiability]] policy says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." and, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Kim Swales has authored a number of peer-reviewed articles (note: reports to government bodies are not peer-reviewed articles). Again, the onus is on you to find the *specific* (peer-reviewed) article that details his tax policy theory and to quote that. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::"(T)he onus is on you to find the *specific* (peer-reviewed) article that details his tax policy theory and to quote that" - <I>wrong</I>, actually. The standards allow more flexibility than the criterion you are seeking to impose unilaterally - go and read them. You do <I>not</I> require a peer-reviewed article as a source. So, again, I ask: bearing in mind what the standard actually does require, and that the [[Kim Swales]] page links to internet archives of his relevant work, how does giving the [[Kim Swales]] link fall short of what is required? "It isn't a peer-reviewed article" isn't an answer - the standards already allow for other backing. The more you fail to answer that, or the more you insist on your unilaterally stronger criterion, the less reasonable you will appear as, when and if this goes to arbitration. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.194.51.184|203.194.51.184]] ([[User talk:203.194.51.184|talk]]) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::We appear to be talking past each other as I am hearing you repeat the same argument which I believe I have adequately addressed multiple times. So, let's try a different approach. Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether or not the EC report constitutes a "reliable resource." Give us a link to the specific report that you are citing as support for the Kim Swales work. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::On a point of information, I have <I>not</I> been repeating an argument, I have been repeating a <I>question</I> - I stopped presenting the argument and moved on, trying to be constructive. Instead of ever addressing the question, you have continually repeated an unfounded assertion about what is acceptable according to the standards, giving one acceptable method of citation and ignoring everything else the standards allow. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I intend to put a new second paragraph in "Minimum wage alternatives". The following is a draft for discussion:-

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Professor [[Kim Swales]] of the [[University of Strathclyde]] has, with others, outlined an alternative approach to encourage a [[minimum wage]] using [[tax breaks]] per employee for the [[value added tax]] paid by employers. Modelling indicates that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase [[GDP]], i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and [[deadweight loss]] effects of a mandated [[minimum wage]], acting as a [[Pigovian tax|Pigovian subsidy]].

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I may then provide a reference to his report on the topic to the EC: "[http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/03_jobs/swales/ch1_2.htm First of web pages detailing The Employment Effect of Subsidies, Report to the Directorate General Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, Commission of the European Communities, SOC 94 100018 05A01]". Alternatively, "[http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/03_jobs/jobs_tax.htm#23feb98a Employment friendly VAT, Professor Kim Swales, 23rd February 1998, summary at Faxfn]" or "[http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/01_headlines/jobs_tax.htm#jobs_tax Taxation and Jobs page at Faxfn]" may be sufficient to quell criticism. After editing this article, I will make similar edits to the [[basic wage]] article. I will then email Professor Swales to ask him if he wants to add more current references or otherwise edit the articles. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:The three links appear to point (basically) to the same piece of work. Based on your first link, the correct citation (i.e., what I've been asking for all along) is: <BLOCKQUOTE> Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities. </BLOCKQUOTE>

::What <I>I've</I> been suggesting all along was that <I>you</I> go and look and then state what would suit you. Up to now, all I've been seeing was "a peer-reviewed journal citation", which wasn't available (that isn't one either). P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.83.164|203.220.83.164]] ([[User talk:203.220.83.164|talk]]) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:This citation seems adequate for your statement "(Swales has) outlined an alternative approach..." because the citation itself is evidence that Swales has outlined an alternative approach. (Ignoring for the moment whether simply outlining an approach, as opposed to having that approach endorsed by a reliable third-party, warrants inclusion in this article.) However, the citation is not adequate support for the statement, "Modelling indicates that this would..." This second statement claims a research result. You'll need a peer-reviewed journal citation for this.

:[[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::"This second statement claims a research result" - no, that's why I put <I>indicates</I> rather than something stronger like <I>demonstrates</I>. May I suggest that it would be constructive for you to look at what appears within the report and then suggest a wording that would allow me to allude to what [[Kim Swales]] states there? Please refer to the wikipedia standards to see that these do <I>not</I> absolutely require "a peer-reviewed journal citation". P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.83.164|203.220.83.164]] ([[User talk:203.220.83.164|talk]]) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:::IMO, the average reader is not going to appreciate the distinction between "indicates" and "demonstrates." No, wikipedia standards do not *require* a peer-reviewed journal citation, but the standards do say that peer-reviewed journals are the best sources for citations for science articles. Given that researchers have published thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the minimum wage, I don't see the sense in citing non-peer-reviewed work. (FYI, JSTOR lists 14,721 peer-reviewed articles dealing with the minimum wage.) [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


::::As you have not offered an alternative wording as requested, I am now offering the following second draft:-

<BLOCKQUOTE>

::::Professor [[Kim Swales]] of the [[University of Strathclyde]] has, with others, submitted an alternative approach to the [[EC]]. This seeks to encourage a [[minimum wage]] using [[tax breaks]] per employee for the [[value added tax]] paid by employers. The report of the team's modelling states that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase [[GDP]], i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and [[deadweight loss]] effects of a mandated [[minimum wage]], acting as a [[Pigovian tax|Pigovian subsidy]].

</BLOCKQUOTE>

::::I will provide a reference <I>after</I> leaving it up for a while with "citation needed", in case anyone else comes forward earlier with a better one. If they do not, in due course I will provide "[http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/03_jobs/swales/ch1_2.htm Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities.]" (using your suggested phrasing).

::::Here is why I have chosen that wording for this draft. It does not say "outlined" but describes the historical fact that the team submitted a publicly accessible policy description to a particular organisation, <I>not</I> a paper to a journal (which is why it is absurd to insist on the latter; this wording bypasses any absurd challenge to produce one by making clear what it does cover instead). The report on the team's modelling does indeed state that, in these words under "3.3 Simulation": "In all the simulations reported here there is an increase in total employment and output... The pattern of employment change is such that output increases by less than employment but in no case does output fail to increase". Please bear in mind that verbatim excerpts would be unwieldy; this paraphrase seems both accurate and verifiable. And please, no more jumping the gun by assuming ego spam, insisting on a work of supererogation and shooting things down that you find suspicious rather than inviting constructive effort. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.83.209|203.220.83.209]] ([[User talk:203.220.83.209|talk]]) 08:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, run it up the flag pole and let's see who shoots it down. Regardless of the impact on the quality of this wiki article, you seem fixated on including the Swales work. Given that the point of this wiki article is to provide reliable information on the minimum wage, and given that there exists a huge number of available peer-reviewed articles on the subject, I can see only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:Where do you get "Regardless of the impact on the quality of this wiki article"? The whole point of the section "Minimum wage alternatives" is to cover this sort of thing. Just as it would be wrong to omit [[Negative income tax]] and [[Earned income tax credit]], it would be wrong to omit the Swales work. As for <I>quality</I> - I've repeatedly suggested you do something towards making it suit you rather than being, how shall I put it, fixated on deleting it (and notice, far from my being fixated on inserting it, I've been doing my damnedest to work it up into something that meets your objections on these talk pages, or alternatively to let you persuade me of any substantive objection, despite the difficulty of teasing out just what you <I>do</I> object to). As for "Given that the point of this wiki article is to provide reliable information on the minimum wage", well, if it is suitable to have a section on "Minimum wage <I>alternatives</I>" at all, it has already been settled that they <I>should</I> be covered. Given that I only know of this one non-ego-spam source (I've done work on it myself, and clearly I shouldn't cite that), it's irrelevant that many <I>other</I> peer-reviewed articles exist; either they do not cover <I>this</I> area, or I do not know the ones that do. But then, that's what other contributors could work on - but only once the material is there. Your inability to see any possibility but ego-spam is hardly evidence of it; by that reckoning, <I>nothing</I> could ever be entered provisionally, to be worked on. Look, I'm going to leave it up here for a few days for you to work on or provide specific criticism. If none occurs, why, <I>I</I> fail to see any substantive reason why it shouldn't go forward in the way I described (provisionally, with "citation needed" for a while, then with what I offered if nobody else offers better). If <I>you</I> delete it in <I>those</I> circumstances, I don't see how anybody could back that. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.194.50.235|203.194.50.235]] ([[User talk:203.194.50.235|talk]]) 07:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just now inserting a new second paragraph in "Minimum wage alternatives". as follows:-

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Professor [[Kim Swales]] of the [[University of Strathclyde]] has, with others, submitted an alternative approach to the [[EC]] [citation needed]. This provides incentives for a [[minimum wage]] without mandating it, by using [[tax breaks]] per employee to reduce the [[value added tax]] paid by employers. The report of the team's modelling states that this would not only increase employment levels but also increase [[GDP]], i.e. it would reverse any unemployment and [[deadweight loss]] effects of a mandated [[minimum wage]], acting as a [[Pigovian tax|Pigovian subsidy]].

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Since my last draft, this further clarifies that the Swales approach, unlike [[Negative income tax]] and [[Earned income tax credit]], is not a complete alternative to a [[minimum wage]] but only to implementing one by mandating it. As I stated before, if nobody provides a better citation soon, I shall then provide "[http://www.faxfn.org/feedback/03_jobs/swales/ch1_2.htm Swales, J.K., D.R. Holden, and G. Beacon, 1995. The employment effects of subsidies. Report to the Directorate of General Employment, Industrial Relations, and Social Affairs. Commission of the European Communities.]". P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.80.64|203.220.80.64]] ([[User talk:203.220.80.64|talk]]) 03:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone ([[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] again, perhaps?) has removed the last part of my comments describing <I>why</I> I made the precise edit I did. I am reinstating it so that there is a proper record, in case it does have to go to mediation or arbitration or whatever. Also for the record, I am about to email Professor Swales and his colleagues to ask them if they want to provide a citation. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.81.200|203.220.81.200]] ([[User talk:203.220.81.200|talk]]) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

:Easy there bud. I don't appreciate being accused of underhanded editing. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested a [[Wikipedia:Third Opinion|third opinion]] on this disagreement after noting that the Swales reference does not appear on a government web site, but on a site that describes itself as having "...started out challenging conventional wisdom on unemployment - but has diversified into a platform for unheard voices." This suggests that the Swales citation represents a minority view. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

'''Third Opinion''': I'm not sure how this dispute still applies. Any published work by Swales would be considered a reliable source. Citing a name only is a terrible idea, works with page numbers should be cited. The purpose of verifiability is to enable the reader to ''check'' the statement as easily as possible (that is why we use things like ISBN and publisher information). Linking to a biography article, and then having to read that and all its external links is.. awful. [[User:Krator]] ([[User talk:Krator|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Krator|c]]) 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

::That's the problem. The Swales' work isn't published in a journal. It is a report to a government body. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 02:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

:::May I point out, that's <I>not</I> a problem? What [[User:Krator]] just wrote is precisely the sort of detail I was asking for when I wanted to know what was wrong; it suggests what to do to fix it, while "just delete it" isn't actually constructive. But eventually I found out what appeared to be your objection and addressed it. Now you have another objection. Where faxfn was coming from was the idea of pushing policy, sure. That was precisely my own idea in my own articles (which I have <I>not</I> used as references precisely so as to avoid this sort of conflict of opinion). But so what? There is a reputable economist who has carried out modelling and made his results available. It doesn't become invalid or incorrect because it was not done as formal academic work. Sure, vested interests might make for presenting incorrect or unsound work - but on the one hand, that is what people can check if they care, and on the other hand, verifiability isn't about the truth of the position, only about whether the position is "out there". One might as well object to having an article on the [[Flat earth society]] on the grounds that the earth isn't flat. And why the long delay before objecting? I had just reached the point where I could draft similar edits for other articles over our Australian long weekend. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

===Countries===
I'm curious here, why is special interest given to N.America and especially Australia & NZ?--[[Special:Contributions/128.240.229.3|128.240.229.3]] ([[User talk:128.240.229.3|talk]]) 14:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

===[[WP:3O]]===
My opinion is that since Kim Swales is a Professor of Economics, she can be cited on here. <span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">[[User talk:Electrical Experiment|<span style="color:gold;background:Black">'''Electrical'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:Electrical Experiment/Vand|<span style="color:gold;background:Black">Vandilize Me</span></sup>]]</span> 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

: He, actually. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The entry requesting third-party opinion has not been removed. Have you taken on this case, or are you offering opinion? If the former, please address the criticisms in the talk page. Simply saying, "Swales is a Professor of Economics" isn't adequate. Among mainstream economics journals, a formal review process exists. It doesn't matter whether or not one is a professor -- if one's work does not pass the review process, it doesn't get published. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...okay, I saw this on Third Opinion too, and I'm inclined to think that the other contributors are missing the point of the dispute: whether Swales' work is proper to include in the article. Never mind citation styles and rules - of course Swales can and should be cited if used, but should the passage be included at all?

I'm inclined to agree with Wikiant here and say that the passage should be at the [[Kim Swales]] article, and not here. Arguing that labor should be subsidized for social reasons is nothing new, but Swales seems to say that it'd be win-win and would make economic sense with the only tradeoff being a general tax that Swales doesn't think would be much concern at all. I'm not an economist, but to my amateur understanding this is outside the mainstream of economic thought.

:For what it's worth, the general tax is already in place in the [[EC]], and this sort of thing - [[Pigovian tax|Pigovian subsidies]] - has been mainstream since the 1920s, which is why I provided that link. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.53.20|203.220.53.20]] ([[User talk:203.220.53.20|talk]]) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but if this paper wasn't peer-reviewed, then that makes it all the more likely that this isn't a majority opinion among economists (yet?). [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:To my mind, this moves the problem back one. How can someone looking at this (sub)topic be told about the stuff in question? It's not a good thing to have the information somewhere else with nothing about it here. Even if something should be moved to that page, there still has to be something here - and that was precisely what I tried first time around, with just a short sentence and a link to [[Kim Swales]]. But tyhat was objected to. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the third-opinion, I am removing the Swales reference. If there is to be any further discussion, it should probably occur at the next level of dispute resolution. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:I shall do precisely that, unless we can sort something else out first, particularly since you have <I>also</I> removed my disagreement at [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion]], which was different to yours. Suppose the main material went into [[Kim Swales]]; what would you feel an adequate entry would be under this subtopic? What I am after is enough coverage here that people know about that part of his work just from coming here. Something like "See also [[Kim Swales]]" wouldn't achieve that. Please, I am asking for assistance, not "don't do it". I also want finality, not a delay long enough to lead me to suppose it was OK, followed by yet another objection. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.220.53.20|203.220.53.20]] ([[User talk:203.220.53.20|talk]]) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion is occurring at [[User talk:Wikiant]]. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.221.30.201|203.221.30.201]] ([[User talk:203.221.30.201|talk]]) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That discussion does not belong on my page. I am copying the discussion below. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:Whether the technique is a viable alternative to minimum wage is irrelevant. Within the body of minimum wage research, the technique appears to represent a minority viewpoint because the technique is not described anywhere among the thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on the minimum wage. Thus, it is not appropriate for the technique to be referenced on [[minimum wage]] but it is appropriate for the technique to be referenced on [[Kim Swales]]. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant#top|talk]]) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

::Did you notice you were changing the subject? I answered your objection about whether it was an opinion or not, and you switched to objecting that its viability was irrelevant. So it is, although that is not what you objected to just before and I have never for one moment claimed that in support of it going in, let alone just there above (in other words, it is a straw man). What <I>is</I> relevant is that it <I>is</I> an alternative, and that is just precisely what that subtopic is for. Since it is not a minimum wage thing as such, naturally it won't appear among the articles you want it to be in. You might as well insist that an article on physics appear in a chemistry journal. I would certainly not have considered putting it in [[minimum wage]] if someone else hadn't already put in a subtopic about alternatives - and <I>something</I> has to go there, or people will never find their way to the material. Quite simply, it will be worse at the job of an encyclopaedia. You didn't address that side of things at all. Again, I ask you to suggest what sort of wording you would accept; I have in mind going back to something like the original, since the detail is now at [[Kim Swales]]. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.94.135.38|203.94.135.38]] ([[User talk:203.94.135.38|talk]]) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Brainwashing the poor into believing that they are wealthy is also an alternative. The question is: Has the proposed alternative appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, then the alternative (IMO and the third-party negotiator's) represents a minority opinion and does not belong in the [[minimum wage]] article. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant#top|talk]]) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

::::I believe we are again talking past each other again. <I>Of course</I> there is a minority opinion - but about the policy, not the technique. I have no intention of covering anything but the technique, and I am asking you for suggestions about how to do that, i.e. how to put in something that refers to the technique and lets people find the detail - the job of an encyclopaedia. From my reading of the third-party negotiator's comment, he or she was against it being in the article as it was an alternative and/or that using subsidies this way is not mainstream (but conceded being an amateur), and did <I>not</I> object that this material itself was a minority opinion, just that this use of subsidies in general was. But that objection falls, because there is a subtopic about alternatives and because [[Pigovian tax|Pigovian subsidies]] have actually been mainstream since the 1920s (they fell out of fashion with [[Ronald Coase]]'s work but are now being revived by the likes of the [[Pigou Club]]). Furthermore, a peer-reviewed journal article is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the technique not to be a minority opinion. We can see that it is a matter of fact and not of opinion from two things, that research has been done and - in something like ten years - nothing has come up to rebut let alone refute it. Please make suggestions about how to move forward. P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.221.30.201|203.221.30.201]] ([[User talk:203.221.30.201|talk]]) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the technique belongs in the "alternatives" section, no problem. Just find peer-reviewed sources that describe the technique. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:Why should we apply this <I>narrower</I> test than those the wikipedia standards require? I have already met those, and furthermore you have been changing your position each time I address the grounds you present (I long ago demonstrated that this wasn't ego-spam, for instance). P.M.Lawrence [[Special:Contributions/203.194.54.27|203.194.54.27]] ([[User talk:203.194.54.27|talk]]) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

== Outsourcing and cost of operation ==

Something completely ignored by this article is the effect of a minimum wage on loss of manufacturing jobs and the outsourcing of service jobs able to be conducted by phone or internet to other countries with lower wages.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:[http://www.balancedpolitics.org/minimum_wage.htm][http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32895][http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=122006_minimum_wage.htm]--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


== Santa Monica ==

I remember reading and watching news reports on how the City Council of Santa Monica, California had required businesses making over 5 million a year to pay all employees more than twelve dollars an hour. The law caused economic problems and was eventually repealed but I think if someone wanted to sort through old news articles online it definitely warrants mention, since it provides an example of what happens with the most extreme examples of minimum wage laws. I checked online but most of the news articles I found predated the law, I would say a good source should have to be from after the laws repeal, doing a final analysis of the impact of the law. [[User:Monsuco|Monsuco]] ([[User talk:Monsuco|talk]]) 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

== Bad Reference ==

Reference #7, used four times, doesn't support the statements with which it is used. It is a general index page to EPI's minimum wage information. If some of that information actually supports the claims in the article, it should be referenced directly instead of through a general index page. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Neutrality tag ==

There is a neutrality tag on the article, but no discussion of it on this page. I don't see any lack of neutrality. I propose waiting a day or two for some justification, and if none appears, deleting the tag. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not an economist, but I do think there's a bit of myopia reflected in the article. It seems to imply a connection from "minimum wages cause unemployment" to "minimum wages are bad". I don't see any discussion of more creative alternate positions, like, "It's better to be unemployed (and flagged for government intervention and/or retraining) than to be trapped forever in miserable underemployment." (I think that America in particular probably has a lot of nominal employment that does not provide a decent quality of life.) That's just my personal attempt; surely there are some scholarly opinions out there that consider why a minimum wage might be good despite the fairly obvious connection with unemployment. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.208.179.163|219.208.179.163]] ([[User talk:219.208.179.163|talk]]) 14:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Pursuing this argument, let's suppose that (1) there is no minimum wage and the going wage rate is $5 per hour, and (2) it is better to be unemployed than to hold a $5 per hour job. Were this true, then workers would choose not to work. Hence, firms would be forced either to raise wages or go out of business. Hence, the minimum wage is superfluous. In short, if not working is a better solution, the free market will generate the solution. The minimum wage fails because precisely because it prevents freedom of choice. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That does not follow logically. It might be true that for the individual, they'd rather pick the $5 job ... but it might simultaneously be true that the presence of $5/hour jobs masks labor market problems: and because those problems are masked, there's less pressure on the government to do something about them. Alternately, one might set forth an argument about inequalities between employers and employees in terms of bargaining power. (E.g., it's a nuisance to replace an employee but disastrous to lose your job.) The minimum wage acts as a floor to prevent this inequality from driving wages too far down. (Purist economics is elegant, but it ignores the basic fact of power relationships.) But my point is not so much these arguments specifically as it is that I suspect the literature hasn't been checked thoroughly enough. At present, it pretty much just says, "The only reason to favor a minimum wage is because one is stupid." --[[Special:Contributions/219.208.179.163|219.208.179.163]] ([[User talk:219.208.179.163|talk]]) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm tempted to jump in here, but am restrained since this is not a discussion forum. I've never seen the IP poster's point made. There are other possible arguments that minimum wage can be good even if it does cause unemployment, but I'm not immediately recalling any good references. [[User:Cretog8|C<small>RETOG</small>8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm removing the <nowiki>{{pov-check}}</nowiki> tag based on [[Template:Pov-check|the description]]. [[User:Cretog8|C<small>RETOG</small>8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::I was just trying to see if there was any reason to consider this non-NPOV. I do think that this article would benefit from some research into opposing viewpoints -- this was my main point, that the article's silence about such arguments does raise some POV concerns. That said, I don't disagree with pulling the tag; it smacks more of "natural" incompleteness than a positive bias. --[[Special:Contributions/219.208.179.163|219.208.179.163]] ([[User talk:219.208.179.163|talk]]) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The problem with finding opposing viewpoints is that they will (almost) always lack any basis in economic theory -- very much akin to finding opposing views to evolution. You will find plenty of disagreement among economists as to the magnitude of the effects of minimum wage and under what conditions those effects might be enhanced or mitigated. But those discussions will tend to require the reader to have more of a background in economic theory than should be expected in an article of this sort. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hello,I'm the person who put the tag on in the first place.Silly me,didn't mention it here!
But the article does seem non-npov to me,there's a lot of "minimum wage is bad" stuff,which I don't think should belong in this article,nor are things praising it.
This article should be neutral,and it seems biased to me.--[[User:Fireaxe888|Fireaxe888]] ([[User talk:Fireaxe888|talk]]) 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:It doesn't seem biased to me, but how things "seem" to us, and how we "feel" about things aren't what encyclopedias are about. There actually IS broad consensus among economists about the negative effects of the minimum wage. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 12:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::It needs citations, if so. [[User:Tombomp|Tombomp]] ([[User_talk:Tombomp|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tombomp|contribs]]) 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== China ==

Just wondering -- the U.S. minimum wage is $6.55 per hour, or $52.40 per 8-hour day. What if the far-off country of Chinna had no minimum wage, and workers there earned only $1.00 per 14-hour day? Would it be possible that a few U.S. jobs would move overseas to Chinna? [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:Of course, but that's only part of the story. The Chinese would then be producing the good more cheaply than the Americans and so American consumers gain because they can now purchase the same good at a lower cost. When they purchase from the Chinese, the Chinese now have US dollars that they use to buy things from the Americans -- thereby creating US jobs. So, US jobs aren't lost, they are shifted from one US industry (one in which the US is not competitive) to another (one in which the US is competitive). (PS: This is a great question, but should be posted on the [[WP:RD/H|Humanities]] page. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, but what good would those lower cost Chinnese goods be for the Americans whose jobs went overseas? I guess they could spend their idle time walking through Wal-Mart and wishing they could afford to buy cheap Chinnese television sets. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 13:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) (And it's Chinna, not China. This is completely hypothetical, and no offense to any nationality is intended.)

:::Clearly, it would be bad for the Americans whose jobs went overseas, but it would be good for the Americans whose jobs were created by the corresponding Chinese demand for US goods. This game isn't one of China vs. US -- it is one of one US industry vs. another. Here's an example: Removing tariffs on steel destroys steel jobs in Pittsburgh but creates tire jobs in North Carolina (one of the more expensive components of tires is steel). (PS: Only one "n" in China) [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:51, 12 October 2008

K C College of engineering (Thane)
TypePrivate
Established2001
Location
Thane
,
Maharashtra
,
India
CampusUrban
AffiliationsUniversity of Mumbai
WebsiteKccoe.org

K C College of engineering (KCCOE) is a private engineering college located in Thane, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. The college is affiliated to the University of Mumbai and approved by Directorate of Technical Education (DTE), Maharashtra State and All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi.

K.C college of Engineering was established in 2001 which is under MUMBAI university, comprising the faculties of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Computer Engineering and Information Technology Engineering.A dedicated and qualified staff, plays an inspirational and instrumental role in maintaining high academic standards

History

The college was established in 2001 by Excelsior Education Society offering three branches namely Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Computer Engineering and Information Technology Engineering.Later On 2008 Electronics Engineering was introduced.

Departments

Department is well established with 18 highly qualified faculties ready to guide the students. Personal attention is given to students to ensure their overall development along with academics. The computer department offers very promising future for its students in the field of software development, hardware and information Technology. It prepares students to enter the world of computing and make them ready for productive employment in the public or private sectors.

Academics

KCCOE offers undergraduate courses of study in engineering. The four year undergraduate programme leads to the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (BE). The courses offered are:

Intakes

Electronics and Telecommunication - 90 Computer Engineering - 90 Information Technology - 60 Electronics - 60

Contact

K.C. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.
MithBunder Road,
Near Sadguru Gardens,
Kopri, Thane(East) 400 603

  • Phone :022-2532 7100 OR 022- 25326062
  • Fax No:022-25326775

External Links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimum_wage&oldid=244792275"