What's that theory called so I can look it up?

no theory,,,just reality

In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, October 11, five Nobel Prize winners and over 650 other economists endorsed a statement urging a raise in the minimum wage. The statement asserts that a modest raise in the minimum wage (in the range of a $1.00 to $2.50 per hour), with future increases indexed to protect the workers’ purchasing power, “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed.”

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/minwagestmt2006

Second, Securing the Wage Floor—a new analysis by EPI’s EARN Director Michael Ettlinger—examines the effect and various approaches to indexing and counters the arguments most commonly made against it.

Next, in an EPI Snapshot, economic analyst Liana Fox examines the six states with ballot initiatives and finds that, if all of these measures pass, then more than 1.5 million workers would receive raises, with 652,000 children of these workers directly benefiting. Counting the 22 states plus the District of Columbia that already have minimum wages above the federal rate, 70% of the U.S. workforce will live in a state with a higher-than-federal level if voters approve all the proposals.

Finally, EPI’s new Briefing Paper, Minimum Wage Trends—Understanding Past and Contemporary Research, also by Fox, examines the methods and findings of the major research that has been done on the effects of minimum wage raises. Where it was once accepted almost unquestioningly that raising the minimum wage was bad for jobs, better methods and the data derived from more recent experience have led many experts to conclude that any negative effects of a minimum wage raise are negligible and outweighed by the benefits to the workers affected.

in case ya don't wanna go and do the research, here's the summary,,,

Last updated January 2007

A minimum wage increase would raise the wages of millions of workers.

An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million workers (5% of the workforce) currently earn less than $7.25 and would be directly affected by an increase. The additional 8.3 million workers (6% of the workforce) earning slightly above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase due to “spillover effects”.
Minimum wage increases benefit working families.

The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.
An estimated 1,395,000 single parents with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008. Single parents would benefit disproportionately from an increase — single parents are 9% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of the overall workforce. Approximately 3.9 million parents with children under 18 would benefit.
Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase: 80% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2008 are adults (age 20 or older).
Over half (54%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week.
Minimum wage increases benefit disadvantaged workers.

Women are the largest group of beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase: 59% of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2008 are women. An estimated 14% of working women would benefit directly from that increase in the minimum wage.
A disproportionate share of minorities would benefit from a minimum wage increase. African Americans represent 11% of the total workforce, but are 16% of workers affected by an increase. Similarly, 14% of the total workforce is Hispanic, but Hispanics are 19% of workers affected by an increase.
The benefits of the increase disproportionately help those working households at the bottom of the income scale. Although households in the bottom 20% received only 5% of national income, 38% of the benefits of a minimum wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers. The majority of the benefits of an increase would go to families with working adults in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.
Among families with children and a low-wage worker affected by a minimum wage increase to $7.25, the affected worker contributes, on average, over half (59%) of the family's earnings. Forty-six percent of such workers actually contribute 100% of their family's earnings.
Relatively large shares of the workforce (up to 19.1%) in some Southern and Mid-Western states would benefit from an increase to $7.25.
A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers.

Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20%. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.
Wage inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 31% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II.
A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy to end poverty.

As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty.
A recent study of a 1999 state minimum wage increase in Oregon found that as many as one-half of the welfare recipients entering the workforce in 1998 were likely to have received a raise due to the increase. After the increase, the real hourly starting wages for former welfare recipients rose to $7.23.
The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) combined with the minimum wage helps to reduce poverty, but the EITC is not a replacement for a minimum wage increase. For example, in 1997, a single mother of two children working 40 hours per week year-round at the minimum wage would have earned $9,893 (after Social Security and Medicare taxes) and would have been eligible for the maximum EITC of $3,656, which would have put her family income at $13,549, a mere 5% above the 1997 poverty threshold of $12,931 for a family of three. But because the minimum wage has not kept up with increases in the cost of living since 1997, the same family is now below the poverty line. In 2005, a single mother with two children would have combined earnings and EITC of $14,177, or 11% below the 2005 poverty threshold of $15,735 for a family of three.
The minimum wage raises the wages of low-income workers in general, not just those below the official poverty line. Many families move in and out of poverty, and near-poor families are also beneficiaries of minimum wage increases.
The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 30% lower in 2006 than it was in 1979.

The effect of the last minimum wage increase in 1996-97 has been completely eroded by inflation.
$5.15 today is the equivalent of only $3.95 in 1995 — lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase.
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.

A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources
Appelbaum, Eileen, et al. 2004. The Minimum Wage and Working Women.

Bernstein, Jared, and Chauna Brocht. 2000. The Next Step: The New Minimum Wage Proposals and the Old Opposition. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bernstein, Jared, and John Schmitt. 1998 Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bernstein, Jared, and Isaac Shapiro. 2006. Buying Power of Minimum Wage at 51-Year Low. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bernstein, Jared, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt. 1999. The Minimum Wage Increase: A Working Woman's Issue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Card, David. 1992. Using regional variation in wages to measure the effects of the federal minimum wage. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 22-37.

Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1994. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 4. pp. 772-93.

Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 2000. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: reply. American Economic Review. Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1397-1420.

Chasanov, Amy. 2004. No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage Is Long Overdue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

EPI. 2000, 2005. Datazone.

Fiscal Policy Institute. 2004. State Mminimum Wages and Employment in Small Business. Available at www.fiscalpolicy.org.

Fortin and Lemiuex. 1996. As cited in Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. The State of Working America 1998-99. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Rasell , Edith, Jared Bernstein, and Heather Boushey. 2000. Step Up, Not Out: The Case for Raising the Federal Minimum Wage for Workers in Every State. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Sawhill , Isabel, and Adam Thomas. 2001. "A Hand Up for the Bottom Third." Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Thompson, Jeff. 1999. Oregon's Increasing Minimum Wage Brings Raises to Former Welfare Recipients and Other Low-Wage Workers Without Job Losses. Oregon Center for Public Policy.

I called $100 first lol.

No, I called $100 first. Post #25...lol!

Give it up Bakerstreet. He may not be the col, but he's just like him. Present him with undeniable facts and he abandons the thread.

you haven't presented anything...and i have never gone anywhere. keep insulting me miler, it will only lead to me doing what seems to be so popular around here.,,,

"No, I called $100 first. Post #25...lol!"

I stand corrected, I'll trade you one of the old style $100 for a new one lol.

In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, October 11, five Nobel Prize winners and over 650 other economists endorsed a statement urging a raise in the minimum wage. The statement asserts that a modest raise in the minimum wage (in the range of a $1.00 to $2.50 per hour), with future increases indexed to protect the workers’ purchasing power, “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed.”

So again: Why not have the minimum wage be $500 an hour? If $1 to $2.50 an hour is good and doesn't cause harm, surely $500 an hour would be even better.

"If $7 is a good minimum wage, why not $20?"

Why not $100, well very good question. Two main reasons I can think of. Both are percentages. First talking about going from $5.15-$7.25 or $5.15-$20.00

You increase the wage of about 10% of the workers in varying degrees, but no more then 40%. Which is rather high but in a staged effort and over time it really isn't, because the effective real value of the money is already quiet a bit lower then the last time the wage was changed. I.e. $20 today is/was valued at $14 in 1995 that kind thing.

But if you raise minimum wage 380%, which is what you would be doing if you go to $20.00, you'd be significantly destabilizing the economy. Also you'd be effecting significantly more numbers of workers. Many many more workers earn between $5.15-$20.00, than earn between $5.15-$7.25. This increase in money supply would effectively upset the balance between supply and demand in a drastic way as opposed to a minor way. See the difference?

The economy would of course reset itself. However the dangers of changing the value of currency to that degree are many. First you could destabilize banking, Interest rates would become volatile in order to chase after a rapidly growing economy, the resulting boom could very easily change to a bust, as consumers spend money unwisely, fell into debt or carried substantial debts beyond their rapidly dwindling "real value of money" to repay them. Then you'd have a recession on your hands, or a depression, whatever effects us at home goes around and comes around the rest of the world.

The risks of having an economy go out of whack increase dramatically as you free up money like that. The economy could even crash, as it did in 1987 and 1929. When investors lose confidence in the economy's ability to create new wealth or create a return the continued invest of capital. That would be the worst situation. If instead of maybe 10% 25% or even 50% of the working population saw an increase of not more then 40% but 380%, 200%,100%,50% of their actual money supply the market could be drastically effected in irresponsible ways.

A minor adjustment to minimum wages though would carry much less risk while accelerating an already healthy economy. The lowering of taxes performed a very similar effect on the economy from the top of the economic structure, an increase of minimum wage would have a similar effect from the bottom.

So again: Why not have the minimum wage be $500 an hour? If $1 to $2.50 an hour is good and doesn't cause harm, surely $500 an hour would be even better.

that didn't deserve a response the 1st time. and the same strawman doesn't deserve one here either.

So again: Why not have the minimum wage be $500 an hour? If $1 to $2.50 an hour is good and doesn't cause harm, surely $500 an hour would be even better. that didn't deserve a response the 1st time. and the same strawman doesn't deserve one here either.

Walter E. Williams would disagree with you, as do I. And he is not on your list either.

it seems some have a hard time understanding concepts that aren't black and white. they constantly want to make these strawman arguments AS IF i don't accept the arguments that a small helping hand (not a social program) to the least amongst us is somehow a doomsday scenario, then i must, of course, support every single "get on the dole" program. then i must support every single goverment regulation and the like...it's b.s.

only pundits subscribe to 1 philosophy. only these hacks defend these philosophies like religion. i don't defend any philosophy like that. each scenario is it's own case, and i believe that different philosophies can exist and work in conjunction with each other rather than inherently clash and cause doom and gloom like the pundits would have us believe.

pudits are about power, and getting "their people" in it. i am about making things better for everyone. and i never let some pie in the sky "philosophy" hold me back from clear realities.

by the way,,,for gideon...i think that a while back, you made some comments about how you are a "new deal" libertarian. i think, at least on some levels, we have a lot of common ground there. this is despite how, in these debates, positions can get pushed and skewed into realms they aren't intended. i like your ideas about re-examining govt. programs with much more vigor than we have in the past, tho i am not pre disposed to just looking into matters for the purposes of eliminating them and making "the intelligence match the policy" kind of scenarios like pundits do.

i think, despite how some feel, government, at least ours, and at least for the forseeable future, will be looking for ways where they can help society. sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. but i believe they deserve a fair hearing and debate. and america in itself is "an experiment" so sometimes, we must experiment. where we fail, as a people and a government many times is that after we start something, we just let it go, grow and snowball.

social security has been a rare exception in that. we have done a pretty good job historically in looking at it and tweaking it from time to time. i'm not bringing that up to debate the merits of the current debate about overhaul of the system, just pointing out that we do a fairly good job in at least looking at it and vigorously debating it. regardless of one's position, i think it's fair to say that we do at least do that.

but other programs and regulations we get a failing grade on. too often we don't ever re-examine them and just let them continue to get worse and worse or cause more harm. and other times, the debates are just pundits trying to narrowly argue "points" and any real debate gets buried under the pundit's shouting their rhetoric.

with min. wage, i don't see "a big bad govt. forcing businesses to go out of business" i see a govt. making a gesture that does put a few more bucks in some needy hands. i have a hard time crying for the rich here. i am confident in the business leader to adapt and overcome this marketplace change just like they do other marketplace changes.

curious to your thoughts....

Walter E. Williams would disagree with you, as do I.

it is certainly his and your right.

an 8 year model and 4 wage hikes were enough to disprove any concrete relationship between cost of living / inflation and unemployment. 2 of the 3 factors (inflation and cost of living) weren't even challenged. the unemployment numbers were only "microscoped" under a couple of the 8 years covered. of course, we can go back more and cover every single increase in min. wages. some will show better and some will show worse numbers. what they won't show (and i know you know this, but won't say anything, otherwise you would have tried to slam me in that other post with your "evidence.")is any clear relationship between wage hikes and those 3 economic factors. the reason you won't is because it's much more "effective" to just poo-poo my data.

here's the history of hikes...

Oct 24, 1938
$0.25

Oct 24, 1939
$0.30

Oct 24, 1945
$0.40

Jan 25, 1950
$0.75

Mar 1, 1956
$1.00

Sep 3, 1961
$1.15
$1.00

Sep 3, 1963
$1.25

Sep 3, 1964
$1.15

Sep 3, 1965
$1.25

Feb 1, 1967
$1.40
$1.40
$1.00
$1.00

Feb 1, 1968
$1.60
$1.60
$1.15
$1.15

Feb 1, 1969
$1.30
$1.30

Feb 1, 1970
$1.45

Feb 1, 1971
$1.60

May 1, 1974
$2.00
$2.00
$1.90
$1.60

Jan. 1, 1975
$2.10
$2.10
$2.00
$1.80

Jan 1, 1976
$2.30
$2.30
$2.20
$2.00

Jan 1, 1977
$2.30
$2.20

Jan 1, 1978
$2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1979
$2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1980
$3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1981
$3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Apr 1, 19904
$3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Apr 1, 1991
$4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Oct 1, 1996
$4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Sep 1, 19975
$5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers

now i only have the data from 1948 on for unemployment...but i think we can work with that,,,

1950 wage increase....the rate went from 5.21 to 3.28 in the next year and continued to decline thru 1954 bottoming out @ under 3%. the cpi index did go up in the next year, but i can laugh that off to the korean war as much as you can dismiss any positive 90's economic numbers to the dotcom boom. the inflation rate also acted in kind.

1956 increase...now here, you can make a case for unemployment to go up, as it did, slightly, in 1957. 1958 saw a bigger jump. the inflation / CPI numbers are also increased, tho after looking at the previous years to the increase, it's hard to see how those numbers wouldn't go up in any given economy.

1961 increase...the unemployment rate goes down consistantly till 1970. the cpi and inflation rates hold fairly steady till 1966 where it begins to accelerate and again peaks in 1970.

and in the 60's there wree further increases in the wages in 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70. the argument could be made that repeated increases eventually effect the overall economy negatively. but no one made that case. in fact, no one even suggested that.

1971 72 increases (and 74)...both of these changes went into effect in feb. of the year, unlike most of the earlier changes that took place in sept. or later in the year. 1971 to 72 showed a decrease in unemployment. as it did in 73. the inflation /cpi numbers also went down in 71-72. 1973 and 74 were just bad years increasingly in our government and the economy reflected this. in those years unemployment , inflation and cpi all went up. but anyone who knows thier hispory knows that the min. wage rate didn't really determine the economic numbers as much as the turbulent events in our history for those years.

we got increases in every year from 1976 thru 1981...and everyone knows that the numbers in the carter admin. and early reagan admin. were bad. again, these bad economic numbers could hardly be blamed on the min. wage anywhere nearly as much as the overall economic picture was bleak atthe time due to many other factors, including OPEC flexing it's muscles and the Iran hostage situation demoralizing this country. after the 81 increase, the next year saw a dramatic drop in unemployment and the other factors improved as well.

ok,,,there ya go, combined with my previous research,,that's a much more complete picture of the numbers. and they show NO CLEAR PATTERN even suggesting that a modest hike in wages automatically results in inflation, higher unemployment and higher costs as the neoconservative politicians would have us believe. the data shows that if anything, things can get better with that increase and the only negative influence it can have is when too many increases are made in too short a time period...and it probably isn't the best idea when everything sucks economically, like in the 70's. but again, no one even came close to making that case. the only case that was made by a host of like minded poeople was the parroting of the limited heritage foundation numbers. those numbers ignore anyone who makes less than 7.25 unless they make exactly 5.15 or less. those numbers ignore everyone effected by a "spillover" effect it has on higher wage earners. both of those exclusions perfectly serve the neoconservative thinktank's desire to show a wage hike to affect almost no one and only positively impacts people we don't like much anyway....rich, spoiled kids.

i showed the 4 incresea that happened most recently to show in our MODERN global economy, these modest and spread out increases had little or no negative impact on the economy as a whole and a stronger case could be made for it's positive impact than anything. we all know that the increases in the 70's weren't responsible for our bad economy on the scale that other factors were to say the least. and comparing our economy to that of a economy in the 50's or 60's is like comparing republicans or democrats themselves in the 50's compared to the ideologies of today. it would be an exercise in "apples to oranges" comparison. but it was insisted that i make that comparison and low and behold, the numbers form the 50's / 60's aren't much worse (and in some cases better) than the 90's numbers.

nuff said, for now...


ps...my sources are primarily the same as from the orig. posts i made on this subject in whip's and my own article. i'm not bothering to repost them as if someone couldn't be bothered to look or be honest about those numbers then, it's probably not gonna happen now.