Talk:Minimum wage/Archive 2

Opponents contend minimum wage raises unemployment & inflation
Can opponents claim anything or do their claims need to be substantiated to be included as though they're plausible? I've yet to see a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation. If one looks at minimum wage increases in constant dollars one will find no correlation. Based on these two pieces of information we can see that some of the most dramatic increases were followed by times of prosperity and some of the worst recessions had no minimum wage increase before or during it. Could we word the opinion (one might argue propaganda) that there is a correlation more neutrally? Because I'm a proponent of considerably larger increases than any being discussed, I'm not sure that I'm the best person to phrase more objectively but am willing to try if no one else does. I think that the American and British experiences show quite conclusively that minimum wage increases do not increase unemployment or inflation. They merely improve the quality of life for those in the bottom fifth, as is evidenced by the fact that this country's lowest poverty rate (11.1) in 1973 came shortly after the peak in minimum wage rate. Since, the poverty rate has never returned to 11.1.


 * Pure logic shows that there is a problem with minimum wage, where do you think that the money is supposed to come from? You're going to give a substantial portion of the population an increase in wages and the money is going to come from nowhere? Productivity will hardly cover the increase. As for those studies, I have my doubts.--Rotten 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for some quick-and-dirty evidence, take a look at . This is not a rigorous statistical analysis, but the pictures are rather compelling. What you'll see is that increases in the minimum wage are associated with increases in unemployment *most strongly* among the uneducated and *not at all* among the educated. Wikiant 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning seems to ignore both economic theory and social science research methods. Opposition to the minimum wage is based on mainstream economic theory regarding price floors. As far as social science research methods are concerned, simply looking at correlations and then assuming cause-and-effect relationships can lead to incorrect conclusions. Failing to control for independent variables can also lead to incorrect conclusions. You seem to be making both mistakes. If you want to see "a credible study showing a negative effect on unemployment or inflation," you can start by reading the research listed here. --JHP 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most economists would agree that a minimum wage law increases unemployment among low income workers -- those who would have been paid below the minimum wage if the law did not exist. However, except for a temporary one-time price shock, minimum wage does not cause inflation. Inflation depends on the growth rate of the money supply. (Yes, I have a PhD in economics, thanks for asking.) --lk 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. However, we're going to create a significant misunderstanding among the 99% of readers who are not economists if we say, "the minimum wage does not cause inflation." It may be better to capture the idea of the one-time price shock while avoiding the technical particulars of inflation-as-a-growth-rate by saying something like, "the minimum wage causes an increases in prices." Wikiant 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

question!
Can someone tell me where does the minimum wage reside as a legal document? Also, what is required to change the minimum wage or wages if there is more than one?

Minimum Wage In Michigan
Minimum Wage in michigan went up this week and the map and other information needs to be updated

Theoretical vs. Empirical Arguments
I reverted an edit that removed notation as to the distinction between theoretical and empirical arguments. The editor suggested that the statement was "contentious." I fail to see the contention -- it is simply a statement of fact. Wikiant 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "contentious" point concerns the logically absurd or very poorly written claim that the "veracity (of both side's claims) can be established by data". Many claims have been made, accuracy/veracity/truth is yet to be established. FakeTango 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I said, "can be" established, not "will be" established. If you have a problem with some of the arguments listed, then deal with those arguments. You're beating up on definitions that have nothing to do with arguments for or against the minimum wage. The sentence you keep deleting simply states the distinction between an empirical and a theoretical argument. Wikiant 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the particular issue at hand has nothing to do with the arguments themselves. It is irrelevant whether we are using "can" or "may". The problem concerns the bit which states that the veracity of any or all of the stated claims may be empirically established. I now see from the edit history that this is your particular handiwork, so I hope we can work out a rational compromise if you are adamant that the existence of an empirical/theoretical distinction must be mentioned. Can you please have another go which does not appear to state that the arguments are based on valid premises which can be empirically proven. FakeTango 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that good faith effort just now. I still think there is a problem with suggesting that some of the arguments are empirical in nature ("workers not worth the min wage" is a real hoot), but this is good enough for me for now. Cheers. FakeTango 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I didn't take a close look at the particular arguments. I'll go through and delete/move those that aren't empirical. Nonetheless, the statement "workers are not worth the minimum wage" while rude, can be recast into an empirical argument: "the marginal contribution of the worker to the firm's profit is less than the minimum wage." Wikiant 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oregon?
I'm confused by this sentence: "As of 2006, Oregon has the highest minimum wage: $10.45 per hour, with additional state-sponsored minimum wages for single parents." I thought that meant that the minimum wage for everyone is $10.45, plus there is additional money (on top of $10.45) for single parents. But according to the wikipedia page on List_of_U.S._state_minimum_wages, the minimum wage is actually $7.50. According to the table in that article, Washington is the state with the highest minimum wage in the country with $7.63/hr. Does anyone else find this confusing? 209.150.227.50 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo?
"The first national minimum wage law was enacted by the government of New Zealand in 1896, followed by Australia in 1894"

How can something in 1894 follow something that happened in 1896? -Schrodinger82 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Graphs
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)


 * The graphs suggest that the higher the relative minimum wage, the higher the unemployment for low-skill workers.


 * 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. As a compromise, I'll include a one-sentence summary in each caption of what the graph demonstrates. Wikiant 17:33, 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. The easy way to do this would be to wikify it, so that technical terms can be used, and uninformed folks can link to their relative articles in order to learn them.  The same should be done with the graphs; a link should be inserted so that folks can learn how to interpret the data themselves.  Your graph's depiction, as well as it's summary, may not be the universal interpretation of the data.


 * I'm not saying you have to do this; maybe I can do it. Do you agree that it would be good improvement of the article? Jerimee 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what "wikify" means, but if it improves the article, go for it. Wikiant 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A graph with data points and a regression line will always be hard to read for people not familiar with the concept. I don't think there's much you can do except explain what's in the graph and what the graph shows (which the article does).  Every article relating to economics shouldn't have to have an econ 1 primer appended to it.

Location of graphs
The four graphs in the section "Debate over consequences of minimum wage laws" are located: right-side, left-side, right-side, left-side. This makes it difficult to read the section. Especially since one of them seems to be covering the lower half of a line of text. Does anyone know how to fix this? JRSpriggs 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro comment
I think it's important to keep the introduction on wiki articles short, and I think text that doesn't pertain to the core essence of the topic should not be in the introduction. For example, I find the following section very interesting and it deserves to be in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction:

"Minimum wage legislation may be interpreted as making it either unlawful for employers to pay workers less than the minimum wage, or unlawful for workers to provide labor or services for less than the minimum. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[7] Although it is the employer who is fined and/or imprisoned for violations, the workers also lose their freedom, albeit indirectly."

I think the first form of legal implementation is the norm and, and the comment on South Africa, while fascinating, doesn't directly have to do with the difference. Almost the exact same economic effect would exist if the sanction for hiring workers below the minimum wage fell on the employers. (The only difference occurs in who bears the burden if the law is broken.) The point that a high minimum wage keeps unskilled workers out of the labor force is a very valid one though. I think the high unemployment rate of unskilled immigrants in the Banlieues of France has a lot to do with a high effective minimum wage created by French labor law. The marginal product of these workers is lower than their marginal cost to employers once firing rules etc... are all accounted for. For France, this is undoubtedly an unintended effect of their generous social system, but the point remains that high minimum wages can be quite discriminatory against unskilled workers, who often tend to be minorities and more vulnerable members of society. Maybe the S. Africa example should be incorporated into the critique of the minimum wage, or maybe it should get a very small subsection, but I don't think the relevance of it is properly understood in the introduction. (I'll agree though that the place I moved it to was probably incorrect...)Mgunn 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The first form appears to be the accepted norm among non-economists. That's precisely why this example should appear in the intro. From an economic perspective, both forms are equally valid interpretations. The distinction of the "sanction falling on employers versus employees" is artificial. As with the burden of taxation, the burden of the minimum wage sanction is determined by market forces. The law has no power to determine the distribution of the sanctions. Wikiant 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the content of everything you just said, I think this point requires more text to properly made and understood by the average reader... What type of law was the S. African one? the former? (it's not explicit) Maybe the whole point would be clearer if you replaced the last sentence with, "Economics says that banning employers from paying workers less than a minimum wage and banning workers from working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects."  Or maybe use the more provocative, "Economics says that jailing employers for paying workers less than a minimum wage and jailing workers for working for less than a minimum wage are equivalent in their effects."  (I think some people might dispute the precise equivalence in an environment where cheating was commonplace.)  I still think this point should be put in a subsection though.    I'm not going to go to the mat for this; I just like intros to be as short as possible, and this intro is quite long.Mgunn 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I suppose, upon reflection, what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that the minimum wage can equally well be viewed as an infringement on property rights. Specifically: The labor is my (the worker's) property, and yet the government is telling me that I can't sell that labor for a lower price than that which the government dictates. Wikiant 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And for many good reasons. ~ UBeR 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking Problems in Article
The "Edit" links in this article do not match up to the sections they are with.72.145.220.191 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked a few and it seems to be working fine. Give me the exact link that doesn't work. Leotolstoy 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral arguments
The debate outlined on this page seems to be heavily based around positive arguments, rather than normative ones. Even, for example "The aforementioned arguments, both pro and con, are largely empirical in nature. That is, debate of these arguments centers on the application of data and analytic techniques. By contrast, debate of theoretical arguments (see below) center on the application of logical reasoning." Both the "empirical" and "theoretical" arguments are positive ones, and in the article, normative positions on the issue are just assumed, if mentioned at all, when of course, all empirical/scientific/'logical' arguments are are pointless in a discussion of whether something is "right" or "wrong" unless accompanied by normative arguments. The minimum wage is treated here as a conflict over various scientific empirical facts, when ultimately it is a moral argument. - Matthew238 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The economics informs our moral judgement. If minimum wages laws are shown to cause unemployment, then we might conclude that such laws are immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.148.57 (talk • contribs)
 * They are immoral because they authorize and require the use of force against innocent people. Not only do they cause unemployment, but they do not raise wages except temporarily for a few people who can substitute their skilled labor for a larger amount of unskilled labor. JRSpriggs 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The moral question is to what degree the well off should subsidize the lives of the less well off. After that question is decided, the next question is "What is the most efficient way to provide that subsidy?"  This second question should be purely a scientific one.  How do you provide income to the poor in a way that doesn't destroy the incentives to work, doesn't hurt other poor people, and fairly shairs the burden?  That is why I added the section on alternatives to the minimum wage.  Economic arguments have shown a negative income tax (or earned income tax credit) to be dramatically more efficient at providing income for the less well off than a minimum wage.  Unfortunately, a negative income tax, though incredibly simple, is not quite as simple as a minimum wage, and it doesn't evoke the same kind of reflexive political appeal.  A politician can get elected campaigning on a higher minimum wage, but no one knows wtf a negative income tax is. Mgunn 08:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for historical data
I was praying Wikipedia would have some of the earliest figures, but no such luck. I think it might be worthwhile, where a single figure is concerned, that the article try to include it. In England, where four boards set wages, this isn't feasible. For Massachusetts' 1912 law for women and children, it probably is. --Thatnewguy 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog
Why is a blog being spammed on this page? There are millions of blogs on the minimum wage. Lets add them all! ~ UBeR 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gregory Mankiw is an Economics Professor at Harvard and was the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. This isn't some random blog, but the blog of, by any measure, an extremely smart, influential, and well regarded economist. Mgunn 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And... it's still a blog. It has no use here. ~ UBeR 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This link explains key points in easy to digest language. The Mankiw blog is probably the highest credentialed econ blog out there (with the exception of the Becker-Posner blog with nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker).  I think there's strong support for the inclusion of this link and its relevance. Mgunn 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what this article is for? ~ UBeR 08:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with UBeR that the link should be removed. Wikipedia policy is that links be kept to a minimum and that they be highly relevant. Mankiw's blog is titled, "Random Observations for Students of Economics." The title alone shows that the blog (as a whole) is not highly, but only tangentially, relevant. I suggest that the link be relegated to the Open Directory Project. Wikiant 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"the blog (as a whole) is not highly... relevant." That's a bogus argument. The wiki already links to a Christian Science Monitor article on the minimum wage, and the Christian Science Monitor (as a whole) is not highly relevant to the minimum wage. Maybe that should be removed too? Of course not, because what matters is if the article is relevant.

The link goes to a post on the minimum wage that asks, what would you think of the following policy: "1. A wage subsidy for unskilled workers, paid for by" "2. A tax on employers who hire unskilled workers." Mankiw then says that the combination of these two policies is equivalent to the minimum wage, and these two policies work against eachother. This is an important point! From an economics perspective, the minimum wage is a self contradicting policy.

The discussion on this blog post is both: (1) Highly relevant (2) Conducted by an exceedingly prestigious economist. The only possible thing you can criticize this link for is that it is a blog. Unless you can cite specific Wikipedia policy that blogs should never be linked to, this link should remain. Mgunn 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the point is to quote Mankiw, then quote him. Don't link to the blog. And, yes, the Christian Science Monitor link (along with probably all the others) should also be removed. The list is *exactly* what Wikipedia policy says the article should not be -- a collection of links. Wikiant 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiant is right. If feel content should be added to the article, then add. Don't spam random links. Just because he shares the same viewpoint as yours, does not mean you can go around vandalizing articles. To say oomgomgzomz he's a Harvard economy professor, he's the ultimate godly authority on the macro economy is simply erroneous and little more than the fallacious appeal to authority. ~ UBeR 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please follow WP:Civil I added the link because it makes the point about the self-defeating nature of the minimum wage in a clearer way than anything in the current article, and Mankiw's analysis is entirely consistent with the mainstream view of the minimum wage among economists (from surveys there is "substantial concensus" that minimum wage increases unemployment) .  Describing my actions as "vandalism" is libelous and 100% incorrect.  Mgunn 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr. Mgunn, it looks like your reasoning of "relevance" is unsubstantiated and unsupported by Wikipedia. If your case were the case, there would be literally hundreds of thousands of links to blogs on the minimum wage here. However, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate nor a collection of links. This list, already too large, no longer needs your spam or vandalizing. It will definitely need a prune. Needless to say:
 * Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
 * Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See .) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing on the article's talk page.
 * What should be linked
 * 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
 * 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.


 * Links to be considered
 * 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
 * 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
 * 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.


 * Unfortunately, your blog does not fall under any of these. ~ UBeR 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Card and Krueger section should be tossed or re-written
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? It's ONE BOOK among many. I'm sure we can come up with better scholarly works that don't base their results on error prone data gathering methods like telephone interviews. Seems the only reason it's featured is that is has served as a vehicle to politically justify minimum wage laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.145 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I think mostly because a lot of new studies still use their book in references. At least, I see pop up a few times. ~ UBeR 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but does it contribute to resolving the unemployment question? I don't think it does at this point. As follow-up studies have shown, their technique of using telephone interviews provided false data. The pretty much makes their conclusions worthless. 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. At this point I think we should model the minimum wage article after the Global warming article. We know that unemployment is correlated with higher minimum wages, as shown by the graphs. Sure, unemployment may not be caused by higher minimum wages, but the consensus of most economists is that it is. This is very much like the global warming debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.149.130 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't think many argue at all that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment among teenagers and the unskilled. To what extent and to that consequences (both negative and positive) is much debated, indeed. I do not believe, however, the entire section should be scrapped. I still find their work significant for the inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the minimum wage. ~ UBeR 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be scrapped. The article is predominantly cited by two groups: (1) non-economists who want empirical support for the minimum wage, and (2) economists who want to demonstrate how empirical studies should not be done. NOTE: I have no problem with including articles the support the minimum wage. A major problem (for proponents) with this article is that it actually undermines proponents' arguments via severely flawed research methods. Wikiant 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a majority of economists thinks the minimum wage decreases unskilled employment, but saying that this is the consensus among academic economists is probably overstating it. There is a fair amount of dissent at least for a relatively low minimum wage (everyone should agree that a sufficiently high minimum wage decreases employment for the unskilled). And from the current article it sounds like this dissent has been growing not shrinking: "A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US fully agreed with the statement, 'a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers', 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed." 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 minimum wage increase will not destroy job growth. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment increased by 9.4 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 6.6 percent in states at the federal level. The minimum wage increase will not shut down small businesses. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses increased by 5.5 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 4.2 percent in states at the federal minimum wage level.5 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)

New US Minimum Wage Law
I propose all reference is removed to it and 1 sentence gets put in when/if the bill becomes law (passes house, senate, and president signs or congress overrides veto). Having a political fight over Pelosi and canneries isn't really relevent imho. This is an article about the minimum wage, not US politics.Mgunn 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The existing write-up was misleading and so I revised it. I wouldn't be sad to see the issue dropped from the article but I do worry about the potential for it to later be re-added in a misleading way in the future. Settler 12:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I do believe newly proposed (and passed) bills for the minimum wage in the United States is, in fact, quite relevant to the minimum wage article in the section of the United States. I do also believe it's quite notable to include areas that exempt to the new bill, where there would ordinarily be assumed applied. I also believe it's notable, for the section, to include why this might be. ~ UBeR 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to admit, the version I read 1 minute ago looks pretty good. On a hot button topic like this, some degree of political football is inevitable, but I just hope it can be kept at a minimum.  My initial reaction on reading an earlier version was that almost nowhere else in Wikipedia (or on any other topic) do you get discussion and announcement of partially passed legislation, but I'm fine with the current version as long as it stays reasonably succinct.  Mgunn 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is "To become law, the bill would also need to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. If the bill is vetoed by the President, Congress can attempt to override the veto." Needed? It seems to just be reciting standard practice of passing laws in the United States. DeMyztikX 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is I think 1 billion random people we're adding "a minimum wage bill was just passed that will..." or other phrasings that implied the bill has been passed and is ALREADY law. It's a bit silly, but putting the full requirements for bill to become law makes it explicit and I think has kept out a lot of bogus edits by people who don't really know how the government works.  Mgunn 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At the current time, it lacks any long time importance; I would not oppose its removal. ~ UBeR 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AEA Membership, American Economists distinction
The current construction of the sentence serves only to obfuscate, and it isn't even quite right. Fuller surveyed only economists that are members of the American Economic Association, not all members.

An individual not familiar with the American Economics Association might read the sentence and discount it by believing the AEA is not representative. Please review: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl5AEAmem.pdf http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/PDF_files/tbl2AEAmem.pdf etc... An absolutely huge proportion of economists are members and a survey of AEA members is basically equivalent to a survey of American economists. That is why the title of the article is "Concensus Among Economicsts: Revisited" and not "Concensus Among AEA members who are Economists: Revisited"

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason not to shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists." -- Mgunn 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't shorten "American Economic Association members who are economists" to "American economists.", as you quote, which makes it look like you were removing redundancy. You changed "American Economic Association members" to "American economists". Regardless of how significant of a subset of the latter the former is, they are not equivalent. More importantly, while it is possible to verify the viewpoint of the organization. It is not possible to verify the viewpoints of each and every American economist. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Unless you have a reference for every American economist, I'm reverting it to AEA members.Divinus 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The survey was a random sampling of members of the American Economic Association that are economists (they didn't survey student members).
 * (2) If 50-90% of economic faculty members are also members of the AEA, then it's going to very closely track the overall population of American economists. Once the proportion of the population becomes that large, you have to have extraordinarly high levels of selection bias for the sample to be unrepresentative.  For example, if a newspaper runs a poll, they doesn't report that "40% of Americans with telephones believe X"  or "40% of Americans with listed street addresses believe Y."  They report "40% of Americans believe blahblahblah."  This is how polling works.  Your assertion that you need a "reference for every American economist" is absolutely insane.  If you don't believe polling and statistical techniques can ever be accurate, then you are representing a very skewed non-mainstream view.
 * (3) In the interest of brevity, I prefer the simple and accurate "American economists." If you want to load up on the footnote and say that only 60, 70% (or whatever it roughly is) of economics professors are AEA members, go ahead.  -- Mgunn 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (4) In the meantime while we argue this out on talk, I fixed the sentence so that it is actually accurate. -- Mgunn
 * How does the current change look? I was uncomfortable with "more than 70%", so the new version incorporates the data you provided, is more specific, and includes both the numbers of American economists in general and AEA economists specifically (as both were surveyed). The more information the better, I say. Divinus 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * fine with me Mgunn 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The AEA and the fallacy of appealing to authority
Lest another revert war, let us discuss the issue of the lead. In the lead, it states, "Detractors and a majority of American economists contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." This is not whether it not it should say "American economist believe", or members of the "AEA believe," (though the report is on AEA members, and we should be precise about that. False statements with a source does entail plagiarism, after all).

The problem is about whether that should be there at all. First and foremost, it entails of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Second, and probably more importantly, it is egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic, etcetera. It's not much different than stating, "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad," as if Americans were the ultimate authority on the issue and if they dare say otherwise, they are wrong. That is a false belief. Third, it does not entail a global or worldwide view (because, again, America is not the only place that has a minimum wage). Fourth, it's unnecessary.

My regards, ~ UBeR 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You couldn't say "Detractors and Americans believe the minimum wage is bad" because most Americans believe in the minimum wage. I'm open to changes in structure, but the views of economists should be represented.


 * Economics is supposed to be a scientific topic (or at least as scientific as possible), and it is fully relevant to discuss the views of experts in the field. A discussion of gravity would involve the views of physicists.  A discussion evolution would involve the views of biologists.  A discussion of global warming should involve climatologists.  A discussion of the minimum wage should involve the views of economists.


 * On the topic of polling the AEA, there is no directory of "all economists." Therefore what several of these "poll the economists" type studies do is to survey the faculty at specific universities or use a professional organization, the AEA, as a proxy.  This is reasonable to do especially because the AEA has such broad membership.  At Stanford University, MIT, and Harvard, 80-90% of faculty were AEA members in 96 (last date of big survey.)  I'll agree that there are potentially some selection bias issues (in some literature I've read, it's been suggested that AEA membership has become slightly more skewed towards the left), but the idea that it isn't a reasonable proxy is dead wrong.  To survey voters, pollsters call people on the telephone.  The pollsters report it was a telephone poll, but the interpretatino of results is that roughly X% of Americans think Y.  This is reasonable because such a high percentage of Americans have telephones.  It's the same concept.


 * The edits I've added are a factual representation of how economists view the minimum wage. If you have time, I advise reading http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinDompeEconomicsInPracticeJanuary2007.pdf   It has a very nice roundup of a number of economists surveys over the years.  As it turns out, the surveys tell largely the same story.  As a policy question, the economics profession is split into almost a bimodal distribution with a large numbers of economists believing it should be abolished, slightly smaller but large numbers calling for its increase, and relatively few in the middle.  Even many of the pro-minimum wage economists will acknowledge the unemployment effect, but they discount its magnitude/significance and believe the policy gains outweigh the losses.


 * How do you feel about the sentence I added? "As a policy question, the minimum wage has to some extent split the economics profession with just under half believing it should be eliminated and a slightly smaller percentage believing it should be increased, leaving rather few in the middle."  The precise numbers from Whaples (2006) were 46.8% eliminate, 1.3% decrease, 14.3% keep same level, 5.2% increase 50 cents per hour, 15.6% increase a dollar, and 16.9% increase more than 1 dollar.  I didn't put in precise percentages because the survey only had 77 respondants on the minimum wage, and I thought using percentages in this case would imply a false level of accuracy.  -- Mgunn 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I'm not the best writer, but I'm just trying to represent in a concise way the general view of the economics profession. A strong majority thinks it causes unemployment.  As a total policy question, the profession is rather split. -- Mgunn 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think you fully understood what I was saying. My point wasn't about whether it should say "American economist" or "AEA members," (even though I do believe it should be the latter!). Rather, it was about whether the information belonged in the lead. I gave my reasons above. Mostly, it would be inappropriate to added it because it's fallacious and nationalistic, which is something Wikipedia does not strive to be. There's is nothing wrong with the sentence "Detractors contend that a minimum wage increases unemployment among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers." Do you understand my point? ~ UBeR 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if I may butt in, it sounds like you're concerned with properly attributing the view that a minimum wage increases unemployment. Right? --Uncle Ed 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, well to try to simplify further: my point is that detractors' beliefs are independent of the AEA. The AEA is just an American organization. Saying "detractors believe so and so" is just fine. You can list those detractors in a appropriate place, however; there's nothing wrong with that. We just must keep in mind that Wikipedia is a worldwide project, not just an American one. ~ UBeR 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)