The ideology of "Free trade" is Killing America's Economy

It confirms what we'd expect: positive employment effects (Subtracting publication bias effects the minimum wage elasticity is +0.041). That's admittedly small, but we'd expect that when referring to minimum wage increases (rather than introduction) and where the proportion directly affected is relatively small. It is, however, sufficient to reject the disemployment argument and to show the ridiculousness of the article that your chum posted.

Now don't dodge: Can you dispute that firms have wage making power? Can you dispute that low skill equilibria are demand-led problems? I'll take another dodge as evidence you can't answer.

 

You cant even comprehend your own source.

Still trapped in that theoretical model. Works when dealing with line graphs. Of little use in the real world.

 

A silly reply. I've quoted their results, referring directly to the elasticity of employment with respect to minimum wage. The important issue, as originally researched by Card and Krueger, is that there is publication bias at play. At worst these papers are finding insignificant negative employment effects. This meta analysis, however, confirms that "ubtracting the estimated publication bias from the reported minimum-wage elasticities converts the average minimum-wage elasticity (-0.190) to a positive value (+0.041)". The effects are small, for the reasons I've already given.

An ignorant reply. The elasticity is an empirical measure, using multiple studies to generate the 'real world' impact of minimum wages on employment.

I asked you two questions, both related to how labour markets actually behave in the 'real world' (Can you dispute that firms have wage making power? Can you dispute that low skill equilibria are demand-led problems?). You couldn't answer either, demonstrating that you're not at all interested in the 'real world'

 

I, of course, was referring to your claim of positive employment effects. But that, of course, is why you now want to talk about the elasticity of employment. Watch the silly man dance.

 

You of course show no comprehension of what I typed. The elasticity of employment with respect to minimum wage is the estimate of the minimum wage effect: negative means negative employment effects, positive means positive employment effects. And the estimation provided? Positive! Work it out.

 

Still hopelessly trapped in that theoretical model that has little relevance to our current minimum wage at this time.

 

An ignorant reply. I'm referring to the empirical results. They don't conform to your 'bubble', where you ignore the real world where the empirical analysis confirms positive employment effects

 

Nonsense. 100s of factors effect employment. Your emperical analysis is plugged into your model which simply atributes the change to the levels of employment to the elasticity of employment. Stupid, simplistic assumption.

 

You're the one that 'tried' to refer to the empirical evidence. I've attacked that successfully, given it doesn't even undertake any of its own econometric methods. I've now referenced a study that reviews over a thousand estimates, using methods that enable minimum wage effects to be isolated. And what do we find? Your stance is inconsistent with the empirical findings. This doesn't surprise me as you can't even answer a simple question like 'Do firms have wage making power?'

 

Sooooo full of it.

Notice how whenever I dispute anything you claim, you respond with questions. Why not trying to support your assertions?

Yes, there are firms with wage making power. I was in a small, Texas town recently where 76% of the employment within the city is at one company, and the nearest town with any significant employment is 45 miles away. They have incredible "wage making power". That doesnt do a thing to support your assertion that monopsony is the norm

"monopsony" in the wage labor market is a virtually, non existant theoretical model and competition from MORE THAN ONE buyer of wage labor is the norm. Your silly estimates of the elasticity of the minimum wage labor market increases in the past dont even contradict this assertion, let alone support your assertion of monopsony as the norm.

 

You forget your own posts? Best look into that dear chap!

A nonsensical reply. I've referred to a review of empirical evidence. That has achieved two things. First, it has shown your position is inconsistent with the analysis into the 'real world'. Second, it has shown that- due to your political bias- you are prepared to put your foot in it and deliberately try and misrepresent comments (as shown by your ridiculous replies to the elasticity measure, as you make inaccurate remark over theoretical comment when the whole point is that its an empirical measure that confirms the validity of my argument)

Wage making power isn't reliant on the 'company town' argument.

Monopsony isn't reliant on one buyer. 'Traditional' monopsony is reliant on it. Dynamic monopsony only requires the existence of labour market frictions and therefore the use of a reservation wage strategy. You've put your foot in it again!

 

Cute. What "position" would that be? Be specific if you can. And your empirical evidence didnt support your assertion of positive employment effects of raising the minimum wage.

Dont be silly. It doesnt support any argument of yours that Ive disputed. Im sure it supports many of the irrelevant tangents you chase after.

I never claimed it was. Try to avoid the allure of strawmen to chase after and focus on what is actually being discussed, if you can.

Nope, you said "monopsony", not "dynamic monopsony". Watch the little parrot dance.

 

Typing to you is the most boring concept. You know you're going to have to repeat stuff again and again as you play your childish games. The empirical results show that positive result is the norm. The elasticity measure shows it.

Your lack of coherency only advertises the point I made

So wage making power is the norm?

This is childishness in full swing. Monopsony is reliant on an upward sloping labour supply schedule. Dynamic monopsony informs us that is delivered despite many buyers. Keep up! Your ignorance offends

 

Like I said, you cant even comprhend YOUR own source that concluded

And cant even comprehend the words youve learned to parrot

 

Look back! I stated that we'd expect to see small elasticities in this type of analysis. The findings confirm my conclusion: we can expect positive effects (narrowing inefficient wage differentials and creating employment rather than generating disemployment). I know it must be hard for you. Knowing that the evidence doesn't agree with your right wing dogma must be a proper terror!

You merely show your ignorance. The origins of monopsony derives from the notion of one buyer. That ensures an upward sloping labour supply curve as the market labour supply curve is the same as the firm's labour supply curve. However, the analysis has since moved on. Its been understood for some time that the same upward sloping labour curve (the requirement for wage making power to exist) can be derived by dropping other assumptions used in perfect competition analysis. Dynamic monopsony, for example, only requires imperfect information about job vacancies.

Why are you so far behind in economic analysis? Was it a deliberate strategy?

 

I never said otherwise. Notice how any time your claims are challenged, you dash off to another claim.

 

Empty comment again. Now that we can conclude monopsony is the norm and that empirical evidence confirms positive employment effects, what else have you got? Try to ensure its economic in nature, rather than just foot stamping tantrum

 

And then there is the real world

But you feel free to copy and paste any published source that says otherwise. Your silly little proclamations have no credibility.

 

So you can't meet my little request? Monopsony is certainly the norm (the rejection of the law of one price in the study of actual wage rates proves me) and the empirical evidence does confirm positive employment effects. Can you come out with anything that makes sense?

Search for 'dynamic monopsony' and let me know what you can't understand! You're on a loser and I'm enjoying seeing you dig yourself deeper in the right wing mire

 

Im familiar with dynamic monopsony. I was looking for evidence that "MONOPSONY" is the norm. That an upward sloping supply curve evidences "monopsony". Like I said, your silly little personal proclamations are meaningless.

 

Ahh you're after repetition? Takes time for things to sink in? The law of one wage, as predicted in competitive labour markets where wage making power doesn't exist, is rejected. Now what do we need for dynamic monopsony to exist? Just one condition: imperfect knowledge of available employment opportunities (I.e. Job search). Are you seriously going to deny that imperfect knowledge exists? Are you seriously going to deny that labour market frictions are the norm? If you don't you have to assume dynamic monopsony is the norm. And of course dynamic monopsony has been used to explain the positive employment elasticities that are regularly found

 

Again, I was looking for evidence, not personal proclamations.

 

I'm stating the obvious. Why are you so unaware of it? The rejection of the law of one price, for example, goes back to the likes of Lester (1946, Wage Diversity and
Its Theoretical Implications, Review of Economic Statistics, 28, pp. 152–59). Its been known for yonks!

The minimum wage analysis is itself a test of the existence of wage making power. If positive elasticities are found then we have underpayment consistent with monopsony. The only issue is whether there are other explanations. Shock theory provides one potential explanation, whereby minimum wage force firms to eliminate x-inefficiencies (i.e. elimination of managerial slack where the exogeneous wage increase forces better managerial practice). However, that can only explain why an introduction of a minimum wage doesn't necessarily generate disemployment. It cannot be used to explain postitive effects in time series analysis of minimum wage increases. Alternatively, we can refer to the efficiency wage hypothesis (arguing that productivity gains occur). The research from the Low Pay Commission suggests these productivity effects do occur. I'd be amused if you thought they could totally explain the positive elasticities!

 

Again, we were looking for evidence, not your personal thoughts. At this point, the sum total of evidence youve brought to the discussion is

So we can see you do have the ability to copy and paste text. Now all we need is some that supports your challenged assertions.

 

Try to read! I gave the original paper that rejected the law of one price.

I've gone further than copy and paste. I've used literature review methods and referred to the evidence directly. You're out of your depth dear boy!