Open thread April 8, 2016 Dan Crawford | April 8, 2016 7:10 am Tags: open thread Comments (4) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Cautionary Note on use of Data – by Shaefer and Wilson
Seems the anti-min wage fellow was using two different data sources for the same chart — typical anti-min slovenliness.
What is not noted out loud in the study is that the job loss was only 10,000 out of 410,000. Why do pro-mins (slovenly too? :-]) never take note that may be seen as a positive trade off – the trade off being that the other 400,000 got paid a lot more money.
The 10,000 may mostly represent the difference between the number of those who quit voluntarily because they no longer needed two (or more) jobs minus the lesser number who (re?)entered the workforce in response to a higher wage incentive.
Somebody really ought to do a survey on what proportion actually get laid off as opposed to other inputs to the minimum wage raise employment number.
Do any commenters here play Clash of Clans? I confess, I do.
I think researchers looking at economic behavior might find it an interesting source of data.
One mechanism allows players to donate units to each other. It is not uncommon to see people jump around and try to take advantage of receiving without giving. There can be a strong “I won’t give to you until you give to me” component to behavior. On the other hand, when people become attached to a clan so that they know the other player, the flow of exchange can be much more rapid.
What makes a player choose to jump around versus choosing to stay with a clan? There is clearly some learning involve, but is it learning how the game works, or is it learning how other players act?
The game allows players to choose the extent to which they collect resource and use them to build and to which they collect resources and use them to steal resources from other players. Lots of interesting behaviors to study.
“Somebody really ought to do a survey on what proportion actually get laid off as opposed to other inputs to the minimum wage raise employment number.”
It is illogical to assume that the inception of a minimum wage causes any job losses at all. Such an interpretation has within it the assumption that a business will employ more workers than is needed to carry on its business. If that were so then requiring a minimum wage that is higher than an already prevailing wage might lead to such lay offs. It is, however, not likely to be so, that an employer will hire more employees than required for the effective run of the business. What data exists to support such an excess employee approach to any business? That would be contrary to the business ethic of seeking the greatest profitability. Is there a business that pays substandard wages (exploitation wages) that then turns and employs more workers than required to do its business? They are mutually exclusive business practices.
Somewhere around 1781 the US decided to renege on the “all men are created equal” line which got the exploited to kill redcoats and Tories for slave holders.
Shorter, why the US Catholic bishops said being a part of US nuclear war making is anathema.