Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: bush tax cut and small businesses

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 3:14:50 AM10/3/04
to
In article <MPG.1bc7a6d6b...@digital-bear.dyndns.org>, Ben
Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <415c57ff$0$27688$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> anon...@online-pokerguide.com says...
> > God next you fucking morons will tell me raising the minimum wage .25
> > cents will put small businesses out of business since it will raise
> > their
> > yearly expenses by 10,000$ or so... newsflash..

> You are really not very intelligent are you? The huge impact of raising
> minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

"I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
exposed."
-- Joan Robinson

I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.

I show the theoretical mistake here. I have written up the
model in the appendix in this long post:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>

This long post assumes a willingness to follow the types of arguments
typical of academic economics.

2.0 DATA ON TECHNOLOGY

Consider a very simple vertically-integrated firm that produces a
single consumption good, corn, from inputs of labor, iron, and (seed)
corn. All production processes in this example require a year to
complete. All production processes exhibit Constant Returns to Scale.
Two production processes are known for producing corn. These processes
require the following inputs to be available at the beginning of the
year for each bushel corn produced and available at the end of the
year:

TABLE 1: INPUTS REQUIRED PER TON CORN PRODUCED

Process A Process B

1 Person-Year 1 Person-Year
2 Tons Iron 1/2 Tons Iron
2/5 Bushels Corn 3/5 Bushels Corn

Apparently, inputs of iron and corn can be traded off in producing
corn outputs.

Iron is also produced by this firm. Two processes are known for
producing iron:

TABLE 2: INPUTS REQUIRED PER TON IRON PRODUCED

Process C Process D

1 Person-Year 275/464 Person-Years
1/10 Tons Iron 113/232 Tons Iron
1/40 Bushels Corn 0 Bushels Corn

Inputs of corn and iron can be traded off in producing iron. The
process that uses less iron and more corn, however, also requires
a greater quantity of labor input.

2.1 PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS

The data above allow for the specification of two well-behaved
production functions, one for corn and the other for iron. For
illustration, I outline how to construct the production function
for corn.

Let L be the person-years of labor, Q1 be tons iron, and Q2 be
bushels corn available for inputs for corn-production during the
production period (a year). Let X1 be the bushels corn produced
with Process A, and X2 be the bushels corn produced with Process B.
The production function for corn is the solution of an optimization
problem in which as much corn as possible is produced from the
given inputs. Accordingly, the production function for corn is
found as the solution to the Linear Program in Display 1:

Max X = X1 + X2

X1 + X2 <= L
2*X1 + (1/2)*X2 <= Q1 (1)
(2/5)*X1 + (3/5)*X2 <= Q2

X1 >= 0, X2 >= 0

Let f(L, Q1, Q2) be the solution of this LP, that is, the production
function for corn. (This production function is not Leontief.) The
production functions constructed in this manner exhibit properties
typically assumed in neoclassical economics. In particular, they
exhibit Constant Returns to Scale, and the marginal product, for
each input, is a non-increasing step function. The production
functions are differentiable almost everywhere.

The point of this example, that sometimes a vertically integrated
firm will want to hire more labor per unit output at higher wages,
is compatible with the existence of many more processes for producing
each commodity. As more processes are used to construct the production
functions, the closer they come to smooth, continuously-differentiable
production functions. The point of this example seems to be compatible
with smooth production functions. It also does not depend on the
circular nature of production in the example, in which corn is used
to produce more corn.

2.2 TECHNIQUES

A technique consists of a process for producing iron and a process
for producing corn. Thus, there are four techniques in this example.
They are defined in Table 3.

TABLE 3: TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES

Technique Processes

Alpha A, C
Beta A, D
Gamma B, C
Delta B, D


3.0 QUANTITY FLOWS

I want to consider a couple of different levels at which this
firm can operate the processes comprising the techniques. First,
suppose Process A is used to produce 1 41/49 Bushels corn, and
Process C is used to produce 4 4/49 Tons iron. The quantity flows
shown in Table 4 result.

TABLE 4: THE ALPHA TECHNIQUE PRODUCING CORN NET

INPUTS Process C Process A
Labor 4 4/49 Person-Years 1 41/49 Person-Years
Iron 20/49 Tons Iron 3 33/49 Tons Iron
Corn 5/49 Bushels Corn 36/49 Bushels Corn

OUTPUTS 4 4/49 Tons Iron 1 41/49 Bushels Corn

LABOR-INTENSITY: 5 45/49 Person-Years Per Bushel

When the firm operates these processes in parallel, it requires
a total of 41/49 Bushels corn as input. The output of the
corn-producing process can replace this input, leaving a net
output of one Bushel corn. Notice that the total inputs of
iron are 20/49 + 3 33/49 = 4 4/49 Tons iron, which is exactly
replaced by the output of Process C. So Table 4 shows a technique
in which 5 45/49 Person-Years labor are used to produce a net
output of one Bushel corn. The firm, when operating this technique
can produce any desired output of corn by scaling both processes
equally.

Table 5 shows the application of the same sort of arithmetic to
the Beta technique. The labor-intensity of the Beta technique is
listed.


TABLE 5: THE BETA TECHNIQUE PRODUCING CORN NET

INPUTS Process D Process A
Labor 3 304/357 Person-Years 1 2/3 Person-Years
Iron 3 59/357 Tons Iron 3 1/3 Tons Iron
Corn 0 Bushels Corn 2/3 Bushel Corn

OUTPUTS 6 178/357 Tons Iron 1 2/3 Bushel Corn

LABOR-INTENSITY: 5 185/357 Person-Years Per Bushel

Neither the Gamma nor the Delta technique are profit-maximizing
for the prices considered below.

+------------------------------------------+
| THE FIRM |
| |
| Inventory <--------------------------+ |
| | | |
Labor | | Steel+Corn+Labor -> Steel -->+ |
Market | \|/ /|\ /|\ |
------->+-------------+ | | Corn
(wage | \|/ | | Market
given) | Steel+Corn+Labor -> Corn --->+------->
| | (price
+------------------------------------------+ given)
FIGURE 1: A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED FIRM

4.0 PRICES

Which technique will the firm adopt, if any? The answer
depends, in this analysis, on which is most profitable. So one
has to consider prices. I assume throughout that inputs of iron,
corn, and labor are charged at the start of the year. Corn is
the numeraire; its price is unity throughout. Two different
levels of wages are considered.

4.1 PRICES WITH LOW WAGE

Accordingly, assume wages are initially 3/2780 Bushels per
Person-Year. By assumption, the firm neither buys nor sells iron on
the market. The firm produces iron solely for its own use. Still,
the firm must enter a price of iron on its books. I assume an
initial price of 55/1112 Bushels per Ton.

Table 6 shows accounting with these prices. The column labeled
"cost" shows the cost of the inputs needed to produce one unit
output, a bushel corn or a ton iron, depending on the process.
Accounting profits for a unit output are the difference between
the price of a unit output and this cost. The rate of (accounting)
profits, shown in the last column, is the ratio of accounting
profits to the cost. The rate of profits is independent of
the scale at which each process is operated.

TABLE 6: COSTS, WAGE 3/2780 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 55/1112 BUSHELS PER TON

INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS

Corn A 2*(55/1112) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 1/2 100%
Corn B (1/2)*(55/1112) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 6959/11120 60%
Iron C (1/10)*(55/1112) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(3/2780) = 69/2224 59%
Iron D (113/232)*(55/1112) + 0
+ (275/464)*(3/2780) = 55/2224 100%

These prices are compatible with the use of the Beta technique
to produce a net output of corn. The Beta technique specifies that
Process A be used to produce corn and process D be used to produce
iron. Notice that Process B is more expensive than Process A, and
that process C is more expensive than Process D. These prices do
not provide signals to the firm that processes outside the Beta
technique should be adopted. The vertically-integrated firm is
making a rate of profit of 100% in producing corn with the Beta
technique. The same rate of profits are earned in producing corn
and in reproducing the used-up iron by an iron-producing process.

4.2 ONE SET OF PRICES WITH HIGHER WAGE

Suppose this firm faces a wage more than 20 times higher, namely
109/4040 Bushels per Person-Year. Consider what happens if the firm
doesn't revalue the price of iron on its books. Table 7 shows this
case. Since labor enters into each process, the rate of profits
has declined for all processes. The ratio of labor to the costs of
the other inputs is not invariant across processes. Thus, the
rate of profits has declined more in some processes than in
others. Notice especially, than the rate of profits is no longer
the same in the processes, A and D, that comprise the Beta
technique.

TABLE 7: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 55/1112 BUSHELS PER TON

INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS

Corn A 2*(55/1112) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.5259 90.1%
Corn B (1/2)*(55/1112) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6517 53.4%
Iron C (1/10)*(55/1112) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.05693 -13.1%
Iron D (113/232)*(55/1112) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 0.04008 23.4%

This accounting data does not reveal the firm's rate of return
in operating the Beta technique. The firm cannot be simultaneously
making both 23% and 90% in operating that technique. Furthermore,
this data provides a signal to the firm to withdraw from iron
production and make only corn. So this data says that something
must change.

4.3 ANOTHER SET OF PRICES

Perhaps all that is needed is to re-evaluate iron on the
firm's books. Higher wages have made iron more valuable. Table
8 shows costs and the rate of profits when iron is
evaluated at an accounting price of 0.106 Bushels per Ton.


TABLE 8: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 0.10569123726 BUSHELS PER TON

INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS

Corn A 2*(0.106) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6384 56.65%
Corn B (1/2)*(0.106) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.6798 47.10%
Iron C (1/10)*(0.106) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 0.06255 68.97%
Iron D (113/232)*(0.106) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 0.06747 56.65%

This revaluation of iron reveals that the firm makes a rate
of profits of 57% in operating the Beta technique. The firm makes
the same rate of profits in producing corn and in producing its
input of iron. But the manager of the iron-producing process would
soon notice that the cost of operating process C is cheaper.


4.4 FINAL EQUILIBRIUM PRICES

So the firm would ultimately switch to using process C
to produce iron. The price of iron the firm would enter on its
books would fall somewhat. Table 9 shows the accounting with a
price of iron of 10/101 Bushels per Ton. The firm has adopted
the cheapest process for producing iron, and the rate of profits
is the same in both corn-production and iron-production. The
accounting for this vertically-integrated firm is internally
consistent.

TABLE 9: COSTS, WAGE 109/4040 BUSHELS PER PERSON-YEAR,
PRICE OF IRON 10/101 BUSHELS PER TON

INDUSTRY PROCESS COST PROFITS

Corn A 2*(10/101) + (2/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 5/8 60%
Corn B (1/2)*(10/101) + (3/5)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 2553/4040 58%
Iron C (1/10)*(10/101) + (1/40)*1
+ 1*(109/4040) = 25/404 60%
Iron D (113/232)*(10/101) + 0
+ (275/464)*(109/4040) = 24,075/374,912
54%

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Table 10 summarizes these calculations. The ultimate result of
a higher wage is the adoption of a more labor-intensive technique.
If this firm continues to produce the same level of net output
and maximizes profits, its managers will want to employ more workers
at the higher of the two wages considered.

TABLE 10: PROFIT-MAXIMIZING FIRM ADOPTS MORE LABOR-INTENSIVE
TECHNIQUE AT HIGHER WAGE

LABOR-INTENSITY OF
WAGE CORN-PRODUCING TECHNIQUE

3/2780 Bushels Per Person-Year 5 185/357 Person-Years Per Bushel
109/4040 Bushels Per Person-Year 5 45/49 Person-Years Per Bushel

So much for the theory that wages and employment are determined
by the interaction of well-behaved supply and demand curves on the
labor market.

APPENDIX A: A FORMAL MODEL

Let
Xa = Bushels corn produced (gross) by process A
Xb = Bushels corn produced by process B
Xc = Tons iron produced by process C
Xd = Tons iron produced by process D
p = the accounting price of iron (corn is numeraire)
w = wage
r = rate of (accounting) profits
Q1 = Tons iron in firm's inventory at start of period
Q2 = Bushels corn in firm's inventory at start of period

Consider a firm attempting to maximize the value of the stock in its
possession at the end of the year:

Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose Xa, Xb, Xc, and Xd
To Maximize Xa + Xb + p Xc + p Xd
+ p Q1 + Q2 - ( ( w + 2 p + (2/5) ) Xa
+ ( w + (1/2) p + (3/5) ) Xb
+ ( w + (1/10) p + (1/40) ) Xc
+ ( (275/464) w + (113/232) p ) Xd )
Such that
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) Xa
+ (w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) Xb
+ (w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) Xc
+ ((275/464) w + (113/232) p) Xd <= Q1 p + Q2
Xa, Xb, Xc, Xd >= 0

The amount of financial capital the firm has at the start of the
production cycle is given by the value of the initial inventory. This
given financial capital provides the constraint on how much corn and
iron can be produced. In a model in which future prices are foreseen,
the value of leftover inventory at the end of the period is the
difference between the value of the initial inventory and the amount
of that value consumed in production. The firm maximizes the sum of
the value of newly produced corn and iron and the value of leftover
inventory. Embedded in these equations is the assumption that the
relative price of iron is the same at the end of a production cycle
as at the beginning.

Note that initial value of the inventory, (p Q1 + Q2), is a constant
in the above LP. There is no need to include a constant term in the
objective function. Thus, the profit-maximizing firm solves the
following program:

Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose Xa, Xb, Xc, and Xd
To Maximize (1 - w - 2 p - (2/5)) Xa
+ (1 - w - (1/2) p - (3/5)) Xb
+ (p - w - (1/10) p - (1/40)) Xc
+ (p - (275/464) w - (113/232) p) Xd
Such that
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) Xa
+ (w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) Xb
+ (w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) Xc
+ ((275/464) w + (113/232) p) Xd <= Q1 p + Q2
Xa, Xb, Xc, Xd >= 0

The dual Linear Program is:

Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose r
To Minimize (Q1 p + Q2) r
Such That
(w + 2 p + (2/5)) r >= 1 - w - 2 p - (2/5)
(w + (1/2) p + (3/5)) r >= 1 - w - (1/2) p - (3/5)
(w + (1/10) p + (1/40)) r >= p - w - (1/10) p - (1/40)
((275/464) w + (113/232) p) r >= p - (275/464) w - (113/232) p
r >= 0

Or:

Given p, w, Q1, and Q2
Choose r
To Minimize (Q1 p + Q2) r
Such That
(w + 2 p + (2/5))(1 + r) >= 1
(w + (1/2) p + (3/5))(1 + r) >= 1
(w + (1/10) p + (1/40))(1 + r) >= p
((275/464) w + (113/232) p)(1 + r) >= p
r >= 0

If a constraint in the dual is met with inequality in the solution, the
corresponding process in the primal will be operated at a level of zero.

For firms to continue production unaltered from period to period, both
corn and iron must be produced each period. For corn to be produced,
either the first or the second constraint in the dual must be met with
equality. Likewise, for iron to be produced, the third or the fourth
constraint in the dual must be met with equality. Hence, for the
analyzed firms to be in equilibrium, the vertically-integrated industry
must be on the so-called factor-price frontier for that industry.

Nothing guarantees that the firms will be able to sell their output
at any given location on the factor-price frontier. Whether prices that
allow firms to be in equilibrium are realized is a question that is
not addressed by this formal model.

--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau

da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 8:06:17 AM10/3/04
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
news:rvien-B69BC0....@news.dreamscape.com...

> In article <MPG.1bc7a6d6b...@digital-bear.dyndns.org>, Ben
> Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <415c57ff$0$27688$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> > anon...@online-pokerguide.com says...
> > > God next you fucking morons will tell me raising the minimum wage .25
> > > cents will put small businesses out of business since it will raise
> > > their
> > > yearly expenses by 10,000$ or so... newsflash..
>
> > You are really not very intelligent are you? The huge impact of raising
> > minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> > impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.
>
> 1.0 INTRODUCTION
>
> "I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
> which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
> exposed."
> -- Joan Robinson
>
> I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
> whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
> has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
> Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.

<snip the "stuff">

If you know anything about the arguments for and against the "minimum wage"
... you would not make such statements, much less attempt to confuse even
yourself with so many "figures."

There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there is
plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
side. (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
replicated and has been discredited.) For a slightly different view, you
might review this: (I quote only a small part.)

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm


Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study done
by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These economists
claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment. [1]
In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic
research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and attempted
to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted to
replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum wage
destroys jobs. [2]
Even after the Card and Krueger study was fully discredited by economic
science, it is still being used by proponents of higher minimum wages to
support an increase. Why must they rely on discredited research to support
their call for raising the minimum wage? Because they recognize that
Americans do not support proposals that destroy jobs. Proponents often like
to show survey results that say more than eighty percent of Americans
support a higher minimum wage. Yet, the same survey shows less than half
surveyed, 46 percent, support raising the minimum wage if it "might reduce
the number of jobs available for workers with limited skills."[3] Clearly,
if Americans were informed of the true effects of raising the minimum wage,
support would rapidly erode.


Robert Vienneau

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 11:48:16 AM10/3/04
to
In article <0uWdndFC9bs...@www.bayou.com>, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:rvien-B69BC0....@news.dreamscape.com...

> > In article <MPG.1bc7a6d6b...@digital-bear.dyndns.org>, Ben
> > Franklin <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > The huge impact of
> > > raising
> > > minimum wage is the elimination of entry level jobs which negatively
> > > impacts the very people you claim you are trying to help.

> > 1.0 INTRODUCTION
> >
> > "I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word MUMPSIMUS,
> > which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been
> > exposed."
> > -- Joan Robinson
> >
> > I am afraid "Ben Franklin" has no understanding of economics
> > whatsoever. The supposed "huge impact" he thinks will happen
> > has no basis in theory or in empirical data. David Card and Alan
> > Krueger's work showed the lack of empirical basis.

> <snip the "stuff">
>
> If you know anything about the arguments for and against the "minimum
> wage"
> ... you would not make such statements, much less attempt to confuse even
> yourself with so many "figures."

Nope. The above is just anti-intellectual, that is, pro-stupidity.



> There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there
> is
> plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
> side.

Nope.

> (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
> replicated and has been discredited.)

Nope. I know no such thing.

> For a slightly different view, you
> might review this: (I quote only a small part.)
>
> http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

> Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study
> done
> by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These
> economists
> claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment.
> [1]
> In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic
> research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and
> attempted
> to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted
> to
> replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum
> wage
> destroys jobs. [2]

The above is bullshit; certainly the part about "200 years" is. Card
and Krueger did not only report the results of various natural
experiments. They also reported the results of a meta-analysis. And
they found the more data that was collected and the more studies
that were done, the less evidence there was that minimum wages lower
employment. As far as I know, nobody has been able to demonstrate
that their meta-analysis was not sound.

> Even after the Card and Krueger study was fully discredited by
> economic
> science, it is still being used by proponents of higher minimum wages to
> support an increase. Why must they rely on discredited research to
> support
> their call for raising the minimum wage?

The above is just lies.

Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation. My long
post analyzed a numerical example. An explanation of that analysis
is here:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf>

For another argument that that supposed effect lacks theoretical
foundation, see:

<http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf>

To understand this reference, it helps to know that "labour market
flexibility" is code for eliminating or lowering minimum wages,
opposing unions, etc.

jcpickels is just bluffing.

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 12:37:11 PM10/3/04
to

I think I can guess who was really confused by the figures...

>There are many arguments "for" and "against" the minimum wage, but there is
>plenty of "basis" in theory and empirical data to support the "against"
>side. (You already know that the Card and Krueger "work" cannot be
>replicated and has been discredited.) For a slightly different view, you
>might review this: (I quote only a small part.)
>
>http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

Predictably enough, this silly little bit of propaganda relies almost
exclusively on "papers" from corporate-funded right-wing "think"
tanks. It also claims, ludicrously, that the one (1) more or less
respectable paper cited, about employment in one (1) industry in one
(1) state, "conclusively discredited" Card and Krueger, which is just
an absurd, outrageous lie.

-- Roy L

Ben Franklin

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 12:48:19 PM10/3/04
to
In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
rv...@see.sig.com says...

> Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
>

Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL

da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 5:27:40 PM10/3/04
to
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:416028a7...@news.telus.net...

I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
"Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and conclude
that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 5:31:14 PM10/3/04
to
"Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...


I wish he would say that again ... "the SUPPOSED employment-decreasing
effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation." And one must add, the
"arbitrary" raising of the cost of a specific labor ... ... say that again.
I wonder why, if the raising of the minimum wage has no discernible effect
on darned near everything, we don't just raise the minimum wage to a million
dollars an hour! That would be great for just about everyone.


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 5:40:20 PM10/3/04
to
"Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...

Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect on
demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
price points.

All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
demanded. However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
equal. An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So they
spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand, which
is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this spending
will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
workers.

That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot be
analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much more
complicated than that.

William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 5:56:30 PM10/3/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0uWdndFC9bs...@www.bayou.com...

Pickle, you are in way over your head here. Your assertion, and the
assertion of your source, that the work of Card and Krueger has been
discredited, is absolute bullshit. It has not been discredited, it is still
being debated. As I stated in a post earlier in this thread,

"If you would bother to investigate empirical research and studies, rather
than spouting your ignorant economic theories, you would realize that the
actual data suggests that either there is no effect at all, or that the
effect on employment of raising the minimum wage is so weak that it is very
difficult to measure."

The state of affairs, as of 2001, is that the severest critics of Card and
Krueger only claim that employment does not rise as a result of an increase
in the minimum wage. Card and Krueger included this in their original
findings. Of course, other economists are still looking for new data and
statistical methodology to discredit Card and Krueger. The fact that the
debate still continues 12 years later is strong evidence that, as I said,
there is either no effect at all, or that the effect on employment of
raising the minimum wage is so weak that it is very difficult to measure.
If the effect were strong, the effect would be easy to measure, and Card and
Krueger would have been discredited long ago. Here is an article from the
Economist summarizing the situation in 2001.

http://www.economist.co.uk/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=494922&CFID=1195679&CFTOKEN=1291260


William Coleman (ramashiva)


sinister

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:03:42 PM10/3/04
to

"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ovSdnQOKy59...@www.bayou.com...

No one is claiming that.

The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
the minimum wage have?

Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
effect.

>
>


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:08:23 PM10/3/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
> > In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
> > rv...@see.sig.com says...
> > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
> > >
> >
> > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>
> Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect
on
> demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
> price points.


A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand. "Demand" is the
quantity demanded at various prices. Increase price and "demand" will drop
... (we are being very simplistic here). (There are a lot of "assumptions"
in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion here.
We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William, just
does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price ...
or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)


> All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> demanded.


This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.


> However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> equal.


Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
employment and prices.


> An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
> low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So
they
> spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
which
> is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this spending
> will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
> employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
> increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
> workers.


Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why stop at
all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy. You
really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One Lesson."
Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.


> That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot be
> analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much
more
> complicated than that.


Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying that
the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:12:20 PM10/3/04
to
"William Coleman"

The "work" of Card and Krueger flies in the face of two hundred years of
economic theory. It is "debated" by folks like you. You will never be
convinced of anything that disagrees with your own thoughts, William. No
one that thinks as highly of himself as you can be "wrong." And I mean that
in the kindest and gentlest way. No disrespect intended. Sorry to have
even brought it up. Excuse me.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:22:29 PM10/3/04
to
"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2H_7d.2443$pw4.296@trnddc01...

>
> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ovSdnQOKy59...@www.bayou.com...

> > I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
> > "Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and
> > conclude
> > that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.
>
> No one is claiming that.


But indeed they are.


> The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
> the minimum wage have?


Any "minimum wage" will have an effect on employment and prices. Any
"particular" increase in the minimum wage will have a negative effect on
emplyment and prices.


> Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
> effect.


If you believe that, then you are simply in error. They did indeed
postulate that, but their "work" is not repeated or verified. It is also
not particularly important ... except to those that wish to use this one
reference (since there are no others) to support a premise that is simply
incorrect. (If you can find a source that says that UFO's are real and
being "held" at Area 51 ... are you going to accept that as your "final
answer?")


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 6:44:58 PM10/3/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67KdnWARJvn...@www.bayou.com...

> "William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bc9e94d...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
> > > In article <rvien-20D2F8....@news.dreamscape.com>,
> > > rv...@see.sig.com says...
> > > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
> > > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
> >
> > Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no
effect
> on
> > demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at
various
> > price points.
>
>
> A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand.

No. I already explained this.

> "Demand" is the
> quantity demanded at various prices.

No. Demand is a function showing the quantity demanded at various price
points. Do you understand the difference between a function and a variable?
The demand curve is a graph showing that the variable quantity demanded is a
function of the variable price. It is not correct to refer to the quantity
demanded as demand. It is correct to refer to the function as demand. When
you talk about demand increasing or decreasing, you are talking about the
demand curve shifting to the right or to the left. You are NOT talking
about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The fact that you use
basic terminology incorrectly shows you have never had any formal academic
training in economics.

> Increase price and "demand" will drop
> ... (we are being very simplistic here)

Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
quantity demanded.

. (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion here.
> We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
just
> does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
> increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price ...
> or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)

Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
illiterate to understand what I am saying.

> > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > demanded.
>
>
> This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.

No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
can't, because there are no contradictory statements.

> > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> > equal.
>
>
> Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
> complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
> arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
> employment and prices.

Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.

> > An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
> > low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume. So
> they
> > spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
> which
> > is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this
spending
> > will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who frequently
> > employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their business
> > increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
> > workers.
>
>
> Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why stop
at
> all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy.

We are talking about small, incremental increases in the minimum wage.
Gradual increases of the minimum wage, introduced over a long period of time
are beneficial to the economy. The argument I have just made shows that
there is a feedback loop causing an increase in minimum wage to increase
employment. That is offset by the fact that an increase in the price of
labor will tend to decrease the quantity of labor demanded. These are
contradictory tendencies, do you understand that? There is no way to
conclude a priori which of these tendencies will be stronger. Only
empirical studies can tell us that. The empirical studies by Card and
Krueger suggest that the net effect of the two tendencies is a wash.

> You
> really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One Lesson."
> Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.

No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic geniuses,
when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to the
real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
accounting.

> > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
be
> > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is much
> more
> > complicated than that.
>
>
> Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying that
> the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."

Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
Krueger.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 7:04:36 PM10/3/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:beqdnRk7bYL...@www.bayou.com...

> "William Coleman"
>
> The "work" of Card and Krueger flies in the face of two hundred years of
> economic theory.

Yes, 200 years of economic theory turned out to be wrong.

> It is "debated" by folks like you.

No, it is debated by serious economists who disagree with Card and Krueger.
You are trying to suggest that Card and Krueger are only taken seriously by
liberals. Nothing could be further than the truth.

> You will never be
> convinced of anything that disagrees with your own thoughts, William.

LMFAO! You are the one who dismisses empirical data which suggests that one
of your cherished economic theories is wrong. I am always open to new data
that shows that one of my ideas or theories is incorrect.

> No
> one that thinks as highly of himself as you can be "wrong."

Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you would
know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind many
times about many different things. That is why I know so much now, because
I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.

> And I mean that
> in the kindest and gentlest way. No disrespect intended. Sorry to have
> even brought it up. Excuse me.

As I tried to explain to you, you are way out of your depth getting involved
in a complex economic discussion. You are especially out of your depth
getting involved in an economic debate with me, since economics has been a
special area of interest and study for me for many years. That is the
primary reason I became a liberal. I realized all Republicans, including
their economic experts, are economic illiterates who do not understand how
the economy actually works.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

>
>


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 7:15:22 PM10/3/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Kh%7d.1971$M05....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...


You are just "wrong," William. I know what a demand curve is. That is not
the way you were using the word. I know what a variable quantity is. I
know the difference between a function and a variable. It is correct to
refer to "demand curve" as "demand curve." It is a function. The graph is
a graph. The function defines the graph, it is not the graph. I "am"
talking about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The curve
sometimes shifts (right or left may or may not be the "direction" used to
describe the effect). I have plenty of formal academic training in
economics. You do not seem to want to do anything other than obfuscate.
You are very good at that.


> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>
> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
> quantity demanded.


You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
"demand."


> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
here.
> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
> just
> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
...
> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>
> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
> illiterate to understand what I am saying.


Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes no
sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent. This is not like the
"good" William.


> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > > demanded.
> >
> >
> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>
> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.


No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
contradictory.


> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
> > > equal.
> >
> >
> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
> > employment and prices.
>
> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.


Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.


Figures lie and ... oh well, there is nothing one can do to correct those
who will not see.


> > You
> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
Lesson."
> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>
> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
geniuses,
> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
the
> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
> accounting.


I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee. You really should read
Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.


> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
> be
> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
much
> > more
> > > complicated than that.
> >
> >
> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
that
> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>
> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
> Krueger.


If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
be floundering on this one, William. But your commas seem to be well
placed.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 7:27:32 PM10/3/04
to
"William Coleman"

> Of course I can be wrong. If you knew my intellectual history, you would
> know that, based on new evidence or arguments, I have changed my mind many
> times about many different things. That is why I know so much now,
because
> I am constantly testing my theories against the data of reality.

This is one of those times, William, when you must "change your mind." Good
luck.


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 9:06:35 PM10/3/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DtydnZAvyKO...@www.bayou.com...

No I am not. You incorrectly refer to "demand", when you mean "quantity
demanded". The two terms are not interchangeable. Demand is a function.
Quantity demanded is the dependent variable of that function.

> I know what a demand curve is. That is not
> the way you were using the word. I know what a variable quantity is. I
> know the difference between a function and a variable. It is correct to
> refer to "demand curve" as "demand curve." It is a function. The graph
is
> a graph. The function defines the graph, it is not the graph.

Did I say it was? The demand curve is a graphical representation of the
demand function.

> I "am"
> talking about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing.

Yes, but you incorrectly say demand increases or decreases. Increases and
decreases in demand correspond to the demand curve shifting right and left.
A change in quantity demanded is represented by moving along a static demand
curve.


> The curve
> sometimes shifts (right or left may or may not be the "direction" used to
> describe the effect). I have plenty of formal academic training in
> economics. You do not seem to want to do anything other than obfuscate.
> You are very good at that.
>
>
> > > Increase price and "demand" will drop
> > > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
> >
> > Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
> > quantity demanded.
>
>
> You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
> "demand."

No. I have explained it many times, and you still make the same mistake.
Changes in price affect quantity demanded. Changes in price do not change
the demand function. You still do not get that demand = function, quantity
demanded = variable. It is not a distinction without merit. It is precise
use of economic terminology.

> > . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
> > > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
> here.
> > > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
> > just
> > > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that
an
> > > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
> ...
> > > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
> >
> > Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an
economic
> > illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes
no
> sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.

There is nothing internally inconsistent in what I am saying. An assertion
of inconsistency is not proof. I have asked you to juxtapose inconsistent
statements I have made. You refuse to do so. You are trying to blow smoke
up my ass.

This is not like the
> "good" William.
>
>
> > > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
> > > > demanded.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
> >
> > No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
> > can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>
> No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
> contradictory.

WHAT IS CONTRADICTORY??? Please specify statement A = quote and statement B
= quote. Then explain why A and B are contradictory. Your logical thinking
ability is very weak. I ask you to juxtapose two contradictory statements,
and you say I have already done that. WHERE HAVE I DONE THAT? WHAT
STATEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?


You are the one who will not see that the empirical evidence contradicts
your simplistic economic theory about minimum wage.

> > > You
> > > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
> Lesson."
> > > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
> >
> > No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
> > illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
> geniuses,
> > when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
> the
> > real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly
is
> > revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
> > several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
> > accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
> > accounting.
>
>
> I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee. You really should read
> Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.

Obviously you slept through all your economics courses. Stop patronizing me
by telling me I need to read an economic primer.

> > > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market
cannot
> > be
> > > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
> much
> > > more
> > > > complicated than that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
> that
> > > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
> > > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
> >
> > Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
> > complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be
analyzed
> > with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your
whole
> > argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
> > empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply
to
> > the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
> > Krueger.
>
>
> If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
> thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William.

I am not believing anything. I am looking at the empirical data. You
choose to believe discredited economic theories which are contradicted by
real world economic data. You are the one who is the true believer, not me.

> You seem to
> be floundering on this one, William. But your commas seem to be well
> placed.

LOL. I am floundering? Nice attempt at trash talking. You are floundering
seriously. You claim that Card and Krueger's studies have been discredited.
I have shown, using an article from the Economist, that that is total
bullshit. You are thus revealed as not knowing what you are talking about
on the state of research on this issue. Despite repeated explanations by
me, you continue to use economic terminology incorrectly, confusing "demand"
with "quantity demanded". You continue to claim that I have contradicted
myself, yet you refuse to point to specific contradictory statements I have
made. I have explained to you how raising the minimum wage creates a
feedback loop which tends to increase employment, thus offsetting the
supply-demand induced tendency for employment to decrease. You have done
nothing whatsoever to dispute or refute this argument.

All in all, you are getting your panties pulled down in this debate. Don't
expect this situation to change, since you blindly accept doctrinaire
Republican economic theory, rather than evaluating empirical evidence.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


ro...@telus.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 9:14:17 PM10/3/04
to

Yes, it was. William has been precise and accurate in his
terminology. You have not.

>I have plenty of formal academic training in
>economics.

I do not believe you.

>> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
>> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>>
>> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
>> quantity demanded.
>
>You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
>"demand."

As William has explained, you are obviously in way over your head.

>> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
>> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
>here.
>> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
>> just
>> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that an
>> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
>...
>> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>>
>> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an economic
>> illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes no
>sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.

Garbage.

>This is not like the "good" William.

But that is definitely like the bad pickle.

>> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
>> > > demanded.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>>
>> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
>> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
>contradictory.

They are not. You are flat wrong. In fact, because you have already
been corrected on this point, you are now one of the lying liars Al
Franken exposed so hilariously.

>> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
>> > > equal.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
>> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
>> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
>> > employment and prices.
>>
>> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That is
>> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
>> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
>
>Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.

ROTFL!! You don't even realize when you have been shelled.

Talk about not seeing, where is the real-world evidence to support
your theory? Blank out.

>> > You
>> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
>Lesson."
>> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>>
>> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
>> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
>geniuses,
>> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
>the
>> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly is
>> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
>> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
>> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
>> accounting.
>
>I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee.

But you took no economics?

>You really should read
>Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.

I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
this is way beyond that level.

>> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market cannot
>> be
>> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
>much
>> > more
>> > > complicated than that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
>that
>> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
>> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>>
>> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
>> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
>> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your whole
>> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
>> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply to
>> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
>> Krueger.
>
>If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
>thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
>be floundering on this one, William.

??? ROTFL!! He has been shelling you, moron. Wake up and smell the
coffee.

-- Roy L

ro...@telus.net

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 9:19:16 PM10/3/04
to
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:22:29 -0500, "da pickle"
<jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

>"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2H_7d.2443$pw4.296@trnddc01...
>>
>> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ovSdnQOKy59...@www.bayou.com...
>
>> > I find it fascinating that people might make a simple premise ...
>> > "Arbitrarily raise and set the cost of a particular labor." ... and
>> > conclude
>> > that this event will have no discernible effect on prices or employment.
>>
>> No one is claiming that.
>
>But indeed they are.

Liar.

>> The question is what effect on employment will a *particular* increase in
>> the minimum wage have?
>
>Any "minimum wage" will have an effect on employment and prices. Any
>"particular" increase in the minimum wage will have a negative effect on
>emplyment and prices.

That claim is supported by neither theory nor data.

>> Card and Krueger did indeed show that in one particular case, there was no
>> effect.
>
>If you believe that, then you are simply in error.

False.

>They did indeed
>postulate that, but their "work" is not repeated or verified. It is also
>not particularly important ... except to those that wish to use this one
>reference (since there are no others) to support a premise that is simply
>incorrect.

It is very important, because it shows that _your_ premise is
incorrect.

-- Roy L

Ben Franklin

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 9:25:38 PM10/3/04
to
In article <8l_7d.1913$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
rama...@earthlink.net says...

> > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in price
> > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>
> Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no effect on
> demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at various
> price points.
>

Jesus Coleman, you are really slipping. You say price has no effect and
they offer a description predicated on price points? Talk about out of
your depth, you are not even in the same game.

Ben Franklin

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 12:24:30 AM10/4/04
to
In article <8A%7d.1969$UP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
rama...@earthlink.net says...

> LMFAO! You are the one who dismisses empirical data which suggests that one
> of your cherished economic theories is wrong. I am always open to new data
> that shows that one of my ideas or theories is incorrect.
>
Any idiot that relies on empirical evidence to "prove" a theory is just
that, an idiot.

William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:49:23 AM10/4/04
to
"Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bca628a3...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...

No, I am not in the same game as you. Like Pickle, you are confusing
demand, which is a function, with "quantity demanded", which is a variable.
You say "demand" when you really mean "quantity demanded". This confusion
is typical of economic illiterates like you and Pickle. Please read the
subthread between me and Pickle for details. I have already explained it to
him.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 4:11:09 AM10/4/04
to
"Ben Franklin" <bfra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bca8c7af...@digital-bear.dyndns.org...

Huh??? How do you propose to prove or disprove a theory? Obviously, you
have no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method. First of all, if
you read what you quoted, I did not say anything about proving a theory. I
twice mentioned using empirical evidence to disprove a theory. So you have
already constructed a strawman argument in your response.

A theory is disproved when empirical evidence is repeatedly produced which
shows that the predictions of a theory do not correspond to objective
reality. That is the situation with the theory that an increase of the
minimum wage results in a decrease in employment.

On the other hand, a theory can never be conclusively proved by empirical
evidence. But each time empirical evidence is produced which corresponds to
what the theory predicts, confidence in the theory is strengthened. I have
tried to explain to you that you are way beyond your depth in getting
involved in this discussion. Haven't you ever heard the saying that a man
has got to know his limitations? You obviously don't know yours.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:30:17 AM10/4/04
to
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4160978d...@news.telus.net...

> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
> <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

> >You really should read
> >Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
>
> I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
> this is way beyond that level.

You could not have read Henry Hazlett's book and believe that "this" is "way
beyond that level." Your "responses" are not up to the level of "trolling
for William" that he would admire.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:31:24 AM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman"


> WHAT IS CONTRADICTORY??? Please specify statement A = quote and statement
B
> = quote. Then explain why A and B are contradictory. Your logical
thinking
> ability is very weak. I ask you to juxtapose two contradictory
statements,
> and you say I have already done that. WHERE HAVE I DONE THAT? WHAT
> STATEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

When you start shouting ... you lose. Game, set and match!

da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:32:30 AM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman"

It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:33:41 AM10/4/04
to
<ro...@telus.net>

Say "something" and you might get a "response" worthy of the comments.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 5:35:46 AM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman"

Old news. You just suffered a bad beat, William. This too will pass.
There will be another game. Talking to the other rail birds who do not care
about your defeat will not make you feel better nor raise your image with
them.


Ben Franklin

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 9:49:17 AM10/4/04
to
In article <Tn68d.2324$M05....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
rama...@earthlink.net says...

> > Jesus Coleman, you are really slipping. You say price has no effect and
> > they offer a description predicated on price points? Talk about out of
> > your depth, you are not even in the same game.
>
> No, I am not in the same game as you.
>

At least you admit it.

William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:08:48 PM10/4/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4rOdnWDObqb...@www.bayou.com...

Uhh, no. You have repeatedly stated that I made contradictory statements.
I have repeatedly asked you to tell me specifically which statements I made
that are contradictory. You have repeatedly refused to specify which
statements you are talking about. It's game, set, match, alright, but you
lose conclusively. In the process you have also been shown to be a liar.
You know I never made any contradictory statements. When I called you on
it, you continued to make your false assertion, without backing up your
false assertion with facts.

I notice when you lose an argument badly, you declare victory and walk away.
You lost the argument about contradictory statements conclusively. You also
lost the overall argument about the effect on employment on an increase in
minimum wage. No doubt you will declare yourself the victor. If you do,
you are delusional. Go back and reread the subthread. You got your ass
kicked badly, Pickle. Deal with it.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:12:02 PM10/4/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acednUdNPLG...@www.bayou.com...

I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical efficacy
of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had no
answer for.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:19:55 PM10/4/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9GdneZyyu0...@www.bayou.com...

> "William Coleman"
>
> It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.

I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and


walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical efficacy
of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had no
answer for.

You and Ben Franklin both got your asses kicked badly in this subthread, and
you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me what
part of this assessment you disagree with.

LOL. I am floundering? Nice attempt at trash talking. You are floundering
seriously. You claim that Card and Krueger's studies have been discredited.
I have shown, using an article from the Economist, that that is total
bullshit. You are thus revealed as not knowing what you are talking about
on the state of research on this issue. Despite repeated explanations by
me, you continue to use economic terminology incorrectly, confusing "demand"
with "quantity demanded". You continue to claim that I have contradicted
myself, yet you refuse to point to specific contradictory statements I have
made. I have explained to you how raising the minimum wage creates a
feedback loop which tends to increase employment, thus offsetting the
supply-demand induced tendency for employment to decrease. You have done
nothing whatsoever to dispute or refute this argument.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:25:07 PM10/4/04
to
"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hamdne1zdrF...@www.bayou.com...

> <ro...@telus.net>
>
> Say "something" and you might get a "response" worthy of the comments.

LMFAO! Pickle, you are pathetic. You got your ass badly kicked in this
debate, and you know it. Roy was just pointing out the obvious to you.

I am officially rescinding your membership in the Ramashiva Club of
Reasonable Republicans. Your performance in this debate has been
disgraceful, especially your repeated refusal to point out what statements I
have made which are contradictory. This refusal reveals you not only to be
a dishonest debater, but an outright liar. As far as I am concerned, you
are now just another right-wing nutcase. Care to try for moronic brownshirt
fuck status?


William Coleman (ramashiva)


William Coleman

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 1:29:10 PM10/4/04
to

"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1p-dnb4fPef...@www.bayou.com...

Huh??? You are totally delusional, Pickle. You and Ben Franklin got your
asses totally kicked in this debate, and you both know it. Neither of you
have refuted or rebutted any of my arguments or points. Meanwhile, I have
pulled down both your panties.

I notice when you lose a debate badly, you declare victory and walk away.
That is fine with me. You think you have won this debate? Fine. Let's
leave it there and let the readers of the thread decide who won the debate.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

Message has been deleted

da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:01:28 PM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Asf8d.2490$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Still shouting, I see. To believe that one has won is insufficient to
actually win. When you speak about that which you know
just-not-quite-enough, William, you get all flustered and start shouting ...
I do not need to reread what you wrote. You reread it. Your comments are
not only wrong, they are also internally inconsistent. No matter how you
shout, the reality is there for those to see, if they wish. Sorry, there is
no "victory" is pointing out that others have erred ... but, to call someone
a "liar" because they point out your errors certainly seems hysterical.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:03:31 PM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Cvf8d.2492$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It is not the "word" that makes a troll a troll, William ... it is the troll
that makes a troll a troll. Back under the bridge until you read a book on
economics. (BTW, I misspelled Haslitt's name. I did not have a copy of his
book at home when I posted. I am at the office now and realized my mistake.
Sorry. At least I can admit when I am wrong.)


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:06:10 PM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%Cf8d.2493$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> "da pickle" <jcpi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I9GdneZyyu0...@www.bayou.com...
> > "William Coleman"
> >
> > It is a sad thing when the troll has to retire back under the bridge.
>
> I notice when you lose an argument badly you invoke the word "troll" and
> walk away. You right-wing nutcases seem to believe in the magical
efficacy
> of certain words like "troll" and "tinfoil hat". You seem to think that,
> just by invoking these words, you have refuted the arguments that you had
no
> answer for.
>
> You and Ben Franklin both got your asses kicked badly in this subthread,
and
> you know it. Here is my brief summary of the debate. Please tell me what
> part of this assessment you disagree with.

<snip the repetition>

Somehow you have it in your head that if you repeat what you have said
before that it will begin to make sense. It will not. Clicking your heels
together three times while saying, "There's no place like home" might work
... give it a try.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:08:10 PM10/4/04
to
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:THf8d.2498$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

The hysteria is building, William. I never claimed to be a Republican,
reasonable or otherwise. I have always been a registered democrat. You can
go back and reread the thread from the beginning and you will see the
glaring juxtaposition you seek. I know you can, because you are a smart
guy.


da pickle

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:23:24 PM10/4/04
to
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:ar23m0lcg7rlqe9kv...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:29:10 GMT, "William Coleman"
> <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >You and Ben Franklin got your asses totally kicked in this debate, and
you
> >both know it.
> >
>
> Everyone with half a neuron knows it's ok to treat demand and quantity
> demanded as synonyms. It's a common thing to do, to name your
> dependent variable the same as your function. It's done all the time
> by all kinds of people, in and outside of economics.


What an interesting name ... "socialism is a mental disease" ...

William has not seen such sites as:
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el96-29.html

or even the quite simple explanations available at:
http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/notes/econ207.htm#Heading81

Yet, William was having so much fun ... it is a shame to pull the plug.

>
>
>
> --
> "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
> percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
> forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson


Ben Franklin

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 2:25:16 PM10/4/04