http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops ... 0Paper.pdf

Clearly it's complicated. From the conclusion of this study:

Yet, we fi…nd that a rise in minimum wage have an instantaneous impact on wage rates and a corresponding negative impact on employment. Thus, minimum wages matter. Minimum wage increases boost teenage wage rates and reduce teenage employment.

You do agree that there is some level where the minimum wage is counter productive, right? Aren't we just arguing about the appropriate dosage?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Because if you don't know how to measure current fraud, how on earth can you know you've reduced it or not?

How can anyone measure the breadth and depth of fraud when government is (apparently) indifferent on the issue?

You have a point. So let's pressure those negligent States who are involved in pushing people onto disability.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The problem has to be acknowledged and then thoroughly scrutinized before we can know whether we've reduced it.

I do acknowledge that there is a problem. I have never denied it. Part of scrutinising it is looking at the context, and at other factors. As far as I'm concerned that is the way to proceed (and that's not the same thing as listing anecdotes).

So far we've pretty much established that it's between about 1% and 33% (although that may be for particular types of claim, rather than as a whole).

We agree. I would personally narrow it quite a bit further: I'd guess it's between 10 and 25%. And, no, that's not a wild guess.

No, but it's still a guess.

Hardy har-har. You are a wag! Was she still working while developing the back pain? Do you have access to her medical records to know she was faking it?

I don't need them. Nearly every pregnant woman experiences back pain as she gets toward the end of the pregnancy. You don't even need medical school for that--just the power of observation.

I didn't ask for you medical expertise, just how you know so much about these cases that you know them to be fraud. Yes, most pregnant women get back pain. But some get it worse than others, and some get it worse because of other factors. How do you know this is not the case for this woman?

And if you can prove it was fraud, I assume you reported it.

Really? I've heard of men doing just the same thing. But thanks for the sexism, anyway.

You know not of what you speak.

How surprising.

Pardon? I do know men who have gone off work with a convenient case of stress as they get investigated. My gf works in HR and has all kinds of stories (of course, this is about company-employee relations, not disability claims).

You calling me a liar? Or don't like being called out on a bit a grudge you appear to have against women at work.

To the actual point, it is a common problem. Of course, being investigated and potentially losing your job can be in itself stressful. Again, without access to her medical records, how do you know it's fake?

You're right. I only saw her every working day for several months. I'm sure someone who interacts with her a few times but has a degree would have a much better sense of her anxiety than someone with whom she interacted and for whom she did not need to put on a show. of her "condition."

It's not that hard to prove. I know one person who went off "disabled," retired, moved, and joined a softball league. These days people are stupid enough to put such things on FB. With far less effort than the IRS uses, the government could reduce fraudulent claims substantially.

Sometimes it isn't hard to prove. I take it that this person has been caught because someone who knows about it has reported it?

I don't know[/quote]So you "know" enough to prove that he's a fraud but haven't reported it yourself?

I saw many instances of fraud. I knew a guy who retired because of a shoulder injury and then went back to benchpressing the same weight as he did before the injury. How was he "disabled?"

Again if you know, I assume you reported him. Or are you waiting for the government to catch him?

All these people who "know" that someone is defrauding the state, but none seem to care enough to report it. Do you need bbauska's state bribes?

You're skeptical. That's fine.

There is not enough time left in my life to convince you, I'm afraid.

I'm not denying that the problem exists - so please stop insinuating that I do.

I'm skeptical of the scale, and I'm also waiting for evidence that measures that would reduce what you call fraud would be cost effective and avoid genuine claimants losing out.

Ray Jay wrote:You do agree that there is some level where the minimum wage is counter productive, right? Aren't we just arguing about the appropriate dosage?

Well, clearly I think making it $50 an hour would be silly. So yes, of course.

That paper seems to conclude in a similar way - teen employment goes down a bit. But does teen unemployment go up? And what happens to people over 19 (and over 25)?

Where does the minimum wage figure in terms of spending power and comparable to median wage and how has that changed over time?

You can Google as well as I can. Go ahead and make your case.

My case for what?

I still haven't seen proof of your case - increasing the minimum wage would increase unemployment - but so far all we've seen is that the jury is out on youth unemployment.

I'm skeptical of Danivon's skepticism.

I did not call you a liar. You made a loathsome accusation on minimal information, even ignoring the male examples I've given.

You set yourself out as analytical and fair. The reality is far less flattering. In fact, you are frequently worse than a jerk.

Why don't I turn them in?

Lets see. It was more than a decade ago. My evidence would have been hearsay. I ratted out people for felonies and saw nothing happen. How much energy would I devote to this?

danivon wrote:My case for what?

I still haven't seen proof of your case - increasing the minimum wage would increase unemployment - but so far all we've seen is that the jury is out on youth unemployment.

If youth employment goes down, what do you think is happening to youth unemployment? Are they dropping out of society? Perhaps they are working off the books. Are these good outcomes? I can't see an increase in the minimum wage motivating kids to go to college.

I would think that before advocating an increae in the minimum wage you would want to develop some certainty that the negative of the potential decrease in employment for young adults (and perhaps disadvantaged young adults) does not outway the positives that you see. Certainly classical economics and the scholarly study that I've cited should make you address the issue.

Of course lets not forget what that this low minimum wage and loose labour laws mean to American taxpayers..
Because of them, there is increased use of food stamps...
Some how you seem to think that walmart won't hire if forced to pay more ....and that they can't succeed without these low wages. Both speciious arguements...They do fine in jurisdictions where the minimum wage is higher.
But regardless, this means that employees of Walmart are subsidized by American taxpayers paying for the food stamps that WalMart workers require to get by.
Shouldn't you who believe ardently in "free enterprise" be bitching about the unnatural intervention into the marketplace by the government? Shouldn't Walmart be weaned of these subsidies?
By carefully denying as many workers full time hours as possible, Walmart also avoids the cost of benefits. Benefits that American tax payers end up subsidizing ....
These are really jobs not worth having...for anyone but Walmart. By that I mean that they don't satisfy the basic requirements of the employees, who demonstrate this by their short tenures. And who, when they do work there, must be subsidized by American tax payers... They aren't worth having for the economy if they require tax payers to subsidize them... (Not only is there the direct cost of the food stamps, but increased use increases the cost of administrating the program...)
walmart are defrauding the American tax payer.
Pretending that there is long term relationship between minimum wage and employment levels, ignores this issue... A business needs a certain labour force to operate. That basic relationship isn't altered by the lowest rate a company is allowed to pay. If a business can't generate enough income per employee it might hire fewer, or more likely alters other things in its business model to adjust. (prices, hours, location etc.) There is no fixed relationship between the minimum allowable hourly wage and emplyment.
Rather than misdirect by discussing the very slight dip in "teen age" employment, lets discuss the central issue ... Should a minimum wage exist, in conmcert with labour laws that cement into place jobs that require subsidization from American taxpayers.?... Especially for a service industry ....

RickyP-

I'm not going to dismiss your whole argument, but before you go any further you need to back up and demonstrate that Walmart employees are on food stamps because the minimum wage is too low. That seems to be a key unseen link in your argument (and maybe it's true), but it's one you haven't yet proven. It's well known that Walmart employment practices limit the ability of many of their workers to work full-time hours. It's at least plausible that the reason employees resort to food stamps is that they cannot get enough hours. Can you show how much of the income shortage (and consequent need for food stamps) is attributable to the minimum wage, and how much to limited hours, or some other cause?

rudelwaus
It's at least plausible that the reason employees resort to food stamps is that they cannot get enough hours. Can you show how much of the income shortage (and consequent need for food stamps) is attributable to the minimum wage, and how much to limited hours, or some other cause?

Actually, I lumped in poor labour laws, with low minimum wage Rude. And, as it shows in the links I provided, keeping employees below full time hours where they have to pay benefits is the major reason why so many employees fall below poverty levels. Minimum wage is only part of it...
I don't think employers being the source of health insurance benefits is a very good idea. For a lot of reasons. But in the case of WalMart it means they higher more part time employees to avoid paying the benefits..
I'd bet that if Walmart could avoid paying health care benefits another way, as they do in Canada, they would have a greater ratio of full time employees to part time.

rickyp wrote:rudelwaus
It's at least plausible that the reason employees resort to food stamps is that they cannot get enough hours. Can you show how much of the income shortage (and consequent need for food stamps) is attributable to the minimum wage, and how much to limited hours, or some other cause?

Actually, I lumped in poor labour laws, with low minimum wage Rude. And, as it shows in the links I provided, keeping employees below full time hours where they have to pay benefits is the major reason why so many employees fall below poverty levels. Minimum wage is only part of it...
I don't think employers being the source of health insurance benefits is a very good idea. For a lot of reasons. But in the case of WalMart it means they higher more part time employees to avoid paying the benefits..
I'd bet that if Walmart could avoid paying health care benefits another way, as they do in Canada, they would have a greater ratio of full time employees to part time.

I don't know, maybe I've done this, but it has to stop. You made an argument without evidence. Rudewalrus says, in effect, "Prove it." You respond, "No, you disprove it."

It's your assertion and your responsibility.

fate

I don't know, maybe I've done this, but it has to stop. You made an argument without evidence

I provided lots of evidence Fate. Rude may have joined the conversation late...but you've been there. Remmember this...(I doubt it. You are quite selective about what you bother to absorb.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... medicaid-/

Here's a little bit on why I have concluded Wal Mart is indeed exploiting workers. Both American and foreign. Where;s the evidence of a net net benefit?

http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-s ... news/11587

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-wa ... hi-workers
http://www.workplacefairness.org/report ... l-mart.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/workers- ... ion-2013-2

rickyp wrote:fate

I don't know, maybe I've done this, but it has to stop. You made an argument without evidence

I provided lots of evidence Fate. Rude may have joined the conversation late...but you've been there. Remmember this...(I doubt it. You are quite selective about what you bother to absorb.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... medicaid-/

Here's a little bit on why I have concluded Wal Mart is indeed exploiting workers. Both American and foreign. Where;s the evidence of a net net benefit?

http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-s ... news/11587

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-wa ... hi-workers
http://www.workplacefairness.org/report ... l-mart.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/workers- ... ion-2013-2

Before playing the jackass, maybe you should read his question?

Can you show how much of the income shortage (and consequent need for food stamps) is attributable to the minimum wage, and how much to limited hours, or some other cause?

Politifact does not address it. Which article does and where?

Well according to this article average salary at Walmart is $8.81 per hour. If you worked 2000 hours the gross income income would come to less than 18K. http://walmart1percent.org/top-reasons- ... -creators/
Federal guidelines indicate that an individual can qualify for food stamps if they make about 14k a year, a family of two if they make about 19K and a family of three if they make 24K.http://www.myfoodstamps.org/eligible.html
A couple of dollar raise in the minimum wage could make a lot of people ineligible. Since Walmart pays so low it is not hard to see the potential for manipulation with regard to hours so that employees can qualify for benefits

So if both parents work at Walmart they don't qualify?

If a single person works at Walmart they don't qualify?

Doesn't this invalidate the latest argument?