Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Sorry Curriculum Vitae's or Resumes in the US if I recall. Been living here too long, sometimes forget what is UK dialect and US.
Originally Posted By DAR I figured it had to do with a Resume, I read a lot of the British movie mags like Empire and Total Film and always see CV but never knew what it stood for.
Originally Posted By Mr X They use CV in America as well, I remember hearing that instead of "resume" when I worked in the President's office at my University (I think the image has something to do with higher education, or a more "executive" vibe or something).
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If a drop in the minimum wage would ease unemployment, then the converse should be true: when the minimum wage rises, there should be a spike in unemployment." In general, there isn't a spike in unemployment because in general most workers are paid above minimum wage anyway. The average worker is unaffected by the minimum wage. Unemployment, however, does increase among young workers. As I said before, the unemployment rate among teenagers is 25%. The unemployment rate among black teenagers is 50%. That's who the minimum wage effects. The only workers who benefit are those teenagers lucky enough to keep their jobs after a minimum wage hike.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The minimum wage was increased from $3.35 to $4.25 an hour between 1989 and 1992. Only 7% of the labor force earned between $3.35 and $4.25 in 1990. Of those 7.1, many of them are teenagers who are not part of poor households. Only 19 percent of the increase in income generated by the higher minimum wage went to poor families. Over 50% went to families with incomes twice the poverty line. The minimum wage is a feel-good law that does little to combat poverty. Programs like the EITC, Medicaid and others do a better job at that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Unemployment, however, does increase among young workers. > You haven't shown that, just asserted it. To show it, you'd have to show the teen unemployment levels before and after various raises in the minimum wage (not just one, as one does not constitute a trend). Then you'd have to factor in macroeconomic forces as well (for instance, did this happen during a recession when unemployment as a whole went up as well?) You haven't shown any of that. It's just anecdotal, or what would "seem" to be true (which isn't always true.) Your source doesn't provide useful stats either; he makes the classic logical fallacy of equating correlation with causation. He asserts that raises in the minimum wage increased teen unemployment, but shows no stats. And HIS source is the always dubious WSJ editorial page (a more educated, but just as rabidly right-wing source as Fox News). When those are your sources, it's wise to say "show me the evidence!" instead of buying an anecdotal explanation that sounds possibly plausible on the surface.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones This is a message board, not an academic journal. In any case, my source was economist George Borjas.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 47 SpokkerJones Fri 12/18/2009 7:01p This is a message board, not an academic journal." But if you're going to blithely state something like "a rise in the minimum wage increases unemployment" as though it were fact and not opinion or anecdotal, you can't be surprised if someone asks for a little proof. "In any case, my source was economist George Borjas." Well there's your trouble right there. An economist only the National Review and WSJ could love (and do. ). The average person, not so much.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But if you're going to blithely state something like "a rise in the minimum wage increases unemployment" as though it were fact and not opinion or anecdotal, you can't be surprised if someone asks for a little proof." The idea that unemployment rises when wage floors increase is one of the most basic neoclassical economic concepts taught in school. It's more complicated than that but it's a sound concept. "An economist only the National Review and WSJ could love (and do. )." His popularity with conservatives doesn't necessarily make his studies wrong. I'm a dirty liberal and yet I'll consider what the Harvard economist has to say.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<His popularity with conservatives doesn't necessarily make his studies wrong.>> But it makes them highly suspect, since they will latch onto any whiff of a plausible theory to justify their Social Darwinistic behavior. Milton Friedman is a god in the eyes of conservatives. But Nobel Prize or not, Friedman was dead wrong about trickle down. It simply does not work in real life the way his model predicted.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"But if you're going to blithely state something like "a rise in the minimum wage increases unemployment" as though it were fact and not opinion or anecdotal, you can't be surprised if someone asks for a little proof.">> <The idea that unemployment rises when wage floors increase is one of the most basic neoclassical economic concepts taught in school. It's more complicated than that but it's a sound concept. > Yet not shown in modern American life. Unemployment has not spiked when minimum wages have risen, as far as I've ever seen. An obvious reason why is that typically minimum wage is always lagging behind inflation, and raising them usually just belatedly brings them back to where they were in real terms the last time they were raised. <>"An economist only the National Review and WSJ could love (and do. ).">> <His popularity with conservatives doesn't necessarily make his studies wrong. I'm a dirty liberal and yet I'll consider what the Harvard economist has to say.> So do I, but I don't see him being correct here. Also... what skinnerbox said.
