All-Purpose TEA Party Thread

Sorry, my friend. We're too sated for that.

 

Any undergrads out there, pay attention:

Your profs in upper division courses look first at your intro for a solid thesis statement then they make a bee-line strrrrraaaaight to the bibliography, b/c the bibliography says everything.

Case in point:

Wow. A boatload of studies from the '60s and '70s, some from the early '80s and then the last study cited from the early '90s.


You don't see a problem w/ that? I do.

Academic publishing is a slow, tedious industry, but even 5 years is a lifetime for a study or theory. You're citing shit from 40 years ago when many disciplines in academia were frankly subjective and highly political. The studies you cite are the precise reason why in the mid-70's there was a massive move to ensure academic freedom. Did you know that scholarship during the era you mention held that slavery was a benign institution?

Also, that link is a PARTISAN, Republican "talking point". It even ***king says that at the ****ing top of the *** damn document.

What do the studies say about the effects of Clinton's minimum wage?

And far more relevant are more recent studies that build on previous scholars, including those who have (probably) discredited the studies you cite and probably some more "liberal" studies that you haven't cited.

 

No, I don't. This is nothing more than a list of empirical studies done on the minimum wage in the US, with summarized conclusions. This is the only summary of US-centric minimum wage information I could find, and the reason it doesn't have any more recent information is because this memo was dated 1995.

Macroeconomics has always been political, sure. But the most politicized aspects of macroeconomics has always been business cycle theory and welfare theory...both of which are areas where the liberal side has been the most commonly agreed upon. Something like 70% of economists call themselves Keynesian, and most consider cash transfers to be the most efficient form of welfare. If there is any suppression of academic freedom with regards to the minimum wage, it is most surely in the opposite direction you claim.

I'm not sure how that matters. They include every single study that is not compliant with their opinion in the first ********ing paragraph. All three of them.

You have the bibliography, and I hear you are a professor, so it shouldn't be a big deal for you to find out. But you might want to check the date of the memo (1995) and compare it to the date of Clinton's minimum wage reform (1996) before you waste your time.

The fact that you think newer research "probably" discredited the studies cited is cute, but it also shows your bias and also the fact that you are wrong. You probably ignored the second link because it doesn't fit your criticism as easily as a republican talking point memo, but just in case you missed it, you should read this:

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/251018/day5w12663April3Se1.pdf

Since you probably have a library at your school, maybe you could check out [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Minimum-Wages-David-Neumark/dp/0262141027"]this book[/ame] by the same author. Its not pop economics and wasn't intended for Krugman's blog audience, but I'm sure that shouldn't stop an incredible academic like you.

 

Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-Intellectualism and American Life, 1963.
----- Paranoid Style in American Politics: Essay, 1964.

 

Yeaaah. My entire point was that it's been nearly 15 years since Clinton's wage reform, so there should be a study out that examines the issue.

I was gently pointing you towards the UK study cited a little back. I'll put it in all caps next time.

Nope.

1. I always make a bee-line to bibliography.

2. I'm growing averse to the 17 paragraph call-and-response posts of late.

Uh, yeah. The only one here full of himself is in your mirror.

 

There are, and they are cited and evaluated extensively in Neumark's work, which you have chosen to ignore.

Also accounted for in Neumark's work, which you have chosen to ignore.

So why would you respond in kind?

You are confusing arrogance with having the facts on my side...which is par for the course for someone as biased as you.

 

Wait. You want me to take the time to go to the library, read the book that you say is relevant so that you don't have to synthesize the arguments?

Fat chance. Don't be lazy and make a post that explicitly refutes the UK study and/or shows it to be an outlier.

In the "bibliography" post I critiqued, Neumark's work was not cited. Ball's in your court, bro.

Look. We could all sink each other you in a sea of bibliography if we wanted to. But in the spirit of dialogue, how 'bout we summarize findings and cite the source. M'kay?

Have I written paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph? Followed by a similar response, to which I respond in similar fashion.

No.

I might put them in paragraph form b/c it's easier to read, but my posts in this thread have been 1-2 paragraphs.

I'm just asking you to show your work and keep it up-to-date. Shouldn't be that difficult if indeed you do have facts on your side.

 

Most CEOs should be making about $7.75 an hour then ... Maybe $8.50, I'm feeling generous since they do have those Business Degrees to pay for after all.

The folks at Massey Coal and you seem to believe in the exact same stuff. Doesn't surprise me much.
but wow, you must be right. Start up the work farms. Re-open the company stores!!!
We'll all be freed.

Every time the MW is planned to go up we always hear the same stuff about how it will cripple all the corporations, and oh my think of the small businesses, and some form of the last 3 pages of gobbledy-gook. And every single time, they're shown to be wrong and we seem to survive just fine and still make big profits and the capitalist world hasn't ended in a shower of sparks.

 

I have already done so, for something like 10 pages now. The minimum wage hurts youth and those with the lowest skill levels the most because it disemploys them in favor of those that are more skilled...thereby stunting their future income growth and entrenching poverty.

Neumark already did that, but you wouldn't know because you ignored it.
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/251018/day5w12663April3Se1.pdf
Starting page 83, the critique of Stewart's work extends all the way to page 86.

Note Neumark's summary of the UK experience and existing academic study on the UK experience, on page 88.

I'm not sure why you think it would be. Neumark had barely gotten his PhD and had not performed any empirical studies by the time the talking point memo was published.

This is the third time I have provided the link to Neumark's paper, and I have already quoted his abstract twice in entirety. Holy shit...are you ********ing blind?

I do have facts on my side, I have shown my work, and no it wasn't difficult.

 

You must be listening to the wrong people. Wage rates can only have negative impacts on businesses if the higher wage is not accompanied by higher productivity...which most of the time it is.

For example, the small business I sold hired teenagers at the minimum wage. Although I sold it before the minimum wage was hiked, the business saw very little impact at all. Higher wages were paid, sure...but less workers were needed because they laid off the high schoolers and hired more productive college students. The overall impact on the business was negligible, but the impact on the high school students was extreme and negative.

 

Whether or not working is a good idea in high school and college completely and utterly depends on the individual and his circumstances. It's stupid to point to one's own example and extrapolate to everyone else.

 

well, one of us is - we just disagree on who
I'm right, btw

 

I already stated my agreement with you that the minimum wage isn't much of a burden on business.

 

I know I already addressed this post but... It's really rich that you are accusing me of being full of myself in the same breath that you belittle a Nobel Prize economist and full professor at Princeton.

Oh the arrogance...

 

I'm not belittling him, although that has been done by multiple other prestigious economists many times over. Krugman himself has stated that his blog is an attempt to popularize economic concepts and has a lot of political opinion thrown in. It isn't an academic economics blog.

 

bump


What did those Tea Party bitches slip into their tea? Their hang-over has them eerily quiet in the face of ... what... a $900 billion rise of the deficit.

 

But it was grassroots. It wasn't astroturf. It wasn't triggered and instigated by Fox News and paid for by Rove's people...

No, really.

 

Wait. When do the recently elected officials take office? Really, I'd like to know...

 

1. There are some in office right now. Mum's the word.

2. Immediately upon winning the election, the majority of them began shifting their tone.

3. They can still enter into the national debate by making their voices heard, but bucking the GOP establishment and fighting for what they allegedly believe in.

 

Nice try. The republicans will own this compromise with the president. There will likely be more republican votes for it than democrats and if there is a need for vote counting, it will probably be democrats looking to filibuster.

That's actually one of the nice things about bipartisanship. This needs to work and if it doesn't, there is no room for either group to hide.