Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Timsup2nothin]

Noting that the framing "an economic discussion" is itself ideological, I hope?

It is.

The economics is what it is. If we do this to the minimum wage, this is what is going to happen. If we do this to the minimum wage, and do that to prevent that from happening, this is the result. And Zelig is correct that a whole lot of this conversation has revolved around ideas that from an economics reality perspective amount to "if we do this to minimum wage pies will fall from the sky".

However the framework is ideological, always, because even the people who understand the economic effects will differ on what the desired results are. A minimum wage below the poverty level with minimal supplemental assistance from government to keep those people barely alive and locked into jobs they hate may be anathema to one economist, while another goes away chortling that the problem of getting jobs done despite the fact that people hate them has been solved.

 

[Mise]

The ideology deepens!

I mean, yeah, I get what you're saying, that there is a discussion to be had about the actual recorded impact of minimum wage, and it's definitely under-emphasized. But framing certain arguments or positions as simply "economic", shorn of ideological baggage, is a claim to authority which only works within a particular set of assumptions about how authority is legitimated, which is to say: an ideology.

I don't understand. What do you mean by "claim to authority"? (I'll probably also ask what you mean by "particular set of assumptions" and "how authority is legitimated" too.)

To me, a statement such as "there is evidence X that raising the minimum wage by Y will result in unemployment to increase by Z" is (or at least can be) a purely economic statement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't understand. What do you mean by "claim to authority"? (I'll probably also ask what you mean by "particular set of assumptions" and "how authority is legitimated" too.)

To me, a statement such as "there is evidence X that raising the minimum wage by Y will result in unemployment to increase by Z" is (or at least can be) a purely economic statement.

It is still an arguable economic statement. Evidence X, action Y, and outcome Z do not exist in a vacuum, even economically, and certainly not ideologically.

The statement could be challenged economically by pointing out the differences between current economic conditions and the conditions that existed at the time action Y was taken. It could also be challenged economically by suggesting an attendant action Y' that should prevent outcome Z and force an outcome Z'.

Add the ideological framework and the challenges are multiplied by a huge factor. What if we add judicial process, ie adjusting labor laws could provide the action Y', and while that action is not itself economics it can change the economic environment to prevent outcome Z. There are a wide variety of approaches that can be used from outside economics to influence the result.

 

[warpus]

If you're thinking of making an economic change to your economic system, then surely looking at the economic impact first and foremost is the logical course of action.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you're thinking of making an economic change to your economic system, then surely looking at the economic impact first and foremost is the logical course of action.

That would be nice. But the reality is that the only reason you are even contemplating a change to the economic system is effects that are outside the economic system. Looking at just the economic system from an economic perspective you get "the economy works with this fraction of the population impoverished...okay, fine, the economy works." It's only when you go to the ideological framework and find people complaining about the impoverished people that you have any reason to even think about changing the economic system.

 

[warpus]

I'd think that any sort of credible economic impact analysis would include any lost jobs as a result of whatever you're trying to change.. as well as any other potential impact. It should be all there in the report, if it's done right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'd think that any sort of credible economic impact analysis would include any lost jobs as a result of whatever you're trying to change.. as well as any other potential impact. It should be all there in the report, if it's done right.

Agreed. It should also include options for preventing the loss of jobs, with the potential other impact that those options would have. Unfortunately, most people outside of economics don't want that report. They want to pretend that the single issue being examined exists in a vacuum so they can say "this will have a good result so let's do it" or "this will have a bad result so let's not".

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't understand. What do you mean by "claim to authority"? (I'll probably also ask what you mean by "particular set of assumptions" and "how authority is legitimated" too.)

To me, a statement such as "there is evidence X that raising the minimum wage by Y will result in unemployment to increase by Z" is (or at least can be) a purely economic statement.

In itself, as an academic statement, yes. But as an intervention into a debate on public policy, it's never going to be that simple. The intervention always carries a claim to authority, a claim as to why this intervention has greater value than a contrary intervention, a claim to why the state should favour the guy shouting "Science!" over the guys shouting "Justice!" or "Nation!" or "God!" It makes a set of assumptions about what the state is for, about the conditions policy must fulfill for the state to claim legitimacy, and it is therefore an ideological claim.

Numbers are good, is what I'm trying to say, but don't lend too much authority to them, or expect others to do the same.

 

[Antilogic]

Weinburg wrote a fairly good article on this years ago, separating scientific issues from what he called trans-scientific issues, which are the realm of public policy. I wish it was more widely read.

 

[Flying Pig]

In itself, as an academic statement, yes. But as an intervention into a debate on public policy, it's never going to be that simple. The intervention always carries a claim to authority, a claim as to why this intervention has greater value than a contrary intervention, a claim to why the state should favour the guy shouting "Science!" over the guys shouting "Justice!" or "Nation!" or "God!" It makes a set of assumptions about what the state is for, about the conditions policy must fulfill for the state to claim legitimacy, and it is therefore an ideological claim.

Numbers are good, is what I'm trying to say, but don't lend too much authority to them, or expect others to do the same.

I'm often reminded of a historian's (I forget whose) verdict I read about Gladstone: 'he carried with him the passionate conviction that he was in possession of the facts, and that if only he could explain those facts then all opposition to his policy would melt away'.

 

[Katie Boundary]

We are already seeing the results of this policy in the form of fast-food workers losing their jobs to robots.

I don't want robots to take our jobs, so I'm against the minimum wage.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We are already seeing the results of this policy in the form of fast-food workers losing their jobs to robots.

I don't want robots to take our jobs, so I'm against the minimum wage.

Silly me. I thought that resulted from advancements in robotics.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Installing robots in each fast-food restaraunt would be more expensive than, say, hiring college dropouts.
Then imagine maintaining 'em all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Installing robots in each fast-food restaraunt would be more expensive than, say, hiring college dropouts.
Then imagine maintaining 'em all.

Well, if you imagine 'robot' as a direct payment kiosk somewhat like an ATM where you can place your order if you want to avoid a line then some fast food places are experimenting with them. My local Jack In the Box, last I saw, was offering two free tacos with your order to anyone who was willing to wipe the dust off the thing and use it.

In order for it to be noted as not working and need maintenance someone would actually have to be trying to use it, so I don't see maintenance cost as a big issue.

 

[Flying Pig]

Installing robots in each fast-food restaraunt would be more expensive than, say, hiring college dropouts.
Then imagine maintaining 'em all.

I don't think cost has anything to do with it - I think it's simply that customers aren't comfortable ordering food from something that isn't human. After all, in many other relatively low-skilled parts of the manufacturing industry, they've already replaced their low-skilled workers with robots - we're past the point where 'I don't want a robot to take my job' is valid, because they've already taken the ones that they can.

 

[Mise]

In itself, as an academic statement, yes. But as an intervention into a debate on public policy, it's never going to be that simple. The intervention always carries a claim to authority, a claim as to why this intervention has greater value than a contrary intervention, a claim to why the state should favour the guy shouting "Science!" over the guys shouting "Justice!" or "Nation!" or "God!" It makes a set of assumptions about what the state is for, about the conditions policy must fulfill for the state to claim legitimacy, and it is therefore an ideological claim.

Numbers are good, is what I'm trying to say, but don't lend too much authority to them, or expect others to do the same.

But a true statement derives its authority from being true, not from being "science" or "economics". If that statement is true, then it derives its authority from being true. The subject of the debate is the minimum wage; the statement is a true statement about the minimum wage. That surely has more a priori authority in a discussion on the minimum wage than any statement that derives its authority from "science" or "nation" or "god". The statement itself doesn't even make any normative claims on the state; it's just a fact. Surely the way to make rational decisions is to collect all these facts, and then, once you've done that, whip out your ideology and see where those facts lead you? Presumably, what Zelig means is that most people do it the other way around, and we'd be better off if we got the economic facts straight first. To me, that's ideologically neutral. It's simply the most rational way of doing things, regardless of your ideological goals.

 

[Flying Pig]

You need the facts straight, but there are a lot of facts and they don't all point the same way. You can't bring those facts into policy without deciding that some are more important than others. People who say that their policies are based entirely on facts are wrong, and it's a dangerous illusion.

 

[Mise]

I agree with that; I disagree that this implies that you can't have an economic discussion about the minimum wage without bringing ideology into it.

(Actually, I don't agree that facts can point in different directions, but I don't think it's a substantial disagreement.)

 

[Traitorfish]

But a true statement derives its authority from being true, not from being "science" or "economics".

Not in practice. There are many kinds of truths, or alleged-truths, and the scientific is only one kind of truth; the claim that scientific truths have greater authority in the formation of policy than moral or religious truths is an ideological position, grounded in certain assumptions about how the state is supposed to work. And that's what Zelig is claiming, that certain kinds of "truths" (economic, empirical) are preferable to other kinds of "truths" (moral, ethical) and should take primacy in policy debate.

It may be that somebody advocating this position is correct; they're certainly more correct than somebody said "God says to do X". But they have not transcended ideology, they've merely occupied a certain ideological position.

I mean, I think Zelig is right, that debates around the minimum wage should be better-grounded in empirical evidence, I'm just cautioning that we shouldn't mistake that for an escape from ideology, shouldn't allow ourselves to become un-self-critical simply because we've lined up a lot of numbers behind our argument.

 

[Flying Pig]

(Actually, I don't agree that facts can point in different directions, but I don't think it's a substantial disagreement.)

I meant that it's possible to have a fact like 'raising the minimum wage will make life better for those in work', which would support the idea that we should do it, while also having the fact that 'raising the minimum wage will mean fewer people are employed', which would support the idea that we shouldn't. At some point, you have to say that it's worth having more unemployed people if employed people are better off, or that it's not worth it, and neither of those positions can be called 'true'.

TF, how are you defining 'truth' as applied to non-scientific propositions?