Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Regression at the New York Times

In 1987, NYT appears to have understood basic economics, a far cry from the situation now.

Here are two different New York Times editorials on the minimum wage, with very different policy conclusions:
1. From 1987, “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00“:
Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or – better yet – help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.
An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line. There are catches, however. It would increase employers’ incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.
The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable – and fundamentally flawedIt’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.
2. From 2013, “Redefining the Minimum Wage“:
Over the last half-century, American workers have achieved productivity gains that can easily support a $15-an-hour minimum wage. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept pace over time with the average growth in productivity, it would be about $17 an hour. The problem is that the benefits of that growth have flowed increasingly to profits, shareholders and executives, not workers. The result has been bigger returns to capital, higher executive pay — and widening income inequality.
Efforts by the states and the federal government to raise the minimum wage are an important way to counter that dynamic. But they must be seen as modest and partial steps in the direction of fair wages. Other steps include more progressive income taxes, enhanced rights to form unions without retaliation, and government job-creation programs, because a tighter labor market would force employers to compete for workers.
Fast-food workers, Walmart employees and staff of federal contractors have all been agitating recently for higher pay from profitable employers. They deserve raises, and they deserve to have the federal government behind them.

(ht Mark Perry)


  1. Heh, funny how people get dumber over time isn't it? But, that's the Idiot Left for you.

    1. Idiot, it's not left - right, its statist - non statist. Wake up or shut up, you're not helping

    2. Hey worthless fuckturd I know that. But the NY Times IDENTIFIES with the LEFT. See the difference? Grow a few brain cells please. And before you say something stupid again I hate the so-called "Right" just as much. Since you're slow I'll saw it again. Yes I they're both statists.

  2. Regression at the NYT has been ongoing for a century.
    I have seen an editorial from them denouncing the proposed income tax.

    1. They've degenerated almost into a Communist rag.

  3. More progressive taxes to fix income inequality (ignoring that its a made up b/s concept in itself)? How is it then that the states with the most Progressive income taxes also have the highest level of income inequality or GINI coefficient? And why is it that the state with the highest income equality in the US, Mississippi, is a state that the left views as backwards and primitive? And why does the media never call them on this?

    As for doubling the minimum wage in a weak labor market like this, I think you have be completely clueless and uncaring. Let me tell you as a 33year business veteran, if my business employed unskilled labor at near minimum wage and then the wage were to double, I would immediately seek to upgrade my workforce. How many out of work college educated people with work experience do you think I can hire at $15/hr in this economy? I would dump my unskilled labor as fast as I could. Why would I pay an unskilled halfwit $15/hr when I could hire someone with work experience for the same money? LMFAO @ the uncaring envy driven idiots pushing this.

    1. The thing that's so hilarious is that they think they can fix this "income inequality" by simply barking out a command. LOL!

    2. Well, ultimately, they CAN fix it by barking out a command.

      The NYTimes accidentally hit on it in their '87 editorial when they said "(a) far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages."

      That's exactly what means-tested welfare does. The highest subsidy goes to those making $0/hour.

      The ever-growing cohorts of {Low Info Voters} and {Welfare-loving Layabouts} now have a combined mass sufficient to guarantee future elections if properly motivated. Gutting 42% in order to comfortably support 57% in an unproductive state will keep the 57% fat and happy and loyal, and will still allow for enough looting and seepage to make the 1% kings and emperors.

      So, if you listen hard, you can hear it . . . .

      Bark, bark.

  4. Real out put per hour is up 70% since 1987. The minimum wage in 1987 was $3.15 which is 6.92 in 2013 dollars.

    6.92 x 1.7 = 11.77

    Seems like their math is wrong. Productivity growth can support a $11.77 minimum wage, not a $15 minimum wage.

    1. More importantly jerry, raising the minimum wage will help our unions and their crony polititions fend off competitiin from dirty immigrants and lazy minorities who are trying to reach the first rung of the labor force ladder. Like you I have no problem using state stormtroopers to coerce entrapenuers/workers into working on terms that meet MY subjective values in place of theirs.

      I mean, 6.92 x 1.7 = 11.77. It's all right there, clear as the nose on your face. How could anyone argue with such an elaborate formula?

      You're average dipshit.

  5. Replies
    1. Lance it, drain the pus.

    2. If I had a lance that small...

      Ignore it, and it will go away.

    3. Doreen Virtue has a great mantra for times like these. It goes something like this: " I am willing to release that part of me that makes me angry when I think of you." Repeat it until it works.

  6. When did Hazlitt stop writing for the NYT?