This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The first table is in too small a font for people with poor eyesight to read. 194.207.86.26 ( talk) 07:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

[Copied from my talk page to here, since this is a better venue to discuss this, in case other editors are interested.]

Hello, to avoid an edit war with regards to the minimum wage article; the USA Today article that I removed was actually updated after the researchers who conducted the study published further findings (which you can find in my original edit summary) that contradicted the original results. However, even after the update, the article does not mention the new findings in any way. You can check the dates yourself. The article is therefore not a fair representation of the researchers' work. Furthermore, the article was cited in a section titled "Employment", even though the study and the article focused on earnings, a different issue entirely. We can therefore conclude that the paragraph that I removed does not serve much purpose in the article. If you still insist on reverting my edit (which, again, wouldn't make sense due to the reasons I just cited), then at least fix the spelling ("employers's") and retain the formatting fixes that I made to the paragraph above it. You seem like a reasonable person ("show me the data" and all that), so I hope we can put this behind us amicably. Thank you. Gagwef ( talk) 11:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Gagwef: Ok, so here's some info:

Original paper: Issued in June 2017, Revised in May 2018

USA today article date: June 27, 2017

The text I will add shortly uses the revised numbers from the 2018 NBER publication, which is 6-7% less hours and $74 less / month, rather than the 2017 release which stated 9% less hours and $125 less / month, which the USA today article used as their source.

Also: Please more carefully read the link that you provided the first time you removed this: https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/webform/w25812_summary_final.pdf

"While Seattle’s Low-Wage Labor Market Opportunities Declined Overall as Minimum Wages Rose, Many Low-Wage Workers Earned More as a Result of the Wage Increase"

This additional release IN NO WAY invalidates the previous research; it states that the previous conclusion was true, but they also found ADDITIONAL findings which point out the what was experienced by the AVERAGE worker was not experienced by all; this Oct 2018 release adds nuance to who is effected and how: "We evaluate the impact of the minimum wage on individual worker earnings and other labor market outcomes by following, over time, a specific group of low-wage workers: those already employed in Seattle earning less than the new minimum wage before it increased. For this group ....

I agree that it could have been better summarized, which is what my addition will hopefully do. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• US Minimum Wages 1-1-20.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith has a PhD in economics and is entirely capable of covering shifts over time in the economic literature on the minimum wage [1]. Nothing in his piece is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield has an MD. Is he "entirely capable of covering" information about vaccines and autism? If I said: "Nothing in his [Wakefield's] piece is incorrect." Does that magically make it all true?

If Noah Smith was a notable economist (like Paul Krugman, for example,) then his blog WOULD be useable. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This [2] is a strange edit. I added a study that fleshed out the content in question and subsequently reworded the content to adhere to the content of the study. I don't understand the edit summary and what the editor would have wanted me to do. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia Help: "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. When you edit a page, there is a small text entry field labeled Edit summary located under the main edit box and above the Publish changes button". Please include the rationale for your revisions in the summary. Cheers! Sandcherry ( talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

More detail in the edit summaries can't hurt, but Snooganssnoogans 's edit [3] looks fine to me. It deleted one sentence and replaced it with more detail about the enactment of local min wage laws. Sandcherry: maybe you could revisit your reversion? Thanks, ya'll. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 04:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Added back study and kept introductory sentence. Hit publish before preview so no edit summary. Oops. Sandcherry ( talk) 12:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the section that refers to the supposed eugenicist origins of minimum wage laws. This theory mostly comes from a single source, repeated ad-nauseum by a highly biased source (FEE), and is not supported by the documentary record. Looking at original sources, I see no mention of eugenicist motivations behind the push for better working conditions and wages by the anti-sweating movements that had direct impacts on minimum wage laws. I see no mention of any eugenicist motivation in the legal record or in the text of any of the laws passed. That eugenicists might have made up some racist theory around minimum wage is certainly possible since racism was all pervasive at the time, but this does not mean that this motivated the actual workers who went on strike, or the people who wrote the laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masks98 ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I added it. The material comes from a peer-reviewed scholarly work written by a university professor and published with a major academic press, thus making it a RS. Masks98 misrepresents the source base of the work -- I'm looking at my hard copy of the book -- and the arguments are, in fact supported by a broad documentary record not a single source as he claims. I'm looking at the footnotes right now. It is replete with primary source material from the time period under exploration in the book. As one reviewer wrote (I'm looking at JSTOR) "Illiberal Reformers offer little that is new on the history and legacy of eugenics. Its strength lies rather in demonstrating how eugenics and economics walked hand-in-hand during the Progressive Era." [Bradley W. Hart, in Population and Development Review 42:3] Some scholars disagreed with his conclusions [Marshall I. Steinbaum and Bernard W. Weisberger, in Journal of Economic Literature] But others have recognized that his book indicated the complexity of the past: "Leonard's book also shows how eugenics arguments were used to support positions that nearly all sociologists today regard as Progressive Era triumphs." [Jeremy Freese, Stanford University, "The Arrival of Social Science Genomics," Contemporary Sociology 47:5 (September 2018)]. Perhaps what Masks98 wants is to have none of the supporters of the minimum wage have ever expressed such views, but the scholarly community has both noted (long ago) that Progressives did have these views and that they were views that were, in the context of the time, not especially unusual though they are at stark odds with our own views of the world today. Masks98's removal is inappropriate and based on inaccurate suppositions. I will be reverting this edit, and others are invited to assist in providing a more accurate presentation of the historical background. Neptune1969 ( talk) 12:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Neptune, this seems a standard thing we have to do here every couple of months as new users come in and change it. Squatch347 ( talk) 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not up to you or I to decide whether this SINGLE source's arguments are "supported by a broad documentary record". The question is whether this represents a CONSENSUS view and the simple answer is that it does not. Therefore it is misleading to include this in an article that is expected to present a mainstream consensus view on the subject.

You cite a single source for this controversial interpretation of the historical record, but no other authoritative source on the history of the minimum wage offers such an interpretation. For example in "The Quest for a Living Wage" by Willis J. Nordlund the conclusion is that minimum wage legislation was the result of "anti-sweating" agitation which means anti-sweatshop activism. There is no mention of racial or eugenics motivations behind the the movement for a living wage. There is no such mention in any standard text on the subject except for Leonard's and perhaps one other author. But these are not "standard" consensus interprations of the subject. these are fringe, revisionist accounts by at least one highly motivated partisan.

In fact Leonard's argument was decisvely debunked in the Journal of Economic Literature in a review by Bernard A. Weisberger and Marshall Steinbaum, who condemn Leonard's account as "not reflective of mainstream historical interpretation". https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26303311?refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad2d507604e53606f10755bd640094801

Finally it appears you did not read my original comment in full. You say "Perhaps what Masks98 wants is to have none of the supporters of minimum wage have ever expressed such views". You would not say this had you read the part where I wrote that: "That eugenicists might have made up some racist theory around minimum wage is certainly possible since racism was all pervasive at the time, but this does not mean that this motivated the actual workers who went on strike, or the people who wrote the laws."

Indeed, I'll conclude by repeating that racism and eugenicist ideas were all pervasive at the time. Something which has been well known for decades and which modern-day progressives point out all the time to buttress their argument that the US has an aggressively racist history. Racism and eugenics were embraced by white Americans on almost all sides of every issue whether progressive or anti-progressive. Anti-Tobacco research and advocacy was famously funded and broadcast by the Nazis, who also managed to intermingle racist justifications against tobacco. However this does not mean that anti-smoking activism was in itself racist or meant to have racist effects. Similarly, proponents of minimum wage were certainly racist, but the history of the minimum wage has almost nothing to do with such considerations, and the idea that it does is not a consensus view, but a revisionist take on the subject that should not be included in a mainstream presentation meant to inform readers on the consensus history. Masks98 ( talk) 20:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So you have a SINGLE book review (essentially an opinion article by two people - Steinbaum and Weisberger, already mentioned by Neptune1969 above) who reviewed Leonard's book and gave their opinion on it. How does that demonstrate a CONSENSUS view? --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 04:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

1) I mention their book review as well as Willis J. Nordlund's tome on the subject. I also mention that not other standard text on the subject takes Leonard's revisionist position, which is a fact. A fact echoed by Steinbaum and Weinberger when they observe that Leonard's account is "not reflective of mainstream historical consensus". 2) The mainstream historical consensus is that the motivations behind the minimum wage had to do with "anti-sweating" activists, and an earnest desire to improve wages for low-income workers -- nothing to do with eugenics. If you have info to the contrary feel free to share. But as things stand it is clear this is a "controversial" interpretation that does NOT reflect a mainstream position, as no other (aside from perhaps ONE) mainstream source takes this view of the history of minimum wage. Therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Masks98 ( talk) 14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this proposed addition by Kkeeran on the grounds that it fundamentally misrepresents a cited source. The claim is made that the collapse of the sugar industry in Puerto Rico as a result of minimum wage policy and then that this sentiment is echoed in a report the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. This is completely false and misrepresents the cited Federal Reserve Bank paper - the paper in fact concludes that minimum wage laws had very little to do with it. As we mentioned, minimum wages were set by the local insular board. We explore two issues. First, were the minimum wages binding? We think they were. Second, did they have a large impact on the sugar industry’s demise? We think that the impact was minor.. The cited source does not support the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are drilling down on a minor source, and choosing to avoid the strong source that is Thomas Sowell's research. Would you consider attacking THAT with everything you can muster? (I'm happy to reconsider and revise the use of the Federal Reserve paper, if you can provide a page number that proves your own point over mine.)

What is the allergy to including economists (in the economists section) who disagree with the positive effects of minimum wage theory? Like it or not, I can happily provide several more leading economists (like Milton Friedman) who will align with the same point that individuals seem determined to ensure that I do not make. Answer that (as best you are able) and I think the truth of things will get somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:6100:17EC:D0EE:D308:7FE0:FDF3 ( talk) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EvelynMaillet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's minimum wage is now above the Federal minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.214.198 ( talk) 17:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell (American economist, social theorist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institute) is by all means a credible source. He has two Ivy League degrees (bachelor's and masters), a doctorate from The University of Chicago (ranked by numerous sources as one of the best universities in the world), a National Humanities Medal, multiple publications on economics and has worked not only as an economics professor at multiple top universities but also a Labor Economist in the U.S. Department of Labor. On top of that he has been working at the tenth most influential think tank in the world (Academic Influence) for the past 40 years. If anyone doesn't believe him to be a credible source on economics, I challenge you to find someone more credible. 2600:1700:C760:1C50:6884:DA68:836:70AB ( talk) 21:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand, nobody said he was not credible. A previous contribution seems to have been reversed since it misrepresented the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.66.211 ( talk) 14:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Hoover institution is a think tank; obviously working for a think tank doesn't inherently grant any sort of notability - their purpose is to push a particular perspective, so they're going to hire anyone as a "hired gun" who advances that perspective. Having people who work there advancing that view doesn't establish anything beyond "the people who fund the Hoover institution want to accomplish this policy goal." More generally the issue is that we should avoid having the section become a compilation of "zinger" quotes from partisans trying to argue by proxy (a common WP:QUOTEFARM problem.) In that regard I'd rather remove both Sowell and Krugman; we already cite polls of economists, which are more useful in terms of summarizing and presenting broad sentiment. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am certain I am not the first to click to this page hoping for a simple graph -- or better yet, table -- showing the Federal Minimum Wage in the U.S.A. over time.

Instead we see the usual Wikipedia blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah with no such graph or table in sight and no place to click to see one.

Thanks for your prompt attention to this oversight.  :-) Jamesdowallen ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the graph you're looking for can be found under the Historical trend heading. Roll 3d6 ( talk) 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)