Accéder au contenu principal

The minimum wage consensus

If a minimum wage of 15 dollars per hour won’t kill jobs then why not increase it to 100 dollars?

Yeah, I know, it’s a strawman argument. Everybody agrees that a 100 dollars minimum wage would massively destroy jobs (anywhere on earth) just like everybody agrees that a one dollar minimum wage wouldn’t have any effect whatsoever on employment (at least in the United States). As far as reasonable and economically literate people are concerned, the debate is about the 15 bucks threshold. Call me Dr Obvious if you want but I think there is a very important point here: both side of the argument agree that, above a given threshold, a mandatory minimum wage would destroy jobs.

Let me summarize. On one side, Team Free Market (and, to be clear, I’m part of that team) argues that by raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars the US government will outlaw the employment of people whose skill-sets is worth less than 15 dollars an hour — that is unexperienced and/or underqualified workers. On the other side, the advocates of the raise argue that this “cost of labor” effect will be negligible and that it will be offset by an increase in aggregate demand (because low-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume).

But both sides agree that, somewhere between 1 and 100 dollars, there is a threshold beyond which the minimum wage will start destroying jobs — that is, above that point the “cost of labor” effect will outweigh the “aggregate demand” effect. I guess it’s fair to assume that most of the supporters of the raise think 15 dollars is a reasonable threshold given current US market conditions (I guess further that they would not support that proposal for lower productivity countries such as India). To me and to most of Team Free Market, it looks way too high. But at least, we all agree that there is a threshold. That’s a consensus. Let’s celebrate!

Commentaires

1. The problem is similar with Basic Income... 500$/m may work, but at 10,000$/m, the incentive to work is 0 for most people.
Which shows Basic Income incentivizing work is pure fantasy.

Brandolini’s law

Over the last few weeks, this picture has been circulating on the Internet. According to RationalWiki, that sentence must be attributed to Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant [1]. I’ve checked with Alberto and, unless someone else claims paternity of this absolutely brilliant statement, it seems that he actually is the original author. Here is what seems to be the very first appearance of what must, from now on, be known as the Brandolini’s law (or, as Alberto suggests, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle):The bullshit asimmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.— ziobrando (@ziobrando) 11 Janvier 2013To be sure, a number of people have made similar statements. Ironically, it seems that the “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” quote isn’t from Mark Twain but a slightly modified version of Charles Spurgeon’s “a lie will go round the w…

Le salaire minimum à 15 dollars de Seattle

En général, la (fonction de densité de la) distribution des salaires ressemble à quelque chose comme ça : C’est-à-dire que relativement peu de gens touchent des salaires très bas (à gauche de la distribution), la plupart perçoivent un salaire proche du salaire médian (au milieu) et, plus on monte dans l’échelle des rémunérations (vers la droite), plus ça devient rare. Sur un graphique de ce type, le P.-D.G. d'une société du CAC 40 ou un joueur international de football se promènent à quelques dizaines de centimètres à droite de votre écran mais ces cas sont si exceptionnels que le trait bleu est invisible à l’œil nu.Le point MinW indique le niveau du salaire minimum légal. À gauche de ce point, en rouge, vous trouvez toutes les personnes dont le travail vaut moins que le salaire minimum. Typiquement, ce sont des gens peu qualifiés, peu expérimentés et même souvent les deux. C’est-à-dire qu’étant donné le niveau du salaire minimum, ces gens-là sont tout simplement inemployables. C&#…

L'océan de cash

Du 4 juillet 2007 au 5 juillet 2017, le total du bilan de la Federal Reserve [1] est passé de 860 à 4 4 trillions de dollars — c’est à dire qu’il a quintuplé. À l’actif de la banque centrale étasunienne, cette croissance phénoménale se traduit par l’explosion de son portefeuille d’obligations émises par le Department of the Treasury — lequel atteint aujourd’hui 2,5 trillions — auquel se rajoutent les titrisations de créances hypothécaires (Mortage-Backed Securities) rachetées à Fannie Mae et Freddie Mac pour environ 1,8 trillions.Il s’agit, bien sûr, des conséquences d’une politique monétaire historiquement accommodante qui a conduit la Fed à intervenir massivement sur le marché obligataire. Très schématiquement : la Fed a créé des dollars ex-nihilo, ce qui ne lui coûte presque rien, et c’est servi de la monnaie ainsi créée pour racheter massivement les obligations qui se trouvent aujourd’hui sur son bilan. L’objectif, naturellement, étant de faire baisser les taux et ainsi — du moins…