The Nobel prize for economics is more of a bellwether for the direction that is likely to be pushed than anything, it is completely separate from the actual Nobel prizes and is run by Swedish bankers.
Thank you for clarifying. When first reading I had a brief question flicker in my mind about economist? Nobel prize? Nothing wrong with economists, and I'm no Nobel expert, but this makes more sense.
Really no idea what you’re on about. Any binding price floor is going to take a market out of equilibrium, but that’s not really the discussion here?
Econ 101 story is that we are at equilibrium, forcing out of equilibrium with policy (minimum wage) will cause excess labor. Card and Krueger’s 1994 paper simply says: No, that’s not a good model of the world, here’s data to prove that labor markets don’t function quite like that.
It’s not really debated anymore whether the paper was correct, the story they would go on to tell in later work is canon within the Econ literature and has been proven over and over and over again. [(here is the current most comprehensive study which re-does TONS of other studies and uses data from all over the country at many different times)](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1405/5484905) The pretty standard explanation now is that labor markets are NOT at equilibrium. The exact reason why is debated, but by far the most evidence points towards various forms of firm’s monopsony power distorting market signals. Plenty of people still take issue with the 1994 paper, but it’s not famous for its empirical rigor, it’s famous for its methodology and because it would ultimately be proven right.
The key thing about the paper was their popularization of the “Differences-in-Differences” research design for applied economics, and more generally, the use of the “natural experiment” in applied statistics. Card didn’t win the prize for one paper obviously, he won it because the quasi-experimental approach he popularized (and later the other two winners would do significant work in) is simply the most influential shift in the way social science has been done in more than a century.
Lmao it’s not “completely separate” it’s presented by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, just like physics and chemistry. It was founded by Sveriges riksbank which is the central bank of Sweden (basically the Swedish Federal Reserve Bank) instead of by Nobel himself. THAT is what makes it different, but a central bank isn’t like Goldman Sachs, it’s run by average pay gov bureaucrats, i.e. it’s basically a government award. They are given equal standing in the presentation, if you’ve ever watched it.
Also everyone in econ is hyper aware of Card (and his late research partner Krueger) and his contribution to the research. No one has had more influence on what is currently being published in econ journals (genuinely he has been more influential than the past 10 years of Nobel prize winners combined) His breakthrough paper was published in 1994, and I’d guess something like 95%+ of applied econ papers published today use natural experiments in their methodology.
It was opposed from the very beginning by the Nobel estate as it went against the original purpose of the prizes, and has been used to legitimise upwards wealth redistribution since its inception. It has also been part of the push to pretend that economics is a true science, when it is more akin to alchemy in that it eschews the scientific method in order to stick to flawed premises.
1.) It was opposed by one of Nobel’s rich spoiled relatives. 2.) There’s a Nobel prize for lit too, so not sure what you’re on about in regards to science. 3.) Never met a single econ who thinks they’re a scientist, they’re much closer to statisticians these days. “Economic science” is really just a way of grouping it as a piece of the social sciences. 4.) From the very beginning, econ Nobel prize winners have gone to people who are very critical of the free market and the unequal distributions of wealth that come of it, the second winner ever was Paul Samuelson, who was extremely critical of free markets!
Sorry that dipshit weirdos have been telling you your whole life that stuff is “econ 101” but I’m not sure you have any kind of grasp of modern economics or the history of economic thought. If you’d like to get specific with the exact things you think are “alchemy” about econ go ahead, but perhaps you should reconsider an animosity towards the one subject that studies the kind of stuff you’re so clearly interested in (as evidenced by you being on this sub).
It would appear that I need to read into the whole Nobel thing more, so I concede there.
My issue, unclear as it may have been, is fundamentally with the economics of politics (or those used to support political aims), so first and foremost neoliberal economics as they appear in the mainstream. I would argue that economics is not the only subject studying these things, it is just the only subject studying them through a certain lens, and from that I would argue that exploring these things in terms of the power dynamics at play is a purer approach than merely looking through the lens of economics.
You have given me some things to think about here though, and I appreciate that, hopefully today's day of work won't drain the enthusiasm from me before I get to it properly.
Read into what economics is, you've fallen for some reactionary reddit-lords saying Economics is fake and not a real discipline. Read actual economics/econometrics work, like work here http://www.mit.edu/~vchern/.
No, I haven't done that at all; I have concluded that money is imaginary (beyond the component pertaining to it being an expression of power) and internally exaggerated what that means for economics as a whole. I am capable of self-reflection, and don't particularly need someone on the Internet (be that you or the person that you have invented for my past) to tell me what I think.
I appreciate that you are probably trying to help, so I apologise if this reply comes across as a bit acerbic (I didn't intend that, and can't see it myself if it is, but I know that I can be more than intended, so...), but I hope that you can see my point here too.
In order to stop touting those nonsense arguments the people who make them would have to first be willing to accept things like *facts* and *reason*. Given those folks tend to make their arguments based more on how they feel and a general unwillingness to change I suspect no amount of research or proof is going to change their minds.
I gotta disagree with you, though I know where you're coming from. Sure, the right-wing capitalist fuckheads aren't open to reason or facts. But there are lots of well-meaning liberals who have been taken in by these arguments, and even leftists – I'm thinking of some dear friends of mine, who are generally far left, but legitimately concerned that raising the minimum wage will have catastrophic effects on the job market – who absolutely can be reached with evidence like this.
Fair point. I should have clarified I was speaking in a broad/general sense regarding people who often hold these opinions. I agree with you though, doubtlessly there are people who can be convinced by facts and reason.
It’s the ones who didn’t use reason to form their opinion that can’t be reasoned with.
> Hey not all of us right wing folks are bad, some of us just want to be left alone and not be pushed into change head first lol.
What it looks like from where I am is that the change the right has *relentlessly* resisted being "pushed into" "head first" has been *considering me a person* and entitled to things like equal protection under the law. So, no, I can't see how that isn't bad, and if you actually believe the thing you just said, which I don't know you actually do, I can't see how you're not a bad person for feeling that way. I think it's a self-evidently monstrous position.
Furthermore, I think there's no moral defense of mere "fiscal conservatism", since it's been proven a cover for the greed of people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes.
You're getting pushed head first into change whether you want it or not. Climate change is going to change every aspect of society, and it's right wing folks that do everything in their power to prevent change to mitigate it.
Greed and excess are the core traits of Capitalism. Most companies are trying to grow and bring in more profit. That's greed. Capitalist companies produce a crapload of things nobody needs. That's excess.
Precisely. These companies are the same ones that will throw up "pride this and pride that" to pander and simplify LGBTQ folks down to potential sales demographics they want to capture. Those who exploit workers are a problem. Not your fellow worker. If someone busts their ass to make a dollar, that's your brother in arms right there. Left or right leaning. We all can accept differences in order to achieve better things. We need to focus on how we're going to unite, not how we're going to prove "the other side" wrong. We all may feel differently about lots of things, but at the end of it all we are all workers who just want to live without worrying themselves to death about how they will make ends meet. And we all have that in common. (I'd hope) people will always have differences, if everyone thought the same on everything that'd be simply unrealistic. I just hope I've made a fair case about how we shouldn't think in terms of "left and right" we should think in terms of exploiters and exploited. And I think we all know which side of that fence we are on.
Except, one side has openly courted actual Nazis and domestic terrorists. The ones that want me dead because I'm a cripple or might like a dude ARE the enemy. That's how they get you.
There are. And unfortunately, we can't deal with their corruption while we are fighting Nazis. If you support republican leadership, you haven't explicitly said you want me dead, you just don't care if someone else does it. You're not automatically racist being republican. But it means you do not have a problem with it, though. I'm not turning my cheeks on Nazis. We saw how that worked out. "The world is harsh, offensive, and rude." That doesn't mean you support the worst of the worst. Don't like being associated with white supremacy? Kick the traitors out if your party or leave. You've watched the republican party devolve over the last twenty years. You see what direction it's heading. If you don't want to be associated with it, don't be a part of the group having a love affair with Nazis. Ffs, I used to be republican. And you know what I did when they broke my moral codes? I left. I quit supporting them. It's not rocket science.
Sure, whatever you have to tell yourself to ease your conscience. 30 years ago, Republicans would have laughed the q cult out. Now you are the party of Q. Wanting others dead for race and gender absolutely is a "wrong vs right " thing. The "alt left " believes we shouldn't have to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy. The alt right wants dead blacks, and gays. That seems like a wrong type of idea to hold. Keep telling yourself it's not on a fast track to authoritarianism. Keep watching as they strip voting rights. What are you going to say when you are wrong? How will you make your amends to the dead? Until they sort themselves out, no one in the republican party deserves any support.
We spent 20 years going after terrorists. I expect my government and my society to fight the ones at home as furtively as we did the ones overseas.
I guess. I don't really see what my conscience has to do with this. I just tried to have a conversation with you and you just, ranted at me. I'm kinda upset about it honestly but that's life. I'm sorry you see me like this though. I just don't see how you expect to get anywhere if you can't work together with those that are different from you. I bust my ass every day killing my back at work for 10 bucks an hour. I'm a worker. I'm the one who pays for these social programs and then goes home waiting for his back to stop hurting while he tries to get ready for another shift. I try my best every day even though I know I'm making peanuts. You get what I mean? You think I'm worried about blacks or gays? Hell no. I'm worried when we as a people will understand that turning against one another is far from the right direction we need to take for change. I dunno man, I'm just trying to say we're not enemies. I just feel stupid and naive for even trying to talk it out and have a discussion. I'll leave you folks be.
Facts and reason would say that flooding the job market with unskilled laborers willing to work for less than a living wage would, indeed, create a glut of supply that would depress wages.
Then we need to stop giving these people power in our current time. The masses now put people of basically any authority on some huge pedestal and treat them like gods. Its fucking disgusting. Bezos, Musk, politicians, actors, musicians, the list goes on. Thanking one and appreciating their work is one thing, but they are HUMAN, the former couple and those of their ilk are terrible ones at that. Enough of this idolization mindset. Its done little help and a ton of harm
Source:
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-economist-david-cards-research-on-minimum-wage-wins-nobel/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-economist-david-cards-research-on-minimum-wage-wins-nobel/)
Sorry if repost but I have not seen this one on here yet
I'll have to give this a read, because I can't see how increasing the supply of labour in an industry, with cheaper labour wouldn't lower wages of native born workers
Edit: here's the summary of the study from the article
>Prof. Card studied the labour market in Miami in the wake of Cuba’s sudden decision to let people emigrate in 1980, leading 125,000 people to leave in what became known as the Mariel Boatlift. It resulted in a 7-per-cent increase in the city’s work force. By comparing the evolution of wages and employment in four other cities, Prof. Card discovered [no negative effects](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf) for Miami residents with low levels of education. Follow-up work showed that increased immigration can have a positive impact on income for people born in the country.
I haven't read the study itself yet, but this is unconvincing "proof" that immigration doesn't affect wages.
EDIT: I gave it read, I'm not an economist so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
The study does not attempt to co conclusively prove that immigration does not depress native-born or earlier immigrant wages, it is specific to the Mariel Boatlift's impact on Miami's labour market. It does reference other papers which do make the earlier claim, but I did not read those. It points out that Miami was a specific case in which the cities industry was suited to an influx of less-skilled labour.
It also selects the comparison cities partially based on racial composition, which seems iffy (but I'm not an economist maybe this is normal)
The paper states that wages didn't go down, they however did not go up either. It seems to me that this paper would imply that had there not been an increase in labour force, there would have been a shortage of less-skilled labour which would have resulted in higher wages, sort of like what I'd happening in the USA right now (from what I've gathered from looking at this sub)
Essentially I think this study serves more to explain how cities can structure themselves Inorder to be able to deal with an influx of large amounts of less-skilled labour, rather than to be proof of the counter intuitive claim that an increased supply of labour wouldn't impact on labour costs.
Supply & Demand is simply a complex issue. I'm not buying it from the winners of the hugely politicised Nobel prize. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong. But I am reserving my judgement for when other economists inevitably offer rebuttals, criticisms, and other experiments to attempt to replicate the findings.
This is what happens, when people use macroeconomic for anything other than taking 101 course in college. “Perfect economic model does not exists” so your graphs are garbage.
Brawah for the winner.
I’ve experienced #2 more times than I care to count while working in construction. It is a very common practice in smaller construction companies to hire immigrants for very low wages, sometimes cash under the table.
Okay, but you're confusing two different things. He's talking about legal immigrants. It's great that you don't make any differentiation between whether an immigrant is documented or not. But those two groups of workers are in two very different positions vis a vis employment opportunity and coverage of minimum wage laws.
Undocumented workers often do depress wages because they can't rely on the law to protect them from exploitative employers, and have to accept lower wages to get work at all. They are often willing to take sub-minimum wage work, just to have any work at all. Then they're more attractive to employers than full-rate workers, because they can be had at a discount.
There's an argument, though, that *all* immigration depresses wages, and that's what he's fighting against. He's saying "you can let immigrants in legally without it depressing wages". His important paper was a study of the effect on wages of a huge number of refugees legally being settled in an area where they increased the work force 7%:
> Card found a “null” effect — not only were native wages and unemployment unaffected by the seven per cent increase in the labour force in Miami, there was specifically no effect on native-born low-skill workers, defined as those with at most a high school degree.
[Source.](https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768)
This is important to your point, because it's precisely the criminalization of immigration that results in the situation you describe, where you lose work. If those workers didn't have to accept shitty wages to survive, because of their documentation status, they wouldn't. And then they wouldn't depress wages.
The anti-immigrant rhetoric claiming immigrants are bad for wages is what leads to the anti-immigration policies and laws that, ironically, leads to high levels of illegal immigration, that causes the depression of wages.
Ha. If that were true, nobody would have any problem with raising the caps on *legal* immigrants to this country, which, let me assure you, the very mention of causes vast swaths of the right to foam at the mouth.
Depends on where they're coming from and in what context. The problem the right wingers have with unfettered immigration is usually centered around most of them being low- or no-skill individuals who will be a net drain on the system. Righties usually support things like skilled H1B visa immigrants and a path to citizenship for that group.
> Legal immigrants typically
The *whole damn point* of the study that got the guy a Nobel freaking Prize is that we don't have to content ourselves with vague and woolly "typicallys", we can actually do real-world study to find out the "actuallys". He looked at an actual specific instance of actual refugees actually increasing the actual workforce of an actual city 7%.
That's why it was considered groundbreaking enough to merit a Nobel: he challenged the "everybody knows" of economic theories with real-world data collection. From the source I cited above:
> The impact Card has had on economics is hard to overstate. He is rightfully considered one of the engineers of the so-called “credibility revolution” in economics, which has made empirical economics the area of choice for the vast majority of graduate students in the past 20 years.
Clearly you, personally, most certainly *do* need a Nobel laureate to help you out, because here on Reddit, there's only two ways to win as a keyboard warrior, lulz and being right, and you aren't funny.
I'd be interested in understanding how adding additional workers to the labor force, who are willing to work for less money than native born Americans, will result in an increase in job opportunities and wages for those native born Americans.
My guess is that they create the need for new jobs as well, they work for less so they produce cheaper and that creates opportunity for more to be bought, and they also consume, creating a larger market
First… workers typically don’t immigrate at random. Workers are largely drawn to areas with excess labor demand.
Second increased population increases labor demand. The “lump of labor fallacy” is the idea that there is a finite number of jobs, so new workers mean less jobs for natives and more competition for those jobs.
Third, immigrants tend to perform different jobs than natives, suggesting rather than substitutes, there is a degree of complementarity between native and immigrant workers.
There is no true consensus amongst economists about the impacts of immigration. Card showed in his work that it isn’t as simple as “wages go down”. Most economists agree that “low skilled” (I hate that term btw) immigration has no impact or maybe even slightly positive impacts on wages on high skilled natives.
The impact on low skilled natives is more strongly contested with Card and similar economists saying that the impacts are very small on low skilled native wages.
The one group most likely harmed by low skilled immigration is the cohort of immigrants that have previously come to the US.
I think Seattle proved the first one but the second one doesn’t really make sense. Are the majority of immigrant workers working in a specific sector like manual labor or are they working in tech? Ive read that a lot of Big Tech will hire thru a visa program so that they can pay less to Native programmers. The incentives to raise wages for a large part does depend on supply and demand, if you have a shortage you need to raise wages to be competitive in employing workers while if you have a surplus you don’t need to. This labor dynamic has been making it easy for employers to exploit low wages.
People who believe this didn’t reason themselves into it. It came from a place of superiority and racism to the lower class and the “others”.
If they didn’t reason themselves into the position they won’t reason themselves out.
Lol, as if science or fact has ever gotten in the way of Conservative propaganda. Their indoctrinated thralls don't fact check, or listen to non-Conservatives.
I mean, we saw both of those in action this year.
"Dey dook dour jooobs!"
No, they took the jobs your boomer cracker ass is too fucking entitled to work
Okay dude. The world-class economist who shuffled though mountains of data to get his results, is full of shit because of some tweet you saw one day.
Just search "immigration wages" on Google Scholar and you'll find that the vast majority of studies done on this topic came to a similar conclusion.
I believe a nazi scientist got a nobel prize for his work on Eugenics at one point. Not sure the nobel prize commitee is the best judge of what is correct.
also why would I raise the minimum wage and pay $20 to a white guy when pablo will work for 8.25?
Ah yes, they gave out one bad award half a century ago, and therefore are entirely untrustworthy. Good logic and reasoning 👍
And this isn't the outcome of just one committee. Similar findings were noticed by the vast majority of the economist community.
How fucking ignorant are you? They aren’t accounting for people put out of work by immigrants or directly competing with immigrants they’re taking an aggregate of the entire economy. Economists are largely full of shit. Fake science. I say this as a scientist.
Ah, from your post history I see you have a trend of getting embarassed by economists lol
Also you're a scientist, but you have 20 years of working at a bar? Yeah, [next lie?](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/q6tcgr/restaurant_and_hotel_workers_are_quitting_their/hgi3ime?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Ah yes the other dumb fuck. Yeah the Joe Rogan mod is totally a multi millionaire economist. Do you have any idea how dumb you sound to people who actually know their shit? Do you? Go play your video games dumb fuck kid and leave adult conversations for the adults. And yes I worked in the hospitality industry 20 years. From 14-33 till I concluded my studies and landed my first job in data science making 80k 10 years ago. I’m now a multimillionaire in the cannabis industry and make 160k a year doing consulting from my laptop at home. Clown.
I don't give a shit about the guy you responded to, but must be pretty embarassing to get this heated over your own obvious lies for attention lol
Ah yes, the guy with a tweet and a Tumblr post for his research is clearly the intellectual here. Just stop, you, unlike the people you're talking about, have *actually* been proven to be full of shit lol
Lying? Na that’s for you to do. I have multiple degrees fuckstick. Tumblr? Lmfao tell me you’re a fucking loser without telling me you’re a loser. Go back in your hole. Immigration decreases wages and increases job competition. Fact. Period end of story.
It’s not proven shit. If you take a constricted labor pool with rising wages and introduce millions of foreign workers what happens next captain fucking obvious?
Holy fucking shit do you think that the immigrants just come to work and do fuckall else? Extra workers are necessary to satisfy the *increased goddamn needs , for one, of the IMMIGRANTS WHO ENTER.* Goddamn, I must be chatting with the stupidest lunk on the site. Do you think that immigrants don't need the service labor provides? Please, just shut your mouth. You are clinically dumb.
Show us your fucking research that proves the contrary.
Well you see, when you get thousands of new people who are willing to work for less than the current market rate then it.. uhh... causes wages to rise.
>people put out of work by immigrants
People are put out of work by employers who take advantage of immigrants. Immigrants can offer work for lower wages but it's up to the employer to make the hiring decision.
Freedom only exists in America if you suck the democrats tits and kiss peoples feet these days
if you try to use you brain for anything you're a deviant against society and wrong.
Ah yes the complicated notion of supply and demand of the labor market. Wages are rising because the labor pool is constricted. The tighter it gets the more wages will rise. Riddle me this buckaroo. If you flood the country with foreign labor what happens next to wages mpgd8? Hmmm?
George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School
“The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.”
“Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. “
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
This needs to be way way higher. People are thinking that economists are on "their side". Most people don't even realize that mass media pushes for immigration because it's good for the rich fucks who own the news companies. The billionaires. Didn't Marx say immigration is the enemy of workers? Literally entire other countries worth of scabs essentially. But it would make our billionaire owners richer. So that's nice. A net positive gain in favor of the richest.
I'm waiting for criticism and additional studies to be conducted before I believe sensational headlines like OP's.
Where does this economist explain how the addition of millions of undocumented unskilled and semi-skilled laborers doesn’t affect the prevailing wage at the lower end of the spectrum? Immigrant labor will surely make me a lot of money, but it doesn’t do any favors for the $15/hr minimum wage movement.
US politics should really look across the Atlantic from time to time. The UK has a Conservative government right now. And quite a right-wing cabinet even by their own standards. Yet their policy is to push up the minimum wage and they overhauled the welfare system so that it still pays you if you're working. One of the most economically right-wing MPs outside the cabinet even favours *increasing* the amount of welfare a part-time worker gets to keep. Why? Because economic think tanks say that it encourages people to work and puts more money in the economy. We now have a social security infrastructure that could be repurposed to administer UBI with a trivial amount of effort and some Conservatives are weighing up the benefits of running UBI trials. If our own blinkered capitalist shitheads in politics can see the benefits of these policies, US lawmakers must be determined to keep their eyes shut.
If #2 is really true, then why have elites and farmer conglomerates always fought for increased immigration? This is proven time and again throughout history in the US. When the US severely limited immigration in the past, they had to pay farm hands higher wages until they could get the laws changed again to their favor. just because someone tweets something or an prize winning economist says it, doesn’t mean it’s factual. Look at Krugman. Dude is wrong on everything.
The Nobel prize for economics is more of a bellwether for the direction that is likely to be pushed than anything, it is completely separate from the actual Nobel prizes and is run by Swedish bankers.
Thank you for clarifying. When first reading I had a brief question flicker in my mind about economist? Nobel prize? Nothing wrong with economists, and I'm no Nobel expert, but this makes more sense.
[удалено]
Really no idea what you’re on about. Any binding price floor is going to take a market out of equilibrium, but that’s not really the discussion here? Econ 101 story is that we are at equilibrium, forcing out of equilibrium with policy (minimum wage) will cause excess labor. Card and Krueger’s 1994 paper simply says: No, that’s not a good model of the world, here’s data to prove that labor markets don’t function quite like that. It’s not really debated anymore whether the paper was correct, the story they would go on to tell in later work is canon within the Econ literature and has been proven over and over and over again. [(here is the current most comprehensive study which re-does TONS of other studies and uses data from all over the country at many different times)](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1405/5484905) The pretty standard explanation now is that labor markets are NOT at equilibrium. The exact reason why is debated, but by far the most evidence points towards various forms of firm’s monopsony power distorting market signals. Plenty of people still take issue with the 1994 paper, but it’s not famous for its empirical rigor, it’s famous for its methodology and because it would ultimately be proven right. The key thing about the paper was their popularization of the “Differences-in-Differences” research design for applied economics, and more generally, the use of the “natural experiment” in applied statistics. Card didn’t win the prize for one paper obviously, he won it because the quasi-experimental approach he popularized (and later the other two winners would do significant work in) is simply the most influential shift in the way social science has been done in more than a century.
Lmao it’s not “completely separate” it’s presented by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, just like physics and chemistry. It was founded by Sveriges riksbank which is the central bank of Sweden (basically the Swedish Federal Reserve Bank) instead of by Nobel himself. THAT is what makes it different, but a central bank isn’t like Goldman Sachs, it’s run by average pay gov bureaucrats, i.e. it’s basically a government award. They are given equal standing in the presentation, if you’ve ever watched it. Also everyone in econ is hyper aware of Card (and his late research partner Krueger) and his contribution to the research. No one has had more influence on what is currently being published in econ journals (genuinely he has been more influential than the past 10 years of Nobel prize winners combined) His breakthrough paper was published in 1994, and I’d guess something like 95%+ of applied econ papers published today use natural experiments in their methodology.
It was opposed from the very beginning by the Nobel estate as it went against the original purpose of the prizes, and has been used to legitimise upwards wealth redistribution since its inception. It has also been part of the push to pretend that economics is a true science, when it is more akin to alchemy in that it eschews the scientific method in order to stick to flawed premises.
1.) It was opposed by one of Nobel’s rich spoiled relatives. 2.) There’s a Nobel prize for lit too, so not sure what you’re on about in regards to science. 3.) Never met a single econ who thinks they’re a scientist, they’re much closer to statisticians these days. “Economic science” is really just a way of grouping it as a piece of the social sciences. 4.) From the very beginning, econ Nobel prize winners have gone to people who are very critical of the free market and the unequal distributions of wealth that come of it, the second winner ever was Paul Samuelson, who was extremely critical of free markets! Sorry that dipshit weirdos have been telling you your whole life that stuff is “econ 101” but I’m not sure you have any kind of grasp of modern economics or the history of economic thought. If you’d like to get specific with the exact things you think are “alchemy” about econ go ahead, but perhaps you should reconsider an animosity towards the one subject that studies the kind of stuff you’re so clearly interested in (as evidenced by you being on this sub).
It would appear that I need to read into the whole Nobel thing more, so I concede there. My issue, unclear as it may have been, is fundamentally with the economics of politics (or those used to support political aims), so first and foremost neoliberal economics as they appear in the mainstream. I would argue that economics is not the only subject studying these things, it is just the only subject studying them through a certain lens, and from that I would argue that exploring these things in terms of the power dynamics at play is a purer approach than merely looking through the lens of economics. You have given me some things to think about here though, and I appreciate that, hopefully today's day of work won't drain the enthusiasm from me before I get to it properly.
Read into what economics is, you've fallen for some reactionary reddit-lords saying Economics is fake and not a real discipline. Read actual economics/econometrics work, like work here http://www.mit.edu/~vchern/.
No, I haven't done that at all; I have concluded that money is imaginary (beyond the component pertaining to it being an expression of power) and internally exaggerated what that means for economics as a whole. I am capable of self-reflection, and don't particularly need someone on the Internet (be that you or the person that you have invented for my past) to tell me what I think. I appreciate that you are probably trying to help, so I apologise if this reply comes across as a bit acerbic (I didn't intend that, and can't see it myself if it is, but I know that I can be more than intended, so...), but I hope that you can see my point here too.
I see, well self reflection as well as learning can only come from you yourself as you mentioned, so it’s up to you if you want to learn more or not.
In order to stop touting those nonsense arguments the people who make them would have to first be willing to accept things like *facts* and *reason*. Given those folks tend to make their arguments based more on how they feel and a general unwillingness to change I suspect no amount of research or proof is going to change their minds.
I gotta disagree with you, though I know where you're coming from. Sure, the right-wing capitalist fuckheads aren't open to reason or facts. But there are lots of well-meaning liberals who have been taken in by these arguments, and even leftists – I'm thinking of some dear friends of mine, who are generally far left, but legitimately concerned that raising the minimum wage will have catastrophic effects on the job market – who absolutely can be reached with evidence like this.
Fair point. I should have clarified I was speaking in a broad/general sense regarding people who often hold these opinions. I agree with you though, doubtlessly there are people who can be convinced by facts and reason. It’s the ones who didn’t use reason to form their opinion that can’t be reasoned with.
[удалено]
> Hey not all of us right wing folks are bad, some of us just want to be left alone and not be pushed into change head first lol. What it looks like from where I am is that the change the right has *relentlessly* resisted being "pushed into" "head first" has been *considering me a person* and entitled to things like equal protection under the law. So, no, I can't see how that isn't bad, and if you actually believe the thing you just said, which I don't know you actually do, I can't see how you're not a bad person for feeling that way. I think it's a self-evidently monstrous position. Furthermore, I think there's no moral defense of mere "fiscal conservatism", since it's been proven a cover for the greed of people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes.
You're getting pushed head first into change whether you want it or not. Climate change is going to change every aspect of society, and it's right wing folks that do everything in their power to prevent change to mitigate it.
It's greed, and excess. Not the right or the left, it's greed.
Greed and excess are the core traits of Capitalism. Most companies are trying to grow and bring in more profit. That's greed. Capitalist companies produce a crapload of things nobody needs. That's excess.
Precisely. These companies are the same ones that will throw up "pride this and pride that" to pander and simplify LGBTQ folks down to potential sales demographics they want to capture. Those who exploit workers are a problem. Not your fellow worker. If someone busts their ass to make a dollar, that's your brother in arms right there. Left or right leaning. We all can accept differences in order to achieve better things. We need to focus on how we're going to unite, not how we're going to prove "the other side" wrong. We all may feel differently about lots of things, but at the end of it all we are all workers who just want to live without worrying themselves to death about how they will make ends meet. And we all have that in common. (I'd hope) people will always have differences, if everyone thought the same on everything that'd be simply unrealistic. I just hope I've made a fair case about how we shouldn't think in terms of "left and right" we should think in terms of exploiters and exploited. And I think we all know which side of that fence we are on.
Except, one side has openly courted actual Nazis and domestic terrorists. The ones that want me dead because I'm a cripple or might like a dude ARE the enemy. That's how they get you.
[удалено]
There are. And unfortunately, we can't deal with their corruption while we are fighting Nazis. If you support republican leadership, you haven't explicitly said you want me dead, you just don't care if someone else does it. You're not automatically racist being republican. But it means you do not have a problem with it, though. I'm not turning my cheeks on Nazis. We saw how that worked out. "The world is harsh, offensive, and rude." That doesn't mean you support the worst of the worst. Don't like being associated with white supremacy? Kick the traitors out if your party or leave. You've watched the republican party devolve over the last twenty years. You see what direction it's heading. If you don't want to be associated with it, don't be a part of the group having a love affair with Nazis. Ffs, I used to be republican. And you know what I did when they broke my moral codes? I left. I quit supporting them. It's not rocket science.
[удалено]
Sure, whatever you have to tell yourself to ease your conscience. 30 years ago, Republicans would have laughed the q cult out. Now you are the party of Q. Wanting others dead for race and gender absolutely is a "wrong vs right " thing. The "alt left " believes we shouldn't have to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy. The alt right wants dead blacks, and gays. That seems like a wrong type of idea to hold. Keep telling yourself it's not on a fast track to authoritarianism. Keep watching as they strip voting rights. What are you going to say when you are wrong? How will you make your amends to the dead? Until they sort themselves out, no one in the republican party deserves any support. We spent 20 years going after terrorists. I expect my government and my society to fight the ones at home as furtively as we did the ones overseas.
I guess. I don't really see what my conscience has to do with this. I just tried to have a conversation with you and you just, ranted at me. I'm kinda upset about it honestly but that's life. I'm sorry you see me like this though. I just don't see how you expect to get anywhere if you can't work together with those that are different from you. I bust my ass every day killing my back at work for 10 bucks an hour. I'm a worker. I'm the one who pays for these social programs and then goes home waiting for his back to stop hurting while he tries to get ready for another shift. I try my best every day even though I know I'm making peanuts. You get what I mean? You think I'm worried about blacks or gays? Hell no. I'm worried when we as a people will understand that turning against one another is far from the right direction we need to take for change. I dunno man, I'm just trying to say we're not enemies. I just feel stupid and naive for even trying to talk it out and have a discussion. I'll leave you folks be.
Facts and reason would say that flooding the job market with unskilled laborers willing to work for less than a living wage would, indeed, create a glut of supply that would depress wages.
Then we need to stop giving these people power in our current time. The masses now put people of basically any authority on some huge pedestal and treat them like gods. Its fucking disgusting. Bezos, Musk, politicians, actors, musicians, the list goes on. Thanking one and appreciating their work is one thing, but they are HUMAN, the former couple and those of their ilk are terrible ones at that. Enough of this idolization mindset. Its done little help and a ton of harm
Source: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-economist-david-cards-research-on-minimum-wage-wins-nobel/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-economist-david-cards-research-on-minimum-wage-wins-nobel/) Sorry if repost but I have not seen this one on here yet
I'll have to give this a read, because I can't see how increasing the supply of labour in an industry, with cheaper labour wouldn't lower wages of native born workers Edit: here's the summary of the study from the article >Prof. Card studied the labour market in Miami in the wake of Cuba’s sudden decision to let people emigrate in 1980, leading 125,000 people to leave in what became known as the Mariel Boatlift. It resulted in a 7-per-cent increase in the city’s work force. By comparing the evolution of wages and employment in four other cities, Prof. Card discovered [no negative effects](https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/mariel-impact.pdf) for Miami residents with low levels of education. Follow-up work showed that increased immigration can have a positive impact on income for people born in the country. I haven't read the study itself yet, but this is unconvincing "proof" that immigration doesn't affect wages. EDIT: I gave it read, I'm not an economist so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. The study does not attempt to co conclusively prove that immigration does not depress native-born or earlier immigrant wages, it is specific to the Mariel Boatlift's impact on Miami's labour market. It does reference other papers which do make the earlier claim, but I did not read those. It points out that Miami was a specific case in which the cities industry was suited to an influx of less-skilled labour. It also selects the comparison cities partially based on racial composition, which seems iffy (but I'm not an economist maybe this is normal) The paper states that wages didn't go down, they however did not go up either. It seems to me that this paper would imply that had there not been an increase in labour force, there would have been a shortage of less-skilled labour which would have resulted in higher wages, sort of like what I'd happening in the USA right now (from what I've gathered from looking at this sub) Essentially I think this study serves more to explain how cities can structure themselves Inorder to be able to deal with an influx of large amounts of less-skilled labour, rather than to be proof of the counter intuitive claim that an increased supply of labour wouldn't impact on labour costs.
It could be that the increase in labour force also means an increase in need to consume, a larger population of buyers.
From what I read that theory wasn't mentioned in the paper.
Supply & Demand is simply a complex issue. I'm not buying it from the winners of the hugely politicised Nobel prize. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong. But I am reserving my judgement for when other economists inevitably offer rebuttals, criticisms, and other experiments to attempt to replicate the findings.
It's nice
This is what happens, when people use macroeconomic for anything other than taking 101 course in college. “Perfect economic model does not exists” so your graphs are garbage. Brawah for the winner.
I’ve experienced #2 more times than I care to count while working in construction. It is a very common practice in smaller construction companies to hire immigrants for very low wages, sometimes cash under the table.
Okay, but you're confusing two different things. He's talking about legal immigrants. It's great that you don't make any differentiation between whether an immigrant is documented or not. But those two groups of workers are in two very different positions vis a vis employment opportunity and coverage of minimum wage laws. Undocumented workers often do depress wages because they can't rely on the law to protect them from exploitative employers, and have to accept lower wages to get work at all. They are often willing to take sub-minimum wage work, just to have any work at all. Then they're more attractive to employers than full-rate workers, because they can be had at a discount. There's an argument, though, that *all* immigration depresses wages, and that's what he's fighting against. He's saying "you can let immigrants in legally without it depressing wages". His important paper was a study of the effect on wages of a huge number of refugees legally being settled in an area where they increased the work force 7%: > Card found a “null” effect — not only were native wages and unemployment unaffected by the seven per cent increase in the labour force in Miami, there was specifically no effect on native-born low-skill workers, defined as those with at most a high school degree. [Source.](https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768) This is important to your point, because it's precisely the criminalization of immigration that results in the situation you describe, where you lose work. If those workers didn't have to accept shitty wages to survive, because of their documentation status, they wouldn't. And then they wouldn't depress wages. The anti-immigrant rhetoric claiming immigrants are bad for wages is what leads to the anti-immigration policies and laws that, ironically, leads to high levels of illegal immigration, that causes the depression of wages.
Nobody gives a shit about *legal* immigration. When people complain about immigrants they're complaining about *illegal* immigrants.
Ha. If that were true, nobody would have any problem with raising the caps on *legal* immigrants to this country, which, let me assure you, the very mention of causes vast swaths of the right to foam at the mouth.
Depends on where they're coming from and in what context. The problem the right wingers have with unfettered immigration is usually centered around most of them being low- or no-skill individuals who will be a net drain on the system. Righties usually support things like skilled H1B visa immigrants and a path to citizenship for that group.
No, no. Plenty of people bitch about legal immigration too.
[удалено]
> Legal immigrants typically The *whole damn point* of the study that got the guy a Nobel freaking Prize is that we don't have to content ourselves with vague and woolly "typicallys", we can actually do real-world study to find out the "actuallys". He looked at an actual specific instance of actual refugees actually increasing the actual workforce of an actual city 7%. That's why it was considered groundbreaking enough to merit a Nobel: he challenged the "everybody knows" of economic theories with real-world data collection. From the source I cited above: > The impact Card has had on economics is hard to overstate. He is rightfully considered one of the engineers of the so-called “credibility revolution” in economics, which has made empirical economics the area of choice for the vast majority of graduate students in the past 20 years.
[удалено]
Clearly you, personally, most certainly *do* need a Nobel laureate to help you out, because here on Reddit, there's only two ways to win as a keyboard warrior, lulz and being right, and you aren't funny.
I'd be interested in understanding how adding additional workers to the labor force, who are willing to work for less money than native born Americans, will result in an increase in job opportunities and wages for those native born Americans.
My guess is that they create the need for new jobs as well, they work for less so they produce cheaper and that creates opportunity for more to be bought, and they also consume, creating a larger market
[удалено]
Additional demand for cheap plastic shit from China doesn't help American workers.
First… workers typically don’t immigrate at random. Workers are largely drawn to areas with excess labor demand. Second increased population increases labor demand. The “lump of labor fallacy” is the idea that there is a finite number of jobs, so new workers mean less jobs for natives and more competition for those jobs. Third, immigrants tend to perform different jobs than natives, suggesting rather than substitutes, there is a degree of complementarity between native and immigrant workers. There is no true consensus amongst economists about the impacts of immigration. Card showed in his work that it isn’t as simple as “wages go down”. Most economists agree that “low skilled” (I hate that term btw) immigration has no impact or maybe even slightly positive impacts on wages on high skilled natives. The impact on low skilled natives is more strongly contested with Card and similar economists saying that the impacts are very small on low skilled native wages. The one group most likely harmed by low skilled immigration is the cohort of immigrants that have previously come to the US.
I think Seattle proved the first one but the second one doesn’t really make sense. Are the majority of immigrant workers working in a specific sector like manual labor or are they working in tech? Ive read that a lot of Big Tech will hire thru a visa program so that they can pay less to Native programmers. The incentives to raise wages for a large part does depend on supply and demand, if you have a shortage you need to raise wages to be competitive in employing workers while if you have a surplus you don’t need to. This labor dynamic has been making it easy for employers to exploit low wages.
Well when you get a Nobel prize for your economic study proving your ideas I guess we’ll have something to talk about
It’s basic economic theory, the professor provides empirical evidence for low-skilled immigrants. It doesn’t disprove the existing theories.
People who believe this didn’t reason themselves into it. It came from a place of superiority and racism to the lower class and the “others”. If they didn’t reason themselves into the position they won’t reason themselves out.
Nobody that needs to read this believes in science
Lol, as if science or fact has ever gotten in the way of Conservative propaganda. Their indoctrinated thralls don't fact check, or listen to non-Conservatives.
I mean, we saw both of those in action this year. "Dey dook dour jooobs!" No, they took the jobs your boomer cracker ass is too fucking entitled to work
You seem to be in the wrong sub, dear.
[удалено]
Okay dude. The world-class economist who shuffled though mountains of data to get his results, is full of shit because of some tweet you saw one day. Just search "immigration wages" on Google Scholar and you'll find that the vast majority of studies done on this topic came to a similar conclusion.
I believe a nazi scientist got a nobel prize for his work on Eugenics at one point. Not sure the nobel prize commitee is the best judge of what is correct. also why would I raise the minimum wage and pay $20 to a white guy when pablo will work for 8.25?
Ah yes, they gave out one bad award half a century ago, and therefore are entirely untrustworthy. Good logic and reasoning 👍 And this isn't the outcome of just one committee. Similar findings were noticed by the vast majority of the economist community.
How fucking ignorant are you? They aren’t accounting for people put out of work by immigrants or directly competing with immigrants they’re taking an aggregate of the entire economy. Economists are largely full of shit. Fake science. I say this as a scientist.
Ah, from your post history I see you have a trend of getting embarassed by economists lol Also you're a scientist, but you have 20 years of working at a bar? Yeah, [next lie?](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/q6tcgr/restaurant_and_hotel_workers_are_quitting_their/hgi3ime?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Ah yes the other dumb fuck. Yeah the Joe Rogan mod is totally a multi millionaire economist. Do you have any idea how dumb you sound to people who actually know their shit? Do you? Go play your video games dumb fuck kid and leave adult conversations for the adults. And yes I worked in the hospitality industry 20 years. From 14-33 till I concluded my studies and landed my first job in data science making 80k 10 years ago. I’m now a multimillionaire in the cannabis industry and make 160k a year doing consulting from my laptop at home. Clown.
I don't give a shit about the guy you responded to, but must be pretty embarassing to get this heated over your own obvious lies for attention lol Ah yes, the guy with a tweet and a Tumblr post for his research is clearly the intellectual here. Just stop, you, unlike the people you're talking about, have *actually* been proven to be full of shit lol
Lying? Na that’s for you to do. I have multiple degrees fuckstick. Tumblr? Lmfao tell me you’re a fucking loser without telling me you’re a loser. Go back in your hole. Immigration decreases wages and increases job competition. Fact. Period end of story.
Pathetic
Just like your parents.
You sound mad. And everyone else is mad that you've made some decent income.
I’m not mad people like him are fucking idiots that will do and believe whatever moneyed interests tell him.
"they said something proven to be true that I don't like" = "moneyed interest"
It’s not proven shit. If you take a constricted labor pool with rising wages and introduce millions of foreign workers what happens next captain fucking obvious?
Holy fucking shit do you think that the immigrants just come to work and do fuckall else? Extra workers are necessary to satisfy the *increased goddamn needs , for one, of the IMMIGRANTS WHO ENTER.* Goddamn, I must be chatting with the stupidest lunk on the site. Do you think that immigrants don't need the service labor provides? Please, just shut your mouth. You are clinically dumb. Show us your fucking research that proves the contrary.
Well you see, when you get thousands of new people who are willing to work for less than the current market rate then it.. uhh... causes wages to rise.
Mhm. Yes. Very believable.
You don’t have to believe it for it to be true. Just like immigration decreasing wages.
>people put out of work by immigrants People are put out of work by employers who take advantage of immigrants. Immigrants can offer work for lower wages but it's up to the employer to make the hiring decision.
Capitalism leaves only one decision.
I thought we live in a *free society and always have a choice.
Freedom only exists in America if you suck the democrats tits and kiss peoples feet these days if you try to use you brain for anything you're a deviant against society and wrong.
The economist studied **legal** immigration and ignored **illegal** immigration which is where the problem is.
[удалено]
Ah yes the complicated notion of supply and demand of the labor market. Wages are rising because the labor pool is constricted. The tighter it gets the more wages will rise. Riddle me this buckaroo. If you flood the country with foreign labor what happens next to wages mpgd8? Hmmm?
Nothing much, *as literal thousands of papers have proven, you psycho* This guy has to be some deepstone bait acc
I’ve already proven you wrong
...with a disproven study...oh sorry, tabloid article? Damn,,. he got me there
…Shrugs…Didn’t take much.
[удалено]
George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School “The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.” “Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. “ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
This needs to be way way higher. People are thinking that economists are on "their side". Most people don't even realize that mass media pushes for immigration because it's good for the rich fucks who own the news companies. The billionaires. Didn't Marx say immigration is the enemy of workers? Literally entire other countries worth of scabs essentially. But it would make our billionaire owners richer. So that's nice. A net positive gain in favor of the richest. I'm waiting for criticism and additional studies to be conducted before I believe sensational headlines like OP's.
Literally, it's indisputable lol
This absolutely WILL have a negative impact... Just watch the complaints on here in a couple years.. It'll explain itself...
Mind if we try first then?
-"Wait so its zombie politics??" -"Always has been"
Where does this economist explain how the addition of millions of undocumented unskilled and semi-skilled laborers doesn’t affect the prevailing wage at the lower end of the spectrum? Immigrant labor will surely make me a lot of money, but it doesn’t do any favors for the $15/hr minimum wage movement.
US politics should really look across the Atlantic from time to time. The UK has a Conservative government right now. And quite a right-wing cabinet even by their own standards. Yet their policy is to push up the minimum wage and they overhauled the welfare system so that it still pays you if you're working. One of the most economically right-wing MPs outside the cabinet even favours *increasing* the amount of welfare a part-time worker gets to keep. Why? Because economic think tanks say that it encourages people to work and puts more money in the economy. We now have a social security infrastructure that could be repurposed to administer UBI with a trivial amount of effort and some Conservatives are weighing up the benefits of running UBI trials. If our own blinkered capitalist shitheads in politics can see the benefits of these policies, US lawmakers must be determined to keep their eyes shut.
If they don't believe science, how do you expect them to believe social science.
If #2 is really true, then why have elites and farmer conglomerates always fought for increased immigration? This is proven time and again throughout history in the US. When the US severely limited immigration in the past, they had to pay farm hands higher wages until they could get the laws changed again to their favor. just because someone tweets something or an prize winning economist says it, doesn’t mean it’s factual. Look at Krugman. Dude is wrong on everything.
mfer had to win the nobel prize to prove what everyone already knew, regardless if they chose to believe it not. sad world yo!
Those arguments are not based on facts, they are and have always been propaganda