Thursday, May 1, 2014

Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects

Cartoon politician holding stop sign



Before proceeding, please write down 3 effects you believe minimum wage laws have on individuals, businesses, and governments. (do not just think, but make yourself commit by writing)




After reviewing 26 articles, I was unable to find high quality research of what effects individuals believe minimum wage legislation will produce. Rather than reliable poll data of large populations, my findings reflect a number of individual authors with a high degree of bias.

Article List

Tldr (too long didn't read)


Effect: Reduces number of citizens living in poverty
  • Logic concludes by raising wages, citizens will experience greater income levels leading to less poverty and higher standards of living.
  • Bryce Covert at ThinkProgress cites a Restaurant Opportunities United study concluding a minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour would lift nearly 6 million people out of poverty.
  • Mike Konczal at the Boston Review cites two figures. The first a Congressional Budget Office study which found increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would raise 900,000 people out of poverty. Mike then goes on to state an estimated 4.6 million people would be lifted out of poverty. (likely referencing University of Massachusetts-Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube)


Effect: Increases unemployment
  • Textbook economic theory observes as production costs go up (labor in the case of minimum wage), the price of goods and services also go up. As prices increase, demand decreases. As demand decreases, less of the product is needed. Less production means less workers producing the good or service resulting in unemployment.
  • A February 2014 Congressional Budget Office study estimates 500,000 jobs would be lost by 2016 with a minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour.
  • James Sherk from The Heritage Foundation cites each 10% rise in minimum wage increases unemployment of affected workers by 2 percent.
  • Another article by James Sherk summarizes a case study of American Samoa's minimum wage increases.
    • Map of American Samoa
    • Please read Sherk’s article for details, however a synopsis from American Samoa’s Governor Tulafona: Gov. Tulafona pointed out that American Samoa’s unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent before the last minimum wage hike to over 35 percent in 2009. He begged Congress to stop increasing the islands’ minimum wage:
      • “We are watching our economy burn down. We know what to do to stop it. We need to bring the aggressive wage costs decreed by the Federal Government under control. But we are ordered not to interfere …Our job market is being torched. Our businesses are being depressed. Our hope for growth has been driven away…Our question is this: How much does our government expect us to suffer, until we have to stand up for our survival?”
    • Other American Samoa Resources
  • Murray Rothbard at Ludwig von Mises Institute: “This [minimum wage legislation] means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.”
  • Peter Roth at USNews: “Unskilled workers get laid off, replaced by machines and higher-skill workers who are more valuable. Self-checkout lines appear in grocery stores. Credit card machines take the place of the fellow who used to take the money in the parking lot.”
  • William Schmidter at Cincinnati.com: "According to The Bureau of labor statistics 45 percent of the working age people are unemployed. We are competing with the world for jobs making shoes, shirts, bicycles, televisions, computers, cars and many other things that we use. The world is paying $2.00, $4.00, $6.00 an hour for many of these jobs. Every time we raise the minimum wage we send more of these jobs overseas."


Effect: Reduces use of public assistance programs (food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.)
  • Rationale: The majority of public assistance programs are income based. Raising individual incomes will reduce the number of public assistance recipients and therefore lower welfare expenditures.
  • Rachel West and Michael Reich at Center for American Progress found a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces SNAP enrollment by 2.4-3.2% and reduces program expenditures by an estimated 1.9 percent.
    • “Our results imply that the effects of the Harkin-Miller proposal on wage increases ($10.10 per hour) would reduce SNAP enrollments by between 6.5 percent and 9.2 percent (3.3 million to 3.8 million persons). The total anticipated annual decrease in program expenditures is nearly $4.6 billion, or about 6 percent of current SNAP program expenditures.”


Effect: Only helps a small percentage of those who are in poverty (inefficient method for eliminating poverty)
  • Economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded in their 2010 study: 
    • “Assuming no negative employment effects, only 11.3% of workers who will gain live in poor households… Our results suggest that raising the federal minimum wage continues to be an inadequate way to help the working poor.”
  • James Sherk and Rea Hederman Jr. at The Heritage Foundation found in 2005:
    • 1.3 million Americans earn the minimum wage or less per hour, or 1.1 percent of the total working population
    • 19.5% of minimum wage workers are at or below poverty line with 56.1% living in households > 2 x the poverty line
    • 61.7% of minimum wage workers only work part time (or not at all)


Effect: Boosts economy
    Economic Boost Chart
  • David Cooper and Doug Hall at the Economic Policy Institue write:
    • “Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services. This results in an immediate economic boost as money is transferred from individuals more likely to save to individuals more likely to spend.”
    • “At the same time, it [minimum wage increase] would provide a modest stimulus to the entire economy, as increased wages would lead to increased consumer spending, which would contribute to GDP growth and modest employment gains.”
  • Bryce Covert at ThinkProgress, Cameron Davis at ThinkProgress, and The National Employment Law Project with raisetheminimumwage.com all cite a study by Daniel Aaronson and Eric French from the Chicago Federal Reserve estimating  raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour would create a $48 billion boost in 2012 GDP, $28 billion if account for potential job loss.
    • One important caveat to note is the authors concluded:
      • “Finally, it’s important to stress that the aggregate household spending response discussed in this article is relevant for only the first few quarters after a minimum wage hike. Beyond that time frame, households must pay off debt they incurred in the short run by spending less. Thus, a minimum wage hike provides stimulus for a year or so, but serves as a drag on the economy beyond that.”
    • None-the-less, short-term economic boosts can get the ball rolling to continued growth.


Effect: Increases consumer costs
  • Another textbook economic theory. Raising production costs (cost of labor) will require producers to increase prices which will be paid for by the end user/consumer.
  • Christina Romer from the New York Times and Dustin Hawkins from About.com cite increased consumer prices as a consequence of minimum wage legislation. In addition, Romer further argues passing along production costs to consumers in the form of higher prices will disproportionately affect low income earners as they are more likely to purchase those low cost goods and services which would be most affected by a minimum wage (McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.).


Effect: Increases worker productivity and decreases employee turnover
  • Governor Peter Shulmin and Governor Dan Malloy in a CNN article: “In fact, recent studies conclude that raising the minimum wage makes workers more productive and therefore helps businesses retain profitability.”
  • Mike Konczal of the Boston Review: “The minimum wage becomes an incentive for bosses to do a better job managing their employees. Higher earnings also encourage employees to work harder. Economists call this the ‘efficiency wage’: when workers have more to lose, they do their jobs better in an effort to keep their gains.”


Effect: Increases difficulty of low skilled workers finding entry level jobs to acquire skills, experience, references, etc.
  • James Sherk at The Heritage Foundation: "A higher minimum wage helps only those workers who actually wind up earning that wage and further disadvantages lower-income workers, who suffer fewer job opportunities and working hours."
  • Anthony Davis at LearnLiberty: “It [minimum wage] helps the more productive workers as the expense of the less productive workers. What’s worse is the more productive workers normally don’t need the help.”
  • Linda Gorman at Library of Economics and Liberty: "In practice they [minimum wage laws] often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market. Employers typically are not willing to pay a worker more than the value of the additional product that he produces. This means that an unskilled youth who produces $4.00 worth of goods in an hour will have a very difficult time finding a job if he must, by law, be paid $5.15 an hour.
  • William Dunkelberg at Forbes: "Firms cannot pay a worker more than the value the worker brings to the firm.  Raising the minimum [wage] denies more low skilled workers the opportunity to get a job and receive 'on the job' training.  The impact of raising the minimum wage in 2009 on teen employment makes it very clear that this is especially harmful for young teen workers looking for their first opportunity to have a job. Raising the cost of labor raises the incentive for employers to find ways to use less labor.


Effect: Reduces gender and racial income inequality
  • Mike Konczal at the Boston Review: "The minimum wage affects women disproportionally, especially women of color. According to the Center for American Progress, more than 64 percent of those earning the minimum wage or less are women. African American and Latina women are 15.8 and 16.5 percent of female minimum wage earners, respectively, though only about 12.5 percent of employed workers.
  • David Cooper and Doug Hall at the Economic Policy Institute: "Women would be disproportionately affected, comprising 56 percent of those who would benefit. Although workers of all races and ethnicities would benefit from the increase, non-Hispanic white workers comprise the largest share (about 54 percent) of those who would be affected."
  • Bryce Covert at ThinkProgress: 
    • "It would help close the gender wage gap: Women make up two-thirds of the minimum wage earners in the country, which is why 13.1 million would be impacted by a raise. Evidence already suggests that a higher minimum wage is related to a smaller gender wage gap at the state level, pointing to a raise as a good way to help change the fact that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns."
    • "It’s an important racial justice issue: Three and a half million people of color would be lifted out of poverty with a minimum wage raise to $10.10, representing the majority of those lifted out of poverty. People of color are much more likely to work minimum wage jobs, making up 42 percent of those workers even though they make up 32 percent of the overall."


Effect: Majority want it
Jumping on the Bandwagon
Bandwagon
  • Governor Peter Shulmin and Governor Dan Malloy in a CNN article: “common sense” 
    • "We'll do so [raise minimum wage] with the benefit of having the American people on our side. Democrats, Republicans and independents alike overwhelmingly support raising the minimum wage. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows 63% of Americans support it."
  • Bryce Covert at ThinkProgress: "Americans support a raise: A poll released on Wednesday shows that 80 percent of Americans support a raise to $10.10 an hour, including more than 90 percent of Democrats and even two-thirds of Republicans, as well as 83 percent of low-income adults and nearly 80 percent of those who make more than $100,000."


Effect: Morally just
  • Mike Konczal of the Boston Review: "Catholic doctrine provides a religious case for a minimum wage, which is all about balancing the needs of the family with those of the marketplace. As Pope John XXIII argued in a 1961 encyclical, the wage of the poor 'is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace,' as 'workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner.” In the words of Pope John Paul II, 'A just wage is the concrete means of verifying the whole socioeconomic system.'"



Positive Effects:
  • Reduces number of citizens living in poverty
  • Reduces use of public assistance programs
  • Boosts economy
  • Increases worker productivity and decreases employee turnover
  • Reduces gender and racial income inequality
  • Majority want it
  • Morally just

Negative Effects:
  • Increases unemployment
  • Only helps a small percentage of those who are in poverty
  • Increases consumer costs
  • Increases difficulty of low skilled workers finding entry level jobs to acquire skills, experience, references, etc.



Minimum wage legislation is a complex and highly emotionally charged issue polarizing many individuals and groups. How do the effects you wrote down compare to these? Which effects do you find valid and which do you question? Referring back to my previous post, what are you for and against? Poverty alleviation? Fair and just wages to reduce income, gender, and racial inequality? Economic stability? Based on the above cited effects, do you feel minimum wage legislation is an effective method for achieving your desired outcomes? Why or why not?


Next Post Topic: Minimum Wage Part III: My Thoughts

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Minimum Wage Part I: For and Against

More than 3 out of 4 Americans support raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour. In a time when Congress has been in constant gridlock, raising the minimum wage has bipartisan support with more than 50% of republicans and democrats supporting a minimum wage increase.
Bipartisan Support
Historically, minimum wage was first enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt with passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 and has been increased 22 times. Minimum wage in 1938 was set at $0.25 an hour.

How does today’s minimum wage of $7.25 compare to 1938? At $7.25 an hour, today's minimum wage is higher than the inflation adjusted wage in 1938 ($4.08) and the 1938 - 2013 average inflation adjusted wage ($6.60) per hour respectively. Today’s minimum wage is however lower than its peak inflation adjusted wage of $8.67 realized in 1968.
Historical Inflation Adjusted Minimum Wage Graph

Before expounding upon my beliefs on minimum wage, I want to clearly state what I am for and against. 

I support:
  • Increased economic prosperity for all, especially those given the label as low income earners by the U.S. Government
  • Equal treatment
    • I support men and women of all races, ages, religious preference, etc. be given fair compensation for their contributions, as well as equal opportunity to maintain and improve their standard of living
  • Greater local influence
    • I support state, regional, and local enactment of public policies rather than a one size fits all system as our federal government prescribes. I believe the State of Minnesota has a better idea what is good for its constituents than politicians in Washington D.C. Similarly, I believe public officials in Bemidji, MN have a better idea what will best serve residents of Bemidji compared to state politicians.
  • Freedom
    • I support individuals having the opportunity to decide for themselves what is best for them. Similar to greater local influence, I believe individuals are in a better position to decide what is best for them rather than politicians miles away.
  • Long term sustainable growth
    • I support sustainable initiatives designed to create long term economic prosperity. Short term prosperity can be achieved at the expense of long term growth, however I believe this is unsustainable and foolish. 
      • A good example is consumer debt. You can acquire any number of products and services on credit. Here you agree to short term gains (car, house, phones, TVs, etc.) in exchange for reduced long-term growth (any growth will be going to your debtor plus interest). This is great in the short term, but, ask anyone with large student, credit card, and housing debt their outlook on their long term growth and you will likely see this principle first hand.
  • Wages linked to current and potential productivity
    • I believe a worker's wage should rise and fall based on his/her productivity. For example, if George can make 20 widgets per day while Fred constructs only 5 widgets per day, I believe Joe should be given a higher wage than Fred even though they are technically doing the exact same work.
    • NFL draft picks are an example of potential productivity. They are paid millions of dollars with the hope they will perform in the NFL. Thus, they are being compensated for their potential (rather than actual or current) productivity.
    • The voluntary exchange of labor for wages will only be sustained while a worker’s productivity (current or potential) is equal or greater than the worker’s wage.
      • If it costs Widget Workshop $10 to make a widget (excluding labor costs) it can sell for $20, Widget Workshop will not be able to pay Joe more than $200 per day (20 widgets x $10 profit = $200) nor Fred more than $50 per day. If Widget Workshop paid higher wages than these, it would operate at a loss and eventually become insolvent.

What I am against:
  • A person’s value linked to their income or wealth
    • I believe a person’s value is God given. I believe all people have been created in the image and likeness of God (see disclaimers) and therefore have been graced inherent value. A value or love from God that cannot be increased nor decreased. For this reason, I am against linking a person’s income, net worth, fame, etc. to their societal or individual value.
  • Social engineering/Central planning
    • As a general rule (some exceptions do exist such as pollution) I believe federal government involvement should be minimized in the affairs of individuals and private businesses. (See freedom above)
    • Social engineering effectively tells people: “You do not know how to manage your affairs, but I do. Therefore live your life as I tell you.”
  • American entitlement
    • Please remember I am for increased economic prosperity for all, especially those who the U.S. Government has defined as low income earners. This being stated, I am against Americans being entitled to higher wages and standard of living on the sole basis we are an American.
    • I find it ironic how passionate Americans are to remove the income inequality between men and women, yet there is little passion to remove the income inequality between Americans and citizens of other countries. Similar to supporting a woman receiving equal compensation for doing the same work as a man, should not an Eritrean receive the same cost of living adjusted wage as an American for completing the same task?
      Out of control political spending
  • Politicians in Washington D.C. believing they can successfully run a business
    • From what I’ve seen they spend more time spinning issues and spending money we don’t have ($17+ trillion in national debt and rising) than promoting sustainable growth.
  • Politicians acting as demagogues
    • Politicians should not be acting under the influence of lobbyists, political elites, and faulty public opinion. Rather, politicians should be making well researched and informed decisions that benefit a super majority (75+% of the people).

Whether you are part of the majority who support a minimum wage increase, or the minority who does not, I encourage you to take the additional step to determine what effects you believe the minimum wage has on individuals, businesses, and society. A large body of conflicting research already exists. My next post will attempt to summarize my own findings.


Next Blog Post: Minimum Wage Part II: Individual, Business, and Societal Effects

Thursday, March 6, 2014

League of Legends Growth Explosion

An individual is expected to live 700,000 hours (80 years). I estimate a person has ~300,000 productive hours in their lifetime (take out sleep, infant, and elderly years).

Given the great accomplishments of individuals with far less than a million productive hours, what could be accomplished with 1.3 billion man hours (> 3000 lifetimes of productive work)?

Great Wall of ChinaHoover Dam
Man Lands on the MoonPanama Canal
Egyptian Great Pyramids


League of Legends Classic Logo
Almost incomprehensible, individuals collectively spend 1.3 billion hours each month playing League of Legends, an online, multiplayer video game.

Assuming phenomenal organization, League of Legends players in 2 months could construct:
  • Panama Canal – 1.9 billion hours
  • Transcontinental Railroad – 0.5 billion hours
  • Hoover Dam – 0.2 billion hours

Surprisingly I was unable find a comprehensive timeline plotting the growth of League of Legends. I was, however, able to piece together information from multiple sources.
  • I admit my blog is an odd place to find a League of Legend’s timeline, but as you may notice from browsing other posts, I have many interests :)

League of Legends Growth Explosion

League of Legends Player Growth Timeline
Data Links -
October 2009 – League of Legends Officially Launched in North America and Europe
October 2011 – Riot Games Infographic
October 2012 – Riot Games Infographic
January 2014 – Wall Street Journal


Growth Graphs -

League of Legends Player Growth Graphs


My LoL Timeline and History

League of Legends Personal Timeline


Why I decided and continue to play League of Legends (LoL) –
  • Friends
    • Video games are an accessible medium to spend time with friends across the world. As I value developing these friendships, I decided to transition from Starcraft 2, largely single player game few of my friends play, to LoL, a multiplayer game many of my friends play.
  • Fun
    • While a grind in the beginning, I have more fun playing LoL today than at any other time.
  • Competition and Multiplayer
    • There is something in me desiring competition and measuring myself against the pool of other players. Single player games do not provide the level of competition or accurate feedback required to fulfill my desire.
    • I find team games also provide greater rewards, albeit greater frustration at times.
  • Popular
    • As terrible as it is to be a bandwagon player, I prefer mainstream games. As stated in my inaugural blog post, I have a difficult time engaging in conversation with people, popular video games have a greater potential to build conversational bridges.


Why others play LoL –
  • Free :)
    • Low performance PC/Mac platform. Does not require an additional $400 video game console purchase or a super computer to run. My 6 year old laptop runs the game.
  • Heavily rewards time invested
    • It is difficult for a naturally skilled player to understand all the champions and game dynamics. Thus less skilled players can gain a knowledge advantage allowing them to compete with higher skilled, less knowledgeable players.
  • Random events
    • Random events keep players interested for longer as there are always opportunities to learn and improve.
  • Team Play
    • Life is better together. (picture)
    • So happy together?
  • Variety of play styles
    • Allows for everyone to find a niche. Myself for instance, I avoid squishy champions and gravitate towards more forgiving top, mid, and support roles.

What I don’t like about LoL –
  • Promiscuous images
    • I do not support the objectification of women. I am all about freedom, but as Lord Acton stated, “Freedom is not the permission to do what we like, rather, it is the power to do what we ought."
  • Games can take too long with no means of breaking them up
    • Sometimes it would be nice to leave the game without ruining it for 9 other people, answer the phone, or take a 1-2 minute break. Not possible with LoL.
  • Large Learning Curve (double edged sword)
    • A large learning curve also keeps players interested, however, finding a combination of simple to pick up, yet difficult to master is a fine line.

Season 4 SMART Goals
  • Ascend to Silver V or above
  • Purchase a 3rd Rune Page with hybrid penetration or attack speed runes
  • 50%+ win rate on 5 champions
    • 2 mid, 2 top, 1 support
  • Own 22+ champions
    • Need additional support champion

While I do enjoy playing League of Legends, I do find video games can be an unproductive and foolish way to spend time and energy. It amazes me how much time (1.3+ billion hours per month) is invested into a single video game (LoL). 

The average user invests ~8 hours per week playing LoL. I am surprised it is this low. In fact, according to Business Insider, the average American spends ~3 hours playing video games per week, which is surprisingly similar to the amount of time spent reading, exercising, relaxing, and socializing (3 hours for each of the afore mentioned activities). In fact, the only outlier is time spent watching television: ~19 hours per week.
American Leisure Time Pie Graph

I encourage all to consciously decide how to best invest their time, talents, and treasures. I have determined during my current season of life I am willing to allocate ~5 hours per week playing video games for the reasons cited above. This will look differently for all individuals. I am not here to judge values or how people spend their lives, I simply do not want anyone to be ignorant or foolishly invest their 300,000 productive hours, talents, and resources.


Next Post Topic: Minimum Wage Part I: For and Against