Rather more likely is that the irony detector was spot on, and continues to be and that I was attempting to draw you out into expressing what you really believe regarding the desire to work versus laziness.

However it is irrelevant to the question if an individuals total compensation is more if they work less, as willingness to work would not be a factor in the decision: To Work or Not?

I was about to say "fair enough" to it being irrelevant to your question.
But is it?
Are the only rewards of work monetary? (Is it foolish to [i]not]/i] look at work solely based on money?)

Man has been able to monetize nearly everything, except perhaps feelings. And not all work has to be paid work. But you know the subject is work for money.

---

Why don't Americans take their holiday time?

Bit worrying to see this...

"This year four in 10 Americans do not intend to take all of their holiday time, partly in fear of losing their job or because it isn't encouraged by their employer."

A lot of people are worriers and also think they'll get an edge up by showing devotion to their job by not taking time off.

Well, a company I used to work for did things the right way, in my opinion.

Every year, on the anniversary date of your hire, you got an extra check for your vacation money. The first year, you got one week of pay. The third year you got two weeks of pay. The seventh, you got three weeks.

You were then free to take off all the *unpaid* time you wanted, as long as it was reasonable, with enough advance notice (two months in advance, unless it was an emergency). The only reason they would really say no would be if enough people had already requested that date range that it would create a staffing shortage if they let you have it.

Every year in which I wished to take vacation(s), in early January, I would contact HR and request this particular week off here, and those two weeks off there. Upon approval (usually on the spot) I would get written confirmation, and would then plan my vacations accordingly.

But whether or not I actually took them (some years I didn't ask for any), I still got my vacation pay, so it was all good.

I've never worked anywhere that paid me(while still employed) for untaken accrued time-off, but I have worked for a company that allowed it's employees to "gift" accruals to fellow employees who were off due to emergency situations and had exhausted their personal leave. I thought that was pretty cool. :~)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Here is a bit of reading material for those who promote minimum wage increases as the cure all to low employment and poverty.

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~mwither/pdfs/Effects%20of%20Min%20Wage%20on%20Wages%20Employment%20and%20Earnings.pdf

We estimate the minimum wage’s effects on low-skilled workers’ employment and income trajectories. Our approach exploits two dimensions of the data we analyze. First, we compare workers in states that were bound by recent increases in the federal minimum wage to workers in states that were not. Second, we use 12 months of baseline data to divide low-skilled workers into a “target” group, whose baseline wage rates were directly affected, and a “within-state control” group with slightly higher baseline wage rates. Over three subsequent years, we find that binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an “internship” effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation. Methodologically, we show that our approach identifies targeted workers more precisely than the demographic and industrial proxies used regularly in the literature. Additionally, because we identify targeted workers on a population-wide basis, our approach is relatively well suited for extrapolating to estimates of the minimum wage’s effects on aggregate employment. Over the late 2000s, the average effective minimum wage rose by 30 percent across the United States. We estimate that these minimum wage increases reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage point.

https://www.aei.org/publication/minimum-wage-destroyed-1-4-million-jobs/

How the minimum wage destroyed 1.4 million jobs

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/06/what-is-minimum-wage-its-history-and-effects-on-the-economy

American Samoa

The recent experience of American Samoa dramatically illustrates how wage increases reduce employment. The tiny Pacific island chain has been an American territory for over a century. However, American Samoans have a largely separate economy and considerably lower incomes than residents of the continental United States: the average Samoan worker made $12,000 in 2009.[17] The tuna canning industry makes up a significant portion of their private sector.

Until recently American Samoa had a different minimum wage schedule than the continental United States. A committee within the Department of Labor set Samoan wage minimums according to local economic conditions. In January 2007 the minimum wage in the canning industry stood at $3.26 an hour. Unfortunately for American Samoa, Congress applied the 2007 federal minimum wage increase to the territory. The legislation aligned the Samoan minimum wage with the U.S. rate of $7.25 an hour in 50 cent annual increments.[18]

Almost every hourly worker in the tuna canning industry makes less than $7.25 an hour.[19] At that level the minimum wage would cover 80 percent of the islands’ hourly workers.[20] This would be the economic equivalent of raising the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour in the continental U.S.[21]

By May 2009 the third scheduled minimum wage increase in Samoa took effect, rising to $4.76 an hour and covering 69 percent of canning workers. This did not increase purchasing power, stimulate demand, and raise living standards, as many minimum wage proponents theorize. Instead StarKist—one of the two canneries then located in Samoa—laid off workers, cut hours and benefits, and froze hiring.[22] The other cannery—Chicken of the Sea—shut down entirely in September 2009.[23]

The Government Accountability Office reports that between 2006 and 2009 overall employment in American Samoa fell 14 percent and inflation-adjusted wages fell 11 percent. Employment in the tuna canning industry fell 55 percent.[24] The GAO attributed much of these economic losses to the minimum wage hike.

The Democratic Governor of American Samoa, Togiola Tulafona, harshly criticized this GAO report for understating the damage done by the minimum wage hike. Testifying before Congress Gov. Tulafona objected that “this GAO report does not adequately, succinctly or clearly convey the magnitude of the worsening economic disaster in American Samoa that has resulted primarily from the imposition of the 2007 US minimum wage mandate.”[25] 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.[26] 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?”[27]

Samoan employers responded to higher labor costs the way economic theory predicts: by hiring fewer workers. Congress hurt the very workers it intended to help. Fortunately, Congress heeded the Governor’s plea and suspended the future scheduled minimum wage increases.

<ed>a little additional with some counter material
http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/raise_the_wage/14778/

---

Meh, quite frankly I don't buy the argument that higher minimum wages are bad for the economy. Okay, so employment goes down a little. Right now people work two or more jobs just to earn a living wage. If one job pays a living wage, people don't need that second and third job anymore. In the statistics, that could be made to appear that employment goes down, but in reality that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

On top of that, when it comes to poverty and the wealth gap, the United States is the absolute worst of any advanced industrial nation. 50 million people who need government support because else they will starve, most of them actually having jobs and still not earning enough to pay for life. Thats a disgrace and its something that no other advanced industrial nation has to the same degree. What do those nations have? Higher minimum wages for one thing.

And what other solutions are there? Trickle down economics? Thats a proven absolute failure that only benefits the 1% and no one else. The simple fact is that low wage workers need a higher wage, and a higher minimum wage is one way to make that happen. The other option is to just give everyone a stack of cash every month? Well okay, thats basically the idea behind the basic income, that could work.

The other option is to just give everyone a stack of cash every month? Well okay, thats basically the idea behind the basic income, that could work.

Just where will that cash come from?

Meh, quite frankly I don't buy the argument that higher minimum wages are bad for the economy. Okay, so employment goes down a little. Right now people work two or more jobs just to earn a living wage. If one job pays a living wage, people don't need that second and third job anymore. In the statistics, that could be made to appear that employment goes down, but in reality that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

You do know the government only reports unemployment insurance claims as part of the unemployment rate? You do know that if you have a job (any job) you are employed as far as the government is concerned and have no claim for unemployment?

So using you logic, if someone had three jobs and the government figure changes, they lost all three jobs!

Somehow you must think that peer reviewed publications aren't aware of some very basic facts so they publish papers with huge flaws as you imagine. Sounds about like the logic behind all deniers.

---

Somehow you must think that peer reviewed publications aren't aware of some very basic facts so they publish papers with huge flaws as you imagine. Sounds about like the logic behind all deniers.

Peer reviewed no longer has the quality assurance it used to have. Its pretty easy to write a paper full of nonsense, literal nonsense, and have it published in a 'peer reviewed' journal.

Secondly, one of your sources was the Heritage foundation, aka people with a extremely conservative-Republican agenda. Of course they will write that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. And to a greater extend, that is also true for other economists. Depending on their position within economic theory they will pretty much always say the same thing no matter what. Current dominant economic theories are all based on the top down model, which means more money at the top means more money at the bottom and obviously if you look at it from that perspective, spending more money at the bottom is bad for people at the top and therefor also bad for people at the bottom. Of course, trickle down economics is a disaster that has only benefited the rich and no one else. But that hasn't stopped economists from still following the idea because hey, if reality doesn't fit with their theory, the fault clearly lies with reality and not their precious theory.

Science has always been agenda driven, ego driven, and simply - greed. In addition to finding 'The Truth'.

Hardly. The problem lies mostly with economics, because its so extremely politicized and linked to things that have nothing to do with economics. I mean, most right wing economists aren't right wing economists because right wing economics is the best for the economy but because it corresponds closely to their ideals of individual freedom. A lot of them aren't against government regulation because that hurts the economy, they are against government regulation because they view it as an attack on their personal liberty. Left wing economist at the other hand aren't so much interested in personal individual liberty as they are interested in social justice. The debate between left wing and right wing economics has very little to do about who is closer to the truth as it is a debate between whats more important, personal freedom or social justice. Economics has been turned into a tool to justify your own position within the debate and attack the opponents position.

This is pretty unique for a scientific field, you don't really see this in other scientific fields.

According to modern liberals, their good intentions

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Let's see what *actually* happens in Seattle with a $15/hour minimum wage.

The first of those wage increases has happened, and the data is in. Just as the data is in from numerous other times the minimum wage has been increased in the USA and elsewhere. Some don't like the data so they reject it out of hand. Others attempt wild gyrations (cherry picking) to "fix" the data to fit their preconceived notion of what must happen.

Perhaps everyone should take a hard look at what happened in American Samoa when Congress last raised the minimum. Things don't happen in a vacuum in a global economy. Business goes elsewhere. It is the law. The fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Every day. Every purchase order. Get quotes. Buy from the least expensive supplier, remember to include shipping and taxes. Ignore the swag.

Donald Trump

Now before we turn this thread into a constitutional debate or a debate on who the next president will be, please someone start those threads, let's get back to the question, does raising the minimum wage cause people to desire less work to maximize their wallet?

---

let's get back to the question, does raising the minimum wage cause people to desire less work to maximize their wallet?

If man is an economic animal then the old saying make hay while sun shines applies. Using logic if the wage drops close enough to zero no one will work. At some point more people will be willing to work, as it rises further more people will opt in.

---

Somehow you must think that peer reviewed publications aren't aware of some very basic facts so they publish papers with huge flaws as you imagine. Sounds about like the logic behind all deniers.

Peer reviewed no longer has the quality assurance it used to have. Its pretty easy to write a paper full of nonsense, literal nonsense, and have it published in a 'peer reviewed' journal.

The reality is that peer review journals have exactly the same level of quality assurance as in the past.

And to a greater extend, that is also true for other economists. Depending on their position within economic theory they will pretty much always say the same thing no matter what. Current dominant economic theories are all based on the top down model, which means more money at the top means more money at the bottom and obviously if you look at it from that perspective, spending more money at the bottom is bad for people at the top and therefor also bad for people at the bottom. Of course, trickle down economics is a disaster that has only benefited the rich and no one else. But that hasn't stopped economists from still following the idea because hey, if reality doesn't fit with their theory, the fault clearly lies with reality and not their precious theory.

Keynesian economics is conservative? My economics teacher called it liberal.

I think you are confusing trickle down with an examination of an economy that begins at the top.

---

Economics (& the housing market can be seen as well) is like a tall ladder. With each passing year, one can climb up a rung (or two) & so on.

However, what happens if the bottom rungs are missing?

Economics (& the housing market can be seen as well) is like a tall ladder. With each passing year, one can climb up a rung (or two) & so on.

However, what happens if the bottom rungs are missing?

Ah, do you mean by raising the minimum wage to such a level that no employer is willing to give it to an entry level employee who does not have prior work experience?

---

Economics (& the housing market can be seen as well) is like a tall ladder. With each passing year, one can climb up a rung (or two) & so on.

However, what happens if the bottom rungs are missing?

Ah, do you mean by raising the minimum wage to such a level that no employer is willing to give it to an entry level employee who does not have prior work experience?

Oops, didn't see that option. No I did not mean that. I meant the jobs market. Where are the decent paying jobs?

The reality is that peer review journals have exactly the same level of quality assurance as in the past.

No not really. There are a bunch of quality peer reviewed papers, and you can generally trust the articles in there. Others though...well you just pay them a few hundred bucks and they publish your article and have someone review it. Except that the review will never stop the journal from publishing the paper.

Besides that, science in the last few decades has shifted its attention from peer reviewing and quality assurance to generating as much articles and studies as possible. Basically, there is not a lot to be earned for scientist if they just review or replicate research. Instead everyone wants to come up with something new in the hope of being the next big thing.

Seriously, science itself is getting less reliable, and its rather worrisome.

Keynesian economics is conservative? My economics teacher called it liberal.

I think you are confusing trickle down with an examination of an economy that begins at the top.

I don't think you know what 'trickle down economics' is if you think thats what Keynes promoted. Trickle down economics is literally the idea that if the rich get more money, they spend all that money in investments and all that and as a result create jobs and that helps the overall economy. Its where all the talk about 'job creators' and how we should protect them comes from.

Keynesian economics on the other hand, argues for full employment and the idea that during economic contractions, the government spends more money (usually on public works) and thus creates an economic multiplier that lessens or negates the effects of an economic contraction, and that the government cuts back on spending when the economy is expanding again. Keynesian economics is top down in the way that it gives the government a significant role in the economy and that it essentially promotes the idea of a planned (at least to some extend) economy. But since it promotes public spending during economic contractions, most of the money would actually go straight to lower/middle class workers, rather than giving support to the rich.

But Keynesian economics wouldnt really work in this situation. It makes sense in a time of economic contraction when people lose their jobs, but we are currently facing a time of economic growth and (relatively) low employment. This problem isn't solved by putting people to work in some massive infrastructure project, the problem is that people have normal jobs that just don't pay them anything.

According to economic theory there are 3 factors of production, land labor and capital. Each should earn according to it's marginal productivity. As we advance our technology robotics and computers, which are capital are replacing much labor. The problem is what do we do with the displaced. As it is they are putting downwards pressure on the price of labor while those who own the capital are able to keep a larger portion of their production. This will create social chaos, witness the French or Russian revolutions, where the critical factor was land and eventually the "pitch forks" came out. To avoid that it is obvious that the market has to find a way to distribute more equitably across the populous.

---

Negative to your above opinion.

Peer Review, is many times, just those who have the same opinion.

Those holding an opposite opinion. Which may be correct. Are usually ridiculed and dismissed, by the Scientific Establishment. Of course, this and any Establishment, include both positive and negative aspects.

Yeah but the type of science where opinions come into play are generally only social sciences. And those sciences don't deal with truths in the way the natural sciences do. As a result there are usually varying theories that are looking at one phenomena, only from different angles. Non of the theories claim that they are the final, all encompassing answer to explaining why the phenomena they study is what it is.

It does mean that in peer review studies, you want scientist that follow the same theoretical approach look at a study. Its not because they have the same opinion, its because they follow the same theoretical approach, and are therefor best equipped to deficiencies in a study.

let's get back to the question, does raising the minimum wage cause people to desire less work to maximize their wallet?

For me, yes, but everybody has unique personal monetary needs and goals, and different priorities beyond that.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place