>there are people on /pol/ right now who actually still believe

depends on the height of minimum wage

>>53542951

Exactly what modern economic theory predicts. See the graph, there's a sweet spot right there in the middle.

>austrians BTFO

>>53542298
It does. Employment is always a function of wage levels. Higher wage levels mean businesses employ less labor.

Your mistake is your belief that governments and businesses want to eliminate unemployment. They don't. They want a constant level of employment to force competition among laborers. Zero unemployment gives laborers more bargaining power in the market because employers are forced to fight for labor. So, naturally, the government and businesses try to push economic strategies that aim for a certain unemployment target.

>>53543172
Do you actually study economics? I'm going to bet that you don't. Otherwise you would understand that the graph you just linked is economic theory. The thing about economic theories is that it is never an accurate representation of reality. Economics isn't a precise science, it's a mix of art and science. We have no concrete comprehension of economics, which is why you can't rely on models such as the one you linked.

>>53543340

How about peer-reviewed studies and empirical data?

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m

>>53543848
The first thing you learn in most economics programs is just how useless "studies" are with regard to this field. Economics is far too large a topic to create accurate studies. We're talking about a field of study which incorporates millions of people and the way they interact with each other under certain circumstances. It's quite literally impossible for economists to set up studies which can accurately reflect that type of environment.

This is why most economists simply analyze the real world as best as they can in order to form theories. Whereas second-rate economists with a political agenda attempt to manipulate other peoples perceptions by creating bogus studies with controlled circumstances.

Are you going to actually post an opinion you hold and defend it? Or do you not actually have one?

>>53543848
Being peer-reviewed does not make a study instantly correct, nor to the degree that you think it does (e.g. 100%)

>>53542298

It's just that it's moot when you have a basic income, and that's what people in the first-world should be demanding. It's already owed to us by the basic justifications for the existence of our governments.

With a basic income, you don't need minimum wage, every job will pay exactly what it is worth.

Let's be real here, the real reason Americans don't want a higher minimum wage is because it only helps niggers

>>53542298
one of the best german economics experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Werner_Sinn)
said that the minimum wage will remove many jobs in germany, well he was wrong

>>53543190
>So, naturally, the government and businesses try to push economic strategies that aim for a certain unemployment target.
Fact.

Also, only ~5% on Americans actually work at minimum wage. Or minimum wage is not very high. I can't really speak on other countries, though

Why did OP run away? I thought he wanted to have an economics debate.