This is Stephen Gordon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Stephen Gordon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Stephen Gordon
Recent Activity
Chris J: I didn't. Employment falls in 2009 in all three scenarios. Increasing the minimum wage during a recession worsened job losses that would have happened anywsay. Increasing the minimum wage during a recovery slows the increase in employment.
1 reply
Kevin: I was responding to the comment immediately preceding, not yours. Your results and the ones I'm citing have the same sign.
1 reply
I don't think so. The minwage/average wage ratio also increased over this time.
1 reply
No, these regressions look like log[employment] = elasticity*log[min wage] + controls + e The ratio at the minimum has - unsurprisingly - increased. It's often been remarked that the effect of the minwage on employment gets stronger as it becomes more binding: the Card-Krueger study used data from 1992, after a decade-long freeze in the *nominal* minwage under Reagan. I may get back to this point.
1 reply
Maybe 'unpublish' instead of an outright 'delete'? I found this interesting, but then again, I've never given CWEN much thought. It always seemed like something that had nothing to do with me. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
1 reply
No kidding. I wonder what the R2 is on that equation - 0.9999?
1 reply
You correctly anticipated where I was going to go next with this line of thought!
1 reply
Oh no - now you've jinxed it!
1 reply
This is an old habit, as far as I can tell.
1 reply
I thought it was only me. That's probably a widely-held sentiment.
1 reply
Fine, except 1) StatsCan doesn't tell you that. For all anyone knows, these series are completely incompatible. 2) If you look up the IPPI, they don't tell you where the old series are or how/if you can splice them 3) Why don't they do the splicing for us and publish the long series?
1 reply
I get the impression there are quite a few series like that - at least at the more aggregated levels. Often what happens is there's a change in the way they break things down by industry/occupation/product/etc, but not in the actual total.
1 reply
So would I. I'll share whatever response I get, if there is one.
1 reply
Oh no, I didn't know. Mike was also a great teacher, and he was graduate director when I was doing my PhD. He contributed so much to U of T and to Canadian economics generally.
1 reply
The graphs above are the growth rates of a given percentile over 2 points in time: eg, change in 75th percentile between 2007 and 2012. The graph I posted on twitter took the average of a given percentile over 1997-2000 and compared it to the average of the same percentile over 2006-10.
1 reply
I wasn't actually trying to reproduce the Green and Sand results, especially insofar as they only looked at full-time workers. The reduction in earnings from cutting back on hours worked by part-time workers during the recession is something I wanted to take into account.
1 reply
rsj: I know the census PUMF truncate income at the top, but I don't recall seeing anything about that in the LFS documentation (it may be, I just don't remember seeing it). But even if they aren't, the point is still well-taken. The numbers at the extremes - say, the top/bottom 2% or 3% - should definitely be taken with a grain if salt. But the real story IMV is what's happening across the entire distribution. Joe: Yes, it's about wages. Robert: No. I wanted to see what was happening in the labour market.
1 reply
Well, the vertical scale *is* different. But I think it's more that the pre-2002 data are dragging down the 1997-2006 data. eta: I just added a link to a graph with the same vertical axis.
1 reply
Nor is there anything obliging Canadian investors to keep their savings in Canada.
1 reply
Yeah, it's generally not a good idea to push econometric models way outside the range of data used in the estimation. Those numbers were what the model gives with \Delta t = -0.14.
1 reply
Patrick: If the feds reduced the CIT from 15% to 1%, you'd need a GST of roughly 10% to make up for the loss of $30b in federal CIT revenues. OTOH, the provinces would find their CIT revenues increase by $20b/yr in the long run.
1 reply
Patrick: That would require provincial cooperation. The combined federal-provincial rate is 15+11.1 = 26.1% Frank Restly: This isn't a zero-sum re-allocation of income. Increasing the CIT reduces investment and capital accumulation, which reduces total income.
1 reply
Yes, that's the efficiency argument. But there seem to be people who don't care about the efficiency argument and are concerned with revenues. I'm going to have to add a section my CIT reading list
1 reply
The issue isn't the tax revenues; it's the increase in the cost of capital produced by higher corporate taxes. This reduces investment, which in turn reduces output, incomes and wages.
1 reply
Wrong. Corporate taxes are the most harmful to economic growth.
1 reply