Talk:Employment Policies Institute

This page is clearly written to second the positions taken by the so-called "Employment Policies Institute." No mention is made of the misleading, AstroTurf nature of this entity. It is wholly a creation of Berman & Company, a lobbying organization that represents the "American Beverage Institute." All of the sources on questions of fact refer back to the organization itself; for example, the claim that the minimum wage controversy was resolved in favor the "Employment Policies Institute" is supported by a "paper" by the "Employment Policies Institute."

(See 501(c)(3) filing status, TaxExemptWorld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by James R MacLean (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Acronym Use

Considering that the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) was established first and was using the acronym first (as noted in the beginning of the article, presently), the article should probably be changed to not use that acronym (just spell out "Employment Policies Institute" since it is both confusing and I suspect intentionally creating a namespace clash there anyways. Elecmahm (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

So far, this page has failed to give a neutral description of the EPI while still mentioning its controversial nature. I am undoing the more egregious non-neutral statements (such as referring to them as "front group" and accusing them of "astroturfing") that aren't sufficiently cited. SourceWatch is not an encyclopedic source; let's keep citations limited to news stories, published journal articles, and other more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoireL5522 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  It's impossible to have this be impartial as the original information stems directly from the organization itself. There are no reliable sources to glean information from because no reliable/credible source seems to want to deal with this organization on a more concrete fact finding and neutral basis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.95.167 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC) 

The non-Neutrality of the Employment Policies Institute is obvious to the casual observer visiting their web site. Wikipedia does not need to point that out, and can take the high ground with a more neutral description. In the discussion of the Card/Krueger/Neumark/Wascher debates, Wikipedia must also be neutral. Referencing just the 1992 and 1995 papers is biased. The 2000 papers must also be included. EmPolIns relies solely on this one pair of studies, along with an unsubstantiated claim that maintstream economics are anti-minimum wage. The Economic Policy Institute does a fair job of rebutting EmPolIns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:3002:BE30:5BFF:FEDB:4C84 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions the 2006 NBER working paper reviewing the extant minimum wage literature and concluding that minimum wage increases have disemployment effects for teenagers; this working paper was authored by David Neumark and William Wascher, the two "independent" economists to whom the allegedly biased EPI data set was given, nearly half (50 out of 102) of the reviewed studies are not based on U.S. data and includes a weighting of the evidence whereby out of the 19 studies assessed by Neumark and Wascher to be "most credible", five have been authored by themselves (cf. Schmitt 2013, CEPR). Maybe these points should be included in a small caveat in the article, for neutrality's sake. --Arbraxan (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article continued to suffer from neutrality issues. I have cleaned up erroneous statements or statements with references that didn't exist. A neutral editor may be able to expand this page with reliable sources as removing information from biased sources or from non-existent references has pared down the article considerably. I have some minor issues with a few other sources, as a few link to op/eds rather than verifiable, noteworthy and/or unbaised outlets, but I've left these in for the time being until the article can be expanded upon in a direct manner. Additionally, in criticisms section, missing source and remaining source referenced rhetorical opinion, along with credit to SourceWatch. Referenced Employment PI's direct counterpart Economic PI as basis for evidence, which methodology is identical to Employment PI, making it an invalid reference as far as criticism is concerned, leaving critical source with no actual criticism other than rhetoric. That particular section would benefit from studies done in direct relation or opposition to EPI (or editorials gleaned from recognized studies) rather than OP/Eds. Seola (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is behind it?

I have seen the minimum wage campaign, is there a way we can research who is behind this organization and who funds it. Maybe someone can follow the money? thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

-The campaign for or against the minimum wage? --Arbraxan (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Camilo Sanchez: If we check out the article on Richard Berman, it says he is a lobbyist who owns the Employment Policies Institute, amongst other organisations.

@Arbraxan: The article on Richard Berman mentions that he lobbies against increases in the minimum wage.

I think it would be accurate to call the "institute" a front organization.

...OK... done a but more Googling before I press save...

This interview with a NYT journalist by NPR includes the following quote:

"for example, there's a group called the Employment Policies Institute, which puts out reports that examines what would happen if we raise the minimum wage, what impact will it have on unemployment and on poverty in the United States. And if you look at the reports, they're very academic-looking, and they say they're, you know, a nonpartisan research organization. But in fact, as you learn more about the group, you find out that one of their main supporters financially is the restaurant industry."

Yaris678 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)