The last two videos in this Video Saturday post on Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem blog are good examples of people correctly going against the politically correct brainwashing and are worth a watch.
Mark Perry, on his blog, Carpe Diem has a couple of posts on the minimum wage worth reading:
1. An New York Times editorial to get rid of the minimum wage?!? It’s from 1987. Amazing how much of shift there has been since then.
2. Perry also points to these wise words from Henry Hazlitt, author of the highly recommended Economics in One Lesson (and available for free .pdf download for any of your reading devices):
Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings.
The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $9.00 per hour [updated) is that no one who is not worth $9 per hour to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
Two non-pathetic economists, Don Boudreaux and Mark Perry (one has bought me beer), write in the Wall Street Journal today that the shrinking middle class is a nothing more than a political prop.
You should read their criticisms of cost and wage measurements. But, here are a few points that are more compelling to the average joe. First, the basics have never cost us less:
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life’s “basics”—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.
Second, gadgets of prosperity are available to all:
Today, the quantities and qualities of what ordinary Americans consume are closer to that of rich Americans than they were in decades past. Consider the electronic products that every middle-class teenager can now afford—iPhones, iPads, iPods and laptop computers. They aren’t much inferior to the electronic gadgets now used by the top 1% of American income earners, and often they are exactly the same.
Finally, a true measure. Would you trade what you earn and have today with someone from the 1950s or 70s?
Even though the inflation-adjusted hourly wage hasn’t changed much in 50 years, it is unlikely that an average American would trade his wages and benefits in 2013—along with access to the most affordable food, appliances, clothing and cars in history, plus today’s cornucopia of modern electronic goods—for the same real wages but with much lower fringe benefits in the 1950s or 1970s, along with those era’s higher prices, more limited selection, and inferior products.
I can’t believe anyone buys the shrinking middle class barb. For those of us that have been around for more than a couple of decades, we don’t need economists to point out that the suburban blossom of mcmansions and the roads becoming clogged 4×4 family passenger trucks occurred during this period where the middle class supposedly shrunk.
Mark Perry (another economist is not pathetic, and not only because he bought me a beer) posted on his blog, Carpe Diem, a Kenyan economist who points to foreign aid as part of the problem in Africa, rather than the solution.
Here’s a snippet of what James Shikwati had to say:
Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
Even pop singer Bono seems to be coming around on this point.
Jeff Jacoby wrote in The Boston Globe about how the government’s efforts to make college more affordable has had the unintended consequence of making it less affordable. Indeed. Have you been to college campus lately? It seems all those extra dollars flowing into education has gone to making the student’s experience more resort-like.
As I asked at the end of my previous post, can you name any part of the economy where the price level has increased faster that inflation for long periods of time that did not have major interventions from government?
(Thanks to Mark Perry at Carpe Diem for the link to Jacoby’s column).
Some of my liberal friends might say, But, that means that the government’s efforts have made it possible for more people to go to college. The cost has increased due to increased demand. That’s a good trade-off. Do you want to be the one to tell some of those folks they can’t go to college?
Of course, what these friends miss is that nobody has to be the one to tell someone they can’t go to college. Those someones make that decision on their own by weighing their options and picking the path they feel is best for them.
Instead of using aid, accumulating $100k in student loans and spending four years in college earning a liberal arts degree that prepares them for competing against high school grads for entry-level jobs, those someones might do something more productive like work their way up to management at their local retail store, or start a fence building business that eventually employs 10 people, go to a trade school to learn a vocation like dental cleaning or something like that.
Here and here I wrote about how competition is good for consumers because it gives them more options to choose from, even if those options are among government-provided services. If one police department, school district, fire or road department isn’t doing a good job, perhaps the one next town is better.
In this post at Carpe Diem, Mark Perry writes about how the Mayo Clinic is beginning to offer more choices in health care for Canadians. From his post:
According to this news report about Mayo’s insurance programs for Canadians, “the publicly funded health system in Canada decreases the choices available to patients, and can also result in delayed diagnosis and treatment. That’s why, within the national system, it’s good to offer choices for those who need diagnosis confirmation or even treatment for serious illness.”
Then Perry asks a great question:
Where will Americans go when/if we adopt Canadian-style medicine?
I believe that one thing that makes it possible for other countries to socialize their medical care without full implosion (though with long wait-times and less effective treatments and other negative trade-offs) is the existence of what’s left of the free market in medical care in the U.S. and other parts of the world.
The U.S. medical market helps in at least two ways.
First, it gives those country’s citizens a choice. If they can’t get treatment in a timely manner, or at all, in their country, they can come to the U.S.
Second, the free market in the U.S. still spawns a great deal of innovation in medical care that the health systems in other countries can adopt. In this sense, the free market in medicine has been supplying government health systems — not particularly known for innovation (which makes sense if you understand the incentives) — a kind of innovation welfare.
Without these two positive effects, there would be many more disaster stories from these countries that would sink their medical systems politically.
If we clamp down on the free market in the U.S. and these two positive effects go away, I will expect to see socialized medical systems deteriorate so quickly that it would start a general political trend back toward accepting more free market in medicine.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, we will have lost or delayed countless life saving innovations.