His definition is lots and lots of low wage jobs-of the kind that would be illegal in France or California. Yet he wonders how it is possible that liberals could disagree:
"So what's the real explanation for the German success? That's pretty obvious; the Hartz reforms of 2003 sharply reduced the incentive to not work, and sharply increased the incentive to take low wage jobs. As a result, today Germany has lots of very low wage jobs of the type that would be illegal in France or California. (Germany has no minimum wage."
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/04/german_success.html
"So the one major success story among developed countries has achieved its success by doing essentially the exact opposite of what progressives want. Germany has no minimum wage, reduced its incentives to live off welfare, and has a level of wage inequality that is increasing even faster than in the US. It's no wonder that progressives prefer to focus on things like "vocational training programs," which were just as common during the 30-year period of steadily rising German unemploymen."
Yes how can any progressive deny the success of lots more low wage jobs where most of the people on welfare before the Hartz Reforms are worse off today? Yet he thinks that Krugman is the one who should blush:
"And yet Paul Krugman can say the following without blushing:
"So what's the real explanation for the German success? That's pretty obvious; the Hartz reforms of 2003 sharply reduced the incentive to not work, and sharply increased the incentive to take low wage jobs. As a result, today Germany has lots of very low wage jobs of the type that would be illegal in France or California. (Germany has no minimum wage."
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/04/german_success.html
"So the one major success story among developed countries has achieved its success by doing essentially the exact opposite of what progressives want. Germany has no minimum wage, reduced its incentives to live off welfare, and has a level of wage inequality that is increasing even faster than in the US. It's no wonder that progressives prefer to focus on things like "vocational training programs," which were just as common during the 30-year period of steadily rising German unemploymen."
Yes how can any progressive deny the success of lots more low wage jobs where most of the people on welfare before the Hartz Reforms are worse off today? Yet he thinks that Krugman is the one who should blush:
"And yet Paul Krugman can say the following without blushing:
Just to be clear: Yes, you can find examples where *some* liberals got off on a hobbyhorse of one kind or another, or where the liberal conventional wisdom turned out wrong. But you don't see the kind of lockstep rejection of evidence that we see over and over again on the right. Where is the liberal equivalent of the near-uniform conservative rejection of climate science, or the refusal to admit that Obamacare is in fact reaching a lot of previously uninsured Americans?"Here's an example for Krugman. Much of the progressive movement seems entranced by a pied piper from France who thinks inequality can be reduced almost costlessly, and that even France needs to be much more socialist. Meanwhile they almost totally ignore a highly successful social market economy. The biggest economy in Europe. What would Al Gore call German labor market policy success? An inconvenient truth?"
I haven't written Scott too much lately-I know he can never answer me honestly but must always hide behind snark. However, I left him a kind of 'open letter' that I will copy here:
"Thanks for clarifying your estimation of the phrase ‘pied piper.’ However, in reading your Econlog piece you have a different definition of ‘major success story’ than I do or Krugman or any of these other allegedly benighted progressives you scoff about has either."
"I mean I certainly don’t describe this as a success story. As a result, today Germany has lots more very low wage jobs of the type that would be illegal in France or California. (Germany has no minimum wage. ”
"Lots of low wage jobs-that’s a success story only a conservative would love. As the Guardian points out most of the people who were knocked off the welfare roles are worse off now than then-you of course gloss over that as like a true conservative they don’t even figure into your calculus."
"Also your mention of Germany having no minimum wage is sort of a red herring anyway. You accuse Yglesias of crediting old liberal programs for recent low youth unemployment and yet you seem to think that no MW in Germany deserves some of the credit for the recent alleged success story though having no MW is not a new phenomenon in Germany either-they never had one."
"One could just as soon in explaining the alleged jobs miracle you always site in Britain site that the British have a MW, in fact have implemented one fairly recently-in that case you would scoff at the irrelevance."
"Yet Britain’s MW is very new and yet it had none of the untoward effects that you and your Right wing friends claim it does."
"At best it’s a wash on the MW. It’s true that you can point out that a number of countries that liberals admire have no MW or not till recently-how many realize Sweden has no MW?"
"Of course, the other side is that countries like Sweden and Germany have much stronger unions-and in the case of Sweden at least much higher taxes and a much bigger welfare state. It’s easy to cherry-pick and you always cherry-pick in favor of conservatives."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=27227&cpage=1#comment-360136
P.S. I couldn't resist and just added this cooment:
"On Krugman though I agree 100 percent-I’ve never known you to call anyone stupid ever.
As irony usually goes totally over your head-yes I’m joking here."
No comments:
Post a Comment