In the last post I looked at Baum's-who as I said is Sumner's soul mate in opposition to the MW and Krugman.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-minimum-wage-sumner-finds-his-soul.html
She chides him for citing Card-Krueger's pioneering study-it was the first study in the Neoclassical orthodox world that argued that a MW might not be the job killer it had always been presumed to be-despite the MW being on the books in America since the 1930s, this 1994 study was the first to not be totally anti MW in its assumptions.
While Sumner kind of makes is sound like the NY Times almost censored her in not printing her letter criticizing Krugman, when you come to it, she's the one who's looking for censorship here.
The New York Times does a disservice to its readers when it allows a Nobel prize winning economist to dissemble to make a political point. Progressive economists may argue in favor of a minimum wage on compassionate grounds, but they all understand the economics of supply and demand. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported last year that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 would eliminate 500,000 jobs nationwide. (Currently 29 states have minimum wages higher than $7.25.)
And yes, a higher minimum wage is great for those who keep their jobs. But it’s an impediment to those starting out in the workforce.
Mr. Krugman is entitled to his own opinion; after all he writes opinion pieces. But he is not entitled to his own facts. As an opinion writer myself for three decades, my work is always fact-checked for accuracy. Perhaps the Times should make accuracy in support of opinions a priority."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29985
If the NYT were to take this letter seriously, it would suggest that Krugman should be policed before he publishes his posts. This would on a personal level be a real insult to a Nobel Prize winning economist of course.
It would also open up a whole can of worms-if it were agreed that he needed to clear it with someone before he publishes a post who would it be? Most editors aren't qualified to make the call. Is that what she wants?
Assuming there were an economics editor then this would reduce his work to being peer reviewed at the RBC dominated journals.
I'm just saying, that's the implication. She's on a constant campaign to turn the NYT into a RBC dominated economics journal:
"In March, every Republican in the House voted against a measure to raise the minimum wage. `When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,' said Speaker John Boehner in February, espousing a party-line theory that most economists agree has been discredited." -- New York Times editorial, Jan. 2, 2014.
"This is one of the more outrageous political statements dressed up as economic theory from the editorial board of the New York Times. They should be ashamed of themselves."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-03/someone-please-help-new-york-times-with-econ-101
Most of the quote is just what the GOP itself has said. I mean they're just quoting Boehner verbatim. She agrees he said that right?
Now they may exaggerate in saying that it's been wholly discredited. But her hyperbole is also exaggerated. It's not so outrageous. The profession used to be unanmous in the view that the MW increases unemployment and now it's about 50-50.
So maybe you can say 'most economists' haven't said it's discredited but many have at least begun to question it. Maybe the Times made it sound a little more black and white but then she tries to make is black and white as well which it surely isn't.
"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported last year that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 would eliminate 500,000 jobs nationwide. (Currently 29 states have minimum wages higher than $7.25.)"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29985#comments
That is a pretty outrageous exaggeration itself to call the GOP dominated CBO nonpartisan Over what time period are these 500,000 jobs supposed to be lost?
I had an interesting comment in my last post by an economist:
"One thing worth pointing out is how remarkably biased NW's meta-study is. They review a debate in which they were massively involved and...conclude that they were right. They review the literature and conclude that 19 studies were credible...5 of which were their own (more than a quarter). Their methodology for which studies should be weighted and even included is not particularly clear or rigorous. They and economists like them are just giddy to cling to standard economic theory, as Krueger's sad story about losing friends for publishing some evidence shows."
"Personally, I'm ambivalent about the minimum wage. It's blunt - I'd prefer a basic income and/or stronger unions - but think it's hard to conclude the minimum wage has discernible effects on employment at the levels currently observed in western countries. I also think even if it does have some effects, it's entirely possible to have a country with high employment and a relatively high minimum wage (Australia). But I wouldn't be able to get behind mindless increases."
"PS surveys are used for loads of data in economics, including telephone interviews. Applied research relies a lot on survey data. GDP is calculated using survey data. If you want to start dismissing that kind of data so curtly then get ready to dismiss a whole lot of economics."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-minimum-wage-sumner-finds-his-soul.html#comment-form
As you can see by his comments there is ambivalence about the MW in the economics profession-not universal agreement as the Times suggests but not blanket dismissal as there used to be. But Baum surely can't talk about outrageous political statements after she embraces the NY study that declares that surveys and natural experiments are bad research methods.
As I said in response to UE:
"In America as liberal Democrat I'm for the recent MW campaigns as it seems like the best chance we have of reversing wage stagnation." "Other countries, however, have managed to have decent wages for low income workers without the MW-Germany, Britain for many years."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-minimum-wage-sumner-finds-his-soul.html
She chides him for citing Card-Krueger's pioneering study-it was the first study in the Neoclassical orthodox world that argued that a MW might not be the job killer it had always been presumed to be-despite the MW being on the books in America since the 1930s, this 1994 study was the first to not be totally anti MW in its assumptions.
While Sumner kind of makes is sound like the NY Times almost censored her in not printing her letter criticizing Krugman, when you come to it, she's the one who's looking for censorship here.
The New York Times does a disservice to its readers when it allows a Nobel prize winning economist to dissemble to make a political point. Progressive economists may argue in favor of a minimum wage on compassionate grounds, but they all understand the economics of supply and demand. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported last year that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 would eliminate 500,000 jobs nationwide. (Currently 29 states have minimum wages higher than $7.25.)
And yes, a higher minimum wage is great for those who keep their jobs. But it’s an impediment to those starting out in the workforce.
Mr. Krugman is entitled to his own opinion; after all he writes opinion pieces. But he is not entitled to his own facts. As an opinion writer myself for three decades, my work is always fact-checked for accuracy. Perhaps the Times should make accuracy in support of opinions a priority."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29985
If the NYT were to take this letter seriously, it would suggest that Krugman should be policed before he publishes his posts. This would on a personal level be a real insult to a Nobel Prize winning economist of course.
It would also open up a whole can of worms-if it were agreed that he needed to clear it with someone before he publishes a post who would it be? Most editors aren't qualified to make the call. Is that what she wants?
Assuming there were an economics editor then this would reduce his work to being peer reviewed at the RBC dominated journals.
I'm just saying, that's the implication. She's on a constant campaign to turn the NYT into a RBC dominated economics journal:
"In March, every Republican in the House voted against a measure to raise the minimum wage. `When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,' said Speaker John Boehner in February, espousing a party-line theory that most economists agree has been discredited." -- New York Times editorial, Jan. 2, 2014.
"This is one of the more outrageous political statements dressed up as economic theory from the editorial board of the New York Times. They should be ashamed of themselves."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-03/someone-please-help-new-york-times-with-econ-101
Most of the quote is just what the GOP itself has said. I mean they're just quoting Boehner verbatim. She agrees he said that right?
Now they may exaggerate in saying that it's been wholly discredited. But her hyperbole is also exaggerated. It's not so outrageous. The profession used to be unanmous in the view that the MW increases unemployment and now it's about 50-50.
So maybe you can say 'most economists' haven't said it's discredited but many have at least begun to question it. Maybe the Times made it sound a little more black and white but then she tries to make is black and white as well which it surely isn't.
"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported last year that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 would eliminate 500,000 jobs nationwide. (Currently 29 states have minimum wages higher than $7.25.)"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29985#comments
That is a pretty outrageous exaggeration itself to call the GOP dominated CBO nonpartisan Over what time period are these 500,000 jobs supposed to be lost?
I had an interesting comment in my last post by an economist:
"One thing worth pointing out is how remarkably biased NW's meta-study is. They review a debate in which they were massively involved and...conclude that they were right. They review the literature and conclude that 19 studies were credible...5 of which were their own (more than a quarter). Their methodology for which studies should be weighted and even included is not particularly clear or rigorous. They and economists like them are just giddy to cling to standard economic theory, as Krueger's sad story about losing friends for publishing some evidence shows."
"Personally, I'm ambivalent about the minimum wage. It's blunt - I'd prefer a basic income and/or stronger unions - but think it's hard to conclude the minimum wage has discernible effects on employment at the levels currently observed in western countries. I also think even if it does have some effects, it's entirely possible to have a country with high employment and a relatively high minimum wage (Australia). But I wouldn't be able to get behind mindless increases."
"PS surveys are used for loads of data in economics, including telephone interviews. Applied research relies a lot on survey data. GDP is calculated using survey data. If you want to start dismissing that kind of data so curtly then get ready to dismiss a whole lot of economics."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-minimum-wage-sumner-finds-his-soul.html#comment-form
As you can see by his comments there is ambivalence about the MW in the economics profession-not universal agreement as the Times suggests but not blanket dismissal as there used to be. But Baum surely can't talk about outrageous political statements after she embraces the NY study that declares that surveys and natural experiments are bad research methods.
As I said in response to UE:
"In America as liberal Democrat I'm for the recent MW campaigns as it seems like the best chance we have of reversing wage stagnation." "Other countries, however, have managed to have decent wages for low income workers without the MW-Germany, Britain for many years."
No comments:
Post a Comment