We know he doesn't approve of it, but I don't get how he keeps himself in the dark over the cause of this political demand.
"In 1987, the New York Times published an editorial, titled “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00” – which advocated the complete abolition of minimum wage laws. In January 2009, the Democratic Party took complete control the federal government, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. At the time, the minimum wage was $6.55 an hour, scheduled to rise to $7.25 an hour in July 2009. The Democrats decided not to boost the wage above the level set by the Bush administration, and thus the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour ever since."
"Over the next few years, however, something very strange happened. The progressive movement began advocating a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and the proposal has now been included in the Democratic Party platform. In a number of important states and municipalities, $15 minimum wage laws have been passed, albeit phased in over a number of years."
"What explains this dramatic change in attitude?"
"I have no answer to the question of why the minimum wage has suddenly become so popular, but I have done some research that suggests that we need to be very careful in this area. In my new book on the Great Depression, “The Midas Paradox,” I found five examples of New Deal policies that pushed up hourly wage rates in the United States."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/wage-378171-ocprint-minimum-hour.html
In a word-politics. Political winds are very volatile. But the only reason he doesn't understand why there is this demand for a high minimum wage is he dismisses the fact that wages are stagnant.
I mean if you really wanted to understand the push for $15, you'd have to check the actual history. The 'Fight for $15' comes from service workers in the fast foot industry demanding it and protesting in demand for it.
Is Sumner unaware of this genealogy of the idea?
http://fightfor15.org/about-us/
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the idea. But don't keep yourself in the dark about where it comes from.
I take it that Sumner fancies himself an idea man rather than a 'tribalist.'
"Here’s how to tell is a Trump hater is intellectually honest. Check out their position on releasing tax returns. I strongly support Trump’s refusal to release his taxes, because the income tax system is an immoral monstrosity, and demanding the release of tax forms implicitly legitimizes that system. In contrast, Trump people would support him on this point, but would be outraged if he released his tax returns and Hillary refused to. With Trumpistas, it’s all tribal."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31701#comments
But I don't believe you can totally disentangle politics and ideas. There is a big difference between him and I.
This is why in my view, Sumner's' defending Trump's right not to release his tax returns is absurd if you consider him as dangerous to public life as Sumner does.
In the heat of political battle, you can't always be as precise as this.
Sumner believes two things:
1. Trump is absurdly and dangerously unfit for office
2. That someone running for office should not have to release their taxes because-for reasons I don't understand-the income tax is an immoral monstrosity.
Still, if you really believed 1, wouldn't you let 2 pass? If I think that Trump is a disaster for the country what do I care why if the reason the voters reject him is one I don't agree with? I may think voting against him because his hair is orange is not the reason to vote against him-but if this is the most compelling reason for most voters what am I going to do-argue with them?
No, you have to vote against him for the right reasons. Otherwise vote for him.
Whether you agree or not about the demand to release your tax returns, it's clearly unfair for Trump alone to be exempt from releasing his taxes.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have that option. Can you imagine if she tried this argument: 'I'll release my returns when the audit is over but I don't know if that's coming after the election. By the way, I'm audited every year.'
This is probably why Sumner hates politics. Unlike in economics, in politics what matters is getting it right-not being right for the right reasons.
"In 1987, the New York Times published an editorial, titled “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00” – which advocated the complete abolition of minimum wage laws. In January 2009, the Democratic Party took complete control the federal government, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. At the time, the minimum wage was $6.55 an hour, scheduled to rise to $7.25 an hour in July 2009. The Democrats decided not to boost the wage above the level set by the Bush administration, and thus the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour ever since."
"Over the next few years, however, something very strange happened. The progressive movement began advocating a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and the proposal has now been included in the Democratic Party platform. In a number of important states and municipalities, $15 minimum wage laws have been passed, albeit phased in over a number of years."
"What explains this dramatic change in attitude?"
"I have no answer to the question of why the minimum wage has suddenly become so popular, but I have done some research that suggests that we need to be very careful in this area. In my new book on the Great Depression, “The Midas Paradox,” I found five examples of New Deal policies that pushed up hourly wage rates in the United States."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/wage-378171-ocprint-minimum-hour.html
In a word-politics. Political winds are very volatile. But the only reason he doesn't understand why there is this demand for a high minimum wage is he dismisses the fact that wages are stagnant.
I mean if you really wanted to understand the push for $15, you'd have to check the actual history. The 'Fight for $15' comes from service workers in the fast foot industry demanding it and protesting in demand for it.
Is Sumner unaware of this genealogy of the idea?
http://fightfor15.org/about-us/
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the idea. But don't keep yourself in the dark about where it comes from.
I take it that Sumner fancies himself an idea man rather than a 'tribalist.'
"Here’s how to tell is a Trump hater is intellectually honest. Check out their position on releasing tax returns. I strongly support Trump’s refusal to release his taxes, because the income tax system is an immoral monstrosity, and demanding the release of tax forms implicitly legitimizes that system. In contrast, Trump people would support him on this point, but would be outraged if he released his tax returns and Hillary refused to. With Trumpistas, it’s all tribal."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31701#comments
But I don't believe you can totally disentangle politics and ideas. There is a big difference between him and I.
This is why in my view, Sumner's' defending Trump's right not to release his tax returns is absurd if you consider him as dangerous to public life as Sumner does.
In the heat of political battle, you can't always be as precise as this.
Sumner believes two things:
1. Trump is absurdly and dangerously unfit for office
2. That someone running for office should not have to release their taxes because-for reasons I don't understand-the income tax is an immoral monstrosity.
Still, if you really believed 1, wouldn't you let 2 pass? If I think that Trump is a disaster for the country what do I care why if the reason the voters reject him is one I don't agree with? I may think voting against him because his hair is orange is not the reason to vote against him-but if this is the most compelling reason for most voters what am I going to do-argue with them?
No, you have to vote against him for the right reasons. Otherwise vote for him.
Whether you agree or not about the demand to release your tax returns, it's clearly unfair for Trump alone to be exempt from releasing his taxes.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have that option. Can you imagine if she tried this argument: 'I'll release my returns when the audit is over but I don't know if that's coming after the election. By the way, I'm audited every year.'
This is probably why Sumner hates politics. Unlike in economics, in politics what matters is getting it right-not being right for the right reasons.
Mike, Scott posted this The Onion video from 2012, which turned out to be true:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjonGtrCyVE
Yes, I saw that too
ReplyDeleteSumner did post this "defense" of Trump too:
ReplyDeleteBecause I’ve been doing a lot of Trump bashing, I’d like to give some air time to the other side. Here Dylan Matthews defends Trump against the charge that he is a fascist:
Again, fascism requires stepping outside the system and attacking the democratic structure. As long as that structure itself is handling illiberal attitudes on race, those attitudes don’t themselves constitute a fascist trend.
But the views are still illiberal. To be very, very clear: Donald Trump is a bigot. He is a racist. He is an Islamophobe and a xenophobe. He profits off the hatred and stigmatization of traditionally oppressed groups in American society. That makes him, and his European peers, and racists in other eras in American history, a threat to crucial values of equality and fair treatment, and a threat to the actual human beings he’s targeting and demonizing. And he’s in particular mainstreaming Islamophobia, which is on the rise in recent months, as seen in a recent incident in which a Muslim engineer was harassed at a Fredericksburg, Virginia, civic meeting. “I’m really not sure those views in Fredricksburg would be aired were it not for Trump’s ‘mainstreaming’ of these prejudices,” Feldman says.
Yes, there are lots of differences from the 1930s. It’s a completely different world today, and Trump obviously won’t invade Poland. But Trump does have many fascist tendencies. Perhaps the term ‘demagogue’ is more appropriate.
Each week I’ll try to provide at least one defense of Trump, similar to the one above.
Yes I read that too. I left a comment where I helpfully pointed out Ivana Trump said that when they were married, Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by the bed.
ReplyDelete