Skip to main content

Two Links to FEE Articles

This just in, an increase in a minimum wage somewhere was followed by a decrease in job creation. The somewhere is Washington DC. I know, to most of you this is not surprising. While comparing the 12 months after and before the minimum wage hike the article points out that in the...
... year-long period after the first wage increase, employment in all other District industries grew by 1.9 percent. Jobs in higher-wage industries, where the minimum wage is less relevant, thus dramatically outpaced those in the leisure and hospitality sector, where growth was negative 0.1 percent.
Don't y'all cheer at once. Raising the minimum doesn't instantly transmute low-skills-low-pay workers into mid- or high-skills workers. But what was the job growth rate in the 12 months before the minimum wage rise?
That is not the only comparison worth considering. In the 12 months before D.C. raised its minimum wage, jobs in the leisure and hospitality sector grew at a healthy rate of 2.2 percent. After the city government raised the minimum wage, employment growth in this sector turned negative.
So from 2.2 to -0.1 and the only macroeconomic change was a shift in minimum wage. That could be incorrect. There could be another big change in the DC area of sufficient magnitude to expplain this massive negative turnaround low-skill job creation.

~~~  ~~~

In other news, apparently the central transport planners can't plan transport effectively. Economic calculation without market prices is vastly more difficult than with. Who'd a thunk it, amirite?

This article demonstrates that the political mode of production and bureaucratic mode of distribution cannot accurately allocate resources in order to meet consumer demands.


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …