« Good Sense on the Housing Market | Main | Oops?» Russell Roberts
April 04, 2008
Unintended Lesson
Russell Roberts
Last night, Hillary Clinton was on the Tonight Show and she gave a phenomenal example of the power of economics. Unfortunately, she did not appear to understand the example. At the 3:23 mark of this video, she tells a story (HT: Jim Colburn):
I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he's trying to tell me something—you know the crowd was yelling—so I leaned over and he said, "You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we're not making any more money. Can you help her?" You know, when somebody says something like that to you, it really does kind of energize me. I think, yeah, I can, I'm going to really try to help you, because this is wrong. And everywhere I go I hear stories like that about veterans who don't get health care, about people, who are, you know, losing their jobs, and I think we can do so much better. So for me it's just get up every day and fight on because this country's worth fighting for.
She then launched into a litany of economic disaster ("we're borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for oil from the Saudis") and finished up talking about the "deteriorating middle class."
I don't believe the story. What eleven year-old boy whispers into the ear of a big shot the details of his mother's wage/hours mix? And I like how she had to lean over--no one--not even Bill Richardson or Sinbad--can contradict her.
But let's give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. Suppose the story really did happen. She clearly thinks the story is emblematic of something important that needs to get fixed. What is it? Just when you help someone by passing a minimum wage, greedy employers ruin everything by lowering the hours. Well, we need to "fight" and fix that, too.
I wish Jay Leno had pointed out that the cut in hours was the result of passing the minimum wage--that it was as inevitable as gravity. I wish he'd said that the story showed how the minimum wage is a false promise of prosperity. I wish he'd pointed out that fighting isn't enough, caring isn't enough, that prosperity can't be legislated any more than self-interest can be made illegal. I wish Jay Leno had said that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
And if that little boy really exists, I'd like to tell him that a Senator fighting for you is a losing proposition. You have to fight for yourself. If your Mom wants more money, she needs to go back to school or work a second job. And as for you, stay in school. It's the best way to avoid earning the minimum wage.
Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27765592
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unintended Lesson:
Comments
I agree the specific story was probably made up. Yet, she's probably heard many stories during her campaign so perhaps we grant her a bit of artistic license in presentation.
Evaluating just the mother's situation in isolation it would seem that minimum wage has made her better off. She may not make more money but she now has more hours to do something else.
It's possible she may not be able to use those hours working as there are fewer worker hours available but she can perhaps spend more time with her son.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Marcus | Apr 4, 2008 3:06:43 PM
Marcus,
Excellent point. Money does not equal happiness.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Apr 4, 2008 3:14:15 PM
Bravo! Well said.
Couple quick things:
1. She probably doesn't even need to go back to school or work a second job; there are plenty of decent above-min-wage jobs for unskilled moms. If she exists, she just needs to look for a local Wal-Mart or go for some interviews one day at whatever shops exist near her. Most people are on minimum wage for just 6 months or a year before either getting a raise/promotion or finding something better.
2. I like your point about stopping digging. For the most part the problem with politicians (with democratic politics in an unconstrained government) is that they have no incentive to stop digging. In fact, their incentive is to pull out the bigger shovel, and the bigger shovel and then the back hoe.
This is because the more regulation, confusing tax code with credits and exceptions built in, price controls and subsidies that they have control over, the more control they have and the more votes they can win, and in the worst case scenario, the more bribery and corruption they can feed off of.
In any case, whether it is for this reason, or due to sheer, well intentioned naivety, politicians will always keep digging, until stopped by the public or the constitution. Sadly, the public believes the politician is going to help them (either because they don't understand economics or because they personally will benefit, though the economy will suffer).
Hence, we usually get more government, more digging, more regulation, more planning. Every once in a while we can stop it, as we did when we overturned some of the NRA's extensive planning of the 1930s and 40s as unconstitutional. But that is rare.
Posted by: liberty | Apr 4, 2008 3:17:26 PM
Marcus does make a good point!
But, of course, it doesn't end right there: forcing the firms to all pay a higher wage may do more than only make them cut her hours. There may also be fewer jobs for her to find now when she goes job hunting for something better (she was unhappy before the increase in the minimum wage, so she must still not have enough money, though she does have more time). etc.
Posted by: liberty | Apr 4, 2008 3:21:35 PM
I think Jay Leno should make the minimum wage and work shorter hours.
Posted by: mpkomara | Apr 4, 2008 3:22:03 PM
This is why our public schools suck.
When I was nine, I needed to earn more spending money, and the kids in my neighborhood mowed lawns in a pretty cutthroat competition. I looked at this situation, and constructed a strategy: because other kids charged one price for lawns regardless of size, they avoided the larger corner lots. So I tripled the going price and went ONLY to corner lots, where the homeowners were invariably enthusiastic about not having to mow their large lawns. This allowed me to make more money with less work.
Now, even if we assume that I was much, much smarter than the average nine year old... I don't find it hard to believe that an eleven year old child attending a political event (an atypical childhood behavior, usually indicative of greater wisdom) would have similar powers of reasoning.
But the adult world in general seems to think anyone under the age of 16 (and the average person under the age of 30) is an idiot, and therefore invests neither the time to listen nor the effort to instruct. As long as this attitude persists, children will be the only people who really know or care that public elementary schools are an absolute atrocity.
If they weren't, that eleven year old would not only be a credible source of such an observation - he would also be able to tell at once that Clinton's analysis was moronic.
Posted by: Caliban Darklock | Apr 4, 2008 3:27:24 PM
I am curious how the company that made the mother's hours shorter made up for the lost hours of labour? Invested in technology, shortened the hours of business? Other?
Posted by: mark seery | Apr 4, 2008 4:16:13 PM
Caliban:
I've never seen too many knowledgeable 16yo on politics. It's taken as a given that you need a few more years of seasoning to get what's going on.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Apr 4, 2008 4:37:23 PM
HRC: "we're borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for oil from the Saudis"
I didn't realize that Hillary was a xenophobe too!
Posted by: CRC | Apr 4, 2008 4:37:36 PM
mark:
Who knows, anecdotal stories are usually like that, devoid of real details. Always designed to pull a weak-minded person's heartstrings.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Apr 4, 2008 4:40:24 PM
Mark Seery,
If the story is in fact true, the business likely lost the hour of productivity. The cost of a unit of labor increased, so the number of units purchased went down. There were no magical resources resulting from an a hike in the minimum wage that allowed for technological investment or other increases in productivity. The business simply lowered production. As this situation repeated countless times throughout the economy, economic growth slowed.
Posted by: REW | Apr 4, 2008 4:45:11 PM
Possibly the employer was sympathetic to the woman's plight, but was unable to accommodate a larger paycheck. Perhaps fewer hours was the raise he could afford.
Wonder what the job was?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 4, 2008 4:48:54 PM
So the Mom is making the same money and working fewer hours.
How does this make her worse off?
It looks like her welfare has improved to me.
Posted by: spencer | Apr 4, 2008 5:06:37 PM
This is the same Hillary Clinton who wants to create a cabinet-level "poverty czar" position? Presumably a person in such a position would have no incentive to "cure" poverty as that would cause him to be unemployed. Good thing then that relative poverty (which is what we have in the USA) is incurable by definition. That Hillary sure has a firm grip on incentives.
Posted by: Methinks | Apr 4, 2008 5:08:01 PM
I have to say that along with most of you I seriously doubt whether or not this is true. I imagine a working group in the Clinton campaign whose job it is to come up with these little stories to be used at opportune times.
It bewilders me to think that politicians like HRC actually believe that increasing the minimum wage helps those lower paid workers. The results that I see almost immediately are higher prices in businesses that employ minimum wage employees.
I suppose the only other option is that they simply dont care if it helps them or not but just so long as the individuals think the politician is helping them, caring about them and their lot in life.
If this person were real, Clinton just got a first hand lesson on the effects of raising the minimum wage, that in the end, no one is better off.
What I cannot believe is that Clinton did not include what the little boy told her about his mother's health insurance. As a result of his mother's hours being cut back, his mom was no longer eligible for employer provided health coverage. Since it was only available to employees working more than 35 hours per week and the little boy's mother's hours were cut back below that, not only was she working less (not enjoying the minimum wage hike provided by the government) she now has lost her health insurance for herself and her little boy. Oh yeah, the little boy told Clinton that both he and his mother have medical problems that now must go untreated because her employer is no longer providing them with health insurance. The little boy went on to explain that the health insurance they had was inadequate at any rate, the copays were too high and the monthly premiums that were withheld from his mother's paycheck had increased by 1000% over the last couple of years. I guess Clinton is saving the rest of the story for a later time.
Posted by: BAP | Apr 4, 2008 5:36:02 PM
It bewilders me to think that politicians like HRC actually believe that increasing the minimum wage helps those lower paid workers.
She doesn't have to believe that. She only has to believe it will aid her campaign.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 4, 2008 5:47:32 PM
REW --
If the story is in fact true, the business likely lost the hour of productivity. The cost of a unit of labor increased, so the number of units purchased went down. There were no magical resources resulting from a hike in the minimum wage that allowed for technological investment or other increases in productivity. The business simply lowered production. As this situation repeated countless times throughout the economy, economic growth slowed.
A hike in the minimum wage will always create "magical" resources. The current wage of $5.85 translates to a little over $1,000 a month for a full time employee. That $1,000 a month expense could be used to lease a little over $40,000 of equipment (7.5%, 0 residual, 48 months). My guess is that buying a robot to flip hamburgers would cost over $40k today, since a lot of people are still employed to flip hamburgers. Raise the wage to $9 an hour, and we could now lease about $65k in equipment. I might take on that project ...
It's all about alternatives, and a hike in the minimum wage will introduce all sorts of new "magical" alternatives.
Posted by: SheetWise | Apr 4, 2008 5:48:43 PM
This is just like you claim tha seat belt laws lead to an increase in accidents.
You just make up consequences that are not supported by the data and expect to be taken seriously.
Posted by: spencer | Apr 4, 2008 6:20:06 PM
She doesn't have to believe that. She only has to believe it will aid her campaign.
Posted by: Sam Grove
Well said Sam.
Posted by: mnm | Apr 4, 2008 6:40:09 PM
"You have to fight for yourself. If your Mom wants more money, she needs to go back to school or work a second job. And as for you, stay in school. It's the best way to avoid earning the minimum wage." Russel Roberts
Russel,
Would you advice be the same to a chi,d in North Korea or even Mexico. Policy matter's from everything I can see.
I just read an amazing thing in The Economist.
"In a recent study Martin Barnes of BCA Research, a Canadian economic-research firm, traces the rise of the American financial-services industry's share of total corporate profits, from 10% in the early 1980s to 40% at its peak last year (see chart 1). Its share of stockmarket value grew from 6% to 19%. These proportions look all the more striking—even unsustainable—when you note that financial services account for only 15% of corporate America's gross value added and a mere 5% of private-sector jobs."
It just seems like clear evidence of the productivity pie being munched by those with little actual added value while working people are not being rewarded proportionately.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 4, 2008 9:21:23 PM
Again, more evidence that this boy was talking to the right candidate. Policy matters.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 4, 2008 9:24:09 PM
It just seems like clear evidence of the productivity pie being munched by those with little actual added value while working people are not being rewarded proportionately.
So that is how wages are to be determined? By some proportional equation?
Are doctors getting an appropriate proportion?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 4, 2008 9:31:52 PM
I'm wondering if financial services are increasing due to Sarbanes-Oxley.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 4, 2008 9:36:33 PM
It just seems like clear evidence of the productivity pie being munched by those with little actual added value while working people are not being rewarded proportionately.
There is a strange tendency to assume that wages should increase exactly proportionately to an increase in productivity. But this assumption misses the fact that workers alone are not creating that productivity- they need capital, entrepreneurs and - yes - capitalists:
Present-day labor-union doctrine ... [defines] "increase in productivity of labor," and they pretend that it by rights belongs entirely to the workers…... Between the United States and Asia the difference in productivity computed according to the methods of the union doctrine is enormous... The superiority of the American plant is entirely caused by the superiority of its equipment and the prudence of its entrepreneurial conduct ...
On the eve of the "Industrial Revolution," conditions in the West did not differ much from what they are today in the East. The radical change of conditions that bestowed on the masses of the West the present average standard of living (a high standard indeed when compared with precapitalistic or with Soviet conditions) was the effect of capital accumulation by saving and the wise investment of it by farsighted entrepreneurship. No technological improvement would have been possible if the additional capital goods required for the practical utilization of new inventions had not previously been made available by saving.
While the workers in their capacity as workers did not, and do not, contribute to the improvement of the apparatus of production, they are ... both in their capacity as workers and in their capacity as consumers, the foremost beneficiaries of the ensuing betterment of conditions.
Who said that? More here.
Posted by: liberty | Apr 4, 2008 9:44:35 PM
muirgeo, what's a productivity pie?
If my productivity happens to be higher than my neighbor have I made him less productive?
Posted by: mnm | Apr 4, 2008 9:54:59 PM
Sam,
In light of your proven culinary skills, I think you are just the person to invent a recipe for "Productivity Pie". When you do, please send some to mnm and me as he would enjoy it and I'm sick to death of the shit on a brick that passes for "pie" on Wall Street.
Have fun at the muirpid circus. G'night.
Posted by: Methinks | Apr 4, 2008 10:22:43 PM
Given the current political climate, what are the odds that a HRC administration could push a new NRA through Congress and have it hold up in court?
Posted by: Justin Bowen | Apr 4, 2008 10:42:53 PM
"It just seems like clear evidence of the productivity pie being munched by those with little actual added value while working people are not being rewarded proportionately."
Muir(duck/donkey): I'm going to ask you again and again until you answer. Do you deny Y(k,l) = k^a * l^b???
Also what do you think the relationship of Dk/DY(k,l) for China and the U.S. is? And also the relationship between Dl/DY(k,l) for China and the U.S.?
Posted by: Jay | Apr 4, 2008 11:41:35 PM
Jay,
Would you respond to an unsolicited note from some "Russian hottie" looking for a chance to come to the U.S.? No? Because you know it's a con, and that any communication is just gibberish designed to get you to send her money for a "plane ticket."
For "muirgeo" the plane ticket is attention from earnest debaters. It would be called "feeding the trolls" if muirgeo were an actual person. I'm convinced it's a clever, frighteningly subtle experiment in argumentation.
Posted by: M. Hodak | Apr 5, 2008 12:22:09 AM
Yeah Hodak,
I reference something form The Economist and another article based on a book by a Princeton economist and that makes me a troll? Don't pretend you're interested in earnest debate.. you're scared shitless of it.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 1:07:30 AM
mnm,
Don't play games talking about productivity pies. Look at the article from the Economist. Tell me the proper interpretation of Wall Street's corporate profits going up from 10% in 1980 to 40% at present.
That's an incredible fact that earnest debaters should be able to discuss. I want to hear from all the experts and insiders here what that means. Please be earnest.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 1:13:14 AM
Jay,
Ciò non nego. Non so che che è.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 1:19:40 AM
"[M]uirgeo, what's a productivity pie?
If my productivity happens to be higher than my neighbor have I made him less productive?"
Zero-sum fallacy.
It's a great and powerfull fallacy -- should be used for the greater good in a broader understanding of rational ignorance.
Posted by: SheetWise | Apr 5, 2008 1:44:40 AM
So? The conclusion? Leave market forces alone to sort themselves out. No? Profits and wealth can't be legislated?
So why do Libertarians argue for 'force&fraud'? Who is the noble higher power who makes 'f&f' legislation and enforces it without expanding their power to become an all-powerful government? The Mercantilists opened up the land and resources of the New World using 'force&fraud'. The great productivity and wealth generation of the immigrants far exceeded what the natives were doing therefore the initial 'force&fraud' returned great dividends.
Posted by: Gil | Apr 5, 2008 2:37:15 AM
Ah Muirdiot. Won't you ever understand that life is not equal? We are not born that way?
Posted by: FreedomLover | Apr 5, 2008 4:46:07 AM
I don't usually post. But since Muirgeo asked for earnest debate, here are my two cents:
i) The relationship between percentage of jobs and "gross value" is irrelevant (and measuring "gross value" is very, very tricky). Similarly, there is a very weak relationship between corporate profits and market capitalization, and a fundamental misunderstanding at the base of the reasoning. The former is a flow measurement, the latter a stock measurement.
The statement that the "productivity pie is being munched by those with little actual added value" is puzzling. That more productive workers/sectors should be compensated more? The agricultural sector has seen spectacular productivity growth, but I don't see, or argue for, a proportional increase in wages. I think that the "pie" analogy is truly misguided. Financial-sector employees (or CEOs, or your favorite foe) do not earn more by taking money away from minimum-wage workers, the reason being that the "pie" is not an independent and constant quantity.
ii) Bartel's book is not out, but the chart reported in Dani Rodrick's blog is not very meaningful out of context. Correlation does not imply causation. Other remarks I have are that 14 observations are not sufficient, and that lag effects in political economy decisions matter greatly. And just to make a pointed observation: Bartel is not an economist. He is in PoliSci, and writes for a PoliSci audience. It makes a big difference in methods and objectives.
Posted by: Paleologo | Apr 5, 2008 8:51:55 AM
We are not born that way?
Posted by: FreedomLover
No we are not. And your world will have more idiots like Paris Hilton living off inherited wealth while human brilliance born into poverty never sees a chance to add to society. What you are unknowingly pushing for is a return to pre-revolutionary conditions.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 9:51:39 AM
The statement that the "productivity pie is being munched by those with little actual added value" is puzzling.
Posted by: Paleologo
When lenders drain every penny from people via loan shark financing, pushing credit cards, increased stock trading fees, miscellaneous bank fees, pushing for bankruptcy reform that favors lenders over borrowers, advanced paycheck loans with massive interest charges, home equity loans.....ect I just noticed my Citibank auto pay mortgage for my condo went up $10 a month over 9 months ago. They changed the late fee date and sure enough I received notification in very small writing on my bill 9 months ago.
So there are some ways they take bites out of the pie. The big way is through asset valuation. Making all sorts of financial products based on subprime lending that artificially increases the value of assets then the guys on top walk away with plenty left in their pockets while many homeowners are left without a home.
The point is the financial sector was not 30% more productive then they were 30 years ago but leading up to the bubble crash many in the industry had already walked away with a lot of cash they didn't earn.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 10:07:48 AM
Earth to Muirgenius:
I think that that 40% margin might have already been revised downward -- into negative territory if I'm not mistaken. Man, it just SUCKS when markets correct themselves. We need benevolent bureaucrats to help put a stop to that.
Posted by: Gamut | Apr 5, 2008 10:14:20 AM
Oh, no, wait! Wasn't it the opposite argument you were trying to make? I'm confused, please explain.
Posted by: Gamut | Apr 5, 2008 10:16:36 AM
Don't play games talking about productivity pies.
Posted by: muirgeo
Who's the one playing? My point muirgeo is that your presumptions about the way the economy works, indeed about the way the world works, are seriously flawed.
You were the one that suggested that productivity is somehow fixed and that the financial services industry seized an unfair portion of it.
Sir, your ability to ignore the things that you have said astounds me.
Posted by: mnm | Apr 5, 2008 10:47:05 AM
muirgeo, you paint a bleak picture yet it's not the whole story.
For example, credit cards don't just raise 'gotchya fees'. They payback cash or points. The majority of credit card users payoff their statement every single month. The use of a credit card allows me to earn interest in a high-yield savings account while I accumulate my expenses cost free on my credit card. Not only is it cost free (to me), they pay me back cash for doing so. Plus, they automatically deduct my monthly balance from my high-yield savings account every month requiring no effort on my part. All of this saves me several hundred dollars per year.
As to your Citibank issue, I recently refinanced my house to get the sweet interest rates. My first payment was this week. I hee-hawed around last month and didn't get the autopay setup but I didn't consider it a big deal as I figured I'd just login and pay online and setup the autopay to start next month. When I logged in earlier this week to make the payment I noticed they charged a $10 fee to process it. So I called them up and said I wasn't going to pay the fee. They said, "OK," and waived it.
Take some responsibility for yourself and let other people take responsibility for themselves. 'We the people' don't need you to save us from ourselves.
Posted by: Marcus | Apr 5, 2008 10:58:51 AM
Gamut,
Yes it sucks when markets correct and the general public is left holding the bag. S&L debacle, the junk bond fiasco, the dotcom bubble..ect These fiascos made a small number of people very wealthy and hurt a huge number of innocent people.
And the market didn't correct it was bailed out AGAIN BY THE FEDS ACTIONS IN SAVING Bear Stearns. Not yelling shift key sticks but will leave as emphasis seems appropriate... computer seemingly becoming self aware.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 11:06:13 AM
You were the one that suggested that productivity is somehow fixed and that the financial services industry seized an unfair portion of it.
Sir, your ability to ignore the things that you have said astounds me.
Posted by: mnm
I NEVER said that productivity was fixed. You guys love to set up that straw man so you can use your canned reply. Productivity has risen... although now I question that because it likely only appeared to rise because paper pushers simply inflated values to incredible degrees. But to what ever degree it did rise all the profit was "munched" by a small minority who had little to do the increased productivity.
The idea that wealth and value are well correlated is laughable to anyone paying attention.
"It is not within the scope of my purpose on this occasion to develop practical policies. I limit myself, therefore, to naming some instances of what I mean from amongst those problems about which I happen to have thought most.
Many of the greatest economic evils of our time are the fruits of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. It is because particular individuals, fortunate in situation or in abilities, are able to take advantage of uncertainty and ignorance, and also because for the same reason big business is often a lottery, that great inequalities of wealth come about; and these same factors are also the cause of the unemployment of labour, or the disappointment of reasonable business expectations, and of the impairment of efficiency and production."
From a brilliant essay by John Maynard Keynes, THE END OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE. A good read for anyone trying to understand the alternative to the extreme economics of socialism and classic liberalism.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 11:18:47 AM
Walking the ridges of the hills by my house I looked down to the valley and saw in huge sign covering almost all of a neighbors garage door.
AUCTION PENDING
CALL XXX_XXXX
Those now houseless neighbors must also feel stigmatized.
It felt very Orwellian. A sign of the times. I suspect I should get used to seeing these.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 11:28:16 AM
muirgeo, the more I read your posts the more I fortunate I feel that I'm not you. All you see is the negative side of everything. Is there no positive side to anything?
Posted by: Marcus | Apr 5, 2008 11:35:59 AM
Marcus,
There will be as soon as his team wins. Then everything will be just dandy no matter how bad it gets. You watch, poverty and inequality will magically vanish.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 5, 2008 11:50:22 AM
All you see is the negative side of everything. Is there no positive side to anything?
Posted by: Marcus
Marcus,
I'm an extremely positive person. But I am a realist and I have high standards for the future world I want to leave for my children.
Yesterday I had the moist incredible day I could have asked for snow-shoe hiking to a frozen wilderness lake with my dog Myra. Beautiful beautiful scenery. Untrammeled sparkling snow, marshmallow cream covered mountaintops, 500 year old trees, blustery winds, roaring waterfalls, meditating by a dabbling stream with sunbeams shooting through my eyelids and extreme stick fetching with Myra. Today me and her are just about to leave for another great journey to Mt Watson. I wish everyone could be as happy as I am now and still in the back of my mind will be those sad paper pushers and children born into poverty who I only wish could be as happy as me.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 12:53:16 PM
Muirgeo,
Mt. Watson Utah or Washington? I took up hiking a couple of years ago and try to do a 14er every summer. So far I've summited Pikes Peak, Yale and Elbert. I'm shooting for Quandary in May. So far, I haven't tried anything but the foothills in winter, which is great, but I would like to try a 14er in winter - a new challenge - got to stay motivated.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 5, 2008 2:23:58 PM
And the market didn't correct it was bailed out AGAIN BY THE FEDS ACTIONS IN SAVING Bear Stearns.
Damn those progressives for getting government involved in the economy. This should not be.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 5, 2008 2:43:44 PM
"Sir, your ability to ignore the things that you have said astounds me."
Get used to it mnm. And Paleo, did you notice muirgeo didn't actually respond to your question. I have commented before on muirgeo's technique in argumentation.
Here's an experiment for y'all intent on continuing this charade--a kind of Turing test for muirgeo. Ask a simple question with an objective answer that contradicts any single point made in one of muirgeo's tendentious posts. See what you get. It will typically include several of these items:
- A statement of the moral inferiority of the premise behind your question adn, by implication, the moral superiority of his response
- An ad hominem attack on the questioner, just for good measure, generally a derivative of the "you moral midget" statement above
- An unsupported assertion based on fallacious reasoning
- An out-of-context quote from an otherwise authoritative source
- A maudlin straw man set up as the counterpoint to what the questioner must be supporting (variation on the "moral midget" tack)
- If he's feeling generous, he might include some addled jargon about the 'system' he purportedly thinks is best (some version of 'democratic something-or-other'), although don't try to pin him down on the characteristics of that system.
Or you will get nothing at all.
Try it.
Posted by: M. Hodak | Apr 5, 2008 3:22:50 PM
Muirgeo and his friends are on a mission to eliminate poverty -- those earning in the bottom quintile. And they don't intend to end their mission until the bottom quintile doesn't exist.
Now, that's job security.
Posted by: SheetWise | Apr 5, 2008 6:02:38 PM
Randy,
Mt Watson is just a local Tahoe peak. Bout 5 miles from my place to the top and ~2400 feet up. I think it's 8,800 feet. Got to the top today exhausted only to find snowmobiler's already there.... cheaters!
I've done Mt Whitney, Mt Shasta and Mt Rainier for my 14 ers.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 9:46:29 PM
M. Hodak, I agree with you. Muirgeo did not answer, or maybe read, my objections. As per HIS objections, I don't think anyone can seriously criticize the financial service industry on grounds of shark practices or pushing credit cards and so on. Credit innovations in the postwar period have undoubtedly benefited both organizations and individuals. One aspect where I think I agree with Muirgeo is that the weak link in the subprime crisis lies primarily in inadequate pricing of mortgage-backed instruments. I don't think this was a fraudulent scheme to enrich a few individuals, though.
Posted by: Paleologo | Apr 5, 2008 10:30:52 PM
Paleo,
The only question I saw in your post was this, "That more productive workers/sectors should be compensated more?".
It's not really even a question but I did address your post.
That you find no significance to the massive increase of corporate profits going to the finance sector is beyond belief. Especially as we now see the results of the house of cards coming crumbling down.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 11:20:57 PM
Muirgeo,
Yeah, Pikes Peak has a highway and crowds of people at the top, but it was still worth the hike. Now I can see it out my window and think about how long it takes to go from that point to that one. Now I just work out in the foothills through the winter and head for the more remote ranges during the summer. I've never done any hiking in the Sierras, but I did cross them on a motorcycle a couple of decades ago.
By the way, I suspect that you're a libertarian at heart, and that with a few more years your mind will resolve the conflict. I'm sure you disagree... just sayin'...
Posted by: Randy | Apr 6, 2008 12:13:14 PM
Um, "as inevitable as gravity"? Really?
I think David Card might disagree with that comment. There's nothing in economics as inevitable as gravity, and I think economists lead people astray when they try to pretend otherwise. It may well be that raising the minimum wage in this particular time and place led to some reduction in hours. But as inevitable as gravity? Hardly.
Posted by: Dan Hirschman | Apr 6, 2008 12:59:02 PM
Randy,
You know about Summitpost.org? GREAT WEBSITE> Good luck with Quandary in May. That'll take Ice ax and crampons?
The Rockies are beautiful but my one experience up a peak there several years ago taught me to get up early so you can beat the lightning bolts to the top. I thought I was in a war zone with thunderclaps and flashes all around and I thoiught I was gonna die along with my 2 nephews hiking in RMNP.
Hey I once voted for the libertarian ? Browne in 1996 as I was becoming dis-enfranchised with the Republicans and still unable to vote for a Democrat.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 6, 2008 1:04:07 PM
Let's assume that the story is true. But, Isn't that boy's mother receiving Food Stamps, Rent Assistance, Medicaid and many other federal and state low income programs.
Isn't she receiving a credit on her tax return or the 2008 Stimulus check?
Do they have a Computer at home? i-pod? TV set? play station etc.? amenities that the poor a generation ago didn't afford.
Posted by: moe | Apr 6, 2008 3:23:45 PM
Muirgeo,
I do read summit post, and 14ers.com. I'm kind of hoping to run into the Quandary dog. Beginning of May is usually post hole season, but by late May a set of micro-spikes (Kahtoolas) is usually enough. If not, I'll turn around and try again in a couple of weeks - wouldn't be the first time. And you're right about the lightning. I start before dawn to be back below treeline by noon, but every trip I see people people starting out just as I'm getting back - and every year a few of them get struck. But hey, its a free country :)
By the way, what kind of snowshoes do you use? I've been thinking about giving that a try.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 6, 2008 5:55:09 PM
Yep, never go up if it don't seem right. Pride kills and the mountain will be there another day.
I love my MSR snowshoes. Very simple and stable.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 6, 2008 6:39:25 PM
Again, more evidence that this boy was talking to the right candidate . Policy matters.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 4, 2008 9:24:09 PM
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
Hmmm. Democrat President = Republican Congress and vice versa. Congress determines what can get signed. Finally, confirmation that Democrats are for the rich or what I see in my home state of Oregon everyday.
Posted by: Ian Random | Apr 6, 2008 10:58:16 PM
Hillary's story has to be made up because we all know that raising the minimum wage doesn't reduce employment. Right?
Posted by: Paul | Apr 7, 2008 2:46:59 PM
No, Paul. It doesn't seem to. It does, however, change who is employed. The youngest and least skilled are the ones who are most likely to lose their job. Often, they happen to be young black men. But, whatever. Since when have the poverty pimps who push for the minimum wage ever cared about the poor?
Posted by: Methinks | Apr 7, 2008 8:27:18 PM
Why is a Democrat's education in consequences always unintended? Both the problem and solution are found in the same story, and yet she still clings to the idea of artificial manipulation of the markets.
Posted by: Mule | Apr 7, 2008 11:23:16 PM
Russell has clearly not seen the world I've seen, growing up in the Midwest. Shelter is a privilege to many people.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 7, 2008 11:46:33 PM
Paleo,
The only question I saw in your post was this, "That more productive workers/sectors should be compensated more?".
It's not really even a question but I did address your post.
That you find no significance to the massive increase of corporate profits going to the finance sector is beyond belief. Especially as we now see the results of the house of cards coming crumbling down.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 5, 2008 11:20:57 PM
WOW, simply unbelievable.
Posted by: HSJB | Apr 8, 2008 4:49:55 AM
Methinks,
Of course it reduces employment. Sure, not for everyone, but why focus on the aggregates. This woman's employment was reduced as a direct result of increasing the minimum wage. That certainly doesn't match the rhetoric of the left who claim raising the minimum wage will help the poor and have no adverse affect on their employment.
Posted by: Paul | Apr 9, 2008 5:30:20 PM
