ShareThis Page

Conflicting economic visions

| Friday, Aug. 18, 2017, 8:57 p.m.
Paul Krugman (Reuters)
REUTERS
Paul Krugman (Reuters)

For the most part, people share common goals. Most of us want poor people to enjoy higher standards of living, more world peace, greater racial harmony, cleaner air and water, and less crime. Despite those common goals, we often see people grouped into contentious factions, fighting to promote polar-opposite government policies in the name of achieving a commonly held goal.

The conflict is centered around the means to achieve goals rather than the goals themselves. The policies that become law often have the unintended consequence of sabotaging the achievement of the stated goal.

Let's look at a policy pushed by advocacy groups, politicians and poorly trained (perhaps dishonest) economists — mandated increases in the minimum wage.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman claimed in a 2014 interview with Business Insider that there is actually not much risk of significantly higher wages hurting workers. He argued that low-wage workers are in non-tradable industries for which production cannot be moved overseas and are in industries in which labor cannot be easily replaced by technology. Krugman's vision is one that my George Mason University colleagues and I try to correct.

Those who argue that the price of something can be raised without people having a response to it have what economists call a zero-elasticity vision of the world. For them, labor prices can rise and employers will employ just as much labor after the price increase as before. There is no evidence anywhere that people have no response to the change in price of anything.

Let's examine Krugman's assertion that low-skilled labor cannot be easily replaced by technology. Momentum Machines has built a robot that can “slice toppings like tomatoes and pickles immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible.” The robot is “more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce about 360 hamburgers per hour.”

According to The New York Times, 89,000 workers in general merchandise lost their jobs between the beginning of November 2016 and the end of March.

The economic phenomenon that people who call for higher minimum wages ignore is that when the price of anything rises, people seek substitutes. When the price of oil rose, people sought ways to use less of it through purchasing more insulation for their homes and fuel-efficient cars. When the price of beef rose, people sought cheaper substitutes such as pork and chicken. The substitution effect of price changes is omnipresent, but do-gooders and politicians seem to suggest that labor markets are an exception. It is utterly disgusting and inexcusable for a trained economist to buy into that zero-elasticity vision.

It's not just Krugman. On the eve of the 2007 minimum wage increase, 650 of my fellow economists signed a petition that read, “We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.” I felt proud that not a single member of our distinguished George Mason University economic faculty signed it.

Convincing people of how the world really works in hopes of promoting more humane policies requires examination and falsification of false visions and premises. That's a tough job with little prospect for completion.

Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.