>2) Arguing that something that looks like a reasonably competitive market is not a reasonably competitive market is an extreme claim. Low-wage labour might not be a competitive market, but the evidence bar for showing that is still high.
Why do you believe it looks like a reasonably competitive market? Tons of studies have been done on minimum wage effects and the conclusions are at least indecisive. If this is a reasonably competitive market why is it so hard to definitively show that? It's not like it's hard to prove competitive markets - anyone can do a study where you take say gas stations, lower the price per gallon at one and watch them pull more customers.
>the evidence bar for showing that is still high.
Surely the evidence bar is just as high to show that it is a competitive market? This is another problem I have with Econ 101 - the idea that the default state of a market you don't understand is competitive is a political idea, not an economic one.
>1) The economy is everyone's business, especially when governments get involved. It is better for us all if things are discussed publicly, politely and with all views available (albeit, potentially rebutted).
Sure, I also live in the world and exist in a physical system so it's also my business which interpretation of quantum physics is correct. But I recognize that my existence in a system and my understanding of it are separate so I don't walk around lauding the Copenhagen interpretation (or walk into any other dispute in physics) because I read a few pop-sci articles on it. I feel the same way here. The challenge for scientifically minded laymen in the 21st century is that you can't "know everything." I believe that's also true for economics and a humbling here would serve everyone well.
If you walked into an econ forum and found a thread about programming and it was filled with stuff about how functions are bad, no one needs version control and a bunch of quantum computing gobbledygook, you'd probably try to correct them. And when you discovered that they held these beliefs not because they didn't know anything about programming (although they didn't) but because these beliefs somehow validated their existing political view of the world and thus they couldn't be talked out of it you might throw your hands up. My previous comment could (rightfully) be interpreted as me throwing my hands up.
>But the politics of minimum wages don't look like they are being imposed on the basis of a straightfoward economic case. They are being set first by politicians, justified second by some economists.
Is that not exactly what is going on in this thread? A bunch of people with a fundamentally political disagreement about the minimum wage desperately hunting for economic validation of their belief? In this thread we are all the politicians in your example, stumbling into subjects we know nothing about and finding post hoc rationalizations for what we already "know."
Quality response, thank you. I think most people don't choose their ideology and when the only ideology you know is the one you were given, it is very difficult to see past. This leads to some very pervasive notions, particularly in social and economic views, that are steeped in mostly unchecked ideological bias.
Why do you believe it looks like a reasonably competitive market? Tons of studies have been done on minimum wage effects and the conclusions are at least indecisive. If this is a reasonably competitive market why is it so hard to definitively show that? It's not like it's hard to prove competitive markets - anyone can do a study where you take say gas stations, lower the price per gallon at one and watch them pull more customers.
>the evidence bar for showing that is still high.
Surely the evidence bar is just as high to show that it is a competitive market? This is another problem I have with Econ 101 - the idea that the default state of a market you don't understand is competitive is a political idea, not an economic one.
>1) The economy is everyone's business, especially when governments get involved. It is better for us all if things are discussed publicly, politely and with all views available (albeit, potentially rebutted).
Sure, I also live in the world and exist in a physical system so it's also my business which interpretation of quantum physics is correct. But I recognize that my existence in a system and my understanding of it are separate so I don't walk around lauding the Copenhagen interpretation (or walk into any other dispute in physics) because I read a few pop-sci articles on it. I feel the same way here. The challenge for scientifically minded laymen in the 21st century is that you can't "know everything." I believe that's also true for economics and a humbling here would serve everyone well.
If you walked into an econ forum and found a thread about programming and it was filled with stuff about how functions are bad, no one needs version control and a bunch of quantum computing gobbledygook, you'd probably try to correct them. And when you discovered that they held these beliefs not because they didn't know anything about programming (although they didn't) but because these beliefs somehow validated their existing political view of the world and thus they couldn't be talked out of it you might throw your hands up. My previous comment could (rightfully) be interpreted as me throwing my hands up.
>But the politics of minimum wages don't look like they are being imposed on the basis of a straightfoward economic case. They are being set first by politicians, justified second by some economists.
Is that not exactly what is going on in this thread? A bunch of people with a fundamentally political disagreement about the minimum wage desperately hunting for economic validation of their belief? In this thread we are all the politicians in your example, stumbling into subjects we know nothing about and finding post hoc rationalizations for what we already "know."