« Jonathan Chait on the state of conservative (anti-)empiricism | Main | Nastiness from Rove and Kerry flack »

June 14, 2006


Good point. But to tweak Ezra Klein's point, a higher minimum wage does not preclude a robust market.

Of course, once you get past the naval gazing in this column, it's also "possible" that raising the minimum wage increases employment, we just don't know.

It "could" be that most the better workers don't want to work in states with the lowest wages and aren't willing to sit around and wait for wages to catch up.

And that, once they've bailed for the places with higher minimum wages they are a dynamic force in the market.

Or not.

But, to be fair, we just don't know.

Don't know how you missed that balancing point.

Leaving aside the basic supply/demand argument and the moral argument against anti-choice meausures like a legal minimum wage, one of the more interesting arguments I've heard against the minimum wage is that since a large proportion of minimum wage earners are teenagers and college kids, higher minimum wages will increase drop-out rates. That seems like a consideration that should appeal to liberals.

A more holistic argument against raising the minimum wage is that it is simply a terribly inefficient way to increase well-being.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" - the informal logical fallacy of arguing that q was caused by p merely because q occurred after p.

it's still the case that Ezra position is closer to reality than the position he's arguing against.

after all, according to economists who have studied the data the negative effects of raising the minimum wage "are small and swamped by other forces."

so i don't know if that makes Ezra's argument "seriously misguided." His evidence doesn't *prove* his point, as you note in this post, but it does *support* his point.

The comments to this entry are closed.