Krugman Explained (Min Wage)

[Rshermr]

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as a Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

But then, Freedom, you have NO idea of economics anyway. back to the bat shit crazy con web sites. Try to make some sense out of your statement. Jesus, me girl. That was ignorant.

Your vapid understanding of the English language is going to remain in my rear view mirror. Still smarting for having your tiresome, party-inspired House of Cards wiped out by [MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION]?

< giggle >

Glad to see you are still delusional. Keeps things light. We all need a little humor. Your opinion of yourself certainly serves that purpose.
But then, really, me dear, it is not your fault. Being a congenital idiot is, well, congenital. Not your fault at all. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Rshermr]

oh brother
instead of the topic on the economy you get all worked up over a WORD, and got atta boys for it too...what trollish snob

Yup. That would be it. I am sure you believe that you have a much better background and understanding of economics than old fart. Let's see. No background. PHD. No background. PHD. My money is on the old fart.

I have 26 PhDs, 12 Nemmers, and 2 Nobel Prizes.

See how easy that is?

Uh, you forgot to mention the diagnosis by multiple psychiatrists of your little mental problem. It is really nice that all agree that you are delusional. Keeps it simple. Though it was obvious to all anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yup. That would be it. I am sure you believe that you have a much better background and understanding of economics than old fart. Let's see. No background. PHD. No background. PHD. My money is on the old fart.

I have 26 PhDs, 12 Nemmers, and 2 Nobel Prizes.

See how easy that is?

Uh, you forgot to mention the diagnosis by multiple psychiatrists of your little mental problem. It is really nice that all agree that you are delusional. Keeps it simple. Though it was obvious to all anyway.

 

[oldfart]

Those who follow such things understand that Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and NYT pundit is the economic guru to not only Our Beloved President, but also to the whole Progressive movement in this country. I mean, how can you dispute the wisdom of, for example, trillions of dollars in "stimulus" spending of borrowed and printed money when a Nobel-fucking-prize-winning economist not only SUPPORTS it, but CLAIMS IT IS NOT ENOUGH! Claims that the Prez has been too timid!

I have always wondered how and why Dr. Krugman persistently spouts such economic nonsense, and I frequently seek out articles by other economists who dig up the real data to show Krugman as a fraud and manipulator of data. But today I happened upon an article in HuffPo on line by a guy named Benjamin Powell that actually explains it in language that anyone can understand (posted 12/12/2013). It is an article about the minimum wage, and Powell explains that there are actually TWO PAUL KRUGMAN's: One who is a competent economist, and one who is a pundit - a flack for democrat politicians. And his positions on the Minimum Wage are pretty much 180 degrees opposed to each other, depending on whether he is speaking as an economist or as a pundit. He explains it much better than I can, so here goes:

Paul Krugman's recent call to raise the minimum wage is consistent with much of his liberal political writing over the past decade. But raising the minimum wage is not consistent with Krugman's writing as an economist. Those who care about the poor should pay more attention to Krugman the economist than to Krugman the liberal pundit.

Krugman uses the Christmas shopping season, and the fact that 60 percent of minimum wage workers are in sales or food services, to talk about the decline in the real wages of people working in retail. His solution to their problems: "We can raise the minimum wage."

But before we embrace the policy prescription of Krugman the pundit, let's ask the opinion of Krugman the economist. In his 1998 review of a book on living wages he wrote: "So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment."

Krugman the economist should know. He co-authors an Econ 101 textbook. The 2008 edition clearly states, "when the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage rate, some people who are willing to work--that is, sell labor--cannot find buyers--that is, employers--willing to give them jobs."

Most people's employment prospects aren't harmed by a minimum wage because their productivity is far above the legal mandate. Young people with fewer skills are the most affected. Roughly a quarter of all minimum-wage earners are teenagers, and more than half are under 25 years old. It's no accident that these age groups have the highest unemployment rates. Teen unemployment is 22.2 percent while 12.5 percent of 20 to 24 year olds are unemployed, compared to the U.S. national average of 7.3 percent.

People who deny that the minimum wage causes unemployment often point to the empirical work of economists David Card and Alan Kruger, whose study and subsequent 1997 book didn't find an unemployment effect of the minimum wage. What did Krugman the economist think of their work? Here's what he wrote:

"What is remarkable...is how this [Card and Kruger's] rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda.... Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects.
So fifteen years later, why does Krugman the pundit not believe Krugman the economist? New evidence has surfaced but the bulk of it agrees with Krugman the economist, not the pundit. Economists David Neumark and William Wascher surveyed the vast literature studying the effects of minimum-wage laws in their recent book, Minimum Wages. They find that the bulk of the evidence accumulated over the last 20 years indicates that minimum-wage laws reduce employment for the least-skilled workers and lowers their earnings."

Maybe Krugman the economist can give us some insight into Krugman the pundit's newfound faith in the minimum wage. In 1998 he asked why liberals supported a minimum wage. His answer:

"What the living [minimum] wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price--determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away."

When Krugman the moral pundit asks: "Doesn't that [minimum wage] violate the law of supply and demand? Won't the market gods smite us with their invisible hand?", he need only turn to Krugman the economist for his answer: Yes. Economics put limits on our utopian fantasies.

Unfortunately, Krugman the pundit writes from a fantasyland that should embarrass Krugman the economist.

You use an economic term I am unfamiliar with: "fucking". Which is why I don't bother to read the rest of your post. I have never encountered this term used in any economics class, seminar, or professional discussion. It is out of place. Which tells me that you must be entirely ignorant of economics, as you refuse to use language appropriate to the subject. Go marginalize yourself.

oh brother
instead of the topic on the economy you get all worked up over a WORD, and got atta boys for it too...what trollish snob

In case you didn't notice, the OP was a trollish post and you and your ilk pretend that there ever was any content. Since "go marginalize yourself" is beyond your comprehension and I refuse to degenerate to your level of name-calling, I'll just suggest you lack of knowledge is matched by your lack of manners.

 

[oldfart]

Those who follow such things understand that Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and NYT pundit is the economic guru to not only Our Beloved President, but also to the whole Progressive movement in this country. I mean, how can you dispute the wisdom of, for example, trillions of dollars in "stimulus" spending of borrowed and printed money when a Nobel-fucking-prize-winning economist not only SUPPORTS it, but CLAIMS IT IS NOT ENOUGH! Claims that the Prez has been too timid!

I have always wondered how and why Dr. Krugman persistently spouts such economic nonsense, and I frequently seek out articles by other economists who dig up the real data to show Krugman as a fraud and manipulator of data. But today I happened upon an article in HuffPo on line by a guy named Benjamin Powell that actually explains it in language that anyone can understand (posted 12/12/2013). It is an article about the minimum wage, and Powell explains that there are actually TWO PAUL KRUGMAN's: One who is a competent economist, and one who is a pundit - a flack for democrat politicians. And his positions on the Minimum Wage are pretty much 180 degrees opposed to each other, depending on whether he is speaking as an economist or as a pundit. He explains it much better than I can, so here goes:

Paul Krugman's recent call to raise the minimum wage is consistent with much of his liberal political writing over the past decade. But raising the minimum wage is not consistent with Krugman's writing as an economist. Those who care about the poor should pay more attention to Krugman the economist than to Krugman the liberal pundit.

Krugman uses the Christmas shopping season, and the fact that 60 percent of minimum wage workers are in sales or food services, to talk about the decline in the real wages of people working in retail. His solution to their problems: "We can raise the minimum wage."

But before we embrace the policy prescription of Krugman the pundit, let's ask the opinion of Krugman the economist. In his 1998 review of a book on living wages he wrote: "So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment."

Krugman the economist should know. He co-authors an Econ 101 textbook. The 2008 edition clearly states, "when the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage rate, some people who are willing to work--that is, sell labor--cannot find buyers--that is, employers--willing to give them jobs."

Most people's employment prospects aren't harmed by a minimum wage because their productivity is far above the legal mandate. Young people with fewer skills are the most affected. Roughly a quarter of all minimum-wage earners are teenagers, and more than half are under 25 years old. It's no accident that these age groups have the highest unemployment rates. Teen unemployment is 22.2 percent while 12.5 percent of 20 to 24 year olds are unemployed, compared to the U.S. national average of 7.3 percent.

People who deny that the minimum wage causes unemployment often point to the empirical work of economists David Card and Alan Kruger, whose study and subsequent 1997 book didn't find an unemployment effect of the minimum wage. What did Krugman the economist think of their work? Here's what he wrote:

"What is remarkable...is how this [Card and Kruger's] rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda.... Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects.
So fifteen years later, why does Krugman the pundit not believe Krugman the economist? New evidence has surfaced but the bulk of it agrees with Krugman the economist, not the pundit. Economists David Neumark and William Wascher surveyed the vast literature studying the effects of minimum-wage laws in their recent book, Minimum Wages. They find that the bulk of the evidence accumulated over the last 20 years indicates that minimum-wage laws reduce employment for the least-skilled workers and lowers their earnings."

Maybe Krugman the economist can give us some insight into Krugman the pundit's newfound faith in the minimum wage. In 1998 he asked why liberals supported a minimum wage. His answer:

"What the living [minimum] wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price--determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away."

When Krugman the moral pundit asks: "Doesn't that [minimum wage] violate the law of supply and demand? Won't the market gods smite us with their invisible hand?", he need only turn to Krugman the economist for his answer: Yes. Economics put limits on our utopian fantasies.

Unfortunately, Krugman the pundit writes from a fantasyland that should embarrass Krugman the economist.

You use an economic term I am unfamiliar with: "fucking". Which is why I don't bother to read the rest of your post. I have never encountered this term used in any economics class, seminar, or professional discussion. It is out of place. Which tells me that you must be entirely ignorant of economics, as you refuse to use language appropriate to the subject. Go marginalize yourself.

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as an antiquated Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

In case you haven't noticed there has not been a meaningful discussion in the Economy forum in over a week. All we get is childish right wing name-calling and tripe. Most of the posters with any real background in economics have chosen to stay away.

Congratulations. You have your sandbox. You have shat in it so no one else has any inclination to play. Your mothers must be proud of you.

 

[Rshermr]

You use an economic term I am unfamiliar with: "fucking". Which is why I don't bother to read the rest of your post. I have never encountered this term used in any economics class, seminar, or professional discussion. It is out of place. Which tells me that you must be entirely ignorant of economics, as you refuse to use language appropriate to the subject. Go marginalize yourself.

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as an antiquated Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

In case you haven't noticed there has not been a meaningful discussion in the Economy forum in over a week. All we get is childish right wing name-calling and tripe. Most of the posters with any real background in economics have chosen to stay away.

Congratulations. You have your sandbox. You have shat in it so no one else has any inclination to play. Your mothers must be proud of you.

Agreed. Now, about that pie thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whether or not the OP is a 'trollish' post, it offers an interesting topic. Too bad so many want to the attack the person who posted it with ad hominem and personal insults instead of seeing it as an interesting topic.

I think if anything will cause USMB to lose its luster, it is going to be mostly that one phenomenon that has become all too common.

 

[Rshermr]

You use an economic term I am unfamiliar with: "fucking". Which is why I don't bother to read the rest of your post. I have never encountered this term used in any economics class, seminar, or professional discussion. It is out of place. Which tells me that you must be entirely ignorant of economics, as you refuse to use language appropriate to the subject. Go marginalize yourself.

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as an antiquated Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

In case you haven't noticed there has not been a meaningful discussion in the Economy forum in over a week. All we get is childish right wing name-calling and tripe. Most of the posters with any real background in economics have chosen to stay away.

Congratulations. You have your sandbox. You have shat in it so no one else has any inclination to play. Your mothers must be proud of you.

Not sure they have mothers. You can not get a person who has an agenda to post dogma to ever want to discuss a topic. Just not possible. They want to argue their drivel for days, and spend the rest of their time insulting those who try to discuss. Sad clowns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You use an economic term I am unfamiliar with: "fucking". Which is why I don't bother to read the rest of your post. I have never encountered this term used in any economics class, seminar, or professional discussion. It is out of place. Which tells me that you must be entirely ignorant of economics, as you refuse to use language appropriate to the subject. Go marginalize yourself.

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as an antiquated Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

In case you haven't noticed there has not been a meaningful discussion in the Economy forum in over a week. All we get is childish right wing name-calling and tripe. Most of the posters with any real background in economics have chosen to stay away.

Congratulations. You have your sandbox. You have shat in it so no one else has any inclination to play. Your mothers must be proud of you.

In case you didn't notice it, you are the asshole that ran around throwing shit in this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't believe someone who refers to himself as an antiquated Stage I Freudian bubble would complain about anybody else's 4-letter word on a political board.

Bwahahahaha!

In case you haven't noticed there has not been a meaningful discussion in the Economy forum in over a week. All we get is childish right wing name-calling and tripe. Most of the posters with any real background in economics have chosen to stay away.

Congratulations. You have your sandbox. You have shat in it so no one else has any inclination to play. Your mothers must be proud of you.

Not sure they have mothers. You can not get a person who has an agenda to post dogma to ever want to discuss a topic. Just not possible. They want to argue their drivel for days, and spend the rest of their time insulting those who try to discuss. Sad clowns.

The best thing about idiots that defend Krguman is how I can use Krugman to prove them wrong.

 

[DGS49]

I won't say it's "amazing," but it is certainly remarkable. All this effluvia and not even a hint of substantive response to my remarks or the ones I quoted. It is not surprising, because I have pointed out a situation where in fact, the Emperor has no clothes.

No dispute: Krugman is the most highly-regarded economist on the American political Left at this time. He is often cited by Our Beloved President and his minions, mainly on the subject of the "stimulus," but also on the minimum wage, tax policy, and other economic subjects.

No dispute: Krugman has on several occasions promoted a significant raising of the federal minimum wage, thus supporting not only Our Beloved President, but also several other prominent national politicial figures of the Democrat party.

No dispute: Krugman concedes in his professional publications, as do essentially all reputable economists, that raising the minimum wage beyond the current actual minimum wage will cost jobs among the poorest and least qualified persons in our job pool.

As for my use of the word, "fuck," deal with it. As for my not providing a "link," I can only ask, "Are you serious?" I have quoted the entire article, verbatim, and identified its source.

I intended to stimulate a discussion, and possibly a rebuttal. But the "experts" here, lacking any substantive rebuttal, are apparently trying to make excuses for not coming up with anything.

Lame.

 

[sealybobo]

Those who follow such things understand that Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and NYT pundit is the economic guru to not only Our Beloved President, but also to the whole Progressive movement in this country. I mean, how can you dispute the wisdom of, for example, trillions of dollars in "stimulus" spending of borrowed and printed money when a Nobel-fucking-prize-winning economist not only SUPPORTS it, but CLAIMS IT IS NOT ENOUGH! Claims that the Prez has been too timid!

I have always wondered how and why Dr. Krugman persistently spouts such economic nonsense, and I frequently seek out articles by other economists who dig up the real data to show Krugman as a fraud and manipulator of data. But today I happened upon an article in HuffPo on line by a guy named Benjamin Powell that actually explains it in language that anyone can understand (posted 12/12/2013). It is an article about the minimum wage, and Powell explains that there are actually TWO PAUL KRUGMAN's: One who is a competent economist, and one who is a pundit - a flack for democrat politicians. And his positions on the Minimum Wage are pretty much 180 degrees opposed to each other, depending on whether he is speaking as an economist or as a pundit. He explains it much better than I can, so here goes:

Paul Krugman's recent call to raise the minimum wage is consistent with much of his liberal political writing over the past decade. But raising the minimum wage is not consistent with Krugman's writing as an economist. Those who care about the poor should pay more attention to Krugman the economist than to Krugman the liberal pundit.

Krugman uses the Christmas shopping season, and the fact that 60 percent of minimum wage workers are in sales or food services, to talk about the decline in the real wages of people working in retail. His solution to their problems: "We can raise the minimum wage."

But before we embrace the policy prescription of Krugman the pundit, let's ask the opinion of Krugman the economist. In his 1998 review of a book on living wages he wrote: "So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment."

Krugman the economist should know. He co-authors an Econ 101 textbook. The 2008 edition clearly states, "when the minimum wage is above the equilibrium wage rate, some people who are willing to work--that is, sell labor--cannot find buyers--that is, employers--willing to give them jobs."

Most people's employment prospects aren't harmed by a minimum wage because their productivity is far above the legal mandate. Young people with fewer skills are the most affected. Roughly a quarter of all minimum-wage earners are teenagers, and more than half are under 25 years old. It's no accident that these age groups have the highest unemployment rates. Teen unemployment is 22.2 percent while 12.5 percent of 20 to 24 year olds are unemployed, compared to the U.S. national average of 7.3 percent.

People who deny that the minimum wage causes unemployment often point to the empirical work of economists David Card and Alan Kruger, whose study and subsequent 1997 book didn't find an unemployment effect of the minimum wage. What did Krugman the economist think of their work? Here's what he wrote:

"What is remarkable...is how this [Card and Kruger's] rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda.... Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects.
So fifteen years later, why does Krugman the pundit not believe Krugman the economist? New evidence has surfaced but the bulk of it agrees with Krugman the economist, not the pundit. Economists David Neumark and William Wascher surveyed the vast literature studying the effects of minimum-wage laws in their recent book, Minimum Wages. They find that the bulk of the evidence accumulated over the last 20 years indicates that minimum-wage laws reduce employment for the least-skilled workers and lowers their earnings."

Maybe Krugman the economist can give us some insight into Krugman the pundit's newfound faith in the minimum wage. In 1998 he asked why liberals supported a minimum wage. His answer:

"What the living [minimum] wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price--determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away."

When Krugman the moral pundit asks: "Doesn't that [minimum wage] violate the law of supply and demand? Won't the market gods smite us with their invisible hand?", he need only turn to Krugman the economist for his answer: Yes. Economics put limits on our utopian fantasies.

Unfortunately, Krugman the pundit writes from a fantasyland that should embarrass Krugman the economist.

So far I know you golf, which isn't cheap, and you have a Goldwing? Is that an expensive motorcycle? Are you rich? I mean rich enough to be a Republican? So rich you don't care about your social security and medicare costs?