I don't understand the 95% point-- aren't most economists against the minimum wage?
-
-
Replying to @samselikoff @wycats
re: intuition, demand curves generally slope down, so burden of proof seems to be on the other side. A $200/hr mw would def hurt.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samselikoff @wycats
believe the argument is based on increase of velocity of money, and giving
to those who are likely to spend it NOW1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michaellnorth @wycats
yah, the question is whether this beats the opportunity cost. Some think it does, others don't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but ultimately what bothers me here is pretending Seattle was an "experiment", akin to a laboratory test
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samselikoff @michaellnorth
every time it's tried, people predict major problems, and nothing happens, it's worth reporting on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the thing that bothers ME about Chicago School economics is a willingness to stridently make claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Obamacare WILL kill jobs and plunge us into a recession" "Increases in minwage WILL kill 1000s of jobs"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and these same people (not sure where you stand) get super ornery when ppl point out "wait that didn't happen"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @michaellnorth
Austrian school here for the most part. I agree w/you here - but I'm skeptical of most empirical predictions
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
you might be the only Austrian school person w/ that attitude.
How do you feel abt Ariely behavioral econ?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.