Maybe it’s a professor-thing. Steve Bainbridge is so certain he’s
got an important new perspective on minimum wage laws that he
seems to be blind to reality and particularly allergic to dissent (at
least from me; see below). Of course, he might just have a grant
proposal or law journal article in the pipeline.
“soapBoxDudeF”
As Prof. B first stated in his post “Drum and the Minimum Wage“
(April 11, 2006), and has now expanded upon, in a TCS column
titled “Minimum Behavior” (April 20, 2006), he believes that “the
minimum wage policy debate is one-sided” — proponents and
opponents of higher minimum wages have been focusing only “on
the effect of such a hike on the supply of jobs by employers.”
Steve believes that ““an equally important question” is
“what effect does a minimum wage hike have on the
demand for jobs by potential employees?”
To that insight, Prof. B. adds (as repeated at TCS) that:
“it is critical to recognize that the minimum wage debate
is mainly a debate about how much working teenagers
and twenty-somethings in their first job ought to make.”
[Hallelujah! Sorta! Although it remains in his original post, Steve
has, to his credit, at least deleted the assertion “the minimum
wage debate is not really a debate about how much money the
for that change, and for saving Prof. B, from further embarrass-
ment over that sentence. On the other hand, he added to the
TCS piece that whether California should have a minimum wage
law at all is a “contested proposition.” The “working poor”
better not count on Steve Bainbridge in their battle for better
wages.]
Steve’s big contribution to the minimum wage debate, therefore,
is to ask whether raising the wage is likely to cause more youths
to drop out of high school. Steve believes that teens actually
will base their decision to stay in school on marginal differences
in the minimum wage. Thus, his legislative recommendation is
twofold:
(a) have a differential lower minimum wage for those who
have not completed a high school degree, [which] should
result in a lower dropout rate;” and
(b) have “An indexed minimum wage, which grew steadily
and no faster than inflation, [which] would avoid the potential
for biasing the choice between work and school” in the year
that a large increase is given to make up for eroded real
purchasing power.
“spiltwine”
The f/k/a Gang (from Yabut and to ethicalEsq to Jack Cliente and
dagosan) wonder what Steve is smoking, while sipping his favorite
wine.
As for the facts, which Prof. B. surely knows, as he has read at least
one BLS report, plus “bainbridge speeds past the working poor,” our
post on the topic, dated April 17, 2006:
48% of the “young workers” Steve is talking about are 20 or older.
The study he uses does not tell us how many of them are heads
of household or have dependent children, nor if they are in their
first jobs, as he asserts — nor whether they are trying to work
while studying for a better-paying career.
Over 1.5 million hourly workers in the USA are over age 20 and
earn the minimum wage or less.
Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect for million of workers
hovering just above the minimum. Because 5.7 million of the working
poor in 2003 — 77% — are 25 or older, changes affect far more than
teens in their first job (see “Profile of the Working Poor, 2003,” BLS,
March 2005)
As for reality, assuming rational, price-theory behavior by teens in California,
or any other state, when deciding whether to drop out of school, is the kind of
maddening Economic Man fetish that we decried last month in a blurb pointing
to the article “The Marketplace of Perceptions” (Harvard Magazine, March-April
2006). If Prof. Bainbridge can locate a good course in Behavorial Economics,
with our analysis.] Until then, my response to an email from Steve last week,
seems solid:
Steve wrote: “The way I think about it is that I’m concerned with the kids. I want
kids to stay in school and maximize their lifetime incomes. What the heck’s wrong
with that?”
Your Editor replied:
We both agree that the kids are not making longterm-rational economic
decisions. And, I don’t believe that their short-term financial decisions
are going to be made based on rationally looking at marginal differences
in the hourly wage available if they drop out of school early. They’ll keep
dropping out and simply make less (I say that having had scores of adol-
escent clients as a Family Court Law Guardian, and hundreds of clients
from poor and working-poor families). Keeping their wage lower will make
them favored hirees by the Minimum Wage Employer, to the detriment of
others [probably older] who need those jobs.
“soapboxdude”
Meanwhile, your trumpeting of the lack of connection of [the Minimum Wage]
with the working poor gives the noisiest and most stingy and angry of your
readership one more excuse for railing against increases in the minimum age.
So, i do worry about overlooking the working poor in the MW debate.
Of course, Steve has a good point about getting better data on how changes in the
minimum wage affect the supply of willing workers. But, I think his Religious Boss,
Pope Benedict XVI, has a better point when he says in Deus Caritas Est that (see
our prior post):
“It is true that the pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the
State and that the aim of a just social order is to guarantee to each person,
according to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community’s goods.
I’d like to think that my post disagreeing with Prof. B’s approach to the minimum
wage made a few points worth pondering, too. Apparently, the facts or the tone
were so threatening or so reprehensible to Steve, that he has now twice removed
Trackbacks citations for my posts bainbridge speeds past the working poor and
Catholic Conservatives Ignore Benedict on Political “Caritas” from his posting on
minimum wages. [Trackbacks tell you that another weblog has cited to a post.]
To be honest, that seems rather small-minded. Steve is the famous weblogging
professor; I’m the David to his Goliath. He has trumpeted both his credentials in
the fields of law and economics and his strong Catholic faith. If he can’t handle his
readers finding a discussion that questions his economic reasoning and the faith–
fulness of his policy proposals to the teachings of his Church, perhaps Prof. B,
should give up his pretensions of being a “public intellectual,” and especially a
Catholic public intellectual.
By the way, I’d be interested in hearing from other
webloggers and weblog readers on the topic of censored
Trackback pings. Clearly, spam can and should be re-
moved (I only wish it were quicker to do). Also, every
weblog owner has the “right” to remove Trackbacks, but
what does that tell us about his or her desire for engaging
in an open discussion? When would you approve or disapprove
of deleting Trackbacks?
trackback update (April 23, 2006): This morning, I rediscovered
an ethicalEsq post from Feb. 2004, Disappeared from Law-Blog
Cyberspace, where we wrote: “I’ve recently discovered a big difference
between lawyer weblogs that were created primarily as marketing tools
and those written for the sheer joy of sharing ideas and information, or
presenting a point of view: The marketing and reputation-oriented lawyer
weblogs appear to remove Comments, pings and blogroll listings that might
make their ‘product’ look less valuable or useful. Of course, a lot of them
simply don’t allow unfiltered comments or pings.” At the time, Kevin
O’Keefe disagreed with my dichotomy of types of lawyer weblogs. In
retrospect, my reply Comment to Kevin might have been a bit naive about
law professors, when I wrote:
Lawyers and law professors who start a weblog primarly
to share ideas and expertise, or promote a cause, and
to have a conversation with others, seem far more likely
to “allow” different viewpoints to be accessed through
their site and to say what’s really on their minds. Lawyers
whose primary purpose is marketing their services (no matter
how much passion and expertise they show) seem far more
likely to need to filter what can be seen or accessed on their
e-blawg.
“slingShot”
the woodpecker works
one spot…
all through sunset
fresh straw for the garden–
about ten servants
at work
even the poor
workhorses of Edo sleep…
in mosquito nets!
begging hermits clamor
in their night work…
coolness at the gate
growing old–
by the hearth’s light
piecework
Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
April 20, 2006
poor steve bainbridge
Comments Off on poor steve bainbridge
just peggy
– after too many paragraphs and too few haiku,
peggy lyles, just peggy lyles:
Moon
and melon cooling
with us in the stream
“moonWaxCres”
I shake the vase —
a bouquet of red roses
finds its shape
A doe’s leap
darkens the oyster shell road:
twilight
a lantern
in the pothole–
moonset
peggy lyles from The Haiku Anthology (edited by Cor van den Heuvel, 3rd Ed.,1999)
except: “a lantern” – Roadrunner Haiku Journal (VI:1, Feb. 2006)
Comments Off on just peggy