Embarrassing Economists

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

So as to give some perspective, I’m going to ask readers for their guesses about human behavior before explaining my embarrassment by some of my fellow economists.

Suppose the prices of ladies jewelry rose by 100 percent. What would you predict would happen to sales? What about a 25 or 50 percent price increase? I’m going to guess that the average person would predict that sales would fall.

Would you make the same prediction about auto sales if cars’ prices rose by 100 percent or 25 or 50 percent? Suppose that you’re the CEO of General Motors and your sales manager tells you the company could increase auto sales by advertising a 100 percent or 50 percent price increase. I’m guessing that you’d fire the sales manager for both lunacy and incompetency.

Let’s try one more. What would you predict would happen to housing sales if prices rose by 50 percent? I’m guessing you’d predict a decline in sales. You say, “OK, Williams, you’re really trying our patience with these obvious questions. What’s your point?”

It turns out that there’s a law in economics known as the first fundamental law of demand, to which there are no known real-world exceptions. The law states that the higher the price of something the less people will take of it and vice versa. Another way of stating this very simple law is: There exists a price whereby people can be induced to take more of something, and there exists a price whereby people will take less of something.

Some people suggest that if the price of something is raised, buyers will take more or the same amount. That’s silly because there’d be no limit to the price that sellers would charge. For example, if a grocer knew he would sell more — or the same amount of — milk at $8 a gallon than at $4 a gallon, why in the world would he sell it at $4? Then the question becomes: Why would he sell it at $8 if people would buy the same amount at a higher price?

There are economists, most notably Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who suggest that the law of demand applies to everything except labor prices (wages) of low-skilled workers. Krugman says that paying fast-food workers $15 an hour wouldn’t cause big companies such as McDonald’s to cut jobs. In other words, Krugman argues that raising the minimum wage doesn’t change employer behavior.

Before we address Krugman’s fallacious argument, think about this: One of Galileo’s laws says the influence of gravity on a falling body in a vacuum is to cause it to accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. That applies to a falling rock, steel ball or feather. What would you think of the reasoning capacity of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who’d argue that because human beings are not rocks, steel balls or feathers, Galileo’s law of falling bodies doesn’t apply to them?

Krugman says that most minimum-wage workers are employed in what he calls non-tradable industries — industries that can’t move to China. He says that there are few mechanization opportunities where minimum-wage workers are employed — for example, fast-food restaurants, hotels, etc. That being the case, he contends, seeing as there aren’t good substitutes for minimum-wage workers, they won’t suffer unemployment from increases in the minimum wage. In other words, the law of demand doesn’t apply to them.

Let’s look at some of the history of some of Krugman’s non-tradable industries. During the 1940s and ’50s, there were very few self-serve gasoline stations. There were also theater ushers to show patrons to their seats. In 1900, 41 percent of the U.S. labor force was employed in agriculture. Now most gas stations are self-serve. Theater ushers disappeared. And only 2 percent of today’s labor force works in agricultural jobs. There are many other examples of buyers of labor services seeking and ultimately finding substitutes when labor prices rise. It’s economic malpractice for economists to suggest that they don’t.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
A. R. Wasem
A. R. Wasem
October 24, 2014 11:51 am

Krugman is what is known in the propaganda trade as a “useful idiot”. Stand with Rand and BC-LR to all

BUCKHED
BUCKHED
October 24, 2014 12:27 pm

Krugman smokes a lot of dope…..that’s why his theories come from Never-Neverland .

a cruel accountant
a cruel accountant
October 24, 2014 1:14 pm

Minimum wage outlaws work for those who need a job the most.

Tor Onion
Tor Onion
October 24, 2014 3:50 pm

“Paying fast-food workers $15 an hour won’t cause big companies like McDonald’s to cut jobs, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

That’s because fast-food worker jobs can’t be outsourced overseas or performed by machines, the New York Times columnist said, debunking a classic argument against raising pay for low-wage workers.”

[imgcomment image[/img]

Dutchman
Dutchman
October 24, 2014 4:12 pm

Tor is correct – there are innovative ways to get rid of employees.

Self service gas, ATM’s ,self check out lanes at supermarkets (hell each piece of fruit as a number tag on them), self check out a big box stores. At some chains, you order with a screen, and a runner brings out the food – no more wait staff.

Online Internet ordering continues to eliminate jobs. I have seen warehouses where almost all the ‘picking’ is done by robots. The only time a human is involved is if it’s a ‘soft item’ that the robot can’t handle. 3 or 4 guys – in a 300,000 sq/ft warehouse!

As more and more items are bar coded (uniquely labeled) and packaged properly, more jobs will be eliminated.

Communication with e-mail is surely downsizing the number of customer reps needed.

If they would ever get driverless cars – think what it would do to the taxi drivers!

Krugman is as full of shit as a Christmas goose!

backwardsevolution
backwardsevolution
October 24, 2014 4:25 pm

Krugman is an embarrassment to the human race, never mind fellow economists. He always looks stunned – stunned – when asked questions. Then he stumbles and fumbles around for words as if he’s trying to find something, anything, in the vacuum of his mind.

Thinker
Thinker
October 24, 2014 4:34 pm

Likewise, companies have the ability to cut labor costs even more quickly than robotics can be implemented… they simply need to reduce the number of hours they’re open, reduce benefits paid to make up for the cost of higher wages, raise cost of goods sold and any number of other market-driven actions, including closing under-performing locations. Look at how they got out of benefits costs — healthcare in particular — by moving employees to part-time work and then making up the difference by employing more of them.

The same thing will happen here, at the beginning. IF higher-wage policies go through — they may be an election issue that will die away after politicians get in office and then forget about all their campaign promises — you’ll see companies put on a brave face (for PR value) and then make operational changes to counter the added cost.

After all, we’ve all seen the balance sheets for the past few quarters… companies don’t have the ability to raise expenses without some serious repercussions to their business.

Any economist who doesn’t recognize that fact is a shill.

backwardsevolution
backwardsevolution
October 24, 2014 4:35 pm

All raising the minimum wage does is put more money out there, which causes more demand for things, and more demand causes a rise in prices, and before long the workers are needing another raise in the minimum wage. It’s a vicious cycle and just causes inflation.

How about companies and corporations, with their massive profits, LOWER THEIR F**KING PRICES! Yeah, instead of raising minimum wages, reduce prices.

It’s not what you earn in income; it’s what you can buy with what you earn. If we weren’t always fighting to keep prices up, and let them fall (according to supply and demand), people would be able to buy things again.

Krugman is a mouthpiece for the corporate world.

dc.sunsets
dc.sunsets
October 24, 2014 5:20 pm

Krugman is a NYT mouthpiece.

Recall that the NYT published Walter Duranty’s outright lies about Stalin’s mass starvation of tens of millions of people. Duranty’s Pulitzer Price still hangs in the NYT offices.

I have to laugh whenever the subject of winning WW2 comes up.

The USA allied with the world’s greatest mass murderer politician (Stalin) and handed all of Eastern Europe to the USSR, in order to defeat a regime that murdered a fraction of the people murdered by the Soviets under Stalin.

I surely wish someone could explain that to me. I want to know why we revile Hitler (a demon, to be sure) yet somehow don’t reserve a deeper pit in hell for “Uncle Joe” Stalin, our ally and “friend.”

Dr. Stucky's Teaching Assistant
Dr. Stucky's Teaching Assistant
October 25, 2014 1:32 am

1. Reading about the Balfour Declaration: One of the main proponents of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was Chaim Weizmann, the leading spokesperson in Britain for organised Zionism. Weizmann was a chemist who had developed a process to synthesize acetone via fermentation. Acetone is required for the production of cordite, a powerful propellant explosive needed to fire ammunition without generating tell-tale smoke. Germany had cornered supplies of calcium acetate, a major source of acetone. Other pre-war processes in Britain were inadequate to meet the increased demand in World War I, and a shortage of cordite would have severely hampered Britain’s war effort. Lloyd-George, then minister for munitions, was grateful to Weizmann and so supported his Zionist aspirations

2. The US was eager to acquire German weapons technology and scientists. Reading about the Manhattan Project we learn this: The project was also charged with gathering intelligence on the German nuclear energy project. Through Operation Alsos, Manhattan Project personnel served in Europe, sometimes behind enemy lines, where they gathered nuclear materials and documents, and rounded up German scientists.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
October 25, 2014 9:30 am

About that machine and it’s corporate owners:

http://momentummachines.com/

I love the intro on the website-

“OUR TECHNOLOGY WILL DEMOCRATIZE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY FOOD MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE MASSES” (Caps lock their idea)

The Masses?

a couple of problems with the claims in regards to food safety. Based on the design the machine will both refrigerate as well as roast/fry/bake in a machine that is roughly the size of a large freezer. Further, the heating and cooling elements are separated from each other requiring heavy insulating layers, multiple sources of energy inputs and electrical conduit/cooling coils/etc in a staggered configuration refrigeration/heating element/refrigeration. I’m not sure how you’d be able to regulate such a system, but I bet you’ll have one hell of a time cleaning it properly without disassembling and at the same time maintaining the levels of sanitation required by Food Safety. In a traditional commercial kitchen there are strict guidelines concerning temperatures and frequency of cleaning using prescribed disinfectants. The technology looks as if it was designed by engineers rather than improvised by line operators, a top down method rather than an organic design. After six months of heavy use I’d love to send it to a lab for a bacteria analysis.

Some of the claims are simply ridiculous. “Slicing fresh ingredient only after the order has been placed” makes it sound like you get fresh tomato on every burger, doesn’t it? What if no one orders tomato for a couple of hours after the first slice is lopped off? I wonder how fresh that next slice is going to seem. There’s lots more, that was only a cursory exam based on my admittedly limited knowledge of HACCP/Serve Safe standards, time behind a line as a cook, knowledge of Food Safety laws, etc.

One thing I can guarantee is that the machine may eliminate a prep person or cook, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate the need for human beings to clean/sanitize and service it regularly including the stocking of ingredients. And when someone on a regular fast food staff calls in sick, has to run home to take care of an emergency, whatever, they simply plug in a replacement. What would the cost be to have a couple of extra “Momentum Machines” in the back room? And do you simply plug them in or are they (extremely likely) required to be hardwired and hooked up to coolant lines, etc?

Sometimes people confuse a good idea with a practical reality.

Of course what do I know as a member of “THE MASSES”?

Olga
Olga
October 25, 2014 10:50 am

I was under the impression that it was production first that produced an economy – that consumption came later.

The production of fast food – either by over/under paid flippers and/or bacteria riddled machines is required before someone can consume a whopper.

All of the ingredients need to be produced, from the grain and requisite tractors and fertilizer, the tomatoes and tomatoes picker/packager/shipper/unloaders, to the architects and engineers for golden arches truth, the interior designers for plastic booths/forks/frosties/drive-thru box, as well as the design and maintenance of the sanitary sewer connections, IT networks and advertising during the Super Bowl game – all this needs to be produced first so some HS drop out or poorly prepared senior can earn some money to consume some food, clothing and shelter.

All these factors have been as out-sourced, mechanized, process-perfected, streamlined, corporatized and stripped to the bones to do away with as much labor as mechanistically possible.

We have made our economy so efficient that humans are superfluous – until it comes time for consumption.

Who is going to be left to consume when we reach 100% human-free production efficiency?

How much of the FSA is actually an attempt to “soak up” the excess mechanized and off-shored production that is at the heart of profits?

If we’ve taken humans out of the production how is it we expect them to consume?

I don’t claim to have the answers – but I wonder if we’re even asking the right questions.

And yes – Krugman is tool.

BUCKHED
BUCKHED
October 26, 2014 12:45 pm

I always ask this question of those who advocate raising the minimum wage . Why stop at 15$ an hour…let’s make it 50$ an hour….all I get is well that won’t work. If 50$ won’t work how the hell will 15$ an hour work.