From Cafe Hayek.
"Here’s another passage from Paul
Krugman’s recent anti-economics column on Wal-Mart, minimum wages, and
the supposed inapplicability of standard supply-and-demand analysis to
labor markets:
Specifically,
this view implies that any attempt to push up wages will either fail or
have bad consequences. Setting a minimum wage, it’s claimed, will
reduce employment and create a labor surplus, the same way attempts to
put floors under the prices of agricultural commodities used to lead to
butter mountains, wine lakes and so on. Pressuring employers to pay
more, or encouraging workers to organize into unions, will have the same
effect.
But labor economists have long questioned this view…
… a questioning that Krugman, judging from this column of his, clearly believes to be appropriate.
Bob Murphy has done good work exposing Krugman’s deep inconsistency on this issue. (See also
David Henderson – and the
comments, especially
the one by Charley Hooper,
in David’s post.) But inconsistent or not,
here’s some evidence that
Krugman is mistaken to suppose that, because labor markets (as he
correctly says) are conditioned by “social forces and political power,”
such forces and power cause labor markets to operate in ways that differ
from the ways predicted by standard supply-and-demand analysis:
This graph (which you can click on to enlarge) is from
this recent blog post by Adam Ozimek. (HT Tyler Cowen) (See also
this earlier, related post by Adam.) While not proof positive – few such proofs are available in
any
science whose subject matter is empirical reality – these data are
strong evidence in support of the standard economics conclusion that
artificially raising firms’ costs of employing some kinds of workers
causes firms over time to employ fewer such workers than they would
otherwise have employed.
It
appears that the social forces and political power that affect the
market for labor do not do so in ways that render inapplicable the laws
of supply and demand.
Note,
too, from Adam’s posts that at least some respected labor economists –
e.g., Richard Freeman (no libertarian he!) – don’t follow the script
that Krugman says they follow.
….
Again,
no sensible economist denies that labor markets differ in many ways
from other markets. But each of these differences – including those
that involve “social forces and political power” –
can be captured quite well in standard supply-and-demand analysis.
Doing so is the sort of work that good economists routinely do.
Supply-and-demand analysis applies whenever potential buyers encounter
potential sellers – and no one is a potential or actual buyer of a good
or service that isn’t scarce, which practically means that no one is a
seller of a good or service that isn’t scarce. And scarcity is never
made to miraculously disappear by social forces or by political power.
Because supply-and-demand analysis captures so well the allocation of
scarce things, the fact that the scarce thing directly exchanged in
labor markets is the labor-time of human beings in no way makes this
analysis inapplicable.
Remember,
all exchange is of things or abilities owned – things or abilities created, produced, or procured – by human beings. That labor markets coordinate the
direct
exchange of labor time – rather than the indirect exchange of labor
time through the exchange of goods and services that labor, usually
along with other inputs, produces – does nothing to make
supply-and-demand analysis less applicable. The sellers of asparagus in
the asparagus market are no less human than are the sellers of labor
time in the labor market.
And there is absolutely no reason to suppose
that social forces, political power, or all the wishful thinking of
people who dislike economic reality somehow make the buyers of labor
time unable or unwilling to buy less of a certain kind of labor time if
the costs to those buyers of buying that kind of labor time rises."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.