On progress in implementing the minimum wage.
The NY Times notes that tomorrow’s referendum vote in Arkansas is likely to raise the minimum wage (see also Politico). In contrast, Governor Walker’s Department of Workforce Administration has recently certified that $7.25 is a living wage.[1] Perhaps that’s because the Governor erroneously believes minimum wage jobs are “overwhelmingly jobs for young people” (something Politifact labeled as unambiguously false — not something I see very often!!!!)
I thought it useful to note that an increase in the minimum wage would have an impact on a good number of people in the 20-29 age group. As I get older, I tend more and more to think of these people as “younger”, but I don’t think they’re teenagers, as the Governor suggests.
Figure 1: Age distribution of directly affected Wisconsin workers. Source: David Cooper, Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #371, December 19, 2013
The minimum wage has been declining in real terms since the late 1960’s, with intermittent adjustments upward. This is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Federal minimum wage, in $/hour (blue), and in 2013$/hour (red). Deflation uses CPI-all. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, NBER, and author’s calculations.
Not only has the real minimum wage been generally declining since the late 1960’s. The ratio to the average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers has also been declining, also since the late 1960’s, to a little above 1/3.
Figure 3: Average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers (dark blue), and Federal minimum wage (red), both in 2013$. Deflation uses CPI-all. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, NBER, and author’s calculations.
Some observers have worried about a slowdown in job creation as a consequence of minimum wage increases. Thus far, the most recent minimum wage increases have not resulted in a measurable decrease in employment increase. Instead, job growth is (nonstatistically) faster in states that have raised the minimum wage.[2] On the other hand, there is some evidence that a higher minimum wage helps reduce poverty rates.[3]
Addendum: If you want to seem some funny “research”, again from the MacIver Institute, see this “study”, which indicates an astoundingly precise job loss of 91,521, if the minimum wage were to be raised to $15. It’s unauthored, in the sense there are no names listed as authors. The data are not online, and there is no author to contact to get the data from. (The key referenced document is also not found by the Google…) This is even worse than my experience trying to get data from Sabia, who authored the Employment Policies Institute study on the minimum wage (and who still hasn’t responded to my repeated requests for the data after six months).
Oh, and the WSJ plots where concern about jobs is highest. Here’s the map, from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
From the WSJ via the article:
In the above map, it’s clear jobs, employment and economic security are important to Facebook users in Wisconsin, where incumbent Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, has made the issue part of his campaign against challenger Mary Burke, the Democrat. The Facebook data are mapped by congressional district, rather than state, to add some granularity. It’s clear the issue has been discussed statewide across all districts.
Since Wisconsin is currently 108,600 below the trend required to hit the Governor’s 250,000 net new jobs promise, this is not surprising.
I found it interesting that in the articles about Denmark’s higher wages – $20/hr plus – the cost of a Big Mac, etc. was only about 60 cents or so higher.
I’d be interested in seeing minimum wage compared in some way with total economic productivity, especially over a long term. Maybe GDP per capita is the proper comparison, though to be more accurate I suppose it should GDP per worker or GDP per working age person. I’d guess that the minimum wage has drastically declined by that measure.
Wisconsin unemployment rate: 5.5%; U.S. unemployment rate: 5.9%; Arkansas unemployment rate: 6.2%
Walker ahead in the polls. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_walker_vs_burke-4099.html
What does that tell you about minimum wage concerns? Continuing to bark up the wrong tree?
As shown by the Obama administration, projections are meaningless. Everything is relative and Wisconsin is not in a bad state (pun intended) relatively speaking.
Being the one person in the world who moved from Arkansas to live in Wisconsin, I can tell you that being compared to or matching the performance of Arkansas is not the standard you should aspire to. Of course. If Walker keeps lowering the bar, someday we might match the jobs performance of the least successful state.
Any good economist knows that if you increase the cost of the factors of production you will decrease the cost and increase employment. No? It only makes sense that if labor is 30% of a product when you raise it to 35% it will lower cost, right? With this brilliant logic perhaps we should take all costs of factors and increase them. I am sure a good economist could give us a graph that would prove increasing cost to 105% would reduce the selling price. What better logic could you have?
What I don’t understand is with jonathan showing us that a $20 minimum wage in in Denmark is so good, why does the US keep their minimum wage so low? Why not $20/hr or maybe $50/hr? Perhaps Menzie could tell us what a living wage should be.
Ricardo. There are so many straw men in your post, it is difficult to chose which one is the most absurd
The national association of fast food restaurants reports that since 1990 that wages have fluctuated between 25% and 27% of fast food restaurant revenues.
Moreover, there does not appear to be any correlation between this and changes in the minimum wages.
Jonathan was not showing us a $20 minimum wage in Denmark for the simple reason that they don’t have any legally mandated minimum wages. Wages are typically agreed to by negotiations between employer associations and unions; however, those agreements are not binding on the individual franchises. If Denmark is held up as an example, would it be that legally mandated minimum wages are not necessary or are counter-productive?
Second, any sensible comparison of restaurant worker wages across countries would account for locally prevailing taxes and cost of living. As a worker, your concern presumably is what goods and services your net take home pay will buy in the local market (not just Big Macs).
I would like to see, at the very least, the following before any judgements are made about relative pay:
The first thing to do, I think, should be to compare the *net* wages after taxes and other charges. How much does that Danish McDonald’s worker have left to spend of that $20 when those items are deducted? Second, based on that after-tax income, determine what the relative purchasing power that net income would buy compared with the net income of a comparable worker in the United States? PPP might not be the only measure, but it would be one place to start.
Finally, I might suggest that one look beyond Denmark, too. Naturally, if one wants to make an adverse comparison, one will cherry pick what one thinks is the “best case” and ignore all others. If every country did that for everything, surely, within no time,we’d all race to the top and the entire world would be living in Paradise!
And, a final thought. When everything is tallied up, perhaps those Danish fast food workers are just a bit more productive than their American counterparts and therefore worth more per hour. If they do earn relatively more, I certainly wouldn’t begrudge them a relatively higher wage for that. It’s funny that that issue has never been mentioned in any article I’ve read on this subject.
Whatever the minimum wage should be, it’s too low. I stated before:
If the economy was able to absorb a $10 real minimum wage (in 1968, with a 3.5% national unemployment rate and a much higher teen labor force participation rate), why can’t it absorb a higher real minimum wage with low-wage productivity much higher, particularly, since per capita real income doubled, profits are much higher as a percent of GDP, and the proportion of real income of the top 20% became much more concentrated, while real median income was stagnant, and then declined since 2000.
Menzie, I wonder if the data in figure 1 provides a natural experiment on the long run impact of the minimum wage. Did job growth steadily improve during those long periods of declining real min wages, only to collapse at step up points? Is there an optimal real minimum wage that can be teased out of the data?
the data consistently shows that once you remove the impact of the business cycle the minimum wage has no significant impact on employment.
In 1979 there were 6,912,000 minimum wage workers in the US. In 2013 it was only 3,300,000. During this period the real minimum wage fell/.
‘This is even worse than my experience trying to get data from Sabia, who authored the Employment Policies Institute study on the minimum wage (and who still hasn’t responded to my repeated requests for the data after six months).’
Maybe he reads this blog, and has drawn an appropriate conclusion.
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am not surprised that is how you think the enterprise of intellectual exploration proceeds.
Protocol in academia is that if you publish a paper, the underlying data should be accessible. Your belief that one should be entitled to obfuscate and impede investigation is one that seems entirely consistent with your anti-intellectual views. Please return to promulgating the view that the universe revolves around the earth…
Thank you once again for confirming for all your proclivities.
In my experience, Menzie, scholars get different treatment from other scholars than do political hacks.
If the average wage of Walmart nonsupervisory workers were raised to $100 an hour, the price of $10 items would have to be raised to $15. Walmart labor costs are 7%. Nonsupervisory workers average $12 an hour. 12×8 = almost 100. One of the 12s is there already. 7×7% = 49%.
If we double today’s Walmart’s nonsupervisory hourly pay to $24 and throw on an extra 25% for benefits to make $30, Walmart prices would rise about 10%.
Somebody challenged me that raising Walmart prices 10% (at $30 — only 3.5% at $15 min wage) would take $26 billion from the poorest consumers. I pointed out they could take it out of the extra $560 billion they got from the $15 minimum wage (not $30).
A $15 minimum wage would shift about 3.5% of income from the 55 percent of the workforce who garner 90% of income to the 45% who scratch only 10%. $8,000 average raise X 70 million (45% of 140 million + 5% at minimum now) = $560 billion out of $16,000 billion GDP. BTW, 45% of workforce not going to be sent home over a 3 1/2 percent shift in income share.
100,000 out of (my estimate) 200,000 gang age, Chicago males are in street gangs – I say because they wont work for a minimum wage several dollars below LBJ’s 1968 minimum wage ($10.95) after per capita income about doubles. A $15 an hour minimum wage might actually put American born workers back to work at America’s McDonald’s.
* * * * * * * * * *
”Denmark has no minimum-wage law. But Mr. Elofsson’s $20 an hour is the lowest the fast-food industry can pay under an agreement between Denmark’s 3F union, the nation’s largest, and the Danish employers group Horesta, which includes Burger King, McDonald’s, Starbucks and other restaurant and hotel companies.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/business/international/living-wages-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html?_r=0
What Denmark does have – along with most of continental Europe and French Canada and Argentina and Indonesia — is a labor market setup called centralized bargaining where every employee doing similar work (e.g., retail clerk) negotiates one common labor contract with all employers doing similar business (e.g., Safeway, Best Buy, Walmart).
$20 an hour + benefits: it’s the (centralized bargaining) free market!
most people who condemn the existence of the minimum wage probably also feel labor unions should not be allowed to exist either.
Robert Hurley,
Why do you not actually make an argument rather than a “drive by,” non-specific, meaningless statement?
McDonalds workers are paid $21 per hour with benefits in Denmark while Big Macs are not that much more expensive. Does that mean that we can raise the minimum wage in the US to $15 per hour without any real consequences? No, it doesn’t.
Vivan asked a number of relevant questions about how high that $21 per hour really is. There are a number of ways to look at it. Princeton economist Orly Ashenfelter has constructed a Big Mac real wage, which is the number of Big Macs a McDonalds worker is paid for 1 hour of work. In Denmark, the worker is paid 3.4 Big Macs per hour while in the U.S. he is paid 1.8 Big Macs per hour. So, by that measure the real wage is indeed higher and McDonalds workers are paid more in Denmark.
On the other hand, the worker consumes other goods besides Big Macs. It’s very expensive to live in Denmark. Numbeo.com provides a cost of living comparison between the US and Denmark, with the cost of living being 25% higher in Denmark. And yet another way to look at it is to note that Eurostat measures the median wage in Denmark in 2010 to be 25 Euros per hour. If a McDonalds worker makes $21 per hour, or 17 Euros at today’s exchange rates, that’s about 2/3 of the median wage. Danes pay much higher income taxes and a 25% VAT. So, that $21 per hour will not go nearly as far as you might think.
Higher wages however will mean higher prices, lower demand for the product, and lower profitability, which has predictable consequences. In Denmark, there are 88 McDonalds with a population of 5.6 million, or 16 McDonalds per 1 million people. In the US there are 14,267 McDonalds serving a population, or 45 McDonalds per 1 million people. So the effect of the higher wages is to have fewer McDonalds jobs and fewer people eating at McDonalds.
In these high wage countries, fast food places will alter their business model to cope. The restaurants will tend to be higher end, with some higher margin products, will employ workers with higher productivity and will substitute technology for labor more. You can see that trend if you go to McDonalds in Europe. I was recently at the McDonalds outside Narbonne, France which had a pretty nice coffee bar inside. Years ago I went the McDonalds in Verona, Italy, near the Colliseum. It had a very high end salad bar that you’d never see in the US.
It’s a mistake to think that just because McDonalds workers are paid $21 per hour in Denmark, you can raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in the US without consequences other than the food being a little more expensive. The experience of other countries suggests that the fast food industry will adjust its business model to more serve a more high end product to a more niched customer, and will contract the number of jobs and restaurants. Ultimately, there will be many fewer people working in the industry and fewer people eating in it as well. The people who do manage to work in the higher wage industry will be happier, as they are in Denmark, but what about the people who lose?
There is one element in the minimum wage that no one discusses. It is totalitarianism to tell someone how much they must pay another. It would be immoral for me to tell you that you must pay the kid next door $100/hour to cut your lawn. It is immoral to tell someone who wants a job that they cannot take a job that pays less than what you imagine is proper. You should have no control over what job a worker takes. If he wants to work for $1.00 per day who are you to tell him no? Who are you to deny him a job?
Ricardo: So, I should be able to employ child labor at less than subsistence wage, if the child is happy to do so? Seems like the logical implication of what you are propounding.
Should I also be able to commit to indentured servitude in exchange for an up front lump sum payment? That seems like a “free choice” that the government should not impede, in your worldview.
Now you’re telling us that Paul Krugman is wrong to say that bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all?
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html
‘You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? ….as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard–that is, the fact that you don’t like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.
‘In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.’
At least it ought to be the professional duty of someone calling himself an economist.
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
Patrick R. Sullivan: So let me get this on record. You are in favor of child labor in the United States? You are in favor of indentured servitude as long as the arrangement was agreed to upon freely?
Better watch out, Menzie. Four more years of the Scott Walker tyranny! Have you thought of the Witness Protection Program?
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
I am hard pressed to understand what ‘less than subsistence wage’ means. If it is so, then the laborer will by definition die. I do not believe this is the typical observed outcome even in very poor countries like Bangladesh.
The choice to work at any age is a function of the alternative. If the alternative is starvation, then child labor is superior. If the choice is education versus labor, the vast majority of people would consider education (also a form of compulsory work) to be superior.
Ricardo,
You raise a very important point.
If two consenting adults, both of the same gender, decide voluntarily to enter into a marriage contract, why should the government be able to say no, just because some people don’t agree with their decision?
If a young woman in Oregon, dying of brain cancer, decides with her doctor to die with dignity, and the young woman and her doctor are both consenting adults, why should the government be able to say no, just because some people don’t agree with their decision?
If one consenting adult decides to sell a drug to another consenting adult, who wants to buy it, why should the government be able to say no, just because some people don’t agree with their decision?
If two consenting adults decide to engage in some sexual act, why should the government be able to say no, just because some people don’t agree with their decision?
And if one consenting adult decides, voluntarily, to offer a job at a certain wage to another consenting adult, who decides to take that job at that wage rate, voluntarily, why should the government be able to say no, just because Menzie and some other like-minded people do not agree with their decision?
Rick –
You are confusing liberal and conservative contracts.
A liberal contract is one between two consenting parties requiring nothing more than the enforcement protection of the state. In such a case, no granting of rights is necessary by the state, beyond the enforcement of terms agreed by the parties. That is, you would not need to be married in a church or by a justice of the peace. It would be enough to have the parties’ respective lawyers draw up paperwork for the contracting parties to sign, with associated disputes being settled in civil courts. (“Under paragraph 3, I am entitled to the big screen TV if we divorce,” or “If we divorce, everything is his.”)
Marriages are more than this, as they confer both social sanction and societal rights, some of which cannot be altered by contractual carve-outs. Thus, for example, in the case of societal rights, survivors are entitled to their deceased spouse’s social security benefits. Marriage creates a kind of contractual bond between the couple and the state, which is not a direct party to the marriage. At the same time, I am guessing that, at least in some states, custody and visitation rights cannot be precluded via a pre-nuptial agreement. Not all contractual terms may be voluntarily agreed between the parties.
Therefore, a marriage consists of four levels of rights: i) those specifically agreed by the parties, as in a pre-nup or the function of any subsequent divorce proceeding, ii) rights conferred to each of the married couple with respect to each other by the state, and which cannot be superseded by individually negotiated terms, iii) the couple’s rights from and obligations to the state as a function of the marriage, and iv) societal recognition of the marriage. This latter component is the societal acknowledgement of the couple as having a set of traditionally accepted attributes (eg, sexual exclusivity, cohabitation, raising of children, etc.) A marriage confers thus not only legal, but also social, status.
A civil union addresses points i, ii and iii. It grants legal rights with respect to the two parties, and legal rights with respect to the state. It does not, in the eyes of gay marriage advocates (or their opponents), confer social standing.
Thus, the push for gay marriage is not about private rights at all, which would be fully granted within the framework of a civil union. Rather, gay marriage is about social acceptance, that is, a public good. They are not requesting individual rights–civil unions grant this–they are requesting public recognition. It is not a contract between the two parties, but between the two parties jointly and the rest of society. Hence it is a conservative (group), not liberal (private), contract.
Whether such recognition is to be granted would seem to be a matter of public taste. In general, voters seem inclined to reject gay marriage proposals. Notwithstanding, judges have seen fit to impose their views on the population, and it is the tastes of judges, ultimately, which have proved decisive in the matter.
Steven,
I agree with your distinction between marriage and civil unions. I should have been more precise.
When I said “marriage contract,” I had in mind a private agreement in which two people of the same gender (or different genders) decide to live together in an intimate relationship and to document that relationship in a private legal agreement, which also would set out the rights and responsibilities of each party in the relationship. However, in some states, this would constitute illegal conduct. For example, in Florida Chapter 798 of the 2014 Florida Statutes asserts that
“If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
This means that you can get 60 days in jail in Florida if you decide to enter into this sort of private marriage agreement.
Yeah, mostly I was OT.
But I found myself deeply resenting that judges were making up rights where none had existed, and treating these as private rights, when in fact they are public rights, ie, the counter-party is society. I thought the case was very poorly argued by those opposing gay marriage. By rights, I feel society should be entitled to determine for itself whether it wishes to enter into such an agreement, and that is appropriately by a majority vote.
Viv –
You are conflating liberal and conservative notions of society. In a liberal order, everyone is assumed to be the same or similarly capable of representing their own interests.
By contrast, a conservative order is built on increasing returns to scale and specialization, including dependent structures. Thus, not everyone needs to be their own lawyer in a conservative order.
Let me walk you through a few items from your list to illustrate the challenges of a liberal (purely private) approach to marriage.
“The state would treat everyone as an individual and give them freedom to contract as individuals. This is not only from an ideological perspective, but a pragmatic one. Too much gaming of the system is possible when these artificial categories are created. No more joint income tax returns, no more marital deduction, etc., etc.”
Let us take the hypothetical of a young man, a Harvard law grad at a prestigious New York law firm, making quite a bit of money. He comes across a 22 year old girl fresh out of college, and proposes to her. He declares, “I think it is fair that we should value our contributions as we make them, and value them at fair market value, should it come to that. But I love you, and it will never come to that.” The women adores him, consents, and soon becomes pregnant and raises him three children. At the age of 40, he says, “You never understood me. I am leaving. And of course, we shall split the properties by our contributions. I brought the money, so by rights all is mine, but let us split them as though you made the wage of a baby sitter. After all, that’s what you’ve done for the last 12 years. And we can count my wages from my W-2s.”
In your world, Viv, this is a fair deal. She could have negotiated harder up front, and if she didn’t, 12 years later, well, tough luck. Raising the kids was a risk she shouldn’t have taken. And what of the obligation to the children (one of whom is six)? The lawyer says, “I have no contract with this child; I owe him nothing.” Again, in your world, this is entirely permissible.
Now, you might say that we could come up with an institutional arrangement–let’s call it marriage–which covers these eventualities. But then the question arises, “Who is eligible?” Dale Carnegie lived with his mother until he was past 50. Well, they were not eligible. Oscar and Felix were not eligible. In general, to qualify as married, eligibility involves
– assumed permanence in the relationship
– a non-economic allocation of revenues and expenses (no ledger-keeping of partner accounts)
– specialization and dependency (only one partner may work, while the other runs the household)
– the possibility of dependent children (non-market transactions), with ties that succeed any possible termination of the union
In such a setting a liberal contract is inappropriate. We require a conservative contract which is predicated on asymmetric power, information and income; specialization; and dependency. In this case, the state, through the institution of marriage, stands in as a surrogate representing the dependent members of the family–typically the wife and children–who are assumed to be structurally disadvantaged compared to the male in the household and therefore meriting the special protection of the state.
Marriage exists for a reason.
By the way, “liberal” equates to “principal”; “conservative” equates to “agent”.
A liberal contract is one custom-negotiated by the individual. A conservative contract is one imposed by law, custom or tradition as pertaining to an agent. That is, “wife” is an agency role, and by law, any woman qualifying as a “wife” is entitled to the rights associated with the title. That’s a conservative contract.
Steven,
I think you’ve given a nice matrix, but your conclusion here strikes me as wrong:
“A civil union addresses points i, ii and iii. It grants legal rights with respect to the two parties, and legal rights with respect to the state. It does not, in the eyes of gay marriage advocates (or their opponents), confer social standing.
Thus, the push for gay marriage is not about private rights at all, which would be fully granted within the framework of a civil union.”
Although the details vary from state to state, while a “civil union” “addresses” legal rights with respect to the state, those rights are *not* “fully granted within the framework of a civil union”. For example, a couple that has a “civil union” in Texas may not file a joint federal income tax return ( a mixed bag, admittedly), utilize the estate/gift tax marital deduction, etc. Civil union status may also not in all cases and everywhere confer other legal rights (e.g., social security survivor benefits, certain employer-provided benefits, etc).
I’m no expert on what motivates gay couples to want to marry–I’m sure it varies from person to person and couple to couple (just like heterosexuals). Some of the “rights conferred by the state” only to married couples may be a large part of their thinking. I suspect that for many it is the main issue rather than “social status” (also a mixed bag, I suspect, particularly “sexual exclusivity”). I’m sure, whatever the motive, gays certainly would like to have the option, just like heterosexuals.
Let me be clear: If a gay couple wishes to have the private rights of a straight couple wrt to each other, I see no reason to oppose that on liberal terms. It is no different than a private contract to which I am not a party.
One can debate whether a gay couple is a couple for purposes of state support, eg, social security survivor benefits, rights of inheritance, etc. I personally don’t have any qualms over granting this, and one could make a case for extending this structure to non-gay long-standing couples. For example, if the Odd Couple’s Oscar and Felix had lived together long enough, one could make the case for types of legal recognition for the relationship (eg, inheritance).
Now, the crux of the question is social recognition. And let’s be clear, that is what’s on the table. Gay rights activists have not only been fighting for clearer determination of civil rights packages. They want more. They want affirmation that they are ‘normal’, and that being in a gay relationship is a legitimate alternative lifestyle comparable to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Intellectually, I can see the case. Viscerally, it makes me uncomfortable.
Steven,
It’s not entirely clear, but it appears you agree that “civil status” does not always currently grant the same state-granted “rights” as marriage does.
Also, I would partially disagree about the “social status” point. Ultimately, it is society that gives social status—not the state. True, society can express their views through laws, but ultimately it is society, not the state, that grants “social status”.
If it were up to me, the whole problem would be easily solved–the state, as such, would give no special recognition or rights to married couples, –gay or hetero–, couples in civil unions or couples living in sin. The state would treat everyone as an individual and give them freedom to contract as individuals. This is not only from an ideological perspective, but a pragmatic one. Too much gaming of the system is possible when these artificial categories are created. No more joint income tax returns, no more marital deduction, etc., etc. Kids can be recognized by their parents without marriage. Property can be jointly owned (with rights of survivorship). If people want to get “married” within a religion, fine. But, why the state needs to get further involved is beyond me. Gays would not have an issue with “social status” if the state wasn’t already involved in trying to grant such (elevated) status where it should not be involved. Society can grant individuals the social status they deserve—as individuals based on their individual merit.
vivian we finally agree on something! i have been saying the same thing for years. for most people, marriage is an issue reflected in religion, and i have no issue with how your religion deals with couples. i just fail to see how this issue should also influence a persons interaction with the government.
rick,
“And if one consenting adult decides, voluntarily, to offer a job at a certain wage to another consenting adult, who decides to take that job at that wage rate, voluntarily, why should the government be able to say no, just because Menzie and some other like-minded people do not agree with their decision?”
because the Constitution of the United States in Article I Section 8 The Powers of Congress states
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
it states nothing about the government regulating the first 4 items you mentioned.
as defined in wikipedia
“Commerce is the whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business.[not verified in body] The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural and technological systems that are in operation in any country or internationally. Thus, commerce is a system or an environment that affects the business prospects of economies.[not verified in body] It can also be defined[by whom?] as a component of business which includes all activities, functions and institutions involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers.”
Baffles,
As usual you have missed the point. I’m am asking what ethical principle or tenet of political philosophy justifies interfering in a private employment contract but does not justify the same interference in the other cases I mentioned. It’s not a question of constitutional law.
stryker,
i did not miss the point at all. you stated very clearly “why should the government be able to say no”. there is a very clear reason why the government can say no in one case and not the other, as i noted above quoting the Constitution. you are playing a game of misdirection. now apparently you have a disagreement with the Constitution of the United States, not surprising, but that is your issue to work out.
Fox news just projected that Scott Walker has been relected governor of Wisconsin. This is great news for the state, as rational economic policies have prevailed with the voters. Given Walker’s proven ability to move conservative policies forward in a purple state amid tremendous opposition from the Left, Republicans will be looking at him very seriously in 2016.
Right on, Rick.
Let’s hope Prof. Chinn is now bored with this tiresome stuff and can move on. Exchange rates? QE in Japan? Things that matter outside Madison…
Snivel liberalism is so over for the time being. Obie done found his inner Carter – now for the malaise phase.
Tony Thompson: For your benefit, I’ll keep on tabulating the implications of the macro and public finance policies implemented by the Governor. In fact since you asked, I’m going to make sure I increase the number of posts.
It appears that the majority of voters in Wisconsin… and Arkansas… rejected the type of rhetoric that was the basis of this post. It’s not that people don’t want other people to earn higher wages and live more comfortable lives, but they reject the hyperbole that a low-paying job is tantamount to child slave labor or indentured servitude. Most economists understand the concept of supply and demand and that a large supply of unskilled and poorly educated people are not facing a large demand for their services. They are working in low paying jobs because they did not take the difficult road to acquire the skills that can demand higher pay.
Why get a Ph.D in economics if you can be easily replaced by someone who thinks economics is opening a bank account? Why? Because you can’t be replaced by such a person and you can demand a higher salary. Drop out of school, never develop skills that in short supply and in demand, wait for someone to rescue you… not a lot of high paying jobs for those people because they can be and are easily replaced.
Should there be a minimum wage? Most people would accept that proposition. Should it be doubled over a short period? That’s a hard sell, especially when wages of people with greater skills are not rapidly increasing. There is a real human tendency to say, “If you want to be in our club, you have to survive the initiation.” If you want an income that is higher, do what the rest of us have had to do. That may sound harsh, but I think that idealists may have to face that reality.
The liberals did not fare well in Arkansas or Wisconsin because increasing numbers of people who have gone through the economic initiation process are frustrated with a government that glibly takes a portion their earnings and redistributes it through ill-regarded notions of idealism and altruism to those who made personal decisions to avoid that initiation process… while at the same time rewards their cronies with lucrative government contracts, subsidies, and exemptions. “Your electric bills might double, but we’ll take that money to give to our friends who will save the planet with their Chinese-made solar panels and turbines.”
Will the Republicans at the state level fix national policies that are perceived to be dysfunctional? No, but maybe the mid-term elections will be perceived by those creating national policies as a gentle reminder that they are representatives of the people, not their masters… and their role is not to make the lives of those they represent more difficult and expensive.
Wisconsin and Arkansas… minor tempests. Sure, job projections haven’t been met in Wisconsin. But other problems have been addressed. West Virginia – that’s a good example of voters responding for bigger reasons. Kentucky – another good example. The voters were not concerned about $15/hr minimum wages. They were concerned with a government destroying the basis of their livelihoods while it was making fantastic claims about saving the world. That’s how the Democratic Party well has been poisoned from the top. That’s why Scott Walker is still governor. That’s why Mark Pryor is not a senator. That’s why Mike Ross is not a governor. Dems has become a four-letter word to many people and it started with the arrogance of the President, the Senate majority leader, and the former House majority leader. Even women have become tired of being a political football. Ask Sen. Udall of Colorado.
So $15 minimum wage as a major issue? Maybe… when a dysfunctional and inept federal administration is fixed or replaced. More likely? A few wealthy areas such as San Francisco and Seattle taking the bait. In Arkansas and Wisconsin? Finish the economic initiation and then get paid more.
‘Why get a Ph.D in economics if you can be easily replaced by someone who thinks economics is opening a bank account?’
My question is, Why get an economics degree without learning any useful economics content?
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
Democrats got their clocks cleaned last night.
The elections probably gave the Keystone Pipeline a veto proof majority in Congress next year:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-pipeline-2014-elections-112567.html?hp=l19
Menzie,
I will take your questions seriously rather than what I suspect is their rhetorical intent.
Children do not belong to the state. Parents should have responsibility for their children. Now before you throw out that old about parents abusing their children, the state is as bad or worse at child abuse so the state simply substitutes one abuser for another. So, let’s not go there. So children should have to wash dishes, mow the grass, clean their rooms, and perform other chores without being paid some minimum wage.
On the question of indentured servitude adults do that all the time. You have a lot of progressives who engage in S&M activities where they submit themselves as servants to others. Are you suggesting the state step into the bedroom and throw these progressives in jail. Anyone who would submit to indenture servitude when there are real jobs available would be mentally unstable. But would you prevent a person from submitting to indentured servitude if that person was given regular time off, received civil treatment, and was paid an up-front sum of $1billion?
The difference between a player in the NBA and an indentured servant is simply the terms of the contract.
So Walker was reelected.
The numbers are pretty clear. Only 38% of voters showed up at the polls.
Voters were 75% white, 12% African American, 8% Latino (actual eligible population 63% white, 13% African American, 16% Latino)
Voters were 37% over age 60, 12% under age 30 (actual eligible population 26% over 60, 22% under 30)
It was an election dominated by elderly whites who showed up at the polls.
80% of success, Joseph, is just turning up. Thank you Woody Allen.
Those who don’t turn up presumably don’t care as much as those who do.
And I was asked for a photo ID in CT – an evil blue state? Or OK in CT but baaad in the south?
I have always taken voting as my duty as a citizen. And wisdom something to be striven for. In proportion to population share by age, older voters were 2½ times more likely to vote. Wiser and more responsible are the reasons why. Humans are profoundly adaptable. Circumstances change, people change their behavior. Six years ago Obama was an unknown. Six years have gone by. Folks do not need economists to tell them this has been the weakest recovery on record. And they resented being told they did not build that. So they went to the polls soundly repudiating politicians who aligned themselves with a president who presided over this uncalled for economic morass, shorn liberty of more of her cloak as did his predecessor, and uttered that shameful epithet.
A few days ago I echoed a observation by Sean Wilentz that this election was really best seen as a referendum on the Old Confederacy. And now I see that the slavocrat position is indeed being defended by the likes of Ricardo and Rick Stryker. I’m not one to believe in reincarnation, but part of me half believes Rick Stryker is indeed the reincarnation of John C. Calhoun himself. We even heard him insinuate references to Calhoun’s theory of nullification.
Ricardo: would you prevent a person from submitting to indentured servitude if that person was given regular time off, received civil treatment, and was paid an up-front sum of $1billion?
Tea Party blowhards like you are fond of reciting the Declaration of Independence…even if they don’t always know the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution. Anyway, when Jefferson used the phrase “unalienable right” to describe liberty (he should have said “inalienable”) do you know what he meant? He meant that it was a property that could not be traded. It was a term of art in the 18th century. So if you want to pretend to love the Declaration, then the answer to your question should be that yes, you would prevent a person from submitting to indentured servitude for $1B. If it’s unalienable, then it cannot be sold. Got it?
Bruce Hall You’re no doubt right that voters in Kentucky and West Virginia were concerned about losing their jobs in the coal industry, and they blamed that on Obama’s concern about the environment. But there’s a reason why voters in those states are clueless nitwits who are easily manipulated. The main reason demand for coal has fallen is because demand for natural gas has increased. And the reason they’re losing their jobs is because coal is no longer a labor intensive industry; it’s capital intensive. The rest of your post is just not-so-thinly disguised racism, which fairly well matches much of yesterday’s electoral demographic; viz., angry, old, white conservatives who blame “those people” for all of our problems.
Rick Stryker Judging by your rather sophomoric arguments concerning liberty, my advice would be to stay away from reading any Nietzsche. Bad things happen when bright but immature minds read him before they’re grown-up enough. Ask Clarence Darrow.
Regarding your comments on restaurant workers and the minimum wage. Interestingly enough, your hero David Neumark has a new paper on the minimum wage and while he claims to find statistically significant evidence for a negative employment effect for teenagers (but not for non-teens), he also concedes that he could not find where the minimum wage had a statistically significant effect on employment in the restaurant industry. Now some of us find all of this good news. I have long argued that teen employment is chock full of negative externalities and one of the good things about a minimum wage is that it reduces teen employment while raising wages and/or employment for non-teens. And as Menzie’s chart shows, most minimum wage workers are not teens. As Saez and Lee argue, the optimal minimum wage is one that increases unemployment among those with the lowest marginal product (which Neumark claims would be teens) and uses income distribution schemes to compensate those who are unemployed as a result of raising the minimum wage. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14320
“a referendum on the Old Confederacy?” John C. Calhoun? How cutesy. 2Slugs must be in mourning.
Cheer up, Sluggo – these things pass. As will some form of minimum wage increase. Bound to be part of the deals that are coming.
“Thinly disguised racism”??? You’ve got to be f**king out of your mind. Were the Democrats waging a “war on women” when they opposed Republican female candidates? I expected more from you, but maybe those expectations are misplaced.
Bruce,
These sentiments are typical for 2slugbaits but I think you have to cut him some slack right now. He’s grieving, having watched the progressive agenda just go up in smoke, and he’s lashing out in the only way he knows how–hurling all the “isms” at his opponents.
The President, to the horror and dismay of his fellow Democrats, made the race about his progressive policies. While Democrats didn’t want to openly associate themselves with those policies, (Obamacare–run away!!!) the fact is they kept talking about things the voters don’t care about. The war on women. Climate change. The minimum wage. etc. And they got pulverized.
I thought the obsession with the minimum wage was particularly amusing. Everytime I watched the Dems talk about it, I felt like finding some bell bottoms and platform shoes and then jumping into a 73 Dodge Challenger, with the Beegees playing on the 8-track. It’s all so tired. Regressive rather than progressive. In Wisconsin, the whole point of emphasizing the minimum wage was to induce turnout in Milwaukee and Dane county that was closer to what they saw in 2012; Burke’s advisors thought was the path to victory over Walker. We saw how that turned out.
Progressives like Joseph want to explain away the debacle by saying that no one voted. But that’s the point. The Democrats were not saying anything that anyone really cared about. That’s why their voters stayed home and that’s why they lost.
bruce,
“There is a real human tendency to say, “If you want to be in our club, you have to survive the initiation.” If you want an income that is higher, do what the rest of us have had to do. ”
“The liberals did not fare well in Arkansas or Wisconsin because increasing numbers of people who have gone through the economic initiation process are frustrated with a government that glibly takes a portion their earnings and redistributes it through ill-regarded notions of idealism and altruism to those who made personal decisions to avoid that initiation process”
the problem is the starting point for initiation with someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth is very different from the starting point of somebody living in poverty. and race does play a part in each of those populations. so when one argues you need to go through the initiation, it is usually from a wealthy perspective who imagines they had an “initiation” stage, but in reality was given opportunities from the very beginning. they have simply never experienced true hardship so it is unrecognizable.
so as you say “That may sound harsh, but I think that idealists may have to face that reality.” however, is that a reality we should continue to allow into the future? this approach is a perpetual inequality paraded as a meritocracy.
2slugs,
The result of the election must have hit you pretty hard, since you are now babbling incoherently. Referendum on the Old Confederacy? Slavocrat position? Reincarnation of John C. Calhoun? Nietzche? Really, you are taking this loss too hard.
By the way, unlike you I have read everything Nietzche ever wrote. And Schopenhauer too.
Rick Stryker: Who’s Nietzche? I’ve heard of a Nietzsche fella…
Menzie,
Do you take off for spelling on your econ exams?
Rick Stryker: Exams, no. Papers, yes.
Joseph,
You are right about the 2/3. They have lost hope and abstained from the election. I find it interesting, but not surprising, that our “abstainer in chief” identifies with them. They are his kind of people. Abstain, Abstain, Abstain – shoot, some may even be trying to lead from behind. Do you know the 80-20 rule?
Steve Kopits,
I missed your post on marriage earlier. It is an absolute masterpiece. Thank you for your wisdom. I have copied it and will be sharing it with others. Your wisdom always makes me think and improves my reasoning. Thanks again!!
I’m glad you found it useful. Thanks for the thanks.
S.
Yes, that was an excellent comment from Steven. I neglected to mention that in my response.
Slug,
When did you become a Libertarian absolutist?
If Menzie liked me as a commentor I might actually call his office to make sure he’s ok after Tuesday’s GOP rampage and especially Walker’s easy win.
Bruce Hall Let’s be clear. You blame stagnant middle class wages on lazy people who prefer welfare to work. In your heart of hearts you agreed with St. Ronnie’s image of the “strapping young buck” buying T-bones with his girlfriend’s food stamps. Or Ronnie’s story about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her check. That’s just Jim Crow wearing a velvet glove. Admit it, this is also the image that drives your views on economics. When Menzie and JDH write about interest rate policies, output gaps, error correction models, fixed effects, fiscal multipliers…even natural logarithms, you tune it all out. That’s why you keep repeating this inane posts comparing each state’s unemployment rate. Ultimately your understanding of macroeconomics is based on the private household model writ large. Your lazy brother-in-law is a drag on your household income, therefore lazy people and wasteful government programs must be the reason for stagnant wages at the macro level. This is an “idiot” view of economics, and I mean that in the original ancient Greek sense of the word. [The etymology of “idiot” refers to a person who inhabits a purely private world outside of the agora.] And when you go to central casting looking for someone to play the role of your lazy brother-in-law, your mind naturally turns to Ronnie’s “strapping young buck.” Macroeconomists such as Menzie and JDH understand phenomena like unemployment and stagnant wages in terms of inflation expectations, interest rate policies and weak aggregate demand. You interpret unemployment and stagnant wages as part of a morality play in which poverty is the just wage paid to the lazy and indolent. That’s Fox News economics…or “Foxonomics” for short.
Conservatives look down the economic ladder and see people below them trying to grab their ankles and bring them down. And so they develop a “hunker down and hang onto what you’ve got” attitude. Liberals look up the economic ladder and see the top 1% stepping on their fingers in order to keep them from moving up the ladder. That’s the difference between the two views.
Rick Stryker As I’ve said a couple of times already, the claim that this election was about the Confederacy was something that Sean Wilentz observed. His point was that the Old Confederacy is at the heart of today’s Republican party. Deep down today’s Republican party shares a lot of the Old Confederacy’s views on equality and state’s rights. And oh by the way, one of the extreme GOP Senate candidates who won on Tuesday also won the GOP primary earlier in the year by telling fellow wingnuts that John C. Calhoun’s nullification arguments were right and that local officials should arrest federal agents who try to enforce Obamacare or EPA regulations. This is Clive Bundyism gone mad. And I have yet to hear a single prominent GOP politician denounce Clive Bundy and the nullification doctrine. Far from it, the GOP even has a Presidential candidate who openly talks about secession and lynching the chairman of the Fed.
As to Nietzsche, there’s a difference between simply reading him and reading for nuance and context. I believe that was Clarence Darrow’s point as well. Nuance and context are not exactly your strengths. As to Wittgenstein, those associated with the logical positivist tradition aren’t exactly known for their appreciation of nuance and context either.
Minzie, what’s your reaction on Walker’s re-election?
2slug – “You blame stagnant middle class wages on lazy people who prefer welfare to work. In your heart of hearts you agreed with St. Ronnie’s image of the “strapping young buck” buying T-bones with his girlfriend’s food stamps. Or Ronnie’s story about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her check. That’s just Jim Crow wearing a velvet glove. Admit it, this is also the image that drives your views on economics.”
You have a wild imagination, my friend. You reversed my argument 180°. What I said was, “The liberals did not fare well in Arkansas or Wisconsin because increasing numbers of people who have gone through the economic initiation process are frustrated with a government that glibly takes a portion their earnings and redistributes it through ill-regarded notions of idealism and altruism to those who made personal decisions to avoid that initiation process…”.
Nowhere did I say that those whose incomes have taken a hit blame those who get government assistance. What is clear is that any criticism of big government, inept government, corrupt government … in your mind … is construed as racism.
Are you lacking basic reading skills? Where was any mention of race? Implied? Why? Are only poor whites getting government assistance because they have not gone through the “economic initiation” … meaning adequate self-preparation? Or are you implying that San Francisco has a racist government because it mandates $15 minimum wage and its population, percentage-wise, has more Asians and less blacks than other areas? Or are you implying something else?
I believe you inhabit an ideological world that frames every statement in a strange and twisted context.
2slugs,
You are still babbling incoherently about the Republican party and the Confederacy. However, you did make a clear statement about Clarence Darrow and Nietzsche. You said that Clarence Darrow’s point about Nietzsche is that there is difference between reading him and reading him for nuance and context. As usual, whenever you make a clear statement about anything, it’s easy to show that you are wrong. Clarence Darrow did not argue for reading Nietzsche for nuance and context. Instead, Darrow read Nietzsche in the most superficial way imaginable in order to argue against the death penalty for his clients, who, under the influence of Nietzsche, killed a boy to prove that they were supermen beyond good and evil. Let’s look at the relevant excerpt in Darrow’s summation, which starts as follows:
“He grew up in this way. He became enamored of the philosophy of Nietzsche. Your Honor, I have read almost everything that Nietzsche ever wrote. He was a man of a wonderful intellect; the most original philosopher of the last century. Nietzsche believed that some time the superman would be born, that evolution was working toward the superman. He wrote one book, Beyond Good and Evil, which was a criticism of all moral codes as the world understands them; a treatise holding that the intelligent man is beyond good and evil, that the laws for good and the laws for evil do not apply to those who approach the superman. He wrote on the will to power. Nathan Leopold is not the only boy who has read Nietzsche. He may be the only one who was influenced in the way that he was influenced.
At seventeen, at sixteen, at eighteen, while healthy boys were playing baseball or working on the farm, or doing odd jobs, Babe was reading Nietzsche, a boy who never should have seen it, at that early age.”
Now, let’s go to Darrow’s claims:
“Nietzsche held a contemptuous, scornful attitude to all those things which the young are taught as important in life; a fixing of new values which are not the values by which any normal child has ever yet been reared. Nietzsche’s attitude is but a philosophical dream, containing more or less truth,that was not meant by anyone to be applied to life.
Nietzsche says, “The morality of the master class is irritating to the taste of the present day because of its fundamental principle that a man has obligation only to his equals; that he may act to all of lower rank and to all that are foreign, as he pleases.”
In other words, man has no obligations; he may do with all other men and all other boys, and all society, as he pleases. The superman was a creation of Nietzsche.
The supermanlike qualities lie not in their genius, but in their freedom from scruple. They rightly felt themselves to be above the law. What they thought was right, not because sanctioned by any law, beyond themselves, but because they did it. So the superman will be a law unto himself What he does will come from the will and superabundant power within him.”
Darrow’s reading of Nietzsche is absurdly superficial, lacking the nuance and context you claim he was urging. Nietzsche was in no way saying that the superman is free from moral scruples in the sense that he can do whatever he wants. Darrow goes on:
“Here is a boy at sixteen or seventeen becoming obsessed with these doctrines. There isn’t any question about the facts. Their own witnesses tell it and every one of our witnesses tell it. It was not a casual bit of philosophy with him; it was his life. He believed in a superman. He and Dickie Loeb were the supermen. There might have been others, but they were two, and two chums. The ordinary commands of society were not for him.”
And then Darrow gets to the real reason he’s mis-reading Nietzsche:
“Many of us read this philosophy but know that it has no actual application to life; but not he. It became a part of his being. It was his philosophy. He lived it and practiced it; he thought it applied to him, and he could not have believed it excepting that it either caused a diseased mind or was the result of a diseased mind.
Here is a boy who by day and by night, in season and out, was talking of the superman, owing no obligations to anyone; whatever gave him pleasure he should do, believing it just as another man might believe a religion or any philosophical theory.”
In other words, everyone should know that Nietzsche has no real application to anything. But someone who thinks it did is either already crazy or will soon be. Of course, this is ridiculous. Philosophers, intellectuals, and writers take Nietzsche very seriously and of course think his views apply to the real world. But Darrow is setting up his insanity defense here. Then Darrow takes it farther:
“You remember that I asked Dr. Church about these religious cases and he said, “Yes, many people go to the insane asylum on account of them,” that “they place a literal meaning on parables and believe them thoroughly”? I asked Dr. Church, whom again I say I believe to be an honest man, and an intelligent man, I asked him whether the same thing might be done or might come from a philosophical belie£ and he said, “If one believed it strongly enough.”
And I asked him about Nietzsche. He said he knew something of Nietzsche, something of his responsibility for the war, for which he perhaps was not responsible. He said he knew something about his doctrines. I asked him what became of him, and he said he was insane for fifteen years just before the time of his death. His very doctrine is a species of insanity.
Here is a man, a wise man, perhaps not wise, but a brilliant, thoughtful man who has made his impress upon the world. Every student of philosophy knows him. His own doctrines made him a maniac. And here is a young boy, in the adolescent age, harassed by everything that harasses children, who takes this philosophy and believes it literally. It is a part of his life. It is his life. Do you suppose this mad act could have been done by him in any other way? What could he have to win from this homicide? “
So now Darrow falsely claims that Nietzsche’s own philosophy made him mad. But Nietzsche scholars know that Nietzsche’s madness was almost certainly caused by tertiary syphilis. Darrow was paid a huge sum to come up with an insanity defense for his clients and he did it by misreading Nietzsche and misstating facts about his life. Ambulance chaser.
wow rick, talk about “You are still babbling incoherently “!
Baffles,
I made a very clear claim that 2slugs was wrong. Then I backed it up by posting the actual summation that Darrow made to demonstrate the point. Seems like logic and evidence look like incoherent babbling to you, which is not surprising seeing your comments.
Steven,
This is in response to your latest.
The labels you want to put on the various views you want to place in those boxes are of little interest or importance. I never commented on that because I believe it to be irrelevant to anything substantive. I’m interested in what the essence of an apple is and a pear is—not why we assign the names apple and pear to them, respectively.
But, the example you gave of the couple with children *is* substantive, so I will respond to that. The hypothetical situation of the mother of those children is unfortunate, but it is just that–a hypothetical. First, you are positing a hypothetical that is based on how that couple may react under the existing legal framework. If the legal framework did not grant any “special” status to “marriage”, do you think that woman’s decisions might be affected? And, even within the existing framework, that woman may not get more than her “contributions” to their property! Not all states have community property laws and most states allow consenting individuals to contract out of the de facto regime. Second, you assume, wrongly I think, that “marriage” is necessary for the state, through its legal system, to give that woman “justice”. I can easily turn your argument on its head and ask–if marriage is the prerequisite to this woman’s rights, what about the poor woman who does not get married? Doesn’t that regime in *your* world that protects *only* married woman do injustice to her?
And, *marriage* has little if any relevance to the legal obligations of a parent towards his minor children. You state that a child would be at risk without marriage because that child cannot be expected to contract with his or her parents. Well, Steve, contract law is sensible here in that minors do not have contractual capacity, and a parent’s obligation to a child is not contingent on marriage. I suspect that a couple of courses in Family Law and Contract Law might serve you well in thinking about these issues.
I think you are also missing the point about why these laws were developed in the first place. They evolved around religion and were later adopted by the secular state. The reasons marriage and related criminal laws (adultery, sodomy, etc) were developed were not so much to give “social *status*”, but to achieve social *control*. They were developed to maintain social order, prevent the spread of disease, etc. There are actually a number of states that still have adultery laws, albeit that are no longer enforced. The military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice not only has such laws by enforces them occasionally (as the Petraeus case recently reminded us). Why? Not because the military wants to elevate the social status of marriage, but because they want to maintain order in the ranks and it is felt these laws serve that end.
The “elevated status” that I referred to as reflected in optional joint tax filing, mandated employer benefits, unlimited marital deduction, etc. that derive from “marriage”, also have nothing to do with the fortunes (or misfortunes) of the poor woman you portray in your hypothetical. She and all of us collectively would be better off without them. Society’s collective interest in the welfare of children can be better served by granting those they are dependent on (married or not) with dependency deductions and credits. I’m no less (or more) concerned about the welfare of a child of unmarried parents than I am of children of married couples.
I am all very much in favor of committed relationships. Society can enforce that as a social ideal in our interactions with one another and through voluntary religious beliefs and affiliations. We don’t need the government to intervene to elevate the “social status” of one type of relationship over others. In certain parts of the world, “the state”, religious state or otherwise, seems to be taking the elevation of certain statuses and the punishment of others to extremes. Don’t you agree?
Gays would not feel the need to “elevate their status” if we had not previously elevated the status of others.
once again vivian, well stated.
The names are important, Viv, because they are part of a larger analytical framework. If you assign “conservative” and “liberal” to “principal” and “agent”, that is a very big deal indeed. It’s not a box, it’s a window.
Now, to the details:
If the legal framework did not grant any “special” status to “marriage”, do you think that woman’s decisions might be affected?
I think that woman would go out and vote for politicians who would give her status. More immediately, she would have some choices. She could have a negotiation with her Harvard-trained lawyer husband who makes all the bucks. She could acquiesce in his proposed arrangement. She could find someone else to negotiate with. Were there no children involved, I might be indifferent to this matter. But I see, as a practical matter, women remain primarily responsible for children and home, and they make considerable professional sacrifices to do so. We could argue nature v nurture, that men should cook, etc, etc. But the family exists for a reason and it is built on specialization. Men are not the same as women. They think differently, act differently, and have different strengths and weaknesses. Evolution has made it so. I therefore do not expect men and women to be the same. In such a world, women and children require society’s legal and social protection. That’s what I believe.
And, even within the existing framework, that woman may not get more than her “contributions” to their property! Not all states have community property laws and most states allow consenting individuals to contract out of the de facto regime.
This is a matter for individual state legislatures. I have no objection to people opting out if they so want. The difference between a liberal contract and a conservative one is that the former maximizes return and the latter minimizes risk. Pick your poison. If you don’t know which one to take, you minimize risk.
“What about the poor woman who does not get married?”
This is absolutely central to the debate. Women should not have children without getting married. Unmarried mothers are the No. 1 indicator for poverty (Kevin has written a good bit on this). In terms of poverty policy, the key issue is to i) keep in the man attached to the family, and ii) make him civil. In Chicago, 96% of murders are committed by young black and Latino men. You want to guess how many come from single parent families?
And, *marriage* has little if any relevance to the legal obligations of a parent towards his minor children. You state that a child would be at risk without marriage because that child cannot be expected to contract with his or her parents. Well, Steve, contract law is sensible here in that minors do not have contractual capacity, and a parent’s obligation to a child is not contingent on marriage. I suspect that a couple of courses in Family Law and Contract Law might serve you well in thinking about these issues.
Is there child support in your world or not? You have obligations to your children, but not to your wife (significant other)? So, who does the father send the check to? The six year old child? Or to the mother? If it is to the mother, does she not mediate the whole matter then? Does he support the children but not the wife? How exactly does one do that in practice?
As for courses, yes, I could do with courses in any of a number of areas.
I think you are also missing the point about why these laws were developed in the first place. They evolved around religion and were later adopted by the secular state. The reasons marriage and related criminal laws (adultery, sodomy, etc) were developed were not so much to give “social *status*”, but to achieve social *control*.
All this may be true. But I am making a functional, not religious, case for marriage. It is a certain kind of contractual arrangement with very specific features that arise from permanence, comingling, dependence, specialization and certain assumed asymmetries. I am making the conservative, not religious, case.
The “elevated status” that I referred to as reflected in optional joint tax filing, mandated employer benefits, unlimited marital deduction, etc. that derive from “marriage”, also have nothing to do with the fortunes (or misfortunes) of the poor woman you portray in your hypothetical. She and all of us collectively would be better off without them. Society’s collective interest in the welfare of children can be better served by granting those they are dependent on (married or not) with dependency deductions and credits. I’m no less (or more) concerned about the welfare of a child of unmarried parents than I am of children of married couples.
These are all specific public policies which may change from time to time. Some I support, some I don’t. I am concerned that children should have stable family relationships. Single parenthood is undesirable and should be avoided as a matter of policy.
We don’t need the government to intervene to elevate the “social status” of one type of relationship over others. In certain parts of the world, “the state”, religious state or otherwise, seems to be taking the elevation of certain statuses and the punishment of others to extremes. Don’t you agree?
The family is the basic building block of society. It is the result of evolution and a form of social structure which has endured for millennia. In defending marriage, I am not arguing that guys and girls should not cohabit, or that everyone needs to get married. Far from it. But this American obsession with sexual equality becomes ridiculous at some point. Without women, half the men in the world would have perished killing zombies on Call of Duty. Without men, no one would take any risk. Men and women are not the same. Let’s enjoy the differences and acknowledge at least some of them as legitimate.
In the real world, where many, if not most, women find their callings in their families, they are at risk from the naturally promiscuous tendencies of men and therefore warrant society’s protection, principally in the form of marriage and its associated rights.
Bruce Hall,
Obviously this is an online argument with no bearing on reality or sanity, but it’s worth noting that Linda Taylor, Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen, was a real person, and she had more than a cadillac. (She only collected from 30 addresses not 80, however).
I really want to hear Minzie’s reaction about Walker, why he thinks Wisconsin did it, what it means for the state going forward.
-Mike
“More immediately, she would have some choices”
Come on, Steve. That whole discussion is pretty condescending to women. How many women are linked up with “Harvard-trained lawyers” and get taken advantage of? If you are concerned about that sort of thing, take a look at recent educational statistics. Women are trouncing men.
“Women should not have children without getting married.”
Steve, how are you (or better, the state) going to enforce that? Require pregnant women to get abortions if they don’t agree (and the putative father does not agree) to get married? Or, once she gets pregnant, hold a shotgun to both their heads to make them do it? I find this kind of Big Brotherhood chilling. By your own admission, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job thus far. Seems to me you’ve got your cart before your horse. Single parent households are a big problem, I agree. But, this has nothing really to do with *marriage*. Lots and lots of people get married and then divorce. leaving “single parents” behind. A growing number of persons never get married and yet live in stable, healthy relationships. Should we discourage people to have children outside committed relationships? You bet. But, I don’t see why marriage as such is the sine quo non for this.
“Is there child support in your world or not? You have obligations to your children, but not to your wife (significant other)?”
Yes, Steve, in my world there is child support. Again, a short course in Family Law might help here. One does not need to be married for a parent to be obligated to pay it. And, it is paid to the *mother* (or other custodian) and not the “wife”. Presumably, you want the woman to get *alimony* as well as child support. There is little functional difference, aside from the fact that child support is not deductible under current tax law and alimony is (while taxed to the ex). Perhaps you think that the ex-wife should get support after the children are emancipated? Then, I don’t think your concern is really per se about the children. Child support supports the children and therefore relieves financial burden from the mother (or, dare I say, the father if he happens to have custody).
“Single parenthood is undesirable and should be avoided as a matter of policy…”
Steve, you slide frequently from “marriage” to “single parenthood” and back again as if they were exact and exclusive opposites. Yes, society should discourage “single parenthood”. But primarily single means one, not “un-married”.
“The family is the basic building block of society.”
I agree. But “family” does not equal or require marriage. It is a social unit.
Don’t get me wrong, Steve, I’m not against marriage. Far from it. If people are committed to each other and want to solemnify that commitment through marriage, that’s great. Go to your priest, your rabbi, your Imam or your Guru or whatever and do it. Invite me. I’ll be there! But, that’s a far cry from saying that *the state* should give elevated status and benefits to those who make that individual choice and by necessity give lower status and benefits to those who don’t. This has been an interesting discussion and I thank you for it. But, you’ve not convinced me that having *state-sponsored* encouragement, and indeed coercion for the traditional religious institution of marriage is good for society at this point in our history.
You can have the last word if you want, but perhaps we should give this a rest, because we are making a wide and lengthy detour from the main focus of how to unseat Scott Walker.
“Come on, Steve. That whole discussion is pretty condescending to women. How many women are linked up with “Harvard-trained lawyers” and get taken advantage of? If you are concerned about that sort of thing, take a look at recent educational statistics. Women are trouncing men.”
As you may know, Viv, my son attends the American Boychoir School here in Princeton. (Hopefully, the “Boychoir” movie will be released soon.) About 1/3 of the boys come from single parent families, in every case headed by a women. My wife is president of the PA there, and I know most of the women personally. I can assure you, many of these women struggle. If you want to call me sexist and condescending, so be it. But in practice I perceive that in many cases, women and children come out on the short end of divorces, and I believe it is appropriate for the state to protect them. This is not a matter of ideology; it’s a matter of statistics.
” “Women should not have children without getting married.” Steve, how are you (or better, the state) going to enforce that?”
First, don’t pay women to have children out of wedlock. That means reforming welfare and other similar programs. That’s hard-hearted and cold, but if you pay people to be anti-social, some percentage of them will be. Read Kevin Erdmann’s work on this. I think it’s quite good.
Second, I think many, if not most, men are terrible at managing relationships with women. We’re really lacking something in our education system which we should change. This topic is worth a number of posts on its own.
Finally comes the matter of social sanctions. People didn’t quit smoking because it was illegal. In large part, they quit because it became socially unacceptable. If people around have certain norms, you too will tend to adopt those norms. So, here’s some social pressure for you: If you’re a woman having children with a man and you’re not married, you’re a fool and a sucker. And if you’re a man and you don’t marry her, you’re a bastard. Commitments are not revolving doors; children are not toys. Do the right thing.
That helpful?
“Perhaps you think that the ex-wife should get support after the children are emancipated?”
I think support of an ex-wife is a tricky matter. More and more women have their own incomes nowadays, so the assumption of dependency is lessened. On the other hand, many women spend their prime working years raising children, and thus incur a financial career penalty for doing so. So that needs to be recognized as well. It’s a matter of getting the balance right–something outside my area of expertise. But as a matter of principle, yes, women (or a stay-at-home man, as the case may be) deserve some protection in any divorce proceedings. Marriage is not a liberal institution.
“…that’s a far cry from saying that *the state* should give elevated status and benefits to those who make that individual choice and by necessity give lower status and benefits to those who don’t.”
I don’t think that the state necessarily “elevates” marriage as such. I tend to think of it as a type of corporation, a very specific and widespread type of social enterprise. There is no need to put a religious component to it, per se. (The religious part, to my mind, refers to the social sanction. Keeping the man tied to the family is essential for social stability, and saying “I do” in a church raises the social stakes in front of all your friends and family. If you’ve gone through the exercise, this point may not be lost on you.) Any type of enterprise, say an S-Corp or C-Corp, will have certain benefits and obligations. There are both penalties and benefits, and the “marriage penalty” is one of them. If filing jointly, the tax rate applied is that of the entire income, not the two marginal rates. As a result, married couples, ceteris paribus, pay a higher tax rate, and the difference can be material. On the other hand, couples get dependent deductions and other benefits. So I see government treatment more as pertaining to a particular type of “corporation”; I am not sure that the state is saying you have to be married. But I am saying this: if you have children, you should be married.
As for Scott Walker, look, I haven’t taken any partisan shots the election. The citizens of the state of Wisconsin want to hold the course. Let’s see how it works out.
I think Peggy Noonan has the narrative just about right: http://online.wsj.com/articles/peggy-noonan-a-message-sent-to-a-grudging-president-1415320458?KEYWORDS=noonan
As Noonan suggests, this was a “message” election, that people did not like what–or more precisely, how–the Democrats were doing. I think the President takes essentially all the blame. I don’t believe the country has gone all conservative on us. I don’t read a particular ideological shift, albeit I think the country is feeling more optimistic, and the appeals of Obama socialism are failing as a result. It signals a change in mood, not a change in ideology.
On the other hand, the economy is doing pretty well, and Democrats by rights should be able to claim some credit. I think we could see a ripping US economy in 2015, and that might help the President (or it might help the Republicans in Congress). In any event, Obama will have two years to solidify his legacy, as Noonan points out. Can he do it? I have my doubts. But I expect we’ll see a continuation of Republican tactics: a general onslaught of legislation requiring the President to sign or veto–or if he wants, compromise. I think it will be vetoes in large part.
steven, you really do need to step back an assess you perception of women in the world. you display the classic bias which keeps women from advancing in the world. years ago i spent some time on a hot mix asphalt crew-tough work. the foreman was talking about a woman on the crew-she was the best equipment operator on the site, but the foreman didn’t think she should be out there collecting a paycheck ahead of some guy with a family. he had mouths to feed and she shouldn’t be improving her lot and taking away from his livelihood. and she was the best worker on the site. reading your comments took me back to those days…as an aside, for those of you so concerned about gay marriage and the family, perhaps you should concern yourself with divorce instead? there you will have an impact on society.
Baffs –
I think there will always be a tension between liberal and conservative views of the world. Hence the link to principal-agent theory (this is also the theoretical basis of de Tocqueville, by the way). P-A theory involves structural schizophrenia, that is, the individual is always torn between desire and duty. That’s why you’ll see me take liberal views on most topics, conservative views on others–it’s all the Three Ideology Model (alas, not wisdom, Ricardo). I could argue Viv’s case, for example, but I wanted to make the conservative case. It’s important to understand that there is a legitimate conservative case.
I have no problem working with or for women. On the other hand, I can see very clear behavioral differences between me and women. I see very clear differences in aptitudes and approaches, on average (within 1.5 std up from the mean). So I can take the view that men and women are the same, and essentially apply the standards used for men to the comportment of women. But I think this is unnecessarily restrictive. Why does a woman have to act like a man?
Alternatively, I can make some degree of generalizations and grant allowances around those proclivities. In your world, everyone is a quarterback. In my world, some of them are linemen, some are receivers, some are punters. Some are coaches. There is both specialization and hierarchy. Not everyone is expected to be brilliant or fast or tough. We make allowances and the social system is set up to accommodate these. Women are allowed to be women. It doesn’t mean they can’t be managers, but they don’t necessarily have to manage like men do. (I personally think women are often better managers, by the way.) In a conservative world, the individual can have legitimacy with their own characteristics. It’s OK to be the village idiot. By contrast, in a liberal world, you’re only legitimate to the extent to you live up to the idealized version of yourself. (Hence de Tocqueville.)
Viv’s saying that women should be able to successfully negotiate delicate relationship terms in explicit contractual terms up front, and there should be an expectation that they can defend themselves. So if you’re a waitress, then you should be able to successfully negotiate pre-nups with your significant other, even though you (the waitress) is taking the bulk of the risk and the lesser part of the reward. There’s no end of internalized pressure on that woman. She has no right to help or protection based on her structural position.
I don’t see it that way.
As for divorce. I am all for discouraging divorce, but leery of restricting it. The only thing worse than not being married is being married in a really bad relationship. My emphasis is on creating bonds and making them work.
steven, you may not realize it, but your various positions also say that a child with two gay parents is worse off than a child in a single family home. and you make this statement because you are against gay marriage, and you site traditional family norms as the reason. it is simply a hypocritical argument on all fronts.
Actually, I don’t believe I argued against gay marriage. I was arguing against judicial activism. I was saying that matters like these should be decided by the electorate. In some states, it has been so decided, both pro and contra.
Honestly, I am not sure how I would vote on the matter. We have a number of gay friends and acquaintances. (I have been to a gay wedding. Have you?) Would I want to make them feel lesser people. Absolutely not. Nor do I believe that.
On the other hand, walk around Provincetown in the summer, and well, sometimes it’s just too much.
steven, i was mistaken when stating you were against gay marriage. sorry. i confused you with rick stryker for a moment, and for that i am truly sorry 🙂
however, ” I was arguing against judicial activism. I was saying that matters like these should be decided by the electorate. ” this is a bit of a cop out. you either give people their due rights, or you don’t. your rights should not be subject to the electorate. by this i mean you cannot legalize discrimination. slavery was legal, but it was wrong. your comment on judicial activism has hints of disdain, but the judiciary should absolutely correct wrongs of the popular electorate.
By the way, we can describe hypocrisy in principal-agent terms. Hypocrisy occurs when the individual as agent espouses one philosophy and as principal acts on another. It is mostly a conservative notion, because you have to have that agent role in there somewhere. But it is the principal that shines through.