Those laws of economics are still in effect.

Say no to Newton's Law of Gravity! It is a sexed equation, so unyielding in its symmetry between masses and in the geometric precision of the inverse square law. It codifies the false egalitarianism of right-wing reactionaries--it's crypto-fascist--by not taking into account either mass's individual circumstances or background, the authenticity of its struggle, or the possibility that one or both of the masses might feel on the inside as though its inertia really ought be different from its gravitational charge. That it is so unforgiving--ouch!--further belies its extreme right nature. Newton's Law is incompatible with progressive, enlightened values and the replacement of dog-eat-dog, rugged individualist capitalism with a more equitable, just, and sustainable society.

We can do this at the polls, right? After all, back in 2006 we succeeded in repealing the laws of economics. Price theory would no longer apply to wages. Raising the price of a service beyond the market equilibrium would not result in people buying less of the service. It will not result in an increase in price of other goods and services. It will not result in some services or goods provided or made using wage labor becoming unprofitable. And anyone who tells you post-hoc that the increase hurts the marginal worker--at first teenagers, people coming off of welfare, the retarded, the disabled--is spouting the propaganda of a special "right-wing" economics, and can't be trusted because of self-interest, anyway. Folk economics is right. There are victims and villains, have-nots and haves. The wage payer, a "have", who doesn't give his workers, "have-nots" a "living wage" is guilty of murder, after all, people need a "living wage" to live. And it's giving, not purchasing. Wage payers are responsible for the welfare of wage laborers just like chieftans are responsible for the young braves. It's the order of things.

Oh wait, it's not. Restaurant owners are being hurt by the minimum wage law which in turn results in less opportunity for those who would sell their services as waiters or busboys or dishwashers to restauranteurs. But they can't be, because we're hearing it from those greedy "haves". It must be special Right-Wing Economics and propaganda.


Does anyone else think that economics needs to be taught in schools at all levels? People who think in terms of zero-sum economics, of "haves" and "have-nots", vote, to our detriment and theirs.

Arizonans discovering that the so-called "laws of economics" aren't right-wing propaganda

Way back in October 2006, before Obama was an outright socialist, when ugly talk of ILLEGALS dominated the comment sections of the local rags and soft-libertarian Jim Kolbe was still my congressman--a long time ago, in other words, I remarked that, if Arizonans passed a minimum wage increase,

Teenagers, those coming off the welfare rolls, and those in transition between occupationss--none of whom are represented in the AFL/CIO--will be hurt most of all, albeit in a manner invisible to all but the professional economist.

I was wrong. The effects are so obvious that the Arizona Republic reports them without surprise or false sense of irony. Of course teenagers are finding less work. And of course the developmentally disabled are finding themselves unemployable.

The Arizona Industrial Commission, for its part, asked Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to say it ain't so, that the voters couldn't have meant to raise everyone's wage, that after all, the Federal minimum wage doesn't apply to the disabled! (The voters couldn't have meant to approve the union spying provisions, but that's another matter altogether.) Unfortunately, Goddard got this right; the new state law supersedes Federal law.

Of course, the voters meant it. A minimum wage law is, plain and simple, a ban on selling one's labor for less than a prescribed amount. The economic effects--fewer employment opportunities at the margin--have been well-understood for years, and a vote in favor of such a measure means either (A) the voter doesn't know and doesn't care to know, or (B) knows and doesn't care.

The legislature is trying to fix this; HB 2318 would amend the law to create an exception, subjecting the disabled solely to Federal minimum wage laws. Such a remedy, however, would likely be thwarted by the stipulation that amendments to ballot initiatives must "further their purpose". If the purpose of the minimum wage law is to make the state Candyland or a worker's paradise, (now there's some judicial activism for you!) then that's fair enough. If it's merely a price control, then fat chance!

One of these days Arizonans, and Americans, may wake up and suddenly realize that price controls--and economic central planning in general--don't work, have never worked, and can never work. Until then our hope in this matter is that the legislature forces a special election and voters at least realize that driving the retarded out of work and onto the welfare rolls was a stupid thing to do.

Society for Economic Anachronism: Proposition 202

Something to chew on before we begin, an appetizer of sorts: A minimum wage is a law forbidding one from selling one's labor below a given price and thus forbidding somebody whose labor may not be worth the minimum from selling it at all.

Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb knocked this one out of the park:

There is no greater economic superstition held by the American people than that government can suspend the laws of supply and demand when it comes to wages...the minimum-wage argument has become largely irrelevant. The American labor market has passed it by.

Robb is right: With fewer than 1% of full-time and 6% of part-time workers being paid minimum wage, it's clear that market mechanisms are in fact at work in the labor market. The AFL-CIO, aka the Society for Economic Anachronism, however, feels that somehow these market wages aren't honest. Just how an honest wage can be calculated other than by bargaining and agreement between labor seller and buyer they don't explain. The old canard about being able to support a family has been brought out, but, again, just why one ought to be able to support a family of some arbitrary size no matter what one's employment situation is isn't explained, either.

Usually when the terms of an economic exchange are coerced by a third party, we call it "extortion". How the minimum wage doesn't fall into this category is lost on me. Perhaps, however, I should have more faith in the AFL-CIO in this matter as they are the nation's experts on worker exploitation, collecting mandatory dues from workers in agency-shop states and then using them to feed the lumpen ideologues in its leadership and lobby against its members' individual interests. They ought know it when they see it!

That it is a hike in the minimum wage is alone enough reason to oppose Proposition 202. If you need any more, consider that it's a trojan horse giving government agents and even complete strangers--including labor unions--sweeping access to private empolyment records and raising paperwork requirements for small businesses, making it even harder for them to compete with big-box stores having the advantage of economy of scale.

This is going to hurt consumers and small business owners and it isn't even going to help the poor. As the minimum wage increases it'll become more economical for businesses to computerize, mechanize, or hire fewer but more experienced and productive workers. Teenagers, those coming off the welfare rolls, and those in transition between occupationss--none of whom are represented in the AFL/CIO--will be hurt most of all, albeit in a manner invisible to all but the professional economist.