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.