Dr. Michael Egnor is the archtypical academic whore. A genus all too comnmon in the medical school environment. I am sure he is a brilliant technichian/surgeon but to have an academic rankl of full professor at a university teaching hospital. This is way too low. Confirms why i left the medical academic whore profession years ago. And i am sorry to say theis level of cognitive dissonace is par for the copurse in acdemic medical faculty- NOT unusual at all.

no nobel lauretes on that list...

First, anti-evolution scientists are often not scientists at all, usually are not biologists, and if they are biologists do not study the same things evolutionary biologists study. As far as I know, no Nobelists among them.

Second, evolution is a scientific question and not a policy question. It's only a political question because religious non-scientists have made it one. The round-earth theory would be a political question if we had more flat-earthers, but thank god we don't. The minimum wage is a real political question with an economic aspect, but it's not a purely economic question.

Third, there's much less consensus among economists than there is among biologists, and in gneral economics is a less successful science despite its bragging. Furthermore, economics is a partial science limited by a narrow definition of the topic, and purely economic arguments often miss the point because of things economists leave out. The economists signing the petition almost certainly defined the boundaries of the profession differently than the opponents of the petition, by considering factors the other economists ignore.

If your point was that "all economists do not agree, despite what the ad seems to say", it's a good point. But you seem to be saying that economists who support raising the minimum wage are fakes like anti-evolutionary biologists, and that's just stupid.

If your point was that "all economists do not agree, despite what the ad seems to say", it's a good point. But you seem to be saying that economists who support raising the minimum wage are fakes like anti-evolutionary biologists, and that's just stupid.

well john, i pointed this analogy out to matt (on a message forum). i don't have a strong interest in the min. wage topic. but i did notice that henry farrell, normally one who is quite unreticent displaying his erudition (coming close to being a citation bot, not a bad thing necessarily), responded to mcardle's critique mostly by repeating the number "600" ad nauseum. i would tend to agree with you that the analogy exhibits a great diff. in magnitude, but my major point is that it is less important that a large number of scientists or scholars in the field agree upon x than a large proportion. this goes for evolution, global warming, medicine and economics. the power of the consensus differs by field because the fields differ.

finally, the farrell didn't respond with your points john (which i'll grant to some extent). he kept repeating the number. it was weird. he could have done better.

p.s. did anyone notice that both diavloggers were elves? aren't they good enough to diavlog with their human colleagues? also, one wonders how long lived elves deal with time preference.

but my major point is that it is less important that a large number of scientists or scholars in the field agree upon x than a large proportion. this goes for evolution, global warming, medicine and economics.

But is the case that a large proportion of economists are against increasing the minimum wage? I don't think so.

See page 6 of this report:

http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewc...1156& context=ev

Also, Klein at George Mason surveyed some of economists who signed that petition and it's clear that their position was informed by more than the narrow position of higher minimum wage having an adverse effect on the employment rate.
http://www.econjournalwatch.org/ ...January2007.pdf

tg, that's cool. i don't care much really about the topic. my only point is that citing prominent figures as anything more than illustration can be problematic. i mean by illustration you assert trend x, and list a few individuals illustrating that trend. the illustration proves nothing but just sketches out what you're getting at. of course, one problem is that in many cases there aren't good surveys of scientific and scholarly fields so unless you are an 'insider' you really don't know what's going on and people can lie to you flat out with you not knowing (e.g., 'george lakoff is america's most prominent cognitive scientist)'. my criticism of farrell was one of process.

As far as I know, all of the 600 economists were legit credentialed economists, whereas anti-evolution scientists usually are a hodgepodge of techs, veterinarians, MDs, and various other non-biologists.

600 economists doesn't prove the case for the minimum wage, but it does prove that the pro-minimum wage position is not the universal consensus of economics, as it's often claimed to be.

My bottom-line position is that economics is not as powerful a science as it claims, one way or the other.

My bottom-line position is that economics is not as powerful a science as it claims, one way or the other.

i don't disagree with that. and henry farrell could have said that, couldn't he? ah, but he's a political scientist who draws deeply upon the economic literature and the methodology in his own scholarly life.

Then there are those of us who think that economics (fascinating though it can be) isn't a science at all, and would do well to give up its science envy its science pretentions, and its pursuit of science status ...

Michael:

If, by "science pretensions," you mean the representation that inductive methods may be productively employed in the pursuit of valid conclusions, as in other empiric sciences, you are quite correct. AND, I'd venture to offer the guess that every one of the economists offering their names in agreement with the proposition (support for minimum wage legislation) would also insist that economics--their brand, that is, is such an empiric science.

But there are other economists, as you may know, who claim the "scientific" appellation for an economics depending for its validity entirely on conclusions reached by deductive* methods--by reason alone--in the very same manner as would mathematics, etc. These are the "Austrians," who would point out the utter inanity of the claim to "scientific method" of a field of study in which all variable correlative influences on outcome are, indeed, in continuous variation, with none able to be held constant in order to observe the effect of some particular cause.

Zeeb has already said most of what I'd say in response to John: the difference between the two is more a matter of degree than kind. Saying "five living Nobel economists signed this petition" is isomorphic with saying that "the other 30 refused to." This is *exactly* the same kind of cherrypicking that creationists engage in, and the only difference is that the percentages of "qualified dissenters" are slightly higher for econ.

And if you actually bother to read Dan Klein's survey of these economists' reasons for signing the petition, you'll find that the vast majority of them didn't sign it for economic reasons! Mostly a lot of talk about "social justice" and similar philosophical reasons. The higher percentage of "qualified dissenters" is almost entirely explicable by the fact that economic issues are a subject about which people (even some economists) have very strong moral intuitions, which in some cases are strong enough to overwhelm their better reasoning.

Dissent from the professional CW is motivated by ideology in both cases. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it isn't.

Correction:
"600 economists doesn't prove the case for the minimum wage, but it does prove that the **anti**-minimum wage position is not the universal consensus of economics, as it's often claimed to be."

"Saying 'five living Nobel economists signed this petition' is isomorphic with saying that "the other 30 refused to."

No, it's not. We don't know how many were contacted successfully or bothered to respond. We also do know that the supporters supported the petition, whereas we don't know what the non-supporters thought or didn't think or why.

You can say that five versus zero and 600 versus almost none is "relative", but to me the difference is enough to invalidate your comparison. As far as I know, there are no anti-evolutionist biologists of any merit.

I agree that the authority of economics is overused here, but the authority of economics has been loudly and prolifically used against minimum wage laws ever since the minimum wage laws were first proposed, with almost no pushback, and this petition says that economists are not unanimous on the subject.

The petition traces back to a study about ten years ago which lloked empirically at the claim that minimum-wage laws increase unemployment and found very little support.

John:

You are entirely correct: at the present time, minimum wage laws cause no (or almost no) unemployment. And that is precisely the reason behind the drive to raise them: to get them up to the point where they cause some unemployment.

Nice snark, but I don't buy it, Gene.

Price controls only matter when they are enforced. As with other consensual transactions, it's very difficult to enforce minimum wage laws. And the immigration status of a significant portion of the supply of low skilled laborers makes it even more difficult. Given the absence of consistent enforcement, the minimum wage debate is more a matter of esthetics than economics.

"Given the absence of consistent enforcement, the minimum wage debate is more a matter of esthetics than economics."

pretty much every company that issues paychecks and w-2s complies with minimum wage laws. This includes large corporations, Wal-mart, etc. and most businesses. It is obviously a matter of economics, as minimum wage laws directly affect a large number of people's wages.

There is a significant amount of literature showing substantial non-compliance. Important factors appear to be the size of the employer and the competitiveness of the industry. Small employers in highly competitive industries are fairly likely to pay less than minimum wage. This is especially true for businesses that use undocumented workers. This can be accomplished in several ways. The easiest of which is to pay a nominal wage equal to or greater than the minimum, but not to compensate for all hours worked. Of course, paying in cash is another way around the minimum. And there's quite a lot of that going on. In any case, the impact of the minimum on employment levels is likely to be trivial as long as enforcement is lacking.

John:

"but I don't buy it, Gene."

That's exactly the problem, John. One of the reasons you won't "buy" it is because you won't even think it through. Easier to dismiss as "snark." For one who would actually understand the matter, there are many avenues.

The problem concerned is one exhaustively covered long before minimum-wage laws came into existence. Then, it was the problem of whether unions could raise the wages of all who'd join the union. ("No" is the answer.) But, though the argument existed even before the years of (print) debate, it was many years before union "economists" could admit error (and they can even be heard occasionally in this day and age, though the matter had been settled in the 1920s). In case you think that's extraneous, I'd point to Chrysler's bailout years ago, their current woes, and GM's problems. Toyota may soon be the largest "American" automaker and their popular trucks contain more than 20% more American parts and labor than similar Ford and GM products. Detroit, Flint,--a whole region of previously unparalleled industry and prosperity--nearly a wasteland. This result is not a fault of the unions. It is, rather, the fault of a public and politicians willing to ignore reason and all arguments advanced by those with no axe to grind, to suspend long-held legal principles, and even the Constitution, in order to placate those making violent and disruptive threats and to follow the anti-market and anti-freedom agenda increasingly pursued by those known as "liberals," mostly on one side of the political divide and backed fully by solid control of information dissemination both in the media and in centers of learning. Nothing's different--nothing's changed. The same arguments are simply repeated over and over.

The thing to understand is that the businessman can no more determine his employees' wages than he can his own profit; that is a function of the patronage of consumers--their willingness to give up their money for whatever he's offering. If he's done properly in his judgement of the future (always the future!), paid reasonably for the goods he needs in the conduct of business, secured adequate financing at reasonable rate, and hired decently capable employees at wages not too high in the estimation of the consumers (though they never give it a thought), then and only then will be have a profit for his pocket, for reinvestment, and for dividends.

Is he a philanthropist hiring the mentally-retarded and paying them more than they're worth?
No? Well, if he's paying them less than they're worth, obviously someone else will be willing--anxious, perhaps--to employ them at what they're worth. Why don't they go elsewhere? So many questions, no?