It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Tony: That is because I left school at 14 and as such I did not get corrupted in the indoctrination centres. Some people might call me ignorant, but I feel I am an independent thinker
Tony why do people who who left school at a younger age use this to bolster their right wing credentials and for gods sake be proud of of their lack of learning. I also left school at 15 & was working for two years before that.
However I did not embrace ignorance and later in life did attend an institution of higher learning .. I was disappointed that to me the University was a hotbed of right wing ideology with lots & lots of people thinking that the fact ‘they’ got was solely on their own effort. Nothing to do the access opened up by Whitlam on onto HECS etc. I was an independent thinker when I went in and when I came out …but with a lot more skills in sifting the shit from the chaff….. you should try it you might get your homespun beliefs shaken just a little bit. You my friend are corrupted by ignorance
A solution would be to require employers to pay for a reasonable amount of commuting time rather then legislating minimum work hours.
“Star Wars episode III – the Revenge of the Sith” is on Channel 10 at 9.35PM tonight.
It’s the one Star Wars movie I failed to see at the cinemas. I read that 9/11-style false flag terrorism is a prominent theme of that movie.
David – your solution would still kill jobs.
@Rationalist
I’m impressed that you’ve managed to fit the majority of your working vocabulary into a single post. But I think you’re being a bit hard on the humanities students. Remember Monckton’s only qualification is an Arts degree in the classics, and yet he still knows more science than all the world’s climatologists combined.
Terje, the aim of having jobs for people is for them to be able to live of the earnings. In the limit, there is no point in having jobs where travel costs and travel time (opportunity cost) is equal or higher than the total income earned.
In the case of earning pocket money, the argument does not change because if the net monetary gain is zero or negative then Fran Barrow’s argument becomes valid.
The idea presented by David Stern is also not satisfactory because people who live further away from particular job would be disadvantaged by profit conscious employers.
I don’t know all the reasons for legislating for 3 hours minimum. However, there are some pretty obvious ones. People who have children in pre-school or primary school or have other family responsibilities may have 3 hours per day where they can work uninterruptedly. Some people (eg students and pensioners) have limits on the number of hours or total income. Full time students in science and economics subjects usually spend between 40 and 60 hours on their studies per week. Adding 5*3 = 15 hours for making a little money plus travel time comes to a number of hours which some CEOs claim justifies their high incomes.
None of the above excludes special cases happening (eg one particular person wanting to work 1.5hrs and having a job which suits this case). However, one can’t draw general conclusions from a special case. Similarly, the 3 hr rule is not optimal for everybody.
It seems to me the language of macro-economics {GDP, employment, interest rates, exchange rate, balance of payments, government revenue and expenditure} is, at times, not helpful at all. Unfortunately (IMO), this is the language used primarily in public discussions.
PS: We had very very very heavy rain on the North Shore in Sydney. One of our neighbours house was flooded – emergency service and all that. It is still raining but not bucketing.
@Tony G
Obviously it hurts you to be told that anyone thinking with more than idiot intelligence would realize that at least one of your arguments is wrong. My heart bleeds for you.
EG – Yes people have work related expenses. That is part of the math people do before accepting a job or shift. For some people the cost will be quite negligible and for others it could be quite considerable. To suppose that a centrally administered rule set is the best way to decide such things is simply daft. Such things should be decided by individuals according to individual needs and circumstances. If the job on offer does not pay a wortwhile return then people will look for an alternative. In some instances a lower paid job closer to home may be a better option. Although minimum wage laws also manage to limit those prospects for some people.
Terje, would you please provide me with a reference to a precise (ie mathematical economics) theoretical model which spells out the conditions under which your views make sense (ie logically consistent) and a corresponding list of empirical data to support the conditions in the model.
EG, I don’t agree with Terje, but it’s pretty ridiculous (not to say pretentious and elitist) to demand that every opinion on social issues needs reference to a precise “mathematical economics” theoretical model.
@Jarrah
Not at all Jarrah. You are mapping a general (and contestable in practice) claim (“the individual always knows what serves his or her best interests and acts rationally in pursuit of it”) to a specific set of cases where this is most unlikely to be so. The September 15 2008 showed that this is not so even in the case of well connected people
You are also zero rating opportunity cost to support this claim.
Your position simply makes a sweeping edict out of a legal fiction and is thus dogma raised to policy.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Don’t verbal me Terje. I didn’t say it as good. I said it was reasonable. Had I said it was good I’d have been making the flipside of your mistake in implying it was “monumentally stupid”.
The problem with your claim is that we don’t know and can’t know what the children involved (and yes they are still children in a cognitive sense) gave up to do their 90 minutes and what this foregone opportunity would have been ultimately worth had they exercises it best. What we do know is that they weren’t getting very much out of their employment and so they don’t need to do very well to be no worse off doing something else with their time in the long run.
Children and people who are still child-like in their social competence, often over value pleasure in the present in relation to pleasure in the future. Indeed, even adults have not entirely escaped that impulse, as our discussions over GHG mitigation illustrate. Giving up 90 minutes now to do some job may seem like a good thing to do, but of course, it probably won’t be, and it definitely won’t be if the meager money they earn is poorly deployed.
They’d probably be better off studying or socialising or exercising or being with their families in some combination than working for an employer who thought so little of them that the employer was unwilling to draw up terms that complied with the award and used this thing to utter a public cri de coeur. That portended ill of the value of the trade by the children in question.
gerard @9, p2. If you know a better way to separate Moncktonian economics (in parallel with Moncktonian climate science as outlined by you @4, p2) from real world economics, let me know. Please note that I tried a common sense approach first @5, p2). IMO, it is pretentious and elitist to assume people are stupid and then mock them with weasel words. I don’t assume Terje is stupid. I’ve been challenged several times on this blog-site to deliver on references to back up my statements. In this sense I treat Terje as equal.
On a different topic, your reference to the Real World Economic Review blog is good. I found a link to the University of Kassel and browsed around a bit. They offer a course on globalisation in the department of politics and they say this is where it belongs. I tend to agree.
@Fran Barlow
It is irrelevant if individuals would be “better off” doing x, y or z. It simply is up to you to butt out of their lives and let them make their own decisions. I think it is pathetically arrogant to see that you honestly believe that you are able to make an accurate judgement on the actions of these individuals. I know you may find this distressing but this isn’t Stalinist Russia and you are not Stalin!
Continuing with the presumption that “coal is good” we hear the Qld Premier celebrating big new coal export contracts. The concession that it’s necessary for coal to be cleaner in future si not a precondition, it is mere afterthought or more likely some kind of excessively wishful thinking. Or not real thinking at all.
If anyone is under the impression Australia takes climate change and it’s contributions to emissions seriously or that a process that separates out CO2 of quantities more than 3 times that of the coal used to make it, transports it to geologically suitable regions and pumps it deep underground and expects it to be low cost and economically viable they are as deluded as Anna Bligh.
Perhaps tourism on the Great Barrier Reef will survive global warming – after all lots of divers like visiting wrecks.
@Fran Barlow
That is not the claim I’m making (though it may appear so on the surface). My reasoning rests on two points (the following assumes we’re talking about sane, mature people, not children or loons).
1. People usually know what serves their best interest, and usually act in ways to attain it. They do not behave as perfect marginal utility calculators, but do approximate that mathematically idealised model in important and significant ways. IMO this is also the assumption most consistent with empirical data and human dignity, but that’s a discussion for another time as it takes us deep into neurochemical, psychological, sociological and philosophical territory.
2. The limitations on people matching the ideal model (subjectivity, imperfect information, imperfect rationality, and all the rest) also apply to any third party, such as a government. Therefore there can be no general claim that others can make a ‘better’ decision for anyone else (though obviously in many specific circumstances it would be true). It should be especially obvious that a one-size-fits-all regulation like “no shift under 3 hours” applied to millions of people will inevitably conflict with better (from their point of view) decisions by individuals. It will help some people, hinder others.
In addition, there is no evidence that this “specific set of cases” belong to the class of exceptions to these rules of thumb. You yourself had to speculate as to what the kids would do ‘better’ with their now-free time – there is no data that would support your position. It’s possible that, through in-depth interviews and close study of personalities, habits and hobbies, we could determine that the balance of probabilities indicates that losing the job was indeed the better outcome. Without the means (or desire) to conduct these studies, we must rely on rules of thumb – in this case, that people who tried to have a job actually wanted that job.
“You are also zero rating opportunity cost to support this claim.”
On the contrary, it’s central to my claim, and I reference it explicitly in “second-best option”.
You are saying that the kids miscalculated their opportunity cost. I’m saying it’s a conceit to assume you can calculate it better.
Those bulk carriers are good vessels, you shouldn’t see any wrecks of them.
EG – no I can’t. However I look forward to seeing your references that demonstrate mathematically and logically consistently that prohibiting shifts shorter than 3 hours will lead to a better outcome on aggregate. Perhaps the optimal regulation is for a twelve hour minimum and perhaps it is for a 15 minute minimum but without clear evidence I think we are best of letting people figure it out for themselves. Taking away liberty on a ideological whim is outrageous.
@Ernestine Gross
As I’d hope you are aware, there is a difference between the physical and the social sciences. There is no “leftwing” physics and “rightwing” physics, chemistry etc. Just take a look at Professor Quiggin’s upcoming book to see the difference between that and the economics profession, where representative agent theory has ruled the roost for years, despite many economists (including yourself) pointing out that it is fallacious.
On the existence of AGW there is close to a total consensus among climate scientists. Whether it is right or wrong, would you say that the idea that “labor market regulations increase unemployment” has the same level of acceptance in the economics profession as Monckton’s views have in the climatologist profession?
Incidentally I totally disagree with Terje.
PS
I never make assumptions of stupidity. I only mock people who prove themselves to be stupid.
@Jarrah
This is in the nature of an assumption which we must make in order to make organised societies structured around freedom and human dignity possible rather than a settled conclusion that one can draw about the nature of human social interaction. This is. after all, why we have courts and other mediating institutions. We think starting from the idea of human responsibility and agency is essential but we immediately see the limitations where the rubber hits the road. We don’t allow even adults to negotiate away OH&S. We try to protect children and the mentally feeble from exploitation. We understand that in practice legal and social equality are the exception in most transactions.
From the point of view of utility and net public goods, the key question is what produces the greatest net public goods?. That is always (at best) an informed guess. My own view is that payment for at least three hours, or possibly some compensation for expenses deemed to have been necessarily defrayed in presenting for employment regardless of ostensible shift length and in addition to hours worked is reasonable. If a plumber appears at my door, the plumber will demand a substantial payment even if the problem requires no more than five minutes and a part worth 20 cents to remedy. OTOH, if the problem takes up to half an hour charging is for expenses only. This is reasonable. Plumbers have more leverage than schoolkids though so this has to be built into the system.
I make no such assumption. I assert that it is
a) not clear that they got it right
b) probable on general principles that they will be, at worst, no worse off in the long run for this loss, given the trivial value of the benefit
I would add that any net losses, if there are indeed any to this class of person, have to be set against the advantages to others from having this constraint and that these advantages would measurably exceed any conceivable losses borne ultimately by those being denied this arrangement. In short, this is the right place to draw the line even allowing the remote possibility that some loss may be shown by a small class of persons.
@Rationalist
Your commentary shows that you haven’t considered the specifics of the matter. You want no more than to vent your angst about Stalin in circumstances where there is no connection to the discussion.
I call upon you to keep to the topic, which is, I take it, a more complex one about how organised societies can secure an approriate context within which most (if not all) people can pursue their legitimate interests.
My question to Terje was: “Terje, would you please provide me with a reference to a precise (ie mathematical economics) theoretical model which spells out the conditions under which your views make sense (ie logically consistent) and a corresponding list of empirical data to support the conditions in the model.”
Terje’s answer was: “No I can’t”.
This, I should think, settles the matter.
I’m with Terje. These kids have parents, who died and made anybody else their moral guardians?
I’m with Terje and other far right-wing ideologues. Just look at the United States as an example that a removing employee entitlements and lowering the minimum wage to about $7.25 has a huge impact and drastically lowers unemployment rates.
Fran says legislating kids out of a job frees them up to chase toads & other kiddy pusuits, that removing their job is actually an opporutnity for them (coping with hardship IS character building I suppose) and that it is reasonable to legislate them out of a job.
Alex says (with the kids freshly unemployed mind you) that letting the kids stay in their job would somehow …er.. what exactly?
EG – your arrogance is telling.
JQ,
You have been cited in Paul Krugman’s blog (sorry I am not clever enough to include a hyperlink)
@Alex
I’m with Terje and other far right-wing ideologues. Look at the US as a great example of success. Of course, I suppose they have a natural minimum wage, what with all the opportunities for a youngster to set themselves up in their own business, as a drug dealer or some other criminally inclined punk occupation. And if they fail in that business they still don’t appear in the unemployment statistics as they go to the ‘big house’ and if they’re lucky they learn a trade, like making license plates.
When minimum wage is sufficiently low to create full-time workers who are still unable to fund the absolute essentials, then you have the situation of some workers holding multiple jobs in order to break even week-by-week. In the USA this is an issue and has been for a long time. Note: I am not making the claim that great numbers of people are in this awful situation, simply that there is a segment of workers who absolutely require multiple jobs to meet essential costs.
Therefore the lowering of a minimum wage to a low enough level may well increase the number of full-time jobs per capita, but not lift the number of full-time employed people by the comensurate fraction. Furthermore, people working at the margin – ie income is approximately equal to weekly essential expenses – are extremely sensitive to minor changes in the costs of essential goods and services. That is, their need for a second job may suddenly occur due to a slight increase in food or public transport costs. They might find that the second job is not near their main job, causing a further discrete jump in public transport expenses in order to do the second job. That discrete jump may cause a discrete jump in the number of hours required at the second job in order to break even on it.
Welcome to the working-poor’s version of Hell!
As far as I can see, all substantive changes to policies concerning employment, pay and conditions, hit someone somewhere even as someone else potentially benefits. If the analysis is simply restricted to one individual’s “freedoms”, the impact upon others is effectively valued lower than the impact upon one individual.
Time for a coffee!
Donald .. ummm… yea. I am much more of a fan of the Malaysian system. This is not to make the claim that all aspects of it are superior or ideal. It is a much more apt analogy for those who swiftly revert to “look over there, this is what happens with lack of minimum wage & conditions!”
@Steve at the Pub
It is as well that he perspective of the public house takes second place to the perspective of public policy.
Speaking from the ‘house’ Steve asserts:
Steve of course simply asserts that the moral guardianship of people whose interests are in conflict with those of children is preferable to that of the community as a whole. His reasoning derives from his own cultural boilerplate.
Fran, you frustrated Kommisar ambitions show in your every word. (And every word in your post #31 does not make sense)
The parents of the kids are their moral guardians, NOT you. You want to decide if kids should have an after school job, or should chase toads down by the creek, or should bury their head in Das Kapital, breed your own. Meantime the moral guardians of the kids in question are their parents.
In Terje’s example (from post #1, previous page) here is nobody whose interests are in conflict with those of the children, except it would seem, yours.
It is jus that the law has frustrated the kids wish to be gainfully employed for a while after school. Nobody wins.
@Fran Barlow
“I make no such assumption.”
I think you do. To wit:
You have no means of determining this, and you are in fact elevating yourself to an unrealistic level of judgmental ability. And that’s just this case – what about the myriad others that the new regulations will cover?
“I would add that any net losses, if there are indeed any to this class of person, have to be set against the advantages to others from having this constraint and that these advantages would measurably exceed any conceivable losses borne ultimately by those being denied this arrangement.”
That could only be decided by extensive, pervasive and invasive measurement (with attendant high costs), or predicted through rigorous modeling (with a high level of uncertainty). It’s not something you or I can evaluate from first principles, and I put it to you that claiming you can is a form of arrogance. It’s classic paternalism – you know better than the people actually affected.
What first principles CAN tell us is that it’s not necessary to have ‘protective’ legislation on all aspects of work if competition between employers is sufficient (and, to a lesser extent, if non-work options like study or leisure are feasible). If an employer will only offer short shifts, they reduce their labour pool, which is to their detriment in the medium to long term. This means most employers will not insist on short shifts. Of those that do, if they find willing employees, who are we to gainsay that arrangement?
Contrary to your assertion, logic dictates that this legislation in fact will assist a small minority of employees – those who don’t have many jobs to choose from, and whose potential employers want to give fewer hours than the employee would prefer, and have personal circumstances that prevent their moving location or industry. Thus the CBA isn’t as positive as you imply.
A personal example (not tendered as evidence, but as illustrative of my point) – when I was a junior manager for a company that by employee count was medium-sized, but was in fact the big fish in a small industry, my spreadsheets told me that putting everyone on 4-hour shifts would be far more efficient. It could have moved the company into profitability for the first time in years. However, when I floated the idea with staff, I was left in no doubt that people would leave in droves if we went ahead. So we didn’t. No legislation necessary.
Well, Terje, using your methodology, I conclude it is merely your point of view.
“I would add that any net losses, if there are indeed any to this class of person, have to be set against the advantages to others from having this constraint and that these advantages would measurably exceed any conceivable losses borne ultimately by those being denied this arrangement.”
I would add that this sentiment picks some people’s preferences as deserving of government support, and others not. Also, the losers in this arrangement must – through taxes – pay for their own punishment, a double whammy. Is that fair?
@Donald Oats
My sentiments exactly.
@Ernestine Gross
You haven’t spelt out precisely which “views” Terje is to defend with a “precise theoretical model”. You can’t demand one instance of evidence for an undefined general viewpoint that necessarily will be composed of a multitude of specific underpinnings.
@Jarrah
I suggest you talk to Terje to find out what he is talking about. Otherwise I refer to all posts by Terje and myself, starting with Terje@1,p1. If commonsensical discussions are considered ‘daft’, then I can surely demand something more substantial. By that I mean, a precise theoretical model necessitates defining “the general viewpoint” such that “a multitude of specific underpinnings” is made explicit (ie conditions) and the reasonableness of the ‘general viewpoint’ can be assessed in terms of its internal logical consistency. Only then is it possible to relate observables to the ‘general viewpoint’. This is what I have asked for. The answer is: There is nothing!
@Jarrah
Your appeal to the uncertainty of the spread of benefits is unconvincing. Your own example suggests that most employees would prefer minimum hours to be even higher than 3 hours.
I don’t follow your argument about the losers paying through their taxes. Perhaps you could develop this claim.
Broadly though, all state policy supports some people’s preferences at the expense of others. As long as our states serve diverse interests, policy must approach rational compromise.
Certainly in the case of children, there’s some vidence that focusing on their education, health ands social skills is rewarded in the longer run. People who work while they are at school tend to earn less over a life time.
That may well be somewhat skewed as its probable that upper middle class kids dominate the long term advantaged group, but even so, it’s hard to say that some 90 minutes in the afternoon job is really going to greatly advantage any kid living at home.
@Jarrah
I am sure if you had put into your ‘spreadsheet’ a significant cut in their wages that would have improved profitability also. Whether they would have left in droves depends on their options, not simply on their preferences. Those worse off tend to have fewer options but they still have preferences.
Some stats relevant to Donald Oats general points at #29
Brotherhood of St Laurence submission to the Senate Inquiry into poverty 2005
Click to access unemployment_and_poverty_may05.pdf
“Is it possible to have a job and still be
living in poverty?
Yes. It is estimated that one in five poor
Australians are in paid work – they may be called
the ‘working poor’ (Harding & Szukalska 2000).”
The Aus Parliamentary Library estimated poverty in Australia in 2006 at about 11.5% ie 1 in 8 Australians or more than 2 million persons.
@Fran Barlow
“Your own example suggests that most employees would prefer minimum hours to be even higher than 3 hours.”
Yes. Supporting my assertion that market forces will ensure that most shifts are longer than 3 hours, as happened in my workplace. It could even approximate, if I may dare to suggest it, an efficient level of >3-hour and <3-hour shifts.
Re losers, the ones whose preference is not supported – indeed, suppressed – by government, they nevertheless have to pay to have these laws considered, passed and enforced (both outright and in dynamic effects).
"Broadly though, all state policy supports some people’s preferences at the expense of others."
Don't you feel that a valid objective of the evolution of the state is to minimise this? I certainly do, though I realise there are legitimate arguments on the other side.
I don't doubt there is some evidence that not working during late teenagehood (I won't let you elide them into "children") gives some long-term benefits*. However, you still haven't addressed the fundamental issue of imperfect information for third parties. This is where I baulk at claims of benefits exceeding costs – how do you know?
* – I’d imagine there’s some evidence the other way, ie working keeps them occupied and learning skills, away from idle boredom that could lead to crime and drugs. At the margin, of course – I’m not suggesting we whack teenagers into workhouses to keep them off our lawns.
@Freelander
Have you considered that, depending on their particular situation, outlawing short shifts would deprive some people of an option?
@Jarrah
You quote me:
So do I, as I made clear here just recently on another matter. Yet it is a question of weighing the net public benefit, including the quality and extent of impositions on one side and benefits on the the other.
In this case, how egregious is the requirement that an employer offer three FT hours or equivalent? How much harm would ensue from such an imposition, or from abandoning it? What kinds of harm? Who would bear it?
One could of course do a study but the results would probably not tell us anything we don’t already know or can guess. The requirement may mean some kids look for something else to do with their time, but that’s no bad thing, especially if other employers who wouldn’t have, but for the requirement, decide to pay the three hours and have done with it. Underpaid employees tend to be used wastefully by employers, like everything else that is cheap.
This is how it works now the requirement is that I offer a minimum of 3 hours. Having just been forcibly moved from an award with a 2-hour minimum shift to one that mandates a 3-hour minimum, there is quite an adjustment to be made by the staff.
Prior to the new 2010 award, the weekday lunchtime shift at my place was a regular 2-hour gig. It finished at 2pm and has been tightly held by a housewife, who if she has to quit the job, usually bequeaths it to a friend.
The new 3-hour minimum means that shift finishes at 3pm, and the incumbent has had to give it up, as she can’t guarantee to get to school in time to pick the kids up.
The extra hour worked by the lunchtime shift means the daytime shift has an enforced extra hour off in the middle of their shift while the lunchtimer works out the 3rd hour.
Just what they need, an hour sitting down without pay in the middle of their shift, too short to do much more than pop out for a short errand, they’d much rather be paid for it.
Nobody is happy with it, but it is the law.
@gerard
Sorry for the delay in replying. I wanted to give your post some thought.
I am not sure whether the term ‘social science’ is a helpful one. Be it as it may, I restrict myself to economics without wishing to suggest that economics encompasses the ‘social sciences’ or even that it belongs to it or that there should be an invisible communication barrier. It is merely my attempt to avoid ending up as a proverbial Moncktonite as characterised by you..
Similarly, I am not sure whether my awareness of the difference between science and economics is sufficient. But I’ll try to give an indication. One example of the difference between the subject matter of science and economics, which I’ve posted some time ago, is: Water always runs down-hill (physics) but humans may be observed to walk half-way downhill and then turn around and walk up again (economics). Another one: A geologist who works with rocks never encounters a rock that shouts: I want ‘freedom’, I don’t want you to restrict me, I want to fly. When we come to biology, remaining on the same elementary level, things start to get less clear cut – some dogs of a particular breed are aggressive while others are not. My best guess is, neuroscience is going to provide useful information for the subject matter of economics. At present, I still think of economics as intersecting with natural sciences and philosophy.
You write: “There is no “leftwing” physics and “rightwing” physics, chemistry etc. Just take a look at Professor Quiggin’s upcoming book to see the difference between that and the economics profession, where representative agent theory has ruled the roost for years, despite many economists (including yourself) pointing out that it is fallacious.”
I don’t understand. Physics is not ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’. The subject matter of physics cannot be classified as ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’. However, I would be most surprised if no physicist could be found who, according to the criteria used by, say Professor Quiggin, would be classified as ‘leftwing’, and another one, who would be classified as ‘rightwing’. The terms ‘leftwing’ and ‘rightwing’ belong to Politics and not to Physics.
The representative agent macro models, are not ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’. However, they may be misused by people who are ‘left’ or ‘right wing’. (Personally, I don’t like calling these models general equilibrium models but this is another topic.) They are also not ‘fallacious’ in the sense of logical errors in the derivation of a solution. However, they may be useless for many practical problems. I recall having used the word ‘useless’ and giving two examples and the reason why they are useless. To be fair, I can’t think quickly of empirically interesting problems in our current environment where a representative agent model would be useful. But who am I to make a generic judgment? Professor Quiggin is Professor of Economics and Politics (note the ‘and’; ie not Political Economy). I don’t have a clear idea about ‘left’ and ‘right wing’ The empirical classifications of political parties is not a convincing method for me – actual policies seem to me to change quicker than the classifications. For example, the classification ‘confused’ seems to be missing. Professor Quiggin, I understand, considers himself ‘leftwing’. If he were to classify me as leftwing, I’d trust his judgment, without understanding. This does not matter because I don’t claim to be knowledgeable in Politics. I noticed that the criticisms of the ‘zombie ideas’ that are the subject of his book do not require the political classifications of ‘leftwing’ and ‘rightwing’. These ideas are from the 19th century or earlier and they were recycled in the latter part of the 20th century via political movements – that much I understand about politics – and they involved a few economists who were elevated by political movements to gurus, whether they actively thought this status or not I don’t know..
You write:
Whether it is right or wrong, would you say that the idea that “labor market regulations increase unemployment” has the same level of acceptance in the economics profession as Monckton’s views have in the climatologist profession?
I can’t offer an opinion on this question because the statement “labour market regulation increases unemployment” is meaningless until the type of regulation is specified. Perhaps this reply satisfies the Monckton criterion.
“actively thought” should read “actively sought” (line 10 from the bottom).
@Jarrah
Cutting peoples wages deprives them of an option or gives them a new option, depending on how you look at it.