Atif Mian Profile picture
19 Mar, 13 tweets, 3 min read
I'll do occasional thread on #WhyStudyEconomics - explaining how this science can be used for our collective good when used properly

Today's question: Should we have a minimum wage?
Questions in economics are social in nature which can understandably trigger an ideological/emotional response

But one must resist that initial temptation and start with a formal framework to think objectively about the question at hand

This is what theorists try to do
For a question on the minimum wage, we must start with a theory of how labor market works

A theory does not tell us how labor markets *actually* work, but it guides us by spelling out conditions under which a minimum wage is desirable versus not
Armed with the theoretical framework, we can then dig into real world data and measure which of the conditions are more realistic

This way we can get a scientific answer to the question, should we have a minimum wage, and should it be $15/hour?
Theory tells us that broadly speaking there are two possible responses to a minimum wage hike, with very different implications.
#1 Workers previously hired below the minimum wage, become too expensive after the wage hike and get laid off. Thus minimum wage increase ends up hurting the same people it is supposed to help, *and* there is less output.
However, theory also tells us that outcome #1 is a possibility only if certain specific conditions are met. e.g. that markets are perfectly competitive.

But we know that real world is far from perfect. For example, certain firms or industries may have monopoly power etc etc
#2 There is thus a second possibility. Raising the minimum wage may not lead to much employment loss, *and* at the same time raise the income of millions of minimum wage workers - reducing poverty and stress on social safety net.

#1 versus #2 ... which theory is correct?
This is where the empirical side of economics comes in - an area that has expanded a lot in the last few decades.

Armed with the theory, empiricists try to measure what *actually* happens when we raise the minimum wage.
They look for "natural experiments".

For example, one state raises its minimum wage but the neighboring state does not. Using appropriate statistical methods, we can use such changes in local laws to estimate how employment responds to minimum wage increase

The answer?
Raising the minimum wage does not do any significant harm to employment, and will lift the incomes of tens of millions of Americans.

Most importantly, raising the minimum wage will help exactly the group of Americans who need a win the most
The minimum wage literature has been hugely influential in convincing experts that #2 is correct, and that we should raise the current level of federal minimum wage.

I hope our senate follows.
If you want to learn more about this, listen to the young rock star of minimum wage scholarship @arindube
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/min…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Atif Mian

Atif Mian Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AtifRMian

25 Feb
The administration is reviewing U.S. economic resilience - this is much needed

Why is it necessary? And how should one do it?
Resilience => ability to absorb "shocks" such as disruptions in microchips or bursting of a bubble without major layoffs

An inability to do so is very costly. This study by @ojblanchard1 @LHSummers & Cerutti shows that short-run losses often become more permanent Image
So how can we make the U.S. economy more resilient?

There are two sides to it (as always)

The supply-side and the demand-side

The administration is currently focusing on the supply-side
Read 7 tweets
30 Jan
GameStop is an interesting story, but there is a bigger and much more serious question about financial markets

As someone who studies finance, I know finance has tremendous potential to benefit society

But there is something serious to worry in the trend since the 80s
Let's start with the story we like to tell students in finance 101

"financial markets take money from savers and give it to entrepreneurs who invest it to make economic growth possible"

This is indeed a very important function of financial markets

However ....
Since the 80s financial market has increasingly been doing something quite different

The size of financial sector has almost *doubled* in terms of credit given out per $ of output

Yet, investment has not risen at all and in fact been trending down
Read 7 tweets
19 Jan
US needs a strong immigration policy to reverse the long-run decline in growth

To understand the argument, we'd need to get a bit into growth accounting

20 year growth rate just before the pandemic was at its lowest since WWII (black line)
Growth can be decomposed into growth in hours people work (red line) and productivity growth (blue line)

Both components are also at their lowest, but decline in hours growth is the steepest. Why?

A combination of two factors:
(i) the big run-up in women entering the labor force is maturing out

(ii) work force is aging / fertility rate declining. In fact, U.S. fertility rate is now well below replacement

So red line will continue to push growth downwards
Read 6 tweets
4 Jan
The Covid-19 recession is the strangest recession in living memory

For starters, it is the most unequal recession - like the virus, decimating some and untouching others.
It is also the most global, with practically all countries going down at the same time
The most unequal recession comes at a time when the world was already most unequal in living memory
Read 6 tweets
26 Oct 20
The stock market is not the economy. In fact, rising stock market can be bad news for most!

Annual rise in stock value
1989-2017: 7.5%
1966-1988: 1.6%

Annual rise in corporate output
1989-2017: 2.6%
1966-1988: 3.9%

Corporations produced *less* but gained more in value!
Why?
First, stock market only values profits, and more of corporate output is now going to profits at the expense of workers

Annual rise in corporate profit
1989-2017: 5.1%
1966-1988: 1.8%
Second, the same dollar of profit is now valued more by the markets (the "valuation effect").

See this terrific paper by @ProfGreenwald, Lettau and Ludvigson
nber.org/system/files/w…
Read 4 tweets
20 Oct 20
Students wanting to do a PhD in economics are often told that math is important

here's why (and some important caveats) ...
Markets need to balance out on average, e.g. the total purchase of cotton must equal the total production of cotton by farmers.

There are thousands of such markets and they must all balance out! How does this happen?
It is not possible to keep track of all this without resorting to mathematics, which is a tool for imposing rules and logic that nature dictates must hold.

Then there are many practical economic problems that at their core are mathematical riddles.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!