We talked about freedom, gambling, minimum wages, and how the Pope is clueless. Fun times.
Showing posts with label Radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radio. Show all posts
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Link to audio podcast with Commonwealth Foundation
Last week I posted the link to the video podcast. An audio podcast version is also available - the link is here ... or here.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
I'll be on the radio tomorrow
I'm joining the On The Mark program on WKOK (AM 1070) tomorrow morning. I'll be on the air from about 8:40-10:00 AM.
Should be fun!
Saturday, February 16, 2013
You want a minimum wage increase? More proof economics education is still needed
OK, yesterday I posted in praise of Obama. Now, let's get back to normal.
Obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9.00 in his State of the Union speech. This is a bad idea.
The unemployment rate among 16-19 year olds in 2012 was 24%. The minimum wage should be lowered or eliminated to help out our country, not raised.
If this type of minimum wage had been in place when I was young, I doubt I get my first job at age 14 at a fast food restaurant. The skills I learned from my first job at minimum wage helped me in my subsequent jobs that earned me more money. Today's teenagers don't have the opportunities I had because of the $7.25 minimum wage (or higher in some states). At $9.00, it will be much worse.
I hope Obama fails miserably at this attempt to harm our country. On this issue, however, many Americans are sadly foolish and support a minimum wage. So it probably will pass, the unemployment rate for youth will remain high, and the same people who support these increases will write articles trying to figure out why the teenage unemployment rate is so high. (While mostly ignoring minimum wage increases as a factor.)
I could write more, but instead will link to others so you can get a diverse set of views.
1. Read about the minimum wage's use as a tool for racists. (WSJ version here, but it is gated)
2. If you think the minimum wage is a good idea, why not go to $90/hour?
3. Mankiw blogs.
4. Krugman criticizes those who oppose Obama's proposal. He doesn't really argue the policy here, he just seems to argue that anybody who disagrees with him must be evil. Where have I seen this before?
5. Hamermesh thinks "will kill off a few jobs that would otherwise have been created" but that we should go ahead with it anyway to avoid politicians bickering. I couldn't disagree more. First, if you think a policy is bad, I don't think giving in is right. I want to see my representative fighting for what's right. Second, politicians usually cause more harm than good when creating new laws, so I'd rather have them argue over this law than give in and have more free time. (Even if it is increased.)
Obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9.00 in his State of the Union speech. This is a bad idea.
The unemployment rate among 16-19 year olds in 2012 was 24%. The minimum wage should be lowered or eliminated to help out our country, not raised.
If this type of minimum wage had been in place when I was young, I doubt I get my first job at age 14 at a fast food restaurant. The skills I learned from my first job at minimum wage helped me in my subsequent jobs that earned me more money. Today's teenagers don't have the opportunities I had because of the $7.25 minimum wage (or higher in some states). At $9.00, it will be much worse.
I hope Obama fails miserably at this attempt to harm our country. On this issue, however, many Americans are sadly foolish and support a minimum wage. So it probably will pass, the unemployment rate for youth will remain high, and the same people who support these increases will write articles trying to figure out why the teenage unemployment rate is so high. (While mostly ignoring minimum wage increases as a factor.)
I could write more, but instead will link to others so you can get a diverse set of views.
1. Read about the minimum wage's use as a tool for racists. (WSJ version here, but it is gated)
2. If you think the minimum wage is a good idea, why not go to $90/hour?
3. Mankiw blogs.
4. Krugman criticizes those who oppose Obama's proposal. He doesn't really argue the policy here, he just seems to argue that anybody who disagrees with him must be evil. Where have I seen this before?
5. Hamermesh thinks "will kill off a few jobs that would otherwise have been created" but that we should go ahead with it anyway to avoid politicians bickering. I couldn't disagree more. First, if you think a policy is bad, I don't think giving in is right. I want to see my representative fighting for what's right. Second, politicians usually cause more harm than good when creating new laws, so I'd rather have them argue over this law than give in and have more free time. (Even if it is increased.)
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Link to my radio appearance ...
Link here. This was one of my favorite interviews. I was on with Than, Ben, and Mark and we took several phone calls and emails. We had a great time.
Topics discussed: why Libertarian/Republican policies are better for all Americans, including minorities; why minimum wages are bad for our country; and more.
I join in at the twenty-five minute mark.
Topics discussed: why Libertarian/Republican policies are better for all Americans, including minorities; why minimum wages are bad for our country; and more.
I join in at the twenty-five minute mark.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Link to my radio appearance
The link is here. I come on at the 19 minute mark.
My plan had been to talk about several topics, including MLK day and gun policies (from an economist's perspective). Given that Right-to-Work legislation was proposed Tuesday and I'm interested/informed on the topic, the whole show was devoted to that topic.
One note - when the host, Mark Lawrence, called me the smartest person in the room, I shook my head no and he incorrectly said that "Ben" is shaking his head no. I was shaking my head no, and I don't want anybody to falsely accuse Ben of being mean/unprofessional/etc.
One caller was a left-wing professor from Bloomsburg University who used typical union talking points in opposing worker freedom in right-to-work. Two points:
1. She illustrates the danger (which is there on both the left and right) that can occur if you read/believe items that are sympathetic to your view without reading the "other side" or understanding that you are reading analysis from a biased group. She was under the impression that the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose analysis she was citing, wasn't a left wing think tank. She's wrong (a quick look on their website will show what they care about - EPI advocates for unions, public health care, etc.). There is nothing wrong with getting information from sources like that, but you should know who you're dealing with. For example, I find the Heritage Foundation and the Commonwealth Foundation informative, but I also know their views (they are libertarians). Citing statistics given from a left-wing organization and not admitting it's a left-wing organization is not very academic/scholarly.
2. I mention this in the radio broadcast, but the data on whether right-to-work helps or hurts the economy is mixed. Left-leaning think tanks will say how workers receive less money. Right-leaning think tanks will say how right-to-work won't result in lower pay for individuals and will help the state's economy. The empirical evidence on this is rather mixed. It's logical that the data will not be telling a good of a story, as it's tough to isolate the impact of one policy change when doing macroeconomic analysis. There are dozens of things that make Michigan different than California, so it will be tough to know if wage changes over the next few years are because of right-to-work (regardless of which way things change). Here's an NPR story with an economist that discusses some of these issues.
Economic reasoning would indicate that a) it should help the economy of that state, b) workers should be better off by at least the amount of their union dues they now get to keep, and c) the increase in economic productivity should eventually mean higher demand for workers, pushing wages higher over time.
Some people "in-the-know" say this will have a tough time being passed in Pennsylvania. I'm happy to see it being proposed, however.
My plan had been to talk about several topics, including MLK day and gun policies (from an economist's perspective). Given that Right-to-Work legislation was proposed Tuesday and I'm interested/informed on the topic, the whole show was devoted to that topic.
One note - when the host, Mark Lawrence, called me the smartest person in the room, I shook my head no and he incorrectly said that "Ben" is shaking his head no. I was shaking my head no, and I don't want anybody to falsely accuse Ben of being mean/unprofessional/etc.
One caller was a left-wing professor from Bloomsburg University who used typical union talking points in opposing worker freedom in right-to-work. Two points:
1. She illustrates the danger (which is there on both the left and right) that can occur if you read/believe items that are sympathetic to your view without reading the "other side" or understanding that you are reading analysis from a biased group. She was under the impression that the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose analysis she was citing, wasn't a left wing think tank. She's wrong (a quick look on their website will show what they care about - EPI advocates for unions, public health care, etc.). There is nothing wrong with getting information from sources like that, but you should know who you're dealing with. For example, I find the Heritage Foundation and the Commonwealth Foundation informative, but I also know their views (they are libertarians). Citing statistics given from a left-wing organization and not admitting it's a left-wing organization is not very academic/scholarly.
2. I mention this in the radio broadcast, but the data on whether right-to-work helps or hurts the economy is mixed. Left-leaning think tanks will say how workers receive less money. Right-leaning think tanks will say how right-to-work won't result in lower pay for individuals and will help the state's economy. The empirical evidence on this is rather mixed. It's logical that the data will not be telling a good of a story, as it's tough to isolate the impact of one policy change when doing macroeconomic analysis. There are dozens of things that make Michigan different than California, so it will be tough to know if wage changes over the next few years are because of right-to-work (regardless of which way things change). Here's an NPR story with an economist that discusses some of these issues.
Economic reasoning would indicate that a) it should help the economy of that state, b) workers should be better off by at least the amount of their union dues they now get to keep, and c) the increase in economic productivity should eventually mean higher demand for workers, pushing wages higher over time.
Some people "in-the-know" say this will have a tough time being passed in Pennsylvania. I'm happy to see it being proposed, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
