[HN Gopher] The worldly turn: A return to economics that studies...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The worldly turn: A return to economics that studies the real world
        
       Author : galaxyLogic
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2022-01-19 21:09 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (aeon.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (aeon.co)
        
       | UIUC_06 wrote:
       | "The law of supply and demand" is never going to fit everything
       | the way the law of gravity does. It's a rough guideline that
       | applies to artificial models better than it does to the real
       | world.
       | 
       | It seems like economists need to admit it when a minimum wage law
       | don't have the effect they think it "should" instead of
       | stubbornly insisting they're right.
       | 
       | However, you can tell a "journalist" wrote this...
       | 
       | >Isaiah Andrews, one of these new 'empiricists', won the 2021
       | John Bates Clark Medal - the most distinguished economics prize
       | in the United States. Andrews has worked on the problem of
       | publication bias - whereby research that confirmed prior beliefs
       | could have a better chance of being accepted by academic journals
       | 
       | I don't see what this has to do with supply & demand.
       | "Confirmation bias" is more of a social science study area, not
       | economics.
       | 
       | > In 2020, the UK government appointed Mark Carney - a former
       | governor at the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England - as
       | climate change adviser. Carney was quick to declare the problem
       | to be essentially a mispricing of the cost of emitting carbon.
       | Neither Sunstein nor Carney are experts in climate economics, let
       | alone climate change.
       | 
       | Whatever "climate economics" is and how it differs from just
       | "economics."
       | 
       | > The problem is one I call 'free lunch thinking'. Milton
       | Friedman popularised the saying that there was 'no such thing as
       | a free lunch', yet his worldview was that, if government just
       | stepped back - didn't spend money solving problems, didn't
       | trouble itself with regulation, and left all the messy decisions
       | around how to organise society to the 'market' - things would hum
       | along and we'd all get richer magically. _That sounds a lot like
       | a free lunch._. [italics added]
       | 
       | No, it's not "free lunch thinking." It's describing how laws
       | work. It's not magic if you turn on the burner under the
       | teakettle and the water gets hot.
       | 
       | > Yet there is no reason why adhering to the scientific method of
       | basing conclusions and world views on observable facts should be
       | more challenging in economics than in physics. Except that the
       | incentives are against it. If you have a dogmatic neoclassical
       | view of how the world works, you'll always have a solution to the
       | economic problem of the day.
       | 
       | Actually, there IS a reason: in physics you can do experiments
       | quite easily, and in the social sciences and economics, you
       | can't. Thus _Freakonomics_ and successor books focus on  "natural
       | experiments," like the two school districts in Canada whose
       | boundaries seem to be randomly drawn. Minimum wage increases in
       | one state or city are not a natural experiment.
        
         | ur-whale wrote:
         | > in physics you can do experiments quite easily, and in the
         | social sciences and economics, you can't.
         | 
         | Which is exactly why neither are actual science.
        
       | huitzitziltzin wrote:
       | The sections of this article which are descriptions of current
       | work being done by several Clark medal winners are reasonably
       | accurate and fair summaries.
       | 
       | The rest is a complete mess written by someone who is uninformed
       | at best. The discussion of tobacco taxes and the discussion of
       | wages in the Premier League are both particularly bad. Please
       | don't take it seriously as a description of what's going on in
       | the field or what the current problems are.
       | 
       | When I teach my freshman undergrads supply and demand in two
       | weeks I will make very clear to them that we do not have that
       | much empirical support for the claim that minimum wages increase
       | unemployment and that it is an unsettled question. This is the
       | first college-level economics class they will take in our
       | department and I am going to make sure they understand that
       | point. I would be willing to bet that nearly every one of my
       | colleagues teaching similar classes throughout the US and abroad
       | will do the same when they discuss minimum wage policies.
        
         | osclarto wrote:
         | I graduated with an econ BSc from a Russel Group University in
         | the UK, it was definitely not made clear where and where not
         | there was actual empirical evidence for the conclusions of the
         | neoclassical modelling we were taught. The state of syllabi
         | around the world is a total embarrassment.
        
       | assbuttbuttass wrote:
       | This is a good article. But it's too kind to contemporary
       | economics. Contemporary economics especially neoliberalism is
       | simply a pseudo-scientific justification for crushing workers
       | rights globally and maximizing profits for those at the very top.
       | 
       | Economists told us for decades that wages are tied to
       | productivity, when all the data points in the exact opposite
       | direction. Economists told us that opening up developing
       | countries' markets would result in their development and increase
       | in standard of living. How's that going in 2022?
        
         | adlorger wrote:
         | Hasnt the economic story of 2020-2022 so far has not been "lets
         | see what happens when we open up" but rather "lets see what
         | happens when we close down"?
         | 
         | How does 2022 so far imply to you negative evidence of "here's
         | what happens when you open economies?" I am sincerely curious.
        
         | WalterBright wrote:
         | > Economists told us for decades that wages are tied to
         | productivity, when all the data points in the exact opposite
         | direction.
         | 
         | That's because the data is based on salary and wages, when the
         | _actual_ number used needs to be  "total compensation". Total
         | compensation also includes so-called "employer paid" benefits.
         | It includes other costly mandates required by regulation.
         | 
         | The other problem is productivity increases are very uneven.
         | Productivity for some jobs has gone way up, for others it has
         | not changes. The latter are not going to see compensation
         | increases if their individual productivity did not rise.
        
         | chisquared wrote:
         | > How's that going in 2022?
         | 
         | It's brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty [0],
         | drastically increased their life expectancies [1], and
         | significantly improved their chances of making it to adulthood
         | [2].
         | 
         | For more, see https://www.gapminder.org.
         | 
         | [0]
         | https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$encodin...
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$encodin...
         | 
         | [2]
         | https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$encodin...
        
       | galaxyLogic wrote:
       | "... the academic review of published work on the minimum wage,
       | which opponents of the minimum wage use most frequently in
       | defence of their position, had actually said it couldn't find
       | strong evidence that the minimum wage caused unemployment"
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-21 23:01 UTC)