Carly Fiorina schools Hillary on the economy in Hillary Clinton Flunks Economics in The Wall Street Journal:
And yet Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 13 in the first Democratic presidential debate, “The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House,” and she offers variations on that line when campaigning.
Whose economy is she talking about? The middle class has shrunk under the Obama administration. According to government figures and industry analyses, median-income households have lost nearly $1,300 after inflation, while the prices of food, health care and college tuition have risen almost twice as fast as inflation.
Those struggling to find work are increasingly out of luck: Labor-force participation for working-age Americans has fallen to 62.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a level last seen in the Jimmy Carter-era recession. Millions have given up looking for work, and millions have fallen into poverty as a result.
While Mrs. Clinton touts her gender to bolster her campaign, 92% of the jobs lost during Mr. Obama’s first term—when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state—belonged to women, according to the BLS. The National Women’s Law Center reports that the poverty rate among women is 16.1%—the highest level in 20 years—and the extreme poverty rate among women the highest ever recorded.
African-American unemployment is almost twice as high as the national average. The median household net worth for black families fell by 33% from 2010 to 2013. The left continually urges more spending for the Education Department, yet the achievement gap between black and white students has stagnated and remains far too wide—and only half of black male high-school students graduate on time. Meanwhile, liberals pander to the teachers unions while blocking merit pay and shutting down school-choice programs.
from Cafe Hayek – Quotation of the Day on Minimum Wage
The ‘new’ minimum-wage research that commenced in earnest in the mid-1990s is highly appealing to non-economists, for it supports their economically uninformed understanding of markets in general and of prices in particular. This research is an instance of credentialed economists, in effect, assuring the economically ignorant man-in-the-street that he is indeed correct in his simplistic understanding of the economy, while all those economists who are forever warning about ‘the unseen’ and about unintended consequences are the wrong-headed and unscientific ones.
Because economics – good economics – is very much the science of making that which is unseen seen, economists, of all people, should be keenly aware that much of what occurs in an economy is difficult, and often practically impossible, to detect – difficult or impossible to detect not only with the naked ‘eye’ but also with even the best quantitative data. This fact is why the burden of proof should weigh especially heavily upon those who claim to find in the empirical data evidence that foundational principles of economics do not apply or or suspended in this or that particular market. And the weight of this burden of proof should only further increase if popular and political sentiment runs strongly against the conclusions of foundational economics (as it does in the case of the minimum wage).
Bottom line: the empirical evidence against the standard economic analysis of the minimum wage is relatively scant and questionable, and the theoretical reasons offered in support of this ‘new’ minimum-wage research are even more questionable. The case that minimum wages have no negative employment effects for low-skilled workers is about as plausible as is the case for homeopathy or healing with crystals.