In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, interviewer Kristen Welker pressed (pun intended) Donald Trump on whether he would raise the minimum wage. I’ve often said that Trump doesn’t show a basic understanding of economics. On this one, though, he did a first-rate job.
The late, great Walter E. Williams, whom I described as the second smartest man in American behind Thomas Sowell, frequently wrote and spoke about "How Not to Be Poor". It's kind of the starting point for your other essay today about the millionaire next door.
1) Get your high school diploma as a minimum.
2) Be married before having children. Poverty among married people is close to zero.
3) Work. Two people working a 40-hour week at minimum wage will already be above the poverty level; and, as you say, few people remain at minimum wage for long.
4) Live below your means (save/invest/IRA/401(k)).
Yes. I've often make those points in talks and interviews. I would also add that it's a good idea to be working at least a few years before having children. If you do that, plus the other things you list, you will not only not be poor, but also you will likely be at least in the second income quintile. By the U.S. official definition of poverty, which, by the way, overstates poverty, about 2/3 of the people in the bottom quintile are poor. So even being in the top of the lowest quintile puts you above poverty.
I understand how and why politicians and laypeople can claim and believe that the minimum wage is a good thing.
How can anyone who is an economist (the true hard leftist radicals aside) defend minimum wage laws? The most they could do is suggest that the harms are relatively small, yes? Because they would never today make the argument that it’s acceptable to sacrifice some at the bottom for the benefit of others - the one “utilitarian” claim you cite back then that might have at least the whiff of legitimacy.
And yet in fact many left-of-center economist do indeed defend it, and deny the downsides. This is baffling to me. How can they be so mal-educated?
The late, great Walter E. Williams, whom I described as the second smartest man in American behind Thomas Sowell, frequently wrote and spoke about "How Not to Be Poor". It's kind of the starting point for your other essay today about the millionaire next door.
1) Get your high school diploma as a minimum.
2) Be married before having children. Poverty among married people is close to zero.
3) Work. Two people working a 40-hour week at minimum wage will already be above the poverty level; and, as you say, few people remain at minimum wage for long.
4) Live below your means (save/invest/IRA/401(k)).
Yes. I've often make those points in talks and interviews. I would also add that it's a good idea to be working at least a few years before having children. If you do that, plus the other things you list, you will not only not be poor, but also you will likely be at least in the second income quintile. By the U.S. official definition of poverty, which, by the way, overstates poverty, about 2/3 of the people in the bottom quintile are poor. So even being in the top of the lowest quintile puts you above poverty.
I understand how and why politicians and laypeople can claim and believe that the minimum wage is a good thing.
How can anyone who is an economist (the true hard leftist radicals aside) defend minimum wage laws? The most they could do is suggest that the harms are relatively small, yes? Because they would never today make the argument that it’s acceptable to sacrifice some at the bottom for the benefit of others - the one “utilitarian” claim you cite back then that might have at least the whiff of legitimacy.
And yet in fact many left-of-center economist do indeed defend it, and deny the downsides. This is baffling to me. How can they be so mal-educated?