That, the distinction between minimum wage laws, and a rising minimum wage, is sophistry, not analysis. If you can't see the identity between the two, it's only because your analysis is completely pedantic and lacks the critical, social, element, that places Marx head and shoulders above, and flat out against, every bourgeois political economist.
That's what I mean when I say hack. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Sowell > Mr. Sartesian writes: > > >> It, the rise in wages, is not incompatible with increasing unemployment, but > >> neither is it incompatible with rising employment. Sowell, or whoever wants > >> to argue this point from the right, makes a superficial cause and effect > >> between wage rates and employment levels, where there is none. > >> > >> And by the way, its is the creation of such superficial cause and effect > >> links, and the propagation of them as profound economic insights that > >> defines a hack. > > For the third time, neither Sowell, nor any other neoclassical economist I know of, has ever argued that rising wages causes unemployment. Obviously, if wages are rising, people who might otherwise be at the beach will be drawn into the workforce. The argument is about the effect of minimum wage laws, and if you can't figure out the difference between minimum wage laws and rising wages, be a little more careful before you call somebody a hack. > > Now that I got that off my chest, I am off to see Simon and Garfunkel at the Hollywood Bowl. When I get back, how about a discussion of explaining the price of concert tickets from a Marxist perspective? > > David Shemano
