“The results indicate that these regulations, especially minimum wage policy, contribute to higher unemployment rates and constraint formalization in Morocco, especially for youth and women.”
For anyone who still thinks minimum wage laws help people get ahead or climb the economic ladder… first you must actually be able to reach the first rung on the ladder!
Have you ever wondered why there is a Department of Labor? Why isn’t the Department of Commerce enough to represent the interests of everyone in the business world? If something is good for commerce, that usually means businesses are growing and hiring and paying higher wages. Isn’t that also good for workers?
The idea that management and labor are invariably at odds is a Marxist idea. Which is to say, it’s outside mainstream economics. Similarly, the idea that government intervention can help labor in its struggle against management is also contradicted by what mainstream economists know. Labor market regulations that help some workers, often do so at the expense of other workers. More often than not, intervention makes all workers worse off.
While economists are famous for their disagreements (and their incompetent forecasts), there is universal consensus in the profession that demand curves slope downward. That may be meaningless
And this is why it makes no senseto impose minimum wage requirements, or to increase mandated wages where such laws already exist.
If you don’t understand this, just do a thought experiment and imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was $100 per hour. The answer is terrible unemployment, of course, which means it’s a very bad idea.
So why, then, is it okay to throw a “modest” number of people into the unemployment line with a “small” increase in the minimum wage?
The big problem for Republicans is not what they believe. Their problem is that anti-Republican reporters are asking the questions. As Jonah Goldberg complains:
“Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for “science”?
Why can’t the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? Or if that’s too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?’
Economic is the science of incentives. Yet most of the delegates in the national Democratic Convention don’t believe in incentives. They believe if a price is too high (think housing rents), the government can push it down and nothing bad will happen. They believe if a price is too low (think wages), government can push it up and nothing bad will happened. They believe that a plan formed by people at the top will work (think Obamacare) even if everyone at the bottom has a self-interest in defeating it.
This is science denial in spades.
Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.
One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.