{"id":5276,"date":"2006-04-20T22:48:58","date_gmt":"2006-04-21T02:48:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/04\/20\/poor-steve-bainbridge\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:59","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:59","slug":"poor-steve-bainbridge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/04\/20\/poor-steve-bainbridge\/","title":{"rendered":"poor steve bainbridge"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n


\n
Maybe it’s a professor-thing.  Steve Bainbridge is so certain he’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
got an important new perspective on minimum wage laws that he <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
seems to be blind to reality and particularly allergic to dissent (at <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
least from me; see below).  Of course, he might just have a grant <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
proposal or law journal article in the pipeline.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
                                                                      “soapBoxDudeF”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
As Prof. B first stated in his post “<\/FONT>Drum and the Minimum Wage<\/FONT><\/A>“<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(April 11, 2006), and has now <\/FONT>expanded upon<\/FONT><\/A>, in a TCS<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> column <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
titled “<\/FONT>Minimum Behavior<\/FONT><\/A>” (April 20, 2006), he believes that “the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
minimum wage policy debate is one-sided” — proponents and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
opponents of higher minimum wages have been focusing only “on <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the effect of such a hike on the supply of jobs by employers.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Steve believes that “<\/FONT>“an equally important question” is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“what effect does a minimum wage hike have on the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
demand for jobs by <\/FONT>potential employees?”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
To that insight, Prof. B. adds (as repeated at TCS<\/EM>) that:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“it is critical to recognize that the minimum wage debate <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is mainly a debate about how much working teenagers<\/I> <\/I><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and twenty-somethings in their first job ought to make.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
[Hallelujah!<\/EM>  Sorta!<\/EM> Although it remains in his original <\/FONT>post<\/FONT><\/A>, Steve <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
has, <\/FONT><\/FONT>to his credit, at least deleted the assertion “the minimum <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wage <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>debate is not really a debate about how much <\/FONT><\/FONT>money the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
work<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>ing <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>poor make” from his TCS <\/EM><\/FONT>column<\/FONT><\/A>.  We happily take credit<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for that change, and for saving Prof. B, from further embarrass-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ment over that sentence.  On the other hand, he added to the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
TCS piece that <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>whether California should have a minimum wage <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
law at all is <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>a “contested proposition.”   The “working poor”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
better not count on Steve Bainbridge in their battle for better <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wages.]<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"bainbridgePix\"<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Steve’s big contribution to the minimum wage debate<\/FONT>, therefore, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is <\/FONT>to ask whether raising the wage is likely to cause more youths <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to drop out of high school.  Steve believes that teens actually <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
will base their decision to stay in school on marginal differences <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the minimum wage. Thus, his legislative recommendation is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
twofold: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
(a) have a differential lower minimum wage for those who <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have not completed a high school degree, [which] should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
result in <\/FONT>a lower dropout rate;” and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
(b) have “An indexed <\/FONT>minimum wage, <\/FONT>which grew steadily <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and no faster than inflation, [which] would avoid <\/FONT>the potential <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for biasing the choice between work and school” in <\/FONT>the year <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that a large increase is given to make up for eroded real <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
purchasing power.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
         “spiltwine”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The f\/k\/a<\/EM> Gang (from Yabut and to ethicalEsq<\/EM> to Jack Cliente and<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
dagosan<\/EM>) wonder what Steve is smoking, while sipping his favorite <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wine. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
As for the facts, which Prof. B. surely knows, as he has read at <\/FONT>least <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
one BLS report, plus <\/FONT><\/FONT>“bainbridge speeds past the working poor<\/FONT><\/A>,” <\/FONT>our <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
post on the topic, dated April <\/FONT>17, 2006:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
48% of the “young workers” Steve is talking about are 20 or older.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The study he uses does not tell us how many of them are heads <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of <\/FONT>household or have dependent children, nor if they are in their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
first <\/FONT>jobs, as he asserts — nor whether they are trying to work <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
while <\/FONT>studying for a better-paying career.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Over 1.5 million hourly workers in the USA are over age 20 and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
earn <\/FONT>the minimum wage <\/FONT>or less.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"graphClimb\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect<\/EM> for million of workers <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
hovering just above the minimum.  Because <\/FONT>5.7 million<\/EM> of the working <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
poor in 2003 — <\/FONT>77% — are 25 or older, changes affect far more than <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
teens in their first job (see<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT>“<\/EM><\/FONT>Profile of the Working Poor, 2003<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A>,<\/EM>” <\/EM>BLS,<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
March 2005)<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
As for reality, assuming rational, price-theory behavior by teens in California, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
or any other state, when deciding whether to drop out of school, is the kind of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
maddening Economic Man fetish that we decried last month in a blurb<\/A> pointing <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the article “<\/FONT>The Marketplace of Perceptions<\/FONT><\/A>” <\/FONT>(Harvard Magazine<\/EM>, March-April <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
2006).  If Prof. Bainbridge can locate a good course in Behavorial Economics, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
we suggest he take it.[Marcus at Washington Syndrome<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> seems to be<\/FONT><\/A> in accord<\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with our analysis.]   Until then, my response to an email from Steve last week,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
seems solid:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Steve wrote<\/EM>: “The way I think about it is that I’m concerned with the kids. I want <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
kids to stay in school and maximize their lifetime incomes. What the heck’s wrong <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with that?”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Your Editor replied<\/EM>:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
We both agree that the kids are not making longterm-rational economic <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
decisions.  And, I don’t believe that their short-term financial decisions <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
are going to be made based on rationally looking at marginal differences <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the hourly wage available if they drop out of school early.  They’ll keep <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
dropping out and simply make less (I say that having had scores of adol-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
escent clients as a Family Court Law Guardian, and hundreds of clients <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from poor and working-poor families).  Keeping their wage lower will make <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
them favored hirees by the Minimum Wage Employer, to the detriment of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
others [probably older] who need those jobs.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                       “soapboxdude”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Meanwhile, your trumpeting of the lack of connection of [the Minimum Wage] <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with the working poor gives the noisiest and most stingy and angry of your <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
readership one more excuse for railing against increases in the minimum age. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
So, i do worry about overlooking the working poor in the MW debate.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Of course, Steve has a good point about getting better data on how changes in the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
minimum wage affect the supply of willing workers.  But, I think his Religious <\/FONT>Boss, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Pope Benedict XVI, has a better<\/EM> point when he says in <\/FONT>Deus Caritas Est<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A><\/FONT> that (see <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
our <\/FONT>prior post<\/FONT><\/A>):<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
“It is true that the pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
State <\/FONT>and that the aim of a just social order is to guarantee to each person, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
according <\/FONT><\/FONT>to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community’s goods. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"erasing\"<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I’d like to think that my post disagreeing with Prof. B’s approach to the minimum <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wage made a few points worth pondering, too.   Apparently, the facts or the tone <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
were so threatening or so reprehensible to Steve, that he has now twice<\/EM> removed <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Trackbacks <\/FONT>citations for my posts <\/FONT>bainbridge speeds past the working poor<\/FONT><\/A> and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Catholic Conservatives Ignore Benedict on Political “Caritas”<\/FONT><\/A> from his posting on <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
minimum wages.  [Trackbacks tell you that another weblog has cited to a post.]<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
To be honest, that <\/FONT>seems rather small-minded.  Steve is the famous weblogging <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
professor; I’m the <\/FONT>David to his Goliath.  He has <\/FONT>trumpeted both his credentials in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the fields of law <\/FONT>and <\/FONT>economics and<\/EM> his strong Catholic <\/FONT>faith.  If he can’t handle his <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
readers finding <\/FONT>a discussion <\/FONT>that <\/FONT>questions his economic reasoning and the faith–<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
fulness of his <\/FONT>policy proposals <\/FONT>to <\/FONT>the teachings of <\/FONT>his Church, perhaps Prof. B, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
should give up <\/FONT>his pretensions of <\/FONT>being a “public <\/A><\/FONT>intellectual<\/A>,” and especially a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Catholic public intellectual.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny By the way, I’d be interested in hearing from other  \"erasingSF\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
webloggers and weblog readers on the topic of censored <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Trackback pings.  Clearly, spam can and should be re-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
moved <\/FONT>(I only wish it were quicker to do).  Also, every <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
weblog owner has the “right” to remove Trackbacks, but <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
what does that tell us about his or her desire for engaging <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in an open <\/FONT>discussion?  When would you <\/FONT>approve or disapprove <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of <\/FONT>deleting Trackbacks?<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
trackback update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (April 23, 2006):  This morning, I rediscovered <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
an ethicalEsq <\/EM>post <\/EM>from Feb. 2004, Disappeared from Law-Blog <\/EM><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Cyberspace<\/EM><\/A>, where we wrote: “I’ve recently discovered a big<\/EM> difference <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
between lawyer weblogs that were created primarily as marketing tools <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and those written for the sheer joy of sharing ideas and information, or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
presenting a point of view:  The marketing and reputation-oriented lawyer <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
weblogs appear to remove Comments, pings and blogroll listings that might <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
make their ‘product’ look less valuable or useful.  Of course, a lot of them <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
simply don’t allow unfiltered comments or pings.”  At the time, Kevin <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
O’Keefe disagreed with my dichotomy of types of lawyer weblogs.  In <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
retrospect, my reply Comment to Kevin might have been a bit naive about <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
law <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>professors<\/EM>, when I wrote: <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Lawyers and law professors who start a weblog primarly <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to share ideas and expertise,  or promote a cause, and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to have a conversation with others, seem far more likely <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to “allow” different viewpoints to be accessed through <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
their site and to say what’s really on their minds.   Lawyers <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
whose primary<\/EM> purpose is marketing their services (no matter <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
how much passion  and expertise they show) seem far more <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
likely to need to filter what can be seen or accessed on their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
e-blawg. <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
“slingShot”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
the woodpecker works
one spot…
all through sunset<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
fresh straw for the garden–
about ten servants
at work<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"graphClimbN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
even the poor
workhorses of Edo sleep…
in mosquito nets!<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
begging hermits clamor
in their night work…
coolness at the gate<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
growing old–
by the hearth’s light
piecework<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Issa<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A>,<\/FONT> translated by <\/FONT>David G. Lanoue<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                              \"JesusLibS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                               “Jesus Was a Liberal<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>“<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maybe it’s a professor-thing.  Steve Bainbridge is so certain he’s got an important new perspective on minimum wage laws that he seems to be blind to reality and particularly allergic to dissent (at least from me; see below).  Of course, he might just have a grant proposal or law journal article in the pipeline.                                                                […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1n6","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5276"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12680,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276\/revisions\/12680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}