Very nicely stated.

Prepare for the counterargument that the reason for their success is simply genetic.

Is Friedman going 'yellow peril' on us again ? He should be embarrassed. There are plenty of Asians in the U.S. who are beginning to find this annoying or even offensive.

China's per capita GDP is the same as Angola's.

Not smart enough to realize it, or not honest enough to openly state it.

In Friedman's simplistic world, the notion that people are promoted is due to their merit. His world doesn't exist as the post manifests well. His world reminds one of the radio program about the place were everyone is above average. Sure.

Re: The NYT would have to certify that it had first tried to hire workers at the prevailing wage.

Certify to whom? The government? A union that represents its workers?

Is this an argument related to protectionism or an argument for unionization (combined with the premise that unionization shields workers from global competition)?

Or is the assumption that the Indian workers would move to the U.S. rather than working out of India or somewhere else outside the U.S., in which case the comparison with that "Chinese textile worker" is not analogous?

Above comment was me.

Also, a diary I wrote two years ago is applicable here http://swordscrossed.org/node/1662

The certification is to the government to gain legal work status.

Dean,

Yeah, so as I said in my last paragraph, unless you are just assuming that a new, Indian NYT reporter would have to move to the U.S., that's not analogous to your "Chinese textile worker" (in China) , right?

Seems that the comparison you should be making (for whatever your ultimate point is, which is unclear by the way) is between types of jobs that are easily replaced by imports/offshoring vs. those that aren't. Off the top of my head, some that would seem less likely to offshore would be construction, teaching, or anything requiring an ongoing physical presence, as well as anything requiring great familiarity with local culture (e.g., marketing; some journalism). And some that are more conducive to offshoring are obviously relatively unskilled labor (manufacturing), call centers, back office administrative/processing work.

If you want to make some point, seems to me you should make it on that basis.

Oh, and I don't mean to preclude some skilled labor as well, given all the highly educated folks in poorer countries who are willing to work for less than are Americans.

It must be comforting to those who draw large paychecks to believe that it is due to their creativity and initiative. However, it ain't true. Living in DC, I know plenty of people who draw good six figure salaries.

Thanks for that! LOL You are getting into Mark Twain territory here. Conversely, I know some skilled maintenance guys ("proles") who live in trailer homes out in the sticks with more impressive intelligence than many of the skilled office types I've come across over the years...

Brooks,

Dean's point is quite clear. Some professions in this country are protected from foreign competition, and some are not. And really, construction? Have you not heard of the brown hords from Mexico stealing all our highly valued landscaping jobs? If it were the same for doctors, I'd guarantee you medical services would be a lot less costly.

(for whatever your ultimate point is, which is unclear by the way)

Deliberate obtuseness is not an argument.

It's true. The economic rents built up by the professional class in the US are staggering. Health providers, particularly specialist physicians, are a prime example.

Friedman is selling the worn out propaganda that productivity at the margin is reflected in prevailing wages, which in turn is driven by education, ignoring relative magnitudes between average wages and occupations determined by protectionism.

When Wal-Mart secures the same productivity at lower wages, it's called "free trade" with no protectionism as the "prevailing wage" drops dramatically.

When the equivalent productivity of a doctor, lawyer, journalist, etc is sought beyond US borders, the "free trade" standard is turned on its head.

The test then becomes whether the productivity is already available at the prevailing wage, i.e., the labor in question must demonstrate unique properties not domestically available to justify its employment.

Yet the Wal-Mart standard for undermining prevailing wages requires no such standard, instead obtaining equivalent (non-unique) productivity at lower wages.

If the Wal-Mart standard was applied to the professional class, there would be lot of domestic "non-unique" professionals looking at bankruptcy.

Friedman thinks that education is directly tied to productivity, but actually it is itself still a kind of protection for various elites. People whose parents have money are far more likely to get through the educational system to the point of getting an MD or MBA. The long training in rote memorization which is required to get an MD is largely irrelevant in a computerized world, but it serves to keep down the number of medical practitioners. What is most important in getting many elite jobs is the connections formed in college or graduate/business school, and having the proper manner and lifestyle.

Brooks:
Stop displaying your ignorance. In order to get your non-citizen, prospective employee a legal work permit (often called a green card), you have to tell the government that you tried to hire a citizen, but you couldn't find a qualified one.
About 20 years ago, I was working in this country in the law department of an Italian company as a lawyer doing international business. I had a US law degree, a year's post doc study in Europe, and a fair command of Italian. I answered an ad in the Chicago Tribune for a lawyer with international (particularly Italian) experience to work at a large law firm. I got a call from the law firm saying they were trying to bring one of their Italian partners to Chicago, and to do so they would have to ask me to withdraw my application for the position. For some strange reason I did.

skeptonomist gives me an opening to complain about another area in education that has become a scam for the wealthier: extra time on the SAT and ACT. There is an entire cottage industry set up to provide the documentation needed to get your child extra time on standardized tests for a nice little fee. There really are kids with learning disabilities, but what psychological testing center can afford a reputation for charging the testing fees and then telling the parents their child is perfectly fine?

Brooks, it doesn't take much effort to look at how professional jobs are protected. tests like the MCAT and doctor board exams were modified to make it harder for foreigners to do well on them - thus the very strict writing requirement for the MCAT. we have a shortage of doctors right now. to fix that, we could create incentives for people to apply to med school, like providing more scholarship and perhaps even getting rid of the med school debt problem all together. also, we could work with canada and mexico to standardize medical school requirements for all 3 countries, thus bringing skilled doctors from canada and mexico here. but the AMA doesn't want that and it is well-documented that they lobbied hard to put up barriers to foreign doctoral students coming here. what's also noteworthy is that the AMA put up higher (often non-science-related) barriers with the argument that the foreign doctors were bringing down wages, not compromising quality. the same could go with lawyers. there are probably millions of people worldwide who can speak english fluently in europe, india and asia. why not use them for lawyers and bankers and teachers? we would save a lot of money on salary and thus lower costs, therefore increasing efficiency by freeing up money for more productive uses. however, measures such as those wouldn't even occur to you because only blue-collar jobs should be open to competition. well, in the words of sarah palin, that's elitist.

in fact, i think we should go to india and europe and look for foreigners fluent in english who can come over here and do your journalism or blogging work for half as much. that would free up your institution to use the savings on more productive tasks. of course, you don't like competition for your job, do you?

The assertion that education will solve the problem of inequality and competitiveness is not new--it's actually old. In the 19th century, Domingo Sarmiento made this argument. It was also popular in the 1920s in the US. And Richard Florida made this same argument at the end of the last century, arguing that computer programmers were the pinnacle of the "creative class." Within a couple of years corporations began shipping those jobs off the China and India.

Interestingly, what makes it most difficult for journalism jobs to suffer international competition is, of course, their visibility.

Bobbyp -- yes, sure I'm aware of illegal immigrants working in construction in the U.S., but that's not applicable to Dean's argument. More importantly, your racism ("brown hords from Mexico" -- misspelled by the way) is disgusting. And no reaction to it from others here -- I guess if one says something pro-union and anti-physician, he can say anything, no matter how disgusting, and won't be criticized by the hyperpartisans here.

Ethan -- Re: hiring a non-citizen who will move to the U.S., I covered that point (It's irrelevant to Dean's analogy to a textile worker in China). Pay attention, especially when you're going to accuse someone else of ignorance (not to mention if you're a lawyer).

One can only speculate as to when they first come to grasp that Thomas Friedman is just the most loathesome maggot. For the more perceptive, its apt to seep through at first exposure. In any case, most will find a certain propriety in this pie throwing episode of sometime back:

http://greenwashguerrillas.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/hello-world/

Please forward to Mr. Friedman. As usual, you are, by your Ayn Randian-Atlas Shruggedian perspective, wrong. The majority of work in this or any society/economy is routine and done by skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Is now, was and ever shall be. Think of a plant Mr. Friedman (the green kind, presumably your favorite). Look at the root. Only the cells at the tip, the radicle, are engaged in novel, exciting, exploratory work. After these growth cells have forged their new path, ossification begins, and what had been the glowing tip of awareness becomes the everyday business of cellular metabolism. So it is with any organization. That you espouse a philosophy of the few which you try to apply to the many shows just how out of touch with worker's lives you are--you with your chubby gerbil like face and your soft uncalloused hands. Get a job.

Of course immigrants working here or not being allowed to are applicable to Dean's argument. It goes to the very core of what's wrong with the whole free trade concept sold to the public. Trade involves goods, capital and labor. Goods and capital can move freely but labor is locked down in so many ways. Until we can all move to wherever the jobs are without restriction we have no free trade. We have managed trade which has managed to outsource whatever it can. But certain professions are exempt from competition is many ways, some by government some by unions, some by professional associations and licensing restrictions. Those with political or financial clout can protect themselves in may ways and certainly do. Then it just becomes a game of wage arbitrage pitting captive labor pools against each other in a never ending circle of exploitation, all in the name of "Free Trade". Remember this Friedman is the idiot who would vote for any bill with the words "Free Trade" in the title without even reading it.

Andrew,

Yes, free trade is limited with regard to restrictions/obstacles for foreign workers in the U.S., and that affects some types of jobs much more than others for reasons I've given -- primarily that some jobs either require or are generally done better by people who are physically present (in the U.S. and usually at a particular location) and/or who have relevant cultural familiarity/insight, and other jobs are more conducive to offshoring or being replaced (in effect) by imports (of products and foreign-based services).

Friedman's ability to write in a way that appeals to an American audience is what protects his job, not work permit/immigration obstacles. If not for that skill-related advantage, the NYT could just hire a columnist in India to email his column to the NYT each week.

But your argument seems to be that among types of jobs that would be replaced by immigrants if there were no restrictions, there is vastly disproportionate protection of those "Those with political or financial clout can protect themselves in many ways". Well, political and financial clout are obviously not the same thing, even if there is overlap. Unions have political clout. I don't think union members are the people Dean is referring to when he refers to:
those who draw large paychecks...who draw good six figure salaries...The key to their success is that these people enjoy protection from the low-paid competition in India and China that less powerful groups in society do not enjoy.

Right?

So are you contending vastly disproportionate favoritism (via legal restrictions on labor and residency on non-Americans) for people with six-figure income based on their "financial clout", and if so, what is your argument?

As for:
game of wage arbitrage pitting captive labor pools against each other in a never ending circle of exploitation, all in the name of "Free Trade"

Feel free to answer "My Question for Lou Dobbs" http://swordscrossed.org/node/1662

And what would be your ideal -- forcing into being some mechanism (e.g., tariffs, minimum wages as part of trade agreements, etc.) that would largely eliminate the wage advantage that brings jobs to people abroad who are much poorer than American workers (which is essentially why they are willing to work for lower wages), depriving them of many of those jobs so that relatively wealthy Americans can have them?

By the way, are you -- is anyone -- going to join me in criticizing the ugly racism that I noted earlier, or is this all about whose side one is on on a particular set of issues?

The true secret to Friedman's "success" is marrying a billionaire's daughter. If he'd actually had to make it on his own, his perspective might be a bit different.

The argument is not quite persuasive as there is no specific protection for journalists in the US. The NYT could in fact easily higher tons of writers that would write better, more accurate and more insightful columns than Friedman at much lower salary, and those could even be based abroad. The "protection" that figures like Friedman enjoy is of a different nature, it is the protection that the elite affords its own members and those who are deemed useful.

Piglet,

Although I happen to think Friedman is a good columnist, leaving that aside, your comment does (if I may translate it into something neutral) touch upon the legitimate point that the perception of the target audience is what matters rather than necessarily skill in some objective sense per se. Or put differently, brand equity is a barrier to entry, which in this case would tend to protect Friedman from losing his job a foreign and foreign-based columnist (as well as to domestic competition).

BobbyP clearly is mistaken if he thinks:

"Dean's point is quite clear. Some professions in this country are protected from foreign competition, and some are not."

when Dean states:
"It must be comforting to those who draw large paychecks to believe that it is due to their creativity and initiative. However, it ain't true."

Dean's is a categorical statement about those who draw large paychecks without any distinctions.

Brooks at 6:25 first mentioned that the protectionism varies by profession.

Large paychecks belong to many types of people, including baseball players, talk show hosts, actors, ceos, doctors, lawyers, and others. Journalists don't really make the list except for a few. I agree with piglet that journalists are a bad example of barriers. News gathering and distribution has lost exclusivity recently too.

And sure, I will second Brooks' disapproval of "brown hordes". Skin color is an adaption to sun intensity, and not too relevant to anything else.

Thomas Friedman is Exhibit A why the large US newspapers are dying. He and the New York Times are nothing more than glorified corporate PR departments who mindlessly spout the wonders of free trade. Good bye and good riddance to them.

Andrew,

Thanks for seconding re: that racist "brown hordes" comment.

Re: protectionism varies by profession

My point is that (1) such variation is not necessarily by design as a result of financially-based political influence of people with "six-figure incomes" (or at least not to the extent Dean seems to be implying), as opposed to the nature of each job type, and (2) the distribution of benefit from obstacles to foreign workers working in the U.S. is not skewed as much toward people with "six figure incomes" as Dean seems to be implying.

Also, I'm asking what it is that Dean and others are suggesting in terms of policy, and if it's to "protect" U.S. workers on some moral basis, how they square that with the condition of poorer and more desperate workers (or potential workers) abroad. I mean, it's easy for a racist jack*ss like bobbyp who doesn't seem to consider Mexicans (or any "brown people") humans, but I assume most people have greater moral sensibility.

"BobbyP clearly is mistaken..."

Well no, Andrew. You are flatly and embarassingly wrong. You display the typical elitist attitude that autoworkers, plumbers, landscapers, and janitors are somehow not "professions". Pray tell, just what are they?

And Brooks is an inconsiderate boob who now rants and raves at my obvious irony (that most, as far as I can tell actually "got"), and has now descended into mindless namecalling that he has so decried in the past.

As for what policy we should adopt, Dean has made several suggestions (cf. The Nanny State).

As for the brown "hords" (sorry 'bout that), I say let them come. Immigration made this country great. Now it would seem they are unwelcome, esp. by the wingnut nativists.

But Dean's point stands. If autoworkers have to compete against foreign labor. If construction workers have to compete against an "illeagaly" enlarged labor pool (hey, who hires these guys, anyway?). If you actually believe in free market neoclassical theory (you know, where ALL factors of production are free to change/move according to price signals), then barriers to trade should apply to ALL trades, not just working class trades.

It's pretty darned simple.

"Large paychecks belong to many types of people, including baseball players..."

What a suprise! A tax subsidized monopoly industry that has a strong and powerful union...and those dolts get all that money! This is too hilarious. I do note that professional ballplayers are subject to "foreign competition" by players from Japan and Latin America (those damnned brown hoards again). As for CEO's. Their pay is the result of a broken system of corporate governance and poorly constructed corporate law.

But there are major areas where there are restrictions: Doctors, lawyers, accountants, most technical fields....just to name a few.

hordes?

Brooks, n, semi-professional troll; not to be confused with David Brooks, hapless conservative NY Times columnist who also knows next to nothing about economics; to Brooks to unfailingly miss the point whilst demanding all answer his less than tangentally germaine questions; to successfully counter an argument not made; cf. to raise petty objections--repeatedly pettifoggery which see.

A completely different suggestion: Let's define what Mr Friedman's job is.

As had been mentionned, his confused drivel is not about journalism, it's about PR work for crony capitalism. That's what he is paid for, and I do not think he needs protectionism in that function as he seems to be pretty good at it.

Mr. Friedman's job is to whip the horse to death while chirruping positive-thinking slogans which distract us from addressing the serious structural reform needed to make our political system more responsive to the real needs of the Nation.

bobbyp,

[note: for some reason my reply last night is now gone, so I'll try to replicate it]

Re: your "brown hordes" comment, if you didn't mean it as a racist comment (and I'm inclined to believe your explanation), next time apply some common sense regarding what you say in what context in what forum with what audience (and how well they know you), and maybe you won't be understandably misunderstood.

And good luck coming up with a clear, rational substantive argument. You seem to be on some emotional rant for now.

@bobbyp: As a brown person from Jamaica with US Citizenship, I did not like being called part of a "brown hord(sic)". Keep that in mind the next time you try irony on the web and possibly put yourself in the other shoes before clicking "post".

As for Brooks' argument, I have to agree that while I love Dean's posts, he did seem to compare apples to oranges.

Wal-Mart would not be bring the Chinese workers to the USA but it seemed like the NYT would.

If Dean clarifies and states that the NYT would hire lots of journalists in India and fire many in the USA, then we have apples to apples BUT that would eliminate Dean's point that the NYT "would have to certify that it had first tried to hire workers at the prevailing wage".

I believe in intellectual honesty and while I love Dean's work, this post has me confused and I have no problem asking for clarification or pointing out when I think he made a mistake.

Sorry for the typo above: bring vs. bringing

Continuing on: I believe that Dean's point overall is valid - that there is protectionism when it comes to labour in the USA (and most developed countries).

I also believe that the minimum wage does more to protect jobs than any other policy (H1B visas anyone?). If the minimum wage in Miami is $6 (I don't know what it actually is) then a landscaping company cannot import cheaper labour from the Caribbean, Bahamas or Latin America even though it would save them more money.

The big questions is whether we think this is good or bad.

I for one believe that a minimum wage is good for workers and would hate to see people out of work because they were did not come from a poorer country and are willing to work for pay that does not cover their basic cost of living.

I also agree that "free trade" does not exist today and is a misnomer in every case. I know how hard it is for foreigners to get work permits for the USA even when they come from "free trade partners".

Friedman, like most others who marry to wealth, or are born to it, believes that he has earned his station in life.

Even many of those who have earned their station underestimate the importance of class, upbringing, fortunate timing, and plain dumb luck.

The US is not a meritocracy, and in fact, has departed from what little meritocracy existed during the 30 or so years that followed the New Deal.

Yes, people from humble origins can still "make it" in America, but most of those who crow about getting there forget the contributing factors over which they had no control.

David,

On minimum wage, I'm conflicted, largely because economists disagree on the extent to which it increases unemployment (vs. how much a lower, free-market wage would deliver economic rent to the employer), as well as how it affects different segments (lower-income adults vs. more affluent teenagers). But we do have to consider the likelihood of some extent of incremental unemployment due to an effective minimum wage (basic supply & demand).

Dear Mr. Mullings,

Dean is not comparing "apples to oranges". Outsourcing production jobs off-shore or "importation" of those willing to work for less has the same predictable economic outcome: Lower wages. Due to various protectionist measures, many if not most high income earners are, for a variety of reasons, exempted from these economic pressures, yet will spout off endlessly about the necessity for "free" trade. Remember, as I stated above, the theory of pure competition requires both labor and capital be able to be freely apportioned per market signals. Apparently this is OK with free traders for capital and only some workers (you know, the ones who shower after work instead of before).

As for your bruised feelings, you have my deepest and most sincere apology. Brooks, not so much. However, I am fairly confident that most readers of this blog were quite aware of the deliberate sarcasm, given the overall context of my post.

You might also find it useful to know that actual studies (yes, they have been done) of the impact of minimum wage laws indicate they have no discernable impact on unemployment.

Your humble servant,

David,

I would like to disagree with your 4:12 comment "I believe that Dean's point overall is valid - that there is protectionism when it comes to labour in the USA (and most developed countries)."

I do believe that there is labor protectionism. But Dean actually made these attacks:

So please understand. I'm saying that Dean's written point was not "there is protectionism", he is actually saying that creativity, initiative and education are unimportant, and protectionism is the cause of their 6 figure salaries.

Dean just got irritated after reading the Friedman article and overstated the case.

I much prefer BobbyP's 5:55 characterization of "many if not most high income earners are, for a variety of reasons, exempted from these economic pressures".

My view is that economic success equation is something like:

S= e + p + s + w + etc

where education, protectionism, smarts, work are all factors, but no one factor completely dominates.

Dean is writing that:
s = p

and ignores that protectionism varies wildly among high earners.

Probably he will agree to some weighting of:

S= e + p + s + w + etc

when he calms down.

myxzptlk also has a multiple factor view of "class, upbringing, fortunate timing, and plain dumb luck."

p.s. BobbyP did not understand my previous post on the same theme. Perhaps I was not too clear.

If I say: If it not true that Dean said X, that does not mean that I believe X is false, just that Dean did not say X.

X being "Some professions in this country are protected from foreign competition, and some are not."

And BobbyP has no basis for saying what I include as professions. My definition of profession is any work for hire done for the long term.

Insert after:
"But Dean actually made these attacks:"

*those who draw large paychecks believe falsely that it is due to their creativity and initiative

* Almost none of people I know who draw good six figure salaries are movers and shakers with real initiative. Their key to success is protection from the low-paid competition in India and China that less powerful groups in society do not enjoy.

* elites do well by protectionism not by education and savvy, and aren't smart enough to recognize it.

I used brackets and the html ate the text.

"Humble Servant" Anonymous,

Re: Outsourcing production jobs off-shore or "importation" of those willing to work for less has the same predictable economic outcome: Lower wages.

Thanks for stating your tunnel-vision pseudo-morality and pseudo-economics so explicitly. No, even if we are only speaking of immediate direct effects (i.e., leaving aside the fact that offshore outsourcing, like free trade and like capitalism generally, brings broad-based positive effects on standards of living even in the country doing the outsourcing), the immediate, direct effect is not simply "lower wages" as you claim. The effects are lower wages for Americans and more jobs and higher wages for much more desperate people abroad. But I suppose if only Americans count in your concept of morality, the latter is irrelevant.

Re: You might also find it useful to know that actual studies (yes, they have been done) of the impact of minimum wage laws indicate they have no discernable impact on unemployment.

Well gee wiz, I wonder what the chances are that you've only looked at the studies that confirm what you want to believe. lol.

Oh BobbyP, this is too perfect. You really are quite a writer to capture this idiot so well.:

"to Brooks to unfailingly miss the point whilst demanding all answer his less than tangentially germaine questions; to successfully counter an argument not made; cf. to raise petty objections--repeatedly pettifoggery which see."

AndrewS,

People who find themselves inadequately equipped to engage substantively often find refuge from the challenge of arguments by responding with (or initiating) nothing but ad hominem. This applies doubly to those who harbor a grudge after having had this weakness exposed publicly on a blog, and although I don't recall specifically, my guess is that you fall into this group.

Anyway, feel free to substantively challenge any argument I make, anywhere, anytime, if you can muster the courage. Or just stick to juvenile ad hominem if that's the best you can do and if that continues to turn you on.

"Well gee wiz, I wonder what the chances are that you've only looked at the studies that confirm what you want to believe. lol."

This, no doubt, is what you consider a substantive argument? The prosecution rests.

"If you actually believe in free market neoclassical theory"

According to whom ? Certainly Adam Smith would advocate for competition in the medical industry but would have nothing good to say about the neoclassical Walmart theory.

The whole structure of our society is out of balance as a result of income and wealth polarization. This discussion is reflective of the dog eat dog outcome as those at the bottom are forced to tear each other up fighting for scraps. The silent import, the one with the most far reaching consequence, that comes with the current version of mercantilism er Free Trade is an indebted third world government that is controlled by a small group of elite aristocrats. TJ's most valid fear. Not many economists bake that part into their cake.

Good Bobbyp, you need the rest. Maybe after a good rest you'll have the energy to venture outside hyparpartisan echo chambers long enough to discover that there is far from a consensus (to say the least) among economists that "actual studies indicate that minimum wage laws have no discernable impact on unemployment." Good luck -- lol.

BobbyP: You ever start reading a post here, too long to see the poster's name yet, and after many, many rambling paragraphs or garbled nonsense, you of course realize "damn I'm reading that idiot Brooks again by accident."?

"I see that, quite understandably, the site has gone downhill."

Posted by the guy running the website you linked to for your diary Brooks. My guess is this downhill decline coincided with the start of your postings?

"Good Bobbyp, you need the rest. Maybe after a good rest you'll have the energy to venture outside hyparpartisan echo chambers long enough to discover that there is far from a consensus (to say the least) among economists that "actual studies indicate that minimum wage laws have no discernable impact on unemployment." Good luck -- lol."

Wow you love to hear yourself talk don't you? Considering you provide absolutely nothing here to refute BobbyP's claim about min wage, you could have just said "does too" and left it at that. Then we could at least read your stupidity without wasting too much of our time.

AndrewS,

Keep up the substanceless ad hominem if that's all you can manage and if you feel the emotional need for it.

Oh, and wrong about that other site going downhill. Quite the contrary; it became dominated by high volume, low substance, hyperpartisan, bad faith participants (your kind of thing, probably), and the good commenters started walking away from it, and I started participating less, too. I then urged a return to good-faith, high quality discussion/debate, but to no avail, so I essentially walked away from it, and the downward spiral continued. Most comments now are from three or four junk commenters, with just two or three others participating.

But hey, I'm sure you have no problem being both vocal and wrong -- probably something with which you have a lot of practice.

Oh, and neither BobbyP nor anyone else should have trouble finding a diversity of views among economists on the question of the degree to which (or whether) the minimum wage reduces employment (among particular segments or overall), as well as economists' expression of uncertainty on this question, both of which conflict with BobbyP's implication. Just a sampling from a couple of minutes of Google search:
http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/ration.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/14/unemployment-efca-health-care-opinions-contributors-steven-j-davis.html

One more in next comment...

...one more:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/12/the_economic_de.html

...one more:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/12/the_economic_de.html

..the last sentence of which reads: " I think the case for a thorough and sophisticated debate is further buttressed by the fact that it has proven difficult empirically to identify negative employment effects from increasing the minimum wage."

The states with the top 5 unemployment rates also all have minimum wage rates higher than the Federal rates:

Sep 2009 unemployment rate
15.3% Michigan
13.3% Nevada
13.0% Rhode Island
12.2% California
11.5% Oregon

http://www.bls.gov/lau/ shows the unemployment rate by state, and http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm shows minimum wage data by state.

Usually the minimum wage is not excessive, and thus no large result would be expected. And benefits can be lowered to adjust to higher wages.

But I would prefer that government simply hired all comers at a minimum wage.

bobbyP -- thanks for inadvertently supporting my point re: your cherry-picking and your pretense that there isn't both diversity of economists' views (and quite possibly majority recognition of some degree of job loss) and economists' recognition of uncertainty on this question.

AndrewDover -- We probably shouldn't just look at simple correlations like min wage rate and unemployment rate by state and assume causation. There are many other factors that are likely at play (as well as even the question of causal direction) and which would need to be considered, as well as other approaches (e.g., changes within each state over time with changes in min wage).

I am completely convinced that a minimum wage of 8 thousand a hour would cause unemployment, not vice versa.

I doubt the causation reverses at lower wages, but at $8 an hour, I don't see huge evidence of harm. I was just curious enough about the recent statistics to have a look.

Brooks writes: "bobbyP -- thanks for inadvertently supporting my point re: your cherry-picking and your pretense that there isn't both diversity of economists' views (and quite possibly majority recognition of some degree of job loss) and economists' recognition of uncertainty on this question."

No. Thank you for proving my point. You have sucessfully argued against an assertion nobody ever made, thus demonstrating admirably my observation at 10-22-09 @ 11:40PM above.

Your obtuseness is, well, priceless. Thank you, sir!

BobbyP,

Your initial statement was:
You might also find it useful to know that actual studies (yes, they have been done) of the impact of minimum wage laws indicate they have no discernable impact on unemployment.

Now, after I refute via even very quick research your implication that a consensus exists among economists and among studies that minimum wages have no impact on unemployment, you say:

You have sucessfully argued against an assertion nobody ever made

If you want to deny that you were making that implication, go ahead, but you really shouldn't be surprised if no one with even half a brain believes you.

AndrewDover,

I think you misunderstood what I meant regarding the direction of causation. I just meant it's possible that minimum wage policies are a reaction to the level of unemployment or to some other condition that correlates highly with unemployment, and thus it could be that either high or low unemployment could "cause" or at least precede some minimum wage policy, rather than vice versa. I'm not saying that's generally or often the case, because I don't know. Just pointing out that plausible possibility in at least some cases.

Yes Brooks, reality is complicated.

AndrewDover,

Was that snark? If so, it seems misplaced, since I pointing out a couple of important, relevant things that you seemed to be missing.

The intent was neutral; acknowledging your points, but not wanting to write lots of words.

Hi, How is the NYTs different from the San Jose Mercury News? What prevents NYTs from exporting writing jobs? The San Jose Mercury covers city hall with reporters from India who view live city-council broadcasts. Coverage has resulted in some unusual reporting because the reporters do not entirely understand US culture. But writing jobs are already being exported, too.

Hey I finally figured it out: "Brooks" IS Thomas Friedman! And he really does know more than you and me. Just listen to him!

Foster,

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad Friedman probably won't see the insult.