• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      223 months ago

      I’ve always used it as an example of when oversimplified chalkboard economics don’t match experimental reality.

      • @RememberTheApollo_
        link
        133 months ago

        Are the “oversimplified chalkboard economics” basically the businesses winging about having to pay people more?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          What follows is incorrect

          It’s a price floor, which creates a deadweight loss.

          Since we’re also consumers, it’s a net loss.

          • @undergroundoverground
            link
            33 months ago

            Tbf, economics has to presume inequality to be non existent. If they dont, inequality is the overriding factor that makes all the other forces at play pale in comparison. So, they remove inequality.

            Again, tbf, in a world with no inequality, where only the very best and brightest rise to the top and not just a endless stream of nepo babies, with whole institutions in place to ensure a lack of social mobility, a national minimum wage would be a bad idea. Just like tax breaks for the rich would fix any problem you had, in that fake - made up world that could never exist.

            But, as you allude to, in the real world, things are very different.

          • @naught101
            link
            23 months ago

            Should it not just be integrated in to the supply cost?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  Intuitive chalkboard economics lead to the net loss conclusion above. Experimental reality as described in the study says otherwise.