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

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

    • @RememberTheApollo_
      link
      132 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
        2 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
          32 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
          22 months ago

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

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

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