Personally I was pretty embarassed that the debate moderator was attempting to debate one of the economists and had an almost angry tone when speaking to one of the debaters. Also, the debate moderator seemed to confuse economic methodology with political ideology. Am I the only one who felt this way?
Is this respresentative of the quality of debates that the LvMI engages in? To me it seemed completely one sided and had all kinds of unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Thoughts?
Haven’t seen it, but it very well might be. Block usually has the misfortune of debating angry, economically illiterate individuals on the minimum wage. The one I last saw involved the disputant using moral arguments (after failing to refute Block’s economic arguments) as an attempt to close the argument.
Yeah, I agree with you. I wish the debate moderator would have stayed out of it. It also seemed very childish at the beginning when they were arguing over how long each of them got to speak.
Block utterly crushed his opponent! His opponent had no real arguments at all, the only thing he brought too the discussion was desperate attepts to declare Block old fashion because he felt that Block didn’t respect the latest empirical research on the subject. But as Block pointed out, if it is empirical research he wants to discuss then he must surely know that most of it would conclude that the minimum wage is a bad idea.
When his opponent got pushed in too a corner, so to speak, he had a nasty habit of defending himself, not with logic and reason but with a plea to trust the governments own research on the subject which of course is pretty ironic since he was debating with a libertarian!
I only saw the Block-Blundell video, that was at a university. Block did well, but the stupid students could not even grasp the arguments! I will check this out now.
The “debate moderator” was a talk radio host from what I could tell. And clearly was very much in favor of Block’s position. As talk radio hosts will do, she gave her favored side more time and the opposing side more hostile questions.
Though ad hominems are generally frowned upon, this was a very informal debate and Block’s zinger when he got interrupted was hilarious. “Oh, I don’t mind being interrupted. If I had the incorrect view, I’d probably be interrupting you.”
In all, this certainly wasn’t the best debate Dr. Block’s ever had, but it was solid. The format could have been better, the moderator could have been fairer, the opposition could have been stronger, but I think it was instructive at least in showing once again that the apologists for the minimum wage have to resort to inventive empirical “evidence” to make their points.
Wow. I thought that I would just be watching a little bit of that, but I just got sucked in and ended up watching the full two hours. Thank you for that. That was unbelievable. While it was very, very funny, I also found it very sad. It’s so unfortunate that these kind of people and these type of ideas are so prevalent. Walter Block is a champ, though. I couldn’t believe that he was able to maintain his composure so well during all of that insanity. Had I been in the same situation I probably would have freaked out. Pure insanity.
The moderator wasn’t very good as she very clearly favored Block. Quite frankly, Block didn’t need the assistance, so she only undermined him. Granted, the other guy didn’t really have arguments. Only ‘I have really neat studies so I don’t need no stinking logic’. He also seemed to concede his position at the end.
Indeed. He also ranted about how “theory” can never suffice on its own. Granted, empirical studies might lead to retroactive control over pre-empirical (i.e. a priori) assumptions, but that isn’t what this guy is getting at, and this definitely is not a case of it.
I am troubled by his assertion that economic theories are a branch of logic and therefore should not be subject to experiment.
For example, he sais people want to maximise their profits so they’ll fire the workers who aren’t worth it. Well, the employer might just as well increase their worki quota so they’ll fill that gap. In physics, 1 counter-example invalidates the theory; not sure how it works in these “soft sciences”, but I’m pretty sure theories have to make verifiable predictions too, to at least some degree.
Sigh… no, he’s correct. It isn’t a branch of logic strictly speaking, but the hypothetico-deductive method does not work in social sciences, even if I were to grant its place in the natural sciences. Assuming that the firm’s owner is self-interested and wishes to expand his wealth, his conclusions follow without exception. There is no “empirical” testing to speak of in economics. The facts cannot even be interpreted without theory, let alone tested. There are no historical laws to speak of, and thus any quantitative predictions of human action will always break down sooner or later. Neither is it a “soft” science, whatever positivists might wish to think. In physics 1 counter-example most definitely does not invalidate the theory though, either. Karl Popper might’ve thought it does, but the history of science does not indicate any such thing.
What are you suggesting? That the employer works around minimum wage laws by hiring people for 6 hours at $5 and then the next two for “free”? If minimum wage laws allowed for that, they’d be meaningless.
In my country the minimum wage is set / month, not / hour so it’s easier for me to discuss it this way.
Let’s say I usually pay the worker $350 / month to work in my garden 6 hours / day in an office. Then, a “MW” Law comes along that sais I have to pay him at least $600.
I can’t fire him just because he’s being overpaid - I need his services! So I go to the worker and say “Listen, man, from now on you’re going to have to do more stuff around here, such as mow the lawn and clean the room since I pay you extra”.
I might not need that extra work, but I absolutely require what I hired him for, so I’m going to keep him around and use him for other stuff too, like a henchman.
That is, until a gardening company comes along that does my garden for $200 / month
Someone that breaks a contract like that isn’t concerned about minimum wage laws anyway. You can’t ask him to work extra time for equal pay, or do work that is not in the contract, without re-nogociating it with him.
Anyway, if you say in your country minimum wage law is concerned about monthly payments, then for sure you have labor laws that specify what a full-time job is (8 hours if daily, 6 if at night), that employers must pay double for work that go beyound those stipulated work hours, etc. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have part-time jobs (what super-market would pay minimum wage for weekend cashiers?!), and legislators don’t want it to be possible to do stuff like you mentioned.
Walter Block is talking of the static equilibrium trend (or “evenly rotating economy”, as Mises coined it), that is the tendency state, as market forces balance themselves.
