WSJ? I can understand them sensationalizing it I guess. They are in the business of selling exciting stories. But that isn't all.
Et tu David Henderson?
The big controversial thing about Mulligan is that he says we had a redistribution recession. It is most decidedly not controversial that he says that people reduce labor supply to maintain benefits.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What I do find odd about Krugman's position is that with all the various benefits that you agree reduce the labor supply he picks on one state-subsided benefit that pushes things the other way (Employee health coverage) and promotes the idea that reducing its effect will actually optimize the labor market. (see: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/obamacare-and-the-reverse-notch/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog+Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body).
ReplyDeleteSurely an objective view would see employee health benefits as a relatively small counterweight to the numerous benefits that push the other way. Logically reducing its power will push us further from the equilibrium that would exists without any intervention not closer.
When a drum is all you've got, beating it hard and long is all you can do. (Other than exploring other instruments)
ReplyDelete