Some of the results in this new article by Zeljka Buturovic and Dan Klein in Econ Journal Watch (a peer-reviewed journal of economics) are startling:

* 67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.
* 51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.
* Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.

Note that the questions here are not whether the benefits of these policies might outweigh the costs, but the basic economic effects of these policies.

Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.

It would be hard to find a set of propositions that would meet with such a degree of consensus among economists to rival these propositions–which boils down to supply restrictions raise prices and price controls create shortages. These are issues on which economic theory is exceedingly clear, well-confirmed over decades of empirical support, and with a degree of unarguable consensus among trained scholars in the field. Apparently the existence of a “consensus” among trained scholars on certain policy issues is less important on some issues than others.

http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans

Is it lack of knowledge or willful denial on the part of self described progressives?

5/7/2010 10:31:40 AM

"liberalism" in the economic sense is defined by appeal to emotion over logic. ex: God

5/7/2010 10:36:19 AM

I'm pretty sure that's not what liberalism means, in the economic sense. Perhaps in the American political - i.e. progressive - sense.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2010 10:40:52 AM

It's pretty sad that the only issues that you can point out here deal with a soft science.

Find me some examples of progressive positions that oppose real hard sciences and I'll listen to what you have to say.

5/7/2010 10:43:39 AM

^ Anti-Dismal-Science Progressivism

Quote :

"Note that the questions here are not whether the benefits of these policies might outweigh the costs, but the basic economic effects of these policies."

Knee-jerk liberal reaction-- I'm wondering how one could phrase a question in order to ensure that people don't make cost-benefit value judgments.

5/7/2010 10:52:09 AM

Quote :

"Is it lack of knowledge or willful denial on the part of self described progressives?"

I have wondered about this for a long time.
I often confront my parents about these kinds of things (licensing, price controls, minimum wage, etc.), and they're very smart -- both with post-graduate education, one with a PhD. But, alas, they're both Democrats. Occasionally, they seem to give in -- to acknowledge the truth, but they both still vote a straight Democratic ticket.


Oh, and since you hinted at it, is anthropocentric-climate-change-denial from lack of knowledge or willful denial on the part of self described conservatives? (Or are you a hypocrite when it comes to agreeing with clear, well-confirmed, unarguable consensuses among trained scholars in various fields?)

5/7/2010 10:58:35 AM

Quote :

"6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited. • Unenlightened: Agree 7. Free trade leads to unemployment. • Unenlightened: Agree 8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment. • Unenlightened: Disagree"

I disagree with all of these (to a degree, or I think the situation is much more complex than a agree/disagree)

Quote :

"Caveat 1 of 4: Some will take exception to our take on the eight questions, particularly the one about minimum wage laws."

yes

Quote :

"Caveat 2 of 4: We acknowledge a shortcoming about the set of economic questions used here, and a corresponding reservation. None of the questions challenge the economic foibles specifically of “conservatives,” nor of “libertarians,” as compared to those of “liberals”/“progressives.”"

Its a TRAP!!!!!

Quote :

" 51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services. "

Can you technically even be called a professional if you're not licensed?






I see where you are coming from though Lonesnark. Similar crappy polls and surveys have been posted attacking Conservatives in the same manner.

5/7/2010 11:03:02 AM

Quote :

"Can you technically even be called a professional if you're not licensed? "

licensing is not a guarantee of ability or professionalism.

5/7/2010 11:05:38 AM

^Oh, I don't disagree with that.

but

I thought a "professional field" was called that because it required some form of license (and atleast a B.S. degree). As in, the license was one of the main things that differentiated the professional field of work from other fields that may just require a B.S. degree.

5/7/2010 11:13:44 AM

OMG!! IS MY PROFESSIONAL STRIPPER LICENSED?



In other words, a "professional" could and should simply be "one with professionalism".

5/7/2010 11:20:08 AM

I've always considered it a generic term for a claim to an individual or group adhearing to a common code of conduct/work. Meaning the output for common tasks and requests is reliable and consistant.

None of that has anything to do with licenses.

5/7/2010 11:22:49 AM

unless you consider that the reason their output is reliable and consistent is because everyone in the field is licensed.

5/7/2010 11:26:18 AM

Quote :

"the reason their output is reliable and consistent is because everyone in the field is licensed."

What?

Did you completely miss the point? The license does not create professionalism.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2010 11:28:38 AM

It filters for it though, and incentivizes it.

5/7/2010 11:31:14 AM

^ exactly

by setting standards, the license gets rid of the amateurs. Many "professionals" support licensure. You could argue that its because they want to make more money, but it is also so that their profession maintains respect (ie. a bunch of amateur lawyers, doctors, and engineers aren't running around doing shoddy jobs which will then reflect badly on the lawyers, doctors and engineers that actually are capable)

5/7/2010 11:36:28 AM

Quote :

"unless you consider that the reason their output is reliable and consistent is because everyone in the field is licensed. "

lol no. Not everyone who is licensed is professional and not everyone who is not licensed is not professional. Professionalism only comes through competition and repetition. Licenses are entirely irrelevent and only serve to confuse and mislead customers.

5/7/2010 11:37:17 AM

licenses are like standardized tests. If the testing is good, they can find general problem areas, but nothing specifc. If the tests are shit, they just give a pass for failure and cover up any problems.

5/7/2010 11:39:48 AM

well I think we may be using different definitions of the word professional and that is where confusion is coming from.

When I think of a "professional field of work" I think of Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants etc.

From Wiki:

Quote :

"A professional is a member of a vocation founded upon specialised educational training. The word professional traditionally means a person who has obtained a degree in a professional field. The term professional is used more generally to denote a white collar working person, or a person who performs commercially in a field typically reserved for hobbyists or amateurs. In western nations, such as the United States, the term commonly describes highly educated, mostly salaried workers, who enjoy considerable work autonomy, a comfortable salary, and are commonly engaged in creative and intellectually challenging work. "

also:

Quote :

"Because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services and thus the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held up to strict ethical and moral regulations."

ie. licensed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : Im not talking about the way the act, or carry themselves. Its the type of job they have]

5/7/2010 11:45:56 AM

Quote :

"ie. licensed."

Again, any license is totally irrelevent to whether a person upholds the moral or ethical standards. All the license says is that at some point they paid a bunch of money to a standards body for a piece of paper that says they're all good.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : e]

5/7/2010 11:51:37 AM

^
Exactly.

Quote :

"When I think of a "professional field of work" I think of Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants etc.......Im not talking about the way the act, or carry themselves. Its the type of job they have"

That's some kind of bigotry. Job Classism, perhaps. "type of job" ppffft.
I can't believe how rigidly you view it.

And really?... you're quoting dictionaries?
I can do that, too:

"•A person who belongs to a profession; A person who earns his living from a specified activity; An expert; Of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the standards of a profession; That is carried out for money, especially as a livelihood; Expert."

5/7/2010 11:57:25 AM

well they also probably had to take a test to prove their knowledge and possibly practice in the field for a few years, but thats besides the point.


If a professional does not uphold the standards that are expected of them; then their license is taken away. As a consumer, that means I'm looking to hire a lawyer that hasn't been disbarred, etc. That is how it ensures that standards are upheld.


^dude, its a pretty old definition of professional. There is an obvious difference between unskilled labor (manual labor), Trade labor (mechanics, plumbers, carpenters), White collar business work (business people, salesman, CEOs etc) and Professionals.

One of the differences that helps distinguish between those is whether or not the career requires a license to operate in the field.

The only reason I was quoting the dictionary is because Im pretty sure we were using different definitions form each other. I just posted the definition I was using to clear up confusion.





[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ..]

5/7/2010 11:58:33 AM

is economics being called a science here

5/7/2010 11:59:30 AM

^^
The test can be subjective and informal. (yet, in practice, no less rigid)

I view things like angieslist as a beginning to the end of the bullshit licensing racket.
I believe that with a little ingenuity, consumers will be able to do just fine on their own determining which service providers are worthy of their money.

Quote :

"dude, its a pretty old definition of professional. There is an obvious difference between unskilled labor (manual labor), Trade labor (mechanics, plumbers, carpenters), White collar business work (business people, salesman, CEOs etc) and Professionals. One of the differences that helps distinguish between those is whether or not the career requires a license to operate in the field."

That's cyclical logic. You're saying that licenses create professionals because licenses create professionals.

There exists professional manual labor, professional trade labor, professional business work, etc. "Professional" is just an adjective, and it doesn't mean "Doctor, Lawyer, or one of only these other occupations."

5/7/2010 12:10:31 PM

And let's not forget all the taxes that get paid for the honor of being called a "professional." So you get the benefit of keeping prices high by raising the barrier to entry into your profession, plus the state benefits in the form of extra revenue. The only question is, will we ever return to a system where the marketplace ultimately dictates and licenses are no longer required?

5/7/2010 12:19:42 PM

Quote :

"I believe that with a little ingenuity, consumers will be able to do just fine on their own determining which service providers are worthy of their money."

and thats fine. I tend to disagree with you, but thats just a difference in opinion.

Quote :

"That's cyclical logic. You're saying that licenses create professionals because licenses create professionals."

No, Im saying when people were classifying different types of jobs in the work force, one of the criteria they used was "does it require licensure?" They then grouped those type of jobs together (with other criteria too, Im sure).

Quote :

""Professional" is just an adjective, and it doesn't mean "Doctor, Lawyer, or one of only these other occupations." "

words can have multiple meanings. I just posted a definition and showed examples of how the word is used as a NOUN. It was a simple misunderstanding, its not my fault you have never heard of professional being used as a noun.

5/7/2010 12:21:52 PM

Ultimately, the definition you're using is basically, like I said, some form of bigotry - like classism. Pretty bogus, and you should really consider the actual word "professional" for what it is at its root -- an adjective.

Quote :

" just a difference in opinion"

Cool. I'm fine with that, too.

Quote :

"The only question is, will we ever return to a system where the marketplace ultimately dictates and licenses are no longer required?"

I sure fucking hope so. In fact, I'm pretty sure we're doomed if we don't.

5/7/2010 12:26:22 PM

ITT economics is a science.

5/7/2010 12:28:15 PM

So is being an electrician a professional job or a trade labor job?

5/7/2010 1:04:08 PM

I'd say trade

5/7/2010 1:18:32 PM

where is the anti-science part?

5/7/2010 1:27:27 PM

^^ And yet it's a licensed profession.

Incidentally this really amuses me:

Quote :

"51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services."

If only for the fact that it should be entirely self evident. The whole purpose of licensing, as has been stated is to cut out the riff-raff and amateurs from the profession. Amateurs often charge lower prices than professionals for their services, usually because their services come with less guarantees and assurances and other such perks. By it's very nature, eliminating these low cost amateurs will raise the average cost of the services.

\/ Social economics? Now who's talking about soft sciences.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 1:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/7/2010 1:37:52 PM

Quote :

"Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst. "

Well duh. When it comes to economics, our system is very conservative. Pretty obvious that people who are very conservative are going to have views that fit directly into capitalism.

The same logic could be used to say that those who identify as very conservative have the worst understanding of social economics.

5/7/2010 1:39:02 PM

^^Licensure isnt the only thing that makes one a professional. Thats why in an earlier post I referred to a Bachelors degree. From the Wiki:

Quote :

"In western nations, such as the United States, the term commonly describes highly educated, mostly salaried workers, who enjoy considerable work autonomy, a comfortable salary, and are commonly engaged in creative and intellectually challenging work. "

Trades are careers that also usually require licenses to operate, skills and knowledge to do the work but usually not college degrees. They often are more blue-collar than professional careers.

I thought this was a pretty common classification used to differentiate between different types of jobs. I can't believe you people are having this much trouble.

As for bigotry; I never said that one job type was better than the others. Each has its own pros and cons. To each his own, according to his abilities and aspirations. I only have the upmost respect for some of the Tradesmen I have worked with. I've met welders that are more knowledgeable on a range of topics than engineers I have worked with, etc.




[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 1:59:36 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and since you hinted at it, is anthropocentric-climate-change-denial from lack of knowledge or willful denial on the part of self described conservatives?"

Well, given the lack of actual evidence for climate change, I'd say it's healthy skepticism.

5/7/2010 4:39:45 PM

Quote :

"anthropocentric-climate-change"

I just checked the definitions, and maybe it was unintentional, but it seems your question as stated is demonstrable false. I truly hope that not even the most ardent progressive would believe that only mankind can cause climate change.

A better example of anti-science conservatives would be evolution deniers or young earthers.

5/7/2010 6:06:27 PM

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 6:31 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

5/7/2010 6:31:02 PM

Is anybody surprised that going to college doesn't make one "economically enlightened?"

I mean, do y'all remember Economics classes? They're giant cons. They start off telling you how simple the concepts are and how easy the class is going to be. This is super weird to begin with. But then they turn back the first test and 3/4 of the class fails...and everybody leaves feeling retarded and not interested in the subject anymore. This is by design.


When you make a valuable subject totally esoteric and use that subject to manipulate the fuck out of people (Yeah, the wealth will trickle down!), you can't be surprised when we don't give two shits about your theories on rent control.

5/7/2010 9:27:51 PM

Trickle down economics was never economics, it was a political slogan. Economists always found it laughable, because wealth does not trickle down, it trickles up. For more wealth to be created, the creator must first invest effort and money to create infrastructure and jobs, making everyone else better off right now, and then slowly over time recoup profit from their investments.

5/8/2010 1:37:46 AM

^Do economists have explanations for people like me? Obviously, besides something like "stubborn/stupid."

Because what economists describe as reality differs vastly from my perceptions.

To me, the wealth doesn't trickle up. It starts up. The people who run successful business do so because they inherit the necessary connections/assets. And they maintain it at all costs by raiding pension funds or lobbying for free money from the government.

From a worker's perspective...it's standard practice to hire on employees for 8 years until they're making $12/hour and then cut their time back to five hours/week so they have to quit and start all over again working for another "brave and enterprising hero of the American business model." And this is supposed to make us "better off?"

Why can't I understand you?

5/8/2010 2:24:28 AM

You can't understand me because you believe workers are ignorant saps incapable of policing the behavior of their employer. Meanwhile, I understand that what you are seeing is actually a scam to defraud taxpayers being perpetrated by the workers in cahoots with their employer, since the now raided pension is insured by the government, which is not going to make the workers give back the numerous inducements management purchased with the money so the workers would go along with the fraud.

But you are right in one respect, the rich are rich. There is nothing you or Obama could do about that. The question is, given that the rich are rich, what should the rules be? And rules incentivising the rich to flee to Malta leaving all of us without jobs harms us far more than it could ever hurt the rich. Being rich, they don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from. Being not rich, we do.

5/8/2010 3:14:42 AM

Personally I'll take a licensed doctor over an unlicensed one.

5/8/2010 3:57:00 AM

^ Eh, depends on what for. Or more accurately, it shouldn't take a full on doctor for what most people go to their doctor for. That's why these minute clinic things are popping up.

5/8/2010 7:39:14 AM

Most people would, but the question revolves around whether licenses are restricted by a minimum skill level or restricted to a certain arbitrary quantity. In the case of the AMA, they act as a cartel deliberately limit the number of doctors certified every year for the purpose of maximizing member salaries: http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high

Quote :

"The people who run successful business do so because they inherit the necessary connections/assets. And they maintain it at all costs by raiding pension funds or lobbying for free money from the government."

This statement is about as clear an indication of your ignorance as you've ever given.

5/8/2010 7:40:20 AM

If the rich go to malta sure the wealth goes with them but their INCOME stays here and someone replaces them. Plus they still get taxed as long as they're a citizen. I don't see how you think the jobs would leave. A company that is more ethical would pick up their slack in the market.

5/8/2010 8:17:26 AM

Wealth is not manna from heaven and it does not flow from the ground, it takes human enginuity and effort. Yes, if person A goes to Malta then most likely the productive economy will adjust, having person B take their place, but to do that person B gives up doing whatever it was they were doing, producing a dead weight loss of wealth production.

5/8/2010 9:40:28 AM

Wondering if mambagrl has ever heard of a phenomenon known as "brain drain"

5/8/2010 10:17:28 AM

Quote :

"Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics."

Its funny that this study intends to show economic ignorance driven by partisanship on the part of liberals, but it shows much of the same economic ignorance through the bias of those executing the survey.

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
Really depends on the exact situation. There are cases of inelastic supply and imperfect competition that frequently exist in real world markets.

2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
Immediate costs or long term costs? Again completely ignores a large number of situations where regulation could have no effect on price.

4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.
Exact same problems as #1.

5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
To some degree true. Monopoly is simply a special case of market power. The concept of market power exists even if there's some other players in the market.

6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
Not even an economics question. "Exploited" is a very subjective word.

7. Free trade leads to unemployment.
It does in certain industries, naturally this adjusts as employment is opened in other areas, people tend to be focused on the initial unemployment that it creates in certain industries, and they're not wrong to say that it does create some unemployment.

8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
Same problems as #1.

Had this study not had such debatable and and partisan questions their results probably wouldn't have been as partisan.

Furthermore to claim economics is a hard science is just plain wrong on your part Loneshark.

Quote :

"Wealth is not manna from heaven and it does not flow from the ground, it takes human enginuity and effort."

You seem to think that wealth is just labor and has nothing to do with capital, which is "manna from heaven" and "flows from the ground".

5/8/2010 11:35:52 AM

Quote :

"Had this study not had such debatable and and partisan questions their results probably wouldn't have been as partisan."

lol.. Kind of like that biased study that found that the fox news audience didn't know much

5/8/2010 11:59:52 AM

Quote :

"Is it lack of knowledge or willful denial on the part of self described progressives?"

a little bit of both.

its like those on the far right saying public works don't add value without actually doing the long term NPV analysis on it.


its also that most people live in an echo chamber. both ends of the spectrum are materially wrong.

5/8/2010 12:23:33 PM

I find this rejection of the dismal science fairly encouraging. Demonstrating their subjectivity and moral bankruptcy, the authors of the study even presumed to designate acceptance of exploitation of overseas workers as unenlightened. Has the field adopted a technical definition of exploitation and agreed on its application? Not that I know of. As you would expect, the authors provide no justification for this claim.

While I know what answers they were looking for and could have gotten a perfect score had I been asked, I probably would have opted otherwise. Understanding the mainstream position in economics does not imply its endorsement.

5/8/2010 1:44:51 PM