http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?KEYWORDS=DANIEL+B+KLEIN

Quote :

"Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101. Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian. Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened. "

not a trolling attempt...what would be the explanation for a trend such as this?

6/8/2010 10:25:46 AM

Most wealthy and older people are conservatives.

Most poorer and younger people are liberals.

Thus, those with more "business" experience and general wisdom of many years on this earth would score better.

Also, those who are poorer would probably say that the standard of living hasn't gone up, whereas those who are wealthier would disagree.



----

I'd also like an explanation for this question:

Quote :

"5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)"

because that seems like one of the questions where they previously explained "there may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical."

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

6/8/2010 10:30:54 AM

Quote :

"5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)."

lmao

6/8/2010 10:38:06 AM

None of these are things a normal 5th grader would understand.

BTW, here are the questions:

Quote :

"1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. • Unenlightened: Disagree 2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services. • Unenlightened: Disagree 3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago. • Unenlightened: Disagree 4. Rent control leads to housing shortages. • Unenlightened: Disagree 5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly. • Unenlightened: Agree 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"

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 10:38:14 AM

Granted, the questions are relatively simple and answering them incorrectly does demonstrate a lack of economic fluency. I do not think these are "neutral" questions though, in that almost all follow the same format: "X liberal policy causes X problem, true or false".

I'm sure if the questions were skewed in the opposite direction, like "Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the quality of those services", you'd have plenty of conservatives answering "disagree".

6/8/2010 10:49:57 AM

I'm not sure but hasn't this thread been made?

Is this the same research?

message_topic.aspx?topic=594424&page=1#13979918

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : found it finally]

6/8/2010 10:54:23 AM

I will agree not to mention this study if the liberals in soapbox agree not to mention that similarly stupid study showing FAUX news audience was ill informed.

6/8/2010 11:01:53 AM

Howabout we agree that most people are idiots

6/8/2010 11:07:33 AM

I am not sure whether these questions measure one's understanding of economics or one's assumptions that basic economic models correctly describe the real world.

Technically, someone quite familiar with economics could give some "very unenlightened" answers to these questions if they make different assumptions than those Klein is apparently making. For example, it could be that in the short run (when prices are sticky) freer trade might lead to unemployment (if net exports fall as a result and aggregate demand declines). Similarly, it is possible that minimum wage laws might not raise unemployment if employers have a strong degree of market power.

Indeed, I would say Paul Krugman would give "unenlightened" answers to both of these questions. And I don't think you can argue that he wouldn't pass Econ101. The difference is that he would be making fundamentally different assumptions about either the real world or what the question was asking.

This question is probably the silliest, though. "Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited". I don't know exactly what Dan Klein is getting at here, but before I answered it I would just like to ask him if he honestly thinks workers in China, for example, face a competitive and free labor market when they decide where to work and what conditions to work under.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ``]

6/8/2010 11:09:42 AM

Increasing minimum wage may temporarily increase unemployment, but that obfuscates the fact that it increases the quality of life of a country.

Fuck this Milton Friedman bullshit.

6/8/2010 11:11:45 AM

^ that, however, is definitely an unenlightened response.

6/8/2010 11:14:06 AM

Fuck poor people let's pay them slave wages.

Trickle down economics for the win.

6/8/2010 11:28:16 AM

RAWR THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS: RAISE MINIMUM WAGES OR TREAT EVERYONE AS SLAVES!! RAWR RAWR!!

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ``]

6/8/2010 11:32:09 AM

Either you raise the minimum wage to an acceptable standard where the poorest aren't kept under your boot for their entire life, or you don't.

A or B.

6/8/2010 11:44:15 AM

Why is God so intent on proving the point of this study by example when I wrote such a good post explaining why I think the authors may not be measuring what they think they are measuring.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ``]

6/8/2010 11:50:45 AM

From the study

Quote :

"Caveat 1 of 4: Some will take exception to our take on the eight questions, particularly the one about minimum wage laws. We understand that the blackboard model is highly misleading—it eclipses non-wage job attributes, black markets, search intensity, future pay schedules, and so on. These surely mitigate the dis- employment effect, but they do not eliminate it. Some will even say that, because of monoposony or coordination problems, minimum wages increase employment, but we judge such arguments to be of dubious plausibility and significance. We think that the basic logic asked by the question is revealed by carrying it to a minimum wage of, say, $20. Unemployment would go up a lot. True, the moderate increases observed and usually discussed produce only small effects in overall unemployment, but they are increases. It still seems to be the case that most economists agree that “minimum wages increase unemployment among young and unskilled workers.”4 Moreover, our remarks arguably find indirect support by responses given by economists who signed a “raise the minimum wage” petition.5 But most importantly, take out the question and our results still hold up. Our basic results do not depend on including the minimum wage question. 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.” It would have been good, for example, if a question had asked about negative consequences of drug prohibition, or the positive consequences of increased immigration from Mexico. We doubt, however, that any partisan aspect of the questions much upsets our interpretations—for reasons to be discussed once the findings are laid out."

6/8/2010 12:02:01 PM

The fact is, this was a hatchet job, just like the Fox News study and the set of questions predetermined the outcome. A different set of questions would have completely reversed the outcome for both studies.

It's good to see liberals get the same treatment as conservatives, though.

6/8/2010 12:05:03 PM

Quote :

"Either you raise the minimum wage to an acceptable standard where the poorest aren't kept under your boot for their entire life, or you don't."

Let's raise the minimum wage to 1000 USD/hour. Surely that would raise the standard of living, because everyone would be rich, right?

You think you're being compassionate, but what you're actually doing is making it illegal for an unskilled laborer to work. By supporting minimum wage laws, you're the one keeping the poor under your boot. Maybe you can tell the thousands of unemployed people in American Samoa how much they're benefitting from the minimum wage being at 7.25/hour, though.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

6/8/2010 12:06:08 PM

-Homeless shelters are bad for the economy overall.

Only an UNINFORMED IDIOT would disagree.

BASIC LOGIC STATES if we build homeless shelters out of solid gold and give them diamond encrusted soup spoons, this puts a drain on the economy.

Ergo, homeless shelters are bad for the economy is the only conclusion we can draw.

6/8/2010 12:07:16 PM

Excellent straw man, sir.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

6/8/2010 12:12:29 PM

God. Stop.

6/8/2010 1:33:05 PM

Terd,

Its good to see they make those caveats for the min wage question, but as I mentioned I think most questions are just as fuzzy (the free trade one for example). Here are the only questions I think might unambiguously test one's grasp of conventional economic theory and facts.

Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago. (assuming we mean U.S.)

A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.

Rent control leads to housing shortages.

And even then the rent control question is sort of a gimmie because it is vaguely worded, but i think most people would know what the question is getting at.

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ``]

6/8/2010 1:55:25 PM

Quote :

"I am not sure whether these questions measure one's understanding of economics or one's assumptions that basic economic models correctly describe the real world. Technically, someone quite familiar with economics could give some "very unenlightened" answers to these questions if they make different assumptions than those Klein is apparently making. For example, it could be that in the short run (when prices are sticky) freer trade might lead to unemployment (if net exports fall as a result and aggregate demand declines). Similarly, it is possible that minimum wage laws might not raise unemployment if employers have a strong degree of market power. Indeed, I would say Paul Krugman would give "unenlightened" answers to both of these questions. And I don't think you can argue that he wouldn't pass Econ101. The difference is that he would be making fundamentally different assumptions about either the real world or what the question was asking. This question is probably the silliest, though. "Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited". I don't know exactly what Dan Klein is getting at here, but before I answered it I would just like to ask him if he honestly thinks workers in China, for example, face a competitive and free labor market when they decide where to work and what conditions to work under"

well put.

6/8/2010 1:58:25 PM

Quote :

"Let's raise the minimum wage to 1000 USD/hour. Surely that would raise the standard of living, because everyone would be rich, right?"

Funny that you have the same misconception that they do, actually if you changed that ceteris paribus, inflation would likely just increase.

6/8/2010 6:35:27 PM