Economics, ethics and a "Living Wage"

Sarah Hoyt breaks it down for us.  (And I'm not posting this just because she uses a penguin timer.)

The problem here, the problem with this article, the problem with the whole controversy over a living wage is that it mixes ethics and science.  The two never mix.  You can’t question the morality of the formula H2O.  You can’t ask if it would be a more balanced world if it were H2O2.  You can’t really say “Should humans have tails?”  (Well, you could, but then you’d be my older child.)  Or “Is it fair that humans have opposable thumbs when most species don’t?” – it is what it is.

Economics is what it is.  We can discuss the ethics of it, of course.  Older son, in his bio major, studied ethics.  But he studied them as a separate discipline, NOT AS BIOLOGY.

Meanwhile, younger son, whose engineering major requires a hefty dose of Business classes had to take an economics course where the professor seemed to think he was teaching Sunday school.  It was all about what is more moral, and what is better for the community.  Oh, please!  Do have Ethics of Business Practices (not getting in bed with government to create a virtual monopoly would be something to teach the kids – because it’s bad for the economy and the community.  Curiously, this was not something ever discussed in this very confused class.  Go figure.)  BUT don’t call them “basic economics.”  Basic economics are matters of investment and profit, of marketing and selling.

RTWT, especially you people who think we should raise the minimum wage to something like $100/hr.  Your own throat.  You're cutting it.

(HT BRM)