Eugene David<br>...The One-Minute Pundit

Posted 10:25 AM by Gene

Empirical research in economics is notoriously difficult because wages, prices, unemployment rates, product qualities, and all other data of the social sciences are, as Friedrich Hayek said, "complex phenomena." Having so very much constantly going on in the real world, having no laboratory in which reliably to isolate more than a handful of these phenomena at any one time, and unable to read directly the minds of the many persons whose perceptions and choices combine to generate social outcomes, empirical researchers can easily overlook or misread important variables.

This situation distinguishes the social sciences from the physical sciences in two notable ways. First, a higher proportion of empirical research in the social sciences is subject to legitimate -- oftentimes irresolvable -- dispute. Second, as a consequence, in the social sciences theoretical considerations inevitably play a larger role in navigating around these disputes and in forming judgments about desirable public policies.

And so it is with the minimum wage. Almost any empirical study of this government mandate can be challenged for ignoring this variable, for mis-identifying that variable, for focusing on an inappropriate time period, or for countless other possible errors.

Which doesn't prevent DOW 36,000 from ignoring this variable and focusing on that inappropriate time period and saying the minimum wage is BAD.

We're dubious about the minimum wage too. We don't doubt it might cut employment chances for the poor. We don't doubt either among the DOW 36,000 gang there's no minimum to the wages they'd pay.

Hey DOW! Why don't your fairy tales have their own URLs after you click on the home-page links?