boutons_deux
04-23-2014, 03:21 PM
It's time for the right wing to stop lying about the minimum wage, taxes, global warming and more
by SEAN MCELWEE
APRIL 23, 2014
The great 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes has been widely quoted as saying, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Sadly, in their quest to concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the wealthiest members of society, today's Republicans have held the opposite position – as the evidence has piled up against them, they continue spreading the same myths. Here are six simple facts about the economy that Republicans just can't seem to accept:
1. The Minimum Wage Doesn't Kill Jobs.
The Republican story on the minimum wage takes the inordinately complex interactions of the market and makes them absurdly simple. Raise the price of labor through a minimum wage, they claim, and employers will hire fewer workers. But that's not how it works. In the early Nineties, David Card and Alan Krueger found "no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state." Since then, international, national and state-level studies have replicated these findings – most recently in a study by three Berkeley economists (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf). Catherine Ruetschlin, a policy analyst at Demos, has argued (http://www.demos.org/publication/retails-hidden-potential-how-raising-wages-would-benefit-workers-industry-and-overall-ec) that a higher minimum wage would actually "boost the national economy" by giving workers more money to spend on goods and services. The most comprehensive meta-study (http://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2008_14.html) of the minimum wage examined 64 studies and found "little or no evidence" that a higher minimum wage reduces employment. There is however, evidence (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf) that a higher minimum wage lifts people out of poverty. Raise away!
2. The Stimulus Created Millions of Jobs.
In the aftermath of the 2007 recession, President Obama invested in a massive stimulus. The Republican belief that markets are always good and government is always bad led them to argue that diverting resources to the public sector this way would have disastrous results. They were wrong: The stimulus worked, with the most reliable studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html) finding that it created millions of jobs. The fact that government stimulus works – long denied by Republicans (at least, when Democrats are in office) – is a consensus among economists (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi), with only 4 percent arguing that unemployment would have been lower without the stimulus and only 12 percent arguing that the costs outweigh the benefits.
3. Taxing The Rich Doesn't Hurt Economic Growth.
Republicans believe that the wealthy are the vehicles of economic growth. Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, they tried cutting taxes on the rich in order to unleash latent economic potential. But even the relatively conservative Martin Feldstein has acknowledged that investment is driven by demand, not supply; if there are viable investments to be made, they will be made regardless of tax rates (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tax-rates-affect-investment-and-consumption-a-look-at-the-data-2011-1), and if there are no investments to be made, cutting taxes is merely pushing on a string. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two of the eminent economists of inequality, find no correlation (http://www.voxeu.org/article/taxing-1-why-top-tax-rate-could-be-over-80) between marginal tax rates and economic growth.
In fact, what hurts economic growth most isn't high taxes – it's inequality. Two (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf) recent IMF papers (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf)confirm what Keynesian economists like Joseph Stiglitz have long argued (http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Inequality-Divided-Endangers-ebook/dp/B007MKCQ30): Inequality reduces the incomes of the middle class, and therefore demand (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-19/the-capitalist-s-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage), which in turn stunts growth. To understand why, imagine running a car dealership. Would you prefer if 1 person in your time owned 99% of the wealth and the rest of the population had nothing, or if wealth was distributed more equally, so that more people could purchase your cars?
Every other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has far lower levels of inequality than the United States. Since there are no economic benefits of inequality, why hasn't the right conceded the argument? Because it's based on class interest, not empirical evidence.
4. Global Warming is Caused by Humans.
Even as global warming is linked to more and more extreme weather events (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/), more than 56 percent of Republicans in the current congress deny man-made global warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/). In fact, the infamous (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange) Lutz memo shows that Republicans have actually created a concerted campaign to undermine the science of global warming. In the leaked memo, Frank Lutz, a Republican consultant, argues that, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
In truth, the science of global warming is not up for debate. James Powell finds that (http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming) over a one year period, 2,258 articles on global warming were published by 9,136 authors. Of those, only one, from the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. That one article was likely motivated (http://www.jamespowell.org/Avakyan/Avakyan.html) by the Russian government's interest in exploiting arctic shale. Another, even more comprehensive study (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024), examining 11,944 studies over a 10-year period, finds that 97 percent of scientists accepted the scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring.
This is not an abstract academic debate. The effects of climate change will be devastating, and poor countries will be hurt the worst. (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor) We've already seen the results. Studies have linked global warming to Hurricane Sandy (http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf), droughts (http://www.wri.org/publication/fact-sheet-connection-between-climate-change-and-recent-extreme-weather-events) and other extreme weather events (http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx). More importantly, doing nothing will end up being far more expensive than acting now. One study suggests it could wipe out (http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM_RELEASE_FINAL_ENGLISH.pdf)3.2% of global GDP annually.
5. The Affordable Care Act is Working
President Obama's centrist healthcare bill was informed by federalism (delegating power to the states) and proven technocratic reforms (like a board to help doctors discern which treatments would be most cost-effective). Republicans, undeterred, decried it as Soviet-style communism based on "death panels" – never mind the fact that the old system, which rationed care based on income, is the one that left tens of thousands of uninsured people to die. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)
From the beginning, Republicans have predicted disastrous consequences or Obamacare, none of which came true (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/obama-declares-obamacare-victory.html). They predicted that the ACA would add to the deficit; in fact, it will reduce the deficit (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471). They claimed the exchanges would fail to attract the uninsured; they met their targets (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/17/3428219/obamacare-enrollment/). They said only old people would sign up; the young came out in the same rates as in Massachusetts (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117410/obamacare-enrollment-hits-8-million-age-mix-looks-massachusetts). They predicted the ACA would drive up healthcare costs; in fact it is likely (http://qz.com/183812/yes-obamacare-is-driving-us-health-care-costs-lower/) holding (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_implementing_the_affordable_care_act_fr om_the_erp_2013_final1.pdf) cost inflation down (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/behind-the-numbers/#readmore), although it's still hard to discern how much of the slowdown was due to the recession. In total, the ACA will ensure that 26 million people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/cbo-obamacare-report_n_5146896.html) have insurance in 2024 who would have been uninsured otherwise.
It's worth noting that every time the CBO estimates (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf) how much Obamacare will cost, the number gets lower. Odd how we've never heard Republicans say that.
6. Rich people are no better than the rest of us.
Politicians on the right like to pretend that having money is a sign of hard work and morality – and that not having money is a sign of laziness. This story is contradicted by human experience and many religious traditions (Jesus tells a graphic story about a rich man who refused to help the poor burning in hell). But it's also contradicted by the facts – more and more rich people are getting their money through inheritances, and science shows that they are no more benevolent than others.
More and more, the wealthy in America are second or third generation. For instance, the Walton family, heirs to the Walmart fortune, own more wealth (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/) than the poorest 40 million Americans. Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef have found (http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/pr_rev15.pdf) that 30 to 50 percent of the wage difference between the financial sector and the rest of the private sector was due to unearned "rent," or money they gained through manipulating markets. Josh Bivens and Larry Mishel found the same thing for CEOs – their increased pay hasn't been correlated to performance. (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.3.57)
If rich people haven't really earned their money, are they at least doing any good with it? Studies find that the wealthy actually give less (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/) to charity as a proportion of their income than middle-class Americans, even though they can afford more. Worse, they use their supposed philanthropy to avoid taxes and finance pet projects (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes.html). Research by Paul Piff finds that (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/19/0146167213501699) the wealthy are far more likely to exhibit narcissistic tendencies. "The rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people," Piff recently told New York (http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/) magazine. "It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/six-studies-that-show-everything-republicans-believe-is-wrong-20140423
by SEAN MCELWEE
APRIL 23, 2014
The great 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes has been widely quoted as saying, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Sadly, in their quest to concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the wealthiest members of society, today's Republicans have held the opposite position – as the evidence has piled up against them, they continue spreading the same myths. Here are six simple facts about the economy that Republicans just can't seem to accept:
1. The Minimum Wage Doesn't Kill Jobs.
The Republican story on the minimum wage takes the inordinately complex interactions of the market and makes them absurdly simple. Raise the price of labor through a minimum wage, they claim, and employers will hire fewer workers. But that's not how it works. In the early Nineties, David Card and Alan Krueger found "no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state." Since then, international, national and state-level studies have replicated these findings – most recently in a study by three Berkeley economists (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf). Catherine Ruetschlin, a policy analyst at Demos, has argued (http://www.demos.org/publication/retails-hidden-potential-how-raising-wages-would-benefit-workers-industry-and-overall-ec) that a higher minimum wage would actually "boost the national economy" by giving workers more money to spend on goods and services. The most comprehensive meta-study (http://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2008_14.html) of the minimum wage examined 64 studies and found "little or no evidence" that a higher minimum wage reduces employment. There is however, evidence (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf) that a higher minimum wage lifts people out of poverty. Raise away!
2. The Stimulus Created Millions of Jobs.
In the aftermath of the 2007 recession, President Obama invested in a massive stimulus. The Republican belief that markets are always good and government is always bad led them to argue that diverting resources to the public sector this way would have disastrous results. They were wrong: The stimulus worked, with the most reliable studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html) finding that it created millions of jobs. The fact that government stimulus works – long denied by Republicans (at least, when Democrats are in office) – is a consensus among economists (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi), with only 4 percent arguing that unemployment would have been lower without the stimulus and only 12 percent arguing that the costs outweigh the benefits.
3. Taxing The Rich Doesn't Hurt Economic Growth.
Republicans believe that the wealthy are the vehicles of economic growth. Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, they tried cutting taxes on the rich in order to unleash latent economic potential. But even the relatively conservative Martin Feldstein has acknowledged that investment is driven by demand, not supply; if there are viable investments to be made, they will be made regardless of tax rates (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tax-rates-affect-investment-and-consumption-a-look-at-the-data-2011-1), and if there are no investments to be made, cutting taxes is merely pushing on a string. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two of the eminent economists of inequality, find no correlation (http://www.voxeu.org/article/taxing-1-why-top-tax-rate-could-be-over-80) between marginal tax rates and economic growth.
In fact, what hurts economic growth most isn't high taxes – it's inequality. Two (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf) recent IMF papers (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf)confirm what Keynesian economists like Joseph Stiglitz have long argued (http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Inequality-Divided-Endangers-ebook/dp/B007MKCQ30): Inequality reduces the incomes of the middle class, and therefore demand (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-19/the-capitalist-s-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage), which in turn stunts growth. To understand why, imagine running a car dealership. Would you prefer if 1 person in your time owned 99% of the wealth and the rest of the population had nothing, or if wealth was distributed more equally, so that more people could purchase your cars?
Every other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has far lower levels of inequality than the United States. Since there are no economic benefits of inequality, why hasn't the right conceded the argument? Because it's based on class interest, not empirical evidence.
4. Global Warming is Caused by Humans.
Even as global warming is linked to more and more extreme weather events (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/), more than 56 percent of Republicans in the current congress deny man-made global warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/). In fact, the infamous (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange) Lutz memo shows that Republicans have actually created a concerted campaign to undermine the science of global warming. In the leaked memo, Frank Lutz, a Republican consultant, argues that, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
In truth, the science of global warming is not up for debate. James Powell finds that (http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming) over a one year period, 2,258 articles on global warming were published by 9,136 authors. Of those, only one, from the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. That one article was likely motivated (http://www.jamespowell.org/Avakyan/Avakyan.html) by the Russian government's interest in exploiting arctic shale. Another, even more comprehensive study (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024), examining 11,944 studies over a 10-year period, finds that 97 percent of scientists accepted the scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring.
This is not an abstract academic debate. The effects of climate change will be devastating, and poor countries will be hurt the worst. (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor) We've already seen the results. Studies have linked global warming to Hurricane Sandy (http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf), droughts (http://www.wri.org/publication/fact-sheet-connection-between-climate-change-and-recent-extreme-weather-events) and other extreme weather events (http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx). More importantly, doing nothing will end up being far more expensive than acting now. One study suggests it could wipe out (http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM_RELEASE_FINAL_ENGLISH.pdf)3.2% of global GDP annually.
5. The Affordable Care Act is Working
President Obama's centrist healthcare bill was informed by federalism (delegating power to the states) and proven technocratic reforms (like a board to help doctors discern which treatments would be most cost-effective). Republicans, undeterred, decried it as Soviet-style communism based on "death panels" – never mind the fact that the old system, which rationed care based on income, is the one that left tens of thousands of uninsured people to die. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)
From the beginning, Republicans have predicted disastrous consequences or Obamacare, none of which came true (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/obama-declares-obamacare-victory.html). They predicted that the ACA would add to the deficit; in fact, it will reduce the deficit (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471). They claimed the exchanges would fail to attract the uninsured; they met their targets (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/17/3428219/obamacare-enrollment/). They said only old people would sign up; the young came out in the same rates as in Massachusetts (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117410/obamacare-enrollment-hits-8-million-age-mix-looks-massachusetts). They predicted the ACA would drive up healthcare costs; in fact it is likely (http://qz.com/183812/yes-obamacare-is-driving-us-health-care-costs-lower/) holding (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/fact_sheet_implementing_the_affordable_care_act_fr om_the_erp_2013_final1.pdf) cost inflation down (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/behind-the-numbers/#readmore), although it's still hard to discern how much of the slowdown was due to the recession. In total, the ACA will ensure that 26 million people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/cbo-obamacare-report_n_5146896.html) have insurance in 2024 who would have been uninsured otherwise.
It's worth noting that every time the CBO estimates (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf) how much Obamacare will cost, the number gets lower. Odd how we've never heard Republicans say that.
6. Rich people are no better than the rest of us.
Politicians on the right like to pretend that having money is a sign of hard work and morality – and that not having money is a sign of laziness. This story is contradicted by human experience and many religious traditions (Jesus tells a graphic story about a rich man who refused to help the poor burning in hell). But it's also contradicted by the facts – more and more rich people are getting their money through inheritances, and science shows that they are no more benevolent than others.
More and more, the wealthy in America are second or third generation. For instance, the Walton family, heirs to the Walmart fortune, own more wealth (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/) than the poorest 40 million Americans. Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef have found (http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/pr_rev15.pdf) that 30 to 50 percent of the wage difference between the financial sector and the rest of the private sector was due to unearned "rent," or money they gained through manipulating markets. Josh Bivens and Larry Mishel found the same thing for CEOs – their increased pay hasn't been correlated to performance. (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.3.57)
If rich people haven't really earned their money, are they at least doing any good with it? Studies find that the wealthy actually give less (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/) to charity as a proportion of their income than middle-class Americans, even though they can afford more. Worse, they use their supposed philanthropy to avoid taxes and finance pet projects (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes.html). Research by Paul Piff finds that (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/19/0146167213501699) the wealthy are far more likely to exhibit narcissistic tendencies. "The rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people," Piff recently told New York (http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/) magazine. "It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/six-studies-that-show-everything-republicans-believe-is-wrong-20140423