That Guardian opinion columns will have only a marginal relationship to economics, maths or even reality is well known. But it is possible to find signs of the looming apocalypse even there, knowing that point.
Are you paid what you are worth? What is the relationship between the actual work you do and the remuneration you receive?
The revelation that London dog walkers are paid considerably higher (£32,356) than the national wage average (£22,044) tells us much about how employment functions today. Not only are dog walkers paid more, but they work only half the hours of the average employee.
It is clear that the relationship between jobs and pay is now governed by a new principle. The old days in which your pay was linked to the number of hours you clocked up, the skill required and the societal worth of the job are long over.
There’s never been a time when pay was determined by societal worth. Cleaning toilets is highly valuable societally: as the absence of piles of bodies killed off by effluent carried diseases shows. It’s also always been a badly paid job. Because wages are not and never have been determined by societal worth. Rather, by the number of people willing and able to do a job at what price versus the demand for people to do said job at that price. You know, this oddity we call a market.
That a Guardian opinion column might opine that jobs should pay their social worth is one thing, to claim that the world used to work that way is an error of a different and larger kind.
We are surrounded by examples of this increasing disparity between jobs and pay. For example, average wages in western countries have stagnated since the 1980s,
And there’s the maths error. For that’s not true either. Yes, as we know, wages have been falling in recent years but according to both Danny Blanchflower and the ONS real wages are still, after that fall, 30% or so higher than in the 80s (median wages). 30% over three decades isn’t great but it’s also not to be sniffed at: and it’s also not stagnation.
But we expect such errors from the innumerates who fight for social justice or whatever they’re calling it this week. At which point we come to the signs of the apocalypse:
Peter Fleming is Professor of Business and Society at City University, London.
Actually, he’s in the Business School:
Professor of Business and Society
That long march through the institutions has left us with professors at business schools believing, and presumably teaching, things that are simply manifestly untrue.
Woes, society to the dogs, apres moi la deluge etc.
It’s not a happy thought that this sort of stuff is being taught these days, rather than just scribbled in The Guardian, is it?
It’s pretty hard to lose weight. A lot of evidence suggests that waist circumference is heritable, with as much as half the differences between individuals down to genes.
But this genetic explanation probably doesn’t explain social trends towards obesity; surely there haven’t been enough generations of heavier people having more kids than less heavy people (do they even have more kids?)
The issue gets weirder when we discover that animals living in human environments are also getting fatter, even lab rodents eating controlled diets!
Whatever the explanation for the macro issue, it’s refreshing to note that on the micro level, people are still responding to incentives. After a big 2002 anti-McDonald’s judgement 26 US states passed rules making it much harder to sue fast food companies for causing your weight gain. After this, people seemed to take more responsibility for their own weight and health.
This finding comes from a new paper, “Do ‘Cheeseburger Bills’ Work? Effects of Tort Reform for Fast Food” (latest gated, earlier pdf) by Christopher S. Carpenter, and D. Sebastian Tello-Trillo. Here is the abstract:
After highly publicized lawsuits against McDonald’s in 2002, 26 states adopted Commonsense Consumption Acts (CCAs) – aka ‘Cheeseburger Bills’ – that greatly limit fast food companies’ liability for weight-related harms.
We provide the first evidence of the effects of CCAs using plausibly exogenous variation in the timing of CCA adoption across states. In two-way fixed effects models, we find that CCAs significantly increased stated attempts to lose weight and consumption of fruits and vegetables among heavy individuals.
We also find that CCAs significantly increased employment in fast food. Finally, we find that CCAs significantly increased the number of company-owned McDonald’s restaurants and decreased the number of franchise-owned McDonald’s restaurants in a state.
Overall our results provide novel evidence supporting a key prediction of tort reform – that it should induce individuals to take more care – and show that industry-specific tort reforms can have meaningful effects on market outcomes.
I’m not saying individual responsibility always works but maybe some of the blame for obesity is down to individual choice.
The economics of this is of course correct For Paul Krugman is indeed an extremely fine economist:
We may live in a market sea, but most of us live on pretty big command-and-control islands, some of them very big indeed. Some of us may spend our workdays like yeoman farmers or self-employed artisans, but most of us are living in the world of Dilbert.
And there are reasons for this situation: in many areas bureaucracy works better than laissez-faire. That’s not a political judgment, it’s the implicit conclusion of the profit-maximizing private sector. And people who try to carry their Ayn Rand fantasies into the real world soon get a rude awakening.
The political implications of this are less so, given that Paul Krugman the columnist is somewhat partisan.
And of course that implication is that since that private sector (as Coase pointed out a long time ago) uses bureaucracy at times then we should all shut up and simply accept whatever it is that the government bureaucracy decides to shove our way.
Which is to slightly miss the point: yup there’s command and control islands in that sea. Bit it’s that sea that srots through those islands, sinking some and raising others up into mountains. Which is something that doesn’t happen with the monopoly of government bureaucracy: they don’t allow themselves to get wet in that salty ocean of competition.
That planning and bureaucracy can be the most efficient manner of doing something? Sure. That sometimes it’s not? Sure, that’s implicit, explicit even in the entire theory. How do we decide? Allow that competition. It’s the monopoly of the government bureaucracy that’s the problem, not that we somtimes require pencil pushers to push pencils.
In a Think Piece for the Adam Smith Institute, Vuk Vukovic pays tribute to the endlessly influential theorist John Nash:
It is with great sorrow we hear that one of the greatest minds in human history died this weekend in a car crash with his wife while they were returning home from an airport. John Forbes Nash Jr., was widely known as one of the founders of cooperative game theory whose life story was captured by the 2001 film “A Beautiful Mind”, is truly one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. His contributions in the field of game theory revolutionized the way we think about economics today, in addition to a whole number of fields – from evolutionary biology to mathematics, computer science to political science.
You can read the whole piece here