[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In response to the Card/Krueger study that came out of Princeton:
>
> I was under the impression that the work that Card and Krueger completed after
>narrowly studying employment patterns in fast-food restaurants in California, Texas,
>New Jersey had been largely dismissed, if not discredited. For a while their study
>had been mentioned by the Clinton Administration in policy forums, particularly by
>Robert Reich, who had a long professional relationship with both researchers. After
>the dust cleared from the debate, I don't think Card/Krueger is mentioned seriously
>anymore - even by its one-time paraphrasers.
Think again. C/K followed up with a whole book on empirical research on
the minimum wage, and they have made a major impact. And while their
study was not perfect, I'd put it at the 90th percentile of quality for
empirical work. There has been a lively followup debate, but I don't
think anyone "won" (if by "won" one means that a new consensus emerged
that the minimum wage clearly had negative employment effects).
I think still they're wrong, but it's because of strong priors, not
weaknesses in their study. And I also think that empirical evidence on
price controls more generally should be counted here, rather than
treating the minimum wage as a hermetically-sealed single topic.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan
"We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different
reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike
the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied
with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body
does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our
conduct (mental illness)."
--Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
