[danans]

> And many modern economists endorse a minimum wage, as eugenicists did then, but with even less regard for the harm it causes.

You are comparing the moral stance of supporting eugenics with the moral stance of supporting a minimum wage? Are those just the first two random moral stances taken by economists that you recall, or are you trying to color the perception the latter with the true horror of the former?

[roenxi]

Eugenics had wide scientific support; it wasn't a horror when they proposed it.

A seriously high minimum wage ($100,000/year for example; no other policy changes) would probably lead to a period of horror and mass unemployment. Possibly famine, I don't know what would happen if it no longer made economic sense to employ people to transport food around. Maybe they are already high earners, what do I know.

A minimum wage is saying "this work isn't worth doing if you can't justify paying someone $minimum". That isn't a morally positive or morally negative position without more information. And it is certainly not more morally sound than "we should be proactive in making sure that children are born with the best chance at life" which is the positive spin on eugenics.

Economists should not be making moral arguments. They get them wrong too readily.

[imtringued]

Other people think the concept of price controls is tied to morals when it comes to minimum wages.

When you consider our democratic system it becomes pretty obvious. You need slightly more than 50% of the votes. So the minimum wage is picked so that at least 50% of the population earns more than it. Therefore by definition a minimum wage chosen by politicians is going to set it to a really low value that will then be associated with poorer people. Therefore the minimum wage gains a reputation of helping poorer people.

But at the end of the day it's just a price control. Minimum wage has nothing to do with morals. It's just a rule that says who can or can't have a job. It doesn't actually give people a minimum wage job. You can set it high or low. If it is too low then it does nothing. If it is too high then it prevents people from getting a job. The minimum wage must always follow the market, because the market won't follow the minimum wage.

[simonh]

I used to believe this, back in the 80s I was a true Thatcherite believer. I still largely am, but some of the things I believed back then have turned out to be false, and the dire economic impact of minimum ages seems to have turned out to be one of them. This is why Conservative governments in the UK have been carefully ratcheting up the minimum wage here over the last decade or so.

A feared employment apocalypse at the low end has stubbornly refused to appear, at minimum wage levels that would have been considered reckless not long ago, and it's proved a useful policy coup neutralising a key Labour campaigning point.

[danans]

> Eugenics had wide scientific support; it wasn't a horror when they proposed it.

But it is a horror now that we've seen a few genocides, which is why it shouldn't be compared to something of a completely different kind, like the minimum wage.

Instead, compare it to wars - which are far closer in terms of the harms they cause - and have also received moral support from economists.

> A seriously high minimum wage ($100,000/year for example; no other policy changes) would probably lead to a period of horror and mass unemployment.

This is reductio ad absurdum, since the min wage wouldn't go that high without major structural and contextual changes in the society and economy.

In the case of eugenics, we don't need to conjure such wild hypotheses about what would happen, because we've repeatedly seen what happens when that idea is carried to it's extreme by governments.

[adjkant]

> Speaking as an economist

> As a profession, we have a miserable track record on morality.

You can't say they didn't warn you!