In the Atlantic Journal article “The curse of ECON 101”, James Kwak, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law described that how does people use ECON 101 in inappropriate way.
In the fast changing world, economy is the center of not only business but also political debates. For example, California, New York City, and Seattle are all raising their minimum wage to $15, and former President Barack Obama established for a federal minimum of $10.10. Most of the statements from economists saying that reduction in wage costs of labor it increases employment. As it taught in ECON 101. Furthermore, supply-and-demand diagram can’t show the whole picture for minimum wage, because it has limited predictive value comparing with the real world. For instance, the highest federal minimum was from 1967 to 1969, when at the same time unemployment rate was below 4 percent- a historically low level. Today, many economists split up for two sides. On the one side, some of the economists indicated that higher minimum wage does increase unemployment. On the other side, increasing the minimum wage does not have any effects on employment. …show more content…
It’s created only to give the basics of economics for people and all these misleading is only because of lack of knowledge which prevents to think analytically. Moreover, James Kwak only took into consider only one chapter from the whole ECON class and inflated this problem into something big. I think, if snatch out of context something this also would conflict with the real world. James Kwak give’s a lot of examples and all of them skips from one to another without full explanation and it’s hard to follow main idea. Thus, this article was created by several reasons, but one of these reasons is that James Kwak doesn’t take into consider that this class physically can’t give full information, because it’s an introduction
In the fast changing world, economy is the center of not only business but also political debates. For example, California, New York City, and Seattle are all raising their minimum wage to $15, and former President Barack Obama established for a federal minimum of $10.10. Most of the statements from economists saying that reduction in wage costs of labor it increases employment. As it taught in ECON 101. Furthermore, supply-and-demand diagram can’t show the whole picture for minimum wage, because it has limited predictive value comparing with the real world. For instance, the highest federal minimum was from 1967 to 1969, when at the same time unemployment rate was below 4 percent- a historically low level. Today, many economists split up for two sides. On the one side, some of the economists indicated that higher minimum wage does increase unemployment. On the other side, increasing the minimum wage does not have any effects on employment. …show more content…
It’s created only to give the basics of economics for people and all these misleading is only because of lack of knowledge which prevents to think analytically. Moreover, James Kwak only took into consider only one chapter from the whole ECON class and inflated this problem into something big. I think, if snatch out of context something this also would conflict with the real world. James Kwak give’s a lot of examples and all of them skips from one to another without full explanation and it’s hard to follow main idea. Thus, this article was created by several reasons, but one of these reasons is that James Kwak doesn’t take into consider that this class physically can’t give full information, because it’s an introduction