Naturally we were skeptical of Krugman’s claims, particularly his glowing references to Denmark. But I had no idea just how duplicitous Krugman’s argument was. But Glen Raphael, a commenter on David R. Henderson’s post at EconLog, caught the following:
Later in the article, Krugman writes:
“How does Denmark do it? Partly with higher taxes and bigger social programs, but it starts with lower inequality in market incomes, thanks in large part to high minimum wages and a labor movement representing two-thirds of workers.
“If you follow the link to “high minimum wages”, the first sentence of non-title content is “There is no legally stipulated minimum wage in Denmark.”
Now if you go and look at the link, and then circle back and see that Krugman put a plural on “minimum wageS,” you understand what he must have meant. Namely, there are collective bargaining agreements that ensure “minimum wages” for various types of workers. (Though even on his own terms, it seems Krugman would have to admit that 1/3 of the workers in Denmark are not explicitly covered in this way?)
But boy oh boy, would anybody have thought that from Krugman’s own wording? It sure sounds like he thinks U.S. politicians should raise the minimum wage to be more like Denmark, don’t you think? (As opposed to: Abolish the federal minimum wage.)