Time Machine Bask
I am sorry to post this here, but the stuff via Google search seems unhelpful.
I have a MacBook Air. When I first plugged in an external Seagate USB 3.0 drive back in May, Time Machine knew to automatically back up the whole thing. Great.
Now, whenever I try to plug the Seagate back in and let Time Machine do its magic, it won’t work. Specifically, Time Machine stays stuck in the Off position. I slide the lever to the right, to turn Time Machine on. It then has a window open, asking me to select the Backup Drive. So I pick the Seagate, the window closes, and the Time Machine window slides the slider back to Off (and nothing happens).
Any thoughts?
Puzzles on Labor Demand Elasticity?
We typically think the demand curve for labor is downward sloping, right? Empirically, the modal estimate of the elasticity of labor demand is something like -0.4. (So a 10% increase in wages means a 4% drop in the number of workers employers want to hire.)
So in light of the fact that we know the demand curve for labor slopes downward, are you guys puzzled by the following considerations?
CONSIDERATION #1: The number of employed workers is much higher today than in 1800. And yet, real wages haven’t plummeted.
CONSIDERATION #2: If the U.S. were to make Puerto Rico the 51st state, the official US population would rise, and the number of employed US workers would rise. And yet, I’m guessing wages wouldn’t noticeably fall.
Does anyone think either of the above is hard to reconcile with downward sloping labor demand curves? I wouldn’t. And then, by the same token, I don’t see why Bryan Caplan thinks this is weird:
While labor demand elasticity is pretty clearly negative, virtually all estimates have an absolute value less than 2. Yet estimated effects of immigration on native wages are tiny…
How are both these results possible? The easy answer is that “wage elasticity of labor demand” and “wage elasticity of immigration” are conceptually distinct. Quite true, but they’re also conceptually related. Indeed, unless labor supply is fairly elastic, a low wage elasticity of labor demand seems to imply a high wage elasticity of immigration.
Bryan then goes on to list some possible reconciliations, but I don’t see him listing what is (to me) the most obvious direct explanation: that when you bring in more people, you are simultaneously boosting consumer demand. (At least two people in the comments at Bryan’s post said the same thing.)
If we are holding “other things” (including total population) constant, and we want to induce employers in a certain firm or sector to hire more workers, then you would need the price of the workers (i.e. wages) to go down. But that is totally distinct (right?) from increasing the population–whether through births or immigration–and then asking what needs to happen to wages, in order for employers to expand hiring.
Looked at differently, suppose a bunch of new people came into an economy with disposable income (perhaps they were landlords for tenants in another country), and none of the immigrants wanted jobs. But, they started renting apartments, buying food, going to the movies, etc. What would happen to the wages of domestic workers? Wouldn’t they go up, at least in many sectors?
So now if instead we say that the immigrants are earning an income from working domestically (in their new country), but are renting apartments, buying food, going to the movies, etc., then wouldn’t their spending still (by itself) cause domestic wages to increase, and this effect would be counterbalanced by their offering of new labor supply?
To be sure, I’m not saying the two things would automatically cancel out (though with a simple enough model, they would), I’m just saying that this would be the default starting point, I would think. It would only be where you started introducing heterogeneity in the original domestic population (land owners, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc.) that I think you would start to get pronounced impacts on certain groups from a large influx of immigrants.
Provocative Potpourri
==> Tom Woods has an ensemble on to explain why Murray Rothbard was important. And if you protest, “Why are you guys so sectarian?!” all I can say is, “They started it!!”
==> Oh, now that I’ve posted my sample Liberty Classroom lecture, I don’t mind posting this Contra Krugman episode where we mention the course. (We also discuss some NYT columnist.)
==> You hear people say stuff like, “Don’t feed the trolls.” But that’s because they are not familiar with the work of a master.
==> I don’t think this is trolling per se, but c’mon… This is why you keep coming back for more, even if you’re a statist atheist.
Sample “Liberty Classroom” Lecture on Bohm-Bawerk
As 3 of you know, my doctoral dissertation focused on the work of Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. I was thrilled to be able to devote three of my lectures in my course for Tom Woods’ “Liberty Classroom” to Bohm-Bawerk’s work. Partly because I think even Mises and Rothbard misunderstood what Bohm-Bawerk was saying, I decided this would be a good lecture to use as my sample.
So, once you enjoy the below and think, “TAKE MY MONEY!” you should click this link.
Remember, you need to click this link to make all your History of Economic Thought dreams become a reality. Plus you’ll learn about U.S. history and stuff.
David Friedman Bask
(Remember, we don’t beg on this blog, we ask.)
In a recent EconLog post, Bryan Caplan quotes from Friedman’s book *Hidden Order*:
Economists are often accused of believing that everything –
health, happiness, life itself – can be measured in money.
What we actually believe is even odder. We believe that
everything can be measured in anything.
–David Friedman, Hidden Order
Can somebody please provide me with more of the context surrounding this quote? I have the book, somewhere, but I just moved and it would be equivalent to one-eighth of a murder for me to find it right now. (Read Caplan’s post if that seems like an odd statement.)
Michigan Reform
With co-authors, I have a new study from the Fraser Institute documenting the surprisingly sharp economic turnaround in Michigan. (We contrast it with Ontario.)
European Banks and Nashville Seminars
Carlos and I discuss European banks in the latest Lara-Murphy Show. We are going to be presenting on IBC for the general public with Nelson Nash–it’s his farewell seminar for Nashville–on Saturday August 13, 2016. Details here.
Potpourri
==> I really don’t have time to jump into this, but FWIW, the WSJ ran a story criticizing Piketty. (You will not be surprised to hear that Daniel Kuehn on Facebook thought this was a ridiculous critique because of course Piketty never said what all of Piketty’s fans thought he said…)
==> I haven’t read this FEE article yet, but people sharing it on social media were saying it proved you should vote 3rd party rather than wasting your vote on the Rs or Ds. I doubt I would be convinced of *that* conclusion but I’m guessing the author is more nuanced.
==> A *Reason* article on the Left’s war on free speech. Naturally, the author can’t resist bringing up Donald Trump (twice).
==> Stock prices and the Fed, my update at Lara-Murphy.com.
Recent Comments