Social Europe: The minimum wage in Germany five years on

In the decade following the end of the financial crisis, employment in Germany has been rising every year. Wage growth picked up in its aftermath, even for employees not covered by collective agreements. The largest wage increases, triggered by a minimum wage of €8.50 introduced in 2015, were experienced by employees with low qualifications and employees in eastern Germany. A possible related decline in employment was hardly noticeable. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that approval ratings for the statutory minimum wage are high and that a debate on raising the minimum to €12 per hour is gaining momentum. [...]

One effect of minimum wages which has so far received little attention in the empirical literature is their impact on the demand for goods in the economy. Recently, we have considered these demand effects for the case of Germany. Demand increases can occur, for example, if low earners spend the majority of additional income derived from a minimum wage-related uplift on consumption. This increases the sales of goods by companies affected, directly and indirectly. [...]

The data however point in a different direction. In the first three years after the introduction of the minimum wage, gross value added in low-wage industries rose much faster than in the economy as a whole. Beforehand, gross value added increases were roughly in line with overall economic growth. Apparently, companies in industries strongly influenced by the minimum wage have succeeded in generating higher revenues. Next to higher incomes, higher price increases in low-wage industries likely played a role, as pointed out by Bruttel, Baumann and Dütsch.

read the article

New Statesman: What I learned at the Ayn Rand conference

And yet, without reflection on the content of those values, the notion of pursuing values is an empty exhortation. What values, exactly? Rand’s philosophy suggests that values are attained through reason. But reason alone cannot give us values; it cannot give us morals. Morality, that dark ocean into which reason cannot wade, is the realm of feeling, and only afterward do we develop plausible rationalisations for our beliefs. No matter how rational we believe ourselves to be, there is always some base axiom that cannot be justified through reason alone, some flicker of irrationality that trails like a shadow.

I wanted to ask about this, but I wasn’t sure how to frame the question. It seemed to me that there was a vast chasm between the core tenets of Objectivist thought – which all sounded appealing in the abstract – and the conclusions opined onstage. Why was “selfishness” only a virtue for a narrow definition of “self” aligned with traditional family structures? Why was it good to care for your spouse or children, but wrong to care for your aging parents? Why, in sum, was Rand’s apparently “revolutionary” rethinking of morality seemingly so conservative when it came to the question of what morality could entail? [...]

What if we turned that impulse towards different ends? What if we began with a more collective notion of “the self”, beyond just our immediate families, to include our communities and the systems that sustained the things we value? Seen from that perspective, seemingly “altruistic” activities such as voting for higher taxes, volunteering for causes, or refusing to cross a picket line no longer look like sacrifices. They look, instead, like investments – investments in the kind of world you want to live in. And as much as Ayn Rand has to say on the topics of reason or selfishness, she can’t tell you what that world should look like. That part is all up to you.

read the article

Politico: A Conservative Judge Draws a Line in the Sand With the Trump Administration

In a jaw-dropping opinion issued by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on January 23, Judge Frank Easterbrook—a longtime speaker for the conservative Federalist Society and someone whom the late Justice Antonin Scalia favored to replace him on the U.S. Supreme Court—rebuked Attorney General William Barr for declaring in a letter that the court’s decision in an immigration case was “incorrect” and thus dispensable. Barr’s letter was used as justification by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the federal agency that applies immigration laws) to ignore the court’s ruling not to deport a man who had applied for a visa to remain in the country. [...]

“We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again,” Easterbrook wrote. “Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.” [...]

If Trump continues on the path of upending the authority of federal courts (as can be expected), Easterbrook’s contempt threat will necessarily become a reality. Federal judges will have to use their contempt powers to protect the constitutional prerogative of the judicial branch of government. But contempt against the government can be tricky. A judge can impose a monetary fine, but fines raise legal questions of sovereign immunity. A judge can alternatively put someone in prison. But imprisonment raises the question of who would go behind bars for defying a court order on behalf of the president. In normal times, an order declaring that the president’s staff is guilty of contempt could as a third option trigger enough shame to prompt compliance. But with Trump in the White House, we are not in normal times.

read the article

TLDR News: Sanders' New Hampshire Win Explained (& an Iowa Update)

Last night Burnie Sanders won in the New Hampshire Primary, marking his second win in the Democratic Primaries of 2020. In this video, we discuss the winners and losers in New Hampshire as well as the impact this will have on the rest of the contest.