• explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve always used it as an example of when oversimplified chalkboard economics don’t match experimental reality.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What follows is incorrect

        It’s a price floor, which creates a deadweight loss.

        Since we’re also consumers, it’s a net loss.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Tbf, economics has to presume inequality to be non existent. If they dont, inequality is the overriding factor that makes all the other forces at play pale in comparison. So, they remove inequality.

          Again, tbf, in a world with no inequality, where only the very best and brightest rise to the top and not just a endless stream of nepo babies, with whole institutions in place to ensure a lack of social mobility, a national minimum wage would be a bad idea. Just like tax breaks for the rich would fix any problem you had, in that fake - made up world that could never exist.

          But, as you allude to, in the real world, things are very different.