• 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.