A comment clarifying a few things about this video (sorry it’s a little late, I was busy with work!): Firstly, is a $15 median wage justified based on the evidence I cite? I didn’t want to spend time doing this type of arithmetic in the video but perhaps I will in the future to avoid confusion. The EPI data shows that the current median wage in the USA is $19/hour and, using the Dube quote, we can take 81% of this as unlikely to create unemployment problems, and that number is over $15. Factor in the gradual implementation of the policy over time (and the corresponding rise in the median wage itself), and I really doubt there are going to be noticeable effects on employment overall. It’s reasonable to worry about difficulties in low-wage states, but to be honest the evidence just doesn’t show that minimum wage increases anywhere (including other countries, see the Manning paper) have had terrible effects, so I’m not holding my breath for a catastrophe. On Neumark and the minimum wage, their research generally uses fixed effects, which control for things that are different between states but assume these things don’t change. The issue with this is that states may experience changes (eg economic booms) which are associated with changes in minimum wage policies, and this will confound the estimation. The approach of C & K, Dube and others uses close comparisons of counties which are likely to be experiencing similar trends and so it accounts for this. Another method that’s been used by Neumark and others is a ‘synthetic control’, where you construct a comparison as a combination of existing states, but this is an opaque process that has a lot of room for tweaking to get the results you want. In the minimum wage debate synthetic controls have been used to show both employment and no employment effects, depending on the authors, and I just don’t trust the approach. The paper by Daniel Kuehn goes into all this in more detail. Secondly and importantly, there is a mistake in how I read out the graph at 28:26. The top left graph actually refers to renters, not rents, falling, which must have been a mistake in writing the script - my bad. What the whole graph depicts is a situation where some units subjected to rent control were redeveloped and converted to either rented but uncontrolled units, or to owner-occupied units. The number of renters falling is a reflection of this process. 2nd generation rent control is in fact designed to incentivise these types of investments from landlords, though they displace existing residents. Overall, the Diamond paper shows that this doesn’t occur in the vast majority (85%) of units, where there are benefits to existing renters, both financially and in their length of tenure. If one were concerned exclusively with the number of renters at existing market prices, they may not regard this as a trade-off worth making. Rent control - at least in this instance - seemed to benefit most people and prevent poorer residents from being entirely displaced from the city, but it did slightly accelerate neighbourhood segregation within the city through these redevelopments. It’s certainly not going to solve gentrification alone. The rest of the literature sometimes assumes ‘income diversity’ and house price rises are a good thing as they represent improvements in quality of neighbourhoods - see eg Diamond and McQuade (2019 ) on their preferred subsidy policy - but they are assumed to be bad here. The paper is even internally inconsistent on whether incomes in an area rising is a good thing - it’s a negative thing if it’s a result of rent control, but a positive thing more generally! The only reasonable conclusion is of course “its complicated” and if the redeveloped houses were previously low quality, one could argue 2nd generation rent control is doing its job. On the other hand, one could prioritise existing residents entirely, but that doesn’t seem to be what opponents of rent control are doing as (again) the policy still showed overall that there was medium term retention of existing residents. An interesting debate for sure, but not one that’s going to be solved by half-baked reaction videos 😉 I have posted references from this comment at the bottom of the video description. Thanks for watching everyone!

Econ 101 day one: “The economy is why we have ice cream” Econ 101 day ten: “And that’s why it’s okay for poor people to die”

People talk about econ 101 like if understanding physics 101 could allow you to understand general relativity.

As an Historian, I am offended by the economists who do not want to accept the truth that Economics is a Social Science. Denial won't do good for them.

"Just like a physicist cannot claim that water will flow uphill, an economist cannot claim that employment increases as the minimum wage rises." If an honest physicist observes water flowing uphill, they will closely examine the phenomenon and QUESTION the respective theory. I think the fact that so many economists are so adamant that their theories MUST be true undermines Econ as a science more than any questioning of those theories.

My high school economics teacher told us right at the start that high school economics was largely "rules for children" and the actual reality of economics was deeper and more complex. This is the problem most people with only a basic high school understanding of economics have. They don't realise that the economics they were taught was dumbed down and simplified in order to be taught at that level.

As someone who has studied physics, I find the use of Econ 101 as an argument absurd. The clear reference is to the *very* *first* class on a subject a student would take-a mere introduction. Someone who has taken only a first year physics class will tell you that mass is always conserved and has no ability to explain the wave nature of light. But a student who has finished their second year should know that mass is not always conserved. Really, it's mass and energy taken together that are conserved. And (at least in my program) it's only in year 4 that you have the tools to see how light as a wave arises from theories of electricity and magnetism. Appeals to Econ 101 are a tacit admission that the speaker is making use of only the most basic, simplistic theoretical framework, and that they likely know no more about the subject than that.

4:45 'Employment will be high at E3' Finally, economics for us gamers.

I'm reminded of a comment the Australian economist Richard Denniss makes regularly in his writing, that economics can't tell you if a policy is "good" or not. It can predict the impacts of a policy on an economy, but whether those impacts are desirable or not is a political question. Anyone telling you that we "must" do something because of economics essentially never has your best interests at heart.

Funny thing - when I learned Economics 101, what really stuck out to me is how much it has been misrepresented. I'd heard "you can't do rent control, it just doesn't work" so many times, but the actual argument in economic theory simply indicates that it's not the most efficient way to set prices in a vacuum - but we don't live in a vacuum. In the real world, people don't always have alternative options, so they end up overpaying, or there's serious problems caused when people can't afford the price of a home. Additionally, the public may simply decide democratically that some things are more important than 100% market efficiency. This is what we SHOULD learn from Economics 101.

Scientist: The data showed overwhelming correlation when controlled for every conceivable variable. We tentatively draw no conclusions and recommend 10,000 additional trials. Economist: The data, confusingly, does not conform to theory. Our faith is being tested, we must increase our fasting and prayer.

From my experience as an Econ grad who also majored in heterodox economics and statistics, I think the problem with orthodox economic majors (particularly Econ101/102/201/202) is that they don't deconstruct economics as a social science with its contexts and cross-disciplinary interactions. Instead, they treat it as if it were a trade you learn at trade school: "this week, we're gonna learn these tool called supply and demand, next week we'll learn about surplus, week after we'll learn how to use Nash equilibriums, next semester you learn about aggregate demand, etc...don't worry about the historical contexts behind them or how these ideas are constructed based on particular ideas of ontology and epistemology, or whether there are limitations and critiques on these ideas, or whether there are competing theories (ironic considering we want you to know perfectly competitive markets with consumers with perfect information generates the most Pareto optimal outcomes), etc...". Economics degrees need a full on restructure to stay relevant. Nothing wrong with being a neoclassical or new Keynesian economist, but an economics degree should be about economics, not economic dogma

“It’s basic economics” is the modern hand wave equivalent of “because the gods made it so”

Especially after Mexie's part, I'm beginning to think economics statistics literally cannot derive realistic conclusions for non-rich people. Taxes reduce demand therefore income taxes will encourage people to earn less income. WHAT?!

I'm really loving the longer formats, video essays are my ASMR yo

“It’s basic economics!” “It’s basic common sense!” “It’s basic biology!” “It’s basic human nature!” “It’s a basic historical fact!” If everything you know is basic, you might be basic.

“This experiment will prove whether minimum wage increases are good or bad.” *Experiment shows minimum wage is at best good, at worse neutral* “I don’t like these results” - Economists.

As someone currently going to a school very well known for neoclassical economics and that many people cite as “Econ 101” to make disingenuous arguments without regard for data, I am very glad your channel exists.

The "study economics 101!" starter pack: 1 Have a predetermined conclusion 2 Find a pet theory that supports your conclusion 3 Ignore any other theories or relevant variables that may interfere with your analysis 4 Ignore any empirical evidence against your conclusion 5 Claim that any criticism of your reasoning is "shooting the messenger"

Adult KZfaqr owns 14 year olds about economics.

"we should reduce wealth inequality" Yeah, that's nice, snowflake. These two lines with opposite slopes say that you can't. That's just economics. 😎

I allways felt so angry when someone would tell me to "learn economics" while explaining away human rights violations as: "well the market needs slaves or we can't have chocolate". I never really knew how to put in to words the obvious disconnect between that argument and reality. Thanks for broadening my understanding.

Could not get over your portrait of Joe Biden, famous for appearing in: Die Hard, Die Harder, Die Hard 3, Die Hard 4, The Whole 9 Yards, and The Roast of Bruce Willis.

One of the most weird concepts that's addressed in this video is when billionaire apologists will talk about how taxing the wealthy will somehow reduce wages, or if you prevent that by raising the minimum wage, they'll have to cut costs in other ways like raising prices or hiring less workers. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. First of all, massive companies have more than enough extra cash to handle increased taxes without doing any of these things and still run at the same size. Secondly, the idea that all these companies will raise prices in response to a minimum wage increase or taxation betrays their own model of supply and demand in the marketplace. Just because you increase costs in another area doesn't mean that increasing prices will suddenly make them more money. What they forget is that consumers still have their own supply and demand curve, and increasing prices will ultimately result in less consumers. Trust me, if companies could be making more money by increasing their prices, they would have already done it. This relies on some kind of false assumption that companies weren't already trying to operate in the most profitable ways, which unless they're purposefully running at a loss to out compete other companies, is obviously ridiculous.

Found you on Reddit and I clicked the video by accident while scrolling. I ended up staying for the whole thing - you did great on this. I've subscribed. Keep up the good work

You put a lot of work into this video and it was really worth it, well done buddy

I love the phrase, "the extremely online among us"

I didnt know even Adam Smith thought supply/demand theory was flawed

A parrot could learn to repeat the words "demand and supply" and get graduated in economics

Me at the start of my Econ degree "economics is great!" Me at the end of my Econ degree "economics isn't a science fight me!"

I really liked the longer video and the increased depth. I think the feeling of learning "Econ 101" and then accepting it wholeheartedly is widely applicable. Sometimes it takes a deeper understanding of a thing to be able to find critiques.

I wish I could explain concepts like this to my parents. I am not smart, but I’ve often been frustrated that my parents have always suggested that there is no way to improve life for everyone. That things are always going to be bad and any attempts to change the system will make it worse. This helped me to solidify my belief that we can make a brighter more equal future. One where people don’t starve to work, and children don’t live in poverty. Thank you.

I think it's so popular because it's very simple to learn due to being very intuitive. So it makes people feel supieor when they think they can tell you how an entire economy works using a graph. It's a mixture of dunning kruger and a sad desire to seem indifferent to other people because you'll seem "intelligent" and "rational".

The excitement I felt when I saw this title after just signing up for econ 101 next semester is unparalleled

“The politics of trauma and why cPTSD will never be in the DSM” is a great video about the political backlash on facts that are scientifically solid, inconvenient, and, indisputable (at least when fully informed and in good faith).

This is quite fascinating. I am shocked at just how many things in my higher education I simply accepted as true without ever bothering to question most of it.

Being a graduate of an econ major, thank you SO much for this video. I see so many people acting like complete smartasses bringing everything down to the simplest of supply-demand models and "analysis", thinking real life works like simplified economic algorithms of some videogame. They tend to conveniently forget that concepts like elasticity of demand/supply or public goods even exist when it doesn't fit their narrative. The utter self-righteousness and disregard for multi-variant analysis of empirical data is truly nauseating. They always have the right answers, because their 50-year-old (or older) models say so. Hell, some people say that the Say's law of Market (TL;DR: supply creates demand) still applies to modern economies of abundance, where things like marketing exist to contradict it. What they also seem to have in common is worshipping the claims of Mises, Friedman, Sowell and the like as some sort of divine truth. I found myself alienated during econ studies because I asked the "wrong" questions. You're expected to listen and ask: "How can I make money from this?", not "Does it really make sense? Do those assumptions still hold true given contemporary knowledge? Is this even fair and resistant to exploits? What about failures of distribution?". Those Econ 101 people you talked about don't like this kind of questions. Almost like religious people when you blaspheme against a dogma...

such a fantastic channel. i love channels that go through studies that are worthy of this kind of analysis rather than channels that cover news headlines because i don’t have a lot of access to peer reviewed academic journals. thanks for making these subjects more accessible king!

Ive been telling people for years the world was ruined by business and econ majors, the conversation about econimism was the missing piece I've been trying to vocalize for so long.

We in Germany and many other countrys watch your movies and tv series and there is one special theme coming into my mind. "The Batman", "Ambulance" and "Breaking Bad" would be over in 5 min. or never happend, when you just had social healthcare and infrastructure.

I recently got a masters in economics and I began to notice this phenomenon early on but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. This was the first time I’ve ever seen this observation put so clearly, I had no idea so many people also recognized this happening.

Go as long as you need to chop those complex topics into understandable bits. This is gold

I’ve always liked the phrase, “a strong economy is a byproduct of effective governance, not its objective.” A person who argues for policy for its economic impact has missed the point.

Longer videos = hooray! I would love a series of videos on what you think SHOULD be happening and which policies are good. Will sure become a patron, sorry for not doing it sooner.

The Indian name “Dube” is pronounced as “Dubay” (I’m not trying to be pedantic just to point out a flaw, I’m trying to help you understand it)

Spectacular

I've been taking a macroeconomics course these past few months, and it was weird to here the teacher and most of the students just go along like these features of economics and capitalism were faultless laws and facts. Some things my professor would say would leave me scratching my head, honestly. This video has done a really good job of putting those confused feelings and thoughts of mine into perspective, so thank you for that! "Socialism is just high-tax capitalism." -my Econ Professor

I think you struck a great balance between discussing academic theory and making it accessible. Would love to see more videos like this that strike a balance between getting into the details of the relevant research and providing commentary and context.

I like the long-form content. If you ever want to make a Shaun-length video, I'm on board.

I think economism can be largely explained by McCarthyism and neoliberal financialization. Also, the field is increasingly trying to STEM-ify itself instead of accepting its roots in the humanities.

I think this length is actually perfect for your videos. I did feel that like I wanted previous videos to dive just a tiny bit deeper (although I didn't say anything about it) and this video really hit that sweet spot, for me. I also thought you did really well at knowing when to refer the audience to a source instead of letting the video get derailed and go on for too long in one direction.

Due to elasticity, most people are happy with a bit more length! :D

I do like the longer form content BUT i and I think many would appreciate it if you could add time stamps if your talking about different topics like in this case. I believe this would also allow you to satisfy both types of people, the long form lovers and the more 10-15 mins but size type. P.s I’m an a level eco student and I absolutely love you keep up the good work. Would love to see something about decentralized planning artificial markets or worker cooperatives and worker control like that seen in Germany.

I appreciated this video, in all its length and detail, so much. I’m grateful for whatever style of content you feel excited to create, but I am strongly in favor of more long-form videos on theory and studies.

I'm watching this one 2 weeks late, but please keep these making more videos like these. Even if I end up having to watch them a few times, I genuinely feel like I'm learning more economics.

This has rapidly become one of my favourite KZfaq channels and is the reason I decided to use some of my spare time in lock-down to take an Economics A-level through an online college

The demand curve for your content has not be met yet. MORE MORE MORE ! ! !

Wow, this was incredible. Instantly one of my fav video essays on KZfaq.

Thank you so much. This Channel and this kind of Video is what I have been looking for. So glad I found this. Please keep this great work up, it really helps a lot!

"It seems to me that both more affordable housing and lower rents might be considered a good thing" No, actually economics 101 tells me that my shoebox should be as expensive as possible because then landlords are making loads of money and then the economy is in good shape or something I don't know.

I quite like this style and the jokes peppered in.

I'd argue that minimum wage debate is essentially a culture-based debate. The reason we, in the US, must constantly fight for higher minimum wage is because companies will set the minimum wage as a constant standard of which other job's income is derived. In other nations, which may value their communities and workers more than the US, minimum wage is not something that must be fought over. However, the rampancy of neoliberalism in the United States has given the worker base very little choice whatsoever, and Union Busting is still see as a beneficial thing.

Thanks for this video; length and amount of detail were just fine,especislly considering the subject matter!

So, rent control.. I appreciate that there may be more demand and lower availability as a result, but in my mind, focusing primarily on research and the financial effects ignores the fact that we are talking about people here. In my opinion, It doesn't matter if wealthy individuals / companies loose money. Nobody deserves to be without housing, or food, or any other basic necessities we need to survive. Edit: Mexie nailed it. The powers that be are too busy concerning themselves with keeping the system as it is and funneling money into the pockets of those higher up the ladder. 'The rich get richer'

Love the extra detail! Makes me understand stuff better and be able to argue my side of things much better with people

One of the best KZfaq videos I've ever seen. The video tackles important issues that are not being discussed in the mainstream media and it makes several compelling points that I've not seen elsewhere. The delivery is also clear, concise, and in good faith. You Tube would be a better place if more of its content was like this video.

Thank you! ¡Gracias! You really have reinforced all the beliefs I’ve had on economics since I started to think about them and have helped me a lot to be more outspoken with people who do not share this point or view, see economics in a very narrow margin thinking that they are a strict set of rules that work always the same and can’t change or simply think that they are too difficult for them to understand! (Which is basically everyone I know and it’s because of it that what you have done is so important to me). Anyway have a nice day and keep being absolutely fantastic!

Remember you can't have economics without a political ideology so when you unlearn economics you also have to challenge the idea of capitalism.

Can you make them even longer, but also the more frequent? I'm willing to pay one dollar.

This video was a GREAT length, thank you. It doesn't need to be longer, but 30-45 minutes certainly can bring a much greater depth to a subject than the usual 10 minute faire we get on youtube. Even lets plays on youtube often limit themselves to 30 minutes, which is just not quite long enough to grasp what a game (or concept) has to offer.

I am so extremely happy after watching this video. This video is exactly the kind of content i'm here for. Thank you so much, and I urge you to make more long-form video like this!

Just finished the video and just wanted to say that I really liked the way you explain not only data but the different theories of how to interpret the data. Found it very interesting

Thank you so much for this! I can't fucking stand people constantly quoting Thomas Sowell as if he had these revolutionary economic ideas.

Loves the video. Level of depth, amount of theory and length (especially since there were no sketches or overlong bits) were just right.

The length is highly beneficial, I really enjoy these videos, and the space it can take as a sort of economic podcast is lovely

As a chilean I have to say we do have a really nice minimum wage

Comment regarding what's said at 8:45 I'm from Chile and even with that 69% [minimum wage/median full-time earnings] score, we know our minimum wage is "shite" and doesn't amount to all monthly expenses. And the USA [minimum wage/median full-time earnings] percent is even lower??? Holy sh*t!!!

UE: "Was it too much? Do you want even more?" Me: More! UE: "(I hope not)" Me: More... please?

The subtitles are also super duper appreciated!

A long one today huh, stay killing it king! 👑

This video is great and I really appreciate that you put all the references in the info box.

This channel is the best thing I've come across this week, and it's a shame I binged all of your content in one evening.

This is the type of content i'm looking for from you, I'd enjoy the shorter format regardless. Thanks for the content.

As a person who is interested in knowing more about economy, because education failed her in that regard, thank you so much! It's really great to have this!!

I love videos that go in depth with heavy topics and I respect you to provide information with citings. I gladly will listen to even longer videos if you choose to.

This video made a subscriber of me. Thanks for your work, and the springling of humorous clips throught. Looking forward to more.

This was a great video! I found you because of Shaun so trust me when I say video length is the least of worries. The information was definitely not too much and honestly very helpful. Love your stuff man.

Definitely enjoy the longer form videos

As long as management can convince themselves that their work is somehow worth more than the people who actually produce things, and executives decide the salaries of other executives without any real way to measure their true value, we are going to have problems.

I'm gonna binge-watch your videos. Thank you so much for explaining economics. It's something I lack a secure grasp on and I really want to learn more.

I love the longer form video and would like these kinds of videos in the future from time to time

Thanks for featuring Mexie❤️🖤 The change in length and format is also good I think

I do love long format video. Thanks man . I want more

I appreciate it’s way more work for you, but I LOVE the longer video and the more detail.

As a total layman in economics, this video remained easy to follow and highly watchable. I'd love to see more long-form content in future.

I have a feeling that Post-Modern thought and "Zeitgeist" has completely missed the economic academia. Philosophy, history and even law have gone through a major shift in the 70's and 80's, yet it deems economics is only beginning to feel the paradigm shift.

Great video, as always. As for your experiment on length and detail, I liked it quite a lot, I felt that I could engage more deeply with the content. But your shorter videos are great too, very easily digestible and shareable, so I could even see something of a mix of short and long videos in the future, if that's what you wanted to do. In any case, I'm so glad to have found your channel. I've gone through a bit of an existential crisis in recent years, having obtained a MA in economics and coming to the conclusion that virtually everything I studied in university is more or less an elaborate fakery. Your channel is inspiring me to find something useful and relevant in the field I studied, and to apply it to issues I care about in a meaningful way. So, thank you, you're doing a wonderful thing with this channel.

I appreciate the detail. Please continue with this long format. Thanks

Great video, love the new format

I really like this long format