I know he’s a professor of economics, but does that mean Russell Roberts gets to lie in nearly every paragraph of his editorial, “Workers are fine with fewer unions?†I guess it does. Okay, in fairness, he may not be lying, but an editorial this bad means it’s either that or the author is incompetent.
I’m not going to tackle every single incorrect statement here, but there are a few that really stand out:
Cleaning people routinely earn $20 an hour, more than most cities’ so-called living wage.
Seriously?! There’s no way he’s serious about that. Apparently, cleaning people routinely earn $40,000 a year. Which, if memory serves, is near the median salary for an employee with some college. Neat trick. I suppose it’s possible that a cleaning company will charge $40k per year for an FTE’s worth of cleaning, but that is no where near the same thing.
My other favorite comment is:
A better way to increase wages is to make workers more productive. That lifts everyone’s standard of living.
That’s a lovely thought. Unfortunately, it’s complete BS. After WWII, until the early 70s, rising productivity did lead to increased wages. However, from the early 70s on, productivity has increased much faster than wages or even total compensation (wages plus benefits). During the past 30 years, productivity has nearly doubled and wages are, essentially, the same. Total compensation has only increased by about 40%. For a lot more information, see this post at Calculated Risk, in particular, this graph.
All of this brings me back to my original question. Is he lying or just incompetent?