# Social conservatism v. economic conservatism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541 "2014-02-28T20:15:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/61 "2014-03-10T02:21:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you ask even liberal economists about the minimum wage, they’ll tell you it’s a poor tool for improving the lot of poor workers. Please name some liberal economists who say that. Everything minimum-wage related I’ve ever found on the website of the [Economic Policy Institute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute) says different. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/62 "2014-03-10T02:24:03Z")
Has economics done anything recently to warrant the respect shown in this thread? I thought it was a game played by academics, the object being to explain why your predictions were laughably wrong but not as wrong as the other guys. Everyone’s pet ideas are simultaneously right and wrong no matter what happens because there’s no consistency in their real world applications. All sides can point to examples of their theories “working.” A discipline doesn’t collapse in humiliation by failing to model reality. There’s always an excuse. Austerity failed? They weren’t austere enough! No wait, it did work, in this random province in 1972! If economics is a science it’s closer to alchemy than physics. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/63 "2014-03-10T04:05:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Please name some liberal economists who say that. Everything minimum-wage related I’ve ever found on the website of the [Economic Policy Institute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute) says different. The EPI is a Big Labor-funded think tank: [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Economic\_policy\_institute](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Economic_policy_institute) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/64 "2014-03-10T04:12:41Z")
Now I’m not claiming that liberal economists don’t favor increasing the minimum wage anyway, but they favor it for reasons other than economic considerations. Paul Krugman has written extensively on the minimum wage when wearing his economist hat, and he says that it increases unemployment. When wearing his politics hat, he’s in favor of it. Because raising minimum wage is good politics. And bad economics. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/65 "2014-03-10T04:20:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now I’m not claiming that liberal economists don’t favor increasing the minimum wage anyway, but they favor it for reasons other than economic considerations. Paul Krugman has written extensively on the minimum wage when wearing his economist hat, and he says that it increases unemployment. When wearing his politics hat, he’s in favor of it. Because raising minimum wage is good politics. And bad economics. Not really, his economical and political hats are matching here. [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/) > [@](#): > > I’m doing this kind of backwards, writing about the politics first. But I wanted to have my intellectual ducks — or rather, my lucky duckies — in a row before taking on the economics. And while I was grubbing around, Mike Konczal produced the perfect post summing it all up. > > So what should you know? First, as John Schmitt (pdf) documents at length, there just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment. And this is a really solid result, because there have been a _lot_ of studies. > [@](#): > > So a minimum wage increase isn’t some kind of counsel-of-despair way to help workers a bit in a dysfunctional political scene (although there’s that too); it’s actually good policy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/66 "2014-03-10T05:56:18Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Has economics done anything recently to warrant the respect shown in this thread? I thought it was a game played by academics, the object being to explain why your predictions were laughably wrong but not as wrong as the other guys. Everyone’s pet ideas are simultaneously right and wrong no matter what happens because there’s no consistency in their real world applications. All sides can point to examples of their theories “working.” A discipline doesn’t collapse in humiliation by failing to model reality. There’s always an excuse. Austerity failed? They weren’t austere enough! No wait, it did work, in this random province in 1972! > > If economics is a science it’s closer to alchemy than physics. Nobody claims economics is an exact science. However, politicians are going to be making economic decisions on way or another. Do you think it is better if they do it totally in the dark? Do you think intuition (in a downturn raise tariffs to protect our industries) results in anything good? Most of the bullshit we hear - the government should be run like a family - comes from intuition, not economics. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/67 "2014-03-10T15:01:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The EPI is a Big Labor-funded think tank: > > [Economic Policy Institute - SourceWatch](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Economic_policy_institute) So what? How does that mean it’s not a group of liberal economists? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/68 "2014-03-11T17:43:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In politics, social issues are usually (not always) much less **important** than economic issues. > > E.g., in America we have a lot of needless deaths by gunshot every year. But, in the general scheme of things, that is no more than a bit of oh-too-bad; it is no existential threat to American society, and unemployment blights far, far more lives than does violence armed or unarmed. The Dems (and for that matter the Pubs) should be placing much higher priority on reducing unemployment than on gun control/gun rights. Can you describe the thought process that led to this claim? Personally, I’d much rather be poor than dead, and I’d rather that all my family and friends be poor than one of them be dead. By extension, it seems to me that I’d be willing to accept a social order in which we were all poorer on average but also had less of a chance of dying suddenly. I can accept that not everyone agrees with me. And I can also see that passing laws against owning guns might not accomplish my goal of reducing the chance of sudden death, but the claim that one thing is less important than the other appears to be a pure value judgment that not everyone would or should agree with. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/69 "2014-03-11T18:16:01Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Can you describe the thought process that led to this claim? > > Personally, I’d much rather be poor than dead, and I’d rather that all my family and friends be poor than one of them be dead. By extension, it seems to me that I’d be willing to accept a social order in which we were all poorer on average but also had less of a chance of dying suddenly. Yes, but your chance of dying suddenly is extremely low. In the big picture, it’s something we just accept as the price of allowing private ownership of firearms, just as the annual traffic fatalities are something we just accept as the price of using automobiles for transportation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/70 "2014-03-11T20:55:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but your chance of dying suddenly is extremely low. On any given date, that is; in the long run it approaches 1. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/71 "2014-03-12T16:14:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In the big picture, it’s something we just accept as the price of allowing private ownership of firearms, just as the annual traffic fatalities are something we just accept as the price of using automobiles for transportation. I feel like this is begging the question. You’re claiming that people who want to take action to reduce gun violence are misguided, because gun violence is less important than other issues. And your followup is that the level of deaths is accepted as a price of our gun policy. Obviously, it’s _not_ a level that some people are willing to accept as a price of our gun policy. All I see is a value judgment here. There’s nothing wrong with your judgment, but it’s your interpretation of what’s important, and it’s an interpretation that not everyone agrees with. Without automobiles, we’d be in great economic misery, so I do agree that we should accept a certain risk of violent death as a tradeoff. Without guns, we’d be… well, lots of countries have much lower rates of gun ownership and correspondingly lower rates of violent gun deaths. What are they losing out on, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/72 "2014-03-13T12:57:09Z")
As used in American political discourse, the term “economic conservativism” is as much a matter of morality as “social conservatism.” To see this one has only to listen to those who complain about taxes, and what they think those taxes are spent on. Many Americans single out foreign aid (money paid to teat-sucklers who aren’t even American) as the biggest waste. Certainly none of these complainers has glanced at a breakdown of the federal budget. And of the very tiny portion of the budget spent on foreign aid, the vast majority of that is spent either in Iraq and Afghanistan – countries the U.S. broke – or in military aid to further U.S. geopolitical power. As a percentage of GDP the federal budget is now exactly what it was in 1983 under Reagan. About half that is spent on self-financed pension systems, and related programs. Over half of “discretionary” spending is spent on the military. One can quibble with the definition of “discretionary,” but the preceding sentence remains true if SNAP and Child Nutrition programs are considered discretionary. Among the biggest items in “non-defense discretionary spending” are Veteran’s Benefits, Transportation, Justice and Homeland Security. _ **Please keep those facts in mind when you peruse posts like this one:** _ > [@bump](#): > > … It’s particularly galling to pay roughly 1/3 of my gross income as taxes, and hear about how the government needs more money to pay someone else because of a myriad of sob stories about racism, disadvantageous circumstances, bad luck, no health care, etc… > > I already pay nearly the equivalent of 2 full time minimum wage earners in various payroll taxes, NOT including sales tax or property taxes; of course I’m for protecting that remaining part of what I earned from the predations of the government and by extension, all the “have nots” who seem bent on taking it from me. > > And yet I’m evil for not wanting to part with more of my hard earned cash because some other asshole somewhere else’s life sucks? This Doper, and millions of “economic conservatives” who think like him, have never perused the federal budget, nor have only clue about the relative costs of government programs. There are useful debates among professional economists, but “economic conservative” voters don’t engage in economic theory. They’re all about morality: [ul][li] Stop stealing from me.[/li][li] The needy have only themselves to blame.[/li][/ul] > [@Shagnasty](#): > > … > My question to economic liberals has been and always will be, why don’t you advocate balanced budgets, no deficit spending outside of emergency situations, and a program to pay down the national debt? That is the ONLY responsible way to run a long-term economy. There are no emotions involved in those decisions. The kindest thing to do for everyone involved is to not let the whole nation collapse as similar ones have throughout history because of emotional rather than rational concerns. I’m curious who **Shagnasty** thinks are “economic liberals” and who are “economic conservatives.” For 33 years it has been, consistently, the Republicans who have driven up the debt. I once thought “fiscal conservativism” described a preference for balancing government budget, but in fact most people who adopt that moniker favor lowering taxes in all situations. Ignoring the recent stimulus to save the financial system from the credit collapse (largely caused by deregulation), the largest deficits have been under Reagan and Bush-43. Even the Obama “stimulus” had tax cuts (insisted on by the GOP) as its largest component. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/73 "2014-03-13T13:31:03Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I actually agree with you about something for once. Social issues in politics are both a smoke screen and a distraction used to keep the general public focused away from the real issues which are almost always economic in nature. But in our two-party system, economic policies really don’t change all that much between administrations. So vote your conscience, not your wallet. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/74 "2014-03-13T14:10:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You say, “Only people whose work is worth X amount may work.” No; reality says that. Obviously, someone who does not earn enough to survive cannot continue to work – because of nature’s laws, not man’s – unless (horrors!) he is externally subsidized. That being the case, a minimum wage is actually the least distorting option (compared to the existing arrangement of subsidizing the employer by having the taxpayers provide the extra income required for survival). ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/75 "2014-03-13T17:03:52Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > No; reality says that. Obviously, someone who does not earn enough to survive cannot continue to work – because of nature’s laws, not man’s – unless (horrors!) he is externally subsidized. That being the case, a minimum wage is actually the least distorting option (compared to the existing arrangement of subsidizing the employer by having the taxpayers provide the extra income required for survival). But the “natural” economic unit is not an individual, it’s a family. And the determination of whether they’re making enough money to survive on should be on a monthly or annual basis, not per-hour-worked. Which is why subsidies like the EITC and welfare are much more efficient policies than the minimum wage: they’re targeted at households that actually need the help. There’s no reason that we should artificially boost the income of teenagers working part time, or that we shouldn’t boost the income of someone who makes $20/hour, but can only find 5 hours of work a week. Plus they don’t provide a disincentive for people who provide marginal labor to be employed at a market rate and learn soft skills that will enable them to get higher paying jobs. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/76 "2014-03-13T17:12:54Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Plus they don’t provide a disincentive for people who provide marginal labor to be employed at a market rate and learn soft skills that will enable them to get higher paying jobs. “Soft skills”? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/77 "2014-03-13T17:40:00Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Has economics done anything recently to warrant the respect shown in this thread? I thought it was a game played by academics, the object being to explain why your predictions were laughably wrong but not as wrong as the other guys. Everyone’s pet ideas are simultaneously right and wrong no matter what happens because there’s no consistency in their real world applications. All sides can point to examples of their theories “working.” A discipline doesn’t collapse in humiliation by failing to model reality. There’s always an excuse. Austerity failed? They weren’t austere enough! No wait, it did work, in this random province in 1972! > > If economics is a science it’s closer to alchemy than physics. Are you under the impression that politicians are making decisions based on sound economic theory instead of ideology and political convenience? The problem with economics is not that it isn’t “science”. The problem is that people can’t agree on what constitutes “working”. To conservatives and libertarians, they may feel that a system where the rich can get as rich as they can and anyone who can’t make money can go fuck themselves is “working”. Socialists and left wing types may believe that a system where everyone is poor, but enjoys a standard and consistent level of economic safety and security is “working”. Both systems are predicted easily enough through the application of economic theory. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/78 "2014-03-13T18:09:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But in our two-party system, economic policies really don’t change all that much between administrations. So vote your conscience, not your wallet. To be fair, that’s because Wall Street owns both parties. And we really do need to put that to an end. Some really strong progressive economic policies that will curb the power of the money boys are what’s needed here, not shrugging and letting the same system keep happening. That’s why I’ve gone third party. Go Green! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/79 "2014-03-13T18:11:10Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Are you under the impression that politicians are making decisions based on sound economic theory instead of ideology and political convenience? > > The problem with economics is not that it isn’t “science”. The problem is that people can’t agree on what constitutes “working”. To conservatives and libertarians, they may feel that a system where the rich can get as rich as they can and anyone who can’t make money can go fuck themselves is “working”. Socialists and left wing types may believe that a system where everyone is poor, but enjoys a standard and consistent level of economic safety and security is “working”. Both systems are predicted easily enough through the application of economic theory. Well, to be fair, the economists didn’t anticipate the crash of 2008 or the perils of derivatives (I’m sure someone did, but on the whole … no). So they kind of failed a basic, real-world test here. I don’t think they deserve a lot of credibility. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541/80 "2014-03-13T18:20:16Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > To be fair, that’s because Wall Street owns both parties. Well, yes. The difference is that the Dems are not **wholly** owned, and include some progressives hostile to the business agenda at both the leadership and grassroots levels. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-v-economic-conservatism/682541.md?page=5)