未能堕落

十年前，有两个经济学者发表文章，说实行最低工资可以促进就业。我的一位老师布坎南教授（J. M. Buchanan）马上投书《华尔街日报》说：“幸好大部分人还没堕落为随营的娼妓。”

未能堕落

薛兆丰
2006-07-23　08:55:40

十年前，有两个经济学者发表文章，说实行最低工资可以促进就业。我的一位老师布坎南教授（J. M. Buchanan）马上投书《华尔街日报》说：“幸好大部分人还没堕落为随营的娼妓。”

附：

（1）布坎南评论如下：

1996年4月25日，《华尔街日报》
J. M. 布坎南，1986年诺贝尔经济学奖得主

需求量和价格之间的反向关系，是经济科学的核心命题，它体现了这样的预设，即人类的选择行为足够理性，以致是可以预测的。没有一个物理学家会说“水往上流”，也没有一个自重的经济学家会说“提高最低工资可以增加就业”。这种说法，要是认真地生发下去，将无异于全盘否定了经济学，使其科学含义荡然无存；要是这样，经济学家除了撰写迎合意识形态偏好的文章，就别无可为了。值得庆幸的是，只有一小撮经济学家愿意背弃两个世纪的经济学教诲；我们尚未堕落成一群随营的娼妓。

25 April 1996
The Wall Street Journal
A20
English
(Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
James M. Buchanan, a 1986 Nobel laureate in economics

The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that “water runs uphill,” no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

（2）当天同版报纸，还有另一位经济学家的评论如下：

1996年4月25日，《华尔街日报》
M. H. 米勒，1990年诺贝尔经济学奖得主

多年前，经济学家相信世上没有免费午餐。然而，现在似乎有人发现了一份，即在提高最低工资的建议之中。他们认为，通过法律，把最低工资提高到市场决定的均衡价格以上，实际上不会给谁带来任何负担（或者说，顶多也不会给谁带来很大的负担，因为这毕竟是很小的、边际上的增长而已）。这是不是天花乱坠的神话？他妈的就是。可它在民意调查中很管用。我真替我干的这行心寒。

25 April 1996
The Wall Street Journal
A20
English
(Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Merton H. Miller, a 1990 Nobel laureate in economics

Years ago, economists used to believe there was no such thing as a free lunch. Some now seem to have found one, however, in the proposed increase in the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage by law above its market determined equilibrium, they argue, actually costs nobody anything. (Or at worst, costs nobody very much because it’s only a small, marginal increment, after all.) Is all this too good to be true? Damn right. But it sure plays well in the opinion polls. I tremble for my profession.