I'm wondering if any students point out that the first graph of hours worked doesn't actually show which way the causation goes. Possibly, workaholics tend to also do things that results in them getting higher-paying jobs, and paying other workers more wouldn't cause them to work longer hours. Or some other factor results in both longer hours and higher wages.
It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to find a way to show causation, though?
It is definitely not the norm, but the idea has been floated by some people on Twitter. I've decided to not dunk on ideas that maybe aren't fully fleshed out. I would hate anyone taking my tweets too seriously...
That being said, Sam Bowles has a forthcoming textbook that does start with market power and then considers perfect competition as a special case.
It's interesting, my advisor came out of Chicago and was firmly in the tradition of Stigler et al and he once told me that somebody (I don't remember who, so I'm not saying it was Stigler, just that it was someone within that school of thought) once claimed that was the way it should be done. I can see an argument there but it seems like one of those ideas that never survives first contact with the enemy.
Even the few that want to ommit it wouldn't be allowed. Perry Merhling's course on money and banking could be simplified into introductory course and teaches using balance sheets instead. I think Economics should start with money rather than hypothetical barter scenarios. After students know how money and payments work they can then move onto prices, the discounting formula, and market power.
I'm wondering if any students point out that the first graph of hours worked doesn't actually show which way the causation goes. Possibly, workaholics tend to also do things that results in them getting higher-paying jobs, and paying other workers more wouldn't cause them to work longer hours. Or some other factor results in both longer hours and higher wages.
It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to find a way to show causation, though?
Hey Brian, I'm with you! But I'm curious, is anyone going so far as to not start with supply and demand in 101?
It is definitely not the norm, but the idea has been floated by some people on Twitter. I've decided to not dunk on ideas that maybe aren't fully fleshed out. I would hate anyone taking my tweets too seriously...
That being said, Sam Bowles has a forthcoming textbook that does start with market power and then considers perfect competition as a special case.
It's interesting, my advisor came out of Chicago and was firmly in the tradition of Stigler et al and he once told me that somebody (I don't remember who, so I'm not saying it was Stigler, just that it was someone within that school of thought) once claimed that was the way it should be done. I can see an argument there but it seems like one of those ideas that never survives first contact with the enemy.
Even the few that want to ommit it wouldn't be allowed. Perry Merhling's course on money and banking could be simplified into introductory course and teaches using balance sheets instead. I think Economics should start with money rather than hypothetical barter scenarios. After students know how money and payments work they can then move onto prices, the discounting formula, and market power.