Writing in today’s Baltimore Sun, Marta Mossberg correctly argues that a proposed “living-wage” bill for Baltimore will hurt the poor.  This unintended effect is the inevitable result of prohibiting workers from accepting any wage lower than $10.57 per hour – a wage well above the hourly value that many unskilled workers are capable of producing for employers.

So why are so many people enthusiastic about statutes such as this one?

Division of Labour‘s Frank Stephenson’s letter in today’s Wall Street Journal is priceless:

My GMU and Mercatus Center colleague Tyler Cowen, writing at Economist.com, offers an important lesson in Labor Economics 101.

The Washington Post‘s Anne Applebaum identifies a real, and deep, problem in America.

Former Securities & Exchange Commission commissioner Paul Atkins recently published two essays worthy of careful reading.  This one is at Forbes.com; this one is at the Wall Street Journal.

I noted the other day that the average (the average!) cost to the city of Oakland of employing a police officer is $188,000 and that the city was negotiating for concessions to avoid layoffs. Today comes the news that they couldn’t agree–80 Oakland police officers have been laid off.

With the story comes a few more  facts:

Oakland laid off 80 police officers Tuesday after negotiations between city officials and union leaders failed on one simple matter: job security.

Both Arnold Kling and I (and probably a few million other people) have wondered why it was necessary for Federal money to be given to the states and cities to prevent job losses. For states that have been irresponsible or unlucky and find themselves short of revenue, why not reduce salaries some, say 10% and save that money?

One answer is that state and city employees are under union contracts that are not easily adjusted on short notice.

Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:

Scientists are disappointed that, contrary to candidate Obama’s promises, what the nation actually is getting from President Obama is “a culture of politics trumping science” (“Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier,” July 11).

Here’s a letter to the Financial Times:

Several questions popped to mind after reading Nobel laureate economist Michael Spence’s essay in your pages today (“America needs a growth strategy“).  Here are a few:

Can anyone offer even one potentially sound reason why this proposal, appearing in the following letter from today’s Wall Street Journal, ought not be adopted?