There's a rumor, presumably well-founded, that Jason Furman will become the next Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Given the universe of people from whom President Obama probably chose, I think it's probably a good choice. Four years ago, I posted about Furman's clear understanding of what a boon to consumers Wal-Mart is. He gets basic microeconomics.
Here's the stunning quote:
The price differences are staggering. Wal-Mart prices are, on average, 8 to 40% lower that what people would pay elsewhere. The total annual savings in one recent study for consumers was $263 billion, that's $2,300 for every household in America. There are few public policies I've advocated that would make as big of a difference as that.
There's more. In 2006, he had an excellent debate with Barbara Ehrenreich about whether Wal-Mart is good for the working class. Go here and you can choose to read as much or as little of the debate as you want.
Also, in a refreshing admission from one of the elite, Furman wrote:
If I heard that Wal-Mart was coming to my neighborhood, New York's West Village, I might rush for my mouse. But I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that my opposition had anything to do with helping the poor. If anything, I would feel guilty that I was preventing moderate-income New Yorkers from enjoying the huge benefits that much of the rest of the country already knows so well.
The honesty, as I said, is refreshing. Of course, it would have been even better had he abjured taking steps that he knows would harm lower-income people.
One interesting section, though, relates to his view on the minimum wage. In 2006, when the minimum wage was $5.15 an hour, Furman wrote:
So, what to do now that my solutions are being blocked? One thing we'll hopefully be able to accomplish in the next year is raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour--this will give a pay raise to folks at the bottom with, the evidence suggests, little adverse effect on employment. But this won't do much for Wal-Mart workers: Most of them make more than this.
A year earlier, Lee Scott, the CEO of Wal-Mart was advocating a substantial increase in the minimum wage also. I wonder if Furman, who admits that the higher minimum wage would not have been binding on Wal-Mart, wondered why Scott was advocating it. He doesn't say. My first guess is that Scott wanted to price out some of his lower-wage retail competition. My second guess is that Scott wanted to get points with the left and with Americans generally, at virtually zero cost to his employer.