Why does the government require screenings if the cost per life saved is so high?
Can you think of other policies the government could impose that would save lives at a lower cost? Why doesn't the government impose those policies?
Edward Millner's blog. It contains links to articles for students taking Principles of Microeconomics and Managerial Economics. It also contains links to articles about politics. The opinions here are mine. No one at VCU reviews or approves what I post.
Why does the government require screenings if the cost per life saved is so high?
Can you think of other policies the government could impose that would save lives at a lower cost? Why doesn't the government impose those policies?
Jason Riley writes that the origin of minimum wage legislation is, in fact, racist (WSJ, Feb. 2021). “The federal government got involved in setting wage levels in the 1930s and did so at the urging of unions that excluded blacks as members. During debates in Congress, lawmakers complained openly about the ‘superabundance’ and ‘large aggregation of Negro labor’ and cited complaints by whites of black Southerners moving north to take jobs.
“As Congress increased the minimum wage periodically over the decades, these same arguments were put forward as a justification. When he was a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy backed minimum-wage hikes as a way of protecting New England industry. ‘Having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too—the wages of the white worker who has to compete,’ he lectured an NAACP official at a hearing in 1957. ‘And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage—and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work—it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it?’”
Question