Below is an e-mail I sent to my Macro Econ professor this afternoon, hopefully she will respond and I can put her answer on this blog. She also, ironically enough, said something that completely contradicted my previous blog on drugs/Mexico and enraged me in class again this morning. I will certainly send her a link to this blog and continue to question her on her conservative biases throughout the semester.
My name is Jason Harlow I am a student in your Econ 201 course. On the first week of classes you made the implication that wages are inelastic, or rather, that people would be unwilling to accept certain paycuts because they could not maintain their way of life. As an example, you said that someone who had to pay their mortgage and put their child through college would not accept a paycut from $25/hr to $10/hr. Over the past few weeks, though, this statement has bothered me quite a bit, considering it is the basis for much of economic theory in this course, I felt it prudent for me to e-mail you my concern. Over the course of time we have seen that those in 3rd world countries have accepted pittances for wages, because those are all that employers are willing to offer. The "banana replublic" in Central America, for example, is notorious for offering wages of a mere $1/day. Certainly not enough for anyone to send their child to university, and yet, throughout the state people beg for the jobs in banana fields, or any job that will pay them any wage at all. Would it be possible for you to defend your statement or correct me if I misunderstood the position you assumed? In class or by e-mail works for me. Thanks so much for your time.