Keynesian economics is significantly larger than what it has to say about wage flexibility. Truly, what it has to say about wage flexibility has not been useful in making predictions about our recessions, so I am more than willing to throw out that part of it. This is clearly an area where more study needs to be done and better theories need to be created and tested.
But, in the meantime, Keynesian economics have made very useful predictions elsewhere and with a notably better record than competing theories. So all I'm saying is: let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Keynesianism didn't have much useful to say about economics at a zero lower bound, but further study and modification has resulted in theories with remarkably good records in making useful predictions in our current situation (even if no-one seems to listen to those predictions).
What you seem to be suggesting, is akin to saying we can/should throw out the standard model entirely in favor of universal application of quantum theory, simply because the standard model breaks down at quantum scale. Whereas I'm advocating that we can use quantum theory where it makes sense and the standard model where it makes sense, until a grand unified theory arrives and is tested.
> "I believe our recently ended recession is primarily structural"
My gut feeling is also that this is true, though I can't say I've seen convincing evidence to support it. And I get rather nervous when my gut feelings aren't supported by evidence, particularly when that evidence should be obvious and overwhelming.
And I completely agree that the US has not pursued flexible wage policies and raising the minimum is a move away from flexibility. I was just noting that the move was a minor one, and as such, we really shouldn't expect that it would have had much impact.
But, in the meantime, Keynesian economics have made very useful predictions elsewhere and with a notably better record than competing theories. So all I'm saying is: let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Keynesianism didn't have much useful to say about economics at a zero lower bound, but further study and modification has resulted in theories with remarkably good records in making useful predictions in our current situation (even if no-one seems to listen to those predictions).
What you seem to be suggesting, is akin to saying we can/should throw out the standard model entirely in favor of universal application of quantum theory, simply because the standard model breaks down at quantum scale. Whereas I'm advocating that we can use quantum theory where it makes sense and the standard model where it makes sense, until a grand unified theory arrives and is tested.
> "I believe our recently ended recession is primarily structural" My gut feeling is also that this is true, though I can't say I've seen convincing evidence to support it. And I get rather nervous when my gut feelings aren't supported by evidence, particularly when that evidence should be obvious and overwhelming.
And I completely agree that the US has not pursued flexible wage policies and raising the minimum is a move away from flexibility. I was just noting that the move was a minor one, and as such, we really shouldn't expect that it would have had much impact.