>>We're talking about economics here, the social science where it's notoriously difficult to conduct controlled experiments? Yes. All sciences besides physics,

>>We're talking about economics here, the social science where it's notoriously difficult to conduct controlled experiments? Yes. All sciences besides physics, chemistry and biology cannot test theories with controlled experiments. This extends to epidemiology and climatology too. It doesn't mean we dismiss the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or price controls. >>A repetition of anti-minimum wage dogma from popular persuasive economics books and places like the WSJ and AEI If you want to keep calling widely accepted scientific principles, like price controls creating economic deadweight losses, a "dogma", we can just end the discussion. >>Looking at historical experience, there is no obvious relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment: adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum was highest from 1967 through 1969, when the unemployment rate was below 4 percent—a historically low level. Because minimum wage almost always is extremely mild in its application, in only affecting something on the order of 4% of jobs. Combined with the challenges to measuring impact that come from labor mobility, minimum wage restrictions don't create easily observable effects. Any significant application would have effects that couldn't be ignored or obscured by left-wing ideologues. In any case, my point is that the principle of price controls being harmful is widely accepted in economics, due to a century of empirical observations. It's unsound to create legislation that conflicts with the principle.