Image Soucre
This past week I read chapters 5, 7, and 9 of the book *The Seen, the Unseen, and the Unrealized. * This book was, without a doubt, one of the most patronizing and repetitive reads I have had in a long time. After suffering through chapter 5 with the repetitive use of the same analogy, I feel the author was trying to beat both the audience and the analogy into submission. For reference, the analogy in chapter 5 was the idea that a shop owner's careless son breaks a window, and the owner is forced to repair it. Dr. Bylund continues by explaining the possible flow of said money in the economy while also taking into account the multiplier effect that the money then exhibits as it is passed. He breaks down these events into the "seen" which is the transaction of money from the owner to the glazier and the "unseen" as the distribution of that money from the glazier into the pockets of the next producer and so on. Dr. Bylund then explains the "unrealized" which is the possibility that would have occurred had the owner's son not destroyed the window, showing that the money would have still possibly been spent. The difference being, the owner would have two positives, new shoes and an unbroke window, instead of one, a repaired window. While I do not believe this analogy was unbeneficial to the audience, I feel as though time and time again Dr. Bylund repeated the same concepts and actions without adding additional explanation or contexts. I received more information in fewer lines from the apple and wheat analogy at the beginning than this analogy that spread across 6 pages.
For chapter 7, I can honestly say I do not remember a single line after I read "The minimum wage, for instance, is a prohibition of employment under a certain wage. Employment at higher wages is allowed, at lower wages it is disallowed. This means entrepreneurs, when considering employing labor, must consider not only the value of adding an employee but must also consider only positions and potential employees that will generate enough value to warrant a wage above the legal minimum. This effectively shuts out less productive labor workers, for instance, immigrants and minorities or without specific education or experience, as well as less productive employment opportunities, that is, unqualified jobs." While I do not want to assume the worst from Dr. Bylund, this excerpt reads as though he is implying that by prohibiting paying a person less than a livable wage, we are causing entrepreneurs to be more selective or even limit the number of employees they hire. He also sounds as though he is assuming that a majority of "less productive labor workers" are from other countries or are minorities. Whether his intention was to generalize a group of people in a very negative way or not, I completely disagree with the idea that by mandating a wage minimum we are harming hiring rates. Either way, big businesses, and bad entrepreneurs will strive to keep as much of their money as possible. By removing the prohibition, we would be willingly allowing companies to under-bid the general public and small businesses to the point that they are the sole survivors in the United States. After which they are then able to set a wage of any amount that the general public will have to accept since there are no other competing companies. This would lead to the demise of the middle and lower class with an exponentially increasing upper class.