이 칼럼의 주제는 오바마가 제안한 현재 미국노동자들의 최저임금상승에 대한 강한 동의입니다. 크루그먼이 그 근거로 제시한 핵심문장을 옮기겠습니다.
Why is this true? That’s a subject of continuing research, but one theme in all the explanations is that workers aren’t bushels of wheat or even Manhattan apartments; they’re human beings, and the human relationships involved in hiring and firing are inevitably more complex than markets for mere commodities. And one byproduct of this human complexity seems to be that modest increases in wages for the least-paid don’t necessarily reduce the number of jobs.
What this means, in turn, is that the main effect of a rise in minimum wages is a rise in the incomes of hard-working but low-paid Americans which is, of course, what we’re trying to accomplish.
핵심단어가 human beings, human complexity같은데 약간의 임금임상이 고용감소를 가져올 것이라는 주장은 노동시장에서의 특수성, 즉 상품시장처럼 단순히 가격으로 움직이는 구조가 아닌 情, 이해심 등의 인간고유의 특성이 반영될 수 있어 약간의 임금인상으로 인한 고용감소효과가 발생할 가능성은 매우 적다는 의미로 이해하면 될까요?
Why is this true? That’s a subject of continuing research, but one theme in all the explanations is that workers aren’t bushels of wheat or even Manhattan apartments; they’re human beings, and the human relationships involved in hiring and firing are inevitably more complex than markets for mere commodities. And one byproduct of this human complexity seems to be that modest increases in wages for the least-paid don’t necessarily reduce the number of jobs.
What this means, in turn, is that the main effect of a rise in minimum wages is a rise in the incomes of hard-working but low-paid Americans which is, of course, what we’re trying to accomplish.
핵심단어가 human beings, human complexity같은데 약간의 임금임상이 고용감소를 가져올 것이라는 주장은 노동시장에서의 특수성, 즉 상품시장처럼 단순히 가격으로 움직이는 구조가 아닌 情, 이해심 등의 인간고유의 특성이 반영될 수 있어 약간의 임금인상으로 인한 고용감소효과가 발생할 가능성은 매우 적다는 의미로 이해하면 될까요?