The importance of asking questions

The license plate on my colleague Robin Hanson's car reads “ASQWHY.” “Ask why” is good advice for everyone, but especially for economists — and, indeed, for anyone who ponders economic policy.

The older I get, the more convinced I become that the greatest service my fellow economists and I can offer is to ask questions that otherwise go unasked. Not predicting this year's inflation rate, designing a more efficient tax system or measuring the monopoly power that infects the market for petroleum or popcorn. Such endeavors' importance pales beside the simple task of constantly asking probing questions.

The reason such questioning is so vital is captured in a line from Paul Simon's song “The Boxer:” “A man hears what he wants to hear/And disregards the rest.” Yet if that man is then pressed with probing questions, he's less likely to disregard useful, if presently unwelcome, knowledge.

A politician promises to create more jobs by building more infrastructure. Sounds good. But let's ask: Where do the inputs — steel, concrete, bulldozers, land — for more infrastructure come from? What is sacrificed to build more infrastructure? Does the value of the new infrastructure exceed the value of what is sacrificed? How do you know?

And will more jobs really be created? Of course more people will work on infrastructure projects, but where does the money come from to fund these projects? Isn't it possible that when government spends more on infrastructure, taxpayers spend less on housing, automobiles and medical care for themselves and their pets? And isn't it possible that reduced spending in these other sectors causes job losses there that offset the increased number of infrastructure-construction jobs?

Regardless of the answers, such questions surely should be asked. Yet too often politicians and voters endorse more infrastructure spending without even thinking to ask such questions.

Or consider proposals to force employers to give workers some minimum annual amount of paid leave. Obviously, more paid leave is a benefit for workers. But it's also a cost for employers. So when this is mandated, how will employers respond? Will they simply shrug and accept permanently smaller profits? Seems unlikely. So, will employers cut back on their number of workers, perhaps using labor-saving machinery more than they otherwise would? Or might employers instead outsource, perhaps to foreigners, some production?

Even if all employers do accept lower profits, what will this do to business creation and expansion? Might reduced profits reduce entrepreneurs' eagerness to start new firms or to expand existing ones — and, thus, slow future job growth?

And might mandated leave cause more picky hiring decisions? Isn't it at least possible that mandated leave will make young, single, healthy males relatively more attractive to hire than young married women (who are more likely to get pregnant)?

The answers to these, and countless similar, questions are important. But even more important is the habit of relentlessly asking such questions.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.