From the NYTimes.com:
...So I hope we’ll hear something about jobs Tuesday night, and some pushback against deficit hysteria.
But if we mainly hear about inequality and social justice, that’s O.K.
----
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/opinion/krugman-the-populist-imperative
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Federal Government Has Declared War On Work
From Investors.com:
While 50 years ago the federal government declared war on poverty, I would submit that in recent years it has led an undeclared but real new war:
a War on Work.
The government increasingly is using its coercive powers to punish people who want to work, creating a vast class of able-bodied Americans dependent on the government — and politicians — for their daily bread.
The statistics are startling. A smaller proportion of working-age Americans works today than when the recession officially ended 4-1/2 years ago (June 2009).
But this trend is not just a failure of policies to encourage economic recovery, such as the stimulus package and the ineffective, highly expansionary Federal Reserve monetary policy.
The decline in work has been going on since at least 2000, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Suppose today we had the same proportion of Americans working that we did in 2000 — the end of the Clinton administration. We would have 14.6 million more workers in America — 4 million more than the number of unemployed...
While a vast number of government policies cause a decline in work, let me mention just six:
• Extended unemployment benefits.
• Expansion of food stamps.
• Higher taxes on workers, especially the most productive ones.
• Increases in Social Security disability payments.
• Increases in Pell Grants and other forms of federal higher education aid.
• Increases in minimum wage laws at local, state and federal levels.
...No nation ever achieved greatness when vast portions of its productive workforce were idle. America will not regain its economic vitality until it ends this war on work.
• Richard Vedder is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, professor of economics at Ohio University and co-author of "Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in America."
Link: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011714-686845-government-punishes-work-rewards-dependency.htm
-----------------------
There's no shame in starting at the bottom
From CNBC.com:
We've been hearing a lot about the plight of the minimum-wage worker lately.
On Monday morning, these workers are sitting in my freshman economics class wondering if they should feel like victims.
I tell them just the opposite: They'd be a victim if that opportunity were taken away. And that's exactly what many people across the country are inadvertently demanding.
Over the past year, workers have pitched strikes in hundreds of cities across the country, demanding a minimum wage of up to $15 per hour to replace the current $7.25 minimum wage. As Diana Ransom points out in Inc. Magazine, that adds up to $15,000 more a year for each worker. Sounds good for the worker — if that job exists.
The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere, and when employers are forced to pay more than the labor is worth — when the contribution of the worker doesn't match the cost to employ him — employers simply won't offer the job. And that consequence will fall hardest on young people who deserve the opportunity to take the first step in their careers.
The reality is that minimum-wage workers look a lot more like my college freshmen than the single mom with kids we've been reading about in the headlines. More than half of all minimum-wage workers are under the age of 25, and many are students trying to pay their way through school. Only about 15 percent of minimum-wage workers are heads of households with children...
----
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101340105
While 50 years ago the federal government declared war on poverty, I would submit that in recent years it has led an undeclared but real new war:
a War on Work.
The government increasingly is using its coercive powers to punish people who want to work, creating a vast class of able-bodied Americans dependent on the government — and politicians — for their daily bread.
The statistics are startling. A smaller proportion of working-age Americans works today than when the recession officially ended 4-1/2 years ago (June 2009).
But this trend is not just a failure of policies to encourage economic recovery, such as the stimulus package and the ineffective, highly expansionary Federal Reserve monetary policy.
The decline in work has been going on since at least 2000, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Suppose today we had the same proportion of Americans working that we did in 2000 — the end of the Clinton administration. We would have 14.6 million more workers in America — 4 million more than the number of unemployed...
While a vast number of government policies cause a decline in work, let me mention just six:
• Extended unemployment benefits.
• Expansion of food stamps.
• Higher taxes on workers, especially the most productive ones.
• Increases in Social Security disability payments.
• Increases in Pell Grants and other forms of federal higher education aid.
• Increases in minimum wage laws at local, state and federal levels.
...No nation ever achieved greatness when vast portions of its productive workforce were idle. America will not regain its economic vitality until it ends this war on work.
• Richard Vedder is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, professor of economics at Ohio University and co-author of "Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in America."
Link: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011714-686845-government-punishes-work-rewards-dependency.htm
-----------------------
There's no shame in starting at the bottom
From CNBC.com:
We've been hearing a lot about the plight of the minimum-wage worker lately.
On Monday morning, these workers are sitting in my freshman economics class wondering if they should feel like victims.
I tell them just the opposite: They'd be a victim if that opportunity were taken away. And that's exactly what many people across the country are inadvertently demanding.
Over the past year, workers have pitched strikes in hundreds of cities across the country, demanding a minimum wage of up to $15 per hour to replace the current $7.25 minimum wage. As Diana Ransom points out in Inc. Magazine, that adds up to $15,000 more a year for each worker. Sounds good for the worker — if that job exists.
The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere, and when employers are forced to pay more than the labor is worth — when the contribution of the worker doesn't match the cost to employ him — employers simply won't offer the job. And that consequence will fall hardest on young people who deserve the opportunity to take the first step in their careers.
The reality is that minimum-wage workers look a lot more like my college freshmen than the single mom with kids we've been reading about in the headlines. More than half of all minimum-wage workers are under the age of 25, and many are students trying to pay their way through school. Only about 15 percent of minimum-wage workers are heads of households with children...
----
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101340105
Friday, January 10, 2014
The real unemployment rate? 13%. Oh, yes it is.
From CNBC.com:
The U.S. Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 6.7 percent in December—but does that rate tell the real story? (hint: 13.1%)
A number of economists look past the "main" unemployment rate to a different figure the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U-6," which it defines as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers."
In other words, the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged — a rate that still remains high....
The U-6 rate was unchanged in December at 13.1 percent.
----
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101326426
The U.S. Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 6.7 percent in December—but does that rate tell the real story? (hint: 13.1%)
A number of economists look past the "main" unemployment rate to a different figure the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U-6," which it defines as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers."
In other words, the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged — a rate that still remains high....
The U-6 rate was unchanged in December at 13.1 percent.
----
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101326426
U.S. job growth falters
From Reuters.com:
(Reuters) - U.S. employers hired the fewest workers in nearly three years in December, but the setback was likely to be temporary amid signs that unusually cold weather may have had an impact....
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 74,000 in December, the smallest increase since January 2011 and well short of the 200,000 jobs or so that most economists had expected....
----
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-economy
(Reuters) - U.S. employers hired the fewest workers in nearly three years in December, but the setback was likely to be temporary amid signs that unusually cold weather may have had an impact....
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 74,000 in December, the smallest increase since January 2011 and well short of the 200,000 jobs or so that most economists had expected....
----
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-economy
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Putting it mildly: Someone Please Help the New York Times With Economics 101
From Caroline Baum at Bloomberg.com:
"In March, every Republican in the House voted against a measure to raise the minimum wage. `When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,' said Speaker John Boehner in February, espousing a party-line theory that most economists agree has been discredited." -- New York Times editorial, Jan. 2, 2014.
This is one of the more outrageous political statements dressed up as economic theory from the editorial board of the New York Times. They should be ashamed of themselves....
Economists David Neumark and William Wascher reviewed more than 100 studies on the minimum wage in a 2006 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research: "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage Research."
Here's a summary of their findings: "The oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect."
What's more, almost all the papers they reviewed "point to negative employment effects" for the U.S. and many other countries.
The effect is greater for low-skilled workers, whom the minimum wage is designed to help. Overall, the authors found very little evidence of positive effects from raising the minimum wage.
Neumark and Wascher responded to an "unbalanced" Sunday Review article on the effect of the minimum wage in a Dec. 8, 2013, letter to the editor.
And the Washington Post's Fact Checker gave President Barack Obama two Pinocchios for his repeated assertion that "there's no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs."
...If you learned anything from your Econ 101 class in college, hopefully it was the law of supply and demand.
Lowering/raising the price of a good or service increases/decreases the quantity demanded. Similarly, producing less/more of something will raise/lower the price.
If you don't believe it, just ask a friend why she didn't buy that pair of boots until it went on sale after Christmas. Or ask a small business owner about what goes into the decision to hire an additional employee.
Isn't it about time opinion writers stopped using economics to justify a moral issue?
Our hearts go out to those who can't earn a decent living, find a job, get laid off for no good reason or find themselves in harm's way.
If we, as a society, want to provide support to those in need, fine. But the [New York Times] does a disservice when it makes wild, unsubstantiated claims about basic principles of economics.
---
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/someone-please-help-new-york-times-with-econ-101.html
"In March, every Republican in the House voted against a measure to raise the minimum wage. `When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,' said Speaker John Boehner in February, espousing a party-line theory that most economists agree has been discredited." -- New York Times editorial, Jan. 2, 2014.
This is one of the more outrageous political statements dressed up as economic theory from the editorial board of the New York Times. They should be ashamed of themselves....
Economists David Neumark and William Wascher reviewed more than 100 studies on the minimum wage in a 2006 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research: "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage Research."
Here's a summary of their findings: "The oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect."
What's more, almost all the papers they reviewed "point to negative employment effects" for the U.S. and many other countries.
The effect is greater for low-skilled workers, whom the minimum wage is designed to help. Overall, the authors found very little evidence of positive effects from raising the minimum wage.
Neumark and Wascher responded to an "unbalanced" Sunday Review article on the effect of the minimum wage in a Dec. 8, 2013, letter to the editor.
And the Washington Post's Fact Checker gave President Barack Obama two Pinocchios for his repeated assertion that "there's no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs."
...If you learned anything from your Econ 101 class in college, hopefully it was the law of supply and demand.
Lowering/raising the price of a good or service increases/decreases the quantity demanded. Similarly, producing less/more of something will raise/lower the price.
If you don't believe it, just ask a friend why she didn't buy that pair of boots until it went on sale after Christmas. Or ask a small business owner about what goes into the decision to hire an additional employee.
Isn't it about time opinion writers stopped using economics to justify a moral issue?
Our hearts go out to those who can't earn a decent living, find a job, get laid off for no good reason or find themselves in harm's way.
If we, as a society, want to provide support to those in need, fine. But the [New York Times] does a disservice when it makes wild, unsubstantiated claims about basic principles of economics.
---
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/someone-please-help-new-york-times-with-econ-101.html
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Gloomy Americans foresee a downhill slide to 2050
From the Associated Press:
Ask people to imagine American life in 2050, and you'll get some dreary visions.
Whether they foresee runaway technology or runaway government, rampant poverty or vanishing morality, a majority of Americans predict a future worse than today.
Whites are particularly gloomy: Only 1 in 6 expects better times over the next four decades. Also notably pessimistic are middle-age and older people, those who earn midlevel incomes and Protestants, a new national poll finds.
"I really worry about my grandchildren, I do," says 74-year-old Penny Trusty of Rockville, Md., a retired software designer and grandmother of five. "I worry about the lowering of morals and the corruption and the confusion that's just raining down on them."
Even groups with comparatively sunny outlooks - racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the nonreligious - are much more likely to say things will be the same or get worse than to predict a brighter future.
"Changes will come, and some of them are scary," says Kelly Miller, 22, a freshly minted University of Minnesota sports management grad.
She looks forward to some wonderful things, like 3D printers creating organs for transplant patients.
But Miller envisions Americans in 2050 blindly relying on robots and technology for everything from cooking dinner to managing their money.
"It's taking away our free choice and human thought," she says. "And there's potential for government to control and regulate what this artificial intelligence thinks."
Overall, 54 percent of those surveyed expect American life to go downhill, while 23 percent think it will improve, according to a December survey from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research....
----
Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_THE_MORE_THINGS_CHANGE?
Ask people to imagine American life in 2050, and you'll get some dreary visions.
Whether they foresee runaway technology or runaway government, rampant poverty or vanishing morality, a majority of Americans predict a future worse than today.
Whites are particularly gloomy: Only 1 in 6 expects better times over the next four decades. Also notably pessimistic are middle-age and older people, those who earn midlevel incomes and Protestants, a new national poll finds.
"I really worry about my grandchildren, I do," says 74-year-old Penny Trusty of Rockville, Md., a retired software designer and grandmother of five. "I worry about the lowering of morals and the corruption and the confusion that's just raining down on them."
Even groups with comparatively sunny outlooks - racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the nonreligious - are much more likely to say things will be the same or get worse than to predict a brighter future.
"Changes will come, and some of them are scary," says Kelly Miller, 22, a freshly minted University of Minnesota sports management grad.
She looks forward to some wonderful things, like 3D printers creating organs for transplant patients.
But Miller envisions Americans in 2050 blindly relying on robots and technology for everything from cooking dinner to managing their money.
"It's taking away our free choice and human thought," she says. "And there's potential for government to control and regulate what this artificial intelligence thinks."
Overall, 54 percent of those surveyed expect American life to go downhill, while 23 percent think it will improve, according to a December survey from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research....
----
Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_THE_MORE_THINGS_CHANGE?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)