Category Archives: jobs

Another Study in Contrasts

Posted on by
Reply

I last week about the difference in performance between Republican-run Florida and Progressive-Democrat-run New York.

Here are some more contrasts.

Notice that California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all are Progressive-Democrat governed. And there’s that Republican-governed Florida.

This is the degree of economic dysfunction we can expect from a Progressive-Democrat-run nation.

Notice another thing. Employment by government, of either party, has been remarkably stable. This is the sinecure of jobs in government, the remarkably deep entrenchment of the bureaucrats in the Bureaucrat State.

A “Careful” Economy

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed about the dangers we’re facing because we’re reopening our economy much too soon to suit him, John Cochrane had this remark:

…the most important thing government can give us is accurate and timely information on how widespread the virus is in each community—how dangerous it really is to go out—something we don’t have now.

The truly Critical Item on how dangerous it might be to go out is the mortality rate, and that’s down around 1% for Americans younger than 60-ish, which includes children and working age Americans, and it’s not much higher for those older.

That mortality rate is going down further as we learn more about the components of the denominator.

Of course, getting sick can be more than an inconvenience, but even hospitalization rates are falling, both in absolute terms and as we learn more about those denominator components.

Mortality rate information, contra Cochrane, in fact is well known to those of us who seek it out—which we have to work too hard to do because the press and Progressive-Democrat State governments studiously ignore it.

In the end, the medical dangers of restarting are overblown and the economic dangers of not restarting are underestimated if not ignored outright.

There’s nothing uncareful about reopening now or of pushing the pace of reopening.

Do This In Parallel

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a movement afoot in Congress to subsidize employees, lost employees, and prospective employees through employers and prospective employers.

The House plan would give employers enough money to cover up to 80% of their wages and benefits, up to $45,000 per worker, plus a credit for fixed expenses like rent. Eligible companies would simply keep taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. If that isn’t enough to equal the credit, they could get additional money from the Internal Revenue Service.
Smaller businesses would get the subsidy for all workers, while larger ones would get it only for furloughed workers still receiving wages or benefits. The break would be scaled to each employer’s revenue loss during the coronavirus pandemic.

There are a couple of tweaks needed, stipulating purely arguendo that this is a useful idea:

Don’t make the thing a one-size-fits-all arrangement. Weight the $45k by the regional- or MSA-based cost of living.

Put a milestone-based (not calendar-based) automatic expiration on the subsidy and credit, something along the lines of the unemployment rate in the region/MSA falling below a specified threshold that’s consistent with the region’s/MSA’s [5-yr pre-Wuhan Virus average] unemployment rate multiplied by a greater-than-one factor or a return of the region’s/MSA’s GDP to [80%] of its pre-Wuhan Virus level.

Such a move, reducing revenue flowing into government as it would, should come with a parallel: a reduction of government spending commensurately. After all, the only Constitutional purposes for Federal spending are three: to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The long pole in that is defense spending—an especially important pole in an environment of aggressively acquisitive Russia and the People’s Republic of China and of a nuclear and nuclear wannabe northern Korea and Iran.

General Welfare spending, limited as it is (for all that the limit has been winked at for too long) to the 16 purposes enumerated in Art I, Sect 8, doesn’t take many dollars.

Our Debts will become much more manageable and repayable with spending held within revenues.

Encourage employers to hire—with, of course, that caveat of an automatic expiry to the incentive—but spending cuts must be done in parallel with the revenue reduction.

Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

The transportation departments of a number of States are backing away from transportation projects, infrastructure projects that they have been claiming are desperately needed. Their excuse? They “need” more Federal aid. The already allocated $15 billion isn’t enough, they’re bleating.

The States have this backward. They don’t need Federal aid—the dollars of taxpayers in other States—they need to let their own citizens get back to work, including, perhaps beginning with, infrastructure projects like these road projects.

The States will then get all the “aid” they need: directly, in the form of income and business tax revenues from those businesses and employees working on those projects, and indirectly from the general, vast pickup in overall economic activity that would result from releasing American citizens from homebound gaol.

House Relief Bill

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what’s in the House “relief” bill, written in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) kitchen where she could have ready access to her special ice cream. The bill was written with zero Republican input, zero Republican amendments, carefully limited debate on the House floor, and passed almost entirely along party lines; although the bill did make 14 Progressive-Democrats choke to the point of voting against it, and one Republican was too timid to oppose it.

  • $1 trillion in funding for state and local governments

Money that State and local government do not need. To the extent that Federal funds—the dollars of taxpayers who are citizens of other States—are needed in a particular State, those funds should go directly to the point of need: the individual citizens and those citizens’ individual businesses.

  • relief to wealthy residents of high-tax states like New York by waiving the $10,000 cap on the federal State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction for 2020 and 2021

These look like the same 1% that the Progressive-Democrats hate so much, and they look like the folks ex-President Barack Obama (D) disdained as having made enough money. But they’re not the same 1%—their the rich donors to the Progressive-Democratic Party and Party-supported causes.

  • explicitly omitting Hyde Amendment limits on Federal abortion funding
  • explicitly withdrawing the work requirement criterion for food stamps

It’s important to keep in mind, on that last, that the work requirement wasn’t limited to requiring actual work. In lieu of work, the recipient could seek work, train for work (vis., take community college classes, intern, etc), do volunteer work, and so on.

Other goodies include

  • student loan debt forgiveness
  • $25 billion for the Postal Service
  • $3.6 billion to states for planning and preparation of elections

That last contains a national requirement to hold elections by mail—the Progressive-Democrats’ unconstitutional attempt to Federalize our elections.

All that money, and all of it is irrelevant to the supposed need for additional relief from the economic dislocation to which the Wuhan Virus situation has led. The Progressive-Democrats could have passed an actual relief bill, but they’ve chosen—again—to hold relief hostage until they’re paid their ransom in the form of their leftist wish list.

The Progressive-Democrats also could have sat back and done nothing for the moment, following the Senate’s recommendation that Government stop throwing money around and instead observe the effects of the money already shoveled out into the firebox.

No. The Progressive-Democrats chose instead to provide in Bill form, Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign platform.

How cynical. Especially during this period of economic distress.