Tag Archives: jobs

An Empirical Test?

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ex-entrepreneur Andrew Yang now is running for mayor of New York City, and he wants to implement there his Universal Basic Income scheme.

We can eradicate extreme poverty in New York City. If you put just a little money in their hands it can actually be what keeps them in their home and, again, avoids them hitting city services that are incredibly expensive.

Or not.

Keep in mind that demand is not the number of people who want a product, it’s the amount of money being spent for the product.

The problem with giving unearned money to everyone—using the $1,000/mo, or $12,000/yr, from his Presidential campaign for concreteness—is that you increase demand (this time artificially) by those $12k/yr. Since production won’t increase much—the money representing demand won’t be earned from production, it’ll be printed, or it’ll come from taxes, or it’ll come from borrowing (future taxes)—the result will be pure inflation.

That inflation will rise to fully absorb those $12k, leaving buying power where it was before the UBI started getting handed out. The $2 candy bar will cost $24, and the UBI will be completely absorbed. The recipients will be no better off than before.

In fact, everyone will be worse off. Inflation will leave everyone’s buying power fundamentally unchanged, but money taken out of the economy by those taxes or that debt will lead to an overall reduction in economic activity. Taxes or debt (either one) will reduce businesses’ ability to innovate—which is jobs—or to give bonuses/pay raises—which is jobs—or to improve existing plant—which is jobs—or to hire more employees—which is jobs—since absent innovation, there’ll be reduced ability to expand.

Or, Yang is onto something.

If so, what better place to run the test than in the aftermath of Bill de Blasio’s New York City?

“We Cannot Erase the Last Four Years”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D, MD) lament as he closed the Progressive-Democrats’ case on the floor of the House during Wednesday’s impeachment “debate.”

We cannot erase the last four years.

Though the Progressive-Democrats tried every day of those four years. They and their Obama Executive Branch bureaucrats spied on the Trump campaign and trumped up charges against General Michael Flynn, false charges it took all this time to clear.

They and their Democratic National Committee commissioned a salacious and false dossier in an effort to besmirch a President and to serve as the foundation of an investigation that culminated in finding that President Donald Trump had done nothing wrong.

They and their FBI agent-assistants lied to courts in order to get subpoenas and warrants to “investigate” Trump’s team.

They ran a sham impeachment.

They obstructed financial aid to Americans fiscally harmed by government shutdowns ostensibly due to the Wuhan Virus situation—done as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) admitted after the election was done solely for the purpose of interfering with Trump’s reelection.

Here’s what Hoyer and his Progressive-Democrats want to erase.

A major tax rate reduction for American businesses and a major income tax rate reduction for Americans. This kept his campaign promise.

Unemployment endured by blacks, Hispanics, women reduced to historic lows. This kept his campaign promise.

Income inequality reduced to multi-decade lows—by previously unemployed minority citizens actually getting jobs while the rich got no better off. This kept his campaign promise.

Historic support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities by increasing Federal funding support for those schools and making that support multi-year. This kept his campaign promise.

An improved trade deal with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA. This kept his campaign promise.

Working toward improving and strengthening NATO by getting the European NATO nations to increase their financial and equipment commitments to NATO—commitments that those nations had voluntarily committed years ago but welched on subsequently. This kept his campaign promise.

Bringing American soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan—for good or ill, but this kept his campaign promise.

Overtly and concretely facing the People’s Republic of China over that nation’s trade, technology, intellectual property depredations. This kept his campaign promise.

Overtly and concretely facing the People’s Republic of China over that nation’s seizure of the South China Sea and the islands and resources therein, and its attempts to seize the East China Sea. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthened our ties with the Republic of China. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthened our ties with Japan. This kept his campaign promise.

Improved our defense arrangement with the Republic of Korea. This kept his campaign promise.

Attempted serious diplomacy with northern Korea vis-à-vis that nation’s nuclear weapons program. This kept his campaign promise.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, an accord that our compliance with would seriously damage our economy while strengthening, in relative terms, the PRC’s and so increasing its leverage over our Asian allies and over us. This kept his campaign promise.

Withdrawing from the JCPOA, which authorized Iran to freely develop nuclear weapons as soon as it expired. This kept his campaign promise.

Strengthening our physical border with Mexico, thereby strongly reducing illegal entry into our nation by illegal aliens. This kept his campaign promise.

Reducing Federal regulations that interfere with American business development and growth. This kept his campaign promise.

Reducing regulatory barriers to our hydrocarbon-based energy industry, thereby making us a net energy exporter and virtually eliminating our dependence on foreign energy. This kept his campaign promise.

I’m sure there are more; this short list is just the high points.

This is the economic, social, and political strengthening of the last four years that Hoyer and his Progressive-Democrats want so desperately to erase.

Newspeak In America

Posted on by
Reply

…via the leftwing Forbes magazine. And it’s a disappointing position for the used-to-be Conservative Steve Forbes to take via his magazine.

Randall Lane, the editor of Forbes magazine, issued a warning to businesses this week that they should avoid hiring any press secretaries that served in the Trump White House, claiming that doing so will make their companies instantly untrustworthy and subject to heightened journalistic scrutiny.

Lane went on:

Let it be known to the business world: hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists…and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.

And the newspeak of Forbes through his magazine and his editor:

This isn’t cancel culture[.]

Alternatively…

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump, recall, is moving to reclassify Federal senior-level civil service employees into a new category (Schedule F for those following along) that would facilitate their hiring and firing outside the existing Federal employment rules that generally serve to keep those employees on the job regardless of their performance quality. That protection tends to obviate the hiring part by reducing the number and availability of slots into which to hire: they’re already (and still) occupied.

That last—ability to hire—is little talked about, as the focus, especially by public unions, has been on job protection rather than job performance.

I said all that to point out all this. One of the beefs about making it easier to fire senior civil servants is this:

Without the existing protections, civil servants in policy-making roles could be replaced by less experienced and knowledgeable staff who more closely subscribe to the administration’s political goals, public-employee advocates said.

What these self-serving advocates omit to say is that, alternatively, civil servants in policy-making roles could be replaced by just as experienced and just as knowledgeable, if not more so, staff. The new staff’s experience, too, would necessarily be broader, as they’d be coming in from outside instead of continuing the hot house echo room (not to mix metaphors or anything) mind set resulting from an extended career buried in the civil service. That increased breadth of experience is dispositive.

Even more dispositive, though, is that more closely subscribe to the administration’s political goals part. Federal employees exist to carry out the administration’s policies and goals, not their own. If they can’t keep up with changing administrations, or choose not to, they’re unfit for continuation.

Full stop.

Oh, and here’s a hint on the breadth of the problem that wants correction [emphasis added]:

The Office of Management and Budget, which played a lead role in crafting the [reclassification] order, submitted its own preliminary list last week, recommending that 425 positions at the office—more than 80% of the entire staff—be categorized as Schedule F[.]

Defunding by Another Name

Posted on by
Reply

Shoplifting has been decriminalized in California. Store management teams that take it on themselves to grab shoplifters can be sued for the effrontery of protecting store property.

Police stopped apprehending shoplifters because it wasn’t worth their time as thieves were released.

It’s broader than that.

Some large retailers including Goodwill, Walmart and Bloomingdale’s sought to punish shoplifters by requiring them to take a class in “life skills” to avoid a criminal complaint. The San Francisco city attorney then sued the educational company that provided the classes for extortion and false imprisonment.

This sort of larceny has exploded since the decriminalization, and the thefts have cost businesses in the state billions of dollars.

This is “defunding” law enforcement at the fount.

Here’s the start, from that, of an economic trend that could get very uncomfortable for Californians if the decriminalization isn’t reversed:

A[] Walgreens store in San Francisco, the seventh this year, is closing after its shelves were cleared by looters.

“Defund” law enforcement at the source.