Second Thoughts?

The New York City city council has decided to hold a series of hearings on the just concluded Amazon HQ2 deal cut with the city.  The council’s beef is the secretive nature of the negotiations between amazon.com and the folks purporting to represent the city.

Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, Economic Development Corp President James Patchett, and Amazon executives have been invited to the hearings, which will take place during the next few months, City Council Speaker Corey Johnson’s office said Thursday.

There’s nothing wrong with the negotiations themselves being done behind closed doors; that’s the only place “frank and open” discussions can occur.

However.

Now that the negotiations are concluded, and before the city council has to vote on accepting or rejecting the deal—especially over what the negotiated deal wants to commit the city to—it’s time for the city council and its members’ constituents to hear the full details of the arrangement.

The council’s hearings should be open to the public and moved to a larger venue if needs be.  If the constituents don’t like what they hear, the deal should be voted down.  Or maybe the deal should be put to a referendum.

If amazon.com walks away from that, that would demonstrate the uselessness of the deal to the city’s residents.

A Thought on Amazon’s Choices

Amazon.com has made its selection (-s, plural as it turns out) for its alternate corporate headquarters: Arlington County, VA’s Crystal City and New York’s Long Island City, with a booby consolation prize—or a scrap bone—tossed to Nashville, TN.

I have a couple of thoughts about this.

San Antonio, in Texas, had misgivings and declined to play Amazon’s game.

“Blindly giving away the farm isn’t our style,” wrote San Antonio officials in an open letter to Mr Bezos.

Others openly groveled and kissed the ground on which Amazon officials walked when those worthies deigned visit.

In Los Angeles, Amazon executives notified officials on a Tuesday they would be visiting the following Monday. Local officials had to juggle a major clean-technology conference scheduled for that day because Amazon executives insisted they couldn’t change their plans. The message was clear: Amazon had to take priority.

That should have been a crystalline hint, and Los Angeles’ pseudo-leadership should have told Amazon to take a hike.  Instead, they bent over their desks and….

Crystal City and Long Island City—and Virginia and New York at large—will pay a heavy price for their kowtowing.  Nashville may get off more lightly, but I’m not holding my breath.

San Antonio made out like a bandit (so did Dallas, TX, one of the non-selected finalists; although they will take a while to realize it).

The Wages of a Minimum Wage Law

Recall Seattle’s 2015-2016 minimum wage law that mandated a rise in minimum wage from $9.47/hr to $12 for small businesses and $13 for large businesses.  The University of Washington early on published a study that demonstrated a drop in hours worked by low-wage workers of some 9% with a resulting decrease in actual income for those low-wage earners—ones least able to afford the cut—of some $74/mo.

New, updated numbers are in, reflecting in particular tracks folks with jobs at the time the mandated minimum wage went up.

Experienced workers earned $84 a month more, on average, although about a quarter of the gain came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. Inexperienced workers got no real earnings boost. They simply spent less time on the clock.

Higher income for those who already had work experience, but at the expense of taking additional work—with that lengthy commute to get an available additional job outside Seattle’s jurisdiction.  I guess gasoline is free in Seattle, and those workers’ time has no value at all.

And those without work experience, trying to accrue some so they can get better jobs?  They’re not even allowed to hold their place in the experience line; this wonderful new minimum wage law is pushing them farther back.  This is emphasized by another sad datum:

The authors point to a marked decline, about 5%, in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce each quarter.

The young, new, or simply unskilled are having a harder time just getting a first job.

This is how Progressive-Democrats reward their voters.

The Dangers of Welfare

These are illustrated by a Letter to the Editor in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.  The letter-writer wrote of a pay raise his company gave its employees and a bit of Panic of 2008 history:

Despite high unemployment rates [during the Panic], we still struggled to find well-qualified employees. We were competing against the federal government’s repeatedly extended subsidy for unemployment programs. We interviewed dozens of people who flatly told us they were only interviewing to obtain another log entry to remain qualified for unemployment benefits, and that they didn’t need to work for us when they could get paid almost the same to not work at all—for 52 weeks or more.

This is one contributor to an abominably slow recovery.

College?

I’ve written before about whether college is for everyone.

Some empirical evidence appears in a Wall Street Journal piece about last week’s unemployment number.

Peerfit Inc is growing, adding 80 staffers to its original 20 in just the last year and increasing their wages 5%-10% in the same period.  CEO Ed Buckley has noted the difficulty in finding “good people.”  Then he added this kicker:

When we first started, everyone we were hiring had a four-year college degree.  Now the skill set [of vocational hires] is sometimes even sharper than their counterparts coming out with a four-year college degree.

Hmm….