Category Archives: jobs

Where to Cut

Posted on by
Reply

As the recent government shutdown demonstrated, there’s a lot of fat that can be cut in the personnel department.  This is no fault of the personnel, but the fact is, we don’t need that many in Federal employ.

Here are a couple more items on that score.

The Department of Agriculture is fairly typical of most agencies in its sometimes incongruous responsibilities and huge some say too huge workforce.  It employs roughly 99,000 people to service the roughly 1.4 million Americans employed in farming.

That’s 14 farmers for every DA employee.

And this on the states being absolved, more and more, of their responsibilities by the Federal government:

“Ronald Reagan had a yellow book test,” said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.  “If something could be found in the Yellow Book, it should be done by the private sector.  Unfortunately, the administration now is taking the opposite view, claiming many services are inherently governmental, and therefore not subject to competition.”

Which feeds back into the bloat in Departments like the DA and those listed on the other side of the first link above.

Unemployment Payments as Stimulus

Posted on by
Reply

It has been claimed—Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is the most famous proponent of the theory—that unemployment payments to the unemployed are inherently stimulative: the recipients promptly spend the money.  The stimulus is assumed to come from what’s called the velocity of money.

The velocity of money is a concept in economics that looks at how many times a dollar gets turned over in a local economy: a man buys groceries and pays rent, the grocer pays his clerk, who buys…, and the landlord hires maintenance workers, who then spend on….  The velocity aspect comes from measures of how many times that dollar gets turned over before it disappears from—has been consumed by—the local economy.

There are holes in the premise that unemployment payments are stimulative; here are some.

Unemployment payments are from tax money taken out of the private sector—which means it’s money not turning over in the private sector until it’s returned as those unemployment payments.  Moreover, those unemployment payments are less than what was originally collected for the purpose—the difference is lost to the friction of government.  The amount of money that can be turned over is lessened.

Further, the unemployed don’t buy the more expensive things with their unemployment payments; they buy the low cost items in the grocery store.  These are low-margin items for the grocer, though, and so they lower, a little, the overall margins of the store.  The grocer thus has a little less money with which to do his own purchasing (and perhaps hiring).  Turnover is slowed.

On the other hand, money (left) in the private sector gets spent on a variety of things (60%-70% of our economy is consumer spending), including on more expensive items in that grocery store—which helps expand, a little, that store’s overall margin.  Turnover is greater.

Money left in the private sector, rather than returned to it as unemployment payments, also gets saved, to an extent (a large part of the remaining 40%-30% after consumer spending), or used to pay down existing debt (another significant fraction of those 40%-30%).  Saved, or returned to a financial institution as debt payment, these funds improve the credit-supporting aspect of our economy: they’re funds financial institutions can lend out to support credit card-supported purchases or to support the purchase of big ticket items like cars and houses.  More money is available to be turned over.

Savings and debt repayments also are funds financial institutions can lend to businesses for capital improvement and/or expansion and to startups to support their gutsing up or subsequent growth.  Here are jobs in the making, and an expansion of the money in the private sector—in the hands of individuals.    Here, also, is a reduction in unemployment and so of the need for unemployment payments.  More money is available to be turned over.

This is not to say that unemployment payments must never be made under any circumstances.  However, a more accurate understanding their real effect on our economy will enable us to make more efficient use of such payments.

Food Stamps and Farm Support

Posted on by
5

Why do we even have food stamps and farm support?  Here’s a brief, over-simplified history.  During the Great Depression, with unemployment at historic levels and mom-and-pop farms failing at a high rate (not enough income from not enough sales of produce to an unemployed population), Franklin Roosevelt pushed through Congress a pair of bills that had negative impacts on the unemployed and on those farms (and that prolonged the Depression, but that’s for a different post).

Those two bills were wage controls in the form of a mandated minimum wage that an employer could pay—or that a prospective employee could accept—and a mandated minimum price at which a farmer was allowed to sell his produce (thus, farm supports).  Think about that: in a time of enormous unemployment (Obama’s 10% unemployment in 2009 was full employment, and today’s 7.2% is Phat City compared to Depression levels), Americans were priced out of the labor market.  And at the time those Americans couldn’t get work, they had no income from which to pay those artificially inflated farm prices.

Roosevelt thought about that, and the light went off in his head: he pushed through Congress a mechanism for giving subsidies to the poor (read: unemployed) so they could afford to buy food (thus, food stamps). (It didn’t occur to this Progressive to rescind his minimum wage and price support programs so the markets could clear, folks could get work, and they could buy their own food.)

That’s the long and short of it: food stamps and farm supports are Depression-era attempts fix a failing economy.  Today, Americans pay over $14 billion annually in the form of farm support tax money transfers, and we pay nearly $80 billion per year in the form of food stamp tax money transfers (to a near-record 47 million Americans).

What to do about this?  Much has been made, especially by conservatives and by Conservatives, of States’ Rights—the 10th Amendment, and all that.  What too often gets overlooked, though, is the dual of that: States’ Obligations.  The States should be taking care of themselves on this, not taking money from the taxpayers of other States’ citizens.

My solution is in two parts.  One part is to take all money the Feds currently send to the States for farm support and food stamps and convert the funds to block grants, making the year of conversion the baseline year.  Every year after that, reduce the size of each block grant by 10% (let’s say) of the baseline amount until the money being sent to each state for each program is $0.  This gradual, but steady, forced reduction gives the States time to break their addiction to OPM and to adapt to relying solely on internal State funds for what are essentially internal State problems.  Aside from that, the good citizens of nearly bankrupt New York or nearly bankrupt Illinois have no business being forced to send their tax money to a nearly bankrupt California or a flush Texas.

The other part is to get rid of the ethanol mandates.  American refineries are required by the EPA to blend over 18 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline.  The primary source of that ethanol is corn, and as recently as 2011, 40% of US corn production went to ethanol rather than to food.  That elevates the price of a broad range of food, and not just corn-based food, at that.  Food that eats corn—beef and chickens, for instance, and the eggs from corn-fed chickens, get elevated prices from that diversion.  It spreads further: the prices of corn substitutes, like wheat, soya beans, and so on, are also elevated by this diversion.  The States’ problems funding their own food stamp programs (to the extent any of these programs persist when the States discover they can’t fund them with OPM) will be greatly reduced by the increase in food affordability due to the elimination of this pernicious mandate.

Mentalities: Engineering or Liberal Arts?

Posted on by
Reply

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels (and ex-Governor of Indiana) had a thought on STEM graduates and gluts.  He spoke about this at his keynote address to the National Academy of Engineering a week or so ago.

Engineers, unlike, for instance, lawyers or financial experts, frequently generate through their innovation new work for themselves and others.  Somewhere in any potential “glut” will be new Watts and Edisons and Noyces who give birth to entire new industries that require the services of engineers and non-engineers alike.

But even if we were to somehow outrun the market’s need for engineering talent, we will be a far stronger country if the engineering mentality takes a more prominent place in our national conversations.

The Liberal Arts mentality (those lawyers and financial experts, and history and philosophy majors), on the other hand, worries too much about “what might go wrong” and not enough about “what is the problem, and how do we fix it” that is the STEM’s approach to life.  The Liberal Arts mentality worries too much about “we have to do all of this for the less fortunate” and not enough about “how do we help the less fortunate help themselves, and how do we pay for that” that is the STEM’s approach to life.

There’s nothing wrong with Liberal Arts approach; it provides an important alternative way of looking at the world.  But for a burgeoning, prosperous economy in which everyone, regardless of their individual situations, can participate, we need the engineer’s problem scoping and solving mentality.

Jobs and a Policy

Posted on by
Reply

There are conflicting reports concerning the impact of Obamacare on job creation.  The President’s Council of Economic Advisors says, for instance, that since Obamacare’s enactment in 2010, 9 out of every 10 jobs created have been full time jobs—that is, by the Obamacare definition, jobs that required 30 or more hours of work each week.  Other economists disagree and talk about stunted job creation due to Obamacare.

Who’s right?  The answer depends on more than whom you ask; it hinges on the time period covered by the answer.  CEA is right when the time frame runs from the end of March, 2010, when Obamacare formally became law.

Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive Officer of CKE Restaurants, essayed a different answer, based on a different time frame, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.  He suggested that (paraphrasing here), instead of spring 2010 to now, the relevant time frame is January to July 2013.  Why those six months?  For most of the preceding three years, the content of Obamacare was ill-understood, with clarity only trickling out over the time.  Businesses aren’t going to make major changes, including in employment, when they know they have only a poor understanding of the future.  They’re going to stick with their status quo, including the types of jobs for which they hire.

Two bits of clarity that did emerge over those three years were the definition of “full-time employment” (that 30 hours per week bit) and the full-time employment baseline to be used in determining a business’ insurance requirements under Obamacare—what the look back period would be.  The look back period turned out to extend as far back as 12 months prior to the date the employer mandate was to take effect.

With an effective date of 1 Jan 14, that starts our period of interest at 1 Jan 13.  On 2 July, President Barack Obama decided he wouldn’t do his Constitutional duty of law enforcement as it applied to the employer mandate: he announced he would not enforce that mandate for a year.  1 July 13 thus marks the end of the two quarters of employment data that exist prior to Obama’s decision diluting the mandate’s effects on hiring.

What was the effect of the employer mandate on hiring during the time employers thought the look back period was operational?

Between Jan 1 and June 30, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy added 833,000 part-time jobs and lost 97,000 full-time jobs, for net creation of 736,000 jobs.  In reality, the economy overall added no full-time jobs.  Rather, it lost them.

And

In July and August [the two months following the announced delay in enforcement and so after the look back period], the economy lost 20,000 part-time jobs and added 132,000 full-time jobs.

That’s pretty unequivocal.