Category Archives: jobs

Obama’s Minimum Wage

Posted on by
Reply

In his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama, among other spending demands, called for a boost to the Federal minimum wage from the current $7.25/hr to $9/hr.

Obama insists such a wage boost will “take millions of Americans out of poverty.”  However, this 24% increase in hourly wage represents a 24% increase in the cost of labor to an employer or potential employer.  This hinders employment; it doesn’t help it: that 24% is money with which an employer could do a number of other things: more product development, more advertising, more capital plant improvement, all of which lead to more hiring, or more hiring directly.

Worse, a government-mandated minimum wage increase is a permanent drag on employment and on our economy.  The ones who are the most hurt by this thing—the ones who will be laid off because the value of an hour of their work doesn’t reach $9 or those who won’t be hired in the first place, because the job available isn’t worth $9—are those who can least afford the damage.  Our youth, teens and early-20-yr-olds, already are suffering 20%-plus unemployment (almost 38% among black teens, a sharp increase during Obama’s administration), and have done for a number of years.  This is experience and job skills these people are not accumulating, and so future wage gains—even future jobs—they’re denied for that lack of experience/skill.  They’ll always be behind where they could have been had they been employable at a wage an employer could afford (which is based not just on a company’s top line, but also on those alternative uses for the money).

That lack of experience, with its concomitant loss of income potential, virtually locks those folks into their poverty condition—which represents an additional drain on our nation’s resources in the form of higher welfare support costs.

It also represents lost opportunities for our society, our nation, in the form of foregone creativity, productivity, innovation that these folks might have been able to provide had they only been employable early enough in their lives that they could have developed the knowledge base and the skills to generate these.

No, instead, we don’t have enough people employed, so we’ll raise the price of employment.  Yeah.  That’s the ticket.  We’ll go with that.  And we’ll ignore the inherently racist nature of minimum wages (or don’t disparate outcomes apply here?).

This is Why

Posted on by
Reply

…unions have lost their usefulness and now are anathema to free markets and to freedom generally.

A December memo from Michigan Education Association President Steven Cook to his local union officials, that the West Michigan Policy Forum got hold of, lays out a series of steps for unions to mitigate Michigan’s just-passed the right-to-work law.  For instance:

Members who indicate they wish to resign membership in March [Michigan’s RTW law takes effect 1 March], or whenever, will be told they can only do so in August.  We will use any legal means at our disposal to collect the dues owed under signed membership forms from any members who withhold dues prior to terminating their membership in August for the following fiscal year.

Workers can’t resign from the union when they want to, even though they can resign from their jobs at will.  And they’ll be haled into court for exercising their right under the new law not to pay the union’s vig.

And

We’ve looked carefully at this and believe the impact of RTW can be blunted through bargaining strategies[.]

The union will bargain—in their members’ name, yet—for contracts that trap their members into paying the vig, even though RTW says they don’t have to.  Which lines up well with the union leadership insisting that members can’t leave at convenience.

Hmm….

Budgets, Deficits, and Debt

Posted on by
Reply

In his press announcement last week, President Barack Obama made a lot of…interesting…comments.  Here are some, with some editorial remarks associated.

We’ve created more than 6 million jobs in the last 35 months.

However, if our economy were undergoing the recovery he promised his stimulus spending would produce, it would have produced 8 million jobs in that time, and we wouldn’t have fewer Americans working today than at the start of that spending.  If we were undergoing a normal recovery, we’d have even more jobs “saved or created” by now.

But we’ve also seen the effects political dysfunction can have on our economic progress.  The drawn out process for resolving the fiscal cliff hurt consumer confidence.  The threat of massive automatic cuts have already started to affect business decisions.

And

Deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy, and national security will cost us jobs and will slow down our recovery.

True enough.  But given that, he shouldn’t have demanded such indiscriminacy in his sequester demand of 2011.  Today, he needs to get out of the way and let budgets be passed that cut spending responsibly and in a carefully targeted manner.  More, he needs actively to help this process by requiring his Party-controlled Senate to put House-passed budgets (see below) up for vote and passage.

[W]e’ve been reminded that while it’s critical for us to cut wasteful spending, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.

As someone said repeatedly in 2008, “Yes, we can.”

He also had this riff:

Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together and cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion….  [A] balanced approach [of tax increases and spending cuts] have achieved $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction.  That’s more than half way toward…$4 trillion in deficit reduction…required to stabilize our debt.

And

There’s no reason why we should keep [loopholes and deductions] at a time when we’re trying to cut down on our deficit.

And

If we’re serious about paying down the deficit, the savings we achieve from tax reform should be used to pay down the deficit.

Notice that: deficit, and not debt.  Obama cares not a fig for the magnitude of our national debt—100% of our GDP today, including all of our national debt, not just the publicly held portion—and its rapid growth.  “Reducing” our deficit leaves a continuously growing debt—not stabilization.

He also was careful to include his stock demand for higher taxes as a quid pro quo for even token spending reductions:

And I still believe that we can finish the job with a balanced mix of spending cuts and tax reform.

Obama’s speech adds up to an ignorance of how a free market economy actually works that’s breathtaking in its scope.  Or a cynical disdain for free markets and the associated individual freedoms.

The WSJ noted,

House Democrats have drafted a plan to replace all of the March 1 spending cuts with a plan that calls for both tax increases and spending cuts.  The proposal, drafted by rep. Chris Van Hollen (D, MD), calls for tax increases on the wealthy, reducing tax breaks for oil and gas companies and a reduction in farm subsidies.

Notice this, too: more tax increases, especially on the hated wealthy, and the Progressives’ standard singling out of evil oil and gas producers.  Van Hollen carefully is seeking to protect “green” energy companies (I hesitate to call them producers) from a similar reduction in tax breaks or subsidies for “green” energy companies.  The Progressives—not just Obama—are busy designating winners and losers in our economy.

There are, though, some in Congress (not on the left side, alas) who do understand.  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R, MI), for instance:

Tax reform should be about making the code simpler and fairer for American families and helping employers create more jobs.  The president’s proposal is nothing more than another tax hike to pay for more Washington spending.

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) said before Obama’s speech,

Republicans have twice voted to replace these arbitrary cuts [Obama’s sequester] with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect our national defense.  We believe there is a better way to reduce the deficit, but Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes.  The president’s sequester should be replaced with spending cuts and reforms that will start us on the path to balancing the budget in 10 years.

Because balancing the budget—actually eliminating the deficit, not just “paying it down”—is a critical first step to reducing—paying down—our debt.  After all, the CBO says that

continuing large deficits would push the level of government debt held by the public—a commonly used measure that excludes the US Treasury bonds held in Social Security and various trust funds—to 76.3% of GDP at the end of September, the highest level since 1950.

and

[Failure to fix will cause] the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the US, to grow by just 1.4% this year, measured from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013.

That’s less than last year’s 1.9% growth.  And full employment won’t be reached before 2017, the CBO says.

Recovery

Posted on by
2

Here, from Zero Hedge, are some graphs illustrating the ongoing failure that is the Obama Economic Recovery.

As ZH notes (his emphasis), this is

the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

This one shows the effervescent fluffiness of this failed recovery:

There are actually those who tout gains like this as meaningful (Federal Reserve Bank President Ben Bernanke among them*).  They speak of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or of the S&P 500, or of some other market index as proof of the efficacy of President Barack Obama’s policies.  The indices have been doing quite well; the DJIA is at a five year high, for instance.

The indices, though, are not the real economy.  They’re just a measure of how well investors like me have been doing; they have nothing at all to do with how poorly folks who actually work for a living—or who would like to work for a living—are doing.  And that real economy is what underlies those indices.  Heads up.

*Certainly, that’s a two-year old op-ed, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate he’s altered his views—not about the (ir)relevance of stock prices in assessing our recovery, and not about any of the several other misapprehensions he included in his piece (but which are the topics of other posts).

Americans, Deadbeats, and Bills

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama, the other day, announced that we’re a not a nation of deadbeats; we pay our bills.  What are the facts?

Brett Arends, in a recent Wall Street Journal Market Watch article offers some.

Far from paying our bills, the current generation of Americans—or some of them—have set records for default which probably have no parallel in the history of the human race.  During the last five years, US individuals have walked away from a staggering $585 billion in mortgages, credit card debts and other personal loans.  That works out at about $6,000 per household.

And if the numbers are to be believed, there is probably a lot more to come.

For instance,

According to the Federal Reserve, US household debts peaked five years ago at a gigantic $13.8 trillion.  Since then it has declined to $12.9 trillion—a decline of about 7%.  To put that in context, household debts today still exceed those seen at the end of 2006, near the peak of the bubble.  They are three times what they were in 1998.

The outcome includes

The total debt reduction from the peak, says the Fed, is $954 billion.  Loan write-offs [from those “walk aways”], at $585 billion, account for 60% of that.  In other words…in the last five years Americans have walked away from $3 in debt for every $2 they’ve paid off.

Does all of this make us a nation of deadbeats, though?  Let’s look at some more facts.  Arends notes

[T]his has occurred even while the federal government has bailed out bankrupt financial institutions, and flooded the economy with massive deficits, low interest rates and free money to make it all easier.

The policies have altered the incentives to make it easier to walk away from our debts.  But that’s not all there is to it.

Richard Vetter, in a same-day WSJ op-ed, offers some more facts.

From the mid-17th century to the late 20th century, the American economy grew roughly 3.5% a year.  That growth rate has since declined significantly.  When the final figures are in for 2012, the annual rate of real output growth for the first dozen years of this century is likely to be about 1.81%.

What accounts for the slowdown?  An important part of the answer is simple: Americans aren’t working as much today.  And this trend reflects more than the recession and sluggish economy of the past few years.

This chart, covering the last 65 years, illustrates the matter starkly.

Before continuing, a digression is in order.  Recall a couple of the dates Arends mentioned above.  Today’s household debt is greater than it was during the housing bubble peak in 2006.  At that time, we were already well on the way down in workforce participation, yet the Panic was still two years off.  Today’s household debt is three times what it was in 1998.  1998 is the 65-year peak in Americans’ workforce participation.  Fewer people are working today, relatively, than then, and that has nothing to do with our present economic malaise.

Back to the main program.  Vetter asked why fewer Americans are working today (after all, we have to earn an income in order to pay our debts.  Don’t we?).  After all,

[i]f today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000 [the end of the peak in work force participation], the US would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy.  [Aside: so much for those 3-5 million jobs Obama’s policies have so proudly saved.]

It comes back to incentives.  The Obama administration’s Progressive policies encourage Americans to not work.  Some of those destructive policies are these:

Food stamps. Above all else, people work to eat.  If the government provides food, then the imperative to work is severely reduced.  [Food stamp program use] has grown considerably, but especially so in the 21st century: There are over 30 million more Americans receiving food stamps today than in 2000.
The sharp rise in food-stamp beneficiaries predated the financial crisis of 2008: From 2000 to 2007, the number of beneficiaries rose from 17.1 million to 26.3 million, according to the Department of Agriculture. That number has leaped to 47.5 million in October 2012.  The average benefit per person jumped in 2009 from $102 to $125 per month.
… But more is going on here.
Compare 2010 with October 2012, the last month for which food-stamp data have been reported. The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 9.6%, and real GDP was rising steadily if not vigorously.  Food-stamp usage should have peaked and probably even begun to decline.  Yet the number of recipients rose by 7,223,000.  In a period of falling unemployment and rising output, the number of food-stamp recipients grew nearly 10,000 a day.

Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability.  Yet the opposite is the case.
Barely three million Americans received work-related disability checks from Social Security in 1990, a number that had changed only modestly in the preceding decade or two.  Since then, the number of people drawing disability checks has soared, passing…6.5 million by 2005, and rising to nearly 8.6 million today.  In a series of papers, David Autor of MIT has shown that the disability program is ineffective, inefficient, and growing at an unsustainable rate.

Pell grants. Paying people to go to college instead of to work is traditionally justified on the grounds that higher education builds “human capital” that is vital for the country’s economic future.  But a study Christopher Denhart, Jonathan Robe and I did for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (that will be released soon) shows that nearly half of four-year college graduates today work in jobs that the Labor Department has determined do not require a college degree.  For example, over one million “retail sales persons” and 115,000 “janitors and cleaners” are college graduates.
In 2000, fewer than 3.9 million young men and women received Pell Grant awards to attend college.  The number rose one-third, to 5.2 million by 2005, and increased a million more [one-fifth] by 2008.  In the next three years, however, the number grew over 50%, to an estimated 9.7 million.  … The result is fewer people in the work force.  Meanwhile the mismatch grows between the number of college graduates and the jobs that require a college education.

Extended unemployment benefits. Since the 1930s, the unemployment-insurance system has been designed to lend a short-term, temporary helping hand to folks losing their jobs, allowing them some breathing room to look for new positions.  Yet the traditional 26-week benefit has been continuously extended over the past four years—many persons out of work a year or more are still receiving benefits.

We don’t pay our bills.  But we’re not deadbeats, either; Progressive policies have simply altered the incentives.  It’s the rational (if not moral) choice to go the cheaper route—the route that welfare programs and Progressive excusals incentivize—the route of not working, and “walking away” from our debts.  Even bankruptcy itself has lost its moral stigma.  (That failure is on us, though, not our government.)  Obama is right—we’re not a nation of deadbeats.  But he’d like us to become a nation of government dependents for whom the rational, if not moral, choice is continued dependency.  And that makes it tough for us to pay our bills—individually or as a nation.