Some Labor Day Questions

Posted on by
Reply

First published in 2015, I’ve updated it for today.  In an ideal world, I’ll be able to update it again next year, with a yet more optimistic tone.

The Wall Street Journal asked some questions on Labor Day 2012, and supplied some answers.  Here are some of those questions and answers, which remain as valid this Labor Day.

  • Q: How are America’s workers doing? Not good. Over the past decade, over the ups and downs of the economy, taking inflation into account, the compensation of the typical worker — wages and benefits—basically haven’t risen at all. … The Labor Department recently said that 6.1 million workers in 2009-2011 have lost jobs that they’d had for at least three years. Of those, 45% hadn’t found work as of January 2012. … Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday that unemployment is still two percentage points higher than normal….
  • Q: Things ARE getting better, though. The US economy is creating jobs, right? Back in December 2007 when the recession began, there were about two jobless workers for every job opening.  When the economy touched bottom in mid-2009, there were more than six unemployed for every job.  At last count, the BLS says there were 3.4 jobless for every opening.
  • Q: How much of this elevated unemployment is because the unemployed just don’t have the skills that employers are looking for right now?  …the bulk of the evidence is a lot of the unemployment really is the old-fashioned kind: the kind that would go away if the economy was growing at a stronger pace. Mr. Bernanke said as much at the [2012] Jackson Hole conference….

In 2019, the jobs situation was drastically improved.  The overall unemployment rate was at an historic low, and there were more job openings than there were folks to fill them.  The black unemployment rate was at a record low.  The Hispanic unemployment rate was at a near record low.  The women unemployment rate was at a near record low.  Wages, both real and nominal, were growing.

The Wuhan Virus Situation severely damaged that, but by late 2020, our economy was in rapid recovery, GDP was up sharply, folks were getting jobs again, and inflation still was at an historic low despite that heating up economy.

We have today (2025) a new factor, recently and sharply risen, the plethora of Artificial Intelligence packages (eliding here the lack of actual intelligence in the packages; in fact they’re very good at teasing out patterns from very noisy inputs, but only those patterns their human programmers have programmed them to see). These packages have use in supporting research by those researchers with the professionalism and personal discipline to thoroughly check their AIs’ output rather than blindly accepting it, and the packages are very good at simple, rote work—the very entry level work that teenagers and newly graduated college students need in order to get started on their own careers. The actual impact of AI is not yet visible.

We now have a little high, if slowing inflation, and the necessities of life: food, shelter, energy for heating/cooling our shelter, and fuel for getting to work remain priced well above what they were those nearly four years ago, with real wages lower than they were then, even if that gap is slowly closing.

Labor Day is here, and this time around, it represents the traditional beginning of the mid-term election campaign season and of the newly structured Presidential election campaign season. The question before us now is which of the two parties and administrations currently on offer offers the better plan for getting us out of this lingering doldrum, reducing the far too high violent (and not so violent) crime rates in our cities, getting our spending and borrowing under control, and getting our immigration system (finally) right—the one that wants reduced regulation and smaller government or the one that sees government as the answer to our problems and wants to grow it commensurately?

Happy Labor Day.

A Weakness in Good People

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Thursday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal is deeply along the right track.

The most reliable way to understand dictators’ thoughts is to read their own writing…. From Lenin’s “What Is to Be Done?” (1902) to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (1925) and Mao’s “On New Democracy” (1940), the blueprints for conquest are there in black and white. So it is with Vladimir Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (2021).

Add Stalin to that, and there are a host of others in recent and distant history. A weakness that good people have, though, is that having read those dictators’ words, as many of us (most of us, at least of some of them?) have, too many of us don’t believe they really mean it—they’re just exaggerating for effect, or they’re too mad to be taken seriously, or…any excuse to dismiss avert our eyes will do.

It is a serious weakness: good people have an extremely difficult—often fatal—time believing the depth of evil and depravity that exists in dictators and especially of their willingness and intent on acting on their written intensions.

It’s necessary to take them at their word. And then to take the necessary next step: hold them to their word and move sternly to preempt them. And where preemption fails, to counter them decisively and totally, as we finally did in eradicating Nazi Germany and fascist Japan and Italy, remaking those nations as friendly to and respective of their neighbors.

Bureaucrats Leaving

Posted on by
Reply

This time from the CDC. Following Susan Monarez’ removal as CDC Director (which she was contesting as I wrote this, but my point remains the same), several top CDC officials resigned. This isn’t the chaotic mess that some pundits want us to believe, though.

Monarez is on her way out, one way or another, because she repeatedly

clashed with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr, and members of his staff….

Kennedy is her boss, and her insubordination was actively cheered by the Progressive-Democrats in Congress. Senator Patty Murray (D, WA):

I had serious doubts about CDC Director Monarez’s willingness to stand up against RFK Jr’s personal mission to destroy public health in America—I’m glad that I was wrong[.]

I’ll elide comment on the Progressive-Democrat’s cynically conclusory characterization of Kennedy’s “mission.” There are a couple of reasons why government bureaucrats these days leave beside wanting to move on after having been in such high pressure jobs for some time. One is that they’re disgruntled that they’re no longer in control of government policy (viz., Fiona Hill’s infamous “quite cross” testimony during Trump I’s first impeachment) and are instead relegated to their proper role of carrying out the directives of their bosses and of their bosses’ boss, the President. In frustration, they quit or are fired.

Another reason is that they disagree with those policies and they believe that they cannot in good conscience support them, so they resign. Of the latter two departure reasons, this is the honorable one.

In either case, the disagreements are good things to argue during the discussions at the heart of any decision process. Those discussions should necessarily be private, and once the boss has made his decision, the only honest thing to do is to carry them out, the bureaucrats’ disagreements no longer being relevant, or to resign. Continuing to resist, especially leaking their disagreements to the press, exposes such individuals for what they are: self-important bureaucrats who happen to have, in the present cases, medical or science degrees. They are, on net, no loss when they go.

In the end, a net benefit: the President—whomever he might be from administration to administration—gets a crop of bureaucrats who are on board with his policies rather than being saddled with self-important Know Betters believing themselves the government’s policy makers.

And then We the People can then make a more informed decision about whom to hire into the White House, more confident—or at least less unconfident—in the premise that the policies we’re voting up or down have been his and not those of that crop of bureaucrats.

“Unprecedented Violation of Norms”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Greg Ip said about removing Federal Reserve Bank Presidents in his Wall Street Journal piece decrying (otherwise generally legitimately) the Federal Reserve’s potential loss of its independence.

Removing bank presidents would be an unprecedented violation of norms. But Trump has demonstrated repeatedly he is willing to violate norms.

Couple things wrong with that claim. First, such a removal would certainly go against norms, but there would be—can be—no violation. Norms are habits, even traditions, but there is nothing at all binding in them. Calling moves against norms “violations” is exaggeration even if the phrasing is…the norm.

Second, and most importantly, using the idea that such a move would be unprecedented, never before done, to argue that it ought not be done here is, at best, singularly bad logic. Everything humans do—every single thing nature does—was once done for the first time, was once unprecedented. If we never did anything that had never been done before, 10,000 years of human hunter-gathering, civilization, and advance would never have happened, and we’d still be competing with apex predators for road kill on the savannah.

Tending to not doing something never before done, tending to stay within “norms,” is highly useful: it lends a measure of stability and predictability to human actions, and that’s especially useful in matters of law. That cannot, though, be allowed to prevent doing something better just because that better something is unprecedented.

Tying back to the center of Ip’s piece, removing Fed Bank Presidents before their term is up, removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook before her term is up, may or may not be good ideas, but they should be decided on the merits of the individual cases, not on the never-been-done-before nature of the removals.

Hypocrisy of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the bodice-ripping and the hysterical threats to counter-gerrymander engaged in by Progressive-Democrat politicians and governors, particularly the governors of California and Illinois, because Texas gerrymandered. Here is a table showing the extent of Progressive-Democrat gerrymandering, done explicitly to limit, even to completely shut out, the Republican Party from their States’ Congressional delegations (California and Illinois highlighted).

MA: 36% Republican, 0 seats
CT: 42% Republican, 0 seats
ME: 46% Republican, 0 seats
NM: 46% Republican, 0 seats
NH: 48% Republican, 0 seats
RI: 42% Republican, 0 seats
VT: 32% Republican, 0 seats
HI: 38% Republican, 0 seats
DE: 42% Republican, 0 seats

CA: 38% Republican, only 9 of 52 seats (20.9%)
IL: 44% Republican, only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%)
NY: 43% Republican, only 7 of 26 seats (26.9%)
MD: 34% Republican, only 1 of 8 seats (12.5%)
NJ: 46% Republican, only 3 of 12 seats (25%)
OR: 41% Republican, only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%)

This is their dishonesty, too, since hypocrisy is a subset of that.

H/t Frank Tuslow and ralflongwalker.