Tag Archives: political economy

The Wages of a Minimum Wage Law

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Federal Redistributions of State Funds

Posted on by
Reply

In response to Robert Poole’s Wall Street Journal bit about making some aspects of our infrastructure more affordable, a couple of folks wrote Letters to the Editor.  And so I have my own response.

[A]sset recycling is not about finding more efficient ways to modernize and expand infrastructure. It’s about raising money for cash-starved treasuries….

and

The solution is to allow all states to retain the federal gas tax generated by each state.

These are only half-solutions, though, if that much. Asset recycling and other ways to find efficiency need to take the whole of spending into account, not just spending on infrastructure. Treasuries are starved for cash because the governments spend way too much. Spending needs to be cut to within revenues collected.

Along that line, there shouldn’t be any gas tax (and very few other taxes collected intrastate) sent to the Federal government for redistribution in accordance with Federal politicians’ and bureaucrats’ whims. Those monies should be retained by each State for spending on that State’s imperatives, without the friction of the (even well-meaning) middleman.

This is Meeting a 2% Commitment?

Posted on by
Reply

This is a pretty ugly performance by what used to be a top-drawer defense establishment.

Germany’s Defense Ministry said on Wednesday that only 39 percent of large items, such as tanks and helicopters, delivered to the Bundeswehr in 2017 did not require improvement before deployment.

That’s against an already shockingly low goal of a 70% Operational Ready status for already delivered military equipment—like those tanks and helicopters.

And this:

Only 27 of the 71 Pumas delivered last year; half of the eight A400M delivered; two among seven Tiger combat helicopters; and four among seven NH90 transport helicopters, were operationally ready last year….
Among four new Eurofighter combat jets delivered in 2017, one could be used.

Germany’s Left Party parliamentarian Matthias Höhn is right that this, as paraphrased by Deutsche Welle, is:

a scandal that [German Minister of Defense Ursula] von der Leyen “tolerates this arms industry’ slovenliness at the cost of taxpayers.”

Is Germany really serious about its NATO commitments?

Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

Various nations around Europe and Asia are looking at ways to add to the tax burden on multinational technology companies doing business in those nations.

Bruno Le Maire, French Minister of the Economy and Finance, rationalized the movement this way:

It is a question of fairness.

Leave it to a European politician to not understand the concept.

No. Fairness is cutting taxes, not raising them, thereby leaving more of the citizens’ money in their hands.

Fairness is cutting spending.  This would greatly reduce Government’s crowding out pressures against citizens’ businesses through competition for “customers.” This also would greatly reduce Government’s competition for inputs to production, competition which drives up the cost of those inputs to private businesses.

Fairness is cutting spending especially to be less than tax revenue, reducing the need for Government borrowing and its twin outcomes: driving up the cost of money for private businesses and increasing the likelihood of future tax increases for both the citizens and their private businesses.

And this is the Europe our very own Progressive-Democrats want us to emulate.

Right Answer, Wrong Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling favorable to the State’s charter schools last Thursday.  The question before the court was whether those charter schools were violating the State’s constitution by receiving funding from the State’s lottery facilities.  Writing for the court, Justice Mary Yu wrote in plain words,

Charter schools are not rendered unconstitutional just because they do not operate identically to common school[.]

She expanded on that in addressing the plaintiffs’ argument that the charter schools lacked voter control, holding that, as The Seattle Times paraphrased her,

…”it makes sense” for charter schools not have local voter control because their funding source, unlike traditional schools, does not include local property tax levies.

Justice Barbara Madsen in dissent, wrote

They [charter schools] are not subject to local voter control and lack any direct accountability to the communities they purport to serve….

This is mistaken.  Charter schools are especially accountable to the communities “they purport to serve” because, unlike the case with public schools, those parents, those members of the served communities, those voters, easily can remove their children from a charter school and enroll them elsewhere.