Posts Tagged jobs
I recently spent some time chatting with my good friend RJ Moeller on his increasingly popular podcast, The RJ Moeller Show (now hosted by AEI’s Values & Capitalism and broadcasted in the Chicago area).
RJ first interviews Claire Berlinski, editor at City Journal and Ricochet.com and author of the book There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.
After that, I talk with RJ about my recent (and past) experiences with job loss and job gain, as well as some of the lessons my generation can draw from it.
My main point: our jobs are an opportunity for us to produce value more than they are an excuse to get things. If we start thinking this way, we will take more ownership of our work and will avoid a servility mentality. The result: Not only will we be happier at work, but we will be more secure and more mobile.
Oh yeah, and more conservative. (Whoops!)
You can listen to the interview here, or by clicking the play button below (my interview starts around the 40-minute mark):
Of all the warts Mitt Romney boasts on his big smelly toe, Newt Gingrich and others have decided to attack the one thing Romney has going for him: his business-leader experience in the private sector. (go here for the full scoop)
This week at Values & Capitalism, I offer my critique of the Gingrich(/Obama) view:
Note to Newt: I know we’d all like a 100% success rate, but high-risk investment doesn’t always pay off, and when it doesn’t, bad things happen. Businesses close, people lose their jobs and human suffering abounds. Oh yeah, and another thing: it’s not great for investment firms either.
When these companies failed under Romney’s watch, I doubt that Jolly Fat-Cat Mitt was grinning in his Doctor Claw Chair while stroking a snickering kitty. Anyone who understands anything about investment firms should understand that bad investments are, well, bad.
There’s plenty of basic economic idiocy here, not to mention nostrils-full of that all-too-familiar “pre-conversion” Gingrich stench (does “moldy baloney” capture it?). But throughout all the confused prattle—e.g. Newt’s forthcoming wanna-be Michael Moore project—I find myself haunted by a single, disturbing reality. Some people actually swallow this stuff.
The deeper issue in Gingrich’s thinking — other than his basic goal of political revenge, of course — is his apparent disdain for creative destruction and his implicit worship of the artificial.
More from my piece:
Most of [this] seems to involve an embrace of the artificial—a belief that prosperity can and should be manufactured from the top down and that successful entrepreneurship, innovation, and jobs(!!!!!!!—those are for you, Joe Biden) demand nothing more than Sugar Daddy U.S.A.’s material blessing.
Implicit in such an orientation is a belief that risk can somehow be avoided or subverted—that turning companies around is always possible, that the solution (if there is one) is always accessible/know-able, and that investments will always produce a profit (when all else fails, there’s subsidies…duh!). All you need is a warm and toasty heart and a propensity to use other people’s stuff to Read the rest of this entry »
In a previous post examining the scientific pretentions of many atheists, I briefly mentioned that “in economic science, we are constantly confronted with theories and policies based around a denial, dismissal or subversion of the spiritual side of man and nature.”
F.A. Hayek would call it “scientism,” which, in The Counter-Revolution of Science, he describes as a “slavish imitation of the method and language of science” — one that improperly conflates the physical and the nonphysical. (Hayek would be unlikely to use the word “spiritual,” as I most often do.)
This week at The American, Arnold Kling explores the approach as it relates to your typical economist’s faith in macroeconomic models (and the media’s lemming-like trail behind him).
How many jobs will the latest stimulus package create? What will it do to GDP?
For answers to questions like these, the press always turns to the usual suspects: the proprietors of macroeconometric models, which are maintained by some economic consulting firms and by the Congressional Budget Office (The Federal Reserve Board also maintains a model, but the Fed tries to refrain from injecting its model into fiscal policy debates.)
I think that if the press were aware of the intellectual history and lack of scientific standing of the models, it would cease rounding up these usual suspects. Macroeconometrics stands discredited among mainstream academic economists. Applying macroeconometric models to questions of fiscal policy is the equivalent of using pre-Copernican astronomy to launch a satellite or using bleeding to treat an infection.
If you aren’t aware of the “intellectual history and scientific standing” of the models, Kling is glad to inform you, and does so with precision. His conclusion: “economists must be more forthcoming about what they can and cannot estimate.”
This means no more guarantees of “X number of jobs by year Y-thousand.” This means no more predictions of “gas at $Z per gallon” if you choose candidate W. This means no more manufactured certainty (gasp!).
Kling closes with this handle:
Imagine if somehow we knew how to launch satellites but still believed in pre-Copernican astronomy. We would have no choice but to send satellites into space using Read the rest of this entry »
What would happen if we had fair trade fast food here in America? What if benevolent do-gooders from Europe and Asia tried to intervene on behalf of American minimum-wage workers and offer a “fair wage” for serving burgers and fries?
Further, what would have happened to me — a former McDonald’s employee — if I had made 5 bucks an hour extra, all out of some well-meaning foreigner’s arbitrary sense of “social justice”? Would I have ever gone to college, or would I have stayed put? Would McDonald’s have remained a competitive job creator, or would it have caved and crumbled next to those who avoided such “compassionate” scheming? Would it have become more difficult for low-skilled workers like myself to get a job in the first place?
But why all the fuss? Wasn’t I, as a minimum-wage worker, being unjustly trampled by “the Man” (in a yellow suit, no less!)? Why did all those privileged cooks and servers at Red Robin deserve more money than me? Was it the “arrogance” of their Mt. Vesuvius burger? In the grand scheme of suburban teenager-hood, why was I of all people doomed to enter that realm of grease and irritable soccer moms?
For [some], my contract with McDonald’s might just as well have been labeled “unjust” and “unfair.” This was not, after all, a “living wage.” Shouldn’t somebody somewhere have stepped in to fill the “gaps” and stop McDonald’s from “exploiting” me? How was I, as a mere teenager, ever to rise above my circumstances without Read the rest of this entry »
I was recently laid off from my job, and along with the resulting chaos and emotional disarray has come a personal reflection about the meaning of work itself. The question is this: Is destruction always creative?
Here’s an excerpt:
There was plenty on my mind after all was said and done – my family, our health insurance, my professional future. But there was something else that I couldn’t let go of – a lingering fear centered on that most dreaded and uncomfortable of questions: “Was this all for nothing?”
So how do we wrap our heads around such destruction? Destruction may not always be creative in the material sense, but is there some kind of deeper, non-material creativity that occurs in and throughout our work?
The question of whether our loss is creative in a tangible, material sense is an important one, but the answer is far too often unknowable in the immediate aftermath of destruction…Which is why the more answerable (and optimistic) question for the destroyed is this: Even if our destruction is indeed destructive in the material sense, is all truly lost?
To read the full article, click here.
The new project I’m blogging for, Common Sense Concept, is focused on exploring the morality of capitalism. They have just released a new video to promote their cause, and I think it’s pretty effective.
My favorite line is this: “It’s one thing to give the shirt off your back, but it’s no good if you’re just sitting their shirtless.”
The video tries to tap into the youthful passion inside us all — the passion to change the world. Unfortunately, what has been lost on many is that good intentions are not enough. We need to be able to ask the right questions.
The narrator offers some great examples of these types of questions:
How could we protect a neighborhood without knowing what it takes to maintain one. How could we promote stronger communities without building better families? How could we demand jobs without knowing how jobs are created? If we are going to demand food for the poor, we should know how Read the rest of this entry »
Here’s an excerpt:
We take seven years to complete our bachelor’s degrees, and when we’re finally finished, we complain about our debt. We specialize in fields like literature and “diversity studies” and then complain about the lack of high-paying jobs. We live with Mom and Dad till we’re 30, only so we can have enough cash to buy the newest gadgets and clothes. All of this delayed development – all of this self-absorbed, childish dilly-dallying – has led to an unproductive and entitled generation.
My proposal? A good old-fashioned “thump in the rump” from the invisible hand:
In our current economy, we still have plenty of time to choose lesser punishments – to get serious about our goals, to reexamine our futures, to readjust our attitudes, to pursue new careers. But at some point, drastic misbehavior will require drastic measures. And when it comes to my generation’s defiant, entitled, know-it-all mentality, I fear that we will reject the milder forms of discipline in hopes that we can escape any discomfort altogether.
To read the full article, click here.
I have thus far expressed mixed feelings about the pledge by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to donate half of their wealth to charity, so I thought it would be fitting to pass on the latest addition to the narrative. According to Bloomberg, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim recently said that he would prefer to use his money for job creation rather than donate it to [so-called] anti-poverty causes (HT Dambisa Moyo).
Here is Slim’s perspective:
“The only way to fight poverty is with employment,” Slim said at a conference in Sydney today. “Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything.”
As I’ve mentioned previously, I obviously don’t think philanthropy is “bad,” nor do I think it is something we should necessarily avoid. But if we are talking about addressing the particular concern Slim is pointing to — namely, “fighting poverty” on a global scale — it seems highly convincing to me that increasing employment through traditional investment is usually the most successful solution from a macro perspective. (Could I add any more caveats!?)
But that doesn’t mean it always is (or even that it actually is). There are plenty of counterarguments that leave the solution a bit up in the air for me. For example, philanthropy has the potential to bring plenty of spiritual benefits to the table by funding missionaries, planting churches, and simply promoting Christ-like behavior. Depending on what you believe, such spiritual transformation could indeed lead to Read the rest of this entry »
Today at Ethika Politika I talk about the difference between artificial security and authentic struggle. As individuals, families, and communities, what is at stake?
Here’s a tidbit from the article:
We all want security and we want it now. It doesn’t matter if real value is being produced or if efficiency is being maximized. It doesn’t matter if a price floor is set, a dying industry is being propped up, or our neighbors are being forced to pay for it. “Just stop the bleeding,” they say.
We all want some kind of assurance – some tangible, visible, immediate sign – that everything will be okay. Thus, we are usually content if getting that assurance means settling for the artificial.
Bastiat talks about “man’s necessarily painful evolution” from ignorance to foresight — a struggle that eventually leads to authentic prosperity. Economics aside, what do we sacrifice when we cower from such a struggle?
To read my answer, check out the full article.