Posts Tagged employment

Obama’s Fatal Conceit: Top 10 SOTU Pride Trips

This year’s State of the Union address was particularly painful for anyone who understands that human knowledge has its limits.

Fantastical utopian scheming was aplenty, and thus, I was continuously reminded of Hayek’s marvelous bit from The Fatal Conceit: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

And oh. my. goodness. Our dear, dear President has quite the imagination, no?

In my latest post at AEI’s Values of Capitalism, I pick my top 10 favorite pride trips from the speech, analyzing omniscient Obama’s “blueprinted” approach to prosperity with Hayekian skepticism.

Here’s #4:

[Obama:] “I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that –- openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. It’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.”

Of course we do! All we need to do is, like, double our workers in the most popular industries. (Don’t mind the “how,” because “we know how to fix it.”) Is Little Jimmy content to live in Mommy’s basement until he’s 38 years old? There’s an app for that.

But what if those industries aren’t going to have twice as many openings in, say, 5 years? What if a new industry is birthed right when Obama’s grand old plan finally gets passed (or right now)? Yeah, yeah, yeah … we’ll just pump up the jams on the next crop of growing industries and it’ll all work itself out. The federal government isn’t just smart; it’s quick.

And another goodie:

[Obama:] “Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.”

How does the President know that twice as much work will exist in the next five years (or that it exists now)? Or are we talking about “shovel-ready” work-study jobs? Like “free” room service for the dorms? More research assistants for the Chair of Transgender Post-Colonial Literature? Or perhaps you’d prefer to help Librarian Betty pick her nose when her hands are full? Double up!

Read the rest here.

, , , , , , , , , , ,


Soothsaying Our Way to Economic Prosperity

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 »

, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Collective Bullying: The Social Injustice of Public-Sector Unions

This week at Common Sense Concept, I comment on the recent goings on in Wisconsin, focusing specifically on what I call the social injustice of collective bargaining in the public sector.

Here’s an excerpt:

The most dizzying of the spin has been the notion that public workers are entitled to a “right to collective bargaining” — a claim made so frequently and with such conviction that one would assume the taxpayers were granted some bargaining powers of their own.

But alas, although politicians began to invent such rights in the 1950s, the merits of these unique privileges have been highly contested, even by the likes of pro-union leaders like FDR and George Meany.

If you think that “social justice” is an odd way to approach the issue, I am somewhat sympathetic. (What doesn’t constitute social justice nowadays?) But as long as folks are tossing the label around about fake exploitation (as they often do), I thought I should at least be entitled to use it about the real stuff:

Framing my argument in terms of “social justice” will surely strike the pro-public-union crowd as odd. After all, they are the ones scolding the rich for “excess” and comparing Wisconsin teachers to third-world sweat-shop workers (need a laugh?). But when one begins to understand the unfair advantages that public-sector unions hold over the rest of the citizenry, such moping and mourning is quickly revealed to be the posturing Phariseesm that it is.

After examining the ins and outs of various public-sector advantages (relying heavily on Yuval Levin), I conclude that the institutionalized, coercive privileges held by public-sector unions are far more troublesome than their bloated line-item status in the budget:

Governor Walker claims that his actions are fundamentally about the budget, but based on the reactions from the unions (“It’s not about the money!”), it appears that the real gem they treasure is their coercive “right” to collectively bargain over the funds of the private citizens they are supposed to serve — a privilege of unfair and exploitative advantage.

To read the full post, click here.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Laid Off: Coping with Destruction

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?

Today at Ethika Politika I explore this question by pondering the implications of my personal layoff experience.

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 Billionaire’s Dilemma: Charity vs. Job Creation

Carlos SlimI 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 »

, , , , , , , , , ,