no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Employment & Labor

Congress Likely to Extend Jobless Benefits to 99 Weeks

April 15th, 2010

Congress is adding a TRILLION dollars to the deficit every year. A freaking TRILLION dollars. The Democrats of course can’t find a single item in $4 Trillion worth of Federal Budget to cut in favor of extending jobless benefits, and as should be expected, the Republicans are vile creatures because they don’t want Uncle Sam to pay unemployment benefits for nearly two full years.

A measure restoring jobless benefits of up to 99 weeks for people struggling to find work after months of unemployment is expected to rebound from a temporary setback in the Senate.

…Republicans were seeking to force Congress to pay for its $18 billion cost and not add to budget deficits topping $1 trillion. But George Voinovich, R-Ohio, broke with his party to vote with Democrats to keep the measure on track

Seriously, Republicans! Is this the straw that broke the camel’s back? Why didn’t any of you stand up against the expenses of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And seriously, Democrats! Nothing at all in $4T worth of spending is less important than extending jobless benefits. There will be no studies on the methane content of bovine farts in 2010?

I don’t believe it for a second. See kids, look how easy it is to play partisan politics:

Democrats: We’ll extend the jobless benefits because you earned it and you deserve it!

Republicans: get off your lazy asses and find yourself a fucking job—any job!

It’s all boilerplate talking points. It’s easy to say to ask the Dem’s in the name of “fiscal conservatism” (which is a myth if ever there was one!) when is enough, enough? And it’s true. How much is enough? Where do you draw the line, Democrats? Two years of unemployment? Three? More?

And it’s easy to accuse the GOP of being unsympathetic towards the needs of their constituents, that they’ve lost touch with reality. It’s true, too. We’re not talking about “frictional unemployment” here, this shit is real and systematic. They have lost touch with reality (more on that later). Under normal conditions, persistent unemployment doesn’t last because people do get off their asses and find work.

Reality, on the other hand, is quite a bit different.

There is a “war of all against all”, only much to Hobbes’ chagrin, government is the primary instigator. They subsidize poisons, and people get sick. They encourage sloth and people get lazy. They steal from Peter to bribe Paul, and go fucking figure: Peter becomes jealous of Paul, even angry at him. Peter starts to demand that he gets to determine how the money will be spent on Paul.

Unless you’re on the outside looking in, this “laziness” or lack of “sympathy” is the problem.

When you’re on the outside, looking in, it should be apparent that a lack of freedom—to live, to work, to trade, to interact—is the real problem.

And more government will never fix it.

Health Care Reform Rains on Ski Resorts

April 5th, 2010

There’s going to be a lot of fallout from the health care “reform” that’s recently been forced upon America. For starters, certain plans (i.e., high deductible or catastrophic plans) will be de jure illegal — even though most people who buy these plans do so with eyes wide open and with the financial wherewithal to deal with all but the most catastrophic perils. And it’s going to cause a lot of disruptions for a lot of industries, who are already spending millions of dollars on lobbyists (to fight the laws), lawyers (to analyze and make recommendations) and consultants (for advice on how to deal with the changes).

The snow sports/resorts industry hasn’t been spared, either, according to Vail Daily:

New federal health care reform could cost Vail Resorts and other ski companies a lot of money in 2014, the year a provision goes into effect that fines employers $2,000 for every employee that works more than 120 days per year and isn’t offered health care coverage…

Ski areas often employee seasonal, part-time workers who, under the new law, would qualify for employer heath care coverage even though the employees are not considered full-time employees.

— Vail Resorts Eyes Health Reform Costs (April 2, 2010)

I don’t even know where to begin with this. Of course everyone should be “offered health care coverage” but that kind of misses the mark. Health care reform isn’t asking employers to “offer” health care, it’s requiring that they provide health care. There’s a difference here.

I’ve said it before, that the biggest problem with “health care” in the U.S. is that it is essentially tied to one’s employment, and furthermore that those who happen to be employed receive health care on favorable terms compared to the unemployed or the self-employed due to the unintended consequences of World War II-era price controls, embodied in a tax code which treats employer-provided health care “benefits” differently than personal health care expenditures.

Nothing in the so-called health care “reform” (which was drafted primarily by the health care industry) does anything to address the source of the problem. Requiring people to buy a product from an oligopoly will only solidify their power.

So what will happen if this “reform” really does require resorts to offer provide health care to their seasonal, part-time workers?

Those $90 lift tickets are going to get a bit more expensive, and it’s likely that some people currently employed will become unemployed as the marginal costs of employing them exceeds their value-add. If you’re currently working for $10 an hour and you work 1,000 hours a winter, you’re costing the company $10,000. If, next year, the company has to provide you with $3,000 worth of health care, that’s like giving you a 30% raise. What will happen is that they’ll pay you $7/hour, or they’ll do without you, because nobody, anywhere, ever, gets a 30% raise without sucking serious CEO dick and then blackmailing him for it.

Any political measure which forcibly raises the costs of doing business will be passed on to individual taxpayers. Taxes are (always and everywhere) borne by individuals, and not by “corporations”. These costs may be borne as reduced profits/dividends for shareholders, reduced wages, hours or other benefits for employees, and last-but-not-least, as higher prices for customers.

The end result is that we all suffer, while the force of law underwrites the insurance companies’ profitability.

Political Power, Government Employees and Inequality

March 29th, 2010

Christopher George responded to my semi-recent post about government employees being overpaid.

He argues that not every government job is a “complete waste” and notes (astutely, I might add) that the “‘private’ economy isn’t all that productive either.” OK, fine. But if they want to be productive in a free market, let them be productive in a free market. On the basis of their own supposition they don’t get a free pass to just sit back and say “Well, I suspect that my occupation would exist in a free market, so my hands are clean!”

Chris says I’m engaging in unnecessary class conflict when I call them leeches. I don’t know how else to accurately describe the vast majority of “public” employees whose occupations wouldn’t exist without the government’s interference, and who earn (on average) at least fifty percent more than a comparable “private” employees.

So, I mean, yes, you can pooh-pooh public employees because they survive off tax money, but there are those out there who do work hard and are still productive.

A bank robber “works” awfully hard, too. I’m not pooh-pooing public employees for their productivity (or a lack thereof), I’m pooh-poohing them for the means by which they acquire their income. Maybe this applies with some force to “private” employees, too.  I get the incentives at work here, (as in “a guy’s gotta eat) but Chris… you can’t say “Government employees aren’t the problem, it’s TEH SYSTEM!” You can’t just cast all the blame on some nebulous and intangible amalgamation called “political power” which doesn’t exist without the actions of men and women.

Where does “the system” come from? What (or who) enables and perpetuates it? Yes, the problem is the politically powerful vs. the politically weak, but the politically powerful just happen to be (for the most part) employed by the government.

I’m not saying that they’re the (as in “the only”) problem, I’m saying that they’re a problem. That they’re one very motivated, highly incentivized political class which contributes probably as much to inequality as any other factor.

Chris is right, that attacking the government employees (especially the lower-level ones) isn’t going to win me any friends. And it probably isn’t going to change any minds or make anyone see the proverbial light I’ve got plenty of constructive posts here, it just seems a little nitpicky to single out one of my “rants”). I never claimed to be an ambassador of goodwill, so if certain comments of mine come off as a little incendiary, that’s just the way its going to be.

But I don’t see this as an attack. I see it as a statement of fact.  If they object to my choice of language or descriptors, let them reflect as to why I’ve been so provoked.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics