Tag: work

Slackers, Unite!

International socialists may once have rallied around “workers, unite!” but today’s young “communists” are embracing a Non-Workers movement, demanding free stuff and/or a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

This came to mind reading a recent New York Times’s op-ed, “Work Is a False Idol,” and an earlier report, “These Chinese Millennials Are ‘Chilling,’ and Beijing Isn’t Happy.” A new movement in China and elsewhere, known as “Lying Flat,” extols indolence.

Instead of a career? Working hard?

Do nothing!

Sounds like early retirement.

Very early retirement, for this is a young adult malaise.

Cassady Rosenblum, who took the trouble to author the op-ed, quoted a poem that asked “what is it you plan to do/ with your one wild and precious life?” and answered: “Sit on the porch.”

This “Lying flat” slacker movement reminds me of a novel I haven’t read, but whose theme has stuck with me, nonetheless: Ivan Goncharov’s Oblomov. It is about a young nobleman who spends the book recumbent, or so I’m told.

“Oblomovism” was a cultural obsession before the Soviet Revolution and a problem afterward. If no one produces, how could anyone consume?

With the character Oblomov, his lethargy merely drained the capital of his family’s aristocratic past.

With the hero of the new “Lying Flat” movement, Luo Huazhong — author of the mortal classic, “Lying Flat Is Justice” — he lives off odd jobs and his savings. So far, at least, self-sufficient.

With Ms. Rosenblum, it’s her parents’ porch, and, thereby, their savings.

Think of what would happen were a UBI put in place. More horizontal living and less production (for redistribution).

Oblomovism triumphs and we all lose.

After all, “Lying flat” is the perfect term for the ultimate in do-nothingism: what you do in a coffin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags labor, responsibility, socialism, work

free trade & free markets national politics & policies subsidy

Unemployed or Misemployed?

“Now Hiring” signs are up everywhere, especially on the windows of restaurants and other retail businesses.

But those signs aren’t disappearing.

Lots of jobs are left open.

No takers.

Week after week.

The job recovery that President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. says he has placed his fabled “laser-like focus” upon, has been disappointing, to use the words of Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell.

Oops, make that “extremely disappointing.”

“Economists and analysts had been expecting around a million jobs to be added on net in April,” Rampell wrote last week, “given the rising share of vaccinated Americans and relaxation of restrictions on business. Instead, employers created a measly 266,000 positions, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. Job growth for March was revised downward, too.”

This didn’t come out of nowhere, as another Washington Post columnist made clear a few weeks ago. “Many employers, especially restaurants and small retail businesses, are having a hard time finding workers,” explained Henry Olsen. “This is likely the result of trends in covid-19 vaccinations and the generous unemployment benefits that were expanded due to the pandemic.”

Normally when talking about employment and unemployment, we are tempted to put on our economist caps and talk about supply and demand, marginal productivity, monetary policy, etc. But most commentators seem to be honing in on the ultra-obvious: pay people to stay home, they tend to stay home.

Indeed, thinking of the generous unemployment benefits which the U.S. Congress has bestowed upon the country as “stimulus,” we should realize that paying people to stay at home is like hiring them for the cushiest job imaginable. No worker shortage, as many suggest, but malinvestment in the wrong “jobs.”

And thus the opposite of “stimulus.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by greychr

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags covid, stimulus, work

free trade & free markets

Meritocracy a Myth?

COVID and the pandemic panic have not been kind to small businesses, but some entrepreneurs have skyrocketed their wealth. Months ago, CNBC’s Gary Cohn waxed enthusiastic for “the banner year for newly minted American billionaires,” citing among reasons to celebrate “the possibility that it can happen to other people. . . .”

Reporting on three new billionaires from Doordash and “the winner of the week, Brian Chesky, AirBNB CEO,” CNBC’s Robert Frank said the recent uptick was “really inspirational no matter what your point of view.”

Wrong, says Kyle Kulinksi, a thoroughly unimpressed progressive podcaster, dissing the segment as “everything that’s terrible about CNBC in one clip.”

Now, I can imagine worrying about the context of celebrating a few folks’ success while so many others have been hit hard by bad policy and a virus, all the while big business (especially banks) have been subsidized with “stimulus.” But, Mr. Kulinski explains, “the main problem” is that CNBC’s encomiasts “clearly believe in the myth of meritocracy.”

Kulinski then yammers on about hard-working folks who got nowhere in life working three jobs. “The idea that the reason why these people are getting wealthy is because they’ve just worked harder than anybody else — that’s provably not true.”

And then proceeds not to prove it.

Kulinski errs in focusing on “working hard” in sheer physical and time-suck terms. But to the extent we have a meritorious meritocracy, the merit rests on what CNBC’s Cohn called “work hard and have a great idea.” Emphasize the “and” — remembering that “great ideas” are those that extend value to others via trade.

Value isn’t measured in BTU’s and time-clock ticks.

Kulinski should have noticed the big truth about these gig economy billionaires: they have allowed normal people to take their investments in household production — their homes and their cars — and turn them into capital goods for services on the open market.

They created new markets . . . wherein all participants gain.

That is progress.

But not, apparently, “progressive.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags envy, justice, work

ideological culture individual achievement nannyism responsibility too much government

Don’t Dress for Excess

fashion, government, suits, illustration

Undoubtedly, men have it easy in several ways that women do not. Take something only seemingly trivial: clothing.

When men need to dress to impress, the answer is simple: a suit. There is not really a lot of variety here, and little is required of a man in his choice of suit.

Women, on the other hand, do not have a business and formal occasion uniform to rely upon.

Instead, they have fashion.

Which is a whirl of constant change and a world of enervating expense.

I wouldn’t put up with it. But then, I’m a man. The modern dress suit was developed to meet men’s needs for functionality as well as excellence. And our need to not think hard on a matter of mere garment.

So it is with no small pleasure to read, in the Telegraph, of a professional woman who forswears fashion to wear just one design of clothing. “‘I can tell you the cashier in the store look[ed] pretty confused when I asked if she had 15 extra sets of the whole outfit,’ she jokes, ‘but all in all, choosing the uniform was a pretty pain-free process.’”

And the style choice seemed obvious: “I’ve always felt that black and white is a cool and classy look,” so that’s what she went with.

She made herself culturally equal with men. Took for herself a formerly all-male advantage. And she did not depend upon a man for that advance, he-for-she style.

And did not look to government.

This is the way forward.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags fashion, government, sexism, work

Common Sense folly free trade & free markets general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Fifteen or Fifty or Zero?

Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell just stumbled into a truth. Raising minimum wages could be disastrous. Depending on the rate.

While “Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and a host of other well-intentioned liberals want to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour,” she calls the proposal “badly misguided.”

And yet she says that the current federal wage floor, at “just $7.25 an hour . . . is absurdly low.”

Why, this Friday, she notes, marks six years since the last minimum wage hike!

Rampell recognizes that raising the minimum wage to $50/hour would cause unemployment, massively. She also realizes that, in many low-wage states, the mere $15 rate would do the same. But raising “the federal minimum wage to $10.10”? Might work! “This is a trade-off . . .”

Yes. Stop right there. Trade-offs, indeed.

She wants us to think about getting the rates right.

Employers and job-seekers do that already, in the marketplace. If businesses don’t pay enough, the workers will move on to employers who will. Force businesses to hire workers for more than their productivity? Unemployment results.

A minimum wage rate helps some and hurts others. Rampell admits that, appearing to “accept” 500,000 people losing their jobs as collateral damage to boost wages for others.

Her proposed fine-tuning of rates supposes that politicians have greater knowledge about the “proper” price of labor than employers and job-seekers. Moreover, she ignores the inevitable political game, whereby politicians take credit for rewarding some, while hiding the costs imposed on others.

Finding the “right minimum wage” rate is mainly about hiding the victims . . . so voters won’t notice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF