This is one of the main items in a Washington Post article on the Maryland crab industry. While the gist of the piece is that many of the crab packagers on Maryland’s eastern shore are struggling because they can’t get enough workers as a result of a reduction in the number H2-B visas available, the piece says that the crabbers have increased wages in order to attract more workers.
If the point of the limiting immigration in this sector was to raise wages, then the limits seem to have been successful, according to the evidence presented in the piece. It is entirely possible that some crabbers will go out of business as a result. That is the way capitalism works. Businesses that can’t make a profit paying the prevailing wage go under. This is the reason that the country has only a tiny fraction of the number of family farms that it did a century ago.
This is one of the main items in a Washington Post article on the Maryland crab industry. While the gist of the piece is that many of the crab packagers on Maryland’s eastern shore are struggling because they can’t get enough workers as a result of a reduction in the number H2-B visas available, the piece says that the crabbers have increased wages in order to attract more workers.
If the point of the limiting immigration in this sector was to raise wages, then the limits seem to have been successful, according to the evidence presented in the piece. It is entirely possible that some crabbers will go out of business as a result. That is the way capitalism works. Businesses that can’t make a profit paying the prevailing wage go under. This is the reason that the country has only a tiny fraction of the number of family farms that it did a century ago.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A Washington Post article on Republican politicians’ apparent willingness to accept Donald Trump’s racist comments told readers:
“Trump and his allies frequently counter by offering economic data that they say is favorable to minorities, seeking to separate Trump’s harsh rhetoric from his policy agenda.”
This comment implies that Trump’s policy agenda has somehow been helpful to blacks and other minorities. It is true that the economy has continued to grow during the Trump administration. It has also generated jobs and had a falling unemployment rate, although at a somewhat less rapid pace than at the end of the Obama administration. And a tight labor market does disproportionately benefit blacks and other minorities.
But it doesn’t follow that these gains have anything to do with Trump’s policies. Unless he deliberately tried to derail the economy it would have continued to create jobs in the last year and a half. Furthermore, almost all his economic policies, starting with his tax cuts, have disproportionately benefited the rich, who are overwhelmingly white. In his policy agenda, Trump has pushed proposals that will make it harder for minorities to get into college, to buy homes, and to get non-predatory loans.
For this reason, it is highly inaccurate for the Post to imply that minorities have benefited from the Trump policy agenda. They have benefited from a strong economy in spite of Trump’s policy agenda.
A Washington Post article on Republican politicians’ apparent willingness to accept Donald Trump’s racist comments told readers:
“Trump and his allies frequently counter by offering economic data that they say is favorable to minorities, seeking to separate Trump’s harsh rhetoric from his policy agenda.”
This comment implies that Trump’s policy agenda has somehow been helpful to blacks and other minorities. It is true that the economy has continued to grow during the Trump administration. It has also generated jobs and had a falling unemployment rate, although at a somewhat less rapid pace than at the end of the Obama administration. And a tight labor market does disproportionately benefit blacks and other minorities.
But it doesn’t follow that these gains have anything to do with Trump’s policies. Unless he deliberately tried to derail the economy it would have continued to create jobs in the last year and a half. Furthermore, almost all his economic policies, starting with his tax cuts, have disproportionately benefited the rich, who are overwhelmingly white. In his policy agenda, Trump has pushed proposals that will make it harder for minorities to get into college, to buy homes, and to get non-predatory loans.
For this reason, it is highly inaccurate for the Post to imply that minorities have benefited from the Trump policy agenda. They have benefited from a strong economy in spite of Trump’s policy agenda.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The textbook story of why the Trump tax cut would be bad for the economy is that it would lead to higher interest rates, which would discourage investment and construction. (It should also lead to a rise in the dollar against foreign currency, which increases the size of the trade deficit.)
Given the textbook story, it would have been reasonable to expect that the weak housing start data reported by the Commerce Department on Thursday would get some attention. While the Wall Street Journal was on the job, both The New York Times and The Washington Post seem to have ignored the numbers.
The basic story is that July starts were up slightly from June, but still 1.4 percent below year-ago levels. The monthly data are erratic, but over the last three months, starts have averaged 1,215,000 at an annual rate. That compares to an annual rate of 1,317,000 in the first three months of the year.
While this drop is not a disastrous falloff, it does mean that folks who were hoping that increased supply would put downward pressure on housing costs are likely to be disappointed. I know it’s summer, but it would have been worth finding someone to take a few minutes to write up the July data.
The textbook story of why the Trump tax cut would be bad for the economy is that it would lead to higher interest rates, which would discourage investment and construction. (It should also lead to a rise in the dollar against foreign currency, which increases the size of the trade deficit.)
Given the textbook story, it would have been reasonable to expect that the weak housing start data reported by the Commerce Department on Thursday would get some attention. While the Wall Street Journal was on the job, both The New York Times and The Washington Post seem to have ignored the numbers.
The basic story is that July starts were up slightly from June, but still 1.4 percent below year-ago levels. The monthly data are erratic, but over the last three months, starts have averaged 1,215,000 at an annual rate. That compares to an annual rate of 1,317,000 in the first three months of the year.
While this drop is not a disastrous falloff, it does mean that folks who were hoping that increased supply would put downward pressure on housing costs are likely to be disappointed. I know it’s summer, but it would have been worth finding someone to take a few minutes to write up the July data.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A piece on the status of NAFTA told readers about “the extent of administration officials’ frustration with Canada.” Sorry folks, the NYT really has no idea about the actual extent of the Trump administration officials’ frustration with Canada. They know what these people say and what they do.
As folks familiar with politics know, statements from political figures do not always reflect what they think.
A piece on the status of NAFTA told readers about “the extent of administration officials’ frustration with Canada.” Sorry folks, the NYT really has no idea about the actual extent of the Trump administration officials’ frustration with Canada. They know what these people say and what they do.
As folks familiar with politics know, statements from political figures do not always reflect what they think.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I already did a tweet on this, but thought it was worth posting here. Jake Tapper did a completely inaccurate fact check on Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over their claim that a study by a right-wing think tank showed that Medicare for all would save the country $2 trillion over a decade (roughly 0.8 percent of GDP). Tapper misrepresented their comments to say that they claimed the study would save the government $2 trillion. He then points out that the study showed Medicare for all would hugely increase the cost of healthcare to the government.
Of course, the cost to the government will increase if it takes responsibility for the bulk of healthcare payments in the country. No one is contesting this point. The question is what happens to the cost of healthcare to the country as a whole. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez were accurately citing one of the scenarios in the study on this point.
Tapper owes it to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and more importantly to his audience, to correct himself on this one. It’s a straightforward point and he really should be able to get it right.
Note: I earlier had termed the fact check “dishonest.” This implies I know Tapper’s motives, which I don’t. I changed the term to “inaccurate.”
I already did a tweet on this, but thought it was worth posting here. Jake Tapper did a completely inaccurate fact check on Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over their claim that a study by a right-wing think tank showed that Medicare for all would save the country $2 trillion over a decade (roughly 0.8 percent of GDP). Tapper misrepresented their comments to say that they claimed the study would save the government $2 trillion. He then points out that the study showed Medicare for all would hugely increase the cost of healthcare to the government.
Of course, the cost to the government will increase if it takes responsibility for the bulk of healthcare payments in the country. No one is contesting this point. The question is what happens to the cost of healthcare to the country as a whole. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez were accurately citing one of the scenarios in the study on this point.
Tapper owes it to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and more importantly to his audience, to correct himself on this one. It’s a straightforward point and he really should be able to get it right.
Note: I earlier had termed the fact check “dishonest.” This implies I know Tapper’s motives, which I don’t. I changed the term to “inaccurate.”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Yes, it is yet another story of the big one is on its way. This time it’s from George Will.
Will rightly mocks Donald Trump’s boast that the 4.1 percent growth in the second quarter was extraordinary. Following Nobel laureate Robert Shiller, Will tells readers:
“…since quarterly gross domestic product enumeration began in 1947, there have been 101 quarters with growth at least equal to the 4.1 percent of this year’s second quarter. The fastest — 13.4 percent — was 1950’s fourth quarter, perhaps produced largely by bad news: The Cold War was on, the Korean War had begun in June, and fear of the atomic bomb was rising (New York City installed its first air-raid siren in October), as was (consequently) a home-building boom outside cities and ‘scare buying’ of products that might become scarce during World War III. Today, Shiller says, ‘it seems likely that people in many countries may be accelerating their purchases — of soybeans, steel and many other commodities — fearing future government intervention in the form of a trade war.’ And fearing the probable: higher interest rates.”
Hate to spoil the fun, but actually the fastest quarter of growth since 1947 was in the second quarter of 1978 when the economy grew at a 16.4 percent annual rate. I don’t recall any imminent threats of nuclear war or other really bad things at the time that could spur this growth. The fact that the second quarter figure for this year was somewhat of an aberration is likely true, but people are spending some of the tax cut. (Yes, it mostly went to the rich. But they know how to spend money also, even if they spend a smaller share of the tax cut than middle- or lower-income families.)
The more general point in Will’s piece is that the recovery has gone on for a long time and we will have another recession. These are valid points, but nothing he says in the piece provides evidence for an “epic economic collapse.”
He seems to think the high debt and deficits will somehow make the next recession especially bad but doesn’t connect any dots. There may be political obstacles to spending the money needed to boost the economy out of a recession, but that would just be the result of Republicans trying to make a Democratic president suffer politically for a bad economy. This would be the case even if the national debt was zero.
In terms of the economics, Japan has a debt-to-GDP ratio that is nearly twice as large as the US ratio and can still borrow long-term at near zero cost and has an inflation rate of less than 1.0 percent. So we get that people like George Will might be aesthetically opposed to government debt, but there is no economic reason for us to think that we will not be able to spend the money needed to boost the economy out of the next recession.
Yes, it is yet another story of the big one is on its way. This time it’s from George Will.
Will rightly mocks Donald Trump’s boast that the 4.1 percent growth in the second quarter was extraordinary. Following Nobel laureate Robert Shiller, Will tells readers:
“…since quarterly gross domestic product enumeration began in 1947, there have been 101 quarters with growth at least equal to the 4.1 percent of this year’s second quarter. The fastest — 13.4 percent — was 1950’s fourth quarter, perhaps produced largely by bad news: The Cold War was on, the Korean War had begun in June, and fear of the atomic bomb was rising (New York City installed its first air-raid siren in October), as was (consequently) a home-building boom outside cities and ‘scare buying’ of products that might become scarce during World War III. Today, Shiller says, ‘it seems likely that people in many countries may be accelerating their purchases — of soybeans, steel and many other commodities — fearing future government intervention in the form of a trade war.’ And fearing the probable: higher interest rates.”
Hate to spoil the fun, but actually the fastest quarter of growth since 1947 was in the second quarter of 1978 when the economy grew at a 16.4 percent annual rate. I don’t recall any imminent threats of nuclear war or other really bad things at the time that could spur this growth. The fact that the second quarter figure for this year was somewhat of an aberration is likely true, but people are spending some of the tax cut. (Yes, it mostly went to the rich. But they know how to spend money also, even if they spend a smaller share of the tax cut than middle- or lower-income families.)
The more general point in Will’s piece is that the recovery has gone on for a long time and we will have another recession. These are valid points, but nothing he says in the piece provides evidence for an “epic economic collapse.”
He seems to think the high debt and deficits will somehow make the next recession especially bad but doesn’t connect any dots. There may be political obstacles to spending the money needed to boost the economy out of a recession, but that would just be the result of Republicans trying to make a Democratic president suffer politically for a bad economy. This would be the case even if the national debt was zero.
In terms of the economics, Japan has a debt-to-GDP ratio that is nearly twice as large as the US ratio and can still borrow long-term at near zero cost and has an inflation rate of less than 1.0 percent. So we get that people like George Will might be aesthetically opposed to government debt, but there is no economic reason for us to think that we will not be able to spend the money needed to boost the economy out of the next recession.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I was involved in an exchange on the extent to which economic factors, as opposed to racism, sexism, and xenophobia, played a role in Trump’s election. While this is probably not a good way to spend one’s time I kept trying to make a point that as best I can tell everyone is ignoring.
Due to worsening conditions for the working class (defined here as people without a college degree), the rate of educational upgrading has slowed dramatically over the last four decades. If we continued to see the same rate of increase in college graduation rates in the years since 1979, as we did in the years from 1959 to 1979, we would have far more college educated people and far fewer people without college degrees.
This means that even if there were zero change in the attitudes and voting behavior of white working class people, there would have been many more votes for Clinton and fewer for Trump since there would be fewer white people without college degrees and more with college degrees.
Yes, this is incredibly simplistic, but if there is something wrong with the logic, no one has bothered to tell me what it is. (Here is the earlier post I did with Sarah Rawlins for folks who want to check the numbers.)
I was involved in an exchange on the extent to which economic factors, as opposed to racism, sexism, and xenophobia, played a role in Trump’s election. While this is probably not a good way to spend one’s time I kept trying to make a point that as best I can tell everyone is ignoring.
Due to worsening conditions for the working class (defined here as people without a college degree), the rate of educational upgrading has slowed dramatically over the last four decades. If we continued to see the same rate of increase in college graduation rates in the years since 1979, as we did in the years from 1959 to 1979, we would have far more college educated people and far fewer people without college degrees.
This means that even if there were zero change in the attitudes and voting behavior of white working class people, there would have been many more votes for Clinton and fewer for Trump since there would be fewer white people without college degrees and more with college degrees.
Yes, this is incredibly simplistic, but if there is something wrong with the logic, no one has bothered to tell me what it is. (Here is the earlier post I did with Sarah Rawlins for folks who want to check the numbers.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Seriously, at least when it comes to its own productions, in this case, a documentary on Michael Jackson. It’s a great example of how the only principle that matters is making the rich richer.
Seriously, at least when it comes to its own productions, in this case, a documentary on Michael Jackson. It’s a great example of how the only principle that matters is making the rich richer.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post reported on Sarah Huckabee Sanders apology for saying that Trump had created more jobs for blacks in the first 20 months of his administration than Obama had in eight years. It then reported on her correction that in the first 20 months, dating from the election, Trump had created more jobs.
While the piece noted that economists think the president’s ability to affect the economy is limited, it would have been worth mentioning that the economy was in a free fall, losing 700,000 jobs a month at the time Obama was elected. The stimulus that he pushed through Congress first began to have an effect in April, and by the summer, the job loss had stopped. If anyone wants to make a serious comparison, this background is important.
The Washington Post reported on Sarah Huckabee Sanders apology for saying that Trump had created more jobs for blacks in the first 20 months of his administration than Obama had in eight years. It then reported on her correction that in the first 20 months, dating from the election, Trump had created more jobs.
While the piece noted that economists think the president’s ability to affect the economy is limited, it would have been worth mentioning that the economy was in a free fall, losing 700,000 jobs a month at the time Obama was elected. The stimulus that he pushed through Congress first began to have an effect in April, and by the summer, the job loss had stopped. If anyone wants to make a serious comparison, this background is important.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s the question millions are asking after reading this NYT profile of France’s labor minister, Muriel Pénicaud. The largely positive piece refers to France’s “famously voluminous labor code,” then goes on to tell readers:
“The campaign to renew the French economy, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s flagship policies, involves steering toward a Nordic-style labor model known as “flexible security.” The changes aim to rebalance the welfare state by creating more flexibility for companies to hire and fire, while offering greater training and support to help workers transition to new jobs.”
This is of course how President Macron is describing his agenda. While the description may actually reflect his goals, it may also be a cover for a different agenda. France stands out among major OECD countries in limiting the growth in inequality over the last four decades.
Its economy has also not performed especially poorly. While it does have a high youth unemployment rate (which is cited in this piece), the number is deceptive. A much higher percentage of French youth choose not to work because university tuition is nearly free and the government gives stipends to students to cover living expense.
The share of French young people who are unemployed is actually very close to the rates in the United States, but it translates into a much higher unemployment rate because so many fewer French youth are working. For prime-age workers (ages 25 to 54), according to the OECD, France’s employment rate is actually slightly higher than in the United States, 80.4 percent in France, compared to 79.3 percent in the United States.
In short, France’s economy is not obviously in any sort of crisis. There are certainly ways that its economy can be improved with reforms, and perhaps this is Macron’s real agenda. However, it is also possible that he wants to bring about the same sort of upward redistribution in France that we have seen in other wealthy countries.
If that were the case, it is unlikely that Macron would announce an agenda for the purpose of giving more money to rich people. It is more likely he would have some cover, like modernizing France’s labor law.
It would be best if NYT news articles just reported on what politicians say and do and not try to tell its readers their real motives.
That’s the question millions are asking after reading this NYT profile of France’s labor minister, Muriel Pénicaud. The largely positive piece refers to France’s “famously voluminous labor code,” then goes on to tell readers:
“The campaign to renew the French economy, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s flagship policies, involves steering toward a Nordic-style labor model known as “flexible security.” The changes aim to rebalance the welfare state by creating more flexibility for companies to hire and fire, while offering greater training and support to help workers transition to new jobs.”
This is of course how President Macron is describing his agenda. While the description may actually reflect his goals, it may also be a cover for a different agenda. France stands out among major OECD countries in limiting the growth in inequality over the last four decades.
Its economy has also not performed especially poorly. While it does have a high youth unemployment rate (which is cited in this piece), the number is deceptive. A much higher percentage of French youth choose not to work because university tuition is nearly free and the government gives stipends to students to cover living expense.
The share of French young people who are unemployed is actually very close to the rates in the United States, but it translates into a much higher unemployment rate because so many fewer French youth are working. For prime-age workers (ages 25 to 54), according to the OECD, France’s employment rate is actually slightly higher than in the United States, 80.4 percent in France, compared to 79.3 percent in the United States.
In short, France’s economy is not obviously in any sort of crisis. There are certainly ways that its economy can be improved with reforms, and perhaps this is Macron’s real agenda. However, it is also possible that he wants to bring about the same sort of upward redistribution in France that we have seen in other wealthy countries.
If that were the case, it is unlikely that Macron would announce an agenda for the purpose of giving more money to rich people. It is more likely he would have some cover, like modernizing France’s labor law.
It would be best if NYT news articles just reported on what politicians say and do and not try to tell its readers their real motives.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
