Archive for October, 2011

Immigration Follow-Up: Face Reality

After seeing this morning’s RGJ article on the L.A. mayor coming to Reno on Harry Reid’s orders, to pander to Hispanic Americans for votes, I think an immigration follow-up on this month’s dinner is justified.

As I listened to Michael Savage, a right-leaning Ph.D. talk show host, rant on illegal immigration the other night, I wondered when the conservatives and indeed the Republican candidates would wake up to reality. The reality is that we live with immigrant Americans, some of whom are illegal and impart a cost to the system. But they are here and most are trying to be productive members of society. They have good family values, are honest and have excellent work ethics. These latter traits are in contrast to those found in many natural born entitlement types.

More important, the reality is that the 40 million legal immigrant Americans vote and are influenced in those votes by the redneck rants. The reality is that if we don’t deal with some of the more extreme rightist, redneck positions, they will vote with the socialists now in control of the Senate and executive branch. We must face reality: we will not as a society deport 11 million illegal immigrants.

The way to deal with the immigrants may be in small bites. Jim Clark offered a DREAM act that required only military service, knowing full well that even the military has educational requirements and, in fact, teaches as part of its programs. There may be other potential DREAM act entry routes such as, starting a successful business for a period of years. There are suggestions for programs that offer green cards to immigrants who would invest in real estate. Perhaps that could be expanded to those who invest in businesses that employ other illegals over a period of years. In each case, assimilation with proficiency in English should be a sine qua non.

Ty Cobb recently alerted us to this NY Times article suggesting several other small steps that would be directly beneficial to the society and economy:Beyond 2012 Field, Nuanced G.O.P. Views on Immigrants, by Jennifer Steinhauer.

We who are concerned with the future of this country should let our voices be heard.

5 Comments

Grove’s Law of Government

Or, “the education of a liberal tech CEO.” This story is too good to ignore. Gordon Crovitz’s opinion piece in today’s WSJ, Google Speaks Truth to Power, is a lesson in liberal education on the impossibility of regulation. CEO Eric Schmidt opened up to the Washington Post on his feelings about being hauled before Congress and accused of being a monopolist.

“So we get hauled in front of the Congress for developing a product that’s free, that serves a billion people. OK? I mean, I don’t know how to say it any clearer,” Mr. Schmidt told the Post. “It’s not like we raised prices. We could lower prices from free to . . . lower than free? You see what I’m saying?” HARD TO ARGUE.

“Mr. Schmidt recounted a dinner in 1995 featuring a talk by Andy Grove, a founder of Intel: “He says, ‘This is easy to understand. High tech runs three times faster than normal businesses. And the government runs three times slower than normal businesses. So we have a nine-times gap.’ All of my experiences are consistent with Andy Grove’s observation.”

“Mr. Schmidt explained there was only one way to deal with this nine-times gap, which this column hereby christens “Grove’s Law of Government.” That is “to make sure that the government does not get in the way and slow things down.”

In other words: GET OUT OF THE WAY! This is not exactly what President Obama advocates. He wants Silicon Valley money, he wants Wall Street money, and he gets both. Yet when he and his liberal ilk need political pinatas or need, as in this case, to extort juice from other rent seekers, they bash both. For show or for real? Who knows?

Don’t you just love Obama voters facing Obama reality?

No Comments

U.S. Taxpayers Pay For Europe’s Socialist Implosion

Remember the Dodd-Frank’s nod to the Volker Rule? That’s the rule designed to prevent Wall Street Banks from shooting craps with taxpayer money, that is, engaging in high-risk proprietary trading while guaranteed by the taxpayers. The Volker Rule would not be necessary if the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment banking (trading, etc.) from commercial banking (deposits and loans) had not been repealed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. But Glass-Steagall was repealed and investment banks and commercial banks joined businesses under the taxpayer umbrella. Well, we had the sub-prime debacle with Fanny/Freddie and the taxpayers paid. Then we had the dynamic duo foist the Dodd-Frank Act on the U.S. taxpayers. This law was supposedly to guard against “too big to fail” taxpayer bailouts. FORGET ABOUT THAT.

Today’s WSJ editorializes, So Much for the Volker Rule. Seems that the lawmakers couldn’t quite define the Volker rule, so they passed the job to the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, obviously influenced by the regulated Wall Street banks, are having trouble defining the Volker rule. They’ve used 298 pages, 1,347 questions, to state that they can’t define it! DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT THE BANKS DON’T WANT THE VOLKER RULE?

This would be so much humorous prattle if it weren’t so frickin serious. Note well this October 18th article in Bloomberg, BofA Said to Split Regulators over Moving Merrill Derivatives to Bank UnitThe derivatives are CDS (Credit Default Swaps) to Europe’s zombie banks covering European sovereign debt. That’s right, we taxpayers will be guaranteeing the Greeks! (Makes you want to Occupy Wall Street!) This is no small deal, over 20 Trillion Dollars in notional value; even at 20 to 1 discounting, this is a Trillion Dollars, your dollars!

The simple answer is to elect a conservative president and Congress, then to reinstate Glass-Steagall thus separating risky investment banking from the more conservative commercial banking. The remaining monstrosities of Dodd-Frank can be dealt with individually.

 

No Comments

October Dinner Update

Tuesday’s continuation of our immigration discussion was lively and air-clearing and we all thank Jesse Gutierrez and Jim Clark for a great evening. We prefaced the presentation by recalling Ty Cobb’s talk on the economics of immigration: Ty pointed out that it’s well established that the economic effects of illegal immigration are negative particularly in education, health care and criminal justice. Legal immigration problems include family preference admission and automatic citizenship by birth by illegal. Ty recommended four reform points: 1. Secure boarders economically, 2. End family preference admission. 3. Strictly enforce guest worker program. 4. End automatic citizenship by illegal birth.

Jesse Gutierrez reiterated the common belief that immigrants enrich America, culturally and economically. And immigration rates should be determined so that new entrants will assimilate.  Yet, companies and others take advantage of disparate cultures for profits or votes.

He took us through the history of immigration law: open immigration in colonial times with slaves forced to come. In the 1800s Irish and German Catholic immigrants were second-class residents; Chinese “coolie-labor” was ultimate barred in 1882. The 1900s saw legal Japanese and Mexican discrimination. In 1986 IRCA prohibited discrimination against immigrants granted immunity and sanctioned employers for employing illegals. A decade later antiterrorism motives entered the immigration legislation.

Jesse opined that immigration laws historically have been laced with racism, fear and often hate. Any successful immigration reform must be based on Christian principles of civility and compassion.

Jim Clark, a member of the Republican Central Committees, brought political focus to the fore.  According to University of Washington Think Tank Latino Decisions, Nevada is one of four states where Latino voters will drive the 2012 election. With 17% of its voters Latino and another 100,000 yet to be registered, polling shows Obama support is fading.

Operation Conservative Latino is an outreach to Latino voters and potential voters in Nevada. Its goals include forming Latino political educational organizations, polling, registration operations and get out the vote drives

Jim passed out an interesting “Political Compass” exam in English and Spanish, which demonstrates that most Latinos have strong family values, a strong work ethic and belief in individual responsibility. In short it shows them to be trending toward conservative candidates.

He also advocated a Conservative version of the DREAM act, which required two years service in the armed forces as the path to expedited citizenship; such a program eliminates the potentially abusive college requirement of other DREAM act versions.

The Q&A, commentary, discussion and debate was lively after Jesse and Jim’s presentations. It’s fair to say that most agreed on a DREAM act for those here who demonstrated allegiance to the country by serving in the military. Most agreed that assimilation was necessary but there was disagreement on single language education, public services and ballots. There was agreement that the boarders need to be secured economically.

There was strong disagreement on automatic citizenship from illegal birth mothers. The intent here was that prospectively a child born of an illegal would not automatically become a citizen. There was unresolved discussion on the need of a constitutional amendment in this regard with much caution expressed about opening up the 14th Amendment. While there was no strong opposition to eliminating family preference admissions there was little hope that the family preference admission rules could be reversed because of Catholic opposition.

It was wonderful to see the press represented with folks from Lazer Broadcasting, Entravision and La Boz Hispania. Viola Cody suggested that the Republicans were late in coming to the Latino media. Alex Woodly’s suggestion that welfare benefits were too generous had great support. And Michael Hernandez drew much the same support in advocating individual responsibility and hard work. All in all, I believe the evening put the issues on the table and developed a good dialogue that should be continued with support of Operation Conservative Latino and attendance at events like the upcoming Chamber’s community luncheon “Latinos Today & Tomorrow” on October 26th at Circus Circus Hotel.

We are very fortunate to have Jerry O’Driscoll, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, as one of our founding members. He was kind enough to distribute copies of an extensive brief, The Case Against President Obama’s Health Care Reform…a primer for non-lawyers, by Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute. Thanks Jerry. I have a few extra copies for those who missed the meeting.

We also had an update on UNR’s prospective Center for Public Policy Studies from Brad Schiller and Kristen Kennedy. The plans are proceeding apace and we were pleased to introduce Ryan Stowers of the Koch Foundation the prospective sponsor of the Million Dollar Challenge Grant. Kristen left pledge cards for those of us willing to help bring this important market-based institution to life. Please contact me for a card.

No Comments

Economic Freedom In America Today


Big government is eroding our economic freedom on an accelerated basis. We need change…and soon!

No Comments

Minimum Wage Argument Debunked

Brad Schiller’s op-ed in yesterday’s WSJ is republished here in full:

Families Don’t Depend on the Minimum Wage

The data are clear: In most cases minimum-wage earnings are only a small fraction of family income. 

By BRADLEY SCHILLER

The minimum wage is likely to be a hot-button issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Last month, MIT professor Paul Osterman wrote in the New York Times that 20% of American adults are employed at “poverty-level wages.” He said minimum wages should be raised if the economy is to grow and prosper (the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25, but it is as high as $8.67 in Washington state). Similarly, CNN.com and the Washington Post ran pieces recently on the importance of raising the minimum wage to get more cash to the working poor.

We do have serious poverty in our economy, even more so in this lingering recession. And everyone favors the rising real wages and living standards that come with productivity advance and economic growth. But advocates of a higher minimum wage put the cart before the horse. A growing economy generates good jobs; higher wages don’t grow the economy. And the overwhelming evidence is that higher minimum wages reduce the availability of jobs at the lowest end of the job market.

Consider that the official poverty threshold of $22,000 per year for a family of four implies a “poverty” wage of $11 an hour. This is the target minimum wage Mr. Osterman advocates in his book “Good Jobs America: Making Work Better for Everyone.” The flaw here is the implicit assumption that all minimum-wage workers not only have families to support, but do so single-handedly. That is clearly not the case for the million teenagers who are paid at or below the minimum wage.

Very few families depend on the earnings from a single minimum-wage job for their economic support. This is the conclusion of a study I helped conduct this year for the Employment Policies Institute.

The study used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to track the wages and finances of families over time. From the survey’s 31-year history, we pulled data for the years 1998-2006, a nine-year period when the federal minimum wage was $5.15. We then searched for every adult aged 33-50 who held a minimum-wage job at any time during those years. One out of four adults held a minimum-wage job at least once during those nine years.

One of the striking findings was that most adults who worked at the minimum wage did so for a relatively short time: Over 70% of them had no further minimum-wage job after two years. Almost all them held higher-paying jobs at some point, including ones they held while working at another that paid a minimum wage.

The family status of these adults is critical to the debate about “good jobs for everyone.” In 1998, 30% of adult minimum-wage workers in the survey were single parents (mostly female) and another 23% were married with children still at home. These are the two demographic groups that are of greatest concern in the debate over income dependence. The rest of the adult minimum-wage workers were married without kids at home (22%) or single (25%).

Single parents are clearly the most vulnerable. Every year the Census counts millions of them, many working at minimum-wage jobs. But it is important to recognize that these are not the same single parents every year. Three out of four of the single parents working for the minimum wage in 1998 were no longer single parents in 2006. They moved in and out of two-parent households frequently.

If we focus on two-parent families in which one parent holds a minimum-wage job, the obvious question is whether the spouse also works. The survey data reveal that the answer is overwhelmingly “yes”: Nine out of 10 married-with-children minimum-wage workers have a working spouse. Even more revealing is how much income that spouse earns: 40% of those spouses earn more than $40,000 a year. Another 27% report spousal earnings of $20,000-$40,000.

None of these households is in poverty. Nor is their economic well-being dependent on the minimum wage. In only 15% of these households are the earnings of both the minimum-wage worker and the spouse less than $10,000 apiece. (The federal poverty line for families with two children averaged around $17,000 during this period.) The minimum wage accounts for less than 20% of total family income in more than 75% of the families in which one spouse works for minimum wage.

The long-term survey data are clear: Family dependence on minimum wages is the exception rather than the rule. In most cases, minimum-wage earnings of adult workers are a small fraction of family income. Hiking the minimum wage as a way to achieve “poverty-level” incomes is both misguided and inefficient.

Mr. Schiller is professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Reno, and author of the textbook, “The Economy Today” (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010).

1 Comment

Economic Freedom Is Key….

…to quality of life and prosperity. Enjoy this interesting video showing the correlations. Note in particular the correlations in poverty.

Obama and his ilk want to change this by decreasing economic freedom and increasing reliance on big government.

No Comments

Cuba’s Re-Revolution….Very Slow

How’s the Revolution working for you after 50+ years? “Not well….it’s failed,” is the common answer you, if you are trusted, will hear in Havana. A week in Havana gives but a glimpse of socialism at its best.

The equality Castro delivered is depressing. Havana’s citizens live in run down squatter-occupied former commercial buildings, worn public housing projects, and middle class apartments, while foreign residents and diplomats live in upper class ghettos a little better in quality. The residents get a monthly food ration of so many pounds of rice, coffee, beans, etc. which lasts 15 days on average. The bodegas where ration allotments are spent, are basic, but there are open air farmers markets which are a step up. They also get a salary depending on their status of 200 ($10) to 400 ($20) pesos per month. The best jobs are government jobs particularly military and police who “earn” on average what a doctor earns. The citizens are not free to travel without permission, and do not have access to the internet or outside TV programs.

The government controls the press and the educational establishment. Freedom is extremely limited. I asked one economic grad if he studied the Austrian economists like Hayek, he say yes but he was taught that only socialism worked. I then asked if there was academic freedom; he said, of course not!

There is also the snoop part of the culture, the hard liners who will report on their neighbors. In fact some of the better neighborhoods because they are better have a higher ratio of snoopers. The less desirable neighborhoods are thus freer. A Cuban joke asks why you often see three cops standing on the street corner, the answer: you need one to write, one to read, and one to watch the two intellectuals!

All this yields a population in decline. The birth rate is below replacement level at 1.7. Cuba has one of the highest divorce rates. Abortion is high and used as contraception. Women who plan to advance will not have children. Men who plan to escape don’t want a family. The young educated people leave when they can, usually by marrying a non-citizen or over extending the rare opportunity to travel. Doctors and health care workers who are part of Castro’s diplomatic efforts have a likely exit route, as Joel Millman’s WSJ article, New Prise in Cold War: Cuban Doctors, shows. There’s a joke that Cubans aren’t allowed to fish in the ocean because they “fish too far” referring to the 90 mile distance to Key West.

That said, the people generally appear to be healthy and not malnourished. Public health is said to be good with fumigation the major tool. Medical care is free. Education is free. There is no discrimination in this social melting pot. But the high end government jobs are typically held by the whites and the jails are typically populated by the blacks. Gays and lesbians, in earlier times shunned and later tolerated are now encouraged.

The government manages to keep most people occupied, not productive, but occupied. There is a ministry for this and a ministry for that, ad infinitum. There are those, though, who sit around the public squares and beg, pose for tourists pictures or sketch tourists and demand payment. The government’s renovation projects are honored more in anticipation than in real activity. Work on those projects seems to lack processes and tools we find common.

Culture is the freest outlet for expression. Music is omnipresent, varied and excellent. Jazz at the Buena Vista Social Club is just great. Ballet aficionados in our group compared the Havana troupe to those seen in San Francisco. Art is flourishing and excellent, some very dark, some very difficult for government negative interpretation, which I suspect was intended by the artist. Cuisine is not an art and very basic. As one guidebook suggests, don’t expect much.

Religion was initially banned as atheism, a tenant of communism, doesn’t quite accept belief in God. The results are evident today with churches seized by the government standing in disrepair and fenced. As communism was dropped fron the constitution following the demise of  the USSR, restrictions started to loosen up. Following the Pope’s visit, religions became freer and more accepted. We attended a Greek Orthodox Mass that was inspiring. The congregation is growing and young. It’s responsible for some good charitable work among the poorer classes.

Property rights as we know them are non-existent. Aside from the expropriations of foreign and domestic businesses in the Revolution, the government has allowed home “occupancy” to continue and to be passed to succeeding generations. But buying and selling homes is prohibited. This generates a Byzantine system of trading, phony divorce-remarriage schemes, and bribes. Car ownership including buying and selling for pre 1959 cars is permitted, but not until this past week for more modern cars! Contract rights are in the same boat as property rights, legally enforced to a limited extent if at all. Torts, intentional or negligent, are not actionable. I was told in the hotel if you trip over there and break your back, its your problem, don’t even think about suing, “that’s a Gringo thing.” That, a positive for the Cuban system!

Cuba works as a cash economy. There is no credit for Cubans. Everything is paid for in cash. The ordinary society functions on non-convertible pesos. The foreign businesses, foreign residents, and tourists use CUCs, convertible pesos, 20 to 24 pesos to the CUC. Converting a US dollar to the CUC gets you .86 CUCs. The government takes 10 cents from your dollar and 4 cents goes for exchange vigorish. A favorite occupation of the three museum docents or guards (in each room!) is to ask tourists to change a twenty dollar bill. This budding entrepreneurial effort at the “exchange” business is encouraging!

The most encouraging thing economically is the underground economy. It is significant and growing. Tips don’t get reported and with tourism such a large part of the economy they are significant. Profits like tips don’t get reported and folks like the museum ladies make profits. Government cab drivers who exceed their monthly fare quota don’t turn in the excess but consider it a large tip! Remittances are a large part of the shadow economy and they are significant. Remittances to Cuba as recently as 2008 were estimated at $1.4 Billion. The underground or shadow economy is estimated at $2.0 Billion. Paul Haven’s Washington Times article, Cuba’s shadow economy sees some daylightpaints an interesting picture.

Characteristic of Cubans is to accept life, make do, make things work. Protests and dissent is rare. We saw no evidence of the dissent evidenced by Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s recent WSJ article Cuba’s Repression Escalates. This because there are few rebels.  The attitude toward property rights limitation is typical, not being able to sell your house at a profit, or at all, but only to trade it, typifies the acceptance. Laws and promises of the government are accepted no matter how silly. The “free lunch” is taken for granted; of course, it’s really not free. It’s a numb society.  A generation of the revolution has succeeded in numbing the people. Big government is in control. Socialism is taught as the only system that works. There is no academic freedom, only conformity. Outlets now are music, art, cinema, and most recently religion, all of which have seen the seesaw censorship lessen. The real hope is that these and the budding entrepreneurship of the underground economy will flourish.

The Revolution has failed. What’s called for, for these wonderful people, is a re-revolution. Let’s hope we see it and, in our case, learn from it!

1 Comment