« Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget | Main | Low Standards» Don Boudreaux
February 17, 2008
Tyler Cowen on Elections
Don Boudreaux
My GMU colleague (and Marginal Revolution's) Tyler Cowen
-- in his column in today's New York Times -- explains why political
elections turn more on style than on substance:
Here are Tyler's concluding paragraphs:
That might sound pessimistic, but it’s not. Many Americans will be living longer, finding new sources of learning and recreation, creating more rewarding jobs, striking up new loves and friendships, and, yes, earning more money. Just don’t expect most of these gains to come out of the voting booth or, for that matter, Washington.
And if you’re still worrying about how to vote, I have two pieces of advice. First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference. Second, stop worrying and get back to work.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e550677ac38834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tyler Cowen on Elections:
Comments
Tyler Cowen ..... is this the guy who said that 'Obama is the most intellectual among the candidates'?
Wonder what his definition of 'intellectual' is.
Posted by: raja_r | Feb 17, 2008 8:30:54 AM
Thanks for flagging this, Don. I sent Tyler's column to a colleague with the the following comment.
"At lunch the other day you expressed surprise at my support of Obama. Tyler Cowen’s column in today’s NYTimes (flagged at Café Hayek) makes the case nicely that one’s pro-market policy preferences do not necessarily imply a vote for a *putatively* pro-market presidential candidate. Besides, many Republicans are not pro-market; they’re pro-business. And, of course, existing established businesses want the government to restrict competition. Being pro-business is just about the opposite of being pro-market as illustrated by the recent flap of granting immunity to telecoms for spying on us. Note, finally, Tyler’s closing paragraph. Obama has the best anti-war record. Sure, he hasn’t been much tested and was not in the Senate at the time of the crucial Iraq vote. But his famous speech correctly identified the folly of the Iraq war, and he did come out and say it forcefully. He has the best record for anyone who values liberty and fears state power. He has the best record for anyone who prefers life over death for his fellow humans, even those far away."
If truth is the first casualty, liberty is the second.
Posted by: Roger Koppl | Feb 17, 2008 10:33:21 AM
So, according to this thinking it makes no difference to one's individual prosperity whether his taxes are high or low, whether trade is free or restricted with tariffs and quotas, whether one's business is free to operate in the market or subject to heavy regulation, whether one can obtain modern health care in a free market or whether one must accept a government run system of substandard care and long waiting, or whether companies such as Exxon are allowed to earn a profit or whether a Hillary Clinton fulfills her professed goal of "I want to take those profits!", as she has publicly said.
No, no. It doesn't matter. Obama's or Hillary's socialist dreams will make no difference.
Orwell's sentiments apply here: "Only a member of the intelligentsia could believe such nonsense. No ordinary person could be such a fool."
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Feb 17, 2008 11:11:50 AM
While it's certainly true that the President has very limited power to get his legislative agenda passed, he has a lot of power to block a legislative agenda he doesn't agree with. A prime example was Bill Clinton's veto of the Republican spending bills, effectively "shutting down" the government.
Tax policy is a big example of this -- the Democrats in Congress was to raise taxes to undo the tax cuts enacted by the previous Republican Congress. They could pass that bill today, but it would almost certainly be vetoed. If a Democrat is elected, however, they won't have that impediment.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 17, 2008 11:18:57 AM
I got out of Tyler's article the idea that what he was saying was in spite of the rhetoric of all of the politicans there is historical documentation that no new administration brings about the kind of vast sweeping change (harm) that we fear. In other words the system that produced them is also the system that keeps them from cycling out of control.
Yes there is some up and there is some down; but, I go along with his theory simply because I was born in 1941 and the only large wrinkle in the ebb and flow was the Carter adminsitration which, in my opinion, was a wasted four years. But, even then I can't say I lay all the blame on our domestic problems during those years on Carter because like any president he inherits a situation that dictates to some degree what he is going to have to do with his situation.
Carter's biggest harm to America came, as Tyler points out, in the arena of foreign policy. As a matter of fact it still seems that way concerning Carter.
I do believe that the top three candidates, McCain, Obama, and Clinton are going to encourage and push the socialist agenda which will have more long term societal affect than short term fiscal affect.
We have such a large government enculturated thumbsuckers in America now any poitician is going to have to offer more and bigger teats to suck than the next politician in order to buy votes. Having promised to increase the size and number of teats they have to deliver on at aleast some of what they promised, if not all.
Therein lies the harm.
Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 17, 2008 11:48:48 AM
Flash: My point is that war is a bigger issue than tax policy. Sure, I'm absolutely persuaded that corporate tax rates should be zero and all the rest. Absolutely. But war is a bigger issue by at least an order of magnitude.
Posted by: Roger Koppl | Feb 17, 2008 12:14:16 PM
vidyohs - at least we know McCain will continue to fight the Islamic jihad. The others will not. They cater do the Democrat head-in-the-sand approach that the Islamic jihadists are just a law-enforcement problem.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 17, 2008 12:56:16 PM
Roger:
There are obviously a segment of libertarians who don't believe that the Islamic Jihad is a war issue - they believe that it's just a few cave dwellers we don't need to worry about. They just won't listen to reason.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 17, 2008 12:59:19 PM
Roger Koppl: You seem to be saying that anti-war is the big policy. I agree that it is a big issue. Excepting one's personal actions, nothing will destroy your wealth, prosperity and your children's future faster than another terrorist attack even bigger than 9/11, especially a nuclear one.
If you believe the appeasement approach of Obama or Hillary will make your future more secure, then you must believe that there really are not resourceful and evil men out there who are working hard to find ways to kill as many of us as possible. If you are wrong in this belief, the anti-war stance will simply hasten the day of reckoning.
It's odd to say that Obama has the best record for anyone who values liberty and fears state power. No Democrat has a good record on that score. Admittedly, the R's are little better of late but at least it's not as much a part of their DNA.
No one has "the best record for anyone who prefers life over death for his fellow humans, even those far away." We all prefer life over death for ourselves and our fellow humans. But we are at war with people who prefer death over life, especially our lives.
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Feb 17, 2008 1:16:18 PM
Flash & FeedomLover: Oh dear; I'm sorry I was not clear. My comments were about Obama's stance toward Iraq, which is nothing to do with terrorism of course. The Iraq war may have unintentionally given a boost to international terrorists, but that's just to underline how foolish it was in the first place. On Afghanistan by contrast, Obama seems to want an *increase* in troops, which seems right to me. That's where there were indeed bad guys trying to kill us. In summary: kill people who are actively trying to kill you; don't kill other people.
Posted by: Roger Koppl | Feb 17, 2008 3:32:26 PM
Flash: Sorry for posting two in a row, but I wanted to point out that Jimmy Carter has a stellar free-market record. It was Carter who appointed Paul Volker as Fed chairman and thus restored relatively sound money. It was Carter who appointed the great Alfred Kahn to design deregulatory schemes in trucking and airlines. Yep, it was Carter the Democrat who gave us deregulation and relatively sound money. Before him, Nixon the Republican gave us inflation and price controls! (Ford gave us buttons saying "Whip Inflation Now.")
Posted by: Roger Koppl | Feb 17, 2008 3:48:29 PM
Roger:
Do you think that any Islamic Jihadist doesn't want to kill Americans? How are jihadists in Afghanistan any threat, but ones in Iraq aren't?
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 17, 2008 4:09:44 PM
<>
This is the typical left wing bury the head in the sand mentality. Al- Qaeda in "Mesopotamia" is what we always hear as opposed to Al-Qaeda in Iraq but it is and always has been their stated goal to attack us not just with explosives but biological and chemical weapons; something Sadam clearly stated he used until the UN halted the programs and something that he clearly stated he would resume once santions were lifted. To sit here and say taking him out was a mistake is to show how un-informed you are.
I remember the left opposed the first Gulf War. They all said, in lock step, it was because we didn't finish it and take out Sadam then. Now they are saying it is a mistake. Clueless and mind-numbed is the monopoly of the left.
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 4:12:25 PM
Come on, guys, pay attention. Sadam was no jihadist. If there are jihadist terrorists active in Iraq today, that only shows that the Iraq war increased our exposure to such risks. And you know it doesn't make your argument more subtle or correct to tar me as "typical left wing" (yeah, right!) or "un-informed." It turns out such name calling is not, you know, like, an actual argument.
Posted by: Roger Koppl | Feb 17, 2008 4:38:50 PM
"Under Arthur Burns, who chaired the Fed from 1970 to 1978, and under G. William Miller, who was was chairman from January 1978 to August 1979, the Fed provided the monetary fuel for an inflation that began as a flicker and grew into a fearsome blaze... If Nixon appointee Burns lit the fire, Miller poured gasoline on it during the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Without question the most partisan and least respected chairman in the Fed's history, this former Textron executive worked in tandem with fellow Carter appointee, Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal, in pursuit of monetary policies that were expansionist domestically and devaluationist internationally. The goals were to spur employment and exports, with little thought to the dollar's value. By early 1980, inflation was running at 14 percent.[6]"
—Steven Beckner, Back from the Brink: The Greenspan Years
Carter was an economic disaster, we had the "misery index" back then. 18% interest rates 6% unemployment. Granted Nixon wasn't much better, Carter bumbled into appointing Voelker. It was luck. To be fair, it was a run away Dem Congress that really had caused all the distress. The failure probably wasn't really Carter so much as the lib Congress in economics but he was a disaster in foreign policy. Obama will be too. I would take Hillary over him. She is at least smart enough to see the disaster of her own demagog-ary. Obama is totally clueless.
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 4:39:03 PM
I wasn't name calling. just being factual. It is "clueless" to say Sadam had developed weapons in the past, and was to restart his program to keep them for his own people. He had tried to assinate Bush Sr. once. That is an official act of war, all by itself. He tried to take over the middle east oil, but he was going to "protect" us from A-Qaeda in Mesopotamia LOL
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 4:47:37 PM
Too often do people confuse the president's actual place in the economy. He has very little persuasion over economic issues and even tax issues he has less power than what people usually give him credit for.
However, then again, a foreign policy can in fact influence an economic policy greatly, so I think it's more complicated than anyone here is giving it credit for.
Posted by: Niccolo Adami | Feb 17, 2008 4:54:54 PM
First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference.
Exactly why I was an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul. His statements on monetary policy were difficult to explain, but he was the only candidate in either party making sense on foreign policy.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 17, 2008 5:20:48 PM
My comments on the article (which also linked at MR at the end of the post).
Thoughts welcome. BTW, any posters looking for added venues to comment at, we welcome new members. We are a little heavy on the liberal side. We could use some more variety. :)
Posted by: John V | Feb 17, 2008 5:39:02 PM
How is it logically consistent to want to abolish public schools and a host of other government programs and then support the government's foreign policy adventures over in some far off land? I oppose most government endeavors because they rarely work well. Why on earth would I equate the removal of Sadam in Iraq with the spreading of democracy? Sadam is a bad guy. The Islamic terrorists are bad people. However, I dont see how removing these two from the equation implies functional democracy in the Middle East.
Posted by: john pertz | Feb 17, 2008 7:47:52 PM
John I will agree that war is a terrible option and maybe we should just live with the attacks on our homeland. If you remember back to 911 and the Bush policy that we would fight terrorists and any government that harbored them.
As to the implied functional democracy, when we fought WWI, we just left the Germans to themselves afterwards and Hitler returned as a dictator. The second WWII was followed with the Marshall Plan and about an 11 year period were we occupied Germany setting up a working government. The same with Japan. The press hammered us during the time as a waste and a failure. Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh both linked in the past to a bunch of negative hopeless news stories on the reconstruction period. That "nation building" worked. WWI was what brought about the countries in the Middle East but no effort there was taken to set up governments other than the British drawing lines as payment for the tribes that helped them defeat the Turks. I think Bush is doing it right and taking a lot of heat for it, but I also agree that there is a good case to be made to just close our borders and drill our own oil wells in our own soil and stay out of all world affairs altogether. It isn't even debatable that Obama, Hillary and McCain are all opposed to us drilling on our own soil though. This makes stability in that area a little more important though and we have to live in a safe world, especially when Iran (with Hezbola, their proxy army) and Dictators specialize in exporting terror
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 8:54:24 PM
There are obviously a segment of libertarians who don't believe that the Islamic Jihad is a war issue - they believe that it's just a few cave dwellers we don't need to worry about. They just won't listen to reason.
Posted by: FreedomLover
You are a tool who has bought their fear-mongering rhetoric. And in the process you've willingly given up freedoms and even agreed with them that they need to wire into your phone to keep you safe. A sheeple if ever there was one.
Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 17, 2008 9:18:19 PM
I see the political economic choices as a choice between the Chicago school of economics (at least in proclamation if not action) versus the MIT School.
With regards to foreign policy I think there's never been a time when world opinion of our country was lower. There's little doubt who the world wants to lead us.
The other big issue is social liberties. With the republicans disregard for these from torture, to wire tapping, to reading my e-mails, to snooping in bedrooms its a clear choice for anyone wanting their freedoms protected.
Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 17, 2008 9:24:26 PM
Oh look everyone! a troll!!
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 9:52:37 PM
Wow, as far as I know, no one has taped the goings-on in our bedroom nor tried to interfere with them, and if they have tapped our phones, they've heard my mother-in-law, my mother, salespeople, our friends and other assorted enemies-of-the-state.
We waterboarded 3 individuals. I'm not saying it was a great thing, but relative to what ANY country has done in terms of torture, we are on the lowest end of the entire world.
I'm glad we're all worrying about it and even fighting it to some degree, because it can go too far, but the fact we CAN even fight it is a sign of freedom not available to most of the world's individuals.
I am more worried about our economic policies in terms of us losing our freedom. The fact that the Europeans don't like us (which is not entirely true), as they turn inexorably into Muslim states? Big deal. Russia? Stupendous record of freedom and prosperity for its citizens. Arab countries? Yeah, Saudi and Syria are good prototypes of freedom-loving countries that love us.
Who cares?
We are drifting into economic problems which mainly derive from Democrat legacies...the Great Society of LBJ, and even before, FDR's alphabet soup of socialist programs...and its' taken a while, but now we're going to "pay" for these.
Of course, Obama and Hillary want to accelerate the economic decline with MORE spending...McCain, at least he didn't propose millions of dollars of earmarks...though I don't trust most politicians...
Yeah, let's raise taxes on the "rich", and fight trade wars. Wait, wasn't that tried? Hoover raised taxes, Smoot-Hawley was passed and...yeah, THAT'LL help the rest of the world like us better, those trade wars and tariffs...
Oh bother.
Posted by: Maurice | Feb 17, 2008 10:29:50 PM
don't feed the trolls
Posted by: jpm | Feb 17, 2008 10:31:48 PM
It's no longer a choice between big government and limited government, if it ever was. It's a choice between big R government and big D government, and given this choice, people will choose the Ds. Obama is boiler plate big D, but if he'll scale back the warfare state by the cost of the Iraqi occupation and avoid escalating it into Iran, that's progress. If he also stirs the pot in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's probably not.
But the pressing problems, as usual, are the ones we aren't discussing. The payroll tax surplus peaks this year. That was the projection in 2005 anyway. I haven't seen more recent figures. After the peak, the surplus declines every year for a decade, until it disappears in 2018.
Of course, this "surplus" is only code for general revenue that Congress spends every year, so the falling "surplus" cuts into general revenue. Thus income tax revenue must rise even faster to keep up with the incredible spending increases.
In 2018, we basically start paying Social Security benefits from the income tax, as Congress "repays the trust fund", but the pressure to raise income taxes occurs long before then. It begins when the surplus peaks, and this peak not out in the future anymore. Time is not running out. Time has run out, and we're thoroughly in denial. I don't recall a word about it from anyone in the Presidential race.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 18, 2008 12:30:57 AM
muirgeo:
I'm the type of person that listens to my survival instinct, not the insane tinfoil ramblings in my head like you.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 18, 2008 3:13:15 AM
Martin:
The only thing I can agree with you is about the SocSec pyramid scheme. It's the most diabolical transfer of wealth scheme in the history of mankind. I'm 31, and I already KNOW I will never collect a dime of all the FICA I've paid in.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 18, 2008 3:16:56 AM
vidyohs: "Yes there is some up and there is some down; but, I go along with his theory simply because I was born in 1941 and the only large wrinkle in the ebb and flow was the Carter adminsitration which, in my opinion, was a wasted four years."
You and I are generally agreement, vidyohs, so I suspect I am misunderstanding your point here.
IMO, LBJ and the overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress brought sweeping changes in the role of the U.S. government that many consider harmful. We'll be paying for Medicare and Medicaid for a long time, both financially and through loss of freedom. The War on Poverty convinced two generations of minorities that increased dependence on government was the road to their economic gain. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 concentrated authority over American education in the hands of the federal government. I don't think the five years of LBJ's presidency were harmless.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 18, 2008 8:16:35 AM
FreedomLover,
Its good that you know that. The problem is that my generation knew that too but it isn't happening. It isn't happening because the political class has become addicted to the revenue stream and is doing everything it can to convince your generation that social security must be "saved". I for one am all for ending it. Start by taxing 100% of benefits - do this immediately. Then move on to slowing the rate of benefit increases - work from the top down. The idea is to transition social security to a true welfare program - which it should have been from the beginning. As for you, start saving now if you haven't already. Because if they don't drastically reduce benefits on my generation they certainly will on yours.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 18, 2008 8:18:49 AM
Sir John D,
"IMO, LBJ and the overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress brought sweeping changes in the role of the U.S. government that many consider harmful. We'll be paying for Medicare and Medicaid for a long time, both financially and through loss of freedom. The War on Poverty convinced two generations of minorities that increased dependence on government was the road to their economic gain. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 concentrated authority over American education in the hands of the federal government. I don't think the five years of LBJ's presidency were harmless.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 18, 2008 8:16:35 AM"
No, we still agree. What I meant was I agree with what I believe Tyler was saying; and, that is that no new office holder "typically" brings "immediate large" damning change. (Quotes are mine). Particularly on the fiscal end of things. I also agree with Tyler that the new president is more likely to bring sudden large change in the arena of foreign policy.
Yes, it is obvious that your analysis of the LBJ years is correct when viewed from the long term perspective. It speaks volumes to the fact that once the federal government's direction has changed we the people can no more change it back by voice or vote than we can push the moon farther away by yelling at it.
Furthermore since I need to express more detail, I might point out that the LBJ years did see one massive change instigated by his policies. That is the flip flop that made anglo-saxons (white people) the official minority in any matters dealing with the federal government or any institution receiving money from the federal government. His policy of hammering down the mountains in an attempt to lift the valleys doesn't elevate the low it only eliminates the high. If the country survives that, and there is evidence that we may not, and retains any semblance of vigor and competitive spirit it'll be a tribute to the understanding that any stupidity can be over come by intelligence and ambition, even socialist stupidity.
//Now watch how quickly the trolls attack me as a racist, LOL//
Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 18, 2008 8:59:07 AM
On the margin matters. Reagan's best work was done with marginal tax rates. My guess is that many behaviors were altered by those tax rates, most of them efficacious.
Too, today there is no conscription, because of previous elections. Conscription is the ultimate tax. As a result of the all volunteer army, many behaviors have changed, most of them at the Federal level.
If one had ever lived under that Sword of Damocles, one would be less sanguine about election outcomes. Tyler's getting back to work comment is risible to those of us who, in the day of the draft, wanted to do nothing more than that---but couldn't 'cuz Uncle had other plans for us.
The problem is that most candidates are well schooled in proteanism. We hope we know what they'll do. What me worry? Yes, we are always just a few steps from the worst interpretations of Hobbes, when the mantra becomes "duty".
Posted by: John | Feb 18, 2008 10:02:23 AM
John,
Just an aside, but conscription, contrary to popular belief, is not "over". Young men are still required to register, and the next time the progressives find a cause they support, conscription will be reactivated in a heartbeat. They're already drumming up support for it with the constant calls for "national service".
Posted by: Randy | Feb 18, 2008 10:23:19 AM
Tyler's "advice" is just the type of reasoning Hayek warned against in The Road to Serfdom. Imperceptibly but inexorably government encroaches on our economic liberties, which eventually will amount to doing away with our political liberties. If we don't fight for every inch of freedom we still have, with every vote, we will only have ourselves to blame when we or our children have none of it left.
Posted by: Fabio Franco | Feb 18, 2008 10:36:51 AM
Fabio,
The problem is that at least half the population already believes that, "individualism means tyranny", the younger generations are being taught the same, and the only thing the so-called opposition has to offer is stagnant religious traditions and appeals to patriotism/militarism. The result is that only an insignificant minority believe in freedom and it is no longer even possible to vote for it. So subversion is the only practical course of action.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 18, 2008 11:01:22 AM
vidyohs,
OK, I better understand your point about immediate vs long term changes. I don't believe foreign policy decisions of any new president will impact the nation near as much in the long run as other decisions I expect from a Democratic-controlled government: universal health care; the appointment of Supreme Court justices; more progressive taxation; and government interference in energy markets.
The LBJ era demonstrated to me that the American political system does not always "operate by checks and balances", as Tyler suggests.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 18, 2008 11:03:38 AM
Fabio Franco: "Imperceptibly but inexorably government encroaches on our economic liberties, which eventually will amount to doing away with our political liberties."
Of course, I agree completely.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 18, 2008 11:04:47 AM
On the margin matters. Reagan's best work was done with marginal tax rates. My guess is that many behaviors were altered by those tax rates, most of them efficacious.
I suppose Reagan meant well, but of course, he raised the payroll tax while cutting marginal income tax rates, and these two taxes raise most Federal revenue in roughly equal measure. At the same time, Reagan/Bush I increased Federal spending faster than the Clinton administration, only not quite as fast as Bush II managed with the support of a friendlier, more "conservative" legislature.
When the socialist/fascist program is well underway, when many risks have been socialized and "profits" have been "privatized", cutting marginal income tax rates and taxes on the yield of "capital" clearly increases the authority of rent seekers to seek more rents. Maybe we hadn't reached the culmination of this process under Reagan, but we're certainly further down the road now.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 18, 2008 1:18:13 PM
Randy:
But on the other hand that same majority of young people believe in all the social freedoms of sex, drug use. I wonder why economic freedom just doesn't translate for them. I guess as most of them being office drones, see business as a monster leviathan entity. They don't see that half of American GDP is in small businesses. But besides that, any job is hard work and most young people are allergic to hard-work. The so-called American work ethic no longer exists except among 40% of the adults.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 18, 2008 2:06:21 PM
I can see that Martin and I agree on some things at last.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 18, 2008 2:08:07 PM
FreedomLover,
I think that what you describe is the achilles heel of today's anti-liberal liberals. They talk of freedom but deny it to the productive. The forseeable consequence is Facism. People will first be forced into the indoctrination and productivity centers, and then into the factories and the military. And the necessary police, intelligence, and propaganda services will become the most highly rewarded positions in society.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 18, 2008 2:32:53 PM
"But besides that, any job is hard work and most young people are allergic to hard-work. The so-called American work ethic no longer exists except among 40% of the adults."
Hey. What do you think this is? 1969?
I bet you walked uphill both ways in the snow to school too.
Posted by: Eric | Feb 18, 2008 2:39:53 PM
Eric:
I'm saying that people in 1969 worked harder in general, what's your point? I'm only 31, so I can't speak firsthand about what happened then. I just can see what's around me, and I see slackers everywhere. Particularly in customer service jobs.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 18, 2008 5:06:19 PM
My point is that that's not a very good assumption.
There are a lot of lazy people out there, but that's not evidence for "people used to work harder." It could be that there have always been a lot of lazy people, or that customer service has always attracted lazy people. Or that many lazy people didn't even get jobs before.
Anyway, the numbers do indeed show a decline in average hours per worker, but that seems to be more related to an increase in the number of part-time workers than any change in full-time workers.
Check out table 1 in particular:
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR2812.pdf
There are two ways to take that information: (1) that people are lazier now because on average they work fewer hours, or (2) that more people work harder now, because many that didn't have (or wouldn't have had) jobs before currently have part-time jobs.
How hard they actually work at those jobs is a tougher question that can't be adequately answered.
Posted by: Eric | Feb 18, 2008 6:31:06 PM
freedomlover: "I just can see what's around me, and I see slackers everywhere. Particularly in customer service jobs."
I managed 15 customer service employees in 1969, and fired a few who were definitely slackers. As a customer. I've been served by other such slackers throughout the past five decades. If we include illegal immigrant workers of today, then I think today's slackers are a smaller percentage of overall customer service workers.
What has changed for legal workers is that the federal government has made it much harder to fire slackers. Some retail business owners have become much more careful about who they hire (my tactic), while others seem to accept poor performance.
Illegal immigrants, of course, do not have the job "protection" of legal workers. They can be easily fired for non-performance. I see few illegal immigrant slackers here in Texas.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 19, 2008 10:48:37 AM
John --
A third tactic is to hire part-time workers, so you can mess with hours to minimize the impact if necessary.
Posted by: Eric | Feb 19, 2008 12:59:04 PM
"A third tactic is to hire part-time workers ..."
That's true. IMO, government interference in the workplace induced employers to offer part time rather than full time employment for low skilled positions.
Posted by: John Dewey | Feb 19, 2008 1:44:54 PM
What has changed for legal workers is that the federal government has made it much harder to fire slackers.
Having never employed anyone, I'm curious to know. How is hard to fire someone?
Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 20, 2008 4:04:23 PM
Formally, it isn't actually that hard. But there are lots of potential problems: anti-discrimination laws (protecting women, minorities, people over 40, etc.) being one, and the ability of fired employees to sue if they feel they had any type of assurance that their jobs were secure, being another.
There don't appear to be many studies on the cost of labor market inflexibility in the U.S., but many comparing it favorably to the (formally) inflexible systems in other countries.
Posted by: Eric | Feb 22, 2008 12:45:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
