mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
overregulated
White House War on Jobs Making Progress
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • M Snow

    Perfect summary of why I’m not a Democrat anymore.

  • Frank Natoli

    Between the zoning regulators, the OSHA inspectors, the environmentalists, the tax authorities and the ‘living wage’ myrmidons,
    liberal progressive governance will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

    Do tell! Does that mean the reason jobs go overseas is not simply because wages are lower there?

  • WigWag

    So, Professor Mead, why do you prefer Clinton to Trump?

    • Pete

      You can ask such questions until you’re blue in the face but Mead won’t answer them. He can’t.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Detroitify – This is what happens when the leftists gain total control and hold it for several decades.

  • dwk67

    Essentially makes Charles Murray’s argument about the inevitability of a universal income for all over 21 while simultaneously throwing out the entire system of government assistance as it presently exists. As automation takes over in the coming years, we’re going to have to take this idea seriously in the very near future…

    • Kevin

      The math doesn’t work. Specialized benefits for various categories and conditions will need to be retained so basic income will be in top of much of the exiting welfare state not in replacement. To then give 300,000,000 people $10,000 each would cost $3 trillion/year in added expenses. This would jack up taxes by another 15-30 percentage points (or even more after you account for the inevitable exemptions and deductions that will be granted). Then you have the drop in GDP due to tax avoidance (and evasion) and reduced incentive to working or risk taking.

      • f1b0nacc1

        I was told that there wouldn’t be any math….

        • Jim__L

          Ha!

          That really should be a Progressive catchphrase. =)

          • f1b0nacc1

            Sadly, I think that it is their motto

      • dwk67

        Problem is, the math already doesn’t work for the current system as it is, notwithstanding the coming influx into Social Security and Medicare in the coming decade or so. As far as lax incentive to work, that will be largely moot for the unskilled anyway in a fully automated workplace and economy. I know this is hard to grapple with, but we’re going to have to figure something out along these lines within the next decade or so….

        • Jim__L

          Given access to capital and raw materials, families should be able to make something for themselves.

          In the next couple of decades, interesting possibilities could be coming online, where this is concerned.

          • Diws

            ie personal 3D printing?

            I am always most interested in what was behind the last corner, and what is behind the next. I have found George Friedman of Stratfor’s analysis of the next 30 or so years persuasive – a labor shortage in the 2020’s and early 2030’s then a labor glut as affordable robots take over for different roles such as home health care.

            Combining Friedman with Joel Kotkin’s ‘smart sprawl’ fueled by work from home collaberative technology yields an interesting picture, though it again seems to favor the skilled workforce.

          • Jim__L

            You’d be surprised what kind of skills people can develop, given resources and a lack of distractions. America has always (at its best) been about regular people developing their own.

            Stuff teeming multitudes into cities, and you have glut of people, obviously. If you instead assume that the basic unit of humanity is the autonomous family developing their own resources, productive robots become a boon rather than a bane.

            We need to be looking for frontiers, and for ways to wean people away from the distractions that hold them back — not for ways to stuff more and more people into cities.

  • Pete

    Mr. Mead say, “The war on less-skilled employment has three effects,” and then he lists them.

    Actually the Democratic war on jobs has a fourth effect. As people become unemployable, they become completely dependent of big government and the Democratic Party. And don’t think the sleazy Democrats don’t factor that into their policies.

    • Gary Hemminger

      Keeping their jobs and power is their #1 priority. The Republicans somehow forgot that. Ted Cruz makes me sick. Donald Trump is a complete zero. I am not voting Democrat but I wouldn’t vote for Trump or Cruz. None of them stand a chance against Hillary. So thanks a lot Republicans for giving us Hillary.

      • M Snow

        Take a look in the mirror if you are wondering who will give us Hillary.

  • Anthony

    Well, one way to consider WRM’s critique and probable hindrance to low-skilled men (ought women to be included) employment options is context of licensure policies at entry level occupations – wondering about ideas to tip governmental scale/balance. For further exploration see: http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/occupational_licensing/licensetowork.pdf

    • CosmotKat

      Anthony, no need to respond, but I agree with your notion here. Licensing for many occupations has risen dramatically in recent years. it acts as a barrier to entry for some and discourages competition.

  • Boritz

    Somewhere between ” less-skilled employment” and affluent families with two or more graduate degrees is a danger zone where people are far too likely to be overcome with a false sense of self-reliance. They start to believe that they are supporting themselves through their own effort and, in extreme cases, even think they ‘built that’. Until a way is discovered to transition directly from less-skilled to urbane and sophisticated without crossing the forbidden zone in between it is best for all concerned that the current policies remain in effect.

    • f1b0nacc1

      300 milliblighters

  • Gary Hemminger

    I think that folks don’t have a solid understanding of the progressive mindset. Equality is the most important thing, along with social justice. Having less jobs, but more equality is fine for progressives, because government subsidies and handouts can make it up for the people without jobs. this is their mindset. Never mind the lack of incentives for working. these don’t factor into their thinking. Just as higher taxes and regulation don’t factor into economic assessments. This is their way of thinking. No amount of logic can be applied. the best thing in my opinion is to hand them the reins of power and see what happens. Either they are right or they are wrong. If they are wrong, then they will fail. the question is if they fail, will they so distort the system that they can never be replaced again.

    The other question is the Republicans who have so badly damaged themselves (and this isn’t only a Trump thing). Look at California where there is essentially no functioning Republican party. We are a one pony state. The Republicans message should be about economics, but instead they get too into the social wars, which they lose almost continually. Can they be an effective opposition party. Because if not, then we are going to have progressives running this country for a long time. The Republicans might as well not even exist if they cannot effectively oppose the Democrats where they can win.

    Gary

    • Jim__L

      What is so deeply weird about that outlook is the fact that so many Silicon Valley types who would never consider working for less than $200/hr consider themselves so deeply “progressive”.

  • Jim__L

    “Is it really liberal and progressive to develop a set of policies that
    systematically sideline and warehouse whole classes of people, depriving
    them of dignity and respect?”

    If they’re white men? Of course. That’s what the Liberals and Progressives are all about.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service