Jeb Bush, Hours Working and Underemployment vs. Leisure

     On the question of Jeb Bush saying that Americans need to work more hours I've been a little ambivalent. I mean many liberal critics have skewered him for this but I'm not sure it's been wholly fair.

     I mean there are many Americans who would benefit by working more hours. I should know as I've been there-I was for many years an American who would have happily worked 50 or 60 hours but my employers were dead set against it.

    Many take his comment here as similar to Romney's 47%. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong I think that Jeb lives in the same basic world as Mitt does and there is plenty Jeb says to not like. Like what he said today about building a fence around the border.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/jeb-bush-immigration-policy-2016/

    But many Americans would benefit from working more hours. To be sure, the question is why does Jeb think Americans don't in fact currently work more hours? The reason is largely that employers don't want to pay the overtime.

   There is unquestionably a chronic problem in the US of undermployed workers-as well as those who have given up looking for work.

   In the context of undermployed Americans his comments might then seem reasonable. However, the followup question for him would be what he intends to do about it. What is causing undermployment?

  I do think that this critical article of Jeb runs the risk of miniminzing underemployment which is a real problem.

 "Bush then backpedaled and said he was referring to the 6.5 million people who wanted full-time work but couldn't find it. The only problem with that number -- 6.5 million -- is that it constitutes less than 5% of America's total workforce of 148.7 million."

 http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/opinions/wheeler-jeb-bush/

 This is a strange comment by David Wheeler. He thinks that if only 6.5 million Americans are undermployed they don't matter? Again, I know it's not an obscure problem as I've been there. Try kissing off 6.5 million people in the electorate and tell me they don't matter.

 Jeb is not wrong to bring them up-I applaud him for doing so. What we need to know though is what he plans to do about it. How do you get these underemployeds more work?

 However, the liberal critics of Jeb's comment are right that as a nation we have a lot of overworked Americans as well. This is the problem that might be called 'the leisure shortage for American workers.'

 Yes, I'm actually finding the Neoclassical idea of leisure useful here. The only caveat as that leisure needs to be differentiated from unemployment and undermployment.

 Unlike the RBCers who chalk up the Great Depression and the Lesser Depression to everyone taking a vacation for years.

 What's happened is that with the drop in wages, Americans have had to work longer hours to keep up with the level of money balance they used to maintain.

 So they are still behind as they are at best keeping up with what they used to do in 40 hours in 50 or 60 hours. Meanwhile they have less leisure-ie, family time, recreation time, quality personal time-they used to have which leads to other social ill effects like family breakdowns.

 Meanwhile these overworked Americans took extra hours offered to them after their employers let the now underemployed workers go or cut their hours.

 In a simple world, you would simply cut the hours of the overworked Americans and give them to the undermployed Americans but of course life, especially in economics is not that simple.

 Part of the trouble is that the overworked are working through economic necessity. And the employers benefit from these underemployed workers who don't work enough hours to qualify for healthcare, and other full-time benefits.

 So it seems to me that both Jeb and his liberal critics are only getting half of the story.

 1. He gets that there is an undermployment problem


 2. They get that there is an overworked problem.

 What no one seems to understand is that you can have both at once. Just like the fable of the superstitious man who became frantic when he saw someone blow on their hands for warmth and then blow on their soup to cool it down.

 http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1342.html

 P.S. No question, however, that Jeb's talk of 4% GDP is absurd. Either he didn't listen to his economic advisers-Mankiw, Glen Hubbard, etc.-or they are really falling down on the job.
  

Have the Inflationphobes Learnt Anything in Seven Years?

     Krugman doesn't think so:

     "Derp — views that just keep being repeated in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence — has always been with us, but the derp quotient has really soared since the crisis of 2008, which made nonsense of doctrines too dearly held to be reconsidered. This is especially true of inflation derp: has any prominent figure who warned of runaway inflation from the Fed’s efforts admitted having learned anything from being wrong year after year?"

     http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/inflation-paranoia-as-a-tribal-marker/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    Yet, I disagree. If you want to see a Freshwater inlationphobe type that has learnt something from all the wrong predictions of runaway inflation see Stephen Willaimson and John Cohrane's Neo-Fisherianism.

    http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/neo-fisherism-rbcs-brilliant-trojan.html

    Krugman has commented on the NFers some.

   http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2014/11/neo-fisherians-unite-and-throw-off-mvpy.html

   However, I feel like just like he doesn't fully appreciate the phenomenon of Market Monetarism, he doesn't get that the inflationphobes have learnt-they are now NFers. What's brilliant about this move is they can now claim to be on the same side as the Keynesians. They too want to increase inflation but the only way to do that is to increase interest rates.

   You could say that the Neo-Fisherian phenomenon is those economists and Wall St pundits who just want an interest rate hike because it's 'not normal' for them to be this low this long. For years they argued for raising interest rates based on the inflation bogey man. Now they've switched to arguing that the only way to beat lowflation is to raise interest rates.

   So the policy is the same but the rationale has changed. In this the inflationphobes have proven to be shrewder than Krugman gives them credit for.

  He also underestimates the MM movement and in this way he underestimates the current standing of the Right. They are much shrewder than he gives them credit for. They have made adjustments.

 All things considered you'd rather even want to overestimate your enemy then underestimate them which Krugman is currently doing I think.

 His buddy SW thinks NF can get rid of both the Phillips' Curve and MV=PY.

 On another front, Paul Romer is accusing Freshwater types of mathiness.

 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wrong-turn-wonkish/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

 A lot of these fights you have to understand the inside politics to really make sense of but once you do I find them very interesting. A lot is at stake.

   
     

The GOP Establishment Strikes Back at Trump

    While I was away I see that there are all kinds of new firestorms for the Trump campaign: racism, that he has hired many undocumented workers and a new unauthorized documentary he tried to squash in 1989 that now somehow has come back to life:

   A 25-year-old documentary on Donald Trump that the real estate mogul reportedly tried to quash at the time of its filming now has been revived in light of his presidential bid.

  "Trump: What's The Deal?" was bankrolled by businessman Leonard Stern, who owned various New York media properties at the time, including the alternative weekly newspaper The Village Voice. It was conceived by the late producer Ned Schnurman as part of a series called "Famous Americans," according to a 1989 New York Magazine cover story on the project.

  "What's The Deal?" ultimately failed to reach an audience for a number of reasons: Trump reportedly tried to derail the project, Stern refused to infuse more cash into its production after a certain point, and no TV stations ever agreed to air it, according to the New York Magazine story. The New York Times reported that in 1991, over Stern's objections, Schnurman did end up screening the 90-minute finished product to an audience of 800 people in Bridgehampton, New York.

   "The unauthorized documentary since had been kept under wraps until it was posted for free online last week. What's striking about watching "What's The Deal?" today -- and learning its backstory -- is that so much of what kept The Donald in the headlines in the late '80s still rings true going into the 2016 election."

   "One of the most ironic discoveries of Trump's not yet two-month-old presidential campaign was the presence of undocumented workers at the site of the future Trump International Hotel at the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington, D.C. One of the cornerstones of Trump's 2016 campaign has been railing against immigrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico."

   "But as "What's The Deal?" pointed out, Trump had hired a contractor that employed what was known as "the Polish brigade" -- more than 200 undocumented immigrants -- to clear the way for Trump Tower in New York City. (Trump was later sued and denied any knowledge of the undocumented workers, even though his company supervised the demolition.)"

   http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-whats-deal-80s-documentary


   It's kind of convenient that a documentary film that had been underwraps for 25 years, resurfaces now don't you think? I'm not denying the charges that he used undocumented workers-I'm sure that's true.

   There also has 'resurfaced' his past comments that clearly show him supporting Democrats and dismissing Republicans in the past.

   http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/if-gop-stops-trump-this-is-how-theyll.html


  What I wonder though is who is 'resurfacing' all this? Obviously the RNC, et. al.

   Meanwhile, the Koch Brothers are out to get him.

  http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/2016-election-koch-brothers-donor-retreat/

  Again, I wonder if he could win in Britain though.

  http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-really-could-win-in-britain.html

On Cultural Differences Between Government and Business and England and America

     In the last post I looked at Sumner's claim that government makes everything worse and had to disagree.

     "My experience tells me that you don't have to be a government entity to either have long lines or be rude. "

    "Someone that makes $25 dollars an hour at the Post Office and someone that makes the same at Cablevision has the same basic incentives-they make decent money and don't want to screw up and be fired. My experiences with both seem to be getting better all the time."

   "What libertarians like Sumner can't seem to imagine is there being any incentive other than the inventive of economic competition. But remember, someone who works at C or the PO don't think of themselves as being a government or private worker just someone with a decent paying job that they had better not screw up."

    http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sumner-on-government-and-culture.html


   I don't think it's across the board either way. Some private companies have excellent customer service and some don't. I find that places like Wallmart and Costco don't. There seems to be no worries about economic competition. Trying to flag down anyone for help at these and many other places is an exercise in trying to talk to someones rapidly retreating back.

  There are some government agencies that are not pleasant to deal with-but not so much the IRS as immigration and naturalization. But of course that's not because government is inefficient but because that's how Republicans think these agencies should behave.

   If you need any help with these offices they treat you as if you're guilty of something until proven innocent.

  Overall, it seems to me that both government and private business is always working on improving the customer experience-though in reality, the government rightly doesn't see us as customers primarily but citizens.

  But both the government and business is constantly trying to improve things for customers/citizens and technology offers an unlimited array of possibilities for doing that.

  If there isn't a huge difference between government and private enterprise regarding service it's clear to me that where there is a huge cultural difference is between England and America. I say this after vising England 5 days last week. There folks in customer service actually do their job.

   Even at the subway there is customer service. Try finding anything like that in NY. Now I'll admit that CS is a big issue for me-it's a real pet peeve. I'm not an especially demanding customer-and I usually leave a big tip-but I expect good customer service.

  Sometimes I wonder if maybe I desired the impossible here. But after my short time in England I see that my ideal isn't Utopian that it exists in England. I guess this shows that even if I left at 3 years old, in my soul, I'm still an Englishman.

 Just bad manners in particular really gets me going. And they just have manners in England. This is what you have to call a 'cultural difference.' It isn't political. I mean the fact that the Conservatives are in power isn't the reason the English are polite. They were just as polite when Gordon Brown was in office and before Margaret Thatcher won in 1980.

 Culture is a difficult-and controversial issue. Many people don't even like the word-like Noah Smith. But how do you discuss an aspect of a country that is neither political or economic? It takes along time for politics to change culture.

 Not everything about English culture is better to be sure. But CS certainly is.

 P.S. Things like manners and politeness, I think are very important cultural matters to study. I said I'm not demanding about customer service-I don't ask for a lot of things or special perks. But what does get me is if there is any show of attitude. Seriously, if you're in a bad mood I shouldn't know about it, Not if you're serving the public.

 If you can't help it then stay home and grouse to your friends on Twitter. Don't come in and try to take it out on me.

 I find that rude people mostly think they're 'just being real' or 'just being honest' but to me they are mostly just being themselves which is stupid.

Sumner on Government and Culture

     He disagrees with Krugman on government and culture but I disagree with Sumner and agree with Krugman-not the first or the last time that will happen. Scott thinks that 'government brings out the worst in us.'

   "Paul Krugman doesn't understand why people think government is bad:

   "Why, exactly, are these public functions unquestioned bywords for "something bad"?

   "Maybe I'm living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don't find the Post Office a terrible experience -- no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed."

   "And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?"

   "The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience."

   "From my perspective, that's the most eyebrow-raising post I've ever seen Krugman write. It's so at variance with my own personal experience as to leave me almost speechless. Yes, dealing with the cable company can be a bit frustrating, but you can argue with them over the phone without the employee losing their temper. If you so much as raise an eyebrow to a TSA agent, they can and will make you miss your flight (I speak from personal experience.) There is simply no comparison. I thought about Krugman's column the other day when I took my daughter in for her learner permit test. She asked why the lines were so long, even before the DMV office had opened (BTW, at 10am--what's that about?)"

   http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/07/government_brin.html

   I don't get it-plenty of private businesses open at 9 or 10 in the morning.

  "(The line was even longer; I cropped out people looking at the camera, for privacy reasons.)"

  "I told my daughter that government offices don't have to compete for customers as private companies do, so they don't care very much about customer relations. Of course some private monopolies suffer from the same problem."

  "After she passed her written exam, she said she noticed that government employees were really mean. This is a sixteen-year-old girl who 1 hour earlier barely understood the difference between the private and public sector, a difference that some Nobel Prize winners still have not noticed. Or maybe it's just her "free-floating prejudice." What do you think? In my view most people find their jobs frustrating, and will take it out on strangers unless competition forces them to be polite."

   I couldn't disagree with him more. My experience is like Krugman's-I've had good and bad experiences dealing both with private companies and the government. I don't agree with his universal claim.

  I do think it's confirmation bias. He only remembers the experiences that buttress his belief. .I don't get why he's picking on the DMV either. Unless I'm mistaken, he lives in Massachusetts. I can attest at least at the DMV I went to when I lived there it improved over night, It was a horror show in the late 90s. The lines were so long you'd have to wait all the way through the entrance to outside and around the building.

  Though I don't agree the reason for this was that it was the government. I just spent the whole day yesterday at the airport travelling from England back home and can tell you, that long lines are not just in government offices.

  However, in later years, the DMV really improved. The wait time is much shorter and less frustrating than it used to be. They give you a number-each window puts up a electronic number and when yours comes up you go up. It's not usually longer than half an hour.

  My experience tells me that you don't have to be a government entity to either have long lines or be rude.

  For instance in my recent visit to Costco, they were very rude. Me and my main man Kev were there to buy a few items-socks and underwear. When we walked in Kev asked the woman barking at everyone to come in-not exactly a 'greeter'-where we find something and she said 'Just come in, you'll find it.'

  She wasn't too worried about competition. Then after all that we got on a huge line and it turned out that you have to have a membership. The cashier started talking to us like she's a Customs agent: How did you get in here?! I told her that her useless greeter let us in.

  I asked her what it would cost and the answer is $65. Right that's a real savings. Wallmart doesn't have a membership. How long would I have to shop at Costco rather than Wallmart to make up for that?

   True, I found my time with the government last year trying to get a passport very frustrating and inconvenient. Even trying to call them is hit and miss-though that's still better than Google who doesn't take phone calls at all.

  http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/speaking-of-labor-regulations-in-uber.html

  It ended up taking 6 months and $700 dollars. Yet, this is how Sumner's Republican buddies prefer it. They want it to be very difficult to do anything that pertains to citizenship. I am a naturalized American citizen but lost my US citizen certificate in Hurricane Sandy.

  So of course, just to prove this I had to walk across broken glass. But overall as to customer service I think it depends-I agree with Krugman it's about the same.

  Someone that makes $25 dollars an hour at the Post Office and someone that makes the same at Cablevision has the same basic incentives-they make decent money and don't want to screw up and be fired. My experiences with both seem to be getting better all the time.

 What libertarians like Sumner can't seem to imagine is there being any incentive other than the inventive of economic competition. But remember, someone who works at C or the PO don't think of themselves as being a government or private worker just someone with a decent paying job that they had better not screw up.

 UPDATE: Now what I do agree with is that customer service is better across the board in England-government or private business because of a much more well-mannered culture.

  http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/back-from-mother-country-some-thoughts.html

     

Trump Really Could Win in Britain

  As I just got back from the UK-specifically England-it's on my mind. As I said in my last piece I'm a dual citizen of America and Britain-was born in England but came over to the US at just 3 years old.

 http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/back-from-mother-country-some-thoughts.html

 I do love some things about England-the history of everything. In the US we don't have history in the same way as we're such a young country. While America is about innovation, England is about preservation-this is probably even more true in continental Europe than the UK.

 The politics though are not good if you're a liberal like me. People are going crazy over migrants. Cameron is being hailed for saying he'll build a fence-though he's seen as tardy on this and even now he's saying it may take all Summer for Britain to get its arms around this-there are over 1000 migrants crossing the Thames every night and there have been some tragic deaths.

  My guess is that Trump would be seen as a lifesaver with what he's saying. In America we've more or less ruled out building a fence but that's a mainstream solution in England-they are just as anti-immigrant if not more in France.

   Again, I will say it: America is a lot more liberal than Britain. Consider how this report would go down here:

  "UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he is drawing up plans to help France tackle a spike in attempts by migrants to enter Britain illegally via the Channel Tunnel."

  "The situation is not acceptable. Starting with helping the French on their side of the border, we're going to put in more fencing, more resources, more sniffer dog teams, more assistance in any way we can," Cameron said on Friday following a meeting with Britain's emergency response committee 'Cobra'.

  "Cameron is under pressure to deter the migrants, many of whom have traveled from Africa and the Middle East, after disruption to cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic."

 "This is going to be a difficult issue right across the summer."

  "Britain has pledged $34m so far towards improving security at the French end of the tunnel that connects both the countries."

   http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/uk-cameron-sniffer-dogs-fence-stop-migrants-150731181257507.html

   What based on this makes you think that Trump would not be well received by Britain? They'd think maybe he's the guy to keep them out. It's not appreciated that there is a lot more bigotry in Europe than in the US.

   True the UK and even more so Europe has a bigger welfare state than the US but things are moving there in a more and more Rightward direction and that is not true here.

   

Back From the Mother Country: Some Thoughts on England vs. America

     In the late 90s, Nial Ferguson wrote about the decline of the British Empire and it's lessons for global empire.

     http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438573999&sr=1-2&keywords=british+empire

     It's pretty obvious who he had in mind by 'global power'-the US of A. In actuality though I don't think his hypothesis is really on the mark-that if America doesn't pull its socks up it will end up like Britain.

     It could be argued that geography is destiny and if so it shows why things have boded so badly for the British-they are now just another country and with the threat of a Scottish exodus, a pretty small one at that.

     Even if and when the US loses its superpower status it will still be a pretty important and imposing country. It starts from its great size and the richness of its resources. Then there is technology-which basically is American.

     So I don't think the US if following Britain to the point where those who argue that Britain should stay in the EU use the argument that the country just won't be very important without it. Stay in the EU or we'll be irrelevant!

     http://www.amazon.com/Out-Question-Britain-should-better-ebook/dp/B00IZJ14YY/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438575807&sr=1-4&keywords=britain+the+eu

     The question of Britain vs. America is one I of all people might just be qualified to answer as I am a dual citizen of both nations. I was born in England but moved to the US when I was just 3.

     I visited the Mother Country this last week and just got back a few minutes ago. It was my first trip to England since 1999. What I found interesting about it is that a lot of English folks said right away upon hearing me speak that I must be American. I find that kind of like coming full circle as when I was a young kid Americans would often ask me if I was English because of my accent.

    Though I came over when I was just 3 I still retained something of an accent in my younger years-no doubt in large part through hearing my father talk

    Some thoughts on what I've learned.

     1. The English are very polite.

     2. Because of 1, the English are very good at customer service.  Indeed, when I see how good the they are at customer service I see that Americans don't really practice customer service at all, they just go through the motions enough to avoid being reprimanded/fired.

     Take for instance the hotel I stayed at in Greenwich. I realize now that there is no CS to speak of at American hotels, even f our start hotels that cost $300 or $400 dollars a night.

     Even at these hotels, you don't actually get what you pay for. In American hotels, they see their job as basically

     A) Taking your money

      B) giving you your key

      C) Taking back your key at checkout.

      Beyond that they don't expect to have to bother with you.

      Whereas the English really want you to be satisfied-not simply doing enough not to get in trouble.
   
      It was the same at even the subway-where the transit guy actually took the time to explain to me and other Yanks how to use the machine at the British rails.

     Try getting any assistance in NYC subway because you're having trouble with the machine.

      3. America really is number 1 in television however. There is simply always something to watch in America which is something I really appreciate.  True there are some pretty good original British shows like Jeremy Kyle-kind of like a British Jerry Springer type except, there isn't all the screaming from the audience so you can actually hear what he's saying-again, refer to 1.

     Mostly it's simply a numbers game. My TV in England had just 53 channels-and lots of them were very similar. In the US you never run out of things to watch. There were a few rally good things I saw on Britain TV but that's just it: you can count it on one hand. You can actually set your watch by it.

     In all fairness the UK doesn't always copy the US. It's hard to remember now but they had their version of All in the Family before  the US did and the same with American Idol.

     Still in England after a few of their own channels you have a bunch of American channels or channels that show American stuff.

     4. America also has better politics which should shock you to see this. I know for years I'd assumed that liberals have it worse in the US than anywhere else in the Free World.

     Now that I know something about the EU I know that's not true. As for Britain you know what the hot button issue was while I was there? Building a fence around the Thames and yelling at France for letting all these migrants from Callois get past their security.

    To be sure the French have not been acting in the noble way they like to think they act when they claim that they not America are the global protector of democracy, liberty, and all other good things.

   The French hate Pax Americana because they want it to be Pax France.

   The point is they hate immigrants in Europe. We may find what Trump said about Mexicans outrageous here, I'm not sure they would there.  Trump's comments about immigrants might be taking seriously in England. I do believe that.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/uk-cameron-sniffer-dogs-fence-stop-migrants-150731181257507.html

    P.S. To be sure there really is a crisis where over 1000 refugees tries to get in to Britain every night. But it's interesting that while we see talk of building a fence in the US absurd, in Britain people are applauding David Cameron for saying he will do so-their criticism of him is that he's taken too long to do it.

   So I'm back from the Mother Country. England is a great place to visit but it's very expensive to live. I recommend visiting it but I don't know how you afford living there. I sure can't.