Stop collecting race data

In California Non-Hispanic Whites only represented 40% of the population during the 2010 census. Hispanics are White under this arcane reporting system so we collect data on Hispanic-Whites and Non-Hispanic Whites. So my question: Is it now time to remove the term “minority” from our lexicon? California has no “majority”. Perhaps California could change the nomenclature to “preferred minorities” and “others”.

Or how about this for an idea. Why don’t we stop using tax dollars to collect this data. I for one do not really care what your race is.

I have previously asked how we fairly label everyone.

So I propose that we shut down all the race profiling, quotas, set-asides, government contract "programs", affirmative action programs. Let’s hire, promote,accept for college and give contracts to the ones that are most qualified. Let’s stop this institutional “racial, sexual and religious profiling” and treat all people based on their own individual merits.

But alas I admit that I am in the minority on this point.

Waiting for Superman

Just finished watching Waiting for Superman. The teachers’ unions hate the movie. But most importantly it is hard to imagine not supporting a voucher system where parents send their kids to the school of their choice and use a publicly financed voucher to pay most or all of the tuition.

Teachers’ unions are just part of the problem. And charter schools are not universally successful. But we do see that the best schools with excellent teachers can do wonders in getting results even for kids that are poor or initially behind their grade level.

What is clear to see is that big government institutions (large school districts and the US Department of Education) have produced lousy results. How can the private sector do any worse?

The Left hates this movie. But please watch it and make up your own mind.

Taxes on Gasoline

I am a Libertarian except in a few cases like taxes on gasoline. Many politicians are asking for a tax holiday so that folks back home will not be hurt so badly by the increase in the price of gasoline. But now is the time to do the opposite. Let's start with at least a $.50 a gallon (and I am OK with a tax per suggestions of friends of as much as $2.00per gallon) on gasoline.

We are importing two out of three barrels of oil into the US and this makes us too vulnerable to the kind of price shocks we are facing today. We are not only vulnerable to the kind of economic shocks we are about to feel but as a result we might even be sending our troops into harm’s way trying to stabilize these foreign oil sources.

Protecting white males in the US

Interesting video. I have stated before that we should eliminate race in the question of hiring, firing and scholarships. What is an “African American”? Please look back at my blog about how we fairly “label” everyone. This race labeling does not work today.

All union rights have been created through legislation.

The prevailing thought is that unions are good and that they enhance fairness and increase prosperity. Most politicians would rather be caught in a compromising scandal with Charlie Sheen than publicly advocate reducing the power of unions.

Instead, politicians vociferously support the union interests even if it means bigger deficits. Former New Jersey Governor , Jon Corzine once stood at a union gathering and said: “I will fight to get you a good contract.” He said publicly what many others only say (and frequently say) behind closed doors. The unions support the election of the politician and the politician then fights for a better contract for the union.

All union rights have been created through legislation (state and federal) and their power can be reduced via legislation as well. There is nothing in our constitution that creates union rights. I advocate their constitutional right to assembly (in their non-working hours), their right to free speech, and even their right to not show up for work (as long as they can be fired for dishonest sick days). But governments and private companies should be free to either negotiate with these groups or not. But lately the right to collective bargaining is being heralded as a constitutional guarantee.

So we have several decades of union strength based on the power they were given in various laws. Our schools treat the union movement as a deity and kids are taught about the wonderful benefits of unions. Kind of self-serving isn’t it?

Today the media consistently equates the act of demonizing unions with demonizing the underlying work or the workers. But I can and I do respect the role of a teacher, policeman or firefighter without supporting their right to have more powerful union rights.

In the 1930’s unions were a force for worker safety improvements, which was definitely needed. That was great but that was then. Today this safety function is managed by OSHA (at the federal and state level), and workers compensation legislation. And unions spend few of their resources working on safety issues today.

Today there is primarily one mission of any union: “Give me, give me!”

The unions actually try to make the argument that they help organization efficiency. Does anyone really believe this? Clearly they can inflate wages and compensation to the benefit of their workers. But there is no free lunch. Someone is paying for it and it that someone is all of the rest of us that are not in that union.

In summary:

Unions distort wages at the expense of everyone else and they hurt the productivity of the country.

Seniority systems reduce the incentive for a worker to give his best and make it difficult to keep the best worker when the work force needs to be trimmed.

Unions put private businesses into bankruptcy. The jobs gradually shift overseas.

Unions support liberal candidates that feel no responsibility to negotiate hard with them.
Unions delay adjustments to work rules and compensation as the market demands. They tend to dig in so hard that they drive a business into bankruptcy rather than rapidly facilitating the necessary change. In the private sector the union inflexibility is self-correcting because their victims simply close up shop. But in government and other monopolies (gas and electric companies), the unions gather strength and their employees receive a bigger share of the pie than their non-union neighbors.

The unions make changing anything hard; they require expensive and drawn out negotiations. Instead of making 25 small adjustments during a month, the union requires an expensive process to change a few things during a year-long negotiation. By the time an lenghty negotiation with a private company is completed the company is frequently out of business and their products are being manufactured in China.

Is it any wonder that union membership has dropped so dramatically in the private sector? They simply don’t work well.

Union stats overstate the numbers in the private sector

The difference in the percentage of union members in the public sector versus the private sector is even greater than reported. Recently the public sector percentage has been reported as 36% (it is actually over 41% in the state and local government sector) versus 7% in the private sector.

But the 7% figure in the private sector is inflated. First, the federal government in its bailout of General Motors and Chrysler cut deals that strengthened the position of their unions. If the companies had gone into a traditional bankruptcy without federal support they likely would have been reincarnated as non-union businesses.

Then we have government construction projects that require union labor. In 2009, Obama signed an executive order that allowed federal agencies to require that contractors on large federal projects be unionized.

In other words many of the 7% of “private” workers that are reported as union are really quasi-government.

But alas it is like arguing against apple pie and motherhood. A politician today would rather speak out in support of Muammar al-Gaddafi than say publicly: “The time for unions has passed”.

Today’s economic theory is based on a former “closed economy”.

Much of today’s economic theory is founded on a “closed economy” in which the US operated decades ago. In the good old days, when the government stimulated consumer confidence it resulted in consumer purchases that were usually filled with US manufacturing and production. But today when the government stimulates consumer spending it translates into additional production in China or Japan and only occasionally in the US.

And our government tends to borrow for this stimulation.

So we are using yesterday’s outdated tricks in a different economic landscape.

America’s weakness is not in borrowing, spending and consuming (we are gold medal champion consumers). Our problem is producing enough to meet this growing consumption. We are challenged in producing enough products that the rest of the world wants to buy.

Should we stop subsidizing consumption and start emphasizing production? We could do that via tax treatment, public messages and strive to produce more products that we can sell to the rest of the world.