The drop in employment is unsurprising to those of us in the small business sector where 90% of jobs are created. In 2004 I helped start a company with two partners. We invested $500K of risk capital, put a traditional company infrastructure in place and eventually hired over a dozen people. Why? Because sentiment was positive, HSA plans were inexpensive, and growth a reality. After four years of solid growth, we sold our company to a public company, where we continued to work. In all that time, my proudest moments came from giving young people a career start in life. Many have gone on to work for places such as Symantec, Facebook and Wells Fargo. Today, my partners and I are independent, making good livings — solo. It makes ZERO economic sense for us to start a company again and employ people. The health plan we had is no longer available and coverage is twice as costly. The regulatory burdens are overwhelming and getting worse. We can see only risk on the horizon and little reward to justify that risk. So a dozen bright, talented 20somethings will likely never get the same chance to enter the private workforce.
Here are the two charts that say it all.
[Update a while later]
Some people aren’t seeing the comments at the Powerline post. I see them, but perhaps one has to be logged into Facebook to do so. A good reason not to use FB for comments. Anyway, at least that first comment is available for viewing here.
In 1950, Detroit was the wealthiest city in America on a per capita income basis. Today, the Census Bureau reports that it is the nation’s 2nd poorest major city, just “edging out” Cleveland.
Could it be pure coincidence that the decline occurred over the same period in which union power, the city government bureaucracy, taxes and business regulations all multiplied? While correlation is not causation, it is striking that the decline in per capita income is exactly what classical economists predict would occur when wage controls are imposed and taxes are increased.
Yes, ignore theory, and ignore empirical evidence. It’s the Democrats’ war on science.
Of course, this is par for the course for this president. His budget documents have all been studies in the dereliction of duty. And it’s true that this particular act of dereliction has in it more elements of class warfare and punitive and economically damaging targeted tax increases than the past ones. But as we take note of that added layer of misguided political economy, we should not lose sight of the underlying scandal—the president’s complete lack of interest in addressing the mounting fiscal crisis which his policies have so severely exacerbated, and his readiness to allow our government’s finances to collapse around him (or rather around his wretched successor) and to burden our children with an unprecedented and unbearable burden of debt.
I don’t think these people even understand the meaning of the word.
This is a problem for at least two reasons (one of them is that it is illegal, yet they continue to do it). But as the commenters indicate, it’s also a result of a lack of competition in the medical profession in general, because the industry has captured the regulators.
Obamacare, and the hundreds of waivers the administration continues to issue, represents a new form of corruption, as well as cronyism, that I believe was invented by the Obama administration. The idea is to pass a terrible piece of legislation, and then exempt your friends from it, so that only those without political influence have to suffer from the lousy statute you imposed on them.
So that is a very quick overview of the kinds of corporate cronyism that have emerged during the Obama administration. This private sector cronyism is, I think, much more damaging than the public sector cronyism of the 19th century. Why? Because it doesn’t just waste money, it distorts the entire private economy. It is notable that the era when traditional cronyism flourished was also the time when the United States experienced its most explosive economic growth.
This ought to be the theme of the campaign, but it probably won’t be, at least with any of the current candidates.
Is either a fool or a liar, when it comes to libertarians. But then, straw men are always the first refuge of the political hack, as the president demonstrates on a daily basis.
“I’m not against the minimum wage,” Santorum remarked. “When the minimum wage drops below a certain level, it’s usually a floor of about 7 percent of wages at minimum wage, I’ve supported increasing it back it up to make sure it stays above that level so there is in fact a minimum wage.”
He should talk to Tom Sowell, since he doesn’t seem to understand what a devastating policy this is for young people, and black youth in particular.
That was a phrase that Jack Lew used this morning on This Week. Ignoring the ongoing lack of distinction between “tax cuts” and “tax-rate cuts,” any use of the word “need” in federal policy betrays an intrinsically Marxist mindset. It indicates that benefits of the collective should be distributed based on need, rather than merit, economics, or constitutionality. Tax rates should be chosen to maximize revenue, not redistribute wealth, or on the basis of some government official’s opinion of what someone else “needs.” This should be pointed out each and every time it occurs, but of course George Stephanopolous isn’t going to do it.
