“If there was really a STEM labor market crisis, you’d be seeing very different behaviors from companies,” notes Ron Hira, an associate professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in New York state. “You wouldn’t see companies cutting their retirement contributions, or hiring new workers and giving them worse benefits packages. Instead you would see signing bonuses, you’d see wage increases. You would see these companies really training their incumbent workers.”
“None of those things are observable,” Hira says. “In fact, they’re operating in the opposite way.”
And even if there was, the notion that NASA would help it is ludicrous. Particularly if anyone thinks it’s going to do so by building rockets to nowhere.
So why do we have a Labor Day anyway? What is it about “labor” that deserves a day off (isn’t that ironic) and a three-day weekend, but not (say) Entrepreneurs Day, or “People Who Have To Meet A Payroll” Day?
I know, I know, it was a reaction to some of the brutal labor practices and strikes of the later nineteenth century, particularly Pullman. But as Detroit exemplifies, we went too far in glorifying labor, and we don’t seem to care enough about the people who actually create the jobs, to the point of abuse. It’s not surprising that, in the wake of ridiculous overregulation (capped by ObamaCare) they’re going on strike, and we’re becoming a part-time nation, at best.
I’m very concerned that the president has been replacing officers sworn to the latter with those loyal to him at the top of the chain. In which case things could get very ugly if we have to find out how far down the ranks we have to go to find some loyal to their oath of service.
We saw a smaller-scale version of this with Bill Clinton, when he attempted to prevent his Secret Service agents from providing testimony about his behavior, as though they were some sort of praetorian guard. The potential Constitutional crisis Donald Sensing describes would be much more serious.
Some discomfiting thoughts on their implications for foreign policy and hapless presidents.
Speaking of cascade effects, there seems to be a preference cascade developing on the lack of both hap and feck with this president. It’s apparently becoming socially acceptable, even at the New York Times, to point out what a disaster he is.
Well, that’s stiff competition, but I suppose some strike has to be.
This is fundamentally a Marxist strike. That is, their argument is not that they should be paid more because they are really worth more, but because they can’t live on the wage it pays (“…to each according to his need”). If they can’t live on burger flipping, then they should get a better job. If they can’t find a better job, maybe they should complain to the moron that most of them helped put in the White House who is waging war on job creators.