A Parable of Modern Mercantilism
Posted: May 18, 2012 Filed under: Job Creation, Licensing Leave a comment »
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2012/05/parable-of-modern-mercantilism.html?m=1
Putting the Jobs Cart Before the Growth Horse
Posted: October 4, 2011 Filed under: Job Creation Leave a comment »
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/10/putting-jobs-cart-before-growth-horse.html
Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs
Posted: September 8, 2011 Filed under: Job Creation, Stimulus Leave a comment »An Economy Produces Goods for Consumers, Not “Jobs”
Posted: June 27, 2011 Filed under: Job Creation, Luddite, Uncategorized Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
An Economy Produces Goods for Consumers, Not “Jobs”
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS
Posted: February 12, 2011 Filed under: Job Creation Leave a comment »
http://www.chicagolife.net/content/politics/JOBS_JOBS_JOBS
Don’t Call it “Stimulus”
Posted: March 26, 2010 Filed under: Job Creation, Keynesian Economics, Obama, Stimulus, Uncategorized Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
Don’t Call it “Stimulus”
A Confession from the CBO Director
Posted: March 17, 2010 Filed under: CBO, Corruption, Job Creation, Stimulus, Uncategorized Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
A Confession from the CBO Director
By Daniel J. Mitchell
The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the so-called stimulus generated jobs and growth. I addressed some of the profound shortcomings in CBO’s Keynesian model in a previous post, pointing out that the model is structured to produce certain results regardless of what happens in the real world.
Interestingly, the Director of the CBO, Doug Elmendorf, basically agrees with me. In a recent speech, recorded by C-SPAN, he was asked during the question-and-answer session whether the model simply spits out pre-determined numbers. After some hemming and hawing and a follow-up question, he confessed “that’s right” when asked if the model would be unable to detect whether the stimulus failed. The relevant exchange begins around the he 39-minute mark of this recording, and Elmendorf’s confession takes place shortly after the 40-minute mark (I selflessly watched the entire thing so you wouldn’t have to suffer waiting for the key moment).
I’m not sure whether this admission is good news or bad news. It is a sign of progress, I suppose, that CBO’s Director is now on the record acknowledging that the model is useless (at least for purposes of measuring the effectiveness of more government spending). But it is perhaps an even more troubling indication of what’s wrong in Washington that nobody is concluding that the time has come to junk Keynesian analysis. This is either an updated version of The Emperor’s New Clothes or a perverse form of the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because there’s light, even though he lost them someplace else.
Daniel J. SmithSent Via Mobile Phone
The Fatal Conceit of “Green Jobs”
Posted: March 5, 2010 Filed under: Job Creation Leave a comment »
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/blog/2010/03/the_fatal_conceit_of_green_job.html
A Tax Credit for New Hiring?
Posted: October 7, 2009 Filed under: Job Creation, Stimulus, Tax Credits, Taxes, Uncategorized Leave a comment »Sent to you via Google Reader
A Tax Credit for New Hiring?
The New York Times reports that the some of our leaders in DC are considering a tax credit for companies that create new jobs. This is one of those ideas that pops up regularly when the economy is in recession. The devil is in the details, however, and the more one studies those details, the less attractive the proposal looks.
Some time ago, I suggested a cut in the payroll tax as a fiscal stimulus. Part of the motivation was to cut the cost of labor to firms, thus encouraging them to hire. Some might point out, correctly, that much of this tax cut would be inframarginal–that is, it would apply to workers who already have jobs. Why not get more bang for your buck by targeting marginal jobs?
Sounds good at first. The problem is, how do you define a marginal job? You cannot simply say “new hires.” In that case, company A fires Peter and hires Paul. Company B fires Paul and hires Peter. That kind of employment churn is, presumably, not what we are trying to encourage.
Usually, these proposals measure marginal jobs by comparing employment to some base year. Thus, a company gets a tax credit for employment that exceeds, say, 90 percent of employment in 2007. But then, the incentive goes mainly to companies in regions and industries that have been expanding or shrinking only slightly. Those regions and industries that have been deeply contracting do not have an incentive for marginal hires, because their employment levels are now well below the base levels. The playing field is tilted against those regions and industries that have been hit hardest–a result that seems to diminish both equality and efficiency.
Also, how do you handle newly formed companies? Government should not penalize start-ups by subsidizing only employment by their incumbent competitors. But if new companies get the hiring credit, then existing companies are incentivized to create new wholly-owned subsidiaries in order to qualify for the tax break (while contracting employment in the parent company). Similarly, they are incentivized to outsource work to start-ups that get the credit.
The bottom line: The attempt to try to identify marginal jobs in order to give them a better tax treatment than existing jobs creates a range of unintended consequences. In designing tax policy, the KISS principle is a good rule of thumb.
Daniel J. SmithSent Via Mobile Phone