Green Jobs

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There are two sides to every story. Here’s what Kit Bond says about government incentives for green jobs:

“It sounds really neat to think we’re going to have wind-powered jobs, except I don’t see cars going down the road with propellers on them.”

Bond argues that incentives for these jobs entail a lot of waste. The government provides a huge incentive, and the resulting jobs are few and far between. I’m inclined to agree with him. It’s nothing personal against the environment or job creation. When the state subsidizes any job, you can bet that it doesn’t make sense economically. Private businesses would step up to the plate if it did, without having to be coaxed by incentives.

Bracken Hendricks of the Center for American Progress, who is apparently an expert in PR, puts a positive spin on inefficiency:

“He made it sound like federally funded purchase of jobs when what we’re talking about is smart incentives and public investment in new infrastructure,” Hendricks said.

Supply and Demand in Education

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edspresso links to this American Thinker essay about the causes of student achievement. The author, Robert Weissberg, contends that choice reforms like charter schools or tuition tax credits will not solve America’s education problems. When parents want their children to succeed academically, they take advantage of the vast market supplying books and tutoring, many of which products and services are reasonably priced. So, Weissberg says, if parents and students don’t seek out academic help after school, they’re unmotivated and no improvements in supply will help them.

It’s true that the education market isn’t limited to schools. But Weissberg’s reasoning contains a fundamental flaw: He does not acknowledge that information is costly. Wealthy, educated parents are more likely to provide their children with books and tutoring because they know about those resources and how their children will benefit. An illiterate parent won’t be able to read advertisements for tutoring, and is probably surrounded by other people who don’t hire tutors. Even when that parent finds out about a free after-school tutoring program, he may not have enough information to judge how tutoring will improve his child’s chances in life.

The illiterate parent is an extreme example. However, the same idea applies to parents with a little more education and wealth. Parents give their kids the educational opportunities they know about and can afford. Many parents think that education just means “school,” so they look to charter schools but not extra books or tutoring. (One of the goals of parental choice advocates should be to give parents access to information about different kinds of education, beyond the in-school variety.)

Weissberg is right that we shouldn’t count on the government to fix education or improve achievement. His error lies in assuming that the current market provides a free flow of information to parents.

Two Excellent Essays About Immigration

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The first is by David Nicklaus. He responds to the argument that immigrants take Americans’ jobs with this reasoning:

In an area where the overall population is declining or stagnant, this argument loses its potency. Without an adequate supply of labor, employers would be under pressure to move out of the region. Or, in many cases, the jobs wouldn’t get created in the first place.

Nicklaus concludes that immigrants to the Midwest are doing low-skilled work that wouldn’t get done otherwise because midwesterners are leaving the area.

Nicklaus’ points are relevant to Missouri, but immigration in general isn’t just about low-skilled labor. Will Wilkinson discusses immigration’s role in Toronto’s economic and cultural development:

Multicultural Toronto and cities like it prove that the institutions of liberal modernity are robust. Life within them is so good that people the world over flock to them. And newcomers do not take these institutions for granted. They have a stake in seeing them last. They can and do make them stronger.

Restricting immigration is just like restricting trade in food, electronics, or any other commodity. In fact, it can actually be worse than some of those forms of protectionism, because people are an extremely valuable resource.

Taking a Chance on Charters

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Neal McCluskey comments on a KIPP charter school in New York that is being forced to let its teachers unionize:

But this is the chance you take when you run a charter school: No matter how much you want to act like a private school, sooner or later the public-schooling powers will remind you of what you really are.

I still think it’s worth it to take the chance. Charters introduce choice, competition, and specialization into the public education system and make it a little bit less coercive. When families can choose a charter school, it’s no longer, “You have to go to the closest school building, or else.” And the fact that one KIPP school is being threatened by imminent unionization doesn’t mean that every charter is about to lose its character. I’m sure the unions will try, but charters may be able to stay one step ahead — at least until some other reform gives families more options.

However, this should serve as a warning to parents who want to transfer their children from private schools: Charters are not exactly the same as private schools. There are attendant drawbacks to public financing of any school.

If You’re Going to Harass Drivers, Do It Right

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’m amused by this editorial in the Kansas City Star. It laments the fact that police in Missouri and Kansas can’t pull over drivers just for not wearing a seat belt. Then it says that raising the fine for not wearing a seat belt, from $10 to $100, is uncalled for.

If driving without a seat belt is so bad that the police should pull you over for it, then it should be discouraged with a noticeable fine. If, however, the fine is not worth more than such a paltry amount, then the police shouldn’t stop you for that in the first place.

A Half-Hearted Attempt at Regulating Lion Ownership

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This is a scary follow-up to my last post on exotic animals. Missouri has almost no regulations about owning large carnivores? And the requirement that people notify their local sheriff if they own a lion isn’t enforced? I blog again and again about excessive regulations, and now it turns out that in one of the few instances where detailed regulations would be appropriate, there aren’t any.

Something’s wrong when there’s more state oversight of manicurists at the mall than of people who keep tigers in their homes. It must be because cats and dogs aren’t lobbying for the government to erect barriers to entry, to keep out more exotic competing animals.

The Missouri House has passed a bill that would require large carnivore owners to: a) get a permit; b) provide the animal with “adequate” food and care; and, c) put up a sign that they have a potentially dangerous carnivore.

The requirement to feed the animal is meaningless. I’m not worried about the owner feeding the animal, I’m worried about the animal feeding himself. Big carnivores like lions do not eat set portions three times a day — they kill prey whenever they can get it. In other words, they’re always hungry. It’s not like you can make a lion less dangerous by feeding it on a schedule, the way you can make a toddler less irritable by giving him a snack.

Posting a sign is also not enough. Large carnivores do not read signs, are difficult to contain, and may leave their designated premises to go hunting in the surrounding neighborhood, despite the owner’s intentions.

Large carnivores belong in zoos — not in homes.

This Reminds Me of Kindergarten

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Kansas City Star reports on Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, and the effect on Kansas and Missouri. Didn’t everybody do something like this in kindergarten? Once you’d been in kindergarten for 100 days, you had to bring in 100 pennies or marbles, or whatever, and learn about triple digits.

The Star explains that most of the money that will be coming our way isn’t being spent yet. This illustrates one of the drawbacks of the fiscal stimulus — Washington doesn’t act with the exact timing necessary to step in and avert recessions.

John LaPlante Gets Sarcastic

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Anyone who doesn’t yet read State House Call should start, if only for John LaPlante’s awesome reactions to statements like this one. After Kansas’ insurance commissioner declared that sick people should be able to purchase insurance as if they were healthy, LaPlante responded:

Yeah, it would be great if I could walk into Best Buy and come out with a 50 inch TV and not have to pay for it.

Plus, he explains economic principles. Read the whole thing.

The Next Health Insurance Mandate

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

No insurance plan is going to cover every illness. It would be so expensive that no one could afford it. And no one would want it, anyway. People buy insurance to cover a limited number of potential events, not every possible occurrence. When you get up in the morning, you don’t buy insurance for everything that might happen that day.

Given that health insurance will never cover all ailments, insurance mandates don’t make sense. Whenever the state imposes a new mandate, insurance companies will comply with it by moving away from covering other diseases (and, of course, by charging higher prices).

Legislators should keep that in mind when they consider this mandate for eating disorders. If it becomes law, the mandate will mean that other disorders go uncovered.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging