Saturday, November 22, 2014

Something to be thankful for: the real cost of a Thanksgiving dinner is 1.3% cheaper than last year, 21% cheaper than 1986

From Mark J. Perry.
"
turkey1
turkey2

From the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF):
The American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) 29th annual informal price survey of classic items found on the Thanksgiving Day dinner table indicates the average cost of this year’s feast for 10 is $49.41, a 37-cent increase from last year’s average of $49.04. The big ticket item – a 16-pound turkey – came in at $21.65 this year. That’s roughly $1.35 per pound, a decrease of less than 1 cent per pound, or a total of 11 cents per whole turkey, compared to 2013. The average cost of the dinner has remained around $49 since 2011.
The AFBF survey shopping list includes turkey, bread stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls with butter, peas, cranberries, a relish tray of carrots and celery, pumpkin pie with whipped cream, and beverages of coffee and milk, all in quantities sufficient to serve a family of 10. There is also plenty for leftovers.
Foods showing the largest increases this year were sweet potatoes, dairy products and pumpkin pie mix. Sweet potatoes came in at $3.56 for three pounds. A half pint of whipping cream was $2.00; one gallon of whole milk, $3.76; and a 30-ounce can of pumpkin pie mix, $3.12. A one-pound relish tray of carrots and celery ($.82) and one pound of green peas ($1.55) also increased in price. A combined group of miscellaneous items, including coffee and ingredients necessary to prepare the meal (butter, evaporated milk, onions, eggs, sugar and flour) rose to $3.48.
In addition to the turkey, other items that declined modestly in price included a 14-ounce package of cubed bread stuffing, $2.54; 12 ounces of fresh cranberries, $2.34; two nine-inch pie shells, $2.42; and a dozen brown-n-serve rolls, $2.17.
“America’s farmers and ranchers remain committed to continuously improving the way they grow food for our tables, both for everyday meals and special occasions like Thanksgiving dinner that many of us look forward to all year,” said AFBF Deputy Chief Economist John Anderson said. “We are blessed to be able to provide a special holiday meal for 10 people for about $5.00 per serving – less than the cost of most fast food meals.”
A total of 179 volunteer shoppers checked prices at grocery stores in 35 states. Farm Bureau volunteer shoppers are asked to look for the best possible prices, without taking advantage of special promotional coupons or purchase deals. The AFBF survey was first conducted in 1986. While Farm Bureau does not make any scientific claims about the data, it is an informal gauge of price trends around the nation. Farm Bureau’s survey menu has remained unchanged since 1986 to allow for consistent price comparisons.
Some comments:

1. Compared to last year’s cost of $49.04 for a complete classic Thanksgiving dinner for ten people, this year’s cost of $49.41 for the dinner is only 0.75% (and 37 cents) higher (see blue line in chart). That compares to increases in overall consumer prices over the last year of 1.7% and average wages of 2.2%.
In addition to the 0.5% decrease in turkey prices compared to last year, the other items that decreased in price over the last year were: rolls (-0.5%), stuffing (-4.9%), cranberries (-3.3%), peas (-7.2%), and pie shells (-2.8%). The items that were more expensive this year compared to a year ago were sweet potatoes (+6.0%), pumpkin pie mix (+0.6%), milk (+2.7%), relish tray (+1.2%) and whipping cream (+8.1%).

2. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of a classic Thanksgiving dinner for ten this year is 1.3% cheaper than last year, 3.6% cheaper than two years ago and 5% cheaper than 2011 (see blue line in chart).
3. Compared to the cost of a Thanksgiving dinner of $62.30 in 1986 (in 2014 dollars), today’s classic turkey dinner for ten is almost 21% cheaper at $49.41.

4. Measured in time worked at the average hourly wage for all private production workers of $20.70 in October 2014, the “time cost” of this year’s classic turkey dinner for ten is only 2.39 hours, down by 1.2% from 2.42 hours last year and down by 4.7% from 2.50 hours in 2012 (see bottom chart). Compared to 1986 when the average American would have worked 3.22 hours to earn the income necessary to purchase the turkey dinner for ten, the “time cost” for a worker today (2.39 hours) is almost 26% lower.

5. Cost conscious shoppers can buy the same classic Thanksgiving meal at Walmart for only $32.64 (see top chart above), a savings of 34% compared to the AFBF national average, according to this press release from Walmart. In hours of time worked at the average hourly wage for private production workers, that would be a “time cost “of only 1.58 hours for one worker to purchase a holiday feast for ten people at Walmart, a truly amazing bargain.

Bottom Line: The fact that a family in American can celebrate Thanksgiving with a classic turkey feast for less than $50 and at a “time cost” of only 2.39 hours of work for one person (and only $32.64 or 1.58 hours of work for Walmart shoppers) means that we really have a lot to be thankful for on Thanksgiving: an abundance of cheap, affordable food. Compared to 1986, the inflation-adjusted cost of a turkey dinner today is 21% cheaper, and 26% cheaper measured in the “time cost” for the average worker. Relative to our income and relative to the cost of food in the past, food in America has never been more affordable than it is today.

Bon appetit!"

“Outsourcing” Makes Us Richer

From ROBERT P. MURPHY of FEE
"This short video, put out by the Million Jobs Project, currently has more than 3.7 million views. It claims that US producers have been outsourcing jobs abroad in order to fatten their profits. It urges viewers to increase their purchases of American-made products by 5 percent, since this shift would ultimately create “a minimum” of a million new jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, everything about this video is wrong.

In the first place, the video takes for granted that it is a good thing if an American gets a job at the expense of a foreigner. After all, the whole point of urging viewers to spend more money on American products is that this will cause “insourcing.” Firms will lay off foreign workers and bring those jobs back home to the United States. But other things equal, why should we hold this ethical view? The question is even harder to answer once we consider that the foreign workers who, according to the video producers, will lose their jobs are probably extremely poor compared to the Americans who will get the jobs. Since when is it a noble thing to put a desperately poor person out of work?

This obvious (but unstated) national prejudice of the video provoked the following unintentionally ironic statement in the comments at YouTube: “I am Canadian but I always try to buy north american [sic] made when possible.” I wonder if this Canadian actually means all of North America, including Mexico? Or does he just mean Canada and the United States? If he feels kinship with the members of his continent, what about the entire Western Hemisphere? Should he “buy Western” to keep jobs for his buddies in Brazil, rather than shipping them to those parasites in Thailand? Going the other way, should Americans also try to increase their purchases of items made in state by 5 percent, so that Texans keep jobs in Texas, while Floridians keep jobs in Florida? Of course I'm kidding; I am trying to show the arbitrariness of adjusting one’s spending to “create jobs at home.”

Beyond the fuzziness of the value judgment involved, the fundamental error in the video is the notion that there are a fixed number of jobs in the world. This isn’t so. If an owner closes a factory in the United States and opens a factory in India, he has only “shipped jobs abroad” in the same way that a correspondent can “ship a pen pal abroad” by switching writing partners. Other employers can rush in to offer jobs to the newly laid-off workers, or the workers can start their own businesses and become self-employed.

Indeed, so long as the government (or a union threatening violence with impunity) doesn’t artificially prop up wages and salaries, there is really no problem of unemployment in the market economy. Wages and prices eventually adjust so that everybody who wants a job can get one. Some workers might complain that their income is too low, but that’s a different problem from truly being unable to get hired at all.

To see the relevance of this point, let’s consider exactly how the phenomenon of outsourcing occurs. As the video describes it, US employers realized “about 30 years ago” that they could hire foreign workers to do the same jobs at much lower wages, so they relocated their production facilities abroad. This assertion raises the question: Why didn’t employers just cut US wages down to what the foreigners were asking?

The answer is that US workers won’t take such low-paying jobs because they have better options. For example, suppose Americans are originally employed in a TV factory in Tennessee, making $16 an hour. The owner of the plant realizes he can relocate it to India, where he can hire workers who are half as productive (meaning they only make half as many TVs per hour) but who are willing to work for $4 an hour. He would never bother relocating if the American workers would simply accept a pay cut to $8 an hour. (The American workers make twice as many TVs per hour, remember.) Suppose they won’t do that, because their next-best job option is to work in a warehouse for $10 an hour. In this case, with the numbers I’ve invented, the original factory owner would “ship jobs to India,” not because of some horrible flaw in the labor market, but because American workers had better things to do than make TVs for $8 an hour. It was more efficient for those workers to go into the warehouse sector and for the Indian workers to make the TVs.

Notice also the point about government intervention. If we cut all of the numbers in half from my scenario about TVs, then all of a sudden the outsourcing would seem to cause US unemployment. Specifically, suppose the American workers originally made TVs in Tennessee and were paid $8 an hour. Then the owner of the factory realized the Indian workers were willing to make TVs for $2 an hour. In this case, the Americans (who are still twice as productive) would need to cut their asking wage to $4 an hour to stay competitive, and their other option is to work at a warehouse where they would generate $5 an hour in value for their boss. Alas, in this scenario, the factory owner still “ships jobs to India,” but the laid-off Americans are stuck: It is illegal for them to work at the warehouse for $5 an hour, because that would violate minimum wage laws. Thus, they really have been thrown out of work, but the true culprit was government intervention, not outsourcing per se.

“Outsourcing” is simply a manifestation of the more general phenomenon of trade between countries. As a general rule, giving individuals the freedom to trade with whomever they wish, around the globe, maximizes the “real income” of the groups involved.

Looking at the issue from the other direction, we can say that if the US government imposes a barrier to trade — such as restricting imports from a particular country — then it might make some American workers richer, but only by making the average US consumer poorer. Furthermore, the losses to the consumers outweigh the gains to the “protected” workers, meaning the country as a whole is poorer when the government enacts a trade barrier. There is an entire literature of commentary on the virtues of free trade, demonstrating these truths in various ways. For those who have never read it, I highly recommend Frédéric Bastiat’s famous satirical essay, “Petition of the Candlemakers.” For those readers who can invest more time, I refer them to chapters 8 and 19 of my textbook Lessons for the Young Economist (available online for free here), which explains the standard case for free trade in terms of what economists call “comparative advantage.”

The general logic of the benefits of free trade applies to outsourcing; a particular instance of outsourcing will (obviously) hurt the domestic workers involved, but it will shower on other Americans benefits that more than offset the loss. Immediately, the owners of the outsourcing firm benefit in the form of higher profits (because they’ve cut their wage bill). But the forces of competition will soon cause those cost savings to show up as lower prices for American consumers. Indeed, the video’s producers implicitly admit this when they acknowledge that their recommendation to buy 5 percent more American-made products would be more expensive for consumers.

The logic of free trade is irresistible once a person takes the first step on its path. By effectively paying foreign workers with US dollars when they send us TVs, clothes, and other goods, we give them the purchasing power to buy American exports such as wheat and aircraft components. The opposite holds as well: If American consumers reduce their purchases of foreign-made TVs and other goods, then those foreigners will cut back on their purchases of American wheat and so forth. Ultimately, the video’s suggestion to “buy American” won’t create more American jobs in total, but instead will merely rearrange employment among sectors, making Americans poorer in the process.

To be fair, the video’s narrator does try to defuse the standard economist response to his analysis, starting around the 1:05 point. The narrator says that Americans won’t simply find other, “thinking up” jobs to replace the manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced, because those “thinking up” jobs need to be outsourced as well, in order to stay close to the manufacturing process. Whether or not this is actually true — after all, there are plenty of “thinking up” jobs being created in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the United States — it misses the more basic point: There is no reason that the United States should manufacture a certain product within its borders for the rest of time.

As foreign governments reduce their own institutional barriers to trade, and as communication and shipping costs fall, it only makes sense that production becomes more globally integrated. To insist that Americans favor products “made in the USA” is as arbitrary and impoverishing as people in Alaska insisting that they only eat oranges grown in Alaska (in greenhouses, presumably). There are serious obstacles to prosperity for the average American worker, but the problem isn’t “outsourcing.” The problem is government mandates and restrictions that hinder the operation of the market economy."

Friday, November 21, 2014

Taxpayer-Funded Green Ministries in Prince George's County Violate the Constitution

From Hans Bader of CEI.
"Reporters like separation of church and state, unless it’s progressives violating it. Then, they lose interest in the concept. A recent Washington Post story cheerily reported on churches getting exemptions from a state-mandated stormwater fee (Maryland’s “rain tax”) in exchange for taking “green” positions, in the progressive bastion of Prince George’s County, Maryland. The story did so without even mentioning the serious issues that raises under the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment.
This sets a dangerous precedent. As legal commentator Walter Olson asks, “Since when does government get the power to cut churches tax breaks in exchange for their agreement to preach an approved line?”
This violates freedom of speech under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Under Supreme Court precedent, you can’t condition a valuable government benefit like a tax exemption on someone’s speech.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a Supreme Court case addressing California’s refusal to grant a veteran a tax exemption because he refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law. The Supreme Court ruled that the condition violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine in many other cases and contexts, such as in Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 385 (1994).

Even if this did not violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause, it would still be unconstitutional. This government meddling in the content of sermons constitutes undue entanglement and religious favoritism in violation of the Establishment Clause and the religion clauses of the Maryland and federal constitutions. Government officials are not supposed to even indirectly meddle in things like the “voice of the church,” even through generally-applicable, non-discriminatory labor or employment laws (which this viewpoint-discriminatory reward for green ministries manifestly is not, making it patently unconstitutional). See, e.g., EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (appeals court ruled that EEOC could not enforce even generally-applicable employment laws so as to regulate who religious university employed as the “voice of the church” in matters of theology, since that would entangle church and state, and violate religious freedom); Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982) (Supreme Court declared that land-use provisions that would be valid in secular context violated the establishment clause when they conferred a benefit on churches suggestive of a symbiotic union of church and state).

Selective concern for separation of church and state is nothing new. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration’s attempt to regulate hiring of clergy and teachers of theology in the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor case, thereby preventing bureaucratic entanglement in internal church affairs. Although its ruling protected separation of church and state, it was denounced by many self-proclaimed supporters of separation of church and state. Those hypocritical progressive groups had filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court seeking to give federal bureaucrats the ability to micromanage churches’ hiring of clergy and other “voices of the church.”"

Have changing household composition and retirement caused the decline in median household income?

From Mark Perry.
"
retired
earners

One of the most frequently reported economic trends is the gradual decline in US real median household income from its 1999 peak of about $57,000 to below $52,000 in each of the last three years (see blue line in top chart above). We hear a number of reasons from politicians and pundits for the decline in median household income over the last decade, mostly reasons that involve a narrative about economic stagnation and growing inequality caused by the progressives’ usual suspects: gains in worker productivity, income and wealth going to corporations and “the rich” instead of being shared by average workers; failure to increase the minimum wage or pass “living wage” laws; the combined effects of globalization, free trade and outsourcing putting downward pressure on middle-class incomes in America, and other variations of economic pessimism. Former President Bill Clinton recently offered his three reasons for stagnant median household income that include not raising the minimum wage and excessive corporate greed.

But there are some other very obvious, but mostly overlooked, factors that could easily explain why median household income has declined over the last decade that have nothing to do with economic stagnation: demographic changes in the composition of US households. AEI’s Alex Pollock addressed this issue recently in his essay “If income is going up, can median household income go down? It’s possible.” Here’s how Alex frames the issue:
One of the most commonly cited numbers in discussions of inequality is the trend in median household income, often used as if it settled the issue. Using median household income poses a fundamental problem, however. It conflates two measurements — changes in the composition of households and changes in income — and thus can easily mislead us.
Has the composition of households in America been changing? Obviously, it has. The percent of married couple households has fallen from more than 60 percent in 1980 to less than 50 percent in 2010. One-person households have risen from 23 percent to 27 percent of households in this period. Shifting from two-earner households to one-earner households lowers the median household income, even if everybody’s income is the same as before [or rising].
Alex provides a series of hypothetical examples showing how simple household demographic changes can result in rising individual incomes while at the same time the median household income is falling. For example, if there is a shift from two-earner, married households to one-earner single households as a result of divorce, the overall median household income could fall even when income is increasing for all individuals in the new mix of households with a greater share of single households.

Alex’s key point is that when demographics and household composition are dynamically changing, individual income and median household income can naturally move in opposite directions. The most frequent mistake, according to Alex, is to look at median household income over time assuming that household demographics are static. And that is precisely the mistake made in almost all of the discussions about median household income, and that leads to a distorted and inaccurate conclusion about why median income is falling.

One example of a major dynamic change in household composition is the significant increase in the share of US households with no earners, from fewer than 20% of all US households in 1980 to 23.7% of households in 2013 (see blue line in bottom chart above, Census data here from Table H-12). Likewise, the share of single-earner households has also increased from 33.2% in the early 1990s to above 37% for the last five years (see red line). In contrast, there’s been a decrease in the share of US households with 2 or more earners from above 46% of all households in 1989 to fewer than 40% of US households in every year since 2010 (see brown line in bottom chart above).

In summary, over the last several decades, there’s been an increasing share of no-earner, single-parent and single-earner households and a decreasing share of married and two-or-more-earner households. That major demographic shift has likely depressed median household income significantly in the last decade, even though it’s possible, as Pollock shows, that the income of individual working Americans could be rising.

Another key demographic shift is the increasing number of retired Americans as a share of the adult population based on Social Security data. As the red line in the top chart above shows, US retirees represented a pretty stable 15% share of the US population from 1990 to 2008. Starting around 2008 when the early “baby-boomers” – those born in 1946 — reached early retirement age of 62, the share of retirees started increasing from less than 15% of the adult population in 2007 to more than 16.6% in 2013.

In the five year period between 2008 and 2013, the number of retired Americans increased by 5.6 million, which was the largest five-year increase in US history, and more than double the 2.5 million increase in the previous five-year period. Given that wave of recent retirements, there have been millions of older, experienced, highly-paid workers going from their peak earning levels to a much lower retirement income that would typically include Social Security payments, pensions, and distributions from retirement accounts. As those millions of retirees are replaced in the workforce by younger, less experienced, lower paid workers, median household income could be falling even though the average income of working Americans could be rising.

It’s probably no coincidence that the recent increase in retirees, both in absolute numbers and as a share of the adult population, along with the other demographic changes described above, has naturally coincided with a decline in median household income. It would be hard to imagine that an aging population with a significant increase in the number and share of retirees, wouldn’t depress median household income, for purely demographic reasons.

Bottom Line: Most explanations of the recent decline in US median household income are based on some variation of a narrative of economic stagnation, rising inequality and pessimism. But what is almost always overlooked are the very significant demographic changes that have taken place in the composition of US households over time that would significantly impact the income of the median US household. Taken together, a) the increase in the share of no-earner, single-earner, and single-parent households, b) the increase in the number and share of retirees, along with c) the decline in the share of two-earner and married households, would logically and necessarily depress the income level of the median US household.

In summary, the composition of US households is not static, fixed and permanent; rather it’s dynamic, evolving and ever-changing. Discussions on changes in median household income over time that ignore the changes in household composition over time will always be incomplete, distorted and misleading. Perhaps the decline in median household income this century is not a narrative of economic pessimism and stagnation after all, but a more upbeat story of a greater number of Americans living longer lives, and enjoying periods of time in retirement that were never possible until this century."

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Don't treat climate change “as a moral issue – a matter like civil rights”

From Cafe Hayek.
"Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:
David Ignatius proposes that climate change be treated “as a moral issue – a matter like civil rights” (“The moral issue of climate change,” Nov. 19).
This comparison fails.  The core concern that sparked the civil-rights movement was simple: government-mandated racial segregation and discrimination wrongly prevented each African-American from pursuing his or her life’s goals on equal footing with white Americans.  Neither the existence nor the baleful effects of such barriers was ever in doubt.  In addition, destroying those barriers was both a relatively straightforward procedure and, by any remotely acceptable ethical standards, unambiguously the right thing to do.
Climate change is completely different.  Legitimate debate continues over the magnitude of impending temperature change and – despite the predictions of the novel that inspired Mr. Ignatius’s call for a moral crusade against climate change – debate continues over the likely consequences of any such change.  Legitimate debate also rages over the effects of government efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Ending Jim Crow simply got government out of the way of peaceful and productive human interactions.  In contrast, empowering government to address climate change complicatedly puts government in the way of market interactions – interactions that have generated what Nobel economist  Edmund Phelps calls “mass flourishing”* on a scale unprecedented in history.  Given governments’ dubious record of intervening into economies – and given free markets’ impressive record of raising the living standards of ordinary people and of adapting to change – to fuel with moral fervor government efforts  to intervene on the climate front would be a grave and dangerous error.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
* Edmund S. Phelps, Mass Flourishing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013)."

In defense of sweatshops — they’re often the best and fastest way for the poor to escape poverty

From Mark Perry.
"1. Sweatshop Video of the Day I. A surprising and inspiring 2012 TED Talk above on the alleged exploitation of Chinese factory workers, who we are told lead miserable and bleak lives making iPhones, Coach handbags and Nike running shoes in factory sweatshops for rich Americans. Author Leslie T. Chang explains why that’s a completely false and disrespectful narrative. Here’s an excerpt:
Across China, there are 150 million workers, one third of them women, who have left their villages to work in the factories, the hotels, the restaurants and the construction sites of the big cities. Together, they make up the largest migration in history, and it is globalization, this chain that begins in a Chinese farming village and ends with iPhones in our pockets and Nikes on our feet and Coach handbags on our arms that has changed the way these millions of people work and marry and live and think. Very few of them would want to go back to the way things used to be.
Certainly, the factory conditions are really tough, and it’s nothing you or I would want to do, but from their perspective, where they’re coming from is much worse, and where they’re going is hopefully much better, and I just wanted to give that context of what’s going on in their minds, not what necessarily is going on in yours.
HT: Bob Wright

2. Sweatshop Video of the Day II. In the Learn Liberty video above, you’ll learn from UC-San Diego professor Matt Zwolinski about the “Top 3 Ways Sweatshops Help The Poor Escape Poverty.”

nikeplant
3. Sweatshop Cartoon of the Day. A sweatshop cartoon classic, first featured on CD back in 2007.
4. Sweatshop Quotation of the Day I:
Closing sweatshops and forcing Western labor and environmental standards down poor people’s throats in the third world does nothing to elevate them out of poverty. Instead, it forces poor people to buy a lot of rich man’s toys, like clean air, clean water, and leisure time. If clean air and leisure time don’t strike you as extravagant luxuries, that’s because Americans – even the poorest of us – are so rich these days that we’ve forgotten what true poverty is like. But chances are your great-great-grandparents could have told you what it’s like: when you’re truly poor, you can’t afford things like clean air. Nobody in 1870 America worried about the environment.
~Economist Steven E. Landsburg, from his book “More Sex is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics.

5. Sweatshop Quotation of the Day II:
Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program. American students should stop trying to ban sweatshops, and instead campaign to bring them to the most desperately poor countries.
~Nicholas Kristof’s 2006 NY Times op-ed “In Praise of the Maligned Sweatshop.”

6. Sweatshop Quotation of the Day III:

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely. The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there.

~Nicholas Kristof’s 2009 NY Times op-ed “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream.”

7. Child Labor Quotation:
As any historian could tell you, no society has ever pulled itself out of poverty without putting its children to work. Back in the early 19th century, when Americans were as poor as Bangladeshis are now, we were sending out children to work at about the same rate as the Bangladeshis are today. Having had the good fortune to get rich first, Americans can afford to give Bangladeshis a helping hand, and there are plenty of good ways for us to do that. Denying Third Worlders the very opportunities our ancestors embraced, whether through fullfledged boycotts or by insisting on health and safety standards they can’t afford to meet, is not one of those ways.
~Steven E. Landsburg, from his blog “The Big Questions.”"

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Fraud in the Defense Department

From Nicole Kaeding of Cato
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost more than $1 trillion with billions going to Department of Defense (DoD) contractors. All of that spending has led to a large uptick in waste and fraud.
As much as $60 billion has been wasted on U.S. operations in those two countries, according to analysis from the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department has brought more than 235 criminal cases since 2005.
The Associated Press highlights some examples:
In the past few months alone, four retired and one active-duty Army National Guard officials were charged in a complex bribery and kickback scheme involving the awarding of contracts for marketing and promotional material, and a trucking company driver pleaded guilty to bribing military base employees in Georgia to obtain freight shipments — often weapons which required satellite tracking — to transport to the West Coast.
More recently, a former contractor for the Navy’s Military Sealift Command, which provides transportation for the service, was sentenced to prison along with a businessman in a bribery case in which cash, a wine refrigerator and other gifts traded hands in exchange for favorable treatment on telecommunications work. Also, three men, including two retired Marine Corps officers, were charged with cheating on a bid proposal for maintenance work involving a helicopter squadron that serves the White House.
The story continues on with the long list of abuses:
Defense contractor Leonard Francis was arrested in San Diego last year on charges that he offered luxury travel, prostitutes and other bribes to Navy officers in exchange for confidential information, including ship routes. Prosecutors say he used that information to overbill the Navy for port services in Asia in one of the biggest Navy bribery schemes in years. Ethan Posner, a lawyer for Francis, declined comment.
Yet many others involve more mundane cases of contracting or procurement fraud. Consider the trucking company contractor in Afghanistan who bribed an Army serviceman to falsify records to show fuel shipments that were never delivered, or the former Army contractor who demanded bribes before issuing orders for bottled water at a military camp in Kuwait.
According to the story, the Defense Department acknowledges the issue and is working to improve the situation. But if this report is any indication, DoD has a long way to go."