Monday, August 07, 2006

New Location

Hello all. I have officially relocated my blogging business. I have decided to form a joint blog with fellow Daily Illini columnist and intellectual counterweight Brian Pierce. You can find us at www.millspierce.blogspot.com

The current iteration of our blog's title is Urbanagora.

We hope to provide diverse content that is filled with facts and images. We will be posting next semester's Daily Illini columns at the new location. On occasion we will also be in shoot-outs on various issues, Posner-Becker style.

We hope to make this blog one of the focal points of the University of Illinois political community. To that end we hope that you read and post often. Posting is fundamental to the vitality and worth of our blog, so please don't be shy. Without you, it's just not worth it.

Same time, New channel.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Sorry you can't bomb them, you need to balance your equation first

The insistence that Israel's response to Hezbollah must be proportional is somewhat hilarious. If in all wars we insisted that each side's response be mathetically and precisely proportional then every war in history would be a stalemate - no one would ever be allowed to win. Asymmetric response is certainly not foreign to Islamists in the Middle East. Take this conversation for example:

Dane: "I'm going to draw cartoons about your religion."
Islamist: "I'm going to kill you and your entire family and any Jews you might have in your phone book."

To be sure, that Dane was an idiot. But death for cartoons, really?

Contrary to popular wishes, I am not Jewish, but I can speculate. At some point, when you've been messed with for thousands of years no matter where you decide to live, you’re going to get pissed. After all of those years Jews finally have the stronger hand and the strong Allies (namely, the U.S.). Taken out of historical and religious context Israel’s response would be inappropriate, but reality persists. To paraphrase a recent Elie Wiesel interview, the Jews are making certain that they are never again in a position to be forced into boxcars.

The U.S. and Israel do more to avert civilian casualties and to adhere to jus ad bellum than any other country, especially one that has been attacked, in human history.

How would you respond?

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Minimum Cents

A recent op-ed in my beloved WSJ got me fired up about the minimum wage debate.

It is interesting to note that the majority of conclusions wrought by economists tend toward what is typically considered conservative policy. This is true while the majority of university economists, about a 3:1 ratio, are liberal.

Raising the minimum wage makes low-skilled workers, most of whom are minorities, less competitive. Less competitive you ask? Well who are they competing against? Answer: Machines (capital) and desperate, hungry, poor foreigners who are willing to slave in factories.

The reality and ease of outsourcing makes the minimum wage even more dangerous than in years past. Put your mind in long-run mode, put on your glasses, and lose your myopia. In the long-run, higher American labor costs mean fewer and fewer companies will plan or desire to operate domestically. It is true that American workers will usually be more productive because of the availability of capital and machines. Jobs here are more capital intensive such that an American worker will produce more bouncy balls than a Chinese worker because the American knows how to use machines better and actually has machines at his disposal. But if you think in terms of marginal costs and marginal production, then you can see that every time the minimum wage is increased another job will be exported. Higher labor costs mean that the U.S. worker has to be even more productive than he was previously to compensate for his greater cost.

The other threat are the machines (Be weary of I-Robot). The greater labor costs become, the more incentive owners have to make their production more capital intensive, which means people get fired. Again, think about marginal costs and production. For every penny more expensive a worker becomes, the ratio of his cost to his output decreases (productivity). At some point, after each incremental increase, it is going to become more profitable for the owner of production to substitute Marx’s prole with Asimov’s dreambot.

We need to avoid the five hour café break economics of Old Europe. The world’s economy is currently very strong. At the end of 2005 the world’s unemployment rate was 6.36%, while the U.S. rate was 5.11% (It is currently 4.6%). Meanwhile, the wonderfully progressive labor laws of Germany and France had their unemployment rates at 11.52% and 10.23%, respectively. Sure, workers in France enjoy comfy minimum wages and the job security to know that they have to stab their boss more that four times to get fired after they reach the age of ~26 (Not certain about the age). Remember all those young French people protesting their right to never be fired? Notice that the people in those protests were students, none of them were low-skilled, uneducated and unemployed French. The cost of giving those French college punks job security and a 35 hour work week is that 10% of Frenchies who are willing to work are unable to find a job. Very “progressive” and “caring,” eh? One of the best statements on welfare state labor laws and high taxation comes from the 2004 Nobel Economist, Edward Prescott.

But you know, it’s progressive to make sure people have enough money, right?