labor policy in california

This is a bit of a detour but it is still interesting all the same.
I've been listening to a lot of talk radio lately and only today did I catch anything of value coming through the airwaves. (public radio... biased but still good radio... that's another question)

The topic in subject was a bill being proposed for California that would mandate employers to provide 9 days of payed sick leave for their employees.
The pro argument consisted of anti-business idealists (almost back to union days) who saw this as a must to prevent the transmission of sickness at the workplace as well as a right of the Californian work-horse. They supported their argument by siting the recently implemented micro-version of the bill in San Francisco.

This is a bunch of pettifoggery! What supporters of this bill fail to realize is that the cost of implementing this liberty will be imposed by small business owners who will subsequently be forced to reduce an already existing exogenous benefit which was previously provided. Employees will be not better off! and if anything they will be worse off. Increased restrictions on starting business is like handcuffing your star pitcher in the ninth...
Right now--at this moment in history--we need our ingenuity to pull through. We need our innovative (American) entrepreneur. Small business is where it's at. And seriously what is the big deal with getting sick. I mean, where does it stop. Next it will be a requirement for employers to provide DayQuil and condoms. No! Grow up America take care of yourself.

Not to mention that economic theory was never mention in the context that the 9 day limit acts like a cap or ceiling. They didn't site this but I would predict that if this law were passed it would no be interfered as security for the last case scenario where people are just too sick to come to work. Rather it would be interpreted as "sweet! now I can take 9 days vacation." Which I would say, is not the purpose of the bill.

Employees know this too, they don't need to be babied. If you want their jobs to be better promote small business so that employers would have to compete for their employees and employees would be able to choose from a variety of benefit packages. It seems to me that the underlying problem that is not being addressed is that people are trapped in jobs not that bosses are evil and should be regulated. Get your facts straight before you make the government into a dictator.

Community Forum

My mother just held a community forum at her house where local environmental politicians met with her friends and neighbors for a meet-n-greet.
It was adorable and at times very extreme. Needless to say I did a fair bit of muffled chuckling.

These are a few of my favorite quotes:

"China has a sustainable housing complex where they force people to be vegetarians."
...freedom?

"...Well of course, suburbia is just not sustainable."
...Whats the alternative look like? and by the way nothing is sustainable: its written in the second law of thermodynamics.

"It's that whole development thing, we need to stop it. Its just grow grow grow."
...yea, but don't take away my job!

"We need to limit the amount of water we use."
...try letting the price represent the cost. just an idea.

"I personally stopped the hospital from becoming privately owned, they were planning on phasing out the offices that did not make any money."
...not even going to get started with the problems in this statement.

"Can you believe foreigners are growing our food. Its just irresponsible."
...Buy American! ;) (that smiley face is sarcastic; and it also comes with a sarcastic thumbs-up)

"We need subsidized community housing. Like we had under FDR."
...and socialism!

this was my favorite. (drum roll)

"We know about a minimum wage but what about a maximum wage?"
...The man made a coy face after he said this statement, oblivious to me cracking a small giggle. Yes, ladies and gentlemen thats the new dumbest thing I've ever heard. What a gem!

I sat in the corner as multiple friends and neighbors talked about raising crime rates then bringing in more affordable housing complexes, then stopping all growth that wasn't what they deemed to be "sustainable" but also complaining about fewer jobs at the same time. They talked about jsut needing more green collar jobs and water conservation by limiting the amount people can use.

Yep, that thump you just heard was Ludwig Von Mesis rolling in his grave.

Polar bears and Astronauts (self-titled)

I haven't yet explained on this site the reason for naming it "Polar Bears and Astronauts."  but enough procrastination. 

Polar Bears have become something of a center-piece for the ethically extreme environmentalists.  The threat to their survival represents a growing concern for the dediversification of our planet.  More species are going extinct at a faster rate than ever before. (if you are a dork for sappy stories about furry cuddly things dying off all over the world, check out IUCN's red list, and bring a box of hankies)  I make a joke about this, but from a biological perspective this does pose a real threat to humans in the future; less diversity = less ecosystem stability = more blossoms of everything weird and unheard of.  

The Galapagos are good examples of this, there is less ecosystem diversity there, which means, unlike in a rain forest, there may be only one or two species to fill a niche and complete the circle of life.  An invasive species can sweep in and provide a reign of terror.  On the galapagos it seemed like every other week there was some new bug that was everywhere, then they die off.  Think of what the world would be like if bacteria had even more dramatic life cycle waves. 

  

Basically, low ecosystem diversity could be pretty costly.  Another short example are the deer in Wisconsin.  They are everywhere and they cause diseases like giardia and chronic waste disease as well as hit-your-car-itus, which I've heard is nasty.  This is a costly issue, and it is caused by the lack of species diversity in carnivores that we killed off like wolves and mountain lions. 

The case of the polar bear is no different.  Species extinction is inevitable and it is important to note that we have more extinctions now than ever before.  Where should the line be drawn? At what point does the polar bear become important?  Maybe never, but what's next? Any conversationalist will confirm that species extinction starts a domino effect and one extinction never just ends with one extinction.  This is a piecemeal massacre caused by global warming.

I ask when will this become important because I am an economist and I know humans inescapably make decisions on the margin.  Decisions like saving the polar bears don't fall on the margin.  This is because they are more costly than any benefit gained from saving a single species.  There are in essence two types of environmental problems those that fall on the margin and those that are two costly.  

Astronauts are the physical manifestation of what human kind can accomplish.  I pinned the idea of an astronaut up against polar bears for this reason.  The same way we have accomplished piecemeal development and growth we are also creating piecemeal environmental degradation.  Yet the two extremes must work together.  Science world meet your corporate world friend from college and suck it up dude you're both right!

 

Turns out Milton Freidman was awesom...

In this series of four short videos Milton Friedman addresses why it is ok to believe in environmentalism and free markets at the same time. He uses the definition of a rational libertarian to explain why externalities imposed diffusely onto society should be incorporated into prices. He braided conversation by tying his thoughts together, and I love it, what a lyricist!

Also, get a load of the biker helmet in the opening scene. I wish I could be as cool as that guy! I bet he has creases in his jeans. Radical dude! (sike)

Eating orgainic makes your foot look big.

I wrote this response to a friend who sent me these two articles:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126254.html

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126276.html

Yea isn’t that crazy, organic doesn’t really mean anything. I think it is hilarious. You should check out the USDA Organic procedure for certifying cosmetics. What the hell does it mean to have organic lotion? That probably realistically means it has less preservatives, but frankly I’d rather rub antibacterial on my canvas than mold. If I were to open a company right now I’d name it Lincoln’s Organic Hodgepodge’n Sorts. We’d put organic in the name of the company so people would think we were healthy, and then we’d sell corn byproducts like all the other non-organic companies. Of course we can’t even do that anymore, what with corn prices being more artificially inflated than Berry Bonds’ biceps. Carbon foot print aside, I would say that organic food does tend to taste better. I think organics have done well lately because the organic farmers have found their market niche in people who are desperate to buy good quality and good taste rather than long shelf-life and seedlessness. Organic food and good quality food don’t necessarily have to be the same thing. I think they were lumped together because food supplier—in the time leading up to the boom in organic foods—made efficiency more important than quality. Organic food is the market response to a demand for quality food. Some people would say that it has more to do with ethics, and that organic food is better for the environment. I think—and you showed me in the articles you sent me—this is not true. But people believe that it is, and organic food wears the label to ride their revenue home. It’s like that whole Obama “Change” (populism) movement. I like to think about what the world would be like if organic food ended up actually tasting like butt compared to genetically modified snacks. I bet in that world, organic food would be just as popular as cheese whiz and Lunchables are now. For those not hip to food fashion, cheese whiz and lunchables are “out.”

I like that people use carbon foot print to measure environmental impact of supposable environmental behavior. It shows an example of real cost/benefit analysis. I know carbon footprint it is not the perfect measure of being-good-to-the-planet, but it does shed light on the possibility of corrective behavior and future industry standards that could combine other impacting chemicals like NO2's, SO2's, and Mercuries.