Athazagoraphobia, or fear of being forgotten, is a common aliment among people. We all want to do something that firmly plants us in society so that our names will be remembered years after we pass. Only handful of people actually do something to make their name immortal. March 23rd was the 25th anniversary of the death of an economic master mind, Friedrich Hayek. And whether it was his intention to have his name resonate through the centuries or just a happy accident, his name and ideas have remained in the economy of our country.
Friedrich, born in Vienna on may 8th, before he became a Noble Prize winner and one of the most influential people in the twentieth century, he served in the Austrian army. When he left the service he went back to school and got degrees in Law and Political Science. He first began to do a study on business cycles or trade cycles more commonly know today as booms and recessions. He moved to England and joined the London School of Economics. His research on booms and recessions soon surfaced his name, but it was short lived when he crossed paths with his economic rival, John Manfred Kangs. Hard to picture that such an influential man such as Friedrich used to be in the shadows of another. Kangs promoted the idea that the government could successfully handle and manage the economy. So its not hard to guess why Hayek's time in the shadows was so short considering that was the idea he went up against. The economy is way to complicated and the information needed to make decisions is too "decentralized for a centrally planned economy". Hayek moved to Chicago and there published three books bringing more attention to his ideas. In 1974 he finally got the recognition his work deserved and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. In 1991 his outlook on economics became even more reliable with the collapse of the Soviet Union, proving just why he didn't jump on the "Kangs bandwagon" of thinking. Its no wonder why his name will be remembered, its hard to forget someone who was so overwhelming right.
Two of his greatest observations are on 'Knowledge and Prices' and 'Economic Booms and Busts'. Knowledge and Prices points how the consumer can make decisions as if they have a large amount of knowledge about the product, an amount of knowledge that is impossible to really know, and they make these same decisions without any knowledge at all. They only thing thy costumer knows is the price, and they make and change decisions according to if that number goes up or down. Booms and busts, similar to booms and recessions, is about when the government plays a role in the economics and how it changes things, even if they have the best intentions, for worse. Someone in government can have, what they think is, a good idea. They have the authority and money to produce the product, but not the market. They don't know what the consumers want, after all if there was a highly demanded item business's would begin the produce it on their own to make a profit, without the government. But since the item is out there and the budget is being spent on an unwanted item we are presented with a "bust" in our economy. This still very much applied to our day-n-age but nowadays people are a little more apprehensive about letting the government into any part of their life, so maybe soon we can expect more booms than busts.
And these are not the only things Hayek has opinions about that still affect us. He has quotes on very controversial topics of today such as minimum wage, "We know, in other words, the general conditions in which what we call, somewhat misleadingly, an equilibrium will establish itself: but we never know what the particular prices or wages are which would exist if the market were to bring about such an equilibrium.", Terrorism, "Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." and even welfare, "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."
Friedrich Hayek died 25 years ago, yet his name and his ideas still live on. He lived to see the rise and fall of fascism, the Soviet union and national socialism. He was the corner stone in the beginning steps towards our economic freedom. The things he exposed about economics and the way of thinking were revolutionary when he proposed them, and still are today in our ever changing society. He is a worthy man to remember and celebrate.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
All Dogs Go To Heaven
Where did all the men go?. A question NOT as old as time, but rather just brought up in recent studies. Jobs have always been a hot topic when it comes to equality, the gap in pay and hiring percentages with women particularly. But in a recent article by Nicholas Eberstadt, the issue with how men are basically disappearing out of the work force brought to light.
Shocking how just a short while ago we were all kicking and screaming for there to be a more equal divide in the working place and now the "under dogs" so to speak have taken over. But is it by brute force, or sheer laziness by the opponents? Between 1965 and 2015 the work rates for the average man drastically dipped to the point were the percent of unemployment was just lower of that when our country just came out of the depression. Sadly, some of these men, who are perfectly qualified between the ages of 25 to 54, are simply just not looking for a job. Scraping by, causing an unnecessary gap in the work force. But our country still thrives, for our economy has managed to produce more wealth for its elite, even though is generates less employment for its workers. Is that we are losing such qualified workers? Because we, without them are still producing wealth and them, while doing nothing, are reaping some of the benefits? Our net worth is soaring while our employment is dying. Breeding laziness perhaps? Or just a generation with no work ethic? Our unemployment is right where we were in the 2000, a disheartening 4.7%. We boast of our "full employment" country yet the "work rate" for men 20 and up was over a "fifth lower than it was in 1948." But why the drop? Women and, again, laziness.
Like mentioned before, there was a constant battle between men and women in the work force for equal everything. There still is comments said under breaths, behind backs, and hidden behind a computer screen. But the reality is, they have begun to dominate. All the woman in power montage of the last couple years has sky rocketed them in practically any industry. Not a surprising consequence is the percent of men being hired lowering. If one number goes up the other has to go down. Unless you're just awful at math.
The other issue, a trend in todays day and age, is this feeling of entitlement to do nothing. AKA lazy sons of guns. It has become socially acceptable and even "cool" to be scraping by and not working. Between 1965 and 2015, the percent of prime-age men who weren't working or looking for work expanded more than three times faster than the number in the workforce. So more people capable of working, but didn't want to, out numbered the people who were actually employed.
I'm not going to speak much to the racial differences with this topic because lazy is lazy, no matter your "color", where you came from or how you were brought up. But to comment on it, "work rates and labor-force participation rates for white men today are lower than they were for black men in 1965". They are lower for white men then blacks in 1965.
Education always plays a huge factor in getting jobs. Higher GPA higher paying job is basically what is seared into our brains at a young age. But maybe that is not as true in the "real world" as we are lead to believe. We can see how behavior and choice also affect "labor-market" outcomes for men. "For prime-age men with less than a high school degree, labor-force participation rates today are roughly 20 percentage points higher".
For the economic view I'm going to use a direct quote because quite frankly, I can't express the issue from an economic view point as well as an expert.
"Economists do not have a singular answer for why demand for lower-skilled and middle-skilled labor is falling. Possible causes include technological advances and globalization, including import competition and offshoring. … Some economists point to “skill-biased technological change:” advances that benefit workers with certain skills more than others. … These forces have, among other things, eliminated large numbers of American manufacturing jobs over a number of decades … leaving many people — mostly men — unable to find new ones."
It is not one issue, therefore there is not "quick fix", in fact is there a fix at all? The economy is a fickle thing always changing and we are just all trying to stay a float and hope we don't become a statistic.
But there needs to be action of some kind. If the employment of men continues to decrease it will eventually catch up with our economy, slowing our growth creating a larger gap, higher welfare bills, and budget deficits. It could possibly cripple us socially destroying the cohesion in employment. What kind of action you ask? To start, revitalize the job generating capacities. Also, if the overly qualified man doesn't want the job, give it to one who maybe is less qualified but at least has the gumption to look for work.
So where did all the men go? Nowhere really. Some are retired, some hiding, some blatantly just not wanting to work. But there are men ready and willing to work and fill the gap, we just need to be willing to find them.
Shocking how just a short while ago we were all kicking and screaming for there to be a more equal divide in the working place and now the "under dogs" so to speak have taken over. But is it by brute force, or sheer laziness by the opponents? Between 1965 and 2015 the work rates for the average man drastically dipped to the point were the percent of unemployment was just lower of that when our country just came out of the depression. Sadly, some of these men, who are perfectly qualified between the ages of 25 to 54, are simply just not looking for a job. Scraping by, causing an unnecessary gap in the work force. But our country still thrives, for our economy has managed to produce more wealth for its elite, even though is generates less employment for its workers. Is that we are losing such qualified workers? Because we, without them are still producing wealth and them, while doing nothing, are reaping some of the benefits? Our net worth is soaring while our employment is dying. Breeding laziness perhaps? Or just a generation with no work ethic? Our unemployment is right where we were in the 2000, a disheartening 4.7%. We boast of our "full employment" country yet the "work rate" for men 20 and up was over a "fifth lower than it was in 1948." But why the drop? Women and, again, laziness.
Like mentioned before, there was a constant battle between men and women in the work force for equal everything. There still is comments said under breaths, behind backs, and hidden behind a computer screen. But the reality is, they have begun to dominate. All the woman in power montage of the last couple years has sky rocketed them in practically any industry. Not a surprising consequence is the percent of men being hired lowering. If one number goes up the other has to go down. Unless you're just awful at math.
The other issue, a trend in todays day and age, is this feeling of entitlement to do nothing. AKA lazy sons of guns. It has become socially acceptable and even "cool" to be scraping by and not working. Between 1965 and 2015, the percent of prime-age men who weren't working or looking for work expanded more than three times faster than the number in the workforce. So more people capable of working, but didn't want to, out numbered the people who were actually employed.
I'm not going to speak much to the racial differences with this topic because lazy is lazy, no matter your "color", where you came from or how you were brought up. But to comment on it, "work rates and labor-force participation rates for white men today are lower than they were for black men in 1965". They are lower for white men then blacks in 1965.
Education always plays a huge factor in getting jobs. Higher GPA higher paying job is basically what is seared into our brains at a young age. But maybe that is not as true in the "real world" as we are lead to believe. We can see how behavior and choice also affect "labor-market" outcomes for men. "For prime-age men with less than a high school degree, labor-force participation rates today are roughly 20 percentage points higher".
For the economic view I'm going to use a direct quote because quite frankly, I can't express the issue from an economic view point as well as an expert.
"Economists do not have a singular answer for why demand for lower-skilled and middle-skilled labor is falling. Possible causes include technological advances and globalization, including import competition and offshoring. … Some economists point to “skill-biased technological change:” advances that benefit workers with certain skills more than others. … These forces have, among other things, eliminated large numbers of American manufacturing jobs over a number of decades … leaving many people — mostly men — unable to find new ones."
It is not one issue, therefore there is not "quick fix", in fact is there a fix at all? The economy is a fickle thing always changing and we are just all trying to stay a float and hope we don't become a statistic.
But there needs to be action of some kind. If the employment of men continues to decrease it will eventually catch up with our economy, slowing our growth creating a larger gap, higher welfare bills, and budget deficits. It could possibly cripple us socially destroying the cohesion in employment. What kind of action you ask? To start, revitalize the job generating capacities. Also, if the overly qualified man doesn't want the job, give it to one who maybe is less qualified but at least has the gumption to look for work.
So where did all the men go? Nowhere really. Some are retired, some hiding, some blatantly just not wanting to work. But there are men ready and willing to work and fill the gap, we just need to be willing to find them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)