When the TSA was first formed in the comparatively innocent times just after September 11, 2001 (yes, you read that right), it was expressly prohibited that the workforce be unionized. Since then, the number of employees has exploded from 16,500 to 62,500. The amount of abuse travelers put up with has risen exponentially, from pat-downs to porno scanners. And the number of terrorists caught by TSA has… Well, that’s still a big, fat zero.
Nonetheless, TSA Administrator John Pistole, who knows which side his bread is buttered on, has allowed the TSA to go forward with an American Federation of Government Employees union contract. And just when you thought the TSA couldn’t get any worse.
While my views on unions are well-known, I think it bears repeating that this can only end in a disaster for both American travel security and Americans’ wallets.
Consider the example of the teachers’ unions. Since 1970, the cost of educating one student from kindergarten through 12th grade has roughly tripled, from $55,000 to $155,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Since 1970, American students have seen no improvement in math and reading, and regression in science scores.
This is because, once unionized, the workforce becomes entirely caught up in labor concerns to the detriment of their actual jobs. Hence, students suffer once the teachers’ unions begin to treat the public school system as nothing more than a jobs bank.
Using the example of history, it is easy to see that unionization of a workforce entrenches the worst elements of that workforce. Efficiency is sacrificed, goals go unmet, poor performers cannot be fired, and consumers bear the brunt of this failure.
Of course, airport security seems important enough that we should want to avoid these things, but no matter. The screeners pressed ahead with their unionization anyway, the public be damned. After all, the attitude of the unions has always been that the public owes them jobs, not that they owe the public a job well done.
Check out the specifics of what the Canadian auto workers are demanding this time around:
We’re not sure if the union asked for everything hoping they could at least get half, but most of the ideas have little chance of leaving the printed page: the government should maintain minority stakes in automakers, devalue the Canadian dollar, secure manufacturing commitments from automakers, examine the feasibility of a Canadian carmaker and halt free-trade negotiations with the EU and other carmaking nations like Japan and Thailand.
Nationalizing private industry? Check. Destroying the country’s currency for the benefit of a few privileged workers? Check. Forcing manufacturers into inflexible, unsustainable policies? Check. State-owned competition against the very companies they’re “negotiating” with? Check. Protectionism against the consumer for the benefit of a few privileged workers? Check.
In the meantime, the Canadian doctors union has been prescribing cyanide to poisoning victims, the Canadian firefighters union has been spraying kerosene on open flames, and the Canadian government workers union calls for more corruption in politics.
The worst part? These ridiculous demands are in response to GM moving Chevrolet Impala production from one assembly line in Oshawa to …another assembly line in Oshawa. One that was just given a $68 million investment to increase flexibility and efficiency.
When will they learn?
- First, China will emerge and American will feel threatened;
- China will then seem ubiquitous if only because people are looking for it more often;
- China will purchase things that seem quintessentially “American,” and the jingoist rhetoric will heat up;
- Economic manipulation will cause China’s economy to look comparatively better than ours, increasing calls for statist intervention;
- China will blow up;
- Nobody will care anymore.
We are almost to the end of this cycle. China’s books are so bloated with fake money and unsustainable corruption, the blowup is inevitable (though no one knows when). However, that has not stemmed the tide of calls for statist intervention along the lines of the “China model.”
And so I present an article (admittedly old, which I had bookmarked and forgotten about), by Ross Kaminsky about how the Chinese model is the wrong model for the United States, notwithstanding certain calls for imitation. Here is an excerpt, but as always, you should go ahead and read the whole thing.
The professional left in America and their chattering-class useful idiots have followed a consistent pattern for a century: sympathizing with tyranny in their musings over how to implement policies fueled by jealousy and an undying fear of economic liberty.
There has hardly been a better example in recent years than Andy Stern’s Wall Street Journal December 1st op-ed entitled “China’s Superior Economic Model.” In his article, Stern approvingly quotes Intel Corporation co-founder and former CEO Andy Grove who stated in a 2010 Business Week article that there is “emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.”
…As someone who was studying economics in college in the mid-1980s, I endured countless comments about how American corporations’ narrow focus on “next quarter’s earnings” (as if that were true) was congenitally inferior to the longer-term view supposedly taken by Japanese companies.
Over the next several years, the Japanese bought Rockefeller Center (from my alma mater, Columbia University), CBS Records (purchased, renamed, and still owned by Sony), and the famed Pebble Beach golf course.
Harvard professor Ezra Vogel published (actually in 1979) a book called Japan As Number One: Lessons for America, in which he argues, as a reviewer for the Economistmagazine put it, “that the United States should give itself a political and cultural heart transplant.
…In 1995, the Mitsubishi Group, which had purchased Rockefeller Center, forced the project into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, losing nearly two billion dollars for their efforts. And a few years later, as GolfDigest‘s Mark Seal put it, when Peter Ueberroth put together a group to buy Pebble Beach for less than the Japanese had paid for it, the deal “bankrupted a Japanese boom-time golden boy, and, most recently, sent an army of Japanese bankers back home with little to show for their seven years of superlative stewardship but their good names.”
Since then, Japan has turned in not just one but two “lost decades” with its persistent near-zero interest rates frequently being described as “pushing on a string.” According to a recent Heritage Foundation study, “In 2010, the Japanese economy looks to have been smaller than it was in 1992, an incredibly poor result. It is not just a matter of a decline in output; it is also a remarkable decline in total wealth.
…So when you hear people — especially non-economists with political agendas — long for the statism that characterizes most of America’s economic competitors, listen with great skepticism.
That, in a nutshell, is exactly the kind of progression I am talking about. If you are interested in bubbles as a phenomenon, or at least a further explication of the Japanese bubble (and many others), I would recommend “Devil Take the Hindmost,” by Edward Chancellor.
And then I would recommend some reflection on the current state of Chinese “state capitalism,” as if such a thing could possibly exist in the long term.
Megan McArdle writes in the Atlantic about President Obama’s state of the union address. I know that I am a few days late, but this quote was too insightful to pass up:
I think the speech made it even clearer than other speeches have that the president’s vision of the world is a lightly updated 1950s technocracy without the social conservatism, and with solar panels instead of rocket ships. Government and labor and business working in tightly controlled concert, with nice people like Obama at the reins–all the inventions coming out of massive government or corporate labs, and all the resulting products built by a heavily unionized workforce that knows no worry about the future.
As David Boaz said last night, Obama’s talk of blueprints was telling. A blueprint is a simple plan that an architect imposes on an inanimate object. Obama really does seem to think that he can manage the economy in the same way. No, I don’t think that he is a socialist. Rather, I think that he really believes there are technocratic levers that can make the income distribution flatter, the rate of innovation faster, and the banking system safer, without undesireable side effects.
I had hoped that the last three years had taught Obama the limits of this sort of thinking. But if they have, he certainly hasn’t chosen to share that hard-won knowledge with the rest of us.
This is the belief that all of modern “progressivism” is built on, and it amazes me that people still buy in.
I am getting ready to sit down for the BCS Mythical National Title game, and I am not in the greatest of moods.
First of all, I have – shall we say – a lack of regard for the “university” known as Louisiana State. I really want them to lose, but that does not mean I want Alabama to win. Is it okay to cheer for none of the above?
Also, it has been a long time since I managed to put up a blog post, and that annoys me. I hope it also annoys you because that means I am doing something right when I actually do post.
So rather than continue to let the blog languish, I decided I would share with you some links that I have found interesting over the last few days. I hope you enjoy.
Europe is in a tough spot
Daniel Hannan writes in the Telegraph about how Europe, despite major efforts from relatively strong countries and the European Central Bank, is still circling the drain. This is ultimately a structural problem, and not a cyclical one:
Had Greece kept the drachma, it would never have got into its present mess: the markets would have stepped in and imposed a corrective years ago. It was the ludicrous idea that Greek and German debt were interchangeable that fuelled the artificial boom, and so made inevitable the ensuing slump. Yet, even now, Lucas Papademos, the Eurocrat who heads the
Brussels-imposed juntanational government in Athens, tells his subjects: ‘We must continue our efforts with decisiveness, to stay in the euro, to make sure we do not waste the sacrifices and do not turn the crisis into an uncontrolled and disastrous bankruptcy.’ Disastrous bankruptcy, eh, Lucas? As opposed to what you have now, you mean?
In case Mr. Hannan has not convinced you, I also found this Walter Russell Mead piece interesting. He emphasizes again that this is a structural problem. To a certain extent, Europe was simply set up to fail. Read on:
European elites tried to construct a glittering cosmopolitan tower without grounding their structure in the mud and the mire of real people, real culture and real life. They designed a technocratic government for a population that fears and distrusts technocrats. They build a German style financial order for cultures who hate Germany. They thought that if they ignored the resulting problems and resentment resolutely enough for long enough, the problems would all go away.
Sic semper tyrannis, loosely translated for my purposes to “thus always to top-down centralizing governments.”
Using the courts against trial lawyers
Who among us has not received an email or letter about a class-action settlement pertaining to something we have been tangentially involved in and yet not bothered enough even think of suing? Who among us has not been faced with the choice of either depositing a check for $0.18 or seeing their portion of the settlement proceeds go to some “charity” that really only benefits the trial lawyers?
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Heather Peters is doing something about it. Ms. Peters bought a Honda that did not get the gas mileage that Honda claimed it would. She was justifiably dissatisfied, but she was even more dissatisfied about the treatment she got as compared to the trial lawyers handling the class action.
The trial lawyers’ cut was $8.5 million. Ms. Peters’ cut? $100.
This is all too common, and thanks to the lobbying efforts of the trial bar and a largely compliant ABA, the class action system in this country is broken into tiny pieces. What else to do but take Honda to small claims court?
On Jan. 3 she’ll take her case to Small Claims Court in Torrance, where California law prohibits Honda from bringing an attorney. She’s asking for the maximum of $10,000 to compensate her for spending much more on gasoline than expected. Honda said the Civic would get about 50 miles per gallon, but because of technical problems the car gets closer to 30 mpg.
What’s more, Peters is using urging Honda owners across the country to do the same. Peters’ DontSettleWithHonda.org website and a DontSettleWithHonda Twitter account include a link to state-by-state instructions for filing these lawsuits, which have low fees and minimal paperwork.
In a lawsuit like this, which is very typical of consumer class actions, a $10,000 maximum is no barrier (and it is certainly preferable to $100). California, however, is not representative of all states’ approaches to small claims court, also called conciliation court. Minnesota, for example, allows representation by licensed counsel. However, it remains an open question whether Honda would expend the funds to defend against a lawsuit capped at $10k.
A surprising dose of reality for California high-speed rail
Although many of us have known and insisted all along that high speed rail is an expensive and unrealistic government boondoggle, it is rare that a state-funded and state-mandated panel would say so. The Los Angeles Times reports that that is exactly what is happening in California.
In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California’s proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.
…[I]n a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public’s interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan “is not financially feasible.”
Almost every aspect of the project is not financially feasible. Is it any wonder then, that its major backers are public unions, state and local politicians, and UC Berkeley? It reads like a most wanted poster for spending apologists.
If you want more information about this crazy train, check out Reason Magazine’s coverage. It has been very comprehensive since at least 2008.
The Herald-Tribune follows up on the corruption of the Florida law enforcement disciplinary system. By pointing this out, I don’t mean to impugn all police officers, but it is absolutely true that there are too many who are corrupt, brutal, lawbreaking, and absolutely impossible to fire:
The majority of the state’s 83,000 law enforcement officers perform their jobs with honor and distinction, but state records show that every year hundreds commit what are known as “moral character violations.”
These are not minor infractions, like showing up late to work or disrespecting a supervisor. Moral character violations often involve drugs, violence, theft, forcible sex or other crimes.
Forcible sex? Look, I know that public-sector unions [ostensibly] have the workers’ interests in mind, but aren’t our public servants themselves supposed to put the public first? Am I wrong to believe that there is an overriding public interest, and that maybe constantly reinstating officers after they rape people is a bad idea?
For example, former officers Timothy Simmons and Wyatt Henderson caused trouble in multiple agencies, but kept finding work as lawmen after misconduct cases that included falsifying reports and fondling a young girl. Like Currie, both lost their badges only after they were sent to prison. Simmons is incarcerated for rape and Henderson for a violent assault.
Well, at least you can fire them once they are in prison.
By the way, the full article is well worth reading.
The Wall Street Journal on Monday published what I originally assumed was a comedy piece; as it turns out, it was a “serious” op-ed. Written by one Thomas Geoghegan, it is called “Boeing’s Threat to American Enterprise.” It is also among the most seriously flawed articles I have ever read.
This article is very definition of veneer. It looks good on the surface to the ideologically bent, but it is so riddled with logical pockmarks that it cannot stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. A light breeze would knock over most of the “arguments” put forward here. But since I am never one to pass up free fish from a barrel, I will go ahead and take a shot.
Since I have already covered the gross injustice of retaliation laws in a previous post, I will skip the first few paragraphs. In the fourth paragraph, we happen upon problems one and two:
Why is Boeing, one of our few real global champions in beefing up exports, moving work on the Dreamliner from a high-skill work force ($28 an hour on average) to a much lower-wage work force ($14 an hour starting wage)?
First, notice the distinction – it is not “high-skill” versus “low-skill” or “high-wage” versus “low-wage.” That would be a fair fight. Instead, it is “high-skill” to “lower-wage.” The implication is that skills are always matched by wages. The reality is that this is quite untrue. For example, a professional in an equivalent entry-level job can often expect a higher salary in New York City than in Minneapolis, and in many cases, the entry-level professional in New York can outstrip even the income of the seasoned veteran in a place like, say, Iowa. It is a function of labor markets and cost of living, and not of skill alone. Perhaps a better comparison than New York versus Iowa would be Seattle versus South Carolina. Either way, wages do not determine skills.
Also note the poor attempt at sleight of hand when talking about wage rates. In Washington they are $28 an hour “on average.” In South Carolina they are $14 an hour “starting.” (Again, I assure you that this was intended as a serious op-ed.)
This is either intellectual laziness or a disingenuous attempt to cover up the fact that in non-union shops, wages are often no less than in unionized shops. I will assume that it is the latter. Neither is particularly charitable. In any case, consider the following hypothetical. There are two workplaces, A and B, each with 10 workers. In A, workers start at $14 an hour, but after a six-month probationary period move up to $100 an hour. At the moment, only 1 of 10 workers is on the probationary period. In B, workers average $28 an hour. At the moment, all 10 workers make $28 an hour.
You’ll note that in the above hypothetical, the average wage in A is actually $91.40 per hour. In B, the average is given as $28. It is blindingly obvious that comparing starting wages to average wages proves nothing, and yet it is being offered as (again, I am not making this up) “[the biggest] threat to the economic security of this country.” Seriously.
Consider another hypothetical. For simplicity we will use the same two workplaces and the same number of workers. Again, in A, workers start at $14, and in B, workers average $28. Now let us assume that, under this hypothetical, every worker in A earns between $14 and $25 an hour. You will notice that this range comes in below the average of workplace B. However, if you posit a scenario wherein 9 workers in workplace B earn $5 an hour and one earns $235 an hour, you still end up with an average of $28 an hour. Given that this type of manipulation is clearly possible, how is it proper to assume that, because South Carolina workers start at $14 an hour, they must necessarily earn less than their counterparts in Washington?
This is worse than an apples-to-oranges comparison. This is apples-to-unicorns. And remember that Geoghegan assiduously avoided comparing “high-skill” to “low-skill,” instead focusing on the alleged difference between “high-skill” and “low-wage.” Now we know why. Geoghegan cannot prove that wages are lower at purchasing power parity, or would remain lower even in nominal dollars. Nor can he prove that workers in South Carolina are less skilled than workers in Washington, which they are unlikely to be. How terribly dishonest.
But he is not finished. Prepare yourself for problems three, four, and five:
This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell. Alas, because of this trade deficit, foreign creditors have the country in their clutches. That’s not because of our labor costs—in that respect, we can undersell most of our high-wage, unionized rivals like Germany. It’s because we have too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers that are simply unable to compete.
Where to begin? Clearly, Geoghegan has never cracked an economics textbook, which I suppose is unsurprising for a union lawyer. “This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell”? Where did he come up with that? It is, in fact, a bald-faced, self-serving lie.
This country undoubtedly faces a debt crisis, but it is because the government spends much more than it takes in in revenue. The country runs a trade deficit because it imports more than it exports. To those who skipped 10th grade macroeconomics, the debt is not the same as the trade deficit.
But in the very next sentence, Geoghegan switches to a statement about the trade deficit. Again, he obfuscates. The national debt is enormous because people like Geoghegan insist that the government tax the productive to give ever more benefits to the unproductive, like Geoghegan and his clients. It has nothing at all to do with where union shops and every other firm in the United States end up shipping their products and services. It is a non-sequitur, probably again meant to disingenuously cover-up Geoghegan’s own total lack of useful knowledge of the subject.
And consider his statement about the trade deficit – “foreign creditors have the country in their clutches.” This is conclusory, vaguely racist, certainly xenophobic, ignorant, unsupported, and ultimately false. The leverage in creditor-debtor relationships always depends on the security involved. Where creditors have something to foreclose or levy on, creditors have leverage. Where debts are unsecured, debtors have leverage.
Anyone who claims that foreign creditors have us over a barrel conveniently ignores the fact that a default would most likely hurt “them” far more than it hurts “us.” (I use the quotation marks because I do not believe in separating peaceful traders into antagonistic and protagonistic groups, regardless of political and ethnic borders. There is no “us” and “them” in peaceful and productive trade.)
Finally, the assertion that the United States has “too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers” to compete globally is an absolute farce. If this were indeed the case, how would Geoghegan explain the persistent underemployment of college-educated workers? By many accounts, underemployment among the college-educated has expanded at a pace roughly equivalent to the increase in college education attainment. If, by positing a lack of skilled labor as the root cause of our trade deficit, he means to suggest that the marketplace would magically provide a good job to every worker with a good education, he is living in fantasyland. And in any case, persistent underemployment of the educated does nothing to explain trade deficits.
Neither does the conclusory proposition that the country lacks “skilled” workers give any indication of what skills might be needed. Ironically, the Boeing factory workers Geoghegan took to the Journal pages to defend are overwhelmingly unskilled labor. Experienced, perhaps, but not skilled. In point of fact, the marketplace determines which skills are necessary, and which skills are best left to others. The law of comparative advantage is another economics 101 principle overlooked here.
As if obfuscation, manipulation of average-versus-starting numbers, disingenuous conflation of debt and trade deficits, and blatant ignorance of fact were not enough, Geoghegan continues on with the use of anecdotal evidence to prove a broad conclusion. Hence, problem number six:
We depend on Boeing to out-compete Airbus, its European rival. But when major firms move South, it is usually a harbinger of quality decline. Over and over as a labor lawyer in the 1980s and ’90s, I saw companies move away from Chicago, where the pay was $28 an hour, to some place in South Carolina or Louisiana where the pay was about half that. While these moves aggrieved me as a union lawyer, it might have consoled me as an American if those companies went on to thrive globally.
But too often, alas, it was the beginning of the end, as it was for Outboard Marine Corporation, where I once represented workers. In the 1990s the company went from the high wage union North to the low wage South and was bankrupt by 2000.
The implication here is that there was nothing else going on but labor issues. Even if that were the case, Outboard Marine would be a single example in a sea of data and unable to support a conclusion. However, even that is not the case. A simple Wikipedia search indicates that there was far more to the Outboard Marine bankruptcy than met the eye. In fact, sales of this pleasure boat and engine company were dipping since the oil shocks of the 1970s.
Consider that in 1980, the Department of Energy proposed that boating be banned on weekends, and combined with gasoline price concerns, sales plummeted. A rebound was only achieved by, among other things, reduction in the workforce by one-third, which would certainly not be applauded by Geoghegan. Likewise, the company was embroiled in a 14-year-long litigation with the U.S. EPA and Illinois environmental bureaucracy regarding pollution from its Illinois plant that resulted in millions of dollars in fines and costs. I think, perhaps, the persistent problems with the Illinois plant would also be plausible cause for the location change.
Finally, the boat market peaked in 1988 and then went into a “tailspin.” So it seems as though the company was already in serious decline in the late 1980s, despite Geoghegan’s suggestion that the problem had its genesis in the move south in the 1990s. Assigning a particular cause to a company’s failure where many more plausible causes exist is self-serving and lacks credibility.
Geoghegan’s article also suffers from conclusory statements that lack any serious proof. In my opinion, where Geoghegan offers a conclusion, he should back it with facts. Take problem number seven for example:
There are reasons workers in the North get $28 an hour while down in the South they get $14 or even $10. Adam Smith could explain it: “productivity,” “skill level,” “quality.”
Prove to me that productivity, skill level, and quality are worse in the South. Prove to me that they necessarily suffer with lower wages. I have already explained that wages and skills do not have a clear cause-and-effect relationship that moves in a single direction, especially when dealing with multiple areas of the country where costs of living are disparate. I defy Geoghegan to prove a cause-and-effect relationship with regard to wages and productivity, or wages and quality, or “Southern-ness” and productivity.
I would argue that there are a staggering number of counterexamples. If it were true that quality suffers when production moves to the South, why are Hyundais (built in Alabama) now consistently ranked as among the most dependable cars while Chryslers (built in Michigan) languish at the bottom of consumer-advocacy lists and in repair shops all over the country?
If skill is absent in the South, why does the country build its Naval weaponry in places like Virginia? If Newport News can handle an aircraft carrier, certainly there is more to the state’s workforce than drooling rubes in trailer parks?
And the insinuation that it is a North versus South issue, rather than a right-to-work versus forced-union issue is insulting to about half of the country. Northerners, we are supposed to believe, are naturally superior in every way, and it could not be possible that productive and skillful workers could exist south of Mason-Dixon.
Putting aside the pathetic fact that the Geoghegan is apparently not yet over the Reconstruction, we may note that he makes no mention of the fact that workers are mobile, people can move to whatever state they want, and jobs tend to follow job-friendly climates. It is as if, in Geoghegan’s mind, the economy is a fixed and zero-sum pie, and all we need concern ourselves with is who gets the biggest piece.
At this point, one may be fairly amazed at how many fallacies are packed into a few paragraphs. I promise I am almost finished. Of course, Geoghegan cannot help himself, and obfuscates again. problem number eight:
Here is yet another American firm seeking to ruin its reputation for quality. Why? To save $14 an hour! Seriously: Is that going to help sell the Dreamliner? In terms of the finished product, the labor cost is minuscule: $14 in hourly wage, at most.
The obfuscation should be blindingly obvious. Leaving aside my earlier hypotheticals on wages, consider that Geoghegan seems to want to suggest that the only labor input involved in building the Boeing 787 comes from those on the factory floor. Wrong. He also suggests that the difference is $14 an hour at most. Wrong again (see above, re “starting” wages). He also states that labor costs are miniscule for the 787. Wrong a third time.
Geoghegan ignores a few facts, namely that production and development costs run into the billions; wages among workers of the same type can be highly variable; and both white-collar and blue-collar workers work on the 787. This may be convenient for his “argument,” but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
After all of this, you may assume that Geoghegan has made as many errors as could be expected of anybody. You would be correct, but Geoghegan goes for the extra credit by bringing in partisanship, or problem number nine:
It’s incredible that conservatives claim such small differences in labor cost would be life or death to Boeing. It’s not labor cost but labor skill that is life or death to the survival of Boeing, never mind pilots and passengers.
Ah, the dread specter of conservatism! Partisanship is the last resort of the feeble-minded. I feel no need for elaboration on this point.
Alas, Geoghegan cannot help himself, and he continues with problem number 10:
At this moment especially, deep in debt, we cannot afford to let another company like Boeing self-destruct. Boeing is not a product of the free market—it’s an extension of the U.S. government. Over the years, our taxpayers have paid to create a Boeing work force with exceptionally high skills. That work force is not just an asset for Boeing—it’s an asset for the country.
Again, Geoghegan brings up the issue of national debt, which he has previously proven that he does not understand, and again he attempts to tie it into something completely unrelated. I feel no need to elaborate further on this either, but suffice it to say that movement of a private company within the borders of a single country has no impact on that country’s national debt.
And the idea that Boeing is “an extension of the U.S. government” because taxpayers “have paid to create” the workforce is scary in its implications. I presume that the idea that taxpayers have been paying for its workforce is an extension of two concepts – first, the fact that Boeing sells some equipment to the government, and second, because the government imposes itself on the school system and thus has educated some of Boeing’s workers.
If it is true that, by serving the government as a contractor, a company becomes “an extension” of the government, then we are all extensions of the government. There really is nothing anymore that it truly private, and this is because the government has imposed itself on a truly mind-boggling array of issues over which it should rightly have no authority.
This, of course, leads to circular reasoning. If we may justify federal intervention into Boeing because Boeing has a nexus with the federal government, then all the government must do to justify its intervention is intervene.
But that is not the scary part. If we “owe” the government for its “service” to us (which, by the way, it has imposed on many of us whether we wanted it or not), then we are nothing but vassals of the government. The state owns us, our bodies, our production. We are slaves. In fact, the entire system envisioned by this assumption very closely tracks the social and political organization of the Soviet Union.
I was tempted to leave it at a round 10, but I am not quite finished. There is more ridiculous obfuscation. So here is a bonus – problem 11:
Most depressing of all, Boeing’s move would send a market signal to those considering a career in engineering or high-skilled manufacturing. It is a message that corporate America has delivered over and over: Don’t [sic] go to engineering school, don’t bother with fancy apprenticeships, don’t invest in skills. No rational person wants to take on college or even community college debt to come out and work on the Dreamliner—which should be the country’s finest product—for a miserable $14 an hour.
A union lawyer should know better. Skilled professionals like engineers are considered managers and do not tend to be unionized. The idea that people are being discouraged from engineering because they face the prospect of white-collar employment in a free state is patently ridiculous.
In fact, people would be discouraged from engineering because the unskilled union factory workers have been allowed to become an immovable obstacle to the engineers’ putting their designs into practice. Why design the Dreamliner, after all, if the person who screws the overhead bins together can prevent it from ever being built?
And the idea that engineers are being discouraged because some workers start at $14 an hour is also clearly ridiculous, and all but the most blindly partisan (Geoghegan) can see through the transparent ploy. Why would someone decide not to pursue a degree in aeronautical engineering because the guy who glues the carpet down starts at $14 an hour? If Geoghegan means to suggest that engineers are being discouraged because of factory line workers’ wages, then perhaps he has forgotten that people are not fungible.
In retrospect, tearing apart this absolutely ridiculous op-ed has been a bit fun as well as a bit exhausting. It pains me to think that people actually conceive of arguments this way, especially people who find themselves near the corridors of power.
However, I also see exactly why the Wall Street Journal chose to publish it. Of course they want their editorial page to have some balance. By publishing this dreck, which would be D-minus work for a fifth grade essay, they are showing what they think of the union argument. Balanced indeed. Balanced like a fox.