Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Shooting in Little Rock

I used to live in Little Rock,  so waking up this morning to the news of the shooting in Little Rock was a bit of a shock.  Fortunately, the expletive expletive who did the shooting was a bad shot and nobody got killed.

I don’t even know how to comment on this, though, so I’m going to just to put it up… This is a screenshot I just took from the night club’s website which shows the act that was performing last night. I guess what with the events of the last few hours it didn’t occur to anyone to take it down:
power lounge screen shot 1

 

Click to embiggen.

There’s a video floating around (look for it yourself) showing the shooting.   There were an awful lot of shots fired very, very quickly.  No innocent bystander with another gun could have stopped the shooter before he killed quite a few people; the only saving grace is that the shooter was incompetent.

I don’t have much to add except that there must be some happy medium, some better outcome for a country than where we are now.  We need to arrive at a point of where there are fewer guns that can shoot as quickly, or fewer such guns in the hands of people who would use them, or fewer people who would use them floating around.  I suspect all of the above is the best option, but I have no practical ideas how to get there.

 

 

Tags: , Comments (2) | |

Some Examples of the Hiring Process

A just-released paper by the Behavioral Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA) looks at hiring processes in the Australian Public Service Commission. Here’s the summary:

This study assessed whether women and minorities are discriminated against in the early stages of the recruitment process for senior positions in the APS, while also testing the impact of implementing a ‘blind’ or de-identified approach to reviewing candidates.

Over 2,100 public servants from 14 agencies participated in the trial. They completed an exercise in which they shortlisted applicants for a hypothetical senior role in their agency. Participants were randomly assigned to receive application materials for candidates in standard form or in de-identified form (with information about candidate gender, race and ethnicity removed).

We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority candidates:

– Participants were 2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified.
– Minority males were 5.8% more likely to be shortlisted and minority females were 8.6% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when applications were de-identified.
– The positive discrimination was strongest for Indigenous female candidates who were 22.2% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when the applications were de-identified.

Interestingly, male reviewers displayed markedly more positive discrimination in favour of minority candidates than did female counterparts, and reviewers aged 40+ displayed much stronger affirmative action in favour for both women and minorities than did younger ones.

Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the Australian Public Service, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.

Ignoring the authors’ failure to write in proper American, I can think of four very obvious reasons for the results described in the paragraph that begins with the word “Interestingly.” I wonder whether the people who did this study realized what was going on and decided to opt for discretion over valor.

On not-quite-the-same topic, here’s a 2010 paper by Ruffle and Shtudenter:

Job applicants in Europe and in Israel increasingly imbed a headshot of themselves in the top corner of their CVs. We sent 5312 CVs in pairs to 2656 advertised job openings. In each pair, one CV was without a picture while the second, otherwise almost identical CV contained a picture of either an attractive male/female or a plain-looking male/female. Employer callbacks to attractive men are significantly higher than to men with no picture and to plain-looking men, nearly doubling the latter group. Strikingly, attractive women do not enjoy the same beauty premium. In fact, women with no picture have a significantly higher rate of callbacks than attractive or plain-looking women. We explore a number of explanations and provide evidence that female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace is a primary reason for the punishment of attractive women.

So, who are the fiends discriminating against unattractive men and attractive women? Well, it turns out that they are the people staffing the HR department in various companies. And who staffs the HR department?

In light of the above, the jealousy explanation seems especially fitting when we consider that 93% of the respondents in our sample were female (as determined by their voice when they left a voicemail message, their name when they sent an email or by a discreet phone call to the company when there was any doubt as to the respondent’s sex). One may be concerned that the person calling back to invite the candidate for an interview may not be the same discriminating person who screened the CVs. Yet, human resource departments in Israel and indeed throughout the West are staffed predominantly by women. To verify this stereotype, we asked to speak with the person who screens candidates’ CV when conducting the post-experiment survey. In 24 of the 25 (96%) companies we interviewed that person is a female. Moreover, these woman are young (ranging in age from 23 to 34 with an average age of 29) and typically single (16/24 or 67%) – qualities more likely to be associated with a jealous response when confronted with a young, attractive competitor in the workplace.

I think the authors are on pretty safe ground when they note that this phenomenon is largely due to the gender of those typically staffing HR departments.  I am not as convinced that jealousy is the root cause of their behavior, though.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (0) | |

Explaining the Gender Wage Gap

From Thomas Edsall in the NY Times

At one end of the scale, men continue to dominate.

In 2016, 95.8 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs were male and so were 348 of the Forbes 400. Of the 260 people on the Forbes list described as “self-made,” 250 were men. Wealth — and the ability to generate more wealth — must still be considered a reliable proxy for power.

But at the other end of the scale, men of all races and ethnicities are dropping out of the work force, abusing opioids and falling behind women in both college attendance and graduation rates.

Edsall’s comments are very compatible with this by Deary et al:

There is uncertainty whether the sexes differ with respect to their mean levels and variabilities in mental ability test scores. Here we describe the cognitive ability distribution in 80,000+ children—almost everyone born in Scotland in 1921—tested at age 11 in 1932. There were no significant mean differences in cognitive test scores between boys and girls, but there was a highly significant difference in their standard deviations (P<.001). Boys were over-represented at the low and high extremes of cognitive ability. These findings, the first to be presented from a whole population, might in part explain such cognitive outcomes as the slight excess of men achieving first class university degrees, and the excess of males with learning difficulties.

It is also compatible with this by Lynn and Kanazawa:

This paper presents the results of a longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence as a test of Lynn’s (1994) hypothesis that from the age of 16 years males develop higher average intelligence than females. The results show that at the ages of 7 and 11 years girls have an IQ advantage of approximately 1 IQ point, but at the age of 16 years this changes in the same boys and girls to an IQ advantage of 1.8 IQ points for boys.

Lynn and Kanazawa’s paper sample is for all kids born in Great Britain during one fine week in March of 1958. The abstract and the paper focuses on mean differences.  They seem to mean a lot to the two authors, and most especially Lynn, but to me the differences in mean are small and of lesser importance than other things they note.   To mangle a metaphor, the multiplier (when it comes to differences in population outcomes) is the standard deviation.  To see what I mean, here are a couple of tables from the Lynn and Kanazawa paper:

Lynn and Kanazawa tables

Notice the standard deviations are larger for males in every sub-sample. What they tell you is that even if the mean intelligence of men and women is the same, you expect far many more idiots and far many more geniuses among men than among women in most areas of human endeavor that require something identifiable as cognition or IQ.

But it’s not just at the tails; you expect to see more “pretty stupid” and “pretty smart” men than women. The female population simply displays less variance at all ends of the spectrum.

Neuroscientists are also finding that there is more variability in men’s brains than in women’s. Which is to say, patterns of variability in measures of cognition observed in the studies mentioned earlier are very likely to apply to other fields as well.

Now, consider making money. Everyone does it to some extent. But we should see more variation men’s earnings than women’s earnings.

Throw on one more detail: income distributions are truncated at the bottom. There is a minimum wage, after all. People simply don’t get paid less than that. But even in the absence of a minimum wage, people who don’t make enough to survive are very euphemistically removed from the distribution.  In fact, in most careers, there is a baseline and most people earn closer to that baseline than to the level that superstars in the field make.  People’s abilities may fall on a standard normal distribution, but incomes are described by something that more closely resembles a Chi-Squared distribution.

Which is to say, chunks are taken out from the bottom end of the female and male income distributions. However, a larger proportion of the low end of the male distribution is removed because, due to the larger male variance, more men fall below the floor.

That right there is the gender wage gap, as well as Edsall’s observation.

You disagree? Does today’s America’s differ from what you would expect in a world were men and women have similar intelligence, but men have a great deal more variance? If it does, tell me how.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (13) | |

Gay Pride Around the World

We begin in the US:

…the Dyke March Collective also ejected three people carrying Jewish Pride flags (a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the center).
According to one of those individuals—A Wider Bridge Midwest Manager Laurel Grauer—she and her friends were approached a number of times in the park because they were holding the flag.

“It was a flag from my congregation which celebrates my queer, Jewish identity which I have done for over a decade marching in the Dyke March with the same flag,” she told Windy City Times.

She added that she lost count of the number of people who harassed her.

One Dyke March collective member asked by Windy City Times for a response, said the women were told to leave because the flags “made people feel unsafe,” that the march was “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”

“They were telling me to leave because my flag was a trigger to people that they found offensive,” Grauer said. “Prior to this [march] I had never been harassed or asked to leave and I had always carried the flag with me.”

Another of those individuals asked to leave was an Iranian Jew named Eleanor Shoshany-Anderson.

“I was here as a proud Jew in all of my identities,” Shoshany-Anderson asserted. “The Dyke March is supposed to be intersectional. I don’t know why my identity is excluded from that. I fell that, as a Jew, I am not welcome here.”

A statement posted June 25 on the Dyke March Twitter account read, in part, “Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer and trans solidarity was partly overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally. This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Dyke March Collective members.”

“Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer and trans solidarity was partly overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally. This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Dyke March Collective members.”

“People asked me if I was a Zionist and I said ‘Yes, I do care about the state of Israel but I also believe in a two-state solution and an independent Palestine,'” Grauer said. “It’s hard to swallow the idea of inclusion when you are excluding people from that. People are saying ‘You can be gay but not in this way.’ We do not feel welcomed. We do not feel included.”

In their statement, Dyke March Collective organizers singled out Grauer’s organization A Wider Bridge for what they called “provocative actions at other LGBTQ events [and] for using Israel’s supposed ‘LGBTQ tolerance’ to pinkwash the violent occupation of Palestine.”

Social-media posts in support of the Dyke March Collective also claimed that a rainbow flag with a Star of David is a form of pink washing (a theory postulated by a City University of New York professor which claims that Israeli support of LGBTQ communities is designed to detract attention from civil and human rights abuses of Palestinian people.)

At about the same time, in Turkey:

Turkish police on Sunday prevented an attempt by Gay Pride activists to hold a parade in Istanbul, the country’s largest city, in defiance of an official ban by the local authorities.
Police fired rubber bullets at a group of around 40 activists, an AFP journalist reported, a day after the city governor’s office banned the march citing safety and public order concerns.

Small groups gathered at Taksim Square but witnesses said there was a heavy police presence which outnumbered the activists, and at least four people were detained.

It is the third year in a row that the march has been banned, and organisers denounced the move.

“We are not scared, we are here, we will not change,” the Pride Committee said in a statement.

Of course they were not scared – there were no stars of David around.

In other gay pride news, last month in Tel Aviv:

Some 200,000 people took part in Tel Aviv’s Gay Pride Parade on Friday, of which approximately 30,000 had joined the celebrations from abroad, organizers said. With many roads closed to traffic for the occasion, the parade made its way through the heart of the city to the waterfront in a display of floats, music, dancers and rainbow flags.

It was the city’s 19th pride parade and according to Tel Aviv’s municipality, the largest in the Middle East and Asia, with a high number of international revelers arriving over the course of the week to take part in the parade and its related events. This year, the theme of the parade was “bisexual visibility.”

Not everyone at the parade was there to celebrate, however. Dozens of Israeli LGBTQ activists at one point blocked the Tel Aviv parade in protest against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The protesters erected a mock separation barrier upon which was written, “There’s no pride in occupation,” the website +972 Magazine reported. The protesters prevented the parade from proceeding through the city center for a few minutes, but were swiftly moved by police.

Pride parades are expected to be held in Be’er Sheva and Haifa and August in Jerusalem later on this month.

Also last month

A gay Palestinian man appealed to the High Court of Justice on Thursday to overturn the Interior Ministry’s decision to refuse him residency status, saying he risks death if he returns to the West Bank.

His petition testified that Palestinian police had arrested, tortured and severely beaten him because he is openly gay. Most members of his family have disowned him, and those who haven’t have warned him by phone to never come home, he stated.

The man has lived in Tel Aviv — widely hailed as one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world — with his partner for the last decade. The couple say that the Interior Ministry has repeatedly rejected their petition to legalize the Palestinian’s residence in Israel.

People who don’t understand how the world works do stupid things, make stupid assumptions, and ask stupid questions:

Why won't

Usually that sort of stupid brings on horrible consequences. Fortunately, the universe occasionally displays a sense of humor.
cbs sitcom

Click on images to embiggen.

 

More on the above photo here.

Tags: , , , , Comments (3) | |

George Borjas on the New Immigration Meme

George Borjas, perhaps the US’ pre-eminent immigration economist notes:

Maybe it’s just me because I instinctively read in between the lines whenever I read anything about immigration, but I’m beginning to detect such a seismic shift in the immigration debate. We all know the party line by now: Immigrants do jobs that natives don’t want to do. As a result, natives do not lose jobs, and natives do not see their wages reduced. And anyone who claims otherwise is obviously a racist xenophobic moron. They obviously don’t like immigrants, and they obviously are not educated/credentialed enough to understand and appreciate expert opinion.

The flurry of immigration restrictions proposed by the Trump administration demands a switch in tactics–with a corresponding switch in the argument linking immigration and wages. The party line must now be that less immigration is bad. But how can one show that in simple-to-grasp economic terms that can be mass-marketed to the masses? By far the simplest way is to come up with examples that less immigration raises labor costs and makes us miserable because everything becomes more expensive.

Borjas goes on:

There is no upper bound to the hypocrisy of experts. It might be a lot of fun to keep track of this over the next few years, watching the dominos fall and all those “immigration-does-not-affect-wages” experts fall all over themselves as they switch to proving the economic awfulness of Trump’s actions because fewer immigrants mean higher labor costs, higher prices, more inflation.

But don’t hold your breath for any admission that they were wrong in the past. They will instantly switch to the former party line the minute the Trump immigration restrictions fade into history.

I have nothing to add.

Tags: , , , Comments (24) | |

Men, Woman, Cooperation and the Gender Pay Gap

Here is a working paper by Leonie Gerhards and Michael Kosfeld entitled I (Don’t) Like You! But Who Cares? Gender Differences in Same Sex and Mixed Sex Teams. The abstract reads as follows:

We study the effect of likability on female and male team behavior in a lab experiment. Extending a two-player public goods game and a minimum effort game by an additional pre-play stage that informs team members about their mutual likability we find that female teams lower their contribution to the public good in case of low likability, while male teams achieve high levels of cooperation irrespective of the level of mutual likability. In mixed sex teams, both females’ and males’ contributions depend on mutual likability. Similar results are found in the minimum effort game. Our results offer a new perspective on gender differences in labor market outcomes: mutual dislikability impedes team behavior, except in all-male teams.

Aside from that, the paper seems interesting though I should be fair and note I only had time to skim it. Still, if the paper holds up, it requires an explanation.

The first thing to note is that the paper deals with perceived likability rather than actual likability, and the measures come from how participants in the experiment rate photographs of other participants. However, these measures seem to be reasonably stable – an individual rated as likable by one person tends to be rated as likable by others.

Beyond this, we get to a very non-PC explanation for the results the authors found: men and women are said to approach social interactions differently. One often hears that men are more insensitive or otherwise don’t observe social cues the same way women do. There is also some evidence from biology that “males are predisposed to be more ready than females to repair their relationship.” Put another way – it would seem that in a group of people, men are less likely to have friction with others than are women. Two individuals who “get over it” are more likely to successfully cooperate than two individuals who maintain animosity toward each other. And even if only one person is unable to “get over it” that will negatively impact the team performance.

If this result replicates, and if it translates outside a lab environment, it may imply something about the gender pay gap. Playing well with others – coworkers, customers, and other third parties – is an important though often unstated part of every job.

As a sort of aside… I remember once watching a comedy sketch in which the comedian (sorry, I cannot remember who) talked about how, if two women found themselves at a party wearing the same outfits, they’d spend the rest of the rest of the party avoiding each other. On the other hand, according to the comedian, each of two men wearing the same outfit at a party, upon spotting each other would have a new best friend.

Tags: , , , Comments (16) | |

Intelligence and Education

I’ve noted a few times that the political center needs to come to grips with research on genes and intelligence or we risk ceding the field to people with scary impulses and frightening goals. I think something like what the center-left position should be is reasonably well articulated by Richard J. Haier. Haier is a professor emeritus in the University of California at Irvine medical school, editor in chief of the journal Intelligence, and he was one of the signators of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography in 1994.

Here is a recent article by Haier:

Historically, assaults on intelligence research were launched as a reaction to studies that suggested that average intelligence test scores were lower for some disadvantaged and minority groups. Combined with the possibility that intelligence might be genetically determined, this incendiary combination resulted in efforts to discredit the validity of intelligence tests and genetic studies. Concurrently, there was a single-minded focus on environmental factors as the predominant, if not only, influence on differences in mental abilities and the cause of achievement gaps.

This has led to 50 years of earnest and expensive but largely futile attempts to reduce education achievement gaps. These include focuses on early childhood education, raising students’ expectations, smaller classes, better teacher training, more testing and greater accessibility of challenging classes. Such interventions should not be expected to reduce gaps appreciably given the consistent research that shows that such variables do not influence academic achievement all that much – especially compared with the large effect of a student’s intelligence.

Education is for individuals. It does not matter if there are average intelligence differences among groups defined by poverty or race because there is more overlap than separation. As in modern medicine, any genetic influences, although real, are best thought about as probabilistic rather than deterministic. Basic neurobiology is the same for all humans, and both genetic and neuroimaging research connects neurobiology to intelligence. Understanding the complexities of how this works has potential for designing ways to improve mental ability and maximise education for all students, irrespective of background.

No one is well served by education reforms that neglect research findings on the nature of intelligence and its central role in student achievement. Neuroscience and intelligence research cannot solve all the issues of failing schools and education, but it is time to follow the data and add what we know from these perspectives to discussions about what research to fund, and what reforms to try next.

(The bolding is mine.)

While this may be anathema to much of our educational and academic establishment, it is, from what I can tell, pretty close to the position of the best -known researchers in the field like Stephen Pinker and James Flynn. Which is to say, the position is mainstream science on intelligence.

We ignore that at all of our peril.

Tags: , , , Comments (30) | |

Cultural Appropriation

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:

Indigenous advocates from around the world are calling on a UN committee to make appropriating Indigenous cultures illegal — and to do it quickly.

Delegates from 189 countries, including Canada, are in Geneva this week as part of a specialized international committee within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency.

Here’s more:

Speaking to the committee Monday, James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, said the UN’s negotiated document should “obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions.”

Anaya said the document should also look at products that are falsely advertised as Indigenous made or endorsed by Indigenous groups.

Canadians often aggravate peaceful and reasonable people all over the world. Because of that, it is no surprise to find Canada among the worst offenders when it comes to abuse of the indigenous population:

There are Indigenous groups from around the world taking part in this round of negotiations, including groups from New Zealand, Kenya, Mexico, Colombia and the United States.
There is no Indigenous representation in the Canadian delegation.

Officials with Global Affairs Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Canadian Heritage are taking part in this round of negotiations, but the lack of Canadian Indigenous representatives is drawing criticism from the Assembly of First Nations.

In any scenario in which property rights are being assigned, there are always eager claimants. Fortunately, when it comes to the Canadian First Nations, one of the tribal elders and knowledge keepers can tell us precisely who are the authorities who should oversee the creation of guidelines and a process for utilizing Indigenous knowledge in any activities:

“The elders and knowledge keepers are the authorities who should oversee the creation of guidelines and a process for utilizing Indigenous knowledge in any activities,” Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde told CBC in a written statement.

But once again there is the issue of the exploitative nature of the Canadians:

There was no word on whether the federal government plans to consult with the AFN after this round of negotiations wraps up on Friday.

Now, I am not an attorney, but I cannot understand how this could work separately from the copyright and patent process. And to my knowledge, copyrights and patents don’t touch on culture. Nor to my knowledge do they get assigned to large groups of people and administered by a council of elders.

Culture, from what I can tell, is a tough thing to assign. For example, the Navajo (mentioned in the CBC article) are well known for their blankets, suggesting that production of anything resembling such blankets and their design should involve royalties paid to the Navajo. And for a new design, copyright laws work fine. But my reading of the UN’s intent is that older designs (say those that have been in use for a long time) or even the very concept of a “Navajo design” rate protection and payment to the Navajo tribe.

However, there is some evidence that the creation of those blankets is a recent phenomenon. It may be that a Spanish trader came up with the whole idea. It hasn’t, so far, been in anyone’s interest to dig very deeply into the issue. But, if it turned out that the concept of Navajo blankets is, in fact, the brainchild of some unwashed and forgotten Spaniard of a few centuries back, what then? Would the Navajo owe the Spanish three hundred years worth of royalties? And which Spanish people are owed? No doubt among the various claimants to the Spanish empire, a council of elders could be assembled. And of course, the council of elders would decide that the council of elders should decide.

If the UN goes the route it’s headed, someone will have to tackle problems like these. Plus, it isn’t going to stop with the rights of what tend to be called indigenous people. After all, the First People seem to actually be the second people, having mostly wiped the actual first people out. That, of course, is a sadly consistent feature of human history. With the possible exception of the San, every one of us descend from butchers who engaged in genocide and other atrocities.

In a world where “indigenous” seems to simply mean “former conquerors who have since been vanquished” here’s the sort of issue that will eventually come up: is it cultural appropriation for non Jews to treat Jerusalem as a Holy City? Even accounting for the UN’s anti-Semitism, that question alone will result in quite a show. So when it comes, get comfortable. Take out your mouth-plate, loosen up your piu piu, adjust your koteka, kick off your moccasins, put up your feet and enjoy.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (10) | |

Where Have All the Unions Gone and Where Are All the Jobs?*

Economics is a simple field. Just about everything can be described in terms of supply and demand. If the supply of something is scarce but the demand for it is strong, its price rises. On the other hand, if there is a lot of supply but little demand, its price will go down.

Now, buyers and sellers can engage in certain strategies to weight the scales. For example, sellers of a product can band together (perhaps by buying each other out) to achieve some amount of monopoly power. Conversely, buyers of a product can collude to bid down the cost of purchasing.

This is, of course, true for the market for labor. And in the labor market, one classic way for sellers of labor (i.e., workers) to raise their bargaining power, and therefore their pay, is to band together into unions. What makes unions effective is that:

1. Union members commit to acting in concert
2. While it is easy for a company with a 1,000 person assembly line to replace a few people at a time without missing a beat, replacing all 1,000 at once would seriously crimp operations.

As a result, the cost of workforce dissatisfaction to a company with a unionized workforce is greater than the cost of workforce of dissatisfaction to a company without a unionized workforce. Therefore, a company with unionized workforce will, all else being equal, be willing to make greater concessions on pay and working conditions than the same company would be if its workforce was not unionized.

But a union is not a guarantee of anything. After all, a union can be broken. And all you need to break is to make sure there is a sufficiently large, inexpensive workforce capable of replacing the unionized workforce. There might be short term pain, but on paper at least, after that its all profit.

Which brings me to this story in the NY Times. Its about a small town in Iowa heavily reliant on the meat packing industry. Despite the Times’ clear and omnipresent bias that more immigration is always a positive thing, the following paragraph provides a good summary of the entire piece:

At that point, Mr. Smith returned to do night cleanup, earning $5.50 an hour with no benefits, but a vast majority of his former co-workers were turned away, he said, because the new owner did not want to hire union supporters. Instead, the company began actively recruiting in Mexico and immigrant communities in Texas and California.

If there are enough low-skilled immigrants, unions cannot compete. They chose to turn a blind eye toward illegal immigration because they felt it was good for business. Democrats also understood that decades ago and sided with unions. This is because Democrats felt it was good for society if factory workers could enjoy a middle class lifestyle. In the past decade, Democrats have changed. (The reason for this may be the subject of a future post.)

But regardless of politics, the facts are simple: except in very limited circumstances, one cannot simultaneously have strong both unions and virtually unrestricted immigration.

* With apologies to Bonnie Tyler. And my sympathies to American workers who also need a hero.

Tags: , , , Comments (10) | |