Why does the NYT even have a “Business” section anymore?

It’s getting to the point where first-year college students have a better understanding of economics than the reporters who cover business stories for the New York Times. Witness this latest offering about measures that some companies have been taking to cut labor costs without laying off workers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/business/22layoffs.html

The article reads like a feel-good piece. The nice companies care about their workers, and the nice workers are willing to make sacrifices to help the company. What a crock of manure.

Sure, there are some companies and workers that fit that description. But there are two very major and obvious economic factors that are totally ignored by the article’s authors.

The first is that companies have a big incentive to avoid layoffs, in any economy, but particularly when they are hurting. The more employees you lay off, the more you have to pay in unemployment insurance in the following year, and for a few years thereafter. In the long run, it can cost you more to lay off an employee than you save, especially if they are part-time workers who aren’t costing you health benefits.

The second factor, which applies on the other side of the coin, is that not every company can implement these creative measures with regard to benefits and salaries even if they want to. Changes such as these have to be negotiated with unions and cannot be implemented unilaterally by the company. Some unions are smart and are willing to work with the company to preserve jobs. Many, however, are stubborn and cling to the smallest privileges. This forces companies to fall back on what they can do without having to get the unions to agree, which is layoff employees.

I don’t know how you write this article without mentioning either of those important aspects – unless you’re ignorant of the subject you’re being paid to cover.

We need to find out who’s naughty and nice.

The Wall Street Journal warns that President-elect Obama’s Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, is going to be under pressure to weaken the government’s oversight of labor unions (and indeed seems to support doing so):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990431323225179.html

Isn’t it ironic that the only time Big Labor supports smaller government is when it’s the part of government that keeps an eye on them?

There simply is no possible justification for preventing workers from voting by secret ballot on unionization initiatives. And it is union members themselves who benefit most from the government’s efforts to make sure unions are transparent about how their dues are being spent. Reporting requirements for unions are miniscule compared to what non-profits and corporations must provide, so weakening them doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. What Big Labor is hoping is that they can accomplish these changes very quietly without attracting much in the way of public notice. Let’s see whether the mainstream media takes their reporting responsibility as seriously as they like to claim, or whether there’s a double standard in their vigor when it comes to exposing sneakiness on the Left.

The truth about the Bush Administration

Even the most ardent Bush-haters out there should admit that most of the information we get about the Bush Administration and its policies comes to us filtered through a defiantly biased lens.  In response to this, Ed Gillespie debunks a number of widely-believed accusations against the Administration that are not so well supported by the facts:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/myths_and_facts_about_the_real.html

Of course, Gillespie is as biased a source as they come, just in the other direction. So one must put his information together with what we already know in order to get an accurate picture.

One area Gillespie doesn’t even touch on is the Administration’s great efforts toward the eradication of AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. Anyone involved in AIDS relief activities – no matter how left-wing they may be – will tell you that the Bush Administration has been by far the best in this area. It’s not something the mainstream media wants you to be reminded of, though.

Liberals vs. Conservatives: Charity contest

Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof discovers in the NYT that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

He breaks down several variables including the impact of religious giving and giving to organizations that don’t have a big impact on the truly less fortunate. He also points out that conservatives volunteer more and give blood more often.

In fairness, conservatives *should* be more charitable in principle. If we believe that it is not the government’s job to look after the less fortunate, it is up to us to provide a non-governmental solution, and that means charities and volunteerism. Liberals can argue that they support raising taxes on themselves to support government programs for the poor and disadvantaged.

I like Kristof’s call for a good-natured competition between liberals and conservatives to see who can do more for the less fortunate. During hard economic times, charity becomes all the more important. Although we may be having a harder time ourselves, there is always somebody in worse shape.

This year, I made a point to give more to charity than I have in the past. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to do even better next year. I hope you will, too.