Here are some highlights:
By Fiona Halligan reasonJune 24, 2024.
excerpt:
Due to population and economic stagnation strike In many parts of the Midwest, some policy analysts and elected officials support The idea behind location-based visas to attract highly skilled immigrants to regions facing decline or stagnation was endorsed again this weekend.
The US Conference of Mayors is a nonpartisan organization of mayors and other elected officials representing cities with populations of 30,000 or more.It is called He called on federal lawmakers to enact a “Heartland Visa” to bring highly skilled immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs to areas facing population loss and economic decline.
Josh Blackman reason, June 28, 2024.
excerpt:
That’s a tall order! The standards she sets are so complicated that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to meet them. And maybe that’s the point. Judge Barrett, more than anyone else on the Supreme Court, acts as a gatekeeper. She is extremely stingy with certification grants. She rejects all emergency petitions on the shadow docket (unless they come from the Fifth Circuit). She no longer believes in pre-decision certification. And she forces lawyers to establish standing with more certainty than I’ve ever seen. Critics often accuse the Roberts Court of slamming the court’s door. Judge Barrett is the epitome of that theme.
and:
I have made this point before and I will make it again. Judge Barrett has very little experience as a private lawyer. She has never litigated during her time in academia, and she was on the Court of Appeals for very little time. She has no experience as a lawyer trying to resolve complex cases quickly. When she asserts that experienced litigants have failed to meet responsibilities that are not clearly laid out in case law, introspection reveals that such responsibilities do not actually exist. I get the sense that Judge Barrett is grading briefs as if she were grading papers in a seminar, or worse, giving feedback in a faculty workshop. She has extremely high expectations based on her subjective sense of which cases should and should not belong on the federal courts.
DRH Note: Yesterday while explaining Josh’s views to someone at pickleball, I said, “It’s like she’s grading students’ papers and forcing them to get an A+.”
By Ryan Vaughn airJune 28, 2024.
For Americans with even a passing interest in British politics, the recent television debate between Labour leader Keir Starmer and Conservative Chancellor Rishi Sunak may have sounded familiar, since the Conservative leader’s election selling point on the economy was easily the same as that of a Reaganite Republican. “Vote Labour and your family’s taxes will go up substantially,” was Sunak’s paraphrased message. “Not only that, but your fuel prices will rise as Labour pushes ahead with an unnecessarily rapid plan to decarbonize the economy.” Sunak sounded like Grover Norquist warning that Britain’s progressive left will raise taxes and tighten costly environmental regulations.
To this, Britons will respond: “Shameless!” To be sure, Labour will tax, spend and regulate more than the Conservatives. But the Sunak government itself is no stranger to expanding the influence of the state and raising taxes aggressively. Indeed, since Sunak became Chancellor, the UK’s total tax burden has risen by 3.4% of GDP since 2019, to its highest level since the Second World War. The Chancellor froze the income tax floor even in a high inflation environment, implementing the largest hidden tax increase in British history. All this to finance a state that has already grown to more than 40% of GDP, the largest since the start of the Thatcher revolution, while the Conservatives are pushing ahead with new regulators for digital markets and football, their own net-zero target, further nationalization of early childhood care and (eventually) plans to completely ban smoking.
DRH Note:
While reviewing this article, I pointed out to Ryan that I particularly appreciated his presentation of tax increases as a percentage of GDP – a key numerical strength – and he replied that it’s been done better in the UK than in the US.
I also noticed that Ryan phrased it in terms of the tax burden, which is not accurate. The tax burden includes the deadweight loss due to the tax, but at that tax rate, the deadweight loss due to the tax is: square The correct expression is “tax rate” Revenue It increased by 3.4% of GDP.
By Heather Haddon The Wall Street JournalJune 17, 2024.
Monique Pizano worked as general manager for three years and earned a six-figure salary, saving for a down payment on a house, honeymooning in Japan and supporting her mother.
The 27-year-old Ontario, California, native feels lucky because many UC Riverside graduates struggle to find work or earn low hourly wages.
Ms. Pizano is one of about 850 general managers at Raising Cane’s, who earn a salary of $174,000 a year, including bonuses based on store sales and profits. The fast-growing chicken chain views managers as key partners, and the Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based company rewards them for being perfectionists.
Although unfortunately limited, I found this article very thought-provoking.
Please note that there are some restrictions here:
What has received less attention is the bill requiring chains to raise manager pay. Large fast-food chains must pay their salaried managers at least $83,200, up from $66,560, to comply with California rules. If they don’t, employers must pay managers an hourly wage, plus overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week.
But clearly, in Monique Pisano’s case, that regulation is not binding.
Incidentally, Heather Haddon is quickly becoming one of my favorite WSJ reporters on labor market issues, and she calls the balls and strikes with an even keel that WSJ reporters don’t always get to do.
