American Gerontocracy

Generational Warfare In Our Time

The Trouble with Obama

Despite a rather profound dislike of Hillary Clinton’s character and public persona, American Gerontocracy endorses her for the Democratic Presidential nomination — with the firm expectation that Obama will, in fact, be the eventual nominee.

Obama is an emotionally compelling candidate because of his rhetorical gifts and his charismatic presense. But what does he really bring to the table? I think most votes would agree that it isn’t his experience, since he has very little. He has never worked in the priate sector. He has never served in the military. He has basically been involved in local politics for almost his entire life, with the exception of a few years of national service in the Senate. He has zero executive experience. By any objective standard, he isn’t ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

(It’s interesting because when you break it down, Obama has almostnothing in common with the average American — blue collar or white collar. His ethnic backgrund, his international upbringing, his Ivy League education, his lack of true real work experience or military service…. All reflect a life history profoundly different from that of 99.9999% of Americans.)

But, his proponents argue, Obama has better judgement than the alternatives. On that basis, he should earn our votes. But does Obama really have good judgement? And how are we to know if he does, since Obama lacks any track record?

This is why Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright is relevant. As the Wright issue reemerged front and center over the last week, we’ve been given new insight into Obama’s character and his response to pressure:

But we did gain a new perspective on Wright’s former parishioner, Senator Barack Obama. And it’s not flattering. It took the Democratic frontrunner 20 years–and 50 days since videos surfaced of Wright’s incendiary sermons–to discover that the man who helped him become a Christian, officiated at his marriage, and baptized his two daughters is a conspiracy theory-loving self-publicizer. What does that say about Obama’s “judgment,” on which he largely bases his claim to the presidency?

Worse, one of the main reasons for Obama’s unequivocal split from Wright had nothing to do with the reverend’s hateful ideology. You see, Wright had the temerity to suggest that Barack Obama is just another pol. “What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciations of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” Obama said. This only confirms Obama’s reputation for being thin-skinned and self-absorbed. 

Months ago, when Wright first became an issue in the campaign, many chose to believe the explanations of the Obama campaign that Wright’s words were taken out of context. That they did not adequately represent the compass of Wright, the man. Even Obama excused him as the product of his times, when he said: “”I could no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” And yet, in the last week, Wright’s words — and actions — have shown him to be an irresponsible radical and a racist. Yes, a racist — per Wright:

On Sunday in Detroit, he explained to 10,000 people at the Fight for Freedom Fund dinner of the NAACP — an organization adept at taking offense at far less racist comments from nonblacks — that whites have an inherent “left-brain cognitive, object-oriented learning style. Logical and analytical,” while blacks “learn not from an object but from a subject. They are right-brain, subject-oriented in their learning style. That means creative and intuitive. The two worlds have different ways of learning.”

Blacks even have better rhythm, Wright explained.

And, in fact, for political expediency, if nothing more, Obama has now contradicted his own words and finally disowned Wright.

Amazing. So where is the spectacular judgement that Obama’s backers tout? I don’t see it. And yet the media continues to go easy on Obama, even as he begins to show more and more of his true character as the pressures of the campaign ratchet up.

It’s tempting for younger voters to fall for the Obama mystique…. But politicians have been fooled before — George W. Bush being the perfect example.

May 4, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Thoughts on the War in Iraq

For many younger voters, the war in Iraq fuels a deep hatred of the Bush administration and, by extension, a general dislike of the Republican party. The problems here are manifest. Young voters believe the Bush administration was dishonest in the initiation of the war. They believe the war has been poorly managed. They believe things aren’t getting better in Iraq, and there is no reasonable chance of success. They don’t have a good grasp on the costs and failures of our previous nation-building efforts (e.g. how many younger voters know that in 1947, years after the end of World War II, over 10,000 Germans starved to death as a result of failed Allied occupation policies?). And maybe most importantly, they don’t have a realistic understanding of the chaos and death that would result if the US were to change course and abruptly withdraw from the conflict.

Here’s an excellent paper on the roots of the war and how realistic it is to solely associate it with the Bush administration and “neo-con” policy:

This [dogmatic liberal] version of events [in Iraq] implicitly rejects another and arguably simpler interpretation: that after September 11, 2001, American fears were elevated, America’s tolerance for potential threats lowered, and Saddam Hussein naturally became a potential target, based on a long history of armed aggression, the production and use of chemical weapons, proven efforts to produce nuclear and biological weapons, and a murky relationship with terrorists. The United States had gone to war with him twice before, in 1991 and then again at the end of 1998, and the fate of Saddam Hussein had remained an unresolved question at the end of the Clinton administration. It was not so unusual for the United States to go to war a third time, therefore, and the Bush administration’s decision can be understood without reference to a neoconservative doctrine. After September 11, the Bush administration weighed the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power against the risks of fighting a war to remove him and chose the latter, its calculus shaped by the terrorist attacks and by widely shared suppositions about Iraq’s weapons programs that ultimately proved mistaken.

If one chose to believe this simpler version, then the decision to invade Iraq might have been correct or mistaken, but the lessons to be learned from the war would concern matters of judgment, tactics, and execution—don’t go to war based on faulty intelligence; don’t topple a foreign government without a plan to bring order and peace to the country afterwards; don’t be so quick on the trigger; exhaust all possibilities before going to war; be more prudent. But they would not raise broader issues of foreign policy doctrine and grand strategy. After all, prudence is not a foreign policy. It is possible to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine. The intervention in Vietnam was the direct product of the Cold War strategy of containment, but many people who think the Vietnam War was a mistake nevertheless do not condemn containment. They believe the war was the misapplication and poor execution of an otherwise sound strategy. One could argue the same was true of Iraq.

Regardless of how we go into Iraq, we are now there. And there are signs of progress. Younger voters would be wise to reject the tendency of Democrats and media to — in the words of Joseph Lieberman — “Hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, but most of all speak of no progress in Iraq.”  Proper consideration should be given to the facts. The situation in Iraq is far from ideal, or even good. But it does appear to be stabilizing, and the ultimate costs of withdrawal at this stage could be far higher than the costs of maintaining a continued, stabilizing presence.

 

Status of Iraq 1

Status of Iraq 2

Status of Iraq 3

April 19, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Vote Against Your Wallet?

We’ve looked at the demographics of American gerontocracy. Of course, the demographics are complicated by voting pattern among younger voters – particularly their tendency to vote Democratic.

Why are these voters so willing to overlook their economic interests when voting?

Clearly, in the specific case of Barack Obama a lot has to do with his charisma and the personality cult that has developed around him. But even beyond the rather scary and disconcerting “Obamaton” phenomenon, younger voters still tend to vote disproportionately for Democrats.

The obvious conclusion is that other, non-economic issues are of greater importance to younger voters, and the Democratic party reflects these interests more effectively than the Republican party. Here’s an excellent article on the issues that are driving the young away from the Republican party.

In 1984 and 1988, first Ronald Reagan and then George H.W. Bush won first-time voters and under-29 voters by big margins: 20 points in 1984. The twentysomethings of the 1980s remain the most Republican cohort in the electorate to this day.

But since 1990, the GOP has lost its connection to the young, and the problem gets worse with every passing election. Today’s twentysomethings are the most anti-Republican age group in the electorate.

Ultimately, I think you can boil the GOP’s failure with younger voters down to a few key elements:

Life experience. Here’s a good article on how younger American experience has been shaped by issues where outcomes have favored Democrats.

One reason is generational change. Almost all voters in 1992 and a large majority in 2000 had vivid memories of the 1970s, when we had both economic stagnation and double-digit inflation — stagflation — and thanks to government price controls, motorists had to wait an hour in line to fill up their gas tanks. Those experiences put the advocates of bigger government on the defensive.

This year, half the voters are too young to have been behind the wheel in a gas line or to have been paying rapidly rising monthly bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. They have lived all their adult lives — all their lives, in the case of the millennial generation, born since 1980 — in an era when we have had low-inflation economic growth 95 percent of the time.

Social values and the association of the Republican party with evangelical, “fly-over country” Christianity. Public education has convinced many young voters that organized religion is the opiate of the masses. The GOP has complicated its position in this area by taking on untenable policy positions on issues like stem cell research and has branded itself as the party of intolerance by virtue of its positions on homosexuality and abortion.

The war in Iraq. I’ll dig into this more later.

A misunderstanding of economics and history. This isn’t limited to younger voters, of course. But younger voters have been disproportionately shaped by increasingly liberal agenda-driven public education as well as disinformation from liberal media outlets like MTV.

The cool factor. Republicans have failed to develop credibly cool candidates that share common values, perspectives, and experience with younger voters, but present a Republican viewpoint on the issues.

The Republican part needs to do a better job of broadening its appeal and reaching out to younger voters. If it doesn’t, it is jeopardizing its own existence. Ultimately, it comes down to doing a better job at communication and education — coupled with a willingness to demonstrate a greater inclusiveness on important social issues.

With respect to this last point, the Republican party has an ace in the hole — its position on federalism and proper balance between the federal government and state power. Republicans should be arguing that social issues are state issues — what is good for social policy New York isn’t necessarily good for Wyoming. There is an appeal here that can be made to the democratic instincts of younger voters. Rather than tell these voters that say, stem cell research is morally repugnant and demanding federal action on the matter, why not argue that issues like this are only appropriately addressed at the state level, where American diversity is better able to express itself democratically?

April 19, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Our Tax Laws are Unfair to the Young

It’s April 15th. For 2007, I ended up paying 24% of my adjusted gross income to the federal government. As near as I can figure, based on extrapolation from IRS data, the average taxpayer at my same general income level paid an effective rate of only about 15%.

24% versus 15% for the same income level? That doesn’t sound fair. Why the difference?

It’s simple. I’m young. I don’t have children, so I can’t take advantage of deductions for dependents. I’m in good physical shape, so I’m less likely than older people to have significant medical expenses to deduct. And I haven’t purchased a house, so I don’t have mortgage interest — the granddaddy of all deductions — to deduct either. The list goes on.

The problem here is that the tax code is written to benefit older people. You’ll never see the numbers from the IRS, but I guarantee you that at the same income level, the effective tax burden for younger taxpayers is invariably higher than for older taxpayers.

The mortgage interest deduction is particularly galling. Here is a deduction that younger people without homes can’t take advantage of. There is no parallel deduction for rent payments. And the market impact of the mortgage interest deduction is to actually inflate housing prices — thereby making it more difficult for younger people to buy homes in the first place.

Are there any deductions out there designed with young people in mind? The ony one I can think of is the student loan interest deduction. But if your income is above a certain level (which mine happens to be), you’re not eligible for this deduction. I have a friend who could have taken this deduction — but he found it was better to just take the standard deduction rather than itemize. Conclusion: the student loan interest deduction is useless for large numbers of recent graduates who either earn too much or don’t have enough other deductions to make it worthwhile!

As it stands, our tax system is biased and unfair. Once again, America’s younger generations are carrying a disproportionate load. It’s time to close the loopholes that are the source of this unfairness across the board. Implementing a flat tax (above a certain threshold income) that eliminates deductions and other loopholes would create fairness and equality in our tax system that is sorely lacking.

April 16, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Demographics of American Gerontocracy

The political strength of older voters is fairly well understood in this country. That being said, I thought I would present the actual figures just for the sake of complete clarity. This information is based on data available from the US Census Bureau and covers the 2004 election time frame.

US by Age and Voting Pattern

As you can see from these two pie charts, 60% of the voting population is 40 or older. So purely from a demographic perspective, younger voters are simply outnumbered. Beyond this, people who are 40 or older actually represent a disproportionate percentage of actual voting –67% to be exact. Basically, what this boils down to is that the average voter who is 40 or older is 40.6% more likely on average to vote than a voter under 40.

Here’s how the voting breaks down specifically by major age category:

Voting by Age

Older voters possess overwhelming demographic strength, and they are also more likely to vote than younger voters. The net result is a government which represents their interests at the expense of younger voters. Again, I don’t ascribe any specific malicious intent by older voters to take from younger voters — I think that is just the unfortunate natural outcome given our system of democracy and the way it reflects voting and special interests.

This problem is exacerbated by the simple fact that younger voters generally don’t vote their own economic interests. My next blog post will address this peculiar, self-destructive behavior — its sources, its impact, and how Republicans need to make their message more appealing so that this group understands where its best interests are properly aligned.

 

April 13, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Individual Responsibility

In light of McCain’s disappointing flip-flop on the proposed housing market bailout, I think it’s worth bringing up the concept of individual responsibility and moral hazard.

Our form of market-based capitalism breaks down if economic actors — people, companies, etc. — aren’t held accountable for their financial decisions. As this excellent article correctly points out, we are sliding down a slippery slope towards a “bailout culture” that could undermine capitalism by decoupling risk from reward:

“Homeowners must learn that there are risks to using a home as an ATM. Investors who borrowed to flip condos must learn the downside of such risk. Individuals who steered money from insured bank deposits into uninsured money market accounts to pick up 1% more yield – like the institutional investors who purchased complex securities with little due diligence – need to know that in an efficient market, extra yield means extra risk. Those who played the derivatives market, focusing more on computer-driven pricing models and less on managing counterparty risk, must pay for that oversight. And, much as it is impolitic to say, people who took money from lenders and signed without considering how they’d repay those loans must also be held accountable.”

Is a bailout really worth undermining basic principles of our economy — especially given that many of those who will benefit from the bailout are themselves guilty of fraud? And is it fair that those who acted responsibly and who accurately assessed market risks and returns will be forced to fund the bailout? Finally, if the bailout happens (and it likely will) are we really encouraging better behavior, or just contributing to a culture of economic irresponsibility? If people know they will get bailed out by the nanny state, next time around they will be even more irresponsible with their financial decisionmaking. This is the essense of moral hazard.

April 11, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Better Economic Growth under the Democrats?

This recent blog post describes a chart from lifted from an upcoming book by Princeton political scientist (note — not economist) Larry Bartels. It purports to show that American economic performance under Democratic administrations has been superior to performance under Republicans, across all income categories.

Apparently, this chart has a lot of liberals very excited. Too bad that it is complete nonsense.

The chart is a gross oversimplification of how economic policy actually impacts economic performance. The root of its problem lies in the inane assumption that the effect of policy on economic growth manifests itself with a one year lag. In other words, the chart gives a political party credit for economic performance starting the year following it takes over the Presidency.

Let’s explore this assumption. A president comes into power. By the time his first budget goes into effect, it is already October of that year. Does anyone really think that that initial budget has any signifiant impact on economic performance of the following year? And that only the budget is responsible for that economic performance?

Just to show the arbitrary nature (and impact) of the one year lag assumption, I ran growth numbers for a two year lag based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, from 1945 to 2007. In that time period, average economic growth (for all income categories, to keep it simple) resulting under Democratic adminstrations was 2.02%. From Republican administrations, 2.08%.

The other major assumption that the study ignores is that it is Congress, not the Presidency, that holds the power of the budget. Asking who controlled Congress and what those policies were has just as much (or more) bearing on economic outcomes as who was in the White House. Similarly, the Fed controls monetary policy, which potentially has a greater economic impact that fiscal policy. Who has appointed the Federal Reserve Chairman and its Board of Governors? Are they employing a conservative or liberal ideological approach to monetary policy?

Additionally, Bartels’ “analysis” just completely ignores history, again by making foolish assumptions about the data lag. For example, it’s pretty widely accepted that the economic downturn and stagflation of the early 1970s was proximately caused by the financial demands of the Great Society and the Vietnam War, coupled with exogenous shocks to oil prices. Both the Great Society and America’s deep involvement in Vietnam came courtesy of LBJ. So you can’tgive Nixon credit for bad economic performanceon his watch — the causes of rampant inflation and low growth at the time weren’t his fault.

In the final analysis, the success of economic policy of respective Democratic and Republican administrations must be evaluated based on their long term impact. This is very difficult to measure because there are so many dfferent factors at work — fiscla policy, monetary policy, technological innovation and impact on productivity, population and demographic change, commodities avilability, trade, etc.

Behind this complexity, however, the fact remains that basic economics tells us smaller government, lower taxes, and less wealth redistribution results in a larger pie for everyone. Nothing in the Bartels’ “analysis” as should cause a rational observer to doubt that simple fact. If there’s any doubt of this, compare the long term growth rates of the US versus Europe. Freer markets, smaller government, and lower taxes inevitably produce higher growth, lower unemployment, and lower inflation in the long run. If there’s any doubt, here’s a link to a recent speech from the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet:

“Since 1996, the annual growth rate for the euro area has averaged 2.1% per year compared to 3.3% in the US.”

The speech goes on to propose structural reforms in Europe to increase competition and promote innovation (including tax reform and labor market reform) — the fundamentals of conservative economic doctrine.

April 5, 2008 Posted by | Taxes, Trade | Leave a comment

Samuelson’s Spot-on Take on the Housing Bailout

In this article, Robert Samuelson hits the nail on the head, describing exactly why a housing bailout is not only unfair, but bad for America.

“About 50 million homeowners have mortgages. Who wouldn’t like the government to cut their monthly payments by 20 percent or 30 percent? But Frank’s plan reserves that privilege for an estimated 1 million to 2 million homeowners who are the weakest and most careless borrowers. With the FHA now authorized to lend up to $729,750 in high-cost areas, some beneficiaries could be fairly wealthy. By contrast, people who made larger down payments or kept their monthly payments at manageable levels would be made relatively worse off. Government punishes prudence and rewards irresponsibility. Inevitably, there would be resentment and pressures to extend relief to other “needy” homeowners.

The justification is to prevent an uncontrolled collapse of home prices that would inflict more losses on lenders — aggravating the “credit crunch” — and postpone a revival in home buying and building. This gets the economics backwards. From 2000 to 2006, home prices rose by 50 percent or more by various measures. Housing affordability deteriorated, with home buying sustained only by a parallel deterioration of lending standards. With credit standards now tightened, home prices should fall to bring buyers back into the market and to reassure lenders that they’re not lending on inflated properties.

If rescuing distressed homeowners delays this process, the aid and comfort that government gives some individuals will be offset by the adverse effects on would-be homebuyers and overall housing construction. Of course, there are other ways for the economy to come to terms with today’s high housing prices: a general inflation, which would lift nominal (but not “real”) incomes; or mass subsidies for home buying. Neither is desirable.”

April 2, 2008 Posted by | Housing | Leave a comment

Spiraling Costs of Higher Education

The cost of higher education is of primary concern to Generations XYZ. Almost everyone in this group is either about to pay for or in the process of paying for their education or the education of their children.

It seems like this is one area where the Democrats have the Republicans beat as far as proposing policies that benefit Generations XYZ. Both Clinton ad Obama are both proposing increases in availability of federal student loans. Good for students, right?

A recent study from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, available here, suggests the truth may be a little more complicated. The study questions whether increased government spending on higher education actually has the effect of lowering tuition.

If you think about it, it makes sense. Making student loans easier to obtain drives up the amount of dollars chasing the same fixed amount of education available. If demand rises, price will rise, ceteris paribus. College tuition goes up. You end up borrow more and paying more for the same education.

Of course, this is exactly what has happened. The cost of higher education is out of control:

“How would your lifestyle change if a gallon of gas cost $9.15? Or if the price of a family staple such as milk was $15? That’s how much those products would cost if their prices had increased at the same rate college tuition has since 1980.”

Of course, the Democrats would like to throw more money at the problem. One of their most powerful constituencies is education professionals. (Can you even imagine the Democratic griping we’d hear about ExxonMobil if gas was at $9.15 a gallon? Funny the Democrats never complain about price gauging by universities, even as the size of their endowments skyrocket.) It seems to me that that strategy has utterly failed.

The supply side of the equation clearly needs to be addressed. Simply, we need more competition in higher education. Higher education today is notoriously anti-competitive. Bringing a bit of the free market to higher ed is a prospect that is unappealing to many academics, with their cushy tenured jobs and ivory towers. But the American educational system is only going to come under greater strain as the huge demographic wave of Gen Y/Z hits. In the long run, we may need to build new universities and make higher education more commoditized in order to support the upcoming demographic wave. In the short term, we can at least try to drive some efficiency into the system.

As far as government policy vis a vis individual students, throwing bigger loans at them is not the answer. The bigger the loan, the more you’re on the hook to pay back later. Instead, why not make it easier for students to pay back loans by eliminating the cap on student loan interest deductibility? This strategy doesn’t create a tuition windfall for universities, but does make managing those big loans a bit easier on Gen XYZers.

Another strategy could involve transitioning American secondary education to a more European-style model with better articulated career tracking throughhigh school. I’m not sure how I completely feel about this option. It would reduce demand for traditional liberal arts education, and generally make our educational system more efficient at training students for their post-graduate careers. On the other hand, it would represent a significant departure from traditional American values in higher education.

March 30, 2008 Posted by | Education | 1 Comment

Why Protectionism is Bad for Generations XYZ

The rhetoric is compelling. America is losing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to competition overseas. The bleeding must be stopped. We must raise barriers to trade and protect these American jobs before we export them all.

Suffice to say, it is a fundamental principle of basic economics that freer trade always results in a superior economic outcome for both trading parties. In the long run, free trade always generates a larger pie – even if it causes some economic disruption along the way. This is the general concept of Pareto efficiency.

Without getting into too much detail on the economics behind this subject now (we’ll circle back to it later), the general impact of free trade will be to move our economy towards a scenario where:

  1. The jobs we lose will be the lowest value to the economy, in areas where we have the least amount of competitive advantage.
  2. The jobs our economy we gain will be in areas where we have the greatest comparative advantage. The value of these jobs will outweight the value of the jobs lost.

So what types of jobs will we gain and which will we lose? And how does that impact Generations XYZ? (Just a side note here – in the interest of efficiency, I will henceforth refer to America’s future generations – in my opinion our politically disenfranchised generations – as Generations XYZ, encompassing Generations X and Y, plus the newest post-Y generation, the children of the 21st century.)

As it turns out, the jobs we lose are the old economy manufacturing jobs. These are the jobs which are characterized by a rigid, hierarchical structure (typically union jobs) where tenure is more important than talent and hard work. The exact types of jobs that Generations XYZ are competitively disadvantaged.

Now which jobs do we gain? New economy jobs. Jobs that require flexible labor, creative talent, and new economy skills – service orientation, technology skills, etc.

Here’s an interesting article looking at how economic evolution has transformed the economy of my adopted state of Pennsylvania, starting with a bit of a history lesson:

“To keep out foreign competition [in the early 1970s], the United Steelworkers union and the big steel companies joined forces in a no-strike pact known as the Experimental Negotiating Agreement, which tried to protect the industry’s high wages and benefits by blocking foreign competition.

This campaign for protectionism failed and employment in the American steel industry fell from 521,000 in 1974 to 151,000 in 2000. The global shakeout was even more severe, with bigger percentage drops in steel employment, in Germany, France and Britain. It was a savage process in which more than 30 U.S. steel companies went bankrupt and a great industrial union was decimated. Working in Pittsburgh in the late-1970s, I heard people talk as if any hope of future prosperity would disappear once the mills and blast furnaces closed.

But if ever there were a case that documents what the economist Joseph Schumpeter described as “creative destruction,” it’s what happened in Pennsylvania. Steel and other manufacturing industries were indeed shattered by competition from the globalized economy that was just emerging. But new industries that nobody could then have imagined took their place, and they provided new jobs, year after year.

Employment in Pennsylvania reached an all-time high in January 2008, and then fell slightly in February. People here fear that a steep recession may be coming. But as of February, the last month for which statistics are available, unemployment in Pennsylvania was just 4.9 percent. Since January 2003, the state has added a total of 178,000 new jobs, according to the state government.

Where are all these new jobs coming from? The answer is that as the old rust-belt manufacturing industries sank, Pennsylvania became a platform for innovators in technology, finance and the health industry. What saved the state, above all, was its concentration of great universities, which provided the human capital for growth….

The new jobs will come in areas such as professional and technical services (up 17 percent by 2014), computer systems design (up 30 percent), wireless telephone (up 30 percent) and data processing (up 32 percent). This transformation is evident in Pennsylvania data recording gains in wages and salaries from 2003 to 2005. Pay rose 20 percent for information technology managers, 35 percent for biotech engineers, 24 percent for computer researchers.”

Once again, we find the Democratic Party on the wrong side of this issue, supporting protectionist policies that favor older generations at the expense of Generations XYZ. Ultimately, protectionism is a dangerous rearguard action that fights economic inevitability. Better to engage in free trade, grow the economic pie larger for everyone, and accelerate economic transition to jobs where America has maximum competitive advantage – new economy, high tech, powered by Generations XYZ.

March 30, 2008 Posted by | Trade | 2 Comments