Mediaboss Marketing

Listen to SocioEconomic Research Prof. Oren M. Levin-Waldmans discussion of his most recent essay, The Argument that Labor Shortages are Due to Additional Unemployment Benefits isOverly Simplistic this Wednesday, May 19, 2021. He can be heard every second Wednesday morning from 10-11am EST on the Westchester On the Level broadcast. The broadcast is heard Live or On Demand by clicking onto the hyperlink noted http://tobtr.com/s/11941110 Please note that the hyperlink changes every second week and is specific to the essay discussed. Listeners are welcome to share their inquiry with respect to the topic of the subject discussed. The call-in number to the broadcast is 1-347-205-9201.

NEWARK, NJ May 19, 2021 The latest jobs report is weak noting that there are labor shortages, and that employers are having a hard time filling jobs. Of course the typical conservative response has been that because the federal government has extended Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and have added to the payments an additional supplemental benefit, unemployed workers have no incentive to return to work. Although this argument is nothing new and reflects the standard reservation wage theory, it is also overly simplistic.

The purpose of UI was to provide replacement income so that unemployed workers would have time and space to match their skills and abilities with those jobs that are available. In the past, especially in a manufacturing based economy, employers knowing that their workers could receive UI benefits, had little incentive to maintain their workforces during a downturn. Because most states finance UI through ratables, those firms with a greater history of layoffs can be expected to pay higher premiums. Still, employers never paid the full costs of laying their workers, and workers have never received sufficient replacement income to support themselves.

Although many countries around the world provide benefits between 75 to 80 percent in lost wages, most states barely reach 50 percent, and even then there is a maximum so that those on the higher end are effectively getting 20- 30 percent in replacement income. What, then, is the incentive not to work? Some studies in the past have suggested that UI generally lengthens unemployment spells as workers will typically wait until their benefits are about to run out before they seriously start looking for jobs. At best, ones unemployment is prolonged by a couple of weeks, but it is hard to believe that most people would turn down a job if their UI replacement income is only a fraction of what their market income would be from a job.

The reservation wage holds that there is a wage beneath which one will not accept a job. This reservation wage is usually the last wage received prior to unemployment. Most state UI programs require unemployed workers to accept suitable jobs that are offered. One is not required to accept a job that pays more than 10 percent less, but suitable in many cases will be defined as a job paying up to 10 percent less. Therefore, proponents of the reservation wage theory maintain that UI generally speaking, and excluding any type of supplemental payments, similarly prolongs unemployment.

Now we can address the current labor market where the unemployment was caused by government mandated shutdowns in response to a pandemic. A policy response preferable to the various COVID relief packages would have been to not send every worker, regardless of whether they lost their jobs, a stimulus check. Rather those locked out of their jobs and those business owners forced to close should have received 100 percent compensation in lines with the Constitutions Fifth Amendment Takings clause.

Both business owners property and workers property in their labor was effectively seized by the state without just compensation. Yes, the initial CARES Act, provided loans to businesses which would be forgiven if they maintained their workforces. Perhaps if shutdowns only lasted a few weeks, as we were initially told in order to flatten the curve, this would have been enough. But shutdowns ended up lasting for months, and even businesses that could reopen could only do so at in many cases 30 percent capacity. Given that, how likely is it that these workers would have been called back?

To simply blame labor shortages on supplemental benefits misses much of what has been happening, as well as it reveals many hardships particularly for low-wage workers. Workers with children but with no place to put their kids are not likely to return to work. Most of the countys schools have been operating remotely, thereby forcing workers to stay home with their children.

Still, the question remains: Are current labor shortages a function of generous UI payments, especially the supplemental payments? It is possible particularly at the low end of wage scale, but as one moves up on the wage scale, it is highly unlikely. Any number of workers could still be afraid to return to work because the nature of their jobs is such that they will have high exposure to other people (many of whom have still not been vaccinated) and therefore they are at a greater risk of contracting the virus themselves.

Although it is possible that these benefits, particularly at the low end of the wage distribution may be a factor in these labor shortages, it is most likely not the determining factor. And yet, it begs another question: if employers really believe that workers are forsaking work just to get more benefits, then why not respond according to the dictates of the marketplace? The laws of supply and demand still apply here. Employers seeking workers amid labor shortages can always offer higher wages.

Perhaps that is the rub. Employers dont really want to pay workers more because it will increase their costs and/or eat into their profits. It is always easier to blame workers as they have done for years. In the face of global competition, businesses have often accused workers of wage rigidity, i.e. not being flexible in their wage demands.

Is there no room for compromise? In all likelihood these defined supplemental payments were offered because it was easier for state labor departments to offer. The policy should have been designed to ensure workers would get up to 80 percent, and maybe even 100 percent of their wages, but that would have been much more complicated, as each workers record would have to be searched and evaluated on its own merits and according to a formula. This would no doubt result in workers experiencing delays in getting anything.

The UI system does need a complete overhaul. States should be offering higher reimbursement rates, and they should be making it more costly for employers to lay their workers off. And yet, since these extended benefits are temporary, states concerned about their effects could always tweak them. Why not require that workers accept jobs that are offered with the state paying them the difference between their employers wages and their current benefits? If jobs remain unfilled, we will know that this is not the main reason. Moreover, it enables employers to continue offering lower wages.

# # #

Author of Restoring the Middle Class Through Wage Policy: Arguments for a Middle Class

https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319744476;

Understanding Public Policy in the United.States.

https://tophat.com/marketplace/social-science/political-science/textbooks/understanding-public-policy-in-the-united-states-oren-levin-waldman/3473

The Minimum Wage: A Reference Handbook

https://www.abc-clio.com/ABC-CLIOCorporate/SearchResults.aspx?type=a

Wage Policy, Income Distribution and Democratic Theory

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415779715/#reviews

The Case of the Minimum Wage: Competing Policy Models

https://www.sunypress.edu/Searchadv.aspx?=Oren+M.+Levin-Waldman&txtISBNSearch=&txtKeyword_summary_or_toc=&txtKeyword_subject=

#####

BIOGRAPHY

Oren M. Levin-Waldman is faculty member in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University-Newark, and Socioeconomic Research Scholar at Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity Research.

# # #

Learn more at the professors Website: https://www.econlabor.com/. Direct email to olevinwaldman@gmail.com

# # # # #

Oren M. Levin-Waldman, Ph.D

https://www.econlabor.com/

Office: (914) 629-6351

Excerpt from:
The Argument that Labor Shortages are Due to Additional Unemployment Benefits is Overly Simplistic By OREN M. LEVIN-WALDMAN - Yonkers Tribune.

On March 12, 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) amended, its Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) for the seventh time. The Seventh Amendment expands the category of individuals authorized to administer COVID-19 vaccines to properly trained individuals even if prescribing, dispensing, and administering vaccines is not within the scope of their license or usual responsibilities. Specifically, the Amendment action authorizes dentists, EMTs, midwives, optometrists, paramedics, physician assistants, podiatrists, respiratory therapists, and veterinarians, as well as medical students, nursing students, and other health care students in the professions listed under the PREP Act with proper training and professional supervision, to serve as vaccinators. As covered persons under the Act, the Amendment also affords these individuals sweeping PREP Act immunities from state and federal personal injury claims arising from the authorized administration of the vaccine (for more on PREP Act immunities, see our reporting here).

In particular, HHSs latest amendment increases the COVID-19 vaccine workforce to now cover the following people (subject to certain training and certifications):

Like the Fifth Amendment to the Declaration, which as we reported here also added additional categories of qualified people to administer COVID-19 vaccines, any state or local law that prohibits or effectively prohibits the individuals authorized in the Seventh Amendment from administering COVID-19 vaccines is preempted.

As with the Trump Administration before it, this amendment represents a continuation of the Biden Administrations expansion of the PREP Act in an effort to provide a pathway for states to expand and support their vaccination workforce to defeat the pandemic.

View post:
Seventh Amendment to PREP Act Declaration Further Increases the Pool of Authorized COVID-19 Vaccinators - JD Supra

The courtroom livestream was spotty, seemingly at some of the most key moments... including right when the verdict was read

ST. LOUIS The moment everyone had been waiting for during the two-week trial involving police officers accused of assaulting one of their own had finally arrived.

You can bring the jury in, District Judge Catherine Perry told the Marshals guarding her courtroom inside the federal courthouse in downtown St. Louis.

After 13 hours, the federal jury deciding the fate of two former officers and one current St. Louis police officer accused of assaulting officer Luther Hall as he worked undercover during 2017 protests had reached its decision.

But they did so during a pandemic.

That means reporters, and the public, had to watch the proceedings as they were streamed live into several televisions inside an overflow courtroom 13 floors above the real action in order to keep a safe social distance.

For weeks, the stream was spotty, seemingly at some of the most key moments including the moment where former officer Dustin Boone invoked his Fifth Amendment right. When First Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Costantin was questioning witnesses and making some of her key points.

Those of us who were in there sighed and scoffed every time it went silent, glitched or just all together stopped working.

I documented every outage during my live tweets, which attracted the attention of hundreds of new followers.

Clearly, the public was interested in knowing how this trial was going to turn out.

How three white police officers accused of assaulting a Black colleague working undercover would, or would not, be held accountable.

How a predominantly white jury selected from predominantly rural white counties would judge them in a case prosecutors argued included a racial component.

And how defense attorneys could possibly explain their clients actions and texts.

Surely everything would run smoothly for the biggest moment of the trial.

Instead, Perrys instruction to the Marshals to bring the jury in to read their verdict was the only thing those of us gathered inside the packed overflow courtroom heard.

And it was a sizeable crowd. Attorneys from the U.S. Attorneys Office where there including the Interim U.S. Attorney. An Internal Affairs investigator for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department was there. Along with reporters. Civil attorneys representing protesters. Friends and family members of the victim and the defendants.

And there were more than sighs and scoffs when the screen turned into a logo of some sort at the moment the verdict was to be read.

I said, This is unbelievable out loud, to which Attorney Javad Khazaeli said, And yet it is.

Only two members of the media were able to be inside the actual courtroom, where Perry doesnt allow us to use our phones or report anything live.

Marshals tried their best to alert the technology staff at the courthouse. I complained to the presiding judge.

But in the end, the only other thing we heard was Perry saying, Thank you for your service, youre free to go and the other officers are free to go on bond.

Of course, we all managed to get the verdict, which included acquittals and mistrials.

But we didnt get to hear them as they were delivered. We didnt get to see what body language we could make out from the screens. We didnt get to hear whether there was any emotion.

Meanwhile, another high profile trial is taking place in Minneapolis right now. The police officer accused of killing George Floyd is on trial.

They have an overflow courtroom, too.

But, in that trial, apparently the judge is being kept informed of any glitches in the overflow courtroom as it is being treated as if it were part of the front-row.

The judge actually postponed the trial until the next day earlier this week when the feed went out.

My former colleague and fellow overflow courtroom watcher St. Louis Post-Dispatch Reporter Robert Patrick brought that to my attention.

At least the public wont be missing a beat in that trial.

Byers' Beat:

Read more here:
Behind the scenes of the officer Luther Hall assault trial - KSDK.com

Narendra Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence.

At least 11 people were killed in Bangladesh over the weekend as protesters clashes with police during demonstrations called by Islamist groups against Prime Minister Narendra Modis Dhaka visit. Mr. Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence. After Mr. Modis visit, violence spread across the country with protesters attacking a train in the eastern district of Brahmanbaria and targeting several Hindu temples. The main group behind the violent protests was Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, an umbrella organisation of radical Islamists that had in the past clashed with the Awami League government.

Hefazat-e-Islam, literally protector of Islam, was formed in 2010 when the country was taking gradual measures to undo the Islamisation of its polity by the military rulers in the late 1970s and 1980s. In 2008, the military-backed caretaker government had proposed the Draft National Womens Development Policy Bill, promising equal rights to women in property through earnings, inheritance, loan, land and market management. In the December 2008 election, the secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, Sheikh Mujibur Rahmans daughter, was brought to power. The secualrists had demanded repealing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which had made sweeping changes to the countrys original secular Constitution during the years of military rule (Later in the year the Supreme Court ruled the amendment was illegal). The Islamist groups saw these developments, along with the shrinking space of clergy politics, as a threat to their core interests, and came together on one platform to form Hefazat-e-Islam. In February 2010, Hefazat called a demonstration in Chittagong against the Womens Bill and the bid to cancel the Fifth Amendment. They clashed with police, injuring over a dozen, and announcing the arrival of a new Islamist group in Bangladeshs political landscape.

Headquartered in Chittagong, Hefazat is a platform of the Sunni clerics of the countrys vast Quami madrassa network and their students. The Economist reported in 2017 that Hefazat madrassas were financed by the Salafi-Wahabi Islamists in Saudi Arabia. If in 2010, they demonstrated their street power by staging the anti-Womens Bill protests, in 2013, they would expand their demands to a 13-point agenda and hold massive rallies in the capital Dhaka. Their demands included enactment of an anti-blasphemy law with provision for death penalty, cancellation of the womens development law (which Ms. Hasinas government passed), a ban on erecting statues in public places (because thats idolatry), a ban on mixing man and woman in public and declaration of Bangladeshs Ahmadiyas, a persecuted minority in Islam, as non-Muslims (like in Pakistan).

The Awami League government initially ignored the protests. But Hefazat members organised many marches to the capital, in what they called the siege of Dhaka, to push for their demands. When the pressure mounted, the government acted swiftly and ruthlessly. In the early hours of May 6, 2013, security forces launched a crackdown on Hefazat activists to oust them from Dhaka. At least 11 people were estimated to have been killed in the operation.

Since the failed Dhaka siege, Hefazat was careful not to run into a direct showdown with the government or the ruling party. But it remained an important hardline voice that often put pressure on the government with its Islamist agenda. For example, when the Fifth Amendment was repealed, the government restored secularism and some other articles of the original Constitution but Islam continued to remain the state religion. Hefazet had threatened violent struggle against the government if Islam is removed as the state religion. The government had also made changes in school texts under pressure from Hefazat and other Islamists. In 2015-16, when Bangladesh was gripped by violence against secular bloggers and activists, Hefazet had demanded action against the writers who insult Islam. In 2017, giving in to Hefazats demands, the government removed the statue of the Greek Goddess Themis from the premises of the Supreme Court. In 2018, the Hasina government passed a Bill recognising DawraeHadith, a top degree of Hefazat-controlled Quami madrassas, as equivalent to a Masters degree in Islamic studies and Arabic, a long-pending demand of Hefazat clerics.

Ms. Hasinas government may have found Hefazat a lesser problem than Jamaat e Islami, the militant religious party whose leaders were put on trial for war crimes committed in 1971 by the war tribunal. The government did not give in to Hefazats key demands that would alter the secular character of the state, but offered small concessions to the group to avoid trouble. These concessions, however, appeared to have made them stronger over the years. And the protests they carried out against the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, at a time when both India and Bangladesh are trying to deepen their ties, pose a new challenge to both Dhaka and New Delhi.

Visit link:
Analysis | Hefazat-e Islam, the group behind anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh - The Hindu

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the federal governments database of possible terror suspects, also known as the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) or the terror watchlist, does not violate the constitutional rights of American citizens who are included on the list even if they are not notified or allowed to rebut the governments underlying reason for adding their names to the list.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents unanimously ruled to overturn a lower district court decision which held that a group of 23 Muslim-American citizens suffered a range of adverse consequences in violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process once they were put on the list.

Speaking for the lower district court, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled in 2019 that the governments justification for placing certain people on the watchlist was too vague and required more specific and concrete parameters. He noted that people listed in the TSDB even inadvertently cannot refute the designation and are often prevented from obtaining certain government benefits and contract opportunities, are restricted in their abilities to travel, and are subjected to intense and sometimes invasive scrutiny at airports across the globe.

But in an opinion penned by Ronald Reagan appointee J. Harvey Wilkinson III, the Fourth Circuit held that the consequences did not unlawfully burden the plaintiffs civil rights, particularly in light of the governments compelling interest in national security.

The appellate panel disagreed with the lower district courts rationale surrounding the plaintiffs ability to challenge their inclusion on the list:

Equating the APA and procedural due process claims, which alleged that plaintiffs were not given notice of their TSDB status nor a meaningful opportunity to refute the information on which the status was based, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

[ . . . ]

The court acknowledged that the government had a compelling interest in preventing terrorist attacks and in maintaining secrecy over the underlying intelligence. It thus concluded that such interests precluded any claim to pre-deprivation notice. But the court held plaintiffs were entitled to post-deprivation process and that the current DHS TRIP procedures were inadequate.

The district court was poised to, in essence, demand an overhaul of the system to give the plaintiffs the right to challenge their inclusion on the TSDB list after the fact. The Court of Appeals stepped into the case before the district court had the chance to fashion a remedy.

What history suggests, precedent confirms: the right to travel is qualified, not absolute. Neither plaintiffs nor anyone else have a constitutionally protected interest in being able to travel domestically or internationally without incurring some burdens, Wilkinson wrote.The experiences alleged by plaintiffs do not rise to the level of constitutional concern. Most plaintiffs complain of minor delays in airports of an hour or less. These burdens are not dissimilar from what many travelers routinely face, whether in standard or enhanced screenings, particularly at busy airports. After all, most travelers who face lengthier enhanced screenings are not in the TSDB but are instead chosen randomly. Plaintiffs cite a few instances where the delays took up to three hours, but those are atypical.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs assertion that the inconveniences suffered by those listed on the TSDB deterred them from air travel and in many cases forced them to drive extremely long distances, saying that individuals do not have a protected liberty interest in using a particular mode of transportation.

The court also said it found the claim that additional screenings deterred plaintiffs from traveling outside the country even less persuasive.

[I]t is clear that plaintiffs do not possess a protected liberty interest in being free from screening and delays at the border. No plaintiff alleges he was unable to cross an international border, Wilkinson wrote. The plaintiffs complain of extra delays ranging from a few minutes to twelve hours, with most being on the shorter end of that spectrum. Such delays are not atypical for travelers, particularly at busy ports of entry at land borders. Given the governments broad power to control movement across the nations borders, the burdens experienced by plaintiffs are not infringements of liberty within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.

Read the full ruling below.

4th Circuit TSDB Order by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via KSHB-TV]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read this article:
Federal Appeals Court Says Government Can Put Americans on Terror Watchlist without Notice or Chance to Rebut - Law & Crime