Brian Lee Crowley

Gender-based Analysis as if *everyone* matters

In the Sun newspapers on 8 June 2018 Sean Speer and I had some fun at the expense of self-righteous government social engineers by pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standards implicit in Ottawa’s policy of “gender-based analysis”. We argue that if GBA is a serious policy, we must look at the differential impact of policies on each sex and seek to mitigate sex-specific harms wherever they may occur. But of course the government thinks that it only matters if *women* are disadvantaged by a policy, not men. A case in point: the many policies currently in place that are placing enormous strain on the natural resource economy. As Sean and I wrote:

“One currently-ignored area ripe for more people-centred analysis, for example, is natural resources and the trade-offs that policymakers are implicitly making between employment and other considerations such as reducing carbon emissions. Proper GBA would reveal that the effects of this policy are relatively minor for women but devastating for men.”

Scridb filter

Sean Speer and I tackle the role of marriage and family in social policy

In the struggle to gain insight into the causes of social ills like unemployment, poor educational performance, welfare dependency, inequality, social mobility and a host of other vital issues, almost  any and every explanation is considered worthy of study except one of the most important ones: the vital role that marriage and the family play. In this 11 May 2018 op-ed for the Sun newspapers Sean Speer and I set the record straight.

Scridb filter

Don’t look at unemployment, but rather employment to understand Donald Trump

In what turned out, alas, to be my last regular column for the Globe’s ROB, I point out that unemployment statistics hide more than they reveal. What tell us a lot more are the data for the shae of the population in paid work or looking for work, know as the labour force participation rate. Focusing on this number tells you lots about politics, the state of the economy, and even some of the roots of Donald Trump’s presidential victory. You can read the unedited text below or online here.

 

What do we know about the people who Donald Trump turned into such a potent political force in the last election?  US unemployment is well below five percent; surely there was no objective basis for the economic insecurities that drove the “basket of deplorables” to vote for the Republican candidate.

Consider, though, that one of the best places to seek insight is not the unemployment rate, but the “labour-force participation” or LFP. The LFP shows the share of working age people who have jobs or are actively seeking jobs in the US. In other words it is also a pretty good measure of how many people have left the workforce because they are discouraged and feel there are no opportunities for them. What do we know about them?

Trump’s election coincides with the US LFP rate hitting its lowest level in more than 30 years. The state-by-state figures  provide even more insight into Donald Trump’s political resonance.

Nine out of 10 states with the lowest LFP rates voted for him. Of the five states that went from Blue to Red in 2016, three – Florida, Michigan and Ohio – experienced a drop in their participation rate relative to 2012, meaning a smaller share of people worked and were looking for work compared to four years earlier. The other two states had no increase in the share of people working despite several years of modest economic growth.

By contrast, the years of Bill Clinton’s presidency coincided with a high LFP rate, a time when workers were prepared to give Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton the benefit of the doubt about how trade would improve Americans’ standard of living and those harmed would not be left behind. No more. That good will is gone.

New research from the centre-right American Enterprise Institute think tank shows that millions of American men are jobless and have given up looking. The share of men 20 and older without paid work is nearly 32 percent. That bears repeating: basically a third of all men in America who are over 20 have no paid employment. Two economists at the centre-left Brookings Institution have now added that the LFP rate of prime-age women has stagnated and also declined. People collecting disability benefit has increased markedly.

This doesn’t just affect their job prospects. Other research, including by a Nobel laureate, shows that the life expectancy and health of these displaced and discouraged workers has gone into a tailspin thanks largely to illnesses related to drug and alcohol abuse and other “lifestyle” factors. As one analyst said, these people are dying of despair, with over half a million needless deaths being attributed to bleak job prospects.

So looking solely at the unemployment rate causes us to lose sight entirely of a major part of the population. This segment is not just constituted of men–and now increasingly women–left behind by economic change. It also includes their parents, friends, and colleagues, who see these people they care about left on the shelf and are angered that opportunities for them seem so few and far between. This starts to be a significant part of the population—and the electorate.

It is no answer to say that these people have misdiagnosed their plight when they follow Trump in seeing trade and immigration as the cause of their problems. Yes, the problem is far more down to automation and other productivity-enhancements, meaning that manufacturing requires fewer and fewer poorly-educated, relatively low-skilled workers. Yes, Trump is wrong when he says that America doesn’t make things anymore and needs to return to this economic vocation. The truth is that America has never made more things than it does today. It just doesn’t require many workers to do so.

But the fact that the diagnosis is incorrect misses the key point about Trump’s voters – they vote for him chiefly because they feel he is the only political leader who doesn’t simply dismiss their fears and anxieties as misguided and ill-informed and doesn’t tell them condescendingly that their problems will disappear if only they get a university degree or if the government institutes a guaranteed annual income and basically writes them off as contributing members of society.

A pervasive feeling has taken hold in many parts of American society that ordinary people are being made to pay the price of the ideals of the elites. Free trade is one such ideal, one in which I happen to believe, but also one whose highly-concentrated destructive effects are undeniable and frequently easier to identify than its widely-dispersed benefits. That is why free trade can only be sustained when the winners use the extra wealth created to compensate the losers – something we, like the Americans, have done poorly and unimaginatively.

Brian Lee Crowley (twitter.com/brianleecrowley) is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think tank in Ottawa: www.macdonaldlaurier.ca.

 

 

Scridb filter

Millenials have to earn their place in the workforce

In my May 20th column for the Ottawa Citizen  and other Postmedia papers I take aim at the attitude that employers must tie themselves in knots to accommodate young workers’ preferences around when and how they want to work. I beg to differ. Jobs are not created for the convenience of employees. They exist because of employers who risk their capital and their reputation. The deal is that employees sell their time and have a duty and an obligation to give their best efforts to meet their employers’ needs during that time. Employees are not doing their employers a favour and if they want their preferences accommodated in the workplace the way to do it is to make it clear that they are diligent, energetic and trustworthy employees.

Scridb filter

Brian Lee Crowley
Get Adobe Flash player