Month: September 2014

California’s Governor Jerry Brown
signed a law last week threatening punishment for handymen who
advertise their services for jobs larger than $500, and giving
state enforcers free access to job sites to check on contractors’
licenses. As Steven Greenhut
noted for Reason, a big push for the law, which prescribes
criminal time for unlicensed work that previously drew
administrative penalties, came from the state’s contracting
industry. In a state that continuously ranks toward the bottom of
assessments of economic freedom, contractors seem dead-set on
penalizing competitors who flee into the shadow economy to escape
burdensome taxes and regulations. That’s a lot of competitors,
considering that one in six of the state’s construction workers
labors “informally.”

Just weeks ago, Economic Roundtable
released a report noting that “Informal employment in
Californian construction has increased by 400 percent since 1972.”
Formal employment—that is, work subject to the state’s growing web
of red tape and taxes—has increased too. But the biggest growth has
been in self-employment, “independent contractors” who aren’t, and
outright off-the-books work.

A new report by the Economic Roundtable, a public benefit
research organization, released on Labor Day, found that 143,900
construction workers in California fell into the informal economy
in 2011. This was comprised of 104,100 construction workers who
were not reported by their employers and 39,800 who were
misclassified as independent contractors. Construction is a $152
billion industry in the Golden State, employing 895,000
construction workers, of whom one out of six has sunk into the
informal economy. A quarter of employees in the specialty trades
(including drywall and flooring) were informal.

The report is full of hand-wringing over lost taxes and those
poor mistreated workers sweating through the day with low pay and
no benefits. Don’t knock yourself out looking for any
acknowledgment that many of the jobs might not exist at all if the
work was done by the rules.

In its 2014 rankings of best and worst states for business,
Chief Executive magazine
bluntly announced, “California is the worst state for business
for the tenth year in a row.” The state gets one star out of five
for taxes and regulation. One executive is quoted saying,
“California could hardly do more to discourage business if that was
the goal. The regulatory, tax and political environment are
crushing.”

Californians should probably be glad that they still have so
many informal jobs, even if that means regulators and tax
collectors get their feelings hurt. Travis H. Brown, author of
How
Money Walks, points to IRS figures indicating that
California was a net loser of $46.32 billion in adjusted gross
income from 1992-2011 that fled to other states.

But instead of lobbying for relief, the state contracting
industry successfully persuaded politicians to subject their
businesses to even more onerous rules and enforcement, just to
punish competitors who have the nerve to try to survive in an
inhospitable environment.

California’s Governor Jerry Brown
signed a law last week threatening punishment for handymen who
advertise their services for jobs larger than $500, and giving
state enforcers free access to job sites to check on contractors’
licenses. As Steven Greenhut
noted for Reason, a big push for the law, which prescribes
criminal time for unlicensed work that previously drew
administrative penalties, came from the state’s contracting
industry. In a state that continuously ranks toward the bottom of
assessments of economic freedom, contractors seem dead-set on
penalizing competitors who flee into the shadow economy to escape
burdensome taxes and regulations. That’s a lot of competitors,
considering that one in six of the state’s construction workers
labors “informally.”

Just weeks ago, Economic Roundtable
released a report noting that “Informal employment in
Californian construction has increased by 400 percent since 1972.”
Formal employment—that is, work subject to the state’s growing web
of red tape and taxes—has increased too. But the biggest growth has
been in self-employment, “independent contractors” who aren’t, and
outright off-the-books work.

A new report by the Economic Roundtable, a public benefit
research organization, released on Labor Day, found that 143,900
construction workers in California fell into the informal economy
in 2011. This was comprised of 104,100 construction workers who
were not reported by their employers and 39,800 who were
misclassified as independent contractors. Construction is a $152
billion industry in the Golden State, employing 895,000
construction workers, of whom one out of six has sunk into the
informal economy. A quarter of employees in the specialty trades
(including drywall and flooring) were informal.

The report is full of hand-wringing over lost taxes and those
poor mistreated workers sweating through the day with low pay and
no benefits. Don’t knock yourself out looking for any
acknowledgment that many of the jobs might not exist at all if the
work was done by the rules.

In its 2014 rankings of best and worst states for business,
Chief Executive magazine
bluntly announced, “California is the worst state for business
for the tenth year in a row.” The state gets one star out of five
for taxes and regulation. One executive is quoted saying,
“California could hardly do more to discourage business if that was
the goal. The regulatory, tax and political environment are
crushing.”

Californians should probably be glad that they still have so
many informal jobs, even if that means regulators and tax
collectors get their feelings hurt. Travis H. Brown, author of
How
Money Walks, points to IRS figures indicating that
California was a net loser of $46.32 billion in adjusted gross
income from 1992-2011 that fled to other states.

But instead of lobbying for relief, the state contracting
industry successfully persuaded politicians to subject their
businesses to even more onerous rules and enforcement, just to
punish competitors who have the nerve to try to survive in an
inhospitable environment.

Earlier this week,
I wrote a column for The Daily Beast celebrating the debut of South
Park’s 18th season, which took place on Wednesday night.

Here’s a snippet:

The show is great because it’s true parody and satire not simply
of particular people and causes, but the very way we tell stories,
and the media forms we use to delude ourselves. It has this in
common with Parker and Stone’s Team America: World
Police (2004), the R-rated, all-puppet movie that holds
up long after most of us have forgotten exactly who Janeane
Garofalo, Helen Hunt, and Hans Blix ever were. Team
America targets buddy movies, Broadway musicals, United
Nations gatherings and self-important celebrities, and so much more
that it deconstructs virtually all popular forms of persuasion.

So it is with South Park, which edifies as it
offends—or maybe edifies because it offends.
Curiously, back in 1997, South Park was the very
first show to get a dreaded “MA” rating when networks started
rating their shows to forestall
legal action from Bill Clinton’s Justice Department. That
means it’s for “mature audiences” only.

Yet South Park is actually the
perfect show for kids and not simply because it takes
seriously all the travails of grammar school and traffics in
obsessions of childhood. Virtually every episode explains how
people in charge wield power by whipping up hysteria over nothing,
or try to force all of us into the same social or political
straitjacket. Yes, there’s a lot of cursing and blue material, but
there’s no better classroom for kids to learn the entwined lessons
of skepticism toward authority and respecting true diversity of
opinion.

Read the whole thing.

• The FBI has
  learned the identity of the ISIS terrorist who savagely
  murdered American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. U.S.
  officials are not yet releasing the executioner’s name.
• British Parliament
  agreed to airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq, but did not
  authorize any action in Syria.
• Attorney General Eric Holder’s
  health troubles were a factor in his decision to leave his job,
  according to reports.
• It’s
  about time for another obligatory article about Jeb Bush
  possibly running for president.
• An arsonist in Chicago
  really messed up the nation’s air travel today.
• Did a Los Angeles high school
  fire teachers because of their union activities?
• 
  About those jobs numbers…

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up
here.

• The FBI has
  learned the identity of the ISIS terrorist who savagely
  murdered American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. U.S.
  officials are not yet releasing the executioner’s name.
• British Parliament
  agreed to airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq, but did not
  authorize any action in Syria.
• Attorney General Eric Holder’s
  health troubles were a factor in his decision to leave his job,
  according to reports.
• It’s
  about time for another obligatory article about Jeb Bush
  possibly running for president.
• An arsonist in Chicago
  really messed up the nation’s air travel today.
• Did a Los Angeles high school
  fire teachers because of their union activities?
• 
  About those jobs numbers…

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up
here.

This week, President Obama OK’d airstrikes
against Islamic State targets using an unrelated 13-year-old
authorization for use of military force as his legal mandate. Seems
like a big deal. It may even be a good idea, writes David Harsanyi.
Yet even though Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, informed the Senate that ground troops could be
needed to finish the job—whatever that job may be—the president
didn’t bother to ask for permission. And really, why should he?
With the midterms approaching, elected officials in Congress have
remained vigilantly quiet or tepidly supportive. But if war isn’t
worth a Congressional vote, what is? 

View this article.

This week, President Obama OK’d airstrikes
against Islamic State targets using an unrelated 13-year-old
authorization for use of military force as his legal mandate. Seems
like a big deal. It may even be a good idea, writes David Harsanyi.
Yet even though Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, informed the Senate that ground troops could be
needed to finish the job—whatever that job may be—the president
didn’t bother to ask for permission. And really, why should he?
With the midterms approaching, elected officials in Congress have
remained vigilantly quiet or tepidly supportive. But if war isn’t
worth a Congressional vote, what is? 

View this article.