Here are some good snippets from the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition. First, from an opinion piece called, Employers on Strike:
The private economy—that is, the wealth creation part, not the wealth redistribution part—gained only 41,000 jobs, down sharply from the encouraging 218,000 in April, and 158,000 in March.
There were some slivers of good news in the May jobs report. For those who have jobs, the average work week rose by 0.1 hours to 34.2 hours and earnings nudged upward by 0.3%. Manufacturers added 29,000 workers, and their hours worked jumped 5.1%, the best since 1983.
Perhaps this is what White House chief economist Christina Romer was looking at yesterday when she cited “encouraging developments” in the jobs market and “continuing signs of labor market recovery.” We doubt this was the private reaction in the Oval Office, whose occupant was told by Ms. Romer and economic co-religionist Jared Bernstein that the February 2009 stimulus would kick start a recovery in growth and jobs.
Imagine if Ms. Romer had instead promised in 2009 that Congress could spend nearly $1 trillion, and 16 months later the unemployment rate would be nearly 10% and that more than 2.5 million additional Americans would be without jobs. Would Congress have still spent the cash? Well, sure, Congress will always spend what it can get away with, but the American public would have turned against the stimulus even faster than it has.
Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25, pricing more workers out of jobs. The teen unemployment rate rose to 26.4% in May, and for those between the ages of 25 and 34 it rose to 10.5%.
I added the italics.
Nice work. If the message wasn’t clear, Obama’s economists don’t know what they’re doing.
The teen unemployment was a shocker. These teens may be working off-the-books jobs like lawn care, landscaping and painting to turn a buck. That is another unintended consequence of regulation – black market.
The Weekend edition also had this nice piece about a 27-year-old film maker, Madeleine Sackler, who produced a film that shows the politics around charter schools in Harlem.
Nice going Madeleine! In short, the parents seems to want charter schools and the establishment (teachers, administrators and the rest sucking off the teat of the public school funds) don’t. Surprising, I know. Not really.
It’s not surprising that parents want to have a choice and give their kids the best education possible. It’s also not surprising that people with financial stakes and power don’t want to give them up.
I hope the story ends well. Ultimately, the power still resides in the hands of the voters, as far as I know. It would be nice if the people who want school choice can convince the other taxpayers in their community and get them to vote in candidates on the city council and school board that are friendly to such ideas. But, that’s the problem, as I see it. Usually the parent-of-school-age-children population of the school district is a relatively small vs. the total population.