Baha, epic from Sheppard Smith. I like his delayed reaction that cursing there was inappropriate given it was live TV.

Werthless wrote:http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/43521177.html

How is that these writers don't have to cite anything or offer sources for statistics? Has it always been that way and I'm just now noticing it?

Werthless wrote:http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/43521177.html

Piling up those strawmen again, I see.

The cynicism of prevailing wage law opponents is almost impressive: make employers pay less--have them race to the bottom, in fact--so that government pays more through social assistance programs. This hack adds the notion that African-American construction workers should be "empowered" by getting to work for lousy wages, presumably in less safe conditions and doing a worse job (the main point of apprenticeship is quality control).

Minority representation in the construction industry is a subject that's been pretty exhaustively studied. In NYC, the political pressures around the question pushed Bloomberg to adopt a whole set of policies to address the question during his '05 re-election campaign. Some worked, some didn't, but the idea of repealing prevailing wage is so dumb, and so irrelevant to the underlying issue, that it wasn't even suggested here.

Really a deplorable piece.

edit: the other issue is that in NYC, and I'm guessing approximately in Philly too, the unionized construction workforce has an average age of close to 50. These aren't jobs you can do when you're an old man. So the supposedly irrelevant question of recruitment into apprenticeships is actually the most effective and least market-intrusive way to solve the problem of minority (and female) under-representation. But I'm guessing the author both doesn't know and doesn't care, since the real and sole purpose of the piece is to boost profit margins, recession be damned.

Half of TX Republicans support secession

Somebody get me the weeping eagle emoticon...

Texas is a weird place. I had two roommates in college, both liberals incidentally, who were from Texas. One of them had a Texas flag in his bedroom. The other one's bed spread was a blanket in the design of the Texas flag.

In that poll independents only favor staying in America by a 55-40 margin.

it amazes me that newspapers still have columnists and editorial pieces. their quality is terrible and, so, their value is so marginal anymore. you can find any number of better writings in journals and online in about 5 seconds.

re: the Inky piece on unions, the author is a "research intern with the Harrisburg-based Commonwealth Foundation." they didn't even have the balls to put it under one of the Senior Fellows names?

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/43521177.html

Piling up those strawmen again, I see.

The cynicism of prevailing wage law opponents is almost impressive: make employers pay less--have them race to the bottom, in fact--so that government pays more through social assistance programs. This hack adds the notion that African-American construction workers should be "empowered" by getting to work for lousy wages, presumably in less safe conditions and doing a worse job (the main point of apprenticeship is quality control).

Minority representation in the construction industry is a subject that's been pretty exhaustively studied. In NYC, the political pressures around the question pushed Bloomberg to adopt a whole set of policies to address the question during his '05 re-election campaign. Some worked, some didn't, but the idea of repealing prevailing wage is so dumb, and so irrelevant to the underlying issue, that it wasn't even suggested here.

Really a deplorable piece.

edit: the other issue is that in NYC, and I'm guessing approximately in Philly too, the unionized construction workforce has an average age of close to 50. These aren't jobs you can do when you're an old man. So the supposedly irrelevant question of recruitment into apprenticeships is actually the most effective and least market-intrusive way to solve the problem of minority (and female) under-representation. But I'm guessing the author both doesn't know and doesn't care, since the real and sole purpose of the piece is to boost profit margins, recession be damned.

Who's piling up strawman again? I don't think I've ever linked to philly.com.

To explain my reaction to the philly.com piece, it's just all over the place, which is why I posted. I'm sort of amused, that by posting an article for people to read, you claim I'm piling up "strawman" arguments. Um, I didn't write the article, and I made no argument.

Here are my thoughts. I agreed with some stuff in the article, that unions probably cost the city money for public projects. I thought it was interesting that many union live outside the city, so in effect, the city is subsidizing the work of out-of-towners. I don't think this issue should be overlooked by city government, who need to look after their constituents. As unemployment rises, I think the city government should look into their practices, and see how they are employing people for jobs.

The race stuff is sort of stupid, in my opinion, but I'm surprised you have reacted so harshly to it. I consider the claims to be fairly liberal claims, so it's weird to be attacked for simply posting it without commentary. Allegedly, the wage act was passed to suppress Southern black migrant workers from taking their jobs. "At the time, union organizers testified in congressional hearings that "colored labor" was depressing wages and referred to black construction workers as "an undesirable element of people."" Now, I think such an action is bad, and I would have thought that the liberals among us would have agreed. I'm sort of confused why the article was attacked. I can imagine how free marketers will dislike the wage act for its high union wages exceeding "market" rates. Additionally, Nutter's response was to install a quota system

Mayor Nutter, unwilling to risk losing the support of unions by challenging their discriminatory hiring practices, chose instead to issue a report stating that minorities should account for 32 percent of workers on the city's large-scale construction projects.

On the other side of the aisle, I can see how liberals will dislike the negative impact it has on the city's black workers. But I don't understand the blanket "He's wrong. It has to be like that." Perhaps you can explain further why?


On a related note, I posted that reverse discrimination suit that I support, because I think it's an example of blatant racism that judges an action by its result only. I didn't mention it earlier because I didn't realize it (my law student wife informed me), but this form of discrimination is not protected by the Constitution: " an official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact."

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Werthless wrote:http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/43521177.html

How is that these writers don't have to cite anything or offer sources for statistics? Has it always been that way and I'm just now noticing it?

Yeah, I would have liked little hyperlink sources. I think most of the major outlets use hyperlinked sources, and all decent blogs do. But I guess philly.com is "special."

dajafi wrote:Piling up those strawmen again, I see.

The cynicism of prevailing wage law opponents is almost impressive: make employers pay less strawman --have them race to the bottom, in fact appeal to emotion--so that government pays more through social assistance programs assertion...see below . This hack ad hominem adds the notion that African-American construction workers should be "empowered" by getting to work for lousy wages strawman... see below, presumably in less safe conditions assertion and doing a worse job assertion (the main point of apprenticeship is quality control). Non-union workers can't have apprenticeships??

Just for fun, since you accuse me of fallacious argument.

Nowhere in the article was black empowerment mentioned. Could you point out where it was, in case I missed it?

Oh, and if construction wages did decrease on average, the social costs would be lowered. Because if wages were lower, either the city could hire more workers (lowering unemployment payments), or the city would simply save the money, thus having more money to pay for social services.

Werthless wrote:The race stuff is sort of stupid, in my opinion, but I'm surprised you have reacted so harshly to it. I consider the claims to be fairly liberal claims, so it's weird to be attacked for simply posting it without commentary. Allegedly, the wage act was passed to suppress Southern black migrant workers from taking their jobs. "At the time, union organizers testified in congressional hearings that "colored labor" was depressing wages and referred to black construction workers as "an undesirable element of people.""

The author is correct about Davis-Bacon's origins, but they are irrelevant to its current use. It was known at the time that the unions wouldn't let in African-Americans, so the law was a safe way to cater to both bigotry and economic self-interest on the part of the only people who could vote in the south at the time. In the not quite eighty years since, there has emerged a very large body of litigation to open up the trades to previously excluded groups. If anyone is interested, here's one recent paper on historical and contemporary diversity issues in the construction industry that sets out some of the back story.

I reacted "harshly" to "the race stuff" because I find that writer's concern for racial justice about as plausible as Dick Cheney's recent support for transparency in government. And I subsequently explained why Nutter's approach is probably the correct one (though it's much easier to wrongly demonize it as a "quota"), unless the age demographics of the unionized construction workforce in Philadelphia are very different than they are here.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Piling up those strawmen again, I see.

The cynicism of prevailing wage law opponents is almost impressive: make employers pay less strawman --have them race to the bottom, in fact appeal to emotion--so that government pays more through social assistance programs assertion...see below . This hack ad hominem adds the notion that African-American construction workers should be "empowered" by getting to work for lousy wages strawman... see below, presumably in less safe conditions assertion and doing a worse job assertion (the main point of apprenticeship is quality control). Non-union workers can't have apprenticeships??

Just for fun, since you accuse me of fallacious argument.

Nowhere in the article was black empowerment mentioned. Could you point out where it was, in case I missed it?

Oh, and if construction wages did decrease on average, the social costs would be lowered. Because if wages were lower, either the city could hire more workers (lowering unemployment payments), or the city would simply save the money, thus having more money to pay for social services.

Every one of what you characterize as "assertions" are borne out by a vast literature of research, much of it cited in the report I linked above.

And the last point is howlingly dumb, reality-resistant tripe even by your low standards. By that pseudo-logic, every employer could pay minimum wage and stop offering health coverage, and we'd all be better off on Medicaid-for-all--a strange approach for an anti-government ideologue.

I'm consistently amazed by your propensity to mouth off about stuff you know nothing about. Stick to the Austrians.

My uncle's construction company has apprenticeships. He's non-union. My other uncle's construction company competes on cost. It's a really small business, and I don't think he doesn't take on apprentices. My other uncle in construction is also non-union, but he's pretty niche.

What were your thoughts on this part of the article? What should we take from this? Nothing? (I wish there was a cite, but let's assume they're correct)

In the past 30 years, 10 states have repealed their prevailing-wage laws. In these states, 60 percent of the difference in wages between black and non-black construction workers has disappeared, studies have shown. On average, wages for black construction workers in these states have increased 5.5 percent.

Black construction workers in non-prevailing-wage states not only receive higher wages; they also have more job opportunities. And black workers have more difficulty finding work in states where organized labor is strong. Between 1980 and 1990, black employment in the construction industry fell 11 percent in prevailing-wage states; in those without prevailing-wage laws, the decrease was limited to 2 percent.

I mean, I don't have a problem with a change in white/black employment, as there can be explanations that go beyond race or discrimination. But a law designed to entrench the status quo, left over from a time where illegal discrimination was openly practiced, is wrong. I don't understand how a liberal can support such a law.

Werthless wrote:What were your thoughts on this part of the article? What should we take from this? Nothing? (I wish there was a cite, but let's assume they're correct)

In the past 30 years, 10 states have repealed their prevailing-wage laws. In these states, 60 percent of the difference in wages between black and non-black construction workers has disappeared, studies have shown. On average, wages for black construction workers in these states have increased 5.5 percent.

Black construction workers in non-prevailing-wage states not only receive higher wages; they also have more job opportunities. And black workers have more difficulty finding work in states where organized labor is strong. Between 1980 and 1990, black employment in the construction industry fell 11 percent in prevailing-wage states; in those without prevailing-wage laws, the decrease was limited to 2 percent.

I mean, I don't have a problem with a change in white/black employment, as there can be explanations that go beyond race or discrimination. But a law designed to entrench the status quo, left over from a time where illegal discrimination was openly practiced, is wrong. I don't understand how a liberal can support such a law.

My main thought is that the two grafs are full of cherry-picked stats: "between 1980 and 1990," and the fact that while the author cites the 5.5 percent wage gain in the repeal states, he doesn't give a number for the ones that have kept their laws. If it advanced his point, I bet he would have. There are also some definitional holes--what is a "job opportunity" exactly?

Beyond that, industry conditions differ from one state to the next to an extent that generalizing is probably not a great idea. Everything from the state's fiscal health to the prevalence of unionization has an impact. I wouldn't expect the intern to run a regression analysis, but that's the sort of thing you need to convincingly assert causality.

None of this is to absolve the trades of their discriminatory legacy. But IMO it's not racist--not anymore, at least--so much as it's broadly restrictive: they have an interest in keeping labor supply low, which means inevitable status-quo bias. In past decades these were good jobs that stayed within families; now they're just about the only jobs that pay a family-supporting wage but don't require post-secondary education (which is why people like me are particularly interested in seeing them opened to non-white kids). The culture has changed to a point that a plumber's son might want to be a lawyer or banker, and the plumber probably wants that for his kid. But as that guy ages, he accumulates seniority, so the black kid who's 30 years younger spends a lot of days in the hiring hall.

I think the process of aging out will take care of the problem--the trades recognize that ultimately they have to field a workforce that more or less mirrors the diversity of the communities in which they operate. One enforcement action I would like to see is a closer check on whether non-white apprentices and journeymen get work as often as their seniority-equivalent white counterparts.

Cool, thanks for the followup post.

Here are some other interesting links for the day:

Larry Summers nodding off

Japan pays Latin American workers to leave

Silly French

jerseyhoya wrote:Texas is a weird place. I had two roommates in college, both liberals incidentally, who were from Texas. One of them had a Texas flag in his bedroom. The other one's bed spread was a blanket in the design of the Texas flag.

In that poll independents only favor staying in America by a 55-40 margin.

When you tell people from Texas that not every thinks Texas is the greatest state in the country, or that a lot of people hate the Dallas Cowboys, they are sincerely surprised.

Their social studies curriculum, even through college (they have special poli sci textbook editions for intro to American Gov) provides all Texans, regardless of political leanings a healthy dose of chauvinism and propaganda.

Senate Leaders Opposes [sic] Interrogation Inquiry Panel

At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Senate Democrats endorsed Mr. Obama’s view on Thursday, telling reporters that they preferred to wait for the results of an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee expected sometime “late this year.” But Ms. Pelosi renewed her call for an independent panel.

Mr. Reid, who repeatedly denounced the use of harsh interrogation techniques when Mr. Bush was president, suggested that naming a special panel would signal an intent to exact “retribution” and he sought to paper over the disagreement with members of his own caucus, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who want a commission.

I'm starting to think there's no good outcome here.

If they do investigate, the Democrats will overdo it and the Republicans will dig in; the oxygen will be drained from trying to get anything else done, and the political climate will remain as bad as it's been since 1993 or even get worse.

If they don't investigate, a (last?) chance to rein in the imperial presidency is foregone, and we come across to the world as enormous hypocrites. Not to mention a strong message is sent that we'll torture again at some point.

Werthless wrote:Cool, thanks for the followup post.

Here are some other interesting links for the day:

Japan pays Latin American workers to leave

utterly disgraceful policy