It is no coincidence that Italy is also known for having one of the most “pro-worker” labor policies among its Western counterparts—one that provides extensive job security and decent wages for current workers and makes it almost impossible for businesses to fire employees. But, as a result, employers are hesitant to hire workers, especially inexperienced youth, older workers, or where it’s unclear how the worker will perform on the job. There is little labor market mobility or turnover—so if you’re going to search for a job in Italy, you will have better luck finding charming cafes on the cliffside.
In fact, a set of studies found that when Italy even slightly reduced protective employment regulations, it led to increased employment and more jobs for younger workers. But Italy is not a stand-alone case. Through case studies around the world, economists have long documented how more-restrictive labor regulations, especially regarding job security, lead to less labor mobility, fewer job opportunities and higher unemployment rates.
The Biden administration’s policies erode rather than boost competitiveness. The subsidies have spurred a building spree, with construction spending on factories up by almost $100 billion over a year ago. But the workers employed in all these new facilities will likely be more unionized, and the administration has added a host of other labor requirements to receive funding. That means costlier labor and, very likely, more strikes.
The reason the middle class is smaller than it was in the 1970s is that more people moved to the upper class. The lower class is smaller, and today, 36 percent of U.S. households make six figures. The long-run decline in the price of consumer goods relative to income means that people today spend a smaller proportion of their pay on basic necessities. And the homeownership rate, which was 55 percent in 1950 — the supposed post–World War II golden age of the middle class — is 66 percent today.
In May of ’21, CDC falsely claimed that children accounted for 4% of Covid deaths. But the real data showed the true number was four-hundredths of one percent (.04%). Is it a coincidence that this mistake coincided w/CDC’s controversial decision to recommend Pfizer’s Covid vaccine for kids as young as 12? Who’s been held accountable for these mistakes and misinformation?