April 29, 2015 9:14 AM
Discrimination may be bad for business, but that doesn’t mean laws banning discrimination are good for business. Often, these laws are like the proverbial Trojan Horse, applied by the courts in unexpected ways that are harmful to businesses, including employers who harbor no prejudice of any kind. For example, the Supreme Court interpreted a federal race and sex discrimination law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) as banning unintentional “disparate impact” (which is when a neutrally applied selection criterion weeds out more black than white applicants) even though that statute explicitly limited relief to cases where there was a showing that the employer had “intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice.” [See Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g).] The result of that case was to outlaw a wide array of useful, colorblind standardized tests.
The Supreme Court also interpreted a statutory attorneys fees provision that was neutral on its face as instead mandating one-way fee-shifting, effectively entitling only prevailing plaintiffs to such fees (except in really extreme cases), not prevailing defendants, and entitling such plaintiffs to fees even if the employer had a reasonable, good-faith belief for taking the position it did. [See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978).]
Civil rights agencies and courts also impose emotional distress damages in discrimination cases that seem to be either grossly exaggerated, or insufficiently corroborated by objective evidence. For an example of the former, see the recent ruling by an administrative law judge in the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, recommending “$135,000 in damages against Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Ore., who had declined to cater a gay wedding on grounds of religious scruples [Oregonian, earlier].” As is typical in administrative discrimination cases, the same agency is effectively serving as prosecutor, judge, and jury, which the Founding Fathers would have viewed as a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, as law professor Philip Hamburger has explained.
$135,000 (or even a tenth that amount) is a grossly excessive emotional-distress damage award for a simple refusal to contract with a customer. Being rebuffed by a merchant is much less painful than losing your job, or even losing out on a promotion, and people wrongly fired from their jobs typically get less than $135,000 in emotional distress damages. The award is so ridiculously large that it seems to designed not to compensate, but to punish people for harboring archaic beliefs, with the lion’s share of the award being to punish the small business owners for their thought-crime, rather than make anyone whole.
April 27, 2015 3:35 PM
CEI responded to the news that the Comcast-Time Warner merger failed. You can read more analysis from CEI's Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews here.
"The deck was stacked against this deal from the beginning: Comcast and Time Warner Cable had to seek permission to merge from not only the Department of Justice, but also the Federal Communications Commission. While the DOJ must win in court before it can block an acquisition, the FCC has unilateral power to send a transaction into regulatory limbo for years before the merging parties get a chance to be heard by an independent federal judge. This process turns the rule of law on its head, and only Congress can fix it."
-- Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies
“The collapse of the Comcast-Time Warner merger merely because of the interference of government, not because of actual market rejection, illustrates the overwhelming power of the modern state to undermine the advance of communications technologies and services. These bureaucrats have decided on our behalf to award other communications industry companies a government-granted reprieve from the pressures of competition.”
-- Wayne Crews, CEI Vice President for Policy
April 23, 2015 5:17 PM
Today we’ve learned again that bureaucrats and their enormous kingdoms come before consumer welfare.
The collapse of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger merely because of the interference of government, not because of actual market rejection, illustrates the overwhelming power of the modern state in undermining the advance of communications technologies and services specifically in this instance, and of free competitive enterprise generally.
The proposed transaction was first announced well over a year ago, and as is now the unfortunate and disruptive norm, the parties had to await the verdicts of bureaucracies rather than set immediately about serving consumer markets. Now, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Communications Commission, whose edicts change the direction of entire industries with the slightest gesture, have decided to derail the deal.
These bureaucrats have decided on our behalf that the merger wouldn’t help us. What they have really decided is that no competitor will need to react to the Comcast-TWC merger, and so competitors have been awarded a government-granted reprieve from the pressures of competition. Over and over, antitrust routinely harms consumers far more than any ordinary business transaction like this can ever do.
Sometimes mergers work, sometimes they don’t—like the failed AOL-Time Warner merger. But such matters should be settled in the marketplace, not by overlords in Washington who, if we are the slightest bit honest, are the real wielders of unchecked monopoly power over all industries, not just one sector like this.
For an earlier discussion of this merger, here’s a column of mine in Forbes. “Why Organized Conservative Opposition To The Comcast Time Warner Deal Misfires.”
On the folly of antitrust regulation (and it is regulation), see my formal comments to the Federal Trade Commission’s Antitrust Modernization Commission.
April 22, 2015 1:07 PM
Prof. Steve Horwitz of St. Lawrence University has a fascinating article up at MarketWatch, in which he argues that many of the major changes in family structure and gender roles we have seen over time are primarily a result of market forces and increasing prosperity. Serendipitously, I recently attended a lecture by Prof. Jerry Muller, presented by the Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets, in which he made many of the same connections.
The Industrial Revolution, for example, created new opportunities for wage labor outside the home and family farm, so all sorts of poor people—men, women, and children—ended up taking those jobs to contribute to the household’s income. As real wages rose with increased productivity, more men were able to become sole breadwinners for their entire family, and children and women were able to return to the domestic sphere. Many of those children went to school rather than doing any physical work, and women generally assumed the role of what many people today consider the “traditional” homemaker.
But in many ways that tradition was short-lived. As an array of labor-saving devices for the home proliferated in the early 20th Century, women were again seeking career opportunities outside the home. Horwitz points out that this has led, for example, to more women working with young children, a trend that itself has been made possible because women, in recent decades, have been having fewer children on average, making paid daycare a more affordable option.
I suspect Horwitz and Muller might disagree on the second half of Horwitz’s MarketWatch article that applies the same analysis to sexual orientation and individual expression, but the overall theory—that “social” trends have a lot more to do with economic effects than many historians and sociologists acknowledge—remains a compelling one.
February 25, 2015 12:15 PM
There’s exciting stuff going on in the world of higher education these days for fans of free markets. Just last week, the University of Arizona’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom received a $2.9 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation to help build a network of philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) programs at several universities around the world.
Closer to home here in Washington, D.C., the new Ed Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets at the University of Maryland is making a strong showing out of the gate. Earlier this month the Center hosted a debate over income inequality and public policy including current Executive MBA students and outside speakers Yaron Brook and Paul Vaaler. The video content from that event is well worth re-visiting for anyone who was unable to attend in person.
February 20, 2015 12:59 PM
Policies aimed at reducing auto emissions in California and 10 other states are having a troubling set of unintended consequences, according to a recent editorial at Bloomberg View. Editors point out that the “zero-emissions” credits program ends up amounting to a subsidy for electric carmaker Tesla Motors of up to $30,000 per car sold, penalizing the buyers of nonelectric vehicles who end up underwriting the purchase of someone else’s $100,000 Model S. In addition, electric cars may not even be much “greener” than their nonelectric counterparts, when one considers the time of day these cars are charged as well as the source of the electricity—in many parts of the country, exchanging a conventional vehicle for an electric one means trading a gasoline-powered car for one powered by coal.
The Bloomberg editors, unfortunately, suggest solving the problem with two even worse policies: stricter fuel economy standards and a carbon tax. Perhaps if they had read this post by my colleague Richard Morrison, they might also consider a free market approach to the auto industry. Richard suggests treating Tesla fairly by ending both the apparent war against their retail strategy of selling directly to consumers (or owning their own dealerships), as well as eliminating the huge tax subsidies being offered by states like Nevada and New York. If Tesla makes cars that are as awesome as they are made out to be, then surely the company will find consumers who want to drive them—without having to pick their neighbors’ pockets.
February 20, 2015 11:31 AM
A fascinating Kickstarter funding campaign just ended yesterday, and it was a major one. A new card game with the alarming title of “Exploding Kittens” (don’t worry—no actual kittens were harmed) has managed to raise $8,782,571 over the last 30 days. This makes it the third most highly funded Kickstarter campaign ever, and the one with the most total backers.
Exploding Kittens is a wonder of the Internet age—a party game full of goofy images and bizarre characters that was 1000-percent funded in less than an hour of its launch. It’s unlikely to have attracted the venture capital bigwigs from Shark Tank or the product acquisition VPs from Parker Brothers and Hasbro. The title alone is edgy enough to make your average Toys ‘R’ Us executive nervous, yet it’s clearly a product hundreds of thousands of people are willing to pay for. Thank you, Internet.
The advent of online crowd funding, of which Kickstarter is merely the best known platform, has become one of the most exciting developments in recent business history. At a time when voices from the left are again arguing that the history of the “self-made man” in America is built on myth, the projects that have been successfully crowd funded demonstrate that a single person—or a small team—with a good idea can produce something customers love and make some good money in the process. What could be more American than that?
February 10, 2015 10:39 AM
Sometimes cronyism in the business world takes the form of a company receiving special government favors and subsidies—the now-infamous Solyndra, for example—but sometimes it takes the form of being singled out for punitive action instead. The software company Zenefits seems to have ended up in just such a scenario in Utah, where, along among the 50 states, it has been forbidden from operating.
Zenefits offers free human resources software to small businesses and nonprofits, while offering optional insurance brokerage services. If a company decides to buy insurance through them, they make a commission. If not, their clients are free to continue using Zenefits’ services free of charge. According to the company, about 80 percent of their clients are currently in the free-of-charge category.
This model is, not surprisingly, a potential competitive threat to other firms in the HR and insurance businesses, and insurance regulators have decided that offering free services in addition to being an insurance broker violates the Beehive State’s “anti-rebating” statute (see this explanation by Sarah Buhr of Tech Crunch). So despite being a legit operation everywhere else in the country, they are not welcome in Utah.
I was happy to see Zenefits CEO Parker Conrad stand up to this ruling in an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune recently, titled “My company is disruptive, but it shouldn’t be banned in Utah.” He emphasizes that recent innovation in the insurance industry has made regulations like Utah’s increasingly obsolete and anti-consumer, while also comparing the hostility to his company to the backlash that has greeted the arrival of Uber, Airbnb, and Tesla Motors dealerships across the country.
Fortunately, things seem to be looking up for the company. Fellow entrepreneurs and investors in Utah were quick to ridicule the decision, greeting it with comments like "Regulators, get out of (the) way. Ridiculous. Embarrassing," and "Last week we kicked Uber and Lyft out of Utah. This week Zenefits. The good (old) boy network is alive and well in the Beehive State." Better yet, the Utah legislature is now considering a bill that would clarify the language of Utah’s insurance regulation to allow businesses like Zenefits to operate in the state. Utah’s governor and lieutenant governor have also signaled support for the reform. It could be only a matter of days before Utah’s small businesses get a chance to check out Zenefits’ offerings for themselves.
February 9, 2015 1:34 PM
Right-of-center groups have for some time become a bit complacent. Sure the left had the universities, the media, and pop culture—but we had the think tanks. In the world of principled and ideologically motivated policy, we were dominant—libertarian and conservative groups were growing in size and influence. We were—for a while—unchallenged.
No longer. The left and its financial supporters have realized that gap in their force array and have poured resources into addressing that deficiency. The Center for American Progress—the left’s Heritage Foundation—and the New America Foundation (CAP’s more intellectual counterpart) have become influential counters.
The most recent example of that is CAP’s new product, Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity. “Inclusive” is one of the many adjectives used to modify “capitalism,” joining terms like “crony,” “conscious,” and “creative” to suggest that—with a bit of tweaking—capitalism can be saved. The report resonates with the old themes of the left: “technological progress benefits primarily highly skilled workers” (the shift from skilled long bowmen to muskets? The shift from skilled bookkeepers to offshored data processors?); an obsession with shifts in the distribution of monetary income (very little discussion of offsetting changes in the quality or prices of goods); worries about worker mobility; a view of the market as one of power struggles rather than evolving voluntary arrangements.
It’s an interesting glimpse into the way the left is seeking to repackage its messages. Not much new: an appeal to envy, the plea for achieving “creative destruction” in a static economy, an unchanged belief that growth depends on government-led industrial policy, and clichés about technology and education. The left is desperate to retain control of the egalitarian moral high ground. This salvo is unlikely to succeed, but the broader approach should concern us.
February 9, 2015 10:44 AM
This weekend I attended a fascinating event at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business on the subject of economic inequality. Prof. Rajshree Agarwal put together a program that included a series of short debates by her Executive MBA students, followed by a one-on-one debate on the same questions between University of Minnesota Prof. Paul Vaaler and Ayn Rand Institute Executive Director Yaron Brook.
Participants argued for and against propositions such as “Taxes (existing and new) should be used to reduce inequality of outcomes” and “CEO pays should be capped at some percentage of the lowest paid employee in the firm.” The MBA students were assigned positions and debated based on recent readings, while Vaaler and Brook argued their own personal convictions on the meaning of economic inequality and the role of both business and government in responding to it.
Prof. Vaaler emphasized the role of participatory democracy in setting societal norms for questions like the just distribution of wealth, while Brook dismissed concerns about inequality per se, arguing that economic rewards should flow to whomever has earned them, regardless of the resulting distribution. The MBA students followed up with a highly engaged series of questions for both speakers.
Finally, the students were polled on a series of four questions having to do with inequality and had their responses contrasted with the answers they gave before the debate began. On 3 out of 4 questions, the students moved closer to Brooks’ position—that either inequality is not an issue of paramount concern in the first place, or that public policy measures like capping CEO pay were not well advised.
While the specific result was encouraging from a free market point of view, the fact that business school students were being challenged on these issues at all is especially important. Business schools do an excellent job training future business leaders in areas like program management and creative problem solving, but don’t necessarily focus on questions of politics and morality that are, nevertheless, also vital to operating a business in a heavily-regulated, mixed economy. Prof. Agarwal, who leads the newly launched Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets at the University of Maryland, is doing an excellent job of challenging her students on these issues. I have no doubt that tomorrow’s shareholders will thank her when her students become CEOs themselves.