“I’m a small business owner,” someone identified as “Andy” writes to syndicated advice columnists J.T. and Dale, “and I can’t believe how many people just don’t want to work anymore. … my business is suffering, because I can’t get employees.”

My social media feeds are full of photographs — who knows if they’re real or not? I haven’t seen any in my town, but friends say they’ve seen them elsewhere — of signs at businesses apologizing for being “short-staffed,” with “people just don’t want to work” complaints appended.

The country seems adrift in a sea of whiny employers. What’s really going on here?

The standard explanation for a little while was that  “enhanced” unemployment benefits that continued even after pandemic-related (but politically created) economic shutdowns ended made it more lucrative to sit at home and play video games than, say, flip burgers. And who could be blamed for taking that deal?

That explanation’s not making much sense anymore as extra unemployment benefits, “stimulus” checks, and eviction moratoria fade into memory.

US unemployment is low  (5.2% in August; economists consider 5% or lower to effectively constitute “full employment”). Those who “want to work” are working. Why do so many seemingly not “want” to?

Put simply, they’re not being offered as much for their time and effort as they consider it to be worth.

The pandemic shutdowns and benefits affected that in two big ways.

First, some people who were able to retire decided to do so, when otherwise they might have stuck out a few more years in the work force. The available supply of labor was thus reduced.

Second, some people learned to be thriftier and make do on less over the last 18 months. You’ll bust your hump, whatever it takes, to keep a roof overhead and ramen in the pantry. Once that’s covered, though, you’re in a position to ask yourself how many hours a week you’re willing to trade for Netflix, craft beer, and expensive sneakers. The answer, right now, would appear to be “fewer.”

Labor is a commodity. It’s something the worker sells for money. And as with any other commodity, supply versus demand tells the story.

When there’s plenty of supply versus demand  — that is, high unemployment — employers can drive a hard bargain. “Don’t want to clean toilets for $7.50 an hour? No problem. There are ten other people who will.”

But when demand exceeds supply, as now, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot. “Don’t want to pay $20 an hour to get your toilets cleaned? No problem. There are ten other employers who will.”

Yes, workers and employers complain whenever they find themselves on the less profitable side of that equation. But in the end, money talks and complaints walk.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

On August 25, two days after the US Food and Drug Administration fully approved  the Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 vaccine, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered “full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces.”

Cue outrage and objection. Some officers have resigned their commissions; some enlisted personnel seem willing to risk court-martial and dishonorable discharge rather than get vaccinated. Some claim the mandate violates their rights or lacks a legal basis.

In the quarter century since my honorable discharge from the US Marine Corps, I’ve occasionally been asked by friends to have “the talk” with their teenagers who are considering military careers.

In my view, “the talk” shouldn’t be about whether joining the armed forces is a good idea. That’s a personal decision. “The talk” should be an unvarnished description of what to expect.

Here’s a short version of “the talk,” for those considering enlisting and those who have, in the age of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate:

For the entirety of your military career, you will spend most of your waking hours (and you will be roused from sleep many, many times) doing what you’re told to do. Period.

You’ll go where you’re told to go. You’ll wear what you’re told to wear. You’ll eat what you’re given, when it’s given to you, and you’ll have your hair cut as directed.

You’ll be ordered to do unpleasant things, and do them, possibly including killing other people, being killed yourself, or watching your friends die.

Yes, there’s a contract — a contract more for the government’s protection than yours,  which can be unilaterally changed at the government’s convenience.  Here’s section 9b of that contract:

“Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.” [Emphasis in original]

If they do things now as they did in 1984, you’ll be taken through that contract line by line, twice, initialing each section to attest that you understand what it means so you can’t claim otherwise later, before you’re allowed to sign it, take the oath of enlistment, and ship out for boot camp.

The government’s end of the contract involves providing you with three hots, a cot, a paycheck, healthcare, college benefits, etc.

Your end of the contract says that when you’re ordered by your platoon commander to assault an enemy position, or by the Secretary of Defense to get vaccinated, you’ll assault that position or get that injection.

If you can’t stomach that, don’t sign the contract. If you do sign the contract, don’t whine about it or renege on it later when it requires you to do something you don’t want to do.

Thus endeth “the talk.”

Do I like vaccine mandates? No.

Do I believe vaccine mandates are constitutional or morally acceptable where private citizens, un-obligated by contract, are concerned? No.

But as for members of the armed forces: Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

When debating immigration policy with people who have deluded themselves into believing that it’s any of their business where other people choose to live or work, I run into a lot of bad arguments. Of all those arguments, probably the silliest is “but they don’t speak English.”

The simplest, and most appropriate response to that argument comes from comedian Doug Stanhope: “Then don’t talk to ’em.” Problem solved. But I can’t get a whole column out of that response, so let’s take apart the fake “issue” in a little more detail.

Often, the argument starts off with fake tones of sympathy. Those poor immigrants — how will they ever get jobs and “assimilate” if they don’t know “the national language?” Send them back for their own good!

Oddly, the same people almost always immediately turn to the claim that “MY grandparents came here from [insert country], and you know what they did? They learned English!”

Clue: Your grandparents weren’t special exceptions. Most immigrants who don’t already know English will learn it, especially if their career ambitions require them to.

The next turn is generally something along the lines of “English is the ‘national language,’ and no nation can survive without a common language.”

English is a fairly dominant language in the US at this time, although Spanish seems to be gaining. But the US has never had a “national language.” It’s always hosted a mix.

The Declaration of Independence was initially published in the five most common American languages as of 1776: English, French, German, Dutch, and Spanish.

English really started gaining dominance in the 20th century, after the US government drafted millions of men into the armed forces for World War Two and insisted they be able to take orders in English (in the previous largest US military mobilization, for the Civil War, the Union army formed segregated regiments of e.g. German speakers).

But there are still entire urban neighborhoods where one might walk several blocks and hear nothing but Mandarin or Yiddish or Russian or Hindi. And in large swaths of the country, Spanish competes with English for dominance.

A single common language in a country is the exception — and in countries with populations of more than 200 million there are no such exceptions — not the rule.

India, for example, boasts 23 “official” languages, 122 “major” languages, and, according to its 2001 census, 1,599 other languages.

While forceful government policy has made Mandarin the dominant “first language” in China, more than 300 other languages survive.

Typical among western European countries is Belgium, with three “official” and several regional languages, in addition to nearly 40% of the population speaking English.

There are no good arguments for immigration authoritarianism, but the  “they don’t speak English” dodge is easily the least convincing.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY