Suchergebnisse

To really end labour shortages, Ankita Anand writes, Europe must transform its contract with the global south.

Res Philosophica invites papers on the work of Jürgen Habermas for the 2023 Res Philosophica Essay Prize. The author of the winning paper will receive a prize of $3,000 and publication in the special issue of the journal on the same topic. Submissions for the prize will be automatically considered for publication in the journal's special issue.Accepted papers will be published alongside an invited paper by Jürgen Habermas.Guest editor: William Rehg (Saint Louis University).Deadline for submission: August 1, 2023.More info here.

Certain expansions of the CTC can reduce work incentives and have a negative impact on the labor supply. Although some have expressed concerns that this proposed expansion could halve work incentives, the proposal should not have a significant impact on the labor supply of parents.
The post Wyden-Smith's Child Tax Credit Expansion and Work Incentives appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ruth Dukes and Wolfgang Streeck's Democracy at Work: Contract, Status and Post-Industrial Justice is a welcome contribution to a new wave of thinking about industrial democracy, one that will hopefully help us reverse the historical trend and meaningfully implement industrial democratic principles into our political economy.
The post Review: Ruth Dukes and Wolfgang Streeck, Democracy at Work appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

The Everyday Misinformation Project team will be presenting its latest findings at the American Sociological Association (ASA) Media Sociology Symposium on August 4.Our talk is entitled '"I Would Always be Careful About What I Receive": Online Misinformation, Epistemic Norms, and Social Distinction,' and is by Natalie-Anne Hall, Andrew Chadwick and Cristian Vaccari. In this latest study from the project, based on a thematic analysis of longitudinal, in-depth interview data (N=182) we reveal some key epistemic norms governing the everyday consumption and sharing of information and the social distinctions these norms establish. In the qualitative phase of our fieldwork, many participants who said they did not frequently encounter misinformation through personal messaging were well aware of its existence, and willingly expressed views about those they believed were taken in by it. Deception was presented as a problem experienced by others who are more "naïve," "biased," or less "media literate" than themselves. These narratives reflect a keen awareness of the normative epistemic value placed on objectivity and media literacy in today's societies. However, they simultaneously reveal that those making such social distinctions are less likely to value anti-misinformation interventions because they are deemed irrelevant to their individual everyday practices. This conflicts with the reality that addressing misinformation must inevitably be a collective and inclusive social endeavour.The symposium will be held virtually, and our session will be at 10am PDT, which is 6pm BST. Registration details and the programme can be found here.

There is remarkably little rigorous evidence demonstrating social and emotional learning's academic benefits. SEL can also be a vehicle for promoting critical race theory ideology.
The post Does Social and Emotional Learning Work? Let's Hope Not appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

This Friday marks five months since the start of the federal government's 2024 fiscal year. Absent a budget, we are emboldening our adversaries to pour gasoline on their conflicts abroad. Congress must extinguish these flames by taking on six key tasks in the coming weeks.
The post Once Again, Congress Has So Much Work and So Little Time appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

No, this wouldn't do what is claimed: All businesses should be forced to embrace the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement, New Labour's favourite think tank has argued in an attack on the profit motive.A report by Demos, viewed as a key source of Labour policy in the Blair years, claimed that changing company law to "insert purpose into the heart of directors' duties" would add £149bn to the economy.If business were forced to do everything that is currently trendy then the world would be a better place. Well, by the standards of those who support what is trendy that's no doubt true. But the claim is more than that. It is that businesses which do this grow faster, are more profitable, do better. Just chew on that for a moment. The shareholder interest is in businesses which grow faster, are more profitable, do better. Therefore, a system of company law which prioritises the shareholder interest already forces companies to do those things which make the company grow faster, be more profitable, do better. It is only if all of these other things - the stakeholder interests, the promotion of diversity, recycling and who knows, reparations for slavery and whatever - do not promote growth, profitability, better, is it necessary to have a law forcing a company to consider these things. The very insistence that there outta be a law 'baht it is all the proof we need that those promises of growth, profits, better, are not true. In fact, the insistence upon the forcing is an insistence upon shareholder interests being subsumed into what is trendy, with less growth, lower profits and not better. That is, the new suggested law would make us all poorer. And why would we want to do that? This is also a more general feature of such desires for new laws, new forcings. We often are presented with evidence - well claims, at least - that this or that will make the world a better place. Often enough backed by how it would be better for suppliers, producers, if these things were done. To which the correct response is, well, thanks for the information. If the claims are true then in the face of the new evidence people will adopt the new ways. But the moment there's an insistence upon forcing this new and better way we gain the evidence that not even those promoting it do believe it's better. For, they're not willing to allow the betterness to be evident, even after their explanation, they're insisting upon the forcing. And you don't have to force people to make themselves better off. Explain to them how, maybe yes, but force, no.That very insistence upon forcing ESG on all is all the proof we require to know that even Demos thinks ESG is a crock. So, err, why would we do that?

Much-desired flexibility for gig workers is in jeopardy.

By PARV SONDHI As the digital health world continues to expand, more and more people are turning to apps to manage everything from diabetes and obesity to depression and anxiety. People relyContinue reading...

Work regimes are increasingly demanding. But 'leaner' does not mean 'fitter' for workers.

Back around 2000, oh so long ago, e-commerce was 0.8% of total retail sales. Now, it’s about 15%. One result is that the shopping space in bricks-and-mortar regional shopping malls has declined sharply. In the next decade or so, could the new work-from-home patterns lead to a similar decline for commercial office space? Tom Doolittle … Continue reading E-commerce and Regional Malls, Work-from-Home and Commercial Office Space
The post E-commerce and Regional Malls, Work-from-Home and Commercial Office Space first appeared on Conversable Economist.

All over the country, cities are grappling with the issue of empty office space. Will the workers come back? How will local businesses that depend on commuters be affected? Should the office space be reused or repurposed in some way? When it comes to office space, the federal government offers a vivid example. It owns … Continue reading Underutilization of Federal Office Buildings in the Work-from-Home Era
The post Underutilization of Federal Office Buildings in the Work-from-Home Era first appeared on Conversable Economist.

We should all be aware how public goods work. The problem is that they're extremely difficult to make money out of. Therefore there's a role for government in producing them. Not, not necessarily, that government should produce them, but that government should do some stuff to make sure they're produced. So, we get government to directly provide defence, enable excludability through copyright and therefore profit and so on. Which system works best - direct provision, regulation, law, or heck it'll all work well enough anyway, just depends upon the specifics of what is being discussed. There's nothing there even vaguely controversial about public goods.So, politics has defined the climate as being a problem that must be dealt with. There is a significant public goods problem here - given that emissions are not in market prices we at least have something hugely akin to the public goods problem. Politics has also decided that planning and subsidy are the way to deal with these - we disagree but then OK, we disagree. Now we get to an absurdity. The entire point of public goods is that it doesn't matter who produces them. By their very nature once produced all can enjoy them. That they are produced matters, who by does not.Yes, going green is akin to this. That someone develops cheap solar panels means we can all enjoy cheap solar panels. Windmills that work - when someone achieves that - similarly. Fusion only needs to be designed and proven once for us all to benefit from it.As we say, politics has decided that planning and subsidy is the way to gain these desirable things:The remarks are the first public acknowledgement by a minister that Britain could resort to trade tariffs if Chinese cars are found to have benefited from large state subsidies.Since 2009, China's central and local governments have subsidised domestic EV businesses to the tune of $100bn (£78bn), according to a study by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).The claims have triggered an anti-subsidy investigation by the EU, which could put pressure on the UK government to act if it is found that Chinese brands have received an unfair advantage.But this is insane.We've decided that we must subsidise all sorts of people to develop the technologies we need. Because those technologies are, once they exist, those public goods. However, the moment Johnny Foreigner subsidises something that we all benefit from then this isn't allowed. Because something or other absurd.To repeat, the current conversation insists that cheap EVs must be achieved for climate change reasons. China's taxpayers have spent $100 billion on getting to cheap EVs that we can now enjoy - and also save the climate. But we can't have those cheap EVs and save the climate because it's dirty, Johnny Foreigner, money that solved the problem?This is entirely, wholly, fruit loop, insane.This is before we even begin to consider how much of what we've expensively subsidised China will be willing to buy if we ban their stuff.Just to remind, only local things for only local people is a joke in League of Gentlemen, not a blueprint for the running of a nation nor an economy.And now really try thinking. The claim is it took $100 billion in subsidies to make EVs cheap enough to actually use. We're now rejecting those cheap EVs because what? We want to spend $100 billion ourselves? It's madness.

A new study finds that fully remote work is associated with about 10 percent lower productivity than fully in-person work. We are only a few years into the work-from-home experiment and it's impossible to know the long-term productivity impact of less mentoring and serendipitous meetings.
The post What We're Learning About Work-from-Home and Productivity Growth appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.