Investcafe.org

Forbes reports that Texas has three of the best cities to work in the nation.  Dallas, Houston and Austin are among the top cities to earn a living while also keeping living costs down.   Being a native Texan for many years it has never been lost on me how inexpensive Dallas is compared to cities like Seattle, New York and L.A.  The cost of living in those cites has been a game changer for me at least twice during my career. 

There are some interesting things to think about and perspectives to ponder.

• If I were a policymaker in a competing state I would probably want to take a close look at my home state and how it compares to to Texas.  I would be interested in finding ways to attract more employers and job hunters.

 

• Which came first? The chicken or the egg?  Did these employers setup shop here because of a good stock of skilled talent or whas the initial move a cost-benefit one where taxes and state provided incentives were offered?

 

• Forbes did not publish (or at least I did not see it) their data tables but I would be interested to see how each city in their list ranked in terms of transportation options.

Tweet This Post

The Times and NPR have written recently about employers using credit checks as an additional means to screen potential new hires.  I’ve heard about these on rare occasion but it seems that a trend may be developing whereby one’s personal financial situation becomes a hiring tool.  This is an interesting issue that poses some important questions:

• Should potential employers have access to your financial history?
• What relevance does one’s credit score have on employment candidacy?
• What protections have been put in place to prevent abuse?
• Who (what federal agency) is representing the interests of the candidate?
• Are employers opening themselves up to potential legal problems by making hiring decisions based on personal and confidential financial information?
• What kinds of externalities can we expect from this activity?

Lets start with the most basic question – why should potential employers have access to this information?  The most compelling argument I have seen is that potential employers can use a credit report to gauge a candidate’s decision-making abilities.  It goes like so: the likelihood that a candidate who has a history of delinquencies, collections, foreclosure or perhaps a bankruptcy will make similarly poor decisions in their professional life is higher than a candidate with a clean credit history with few or no blips. In other words, the argument says, “hey, this person has taken good care of his/her financial reputation and demonstrated responsibility over the long term”.

While I may appreciate and even agree with that claim, I cannot reconcile that argument against a more important claim – that personal financial and medical information is too sensitive to be used for anything other than what they were originally intended for – doctors need your medical record to provide health care and banks need it to decide whether they should lend you money for that car or business idea. Why did I throw in medical information? Because I consider both to be the last bastions of personal privacy afforded us by the government from prying employers, insurance companies, marketing agencies and the like.  Although HIPAA has made progress with Protected Health Information it seems that our credit history is slowly becoming a one-stop shop for anyone willing to write Experian, TransUnion or Equifax a check.

Another area of concern is what happens to this information once it is obtained by potential employers?  Who in the organization has access to this information?  In today’s world of Twitter and Facebook how long will it be before we hear about someone tweeting about a candidate’s bankruptcy?  What happens after a candidate has been hired?  Will the employer have an obligation (read unintended consequence) to disclose any of this information to other parties?

Perhaps my strongest concern for using credit reports as a way to screen job candidates is the long-term and compounding (yet to be determined) socioeconomic effect.  Hans Rossling’s enlightening presentation at the 2006 TED Conference comes to mind.  Watch it below.

What we should be cognizant of is that this is a slippery slope we have started.  I know that my car insurance provider accesses and (whether they acknowledge it or not) utilizes my credit score to determine my premiums.  Although I have yet to be asked by a potential employer for my credit report it may only be a matter of time.  What will be next?  Will credit scores be required for admission to colleges and universities? Hey, the admissions departments could argue that it would help them keep their graduation rates high.

I can imagine a situation where pervasive use of credit reports for employee screening could perpetuate a gradual segregation of those who have had the success or luck in maintaining their credit in good standing from those who have not.  I can imagine watching Hans Rossling’s presentation 10 years from now as he shows the ‘completely new world’ we live in, where those with good credit have access to every definition of economic opportunity one could conceive while those with poor credit are left to struggle for whatever remains as they descend into a self reinforcing spiral.

Tweet This Post

The New York Times just published an article that could be a great case study for those clamoring towards protectionist policies.

Every time I decide to blog something about this issue I can’t get over how anyone could take issue with unrestricted trade policies. It takes acute short sightedness and a very narrow interest to do so.

What do protectionists want? Well, they want to protect a small group’s interests at the expense of everyone else. For example, GM and Ford workers argue that they are entitled to a job, regardless of whether or not they can work as competitively and cheaply as workers at Toyota or Nissan. Not only do they feel that Ford and GM owe them a job, but they should be paid handsomely for it as well. In the case of GM, if the company has trouble finding people to buy these cars at inflated prices, these prima donna workers are entitled to participate in the Jobs Bank Program, whereby they get to receive full pay and benefits regardless of whether they have work or not. Who do you think is paying the bill?

In a nutshell, protectionists feel that everyone should pay more for a Tahoe or Explorer simply because some workers want to shield themselves from the competitive pressures of the labor market. Protectionists like to use fancy terms like ‘exporting American jobs’ or make one-sided statements like we will hear a ‘giant sucking sound’ as American jobs are moved out of the country, but the truth is that we benefit in many ways.

What gets me is that they are ironically protecting themselves from any form of self improvement. Our economy, and anyone else’s for that matter, depends on increasing productivity gains to raise the standard of living while at the same time staving off inflationary pressures. These productivity gains essentially allow firms to make a product or provide a service at the lowest cost per worker hour.

What protectionists often fail to mention is that many overseas competitors actually create jobs in the U.S. that were supposedly exported. Using the auto industry again as an example, Toyota and Nissan have invested billions in the South to build new plants. What Toyota and Nissan and others like Mercedes Benz are NOT doing is creating these jobs in places up north like Detroit. Gary N. Chaison of Clark University in Worcester, Mass. is quoted in the Times article saying that ‘These international companies want a fresh start — not in a town like Detroit, with a long history in the auto industry, but in an empty field where people appreciate them.”

Toyota must be doing something right because it is now the number 2 automaker and is not far behind GM. Toyota is making a profit and GM is hemorrhaging cash. Toyota makes cars that people want at attractive prices and GM is doling out discounts as incentives to attract buyers. What the two automakers do have in common is that both are unapologetic for their performance. However, if I were Rick Wagoner I would reconsider this.

Tweet This Post

The Logic of Collective Action, written by Mancur Olson, is an in depth discussion of groups and the dynamics involved in their formation, ability to attract members and ability to provide any benefit. He takes a very logical approach to analyzing groups. Step by step he puts the main components of a group together to give a clear understanding of the purpose and function of groups. His thoughtful review and subsequent dismissal of both traditional and orthodox group theories is more than adequately bolstered with strong arguments and compelling evidence. (more…)

Tweet This Post