Category: Law
Gordon Tullock was right
Do minimum wage changes affect workplace health and safety? Using the universe of workers’ compensation claims in California over 2000-2019, we estimate whether minimum wage shocks affect the rate of workplace injuries. Our identification exploits both geographic variation in state-and city-level minimum wages and local occupation-level variation in exposure to minimum wage changes. We find that a 10% increase in the minimum wage increases the injury rate by 11% in an occupation-metro area labor market which is fully exposed to the minimum wage increase. Our results imply an elasticity of the workplace injury rate to minimum-wage-induced wage changes of 1.4. We find particularly large effects on injuries relating to cumulative physical strain, suggesting that employers respond to minimum wage increases by intensifying the pace of work, which in turn increases injury risk.
That is from a new working paper by Michael Davies, R. Jisung Park, and Anna Stansbury, MIT and U. Penn, by the way. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Net neutrality, we hardly knew ye
That is the topic of a recent Bloomberg column. Here is the opening bit:
One of the longest, most technical and, as it turns out, most inconsequential public-policy debates of the 21st century was about net neutrality. Now that a federal appeals court has effectively ended the debate by striking down the FCC’s net neutrality rules, it’s worth asking what we’ve learned.
If you have forgotten the sequence of events, here’s a quick recap: In 2015, during President Barack Obama’s presidency and after years of debate, the Federal Communications Commission issued something called the Open Internet Order, guaranteeing net neutrality, which is broadly defined as the principle that internet service providers treat all communications equally, offering both users and content providers consistent service and pricing. Two years later, under President Donald Trump, the FCC rescinded the net neutrality requirement. It was then reinstated under President Joe Biden in 2024, until being struck down earlier this month.
Hardly anyone cares or even notices, and the rest of the column explains why. Here is one part of that argument:
The actual reality has been somewhat different. Bandwidth has expanded, and Netflix transmissions do not interfere with Facebook, or vice versa. There is plenty of access to go around. That has been the case during periods with net neutrality and without.
So one lesson of the net neutrality debate comes from economics: Supply is elastic, at least when regulation allows it to be.
Internet experts Tim Wu, Cory Doctorow, Farhad Manjoo and many others were just plain, flat out wrong about this, mostly due to their anti-capitalist mentality.
Should the U.S. recognize Somaliland?
I do not myself have a position on this issue, but I found this analysis by Ken Opalo interesting:
The main argument below is that while the people of Somaliland deserve and have a strong case for international recognition, such a development at this time would very likely take away the very incentives that have set them apart from the rest of Somalia over the last 33 years.
To be blunt, achieving full sovereignty with de jure international recognition at this time would do little beyond incentivizing elite-level pursuit of sovereign rents at the expense of continued political and economic development. What has made Somaliland work is that its elites principally derive their legitimacy from their people, and not the international system. Stated differently, full sovereignty runs the risk of separating both the Somaliland state and ruling elites from the productive forces of society; which in turn would free politicians (and policymakers) from having to think of their people as the ultimate drivers of their overall economic wellbeing. Just like in the rest of the Continent, the resulting separation of “suspended elites” from the socio-economic foundations of Somaliland society and inevitable policy extraversion would be catastrophic for Somalilanders.
The last thing the Horn needs is another Djibouti — a country whose low-ambition ruling elites are content with hawking their geostrategic location at throwaway prices while doing precious little to advance their citizens’ material well-being (Djibouti’s poverty rate is a staggering 70%).
There is much more at the link.
Some game theory of Greenland
It is commonly assumed that the U.S. “acquiring” Greenland, whatever that might mean, will result in greater U.S. control of the territory. Along some dimensions that is likely. But it is worth pondering the equilibrium here more seriously.
I observe, in many locations around the world, that indigenous groups end up with far more bargaining power than their initial material resources might suggest. For instance, in the United States Native Americans often (not always) can exercise true sovereignty. The AARP cannot (yet?) say the same. In Mexico, indigenous groups have blocked many an infrastructure project.
One reason for these powers is that, feeling outmatched, the indigenous groups cultivate a temperament of “orneriness” and “being difficult.” Some of that may be a deliberate strategic stance, some of it may be heritage from having been treated badly in the past and still lacking trust, and some of it may, over time, be acquired culture as the strategic stance gets baked into norms and behavior patterns.
Often, in these equilibria, the more nominal power you have over the indigenous group, the more orneriness they will have to cultivate. If you only want a few major concessions, sometimes you can get those better as an outsider. A simple analogy is that sometimes a teenager will do more to obey a grandparent than a parent. Fewer issues of control are at stake, and so more concessions are possible, without fear of losing broader autonomy.
So a greater American stake in Greenland, however that comes about, may in some regards end up being counterproductive. And these factors will become more relevant as more resource and revenue control issues come to the table. For some issues it may be more useful having Denmark available as “the baddie.”
It is worth thinking through these questions in greater detail.
The Greenland debates
I would say we have not yet figured out what is the best U.S. policy toward Greenland, nor have we figured out best stances for either Greenland or Denmark. I am struck however by the low quality of the debate, and I mean on the anti-U.S. side most of all. This is just one clip, but I am hearing very much the same in a number of other interchanges, most of all from Europeans. There is a lot of EU pearl-clutching, and throwing around of adjectives like “colonialist” or “imperialist.” Or trying to buy Greenland is somehow analogized to Putin not trying to buy Ukraine. Or the word “offensive” is deployed as if that were an argument, or the person tries to switch the discussion into an attack on Trump and his rhetoric.
C’mon, people!
De facto, you are all creating the impression that Greenland really would be better off under some other arrangement. Why not put forward a constructive plan for improving Greenland? It would be better yet to cite a current plan under consideration (is there one?). “We at the EU, by following this plan, will give Greenland a better economic and security future than can the United States.” If the plan is decent, Greenland will wish to break off the talks with America it desires. (To be clear, I do not think they desire incorporation. This FT piece strikes me as the best so far on the debates.)
Or if you must stick to the negative, put forward some concrete arguments for how greater U.S. involvement in Greenland would be bad for global security, bad for economic growth, bad for the U.S., or…something. “Your EU allies won’t like it,” or “Trump’s behavior is unacceptable” isn’t enough and furthermore the first of those is question-begging.
It is time to rise to the occasion.
p.s. I still am glad we bought the Danish West Indies in 1917. Nor do I hear many Danes, or island natives, complain about this.
My podcast with Reason
With Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller:
The link here contains the YouTube video, text description, and links to audio versions at reason.com: https://reason.com/podcast/2025/01/10/tyler-cowen-why-do-we-refuse-to-learn-from-history/
Youtube page for embedding is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Kpyg2mFU8
Lots of about libertarianism and state capacity libertarianism, and The Great Forgetting, food at the end…interesting throughout!
Martha
Martha (Netflix): A compelling bio on Martha Stewart. Her divorce from Andrew Stewart happened more than 30 years ago so the intensity of her anger and 
bitterness comes as a surprise. With barely concealed rage, she recounts his affairs and how poorly he treated her. “But didn’t you have an affair before he did?” asks the interviewer. “Oh, that was nothing,” she replies waving it off, “nothing.”
Stewart’s willpower and perfectionism are extraordinary. She becomes the U.S.’s first self-made female billionaire after taking her company public in 1999. Then comes the insider trading case. The amount in question was trivial—she avoided a $45,673 loss by selling her ImClone stock early. Stewart was not an ImClone insider and not guilty of insider trading. However, in a convoluted legal twist, she was charged with attempting to manipulate her own company’s stock price by publicly denying wrongdoing in the ImClone matter. Ultimately, she was convicted of lying to the SEC. It’s worth a slap on the wrist but the lead prosecutor is none other than the sanctiminous James Comey (!) and she gets 5 months in prison.
Despite losing hundreds of millions of dollars and control of her own company, Martha doesn’t give up and in 2015, now in her mid 70s, she creates a new image and a new career starting with, of all things, a shockingly hard-assed roast of Justin Bieber. The Bieber roast leads to a succesful colloboration with Snoop Dogg. Legendary.
Stewart is as compelling a figure as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Not entirely likable, perhaps, but undeniably admirable.
Claims about fires?
In 2007 the Sierra Club successfully sued the Forest Service to prevent them from creating a Categorical Exclusion (CE) to NEPA for controlled burns (the technical term is “fuel reduction”). The CE would have allowed the forest service to conduct burns without having to perform a full EIS (the median time for which is 3.5 years). See: caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-c John Muir project helped to claw back the full scope of Categorial Exclusions from the 2018 Omnibus Bill as well (though some easement did make it through). In 2021 the outgoing Trump BLM was served with the following notice of intent to sue by the Center for Biological Diversity for their fuel reduction plan in the Great Basin: biologicaldiversity.org/programs/publi BLM backed away from the plan after the transition. These are specific cases, but the cumulative outcome is that CA state agencies don’t even try it because they know they’ll be sued.
Some of the latter part is exaggerated, here is o1 pro commentary.
In California it is apparently illegal to price fire insurance according to risk? o1 pro seems a bit off on this question, but I think you can read between the lines.
Which are the best analyses you are seeing?
Nuclear Deregulation
Nuclear deregulation. Yes, I know how that sounds but bear with me. As Koopman and Dourado write in the WSJ:
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established a precise framework for nuclear regulation, requiring federal licensing only for facilities that either use nuclear material “in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security” or use it “in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public.” This careful distinction recognized that not every nuclear reactor poses meaningful risks.
Those qualifiers were intentional but for a long time were unimportant because nuclear reactors were big and potentially quite dangerous but that was 70 years ago! Today, there are small, safe nuclear reactor designs which meet the requirements of the 1954 Act.
Small modular reactors are dramatically different from the massive reactors envisioned during the Cold War. The reactors at issue in this case generate a fraction of the power of conventional nuclear plants—around 20 megawatts or less—and are designed with modern safety features that would release close to zero radiation even in a worst-case meltdown scenario. Last Energy’s design operates entirely inside a container with 12-inch steel walls that has no credible mode of radioactive release even in the worst reasonable scenario.
Even in such a scenario, according to the plaintiffs, radiation exposure would be less than a tenth what the NRC has deemed too safe to require regulation in other contexts—and less than 1/800th of a routine abdominal CT scan.
The NRC should not be regulating these reactors. Small scale nuclear should be regulated like x-Ray machines or gas turbines not like billion dollar nuclear power plants, the current rule. Reasonable regulation will allow iterative innovation. As I sais in my post Give Innovation a Chance, innovation is a dynamic process. You must build to build better.
Yet the NRC is stifling this progress. The licensing process alone can take up to nine years. Small modular reactor company NuScale spent more than $500 million just to get its design certification approved by the NRC, a process that took more than two million hours of labor and required millions of pages of information. NuScale still needs to apply for its license, which will multiply these costs.
The NRC rule is currently being challenged in State of Texas v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I think the case has a good chance of winning which would be a wonderful win for energy abundance.
One early report on congestion pricing in NYC
That is my latest Bloomberg column, here is one bit:
The core version of the plan stipulates a $9 toll for drivers entering Manhattan below and including 60th Street. Implementation is by E-Z Pass, and the tolls can vary in complex ways. But if you don’t cross the line, you don’t pay. So residents below 60th Street are exempt, provided they stay within the zone.
And:
The data do indicate some effective immediate adjustments. Most notably, morning commutes through the major bridges and tunnels into Manhattan have eased. Presumably the tolls have discouraged some drivers whose trips were less important to them, leading to quicker travel times for those drivers willing to pay. Economists typically consider such changes to be an improvement.
Such changes, however, aren’t of much help to native New Yorkers, in particular those living inside the zone. The earliest measurements indicate that traffic within the zone has not eased notably. So far, I would say the biggest beneficiaries of the policy are the wealthier residents of New Jersey and the New York state government, which is now set to take in more revenue.
Whatever you think of those consequences — YMMV, as they say — at least there is now actual data to sift through. You can track it here, and again it is important to stress that these preliminary assessments may change with time.
Many Manhattanites supported the charges on the grounds that they wanted a quieter, cleaner, less congested center city that was more friendly to bicycles and pedestrians. Think of Copenhagen or Amsterdam, if you have ever been. What they may end up getting is a central city more friendly to their cars — and less friendly to outsiders. It remains to be seen if central Manhattan has a path to becoming truly pleasant in the Nordic sense.
I will continue to follow this issue, as new results will be coming in. Of course stiff tolls on those living inside the zone were the correct thing to do. But that is not how politics works.
China fact of the day
China is loosening its visa policy and allowing some travelers to stay in the country for up to 10 days without obtaining the document.
The United States is among the dozens of countries eligible for the more lenient measure, part of a movement to ease restrictions and welcome back foreigners. The National Immigration Administration announced the change earlier this week.
To qualify for a 240-hour visa-free stay, travelers must transit through any of 60 airports, train stations or seaports in 24 provinces or regions, including such major destinations as Beijing, Shanghai and Sichuan…
One stipulation is the same, however. The China stop is technically for a layover, so you will need a reservation for a third country. For example, you can’t fly from New York to Beijing round-trip, but you could fly from New York to Bangkok to Beijing before returning home. Or from New York to Beijing to Bangkok.
“You will need to show your flight itinerary to show which third country you’re going to and that you’re going to leave within 10 days,” Peat said. “But that’s all you have to do.”
Here is the full story.
India has Too Few Tourists
In 2017, I wrote an article on India’s underperformance in tourism:
India is one of the most desirable tourist destinations in the world. Thirty-five [now 43, AT!] UNESCO World Heritage sites–among them the Taj Mahal, one of the “New Seven Wonders of the World”—attract a global audience. India’s many food, dance and religious cultures are enticing. The widespread availability of English speakers makes India a welcome destination not only for Americans, Canadians and the British but also for many Europeans and others who speak English as a second language. Prices in India are very reasonable for visitors from developed countries.
India has tremendous advantages as a producer of tourism, but its tourism sector is far too small. India is underperforming and in the process giving up tens of billions of dollars in foreign exchange revenue that could lift millions out of poverty.
The Economist concurs noting “a fabulous destination for foreign tourists does little to lure them.” Indeed, India had fewer tourists in 2024 than in 2017. Tunisia attracts more tourists than India! India did improve its visa process, which I complained about in 2017, but it could do much better:
To its credit, the government replaced the onerous process of applying for visas in person with online e-visas. But that was a decade ago and the process remains unpredictable and fiddly; it requires using a website that looks like it was designed during the dot-com boom. Most countries in South-East Asia and the Middle East have slicker sites. Many offer either visas on arrival or visa-free entry.
When I recently visited the UK I entered without being stopped or questioned by a single individual! In contrast, entering India can often take several hours and even with a visa there are forms that have to be filled out for no apparent reason or purpose. Moreover, exiting India is often more time consuming than entering! Yet when I visited India shortly after COVID our tour guide in Bundi was practically in tears as we were the first foreign tourists he had seen in over a year and the money was very welcome.
India should drop its visa requirements for US and European countries entirely and immediately. The tourism industry should be seen as an export industry. Countries go to great lengths to increase exports but India’s government does little to help its tourism industry despite the fact that it’s actually a huge export industry–far bigger than India’s export of pharmaceuticals for example!
Turkey has 55 million tourist visitors a year. That’s 5 times India’s rate which suggests that India could dramatically increase earnings from tourism. More tourists would be great for India and also great for the tourists!
Here is a picture of the fourth tallest statue in the world, in a tiny town in India that no one goes to. Amazing!
Those new service sector jobs, Ace Ventura edition
But Butcher relies on old-fashioned detective work and his 10-year-old working cocker spaniel. Together, the pair have recovered hundreds of pets.
“I could work every single day of the week and every weekend there’s so much demand right across the board,” he said. “I probably get about on average 15 emails or calls just on missing cats every single week, a busy week might be as many as 30.”
His successful recovery rate for cats is somewhere between 82% and 85%. And his work has taken him across the world, tracking down a yorkshire terrier who went missing on the Grenadian island of Carriacou, and investigating a corrupt dog rescue centre in Turkey.
Often he recovers the animals within a day – he found a snatched cavapoo by tracking down CCTV, noticing an identifiable sticker in the window of the offending car, and putting out an appeal leading to the too-hot-to-handle dog being found dumped shortly after.
The AIs will not take these jobs anytime soon. Here is more from The Guardian. Via Henry Oliver.
The Cows in the Coal Mine
I remain stunned at how poorly we are responding to the threat from H5N1. Our poor response to COVID was regrettable but perhaps understandable given the US hadn’t faced a major pandemic in decades. Having been through COVID, however, you would think that we would be primed. But no. Instead of acting aggressively to stop the spread in cows we took a gamble that avian flu would fizzle out. It didn’t. California dairy herds are now so awash in flu that California has declared a state of emergency. Hundreds of herds across the United States have been infected.
I don’t think we are getting a good picture of what is happening to the cows because we don’t like to look too closely at our food supply. But I reported in September what farmers were saying:
The cows were lethargic and didn’t move. Water consumption dropped from 40 gallons to 5 gallons a day. He gave his cows aspirin twice a day, increased the amount of water they were getting and gave injections of vitamins for three days.
Five percent of the herd had to be culled.
“They didn’t want to get up, they didn’t want to drink, and they got very dehydrated,” Brearley said, adding that his crew worked around the clock to treat nearly 300 cows twice a day. “There is no time to think about testing when it hits. You have to treat it. You have sick cows, and that’s our job is to take care of them.”
Here’s another report from a vet:
…the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.
“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.
Here’s Reuters:
Cows in California are dying at much higher rates from bird flu than in other affected states, industry and veterinary experts said, and some carcasses have been left rotting in the sun as rendering plants struggle to process all the dead animals.
…Infected herds in California are seeing mortality rates as high as 15% or 20%, compared to 2% in other states, said Keith Poulsen, a veterinarian and director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory who has researched bird flu.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture did not respond to questions about the mortality rate from bird flu.
Does this remind you of anything? Must we wait until the human morgues are overrun?
The case fatality rate for cows appears to be low but significant, perhaps 2%. A small number of pigs have also been infected. On the other hand, over 100 million chickens, turkeys and ducks have been killed or culled.
There have now been 66 cases in humans in the US. Moreover, the CDC reports that in at least one case the virus appears to have evolved within its human host to become more infectious. We don’t know that for sure but it’s not good news. Recall that in theory a single mutation will make the virus much more capable of infecting humans.
When I wrote on December 1 that A Bird Flu Pandemic Would Be One of the Most Foreseeable Catastrophes in History Manifold Markets was predicting a 9% probability of greater than 1 million US human cases in 2025. Today the prediction is at 20%.
Once again, we may get lucky and that is still the way to bet but only the weak rely on luck. Strong civilizations don’t pray for luck. They crush the bugs. So far, we are not doing that.
Happy new year.
Top MR Posts of 2024!
The number one post this year was Tyler’s The changes in vibes — why did they happen? A prescient post and worth a re-read. Lots of quotable content that has become conventional wisdom after the election:
The ongoing feminization of society has driven more and more men, including black and Latino men, into the Republican camp. The Democratic Party became too much the party of unmarried women.
The Democrats made a big mistake going after “Big Tech.” It didn’t cost them many votes, rather money and social capital. Big Tech (most of all Facebook) was the Girardian sacrifice for the Trump victory in 2016, and all the Democrats achieved from that was a hollowing out of their own elite base.
Biden’s recent troubles, and the realization that he and his team had been running a con at least as big as the Trump one. It has become a trust issue, not only an age or cognition issue.
I would also pair this with two other top Tyler posts, I’m kind of tired of this in which Tyler bemoans the endless gaslighting. Tyler is (notoriously!) open-minded and reluctant to criticize others, so this was a telling signal. See also How we should update our views on immigration in which Tyler notes that serious studies on the benefits and costs of immigration are quite positive but:
…voters dislike immigration much, much more than they used to. The size of this effect has been surprising, and also the extent of its spread…Versions of this are happening in many countries, not just a few, and often these are countries that previously were fairly well governed.
…Politics is stupider and less ethical than before, including when it comes immigration…We need to take that into account, and so all sorts of pro-migration dreams need to be set aside for the time being
In short if you were reading MR and Tyler you would have a very good idea of what was really going on in the country.
The second biggest post of the year was my post, Equality Act 2010 on Britain’s descent into the Orwellian madness of equal pay for “equal” work. It’s a very good post but it wrote itself since the laws are so ridiculous. Britain has not recovered from woke. Relatedly, Britain’s authoritarian turn on free speech remains an under-reported story. I worry about this.
Third, was my post The US Has Low Prices for Most Prescription Drugs a good narrative violation. Don’t fail the marshmallow test!
Fourth was another from me, No One’s Name Was Changed at Ellis Island.
Fifth, the sad Jake Seliger is Dead.
Sixth, I’m kind of tired of this, as already discussed.
Seventh was What is the Best-Case Scenario for a Trump Presidency? Rhetorically Trump isn’t following the script I laid out but in terms of actual policy? Still room for optimism.
Eighth was Tyler’s post Taxing unrealized capital gains is a terrible idea; pairs well with my post Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains and Interest Rate Policy.
Ninth, Venezuela under “Brutal Capitalism”, my post on the insane NYTimes piece arguing that Venezuela is now governed by “brutal capitalism” under Maduro’s United Socialist Party!
Tenth, Tyler’s post Who are currently the most influential thinkers/intellectuals on the Left? More than one person on this list now looks likes a fraud.
Your favorite posts of the year?