The Labor Department has recently made public its preliminary estimate of nonfarm employment for 2011. I have added the department’s data for previous years, back to 1999, to construct this table.

Employees on nonfarm payrolls, 1999-2011

(annual average, in thousands)

Year Total Private

1999…… 128,993 108,686

2000….. 131,785 110,995

2001…… 131,826 110,708

2002…… 130,341 108,828

2003…… 129,999 108,416

2004…… 131,435 109,814

2005…… 133,703 111,899

2006…… 136,086 114,113

2007…… 137,598 115,380

2008…… 136,790 114,281

2009….. 130,807 108,252

2010…… 129,818 107,337

2011(p).. 131,159 109,080

The good news is that private nonfarm employment has grown since its recent trough in 2010: the increase in 2011 amounted to 1.6 percent. This is not much, but it’s better than continued decline.

The bad news, however, is that private nonfarm employment in 2011 was still 5.5 percent, or 6.3 million persons, below its peak number in 2007. Moreover, looking back farther, one sees that private nonfarm employment in 2011 was less than the corresponding number in 2000. For private employment, the past ten years have been, indeed, a lost decade.

In contrast, private nonfarm employment grew by almost 22 percent between 1990 and 2000, and by almost 23 percent between 1980 and 1990. Americans need to understand that private employment is “where the babies come from.” Make-work jobs on the government payroll are not a good substitute. To keep the flow of genuinely valued goods and services growing at anything like the historical norm, private employment must grow substantially, at least over the medium term, yet in this regard the past decade has been a complete wash. Moreover, at the present rate of increase (1.6 percent per year), it will take almost 4 years just to get back to the private employment level in 2007, before the current recession began.

Stagnation or slow, on-again-off-again growth in the economy’s most important productive input is not the sort of thing of which sustained economic growth is made. Despite the recent, slight employment gains, the U.S. labor market is not even close to being out of the woods, nor is the overall economy, which continues to labor under major threats of government regulation, taxation, and other damaging intervention in the market process.

Harry Fox, Jr. spent the past few decades becoming a successful land developer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Fox generally does not build but instead acquires large tracts of land and goes through the necessary steps in order to subdivide the land into lots and bring them to market.) He mentioned to the newspaper that if he had tried getting into the land developing business today he would have a much harder time doing so because of all the government regulation that exists. I wanted to know what he meant by this so I contacted him and conducted an interview of my own.

South-central Pennsylvania on a foggy, autumn day. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

I wanted Fox to explain to me all the steps needed to bring a piece of land to market in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, government regulations and requirements are so extensive that we couldn’t go through all the steps in just a few hours. So we focused on just one area: what a developer needs to do to bring a piece of land to market with that piece of land having a private septic system. The description that follows pertains only to Pennsylvania. Any errors made are mine and mine alone.

A developer who wants to sell a piece of land as a building lot (with the intention of using a private septic system on it) must spend thousands of dollars and deal with multiple layers of bureaucracy just to determine if he can install a private septic system on it.

The bureaucracy in the case of trying to install a private septic system is the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Pennsylvania government has enabled the DEP to implement and enforce sewage planning and management throughout the Commonwealth. This means that the DEP can (like the federal government) bypass the state legislature and unilaterally institute binding laws through regulation, thus giving it extraordinary power with little to no accountability to the public (since DEP officials don’t face elections, and because bureaucracies rarely undergo reform and almost never disappear).

The first step in the septic-system-authorization process generally is a preliminary hydro-geology study. The necessity of a preliminary hydro-geology study varies somewhat from region to region, but is quite prevalent in south-central Pennsylvania (where Fox operates) and mandated in all areas with a limestone geology. The hydro-geology study determines if nitrate levels on the land are within acceptable levels to install a private septic system. If they are, the developer then must perform a perc (percolation) and probe test to determine if there is sufficient depth of limiting zone. Sufficient depth of limiting zone means that the perc and probe test is checking to see if there is sufficient depth of permeable soil (48 inches needed) between effluent and the limiting zone (i.e. bedrock, etc.). Local municipalities require this perc and probe test based on DEP mandates.

If the developer passes these tests he then must submit a sewage planning module to the local municipality and the DEP. This will take additional time and may cost more money if the DEP decides that additional steps are necessary. Even after the DEP approves the sewage planning module the developer must go through further steps with the local municipality to get final permits and approval for the septic system installation.

Fox mentioned that a lot of people who want to subdivide a piece of their own land to sell to their child or other relative often have no idea how difficult it is to do so. I’d imagine that the steep price necessary to do all the tests needed to determine if one can install a private septic system on the land would be enough to turn off many people from trying to use their own property as they wish. If not, there still are all the other tests, bureaucratic regulations, and thousands of dollars that might stop someone from trying to sell his own land.

Fox told me the most interesting part of our conversation when our meeting had just about ended. He said that government regulation (through existing environmental and statutory constraints) has restricted the supply of approved building lots and land that is capable of being developed (hereafter simply referred to as approved building lots). And while he favors deregulation, he said that this extensive government regulation actually benefits him in the long run. Here’s what he meant.

Just a few decades ago the average person could subdivide and sell a piece of his land rather easily and without spending a lot of money. Less bureaucracy meant there were fewer tests and expenses. Therefore, if a person wanted to sell some of his land he simply did it. This in turn meant that there were more approved building lots on the market and thus an acre of an approved building lot was cheaper since there was a greater supply of it.

Now, however, with all the bureaucracies, expenses, and time needed to bring a piece of land to market, less people are attempting to sell land, meaning that there are less approved building lots on the market for purchase. This means that those who do invest the money and time needed to bring land to market now can charge more per acre of an approved building lot than they could have ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago.

Fox called this, “restriction of supply by regulation.” And he said that while deregulation would allow more people to enter the land market and profit from it, the heavy hand of government regulation actually benefits him by keeping many people out of the land market, thus allowing him to sell more land and being able to reap the benefits of the higher cost of land per approved building lot acre. Thus, the profits from selling land are increased for those who can afford to enter the land selling market while those who don’t have the money to do so cannot profit at all from their own property.

In this day and age when totalitarians and would-be tyrants scream about the need for more government regulation, the evils of the free market, and the need for big government to rule our lives in order to eliminate so-called wealth inequality, the truth is that it is these same totalitarians and would-be tyrants (through their massive bureaucracies and regulations) who are responsible for the true inequality—the inequality that eliminates a level playing field and promotes the consolidation of money in the hands of the few.

If people truly are concerned with eliminating inequality as much as is humanly possible, then deregulation—not increased regulation—is the correct answer.

D’Souza was on to something, especially judging from a recent Slate article written by famous Harvard biologist and professor Martin Nowak and Harvard postdoctoral fellow David Rand. In it, they explain that America needs “motivation” when it comes to reducing it’s carbon footprint. This article has everything that makes conservatives squirm: love of the Prius, hardcore environmentalism, and longing for absurd government regulation. See for yourself [Caution NSFL - Not Safe For Libertarians]:

This is, after all, the end of the world we are talking about, so why stop there? Why not go full Scarlet Letter? People with more than 2 kids should have to carry signs with them apologizing for over populating our sensitive planet. People who can’t afford $25,000 hybrids, lets call them the “commons”, need to be branded with a “I Cause Cancer” stamp on their forehead.  And if you don’t recycle, Gaia forbid, you should go straight to jail. Wouldn’t that “motivate people to reduce their carbon footprint”?

This, of course, reinforces William F. Buckley’s old adage that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.

Just like how those in Hollywood should stick to their area of expertise, so should Harvard biologists.

So then, what exactly is the regulation industry looking like these days? Booming is your answer.

If the federal government’s regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined.

[snip]

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6% (Investor’s Business Daily).

We only need to turn back to last year and move forward to see how comical the president’s new found eagerness is on deregulation.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2010 no less than 43 major regulations were handed down by Washington lawmakers. The costs of the regulations were estimated at $26.5 billion. Regulating any part of the economy will have adverse affects on another. This is a known principle that applies everywhere because economics is only a measurement of reality and human behavior. When costs rise in one sector, they typically rise in other sectors brought on by inflation. For example, when regulations on energy production tighten, the cost on electricity goes up. Since everything imaginable requires electricity and fuel to produce, store, or transport; prices on totally separate and unconnected items like food to the car you buy will likewise go up. Hence the fitting term “hidden taxes” used to explain regulations — or to officially state it, a jump in the Consumer Price Index.

• The Small Business Association estimated that total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually (SBA.gov).

Chief among the hardest hit has been the energy sector. Of the 43 regulations mentioned, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted 10 of those. The total costs of just these ten equaled over $23 billion of the estimated $26 billion mentioned.

The Heritage Foundation pinpoints the costliest.

• Fuel economy and emission standards[6] for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles imposed jointly by the EPA and NHTSA. Annual cost: $10.8 billion (for model years 2012 to 2016). For automakers to recover these increased outlays, NHTSA estimates the standards will lead to increases in average new vehicle prices ranging from $457 per vehicle in FY 2012 to $985 per vehicle in FY 2016.[7]
• Mandated quotas for renewable fuels. Annual cost: $7.8 billion (for 15 years). Utilizing farmland to grow corn and other crops used in renewable fuels will displace food crops, leading food costs to increase by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA.[8]
• Efficiency standards for residential water heaters, heating equipment, and pool heaters. Annual cost: $1.3 billion. The appliance upgrades necessary to comply with the new standards will raise the price of a typical gas storage water heater by $120.[9]
• Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Homebuyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953.

Virginia Republican, Eric Cantor, recently wrote in the Washington Post about President Obama’s “anti-business, hyper-regulatory, pro-tax agenda.”

• Environmental Protection Agency regulations, including the “Transport Rule,” which could eliminate thousands of jobs, or the ozone regulation that would cost upward of $1 trillion and millions of jobs in the construction industry over the next decade.
• The administration’s new maximum achievable control technology standards for cement are expected to affect nearly 100 cement plants, setting over-the-top requirements resulting in increased costs and possibly thousands of jobs being offshored.
• The president’s silence as the National Labor Relations Board seeks to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina that would create thousands of jobs.
• The president’s insistence on raising the top tax rate paid by individuals and small businesses, has resulted in a lag in growth that has added to the debt crisis, contributing to our nation’s credit downgrade.

The unemployment rate on Inauguration Day was at 7.3 percent. It now stands at over 9 percent, and our national debt has increased by 35 percent. All while Obama has had control over the levers and switches. One would think that by adding such costs to consumers and burdens to economic production, and seeing the negative consequences, the lessons from which should be painfully obvious. Moreover, with empirical data flashing across any business or labor website, the motivation to change course from ideological rigidness to that of laissez-faire economics would be too strong to resist.

Instead we get more of the same and a terrible example of how deep regulations can go when empowered government bureaucracies are allowed to regulate consumer and business out of existence. The Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG) plans to regulate peanut butter and other food items deemed unfit and unmarketable for children.

This Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG), comprised of the US Department of Agriculture, the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, was charged by Congress with the task of studying the issue of childhood obesity and the marketing of foods to children and adolescents.  It proposed “voluntary” guidelines now being considered that will undermine parental authority, place a so-called “voluntary” marketing ban on the marketing of numerous healthy foods like cereals and yogurts to children, and inflict economic harm on American consumers, American agriculture and the food industry, among many other sectors of the American economy.

So what is President Obama’s upcoming job plan going to do? Absolutely nothing. The damage has already been done.

Notably among the costs cited were retirement and healthcare. It was only in 2007 that Congress mandated it pay over $ 5 billion a year into its retiree funds.

ATTLE — The financially strapped U.S. Postal Service is proposing to cut its workforce by 20 percent and to withdraw from the federal health and retirement plans because it believes it could provide benefits at a lower cost.

The layoffs would be achieved in part by breaking labor agreements, a proposal that drew swift fire from postal unions. The plan would require congressional approval but, if successful, could be precedent-setting, with possible ripple effects throughout government. It would also deliver a major blow to the nation’s labor movement.

In a notice informing employees of its proposals — with the headline “Financial crisis calls for significant actions” — the Postal Service said, “We will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit pre-funding costs imposed by Congress.”

During the past four years, the service lost $20 billion, including $8.5 billion in fiscal 2010. Over that period, mail volume dropped by 20 percent.

The Postal Service is not directly financed by the government, and, therefore, must finance itself.

However, because of labor laws and government regulation, it is not allowed to set its own prices, wages, or even hours. So any reforms to allow it to operate efficiently has to be met and approved in Congress. Given that, it is no wonder that its private sector competitors provide a superior service and make a profit. The Postal Service is handcuffed and cannot direct its own internal policies for long term planning.

Hooray for Big Government!

Ronald McDonald is under fire over a claim that his existence is marketing poor eating habits to children. The organization charges that the fast food giant the clown represents is driving a health epidemic. This accusation comes only months after a mother filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s, asserting that the corporation was “…getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.” This parent, and we might use that term loosely, was supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has been involved in the mandates to add calorie labeling on menus and to remove soda and snack foods from school cafeteria menus. The mother claimed that Happy Meals with toys inside them were too inviting for her kids. This suggests that she could not manage to actually say, “NO,” to them, or take the car keys away from them, when they told her they wanted to eat at McDonald’s. Her goal in her lawsuit: “…I want McDonald’s to stop interfering with my family.” So, let’s get this straight: Ronald McDonald is controlling your kids’ thoughts? Neil Cavuto couldn’t understand this either.

In the mid 1950’s, a social psychology concept called “locus of control” was identified as an important topic in the field of understanding behavior. “Locus of control” concerns the extent to which individuals believe they can control circumstances that affect them. Those with internal locus of control generally believe that events in their lives come about primarily by their own actions, while those with external locus of control tend to attribute their behavior to people, situations, and entities outside of themselves.

In general, individuals with high internal locus of control have better control of their behavior, have higher self-esteem, and believe their successes and accomplishments are due to their own hard work. Those with high external locus of control often expect other people, institutions, or the government to bring about changes in their lives. While these individuals tend to ascribe a considerable amount of power to other people and institutions, they also often feel victimized and dependent on these external forces, with few resources of their own.

The political philosophy of many liberals, with its embrace of the over-reaching arm of government, often plays to those with external locus of control. Because these individuals have little inner strength to make changes in their own lives- or those of their children- liberal politicians and organizations can frequently use them to legislate through fear and other emotions, rather than through reason. And likely most of us know that it is not reasonable to charge a corporation with “mind-control.”

The promotion of government legislating what we eat is also evident in those prominently preparing food in the media.  “Celebrity” chefs are no longer simply creating delicious meals, but politically advocating for leaner lifestyles. Award-winning Washington D.C. chef, Jose Andres prides himself on his political activism. According to Brett Zonkger of Associated Press, lobbying Congress and the White House is all in a day’s work in Andres’ idea of the changing role of chefs. “I cannot wait to see the day that one day we will have a chef that will become the secretary of food of the United States of America,” he said. That sounds like a tad over-reaching.

Andres is a friend of White House chef, Sam Kass, who has assisted Michelle Obama with her anti-obesity campaign. Kass agrees that “chefs have a critical role in guarding their customers’ health, both inside and outside the kitchen.” And that sounds like over-reaching as well.

In an article in Time, Josh Ozersky asks: Are chefs to blame for obesity? Mr. Ozersky points out the tension between approaches of chefs like Jamie Oliver, who has experienced less than anticipated success in getting children to eat healthier foods, in his Food Revolution series, and Chipotle’s Nate Appleman, who asserts that, while he enjoys cooking and eating healthy, fresh foods, “I think people need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming others….a chef’s job is to make food delicious. If that means it is decadent and indulgent, so be it.”

Appleman sounds like he has it right.

Chad Crowe

Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year’s projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They’ve raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.

****

Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.

Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.

Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.

Read the whole thing here. Amen, Mr. Koch. Amen.