Sports Are Back But Americans Aren’t Happy

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – September 10, 2020

 

Many of us were waiting anxiously for the return of sports during this pandemic. And now that the NHL and NBA are in their postseasons, MLB is playing a dramatically shortened season, and the NFL kicks off tonight, well, it seems like a lot of Americans are pissed off with pro sports.

 

Just how bad has it gotten for the business of pro sports? Well, in a new Gallup pollmeasuring Americans’ views on 25 business or industry sectors, the sports industry ties for dead last – with the federal government. Yikes.

 

The sports industry is viewed positively (either very or somewhat positive) by only 30 percent of Americans. Again, that puts pro sports at the very bottom of the list with the federal government. However, at least the sports industry’s negatives aren’t as big as government’s, with the sports industry earning a 40 percent negative take (again, either very or somewhat) versus the federal government’s 50 percent (worst among the 25 sectors). (By the way, amidst all of the current and recent political insanity, it’s good to see that a notable chunk of Americans still holds a skeptical view of government.)

 

The sports industry also holds an edge over the federal government in terms of people holding a neutral view – 29 percent for sports compared to 20 percent for the feds.

 

But as Gallup makes clear, the big story in this year’s polling is the change for sports. It was noted, “The biggest slide … has been for the sports industry, with its positive score falling 15 points – from 45% to 30%. The sports industry now has a negative image, on balance, among Americans as a whole, with 30% viewing it positively and 40% negatively, for a -10 net-positive score. This contrasts with the +20 net positive image it enjoyed in 2019, when 45% viewed it positively and 25% negatively.”

 

And it’s gotten worse for sports across the board in terms of assorted breakdowns. From the 2019 poll to this 2020 poll, the net positives for sports moved in the wrong direction in category by category, such as going from +17 net positive to -7 among men; from +21 to -13 among women; from +36 among 18-34 year olds to +21; from +25 to -19 among 35-54 year olds; from +6 to -23 among 55+; from +4 to -22 among white Americans; from +51 to +16 among non-white Americans; from +11 among Republicans to -35; from +26 to -10 among independents; and from +16 to +11 among Democrats.

 

Parsing out the specific percentage-point contributions to this negative movement isn’t easy, but identifying the causes seem pretty straight forward. Some people are upset that sports leagues have become too political. Others believe that sports leagues haven’t done enough to address assorted societal ills, such as racism. And then there are simply sports fans who are displeased with how certain or all of the sports leagues have handled the challenges of this pandemic. 

 

We wanted sports, and far fewer are happy with sports. Go figure. I actually have a bit of sympathy for the people running the NFL, MLB, NHL and the NBA. Currently, they are in a no-win scenario. No matter what they do, significant parts of their fan base are going to be disgruntled. 

 

__________

 

See related...

 

“Should We Take Our Ball and Go Home When Pro Athletes Disagree with Us?”

 

“New Name for Redskins is Obvious: Washington Americans”

 

__________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Keating’s latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12thbook in the series. The best way to fully enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at

 https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

 

Biden Picks Harris: Will It Matter on Election Night?

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – August 13, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for president, has chosen U.S. Senator Kamala Harris from California as his vice presidential running mate. Will it make a difference on Election Night, November 3? That’s highly unlikely.

Make no mistake, seemingly everyone in and covering politics has been talking about Biden’s choosing Harris. Democrats are largely pleased, and making the case for Harris. Republicans naturally stand in opposition, though their arguments against her are contradictory (for example, is she too tough on crime or too soft?). The media is dedicating all kinds of attention. 

Of course, I get it. This happens whenever VP candidates are announced.

Nonetheless, pointing out that the VP pick ultimately doesn’t matter – or matters very little – isn’t a statement for or against Kamala Harris per se. Vice President Mike Pence doesn’t matter either. It’s just a political fact. Elections are not decided by who is running to be vice president. People vote for, or against, who is running for president. It’s about the top of the ticket.

Research over the years on the impact of vice presidential running mates reveals next to nothing in terms of a clear, substantive impact. Assorted studies indicate that a very small positive effect on voting in the VP candidate’s home state might exist. Well, I don’t think Biden is at risk of losing California.

Some argue that there can be an ideological factor with the number two pick – the idea of balancing the ticket philosophically to gain votes. One can argue that was at least part of the reason for VP picks by Ronald Reagan in 1980, Mike Dukakis in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. Reagan was the only in this group to win, and no one seriously asserts that his running mate, George H.W. Bush, had anything to do with that victory. Besides, this year, it’s hard to see any serious ideological differences between Biden and Harris.

As for picking a woman as the VP candidate, Geraldine Ferraro didn’t help Walter Mondale in 1984, nor did Sarah Palin make a difference for John McCain in 2008.

Two political scientists, Christopher J. Devine and Kyle C. Kopko, assert that the VP choice matters but for a different reason. They say, “Our research shows running mates matter, above all else, by shaping how voters view the presidential candidate who selects them. Running mates indirectly influence voter choice by changing perceptions of the presidential candidate — which, in turn, changes votes.” Well, okay, but that seems a bit amorphous, to say the least. After all, voter perceptions of candidates are influenced by myriad factors.

Would McCain really have been elected if he hadn’t picked Palin, who was perceived as a poor choice (and was), and would Obama truly have suffered by going in a different direction than Biden? No.

Biden made history by picking Harris, who is the first black and Asian candidate on a major party ticket. Putting aside her politics, Harris’s story is compelling. But will it matter in the end as to how this year’s presidential election will turn out? Again, that’s highly – and I mean highly – unlikely.

__________

See recent...

“Never Waste an Emergency to Expand the Size of Government?”

“New Name for Redskins is Obvious: Washington Americans”

“Guest Column: No, The Government Should Not Tell Apple How To Make iPhones”

“The Left and Fellow Conservatives Need to Stop Whining and Enjoy the Game”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Keating also is a novelist. His latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th  book in the series. Big sale on signed books and sets at https://raykeatingonline.com/t/book-of-the-month.

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

Never Waste an Emergency to Expand the Size of Government?

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – August 4, 2020

It’s hard to find anyone these days not on board with the federal government shoveling big bucks out the door, given that government, reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic, has shut down large swathes of the economy. But that doesn’t mean the consequences of such actions will magically fail to materialize.

Make no mistake, whether or not you’re okay with staggering levels of federal spending, aid and loan programs, the bill will come due. And it will be huge. Actually, we’re already paying through lost output, lost businesses, lost investment, lost entrepreneurship and lost jobs. That’s what happens anytime government sucks massive amounts of resources out of the private sector – whether via taxes or borrowing – and then reallocates those dollars according to politics. Again, whether the current federal spending binge is justified or not, the costs are unavoidable.

Unfortunately, the ills could linger long into the future if politicians do what they usually do after major emergencies.

Consider some key examples from the past century-plus. 

Before World War I, from 1901 to 1916, for example, federal government outlays ran, on average, at just less than 2 percent of the economy. During U.S. participation in World War I and its immediate aftermath, federal outlays jumped to 3.2 percent of the economy in 1917, 16.6 percent in 1918, and 23.4 percent in 1919.

The economic growth – largely driven by major tax relief – and spending restraint that came in the 1920s during the administrations of Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, resulted in a reduction of the federal government’s take. Federal government outlays had declined to about 3 percent of the economy in the late 1920s. While that was an impressive reduction in the size of government, federal outlays as a share of the economy still stood at a third higher than prior to World War I.

Government failing to return to its pre-emergency levels would be the rule, rather than the exception, for the coming century.

Consider the Great Depression and World War II. Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to fight economic woes with more government, that is, with unprecedented levels of taxes, regulation and spending (along with Hoover and Congress’ protectionism on trade). By doing so, these two presidents and Members of Congress created the Great Depression. They all failed to grasp that it was government causing the pain. And then came fighting the scourges of the Nazis and Japanese imperialism.

Consider a couple of moments during and after this period. After the Depression had dragged on for about a decade, federal outlays stood at 10.1 percent of GDP in 1939. That was more than three times the pre-Depression level. 

During World War II, spending naturally skyrocketed, with outlays climbing to a peak of 42.7 percent of GDP in 1944, and then declining to 14 percent at the end of the forties. That 14 percent level was markedly higher than where it was just before the war.

By the end of the Korean War in 1953, outlays once again had climbed, hitting 19.9 percent of GDP. Subsequently, federal spending backed off some, running around 18 percent of the economy at the end of the 1950s and into the mid-1960s. Again, that was down from the Korean War peak, but still notably above the pre-war level.

The Sixties eventually saw the War on Poverty and the Vietnam War. Federal outlays were pushed up to the 19 percent range, and then there was no effort to pare things back. Instead, federal outlays topped 20 percent of GDP, and staying around the 21 percent to 22 percent range (once more, give or take in years here and there) into the mid-1990s.

Economic growth and reductions in defense outlays actually brought federal spending down for a few years, coming in below 18 percent in 2000 and 2001.  That was noteworthy given where spending had been for more than three decades.

After the attacks on 9-11, however, federal outlays again grew as a share of the economy, exceeding 19 percent of GDP.

The 2008-09 mortgage and economic mess saw federal spending spike to 24.4 percent of GDP in 2009. The subsequent, gradual decline brought outlays as a share of GDP down to 20.2 percent in 2018 and 21 percent in 2019. So, outlays persisted above that 20 percent mark – again, federal spending seemed to reach a new, higher level. 

And now we have the enormous increase in federal spending tied to the pandemic. For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month that through the first nine months of fiscal year 2020 (covering October 2019 to June 2020), federal outlays increased by breathtaking 49 percent compared to same period last year.

Through the first nine months of FY2020, outlays came in at more than $5 trillion. For all of FY2019, federal outlays registered $4.4 trillion. Considering that further large increases in federal spending no doubt will be registered during the final three months of the 2020 budget year, and given the shrinking of the economy, it’s within reason that federal spending as a share of GDP could top 30 percent this year.

As vaccines and therapeutics make it to the market and the economy starts to seriously recover, what will happen to the size of government in this country? Initially, we can expect spending to fall from unprecedented heights. But where will it settle? 

Do politicians stay true to form, with spending persisting at levels higher than where it was prior to the pandemic? Cynical advocates of big government might ask, “Why waste an emergency by failing to expand the size of government?” If such sentiments prevail, the economy will suffer from slower economic, income and job growth.

Or, will some economic sanity take hold, with government spending retreating to levels perhaps experienced prior to 9-11, and thereby, leaving more resources in the private sector where they will be used more productively, with the economy then growing more robustly? Of course, for such sanity to prevail, it will require that politicians, and many voters, actually learn from history and economics. That sounds like a tall order, but there’s always hope.

__________

See recent...

“New Name for Redskins is Obvious: Washington Americans”

“Guest Column: No, The Government Should Not Tell Apple How To Make iPhones”

“The Left and Fellow Conservatives Need to Stop Whining and Enjoy the Game”

“If the Presidential Election Were Held Today: The Numbers in Early July”

“10 Points Book Review: Insights on Teaching and Learning Economics, and Why it Matters, from ‘The Four Pillars of Economic Understanding’”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Keating also is a novelist. His latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th  book in the series. The Kindle price has been cut to $2.99 for each book. Big sale on signed books and sets at https://raykeatingonline.com/t/book-of-the-month.

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

The Tyranny of Disagreement

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – May 8, 2020

“Tyranny” is one of those weighty words meant to be reserved for the most dire of circumstances. Or, well, it used to be. But then again, we’ve lost or squandered the meaning of many words in our politics in recent times. 

Today, “tyranny” is being tossed around rather freely by some when discussing the issue of government limiting or restricting the ability of Americans to assemble, including at churches, during the current coronavirus pandemic.

The New Oxford American Dictionary serves up the following definition of “tyranny”: “cruel and oppressive government or rule.” Importantly, it also adds: “(especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.”

That definition, however, has been tossed aside by some in favor of name-calling when it comes to those with whom they disagree on issues that are, no doubt, of great significance. 

Indeed, there is precedent for descending into name-calling. “Tyranny” long has been a favorite slur hurled by the most extreme of libertarians at anyone who dares to disagree with their views on freedom. And neo-Confederates, of course, have a lengthy track record of referring to President Lincoln as a tyrant, while never mentioning the word “traitor” when it comes to the Confederacy, nor “tyranny” when speaking of slavery. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, since the 1960s, the Left has discarded their dictionaries – or more accurately, an understanding of history – in favor of kicking down the name-calling door by comparing conservatives and Republicans to Nazis. So, the likes of William F. Buckley, Jr., Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were compared to or called “Nazis.”

As for the current pandemic and restrictions on gatherings, the debate rages, and justifiably so. Indeed, healthy debate is central to our system, to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. And we, obviously, will disagree, and often vehemently so.

And the matter of churches being able to hold services as they see fit ranks as an area of powerful disagreement. After all, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and assembly. And the first duty of government, in fact, is to protect the rights and liberties of individuals, that is, the natural rights that pre-exist government. But a fundamental duty of government also is to protect life and limb. And so, we have the longtime debate of balancing such matters in times of national emergency. 

Living under true tyranny would mean not being able to debate and discuss such issues, and having no recourse to government actions due to oppressive rule. But that clearly is not our system. 

Individuals and groups have the ability to protest, pressure elected officials, sway public opinion, and resort to the courts to wrestle with and settle disagreements. And even when seemingly over with, many issues are never fully settled, and the debate goes on – and that, again, is a credit to our freedoms and system of government.

But then there are those asserting that since they have a particular view regarding an important topic, they are free to ignore what government says. And since our government exercises its authority by the consent of the governed, then they either accuse government of not consenting to the governed or assert that they can withdraw their consent, and then are justified to choose to do what they think is right. 

But that, of course, is a recipe for anarchy. “Consent of the governed” doesn’t mean that if you disagree with certain policies, you’re free to ignore the law or how disagreements are debated and decided in our system of government, and not suffer any consequences. Our system is a republican form of government rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, whereby citizens vote for their governmental representatives. It is not a pure democracy, nor is it a system of anarchy whereby individuals are free to ignore whatever laws they don’t like. Indeed, if that were the case, then I wouldn’t be paying income taxes.

On the matter of churches, like many other Christians, I desperately miss attending church, hearing the Word proclaimed and receiving the Sacrament of Communion. At the same, I understand, given the coronavirus pandemic, why the ability to attend church has been put on hold in some parts of the country, and restricted in assorted ways in other parts. I also believe that government has overstepped in still other areas. 

But I would hope that pastors and priests would act with wisdom during such times – and most have, thankfully. That would include holding church services when possible and as allowed; and working with all tools at their disposal to reach their parishioners with the comfort of Christ. At the same time, if they view government as overstepping, they should speak out accordingly. But being frustrated and impatient should not be an excuse for acting in ways that could have negative consequences, physically and spiritually, for their congregations, for the larger Church and for reaching the world with the Gospel – now and in the future – such as by deciding to flagrantly violate the law. 

For good measure, whether one agrees or disagrees with the policies made on such matters state by state, decisions to restrict gatherings are not conspiratorial or tyrannical efforts to undermine the Church. Indeed, over the years, I’ve seen too many people confuse government’s inherent incompetence with some kind of intricate “Deep State” plot. Trust me, decades of studying and writing about government make clear that it’s incompetence.

Is anyone going to persuade an individual to the correctness or truth of one’s position by accusing them of tyranny or being a Nazis? The obvious answer is no, particularly when those people aren’t committing tyranny and aren’t Nazis. But again much of the talk of tyranny and Nazis is about assuming that one’s opponents are inherently evil, and beyond persuasion and redemption. By the way, that assumption is not allowed for the Christian.

In the end, disagreement – even on the most vital of issues – is not tyranny.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Keating also is a novelist. His latest novels are  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast 

Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 27, 2020

We live in a strange political time, to say the least. And one of the oddest phenomena I’ve witnessed is pushback against the idea of voting according to one’s conscience. Um, really?

In fact, if you mention during a discussion that you plan to vote for a third-party candidate or write in someone during a presidential election, the response, more often than not, is the following: Why would you waste your vote? That reaction raises interesting questions about what a “wasted vote” looks like.

First, it must be noted, as public choice economists remind us, that since your single vote will not decide an election (the chances are infinitesimal), it’s perfectly rational to not vote. Indeed, we are free to vote or not to vote in this country. 

Acknowledging the reality of one’s vote not deciding an election, then why do I vote? Well, I recognize that my fellow citizens – my neighbors – and I do come together to decide who our governmental representatives will be, and that matters very much in terms of a host of policies and issues affecting each of our lives. And I understand that this right to vote is exceptional in the history of the world, and that many of my fellow Americans have risked everything to protect this freedom to vote. Indeed, voting in a free and fair election is special, and reaches beyond the pure economic or statistical argument about one vote not deciding the outcome of an election.

Given how precious this right to vote is, then how can anyone do any less than vote according to conscience? 

Of course, a vote according to conscience can take various forms. The most obvious, and easiest, is to simply cast your vote for one of the two major party candidates – Republican or Democrat – who creates no significant issues or questions for one’s conscience. That’s been the case for me, fortunately, during five of the nine presidential elections in which I’ve voted.

Then there’s the case when voting against one of the major party candidates seems to be the primary impetus in the voting booth. 

For example, during the 2016 presidential campaign, which did not have an incumbent running, voting against a candidate ran much stronger than in the previous non-incumbent election. In the September before the 2016 presidential election, Pew Research found that among those supporting the Republican, 53 percent were voting against Democrat Hillary Clinton and 44 percent for Republican Donald Trump. That compared to 35 percent voting against Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 59 percent for Republican John McCain. Meanwhile, as for those supporting the Democrat, 46 percent were voting against Trump and 53 percent for Clinton in 2016, versus 25 percent against McCain and 68 percent for Obama in 2008.

Understanding that politicians are, well, politicians, I get the idea of voting against someone. But by doing so, if you pull the lever for the opposing major-party candidate, for example, then you’re effectively voting for that candidate. And if your conscience turns out, even after much wrestling, to be okay with who you’re pulling the lever for, so be it. That was the case for me in two presidential elections.

But what about the case where voting for either candidate would go against conscience? That was the situation confronting me in two presidential elections. There was no candidate on the ballot to vote for – either explicitly for or de facto for by voting against the other candidate – who didn’t trouble my conscience. So, in each case, I followed my conscience, and wrote in my choice.

Those write-in votes, contrary to widespread opinion, were in no way wasted votes. How could any vote be wasted when voting according to your conscience? Indeed, I’m completely baffled by such accusations.

While he spoke on theological matters, I think of the Christian reformer Martin Luther on this topic, with his famous quote: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Keating also is a novelist. His latest novels are  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast 

This Economist’s 4 Top Coronavirus Concerns

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 31, 2020

Coronavirus concerns continue to mount in terms of illnesses, deaths, and the economy. And unfortunately, it promises to get much worse, before it gets better.

As for those who have been touting this as not a big deal – you know, saying it’s not as bad as the flu, and/or asserting that U.S. businesses and the economy will get back to work in a couple of weeks – they’ve proven to be more grossly ill-informed than the rest of us who are trying to navigate these uncharted waters.

Some of the politics have reached new depths of, well, stupidity – and that’s saying something. It’s been sad to see so many people peddling the idea that the warnings about the coronavirus had nothing to do with science and the track record of the virus in other nations, but instead, claimed that it was some kind of political conspiracy. By the way, one almost has to admire the steadfastness among some of them, as they continue to make such bizarre claims even as the cases mount in the United States. (Geez, just how deep does this conspiracy run?)

Looking ahead, here are my 4 top concerns as an economist and a human being:

1) The top concern and priority – and the reason that so much of the economy has been shut down – remains working to limit and stop the spread of the coronavirus, and its impact in terms of those infected, the numbers needing hospitalization, and of course, the tragic deaths. If you’re not operating from that as a first principle, then there’s something wrong with you. Unfortunately, even as the virus continues to spread in the U.S., an assortment of commentators callously emphasize the need for businesses to re-open now and for people to get back to work immediately, with some even questioning why state and local government officials have taken the actions they have. Yes, there are concerns about what the government is doing, but those are legitimate worries over the longer haul – as I will note in a moment – not in terms of the largely necessary steps that have been taken so far in the name of saving lives.

2) As the coronavirus continues to spread across the globe, the broader move into developing countries could turn into something far worse than what’s been seen in assorted developed nations, given how weak – or nearly nonexistent – health care systems and services are in those countries. The work for all of us will not stop when matters are brought down to manageable levels in the U.S.

3) The immediate drop in the U.S. economy promises to be historic. The government’s call to shut down large swathes of economic activity was the right one, and the massive aid bill (CARES Act) that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump was necessary (though certainly not everything in it was needed or even related to what’s going on) to limit some of the short-term pain. But the downturn in the economy that started in March promises to be historic, and likely will last at least into the third quarter of this year – no matter the short-run aid doled out by the government.

4) The same short-run aid provided by government will serve as a longer run negative for the economy. Anytime government drains resources from the private sector (as is the case with this massive federal package), whether via borrowing or taxes, it will serve as an economic negative. So, while the CARES Act will help many in the short run (assuming government executes matters quickly – a big assumption), the same measure promises to restrain on any economic recovery. 

And the economic recovery/expansion that hopefully starts late this year or early next will be further hampered if the current expansion of government controls are not rolled back fully. The surest path to a slow recovery – or even a double-dip recession – would involve politicians feeling empowered to spend, regulate, borrow and tax more, along with the Fed continuing to believe in its nonexistent ability to manage the economy. That’s a recipe for long-run economic decline. Indeed, this very phenomenon coming out of the late-2007-to-mid-2009 recession meant that the subsequent recovery/expansion period turned out to be grossly under-performing in terms of economic growth.

Our focus currently needs to be on saving lives, and when things are under control at home, helping those in other countries. This is what the United States does. That’s all vital from a love-our-fellow-man perspective, as well as, secondarily so, an economic viewpoint. Looking a bit further down the road, our humanitarian and economic concerns further coalesce in that we need government to then step back, and allow the private sector to invest, recover and grow, and trade to flourish – thereby creating businesses and jobs, driving up incomes, and creating the wealth that will allow us to aid others around the world and be better prepared for future crises.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York– signed books or for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

11 Point Guide to Working at Home

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 13, 2020

With so many businesses having employees working from home due to the coronavirus, my response is: “Welcome!” I’ve had a home office for just about 29 years. It’s kind of sobering to ponder, but the work-at-home gig began for me way back in 1991.

With this long track record, here’s a quick 11-point guide to working from home based on my experiences.

1. You Better Love Your Job. If you don’t enjoy, are indifferent, or positively dislike your job, then working from home might not go so well. Working in your house or apartment means that all kinds of interesting distractions lurk, from binging Netflix, getting lost online, playing with the dog, or suddenly being interested in chores around the house – from cleaning the gutters to fixing the bathroom toilet. If you don’t like your work, those distractions can become quite tempting.

2. Carve Out a Workspace. Working from home and Wi-Fi allows for getting stuff done on your laptop probably anywhere in your home – and I certainly do that. However, the most productive time usually is found in an actual home office. Since the coronavirus has people working at home who normally don’t, you might not have the space for an actual office. But other spots around the house can work in a pinch, such as a dining room or kitchen table, or even a bedroom. But if working at home is going to be for a long haul, space away from the traffic of daily life is a big plus.

3. Boost Productivity by Focusing on Objectives, Goals and Completing Projects, Not the Clock. Working from home shouldn’t mean doing the 9-to-5 thing. Instead, the home office – away from the traditional workplace setting – allows for focusing on accomplishing objectives or goals, such as completing projects, and then perhaps taking a break – even a quick jaunt to the park or beach – before moving on to the next item on the to-do list. It’s about meeting deadlines, not about the exact time spent at the desk.

4. Eliminating Meaningless Meetings. Productivity also gets a boost thanks to, for the most part, eliminating the plague of meaningless, wasteful meetings. Meetings generally suck up time and grind work to a near halt. (Can you tell I hate meetings?) Working at home means few, if any, meetings, and that’s productivity heaven.

5. Discipline and Deadlines Rock. My time as a weekly newspaper columnist taught me the many benefits of being disciplined, in particular, via deadlines. Lots of people (most?) don’t like deadlines, but when embraced, deadlines not only require discipline with time and effort (that is, less waste), but actually benefit creativity. Too often, when working independently, delay can become the default setting, and nothing gets done. Nothing getting done means, by definition, no creativity. Deadlines mean that projects must get done, and this winds up serving as an impetus to creativity.

6. Independence Required. Whether faced by something like the coronavirus or being considered for other reasons, working from home requires the ability to work independently. If that’s not you, then you need to learn quickly or suffer accordingly.

7. Enjoy the Flexibility. While the 9-to-5 workplace can be rather regimented, one of the great benefits of having a home office is flexibility. This goes back to the aforementioned focusing on getting projects done and goals met, rather than being a slave to the clock. A project focus means far greater workday flexibility, and that is one of the great benefits of working at home. Indeed, enjoy the flexibility.

8. From Commuting to What? Working at home eliminates the commute. I went from commuting to lower Manhattan – almost two hours each way every day – to no commute at all. It pays to think about how to use that time gained in ways that improve your life. The key is to make it a conscious decision; otherwise, opportunities – whether on the career front or in family life, for example – can be lost.

9. Don’t Let Work Take Over. As I noted earlier, enjoying your work is crucial when working at home. However, it then can be easy to let your work takeover or crowd out other aspects of your life. This is a work-at-home risk that you need to guard against.

10. Great Tunes. Working at home allows for working in a manner that can improve your outlook and productivity, but also in a way that perhaps wouldn’t cut it in a more traditional workplace. For me, it’s music. Music has a powerful effect on my mood and outlook, so I have assorted playlists at the ready to get me in the right frame of mind to, in my case, write. And yes, I play it loud.

11. Start a Business? Finally, use time working at home due to the coronavirus to explore opportunities. Namely, use this as a test run to see if becoming an entrepreneur is for you. If the working independently and creatively thing holds great appeal, then explore starting up a business. That doesn’t mean that you have to quit the fulltime gig – indeed, most of us cannot afford to do so – but your own business can be fulfilling in many ways, can supplement the family income, and can eventually become what you do fulltime. If you’ve ever thought about being an entrepreneur, then a stint of working from home can help you decide.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York– signed books or for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.