The debt the world owes the Jews

It’s late 1938 and an Austrian physicist is on a walk with her nephew in the Swedish countryside. The physicist’s name is Lise Meitner. She’s a Jewish refugee who fled from Berlin that summer with ten marks in her purse. Meitner is corresponding with a team of chemists in Germany. The chemists bombarded uranium nuclei with neutrons, and the final product, inexplicably, is contaminated with barium. Where is the barium coming from?

Meitner suddenly realizes what has happened, and draws a picture for her nephew of the uranium nuclei breaking into two equal-sized pieces, resulting in barium. Lise Meitner goes on to write an article, published in the magazine Nature in January, 1939. In the paper she coins the term ‘fission’, and provides two different calculations of the energy release from the new process. The number is colossally large, and it is immediately understood that there are serious military implications.

Concerned scientists get in touch with another Jewish refugee, this one in the US – Albert Einstein, and Einstein writes to President Roosevelt. As the direct result of Einstein’s letter the Manhattan Project is established, and the US successfully carries out one nuclear test, followed by two explosions in Japan. WW2 ends, fascism is defeated, freedom lives to breathe another day.

That’s one example of the contributions Jews have made to the world. The Jewish record of achievement can’t be ignored. As David Brooks wrote in his New York Times column:

They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates.

Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.

What explains this genius and unique productivity? Their simultaneous faith in progress and personal accountability creates a tension that keeps them looking forward, while allowing little rest. Jews are driven but optimistic all at once.

Consider the top five most influential people in world history, is this a good list? Moses, Jesus, Marx, Freud, & Einstein: they’re all Jewish.

I bring this up now because of last week’s events in Paris. (I planned a post about the origins of Islam, but my family asked me to be discreet. So, rather than taking a shot at Islamic pretensions, I’m giving a boost to the Jews.)

A satiric magazine was attacked, but also a Jewish grocery. The cartoonists did something specific to cause anger. The Jews were just Jews, and this seems to be happening more often in Europe these days. The trend is summarized in these two articles, one from Associated Press and the other from the New York Times:

Europe’s Anti-Semitism Comes Out of the Shadows

Kosher market attack deepens fears among European Jews

Bottom line
I don’t understand what the world has against Jews. At the very least they deserve the same support and respect as anyone else. This Presbyterian says that given their record of creativity and innovation, the world can use a lot more Jews.

Assault on the white working class

There is no group in America on a steeper downward trajectory economically — not blacks, not Hispanics, not women. The roots of the decline are in economics, but a lot of damage was caused by party politics. The Republican party was neglectful, but the Democratic party was actively hostile: supporting programs to aid and empower other previously disenfranchised and impoverished groups — almost everyone except the white working-class, and an anti-jobs agenda.

The white working class, from here onwards simply WWC, is white people without a college education. That’s a lot of people: close to half of white men and more than a third of white women in the labor force, or 36% of the total US population. The following chart shows a September 2012 breakdown of the US population.

US population

50 years of decline
By most indicators, over the last 50 years the white working class fared worse than any other US demographic. According to a Brookings Institution study: ‘each indicator that can be used to define the white working class, whether applied broadly or narrowly, shows huge declines from the World War II era to today—declines roughly in the 30-50 percentage point range.‘ The problems show up most clearly in employment statistics. The WWC made its home in manufacturing, and manufacturing employment has shrunk in the US. According to The Economist: ‘The share of American employment in manufacturing has declined sharply since the 1950s, from almost 30% to less than 10%.’ The following chart from The Economist shows this decline against other sectors in the US economy.

employment by sector

The WWC are workers without a college education, and there are less options today in the US economy for workers at that level. In this chart from The New York Times you see that the highest rate of employment is for workers with four-year college degrees.

employment by sector

Looking at it another way, unemployment is highest for workers with only high school degrees. See this chart, also from The New York Times.

unemployment by sector

Why?
The most obvious explanation for WWC losses is in economics: automation and globalization reduced the competitiveness of well-paid American industrial workers; but the WWC is also a victim of party politics. They’re neglected by the Republicans, while under attack by the Democrats. Here are examples:

Affirmative action programs open doors to higher education and better jobs for minorities; but accordingly limit opportunities for whites, and especially members of the WWC.

Welfare (WIC, food stamps, ADC and so on) programs benefit the poor and while they barely touch the WWC, they do infuriate them and are symbolic of the WWC estrangement from Democratic Party ideology.

Interest group politics are allowed to derail jobs programs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, intended to fund infrastructure jobs following the 2008 crash, instead became a kitty for social welfare programs.

A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, “We all talked about ‘shovel-ready’ since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that’s not the case.’

— The Weekly Standard

The shift away from construction jobs was deliberate, caused by complaints from women’s groups about creating jobs for construction workers: ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.‘

Environmentalism We all value clean air and water, but Democrats use the environment as an excuse to kill jobs. Some examples:

The coal industry: The coal industry is responsible for about 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs in the US. President Obama famously proposed crippling the coal industry: ‘If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’

The Keystone pipeline: Obama opposed it. The project is dead now because of the drop in oil prices, but it would have created jobs. CNN reported ‘In a report on the pipeline issued in January, the state department said it expects that Keystone will indirectly create about 38,000 jobs, in addition to the 3,900 construction jobs.’

Oil drilling: Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster Obama issued a moratorium on new drilling permits and tightened safety requirements. As reported by factcheck.org, there was a 61 percent drop in new drilling permits, and a 61% drop in new offshore oil leases.

Bottom line
The WWC has lost a lot of ground economically over the last 50 years, while policies supported by Democrats have made a bad situation worse.

Senator Warren’s Self-serving and False Moralism

In September 2011 while running for US Senator in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren was recorded in a statement that became popular on the Internet. You can see the YouTube recording here.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. … You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

In this statement, Senator Warren draws a line between two groups of people. First, there are the rich: “nobody in this country … got rich on his own.” Then there are taxpayers: “the rest of us”.

Senator Warren makes the point that the rich person’s factory uses services and infrastructure provided by government, paid for by “the rest of us”. Since she mentions nothing that the rich person brings to the table, the implication is that government is the key element in creating wealth, and that rich people should dial it down a notch and be properly grateful. There are some problems with this.

The rich versus taxpayers
First, the line drawn between the “rich” and “the rest of us” is both indelicate and false. Senator Warren says “the rest of us” pay for services, while the “rich” consume services. Actually, almost all of us pay the taxes that pay for government. I’m straining to think of who in the US, other than infants, does not pay taxes. If you’re jobless and without income, you probably still pay sales tax. When you buy gasoline, part of the price is a Federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. If you’re an adult and not in prison, it’s almost certain that you pay taxes.

In fact, the vast majority of tax revenue comes from the “rich”. For example: “According to the IRS, the top 1% of income earners for 2008 paid 38% of income tax revenue, while earning 20% of the income reported.” Go ahead, add in all the other sources of tax revenue: payroll, investment income…if it’s a tax paid by an individual, then most of it came from someone who is ‘rich’.

Government is the key
Second, there is the idea that the infrastructure and services provided by government are key to the success of the ‘rich’. If true, then we don’t need entrepreneurs or the capitalist system. Just provide government, and whammo: up pop the factories, and the iPads and Teslas start to flow. Right?

However, government by itself is insufficient. In fact, with government by itself the economy will eventually grind to a stop, probably because no one is doing productive work. Two cases make the point: China and Russia under a communist system. They both failed. The spring ran down, people were starving and unhappy. Once capitalism was restored, the economies rebounded. Government by itself is not enough: the key ingredient is inventors, investors, and risk takers. Capitalists. Without capitalism, an economy dies. Yes, government is needed, but it is not sufficient.

Be grateful
Third, Senator Warren counsels us to be grateful for what government provides. “You didn’t have to worry…because of the work the rest of us did.” In fact, government is a cash-driven business: taxes pay for everything the government does. Taxes are collected. Contracts are negotiated. Work is spec’d, performed, and approved. Checks are written and mailed. Government is a paid agent, not a charitable enterprise.

Additionally, in any government function, the various clients of government get their slice of the pie. MWBE (Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises) get a slice of every public works project. The Davis–Bacon Act applies to every foot of roadway, tunnel and culvert. Politicians’ names are memorialized forever in place names across the country: Dan Ryan Expressway, Albert Rosellini Bridge, and Robert Moses State Park. People, there is no need for us to feel gratitude, we paid the fare.

We’re all on welfare now

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

— Ronald Reagan

There’s a dilemma when the government arrives, offering to help. Do you turn it down, out of pride or a sense of independence? Think of Clint Didier in his 2010 campaign for US Senate in Washington State. Didier was a rancher, and opposed to government handouts. However, he received farm subsidies and was criticized for the apparent hypocrisy. Dider pointed out that ranching is a business, and he competes against other ranchers. If other ranchers accept a subsidy and he does not, that puts him at a disadvantage. “If your neighbor has an advantage, he is in the position to buy the next farm up for sale.”

Think about the struggling grad student with a young family, opposed to GMO, opposed to use of animals in research, whatever. Research grants are available to help her up to the next rung on the professional ladder. What to do? The research grant requires her to do work that is ethically compromising. Accepting government help can be compromising.

The bottom line
Sen Warren offers a false morality. Yes, the rich did not get there on their own, but government can’t claim the credit. Government provides services as directed by taxpayers, paid for by taxpayers. Do not worship the government as a beneficent entity; government was paid, and extracted its full use of every cent. There is no need to feel queasy about taking government help, and no need to take any lip about it afterwards.