Benefits Aren't Always Beneficial?

This article states and speculates on the potential effect of the new policy Obama plans to implement on Monday. Obama plans on issuing an executive order “requiring federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave a year”. The issue is the less than desireable leave policies that lawmakers, private employers and both local and state governments use. Obama’s solution is, of course, controversial. While some are insisting the policy is an all-around positive advance, others challenge that it will cause an unintended rise in prices. Beyond ensuring the seven paid sick leave days, Obama has also required a higher minimum wage for contractors, among other things. While this article is written with a neutral stance on the issue, it presents both sides of the argument and thus contradicting predictions regarding the effects.

Though I personally think it makes sense to only be paid for doing a job when you actually do the job, I can see how it might be helpful to receive the pay you would have earned if you were physically able to. People don’t tend to choose to be sick and unable to perform their jobs. Therefore, they don’t usually choose to not work and not get paid. Outside variables impact one’s ability to work and most of the time the variables are not in one’s control. Understanding that it is unfortunate to not be able to work because of something out of your control, it is also unfortunate that the employer is obligated to pay workers that are unable to work. Households get paid (and in my opinion should only get paid) whenever they provide the designated work for the firm that they are employed by, not when they can’t work.

It would be rather idealistic that one would assume complete honesty from the employee regarding when they are actually sick or when they merely don’t want to show up. Ultimately, it would be very easy to take advantage of the situation and guaranteed paid leave. Even if it would only amount to 7 days a year, when you add up those seven days and take into account the number of employees affected by this new rule it can result in a sizeable sum. Where does this money come from then? Unless the firm has a surplus of money (and even if they did would they really want to give it away?) this extra expense has to be made up somehow. The easiest way to compensate would be to raise prices, for everyone. Does it make more sense to give more money to a certain population only for it to be worth less for an entire population?

Money has to come from somewhere. Scarcity is the core of economics and is the core of this issue as well. How beneficial will paid leave be in the long run?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/obama-to-require-federal-contractors-to-provide-paid-sick-leave.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Race to Equilibrium

The article explains the struggle many European countries are facing due to the rapid influx of refugees coming from war-torn areas in the Middle East and Africa. In response to the immense numbers of migrants who have already entered Germany and the equally as large if not larger number of migrants still expected to enter the country, Germany has implemented a new plan for border control. The plan on reinstating border restrictions is an attempt to slow the influx of people and to not bear the burden of the humanitarian crisis alone. The European Union’s policy of passport free travel between other EU countries is now being threatened as it allows for very minimal control over immigration as the migrant crisis has increased in scope.

These restrictions are hard to implement especially as people have become overwhelmingly sensitive and emotionally attached to decisions that have to be made objectively. Even with setting feelings aside it is not possible for Germany and the other European countries affected to support a massive population of refugees out of nowhere. The countries accepting the refugees are the ones making the sacrifices considering they technically only have a duty towards supporting their own citizens. As much as everyone would like to be able to support another, to an extent it probably won’t work without help from other economies. I think that there needs to be a collective effort among all nations affected (and even those only affected peripherally) to solve some of the issues that come along with a massive increase in population.

The economic implications of the rapid and sudden increase in population should not be underestimated. Logistically, it doesn’t make sense to expect the economy to catch up at the rate necessary for supporting the ever-increasing population especially at such an unnatural rate. The overwhelming increase in demand due solely to the number of people added into the countries and their economic systems will strain the suppliers in terms of how to catch up. As people become more desperate, suppliers gain more control over the situation and can increase the prices of good due to the shortage. If that comes into play not only will the refugees be strained attempting to adopt the new culture and surroundings, they will also be taken advantage of. This shortage is not something that can be easily fixed due to its complexity. Until the economy can catch up and reach economic equilibrium again, there will be lots of unhappy people left without the basics necessary to survive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/world/europe/germany-emergency-measures-european-migrant-crisis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Donald Trump's Economy v. Jebb Bush's

 Donald Trump's plan for the economy is to overhaul the tax code and grow the economy by 3%. Experts say that his plan is a lot more reasonable/realistic than Bush's plus "history is on his side".
 U.S. economy expands 3% per year since the great depression.
 Ultimately, Baby Boomers are ruining the economy because they are all retiring with cause there to be fewer workers which means in order for his plan to work, trump has to increase productivity through technological innovation.
 Jebb Bush's plan is to grow the economy by 4% which is double what it is now.
- scale back government regulations such as Dodd-Frank financial reform law and the neutrality rule
 "US ranks 46th in the world in terms of ease of starting a business. That is unacceptable." - OP-ED - Wall Street Journal
 The current GDP is 2.4% which leave a 1.6 trillion gap.
  "lower taxes for individuals and business' will spur growth"
 Trump's plan will grow economy slightly more than Bush's and create more jobs, but will most likely fall short of his 3% goal and create a $10.1 trillion hole.
 - Trump will mostly likely add to US debt
"There's so much waste in government that I believe when I get in there, I'll be able to cut, without losing anything."
 - 'cuts could boost growth by 5% or more'
 they don't know how Trump's push to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants would cost and whether it will be harmful to the economy or not.  he wants to roll back free trade agreements such as NAFTA
 - worse case scenario: calling for a war with nations like Mexico and China = drag on growth
 However, Trump still gets highest ratings when Republicans votes on who can 'best handle the economy'.
 - economy was supposed to be a strong issue for Bush - Florida flourished under his tenure as governor
 - - ended before 2008 crisis
Trump: 44% approved rating ; Bush: 8% behind Carly Fiorina & Marco Rubb

Trump's approval rating is the "people respond to incentives" type of thing; because Trump's plan is more realistic people are responding to the idea that it's more likely to happen even though Jebb Bush's idea would be more beneficial to the economy overall.

money.cnn.com/2015/09/30/news/economy/donald-trump-economy-jebb-buch/index.html?iid-Lead