One of Paul Krugman’s most recent columns

discussed what the U.S. could learn from Germany in the area of job creation/ retention. Germany has

instituted policies that create incentives for hiring employees/ not firing people. The devil is not

in the details here; it is much more superficial. It doesn’t matter whether this German-style

policy aim is done through tax breaks or just straight-up cash handouts. All you need to know is

that it gives businesses a reason to hire/not fire.

Krugman says that the White House’s

economic team doesn’t want to do this because it will artificially inflate employment, that is,

incentivizing hiring when there doesn’t need to be any (in short, it drops productivity sharply).

Krugman doesn’t really address this poignant criticism. Rather, he would rather people just go to

work, even if they are diluting the work of others.

This is where Krugman always loses me. He

advocates things based on his politics…which is fine, if you have legitimate reasons to do so.

Here, his reason is admittedly Left and government expansionary. But there is no real analysis

behind his main point. All he has to say is: We have to look at the costs associated with the

unemployment benefits being paid out (American current model) versus the costs associated with

employing unnecessary people (Germany model). Do whatever costs less. Period. Here (and

everywhere?), the political alignment of the choice shouldn’t matter…but only its substantive

effect.

Uber allus?