Oliver Stephenson - War on Drugs

In the past week, the White House has come out and said that they plan to end the Reagan era War on Drugs and begin to tackle the problem with a new approach. In line with some of the possible concepts we have been discussing in class, the Director of National Drug Control Policy has said that from this point moving forward, drug use will be tackled with “neuroscience, not political science.” In line with this notion, the Director noted that treatment, not incarceration, would be the most effective way to conquering the drug problem that has beset the country for years.

Drugs alone account for a significant portion of arrests in the United States; however, in many cases, offenders are non-violent. Yet, these people often times are arrested on multiple occasions for drug offenses, suggesting that the current system does little to dissuade drug abusing behaviors among the population. Thus, new legislation would see that these non-violent offenders were instead treated with rehabilitation instead of incarceration. In turn, the White House hopes that it can instill a notion of recovery, rather than punishment, in these drug users, and help them back onto their feet and on with their lives.

http://newsone.com/2412446/obama-war-on-drugs/

The Shrinking American Labor Union - Emily Lundberg

Since the 1970’s, private sector union membership has declined from nearly 25% to 6%. Decreased union participation may be because of global trade, technology, or less domestic manufacturing. Shrinking labor union participation does not only affect union workers, but affects non-union laborers as well.  We can estimate that the decrease in collective bargaining would have a greater impact on men compared to women, and uneducated workers compared to those with a college degree. Industries where labor is a small share of costs creates a more inelastic labor demand, incentivizing unions to form to set wage standards through collective bargaining. As people shift towards those industries receiving higher pay, the supply of other industries will contract, putting upward pressure on wages for nonunion workers as a result. With lower union participation, there are fewer resulting spillover effects to the rest of the economy.  

The decline in union participation could be used to explain the stagnation in middle class wages, a large contributing factor to the United State’s growing inequality issue. Since the 70’s, productivity has greatly increased while compensation has increased at a slower rate. The economy can afford higher pay, but is not providing it. This divergence in productivity and pay could be explained by a decline in collective bargaining, and decreasing real wages of union and non-union workers. Generating real wage growth is a critical step to tackling inequality. To grow real wages, collective bargaining through private sector membership needs to strengthen.

Should Prostitution Be Legal? - JR Jackson

The general public’s knee jerk reaction to this question would most likely be a resounding no, but similar to the debate of marijuana this is a victimless crime. Many people believe that legalizing prostitution could bring about several positive externalities, such as: reduced crime, improved public health, increased tax revenue, bring people out of poverty, among others. Currently the only state to allow legal prostitution is Nevada, in which 11 of the counties host 28 brothels. All of the positive externalities mentioned above have been observed in these counties. Perhaps we should consider allowing consenting adults to make their own choices. What do you think?

Richie Weker Blog Post 2-Abortion

Abortion policies have been the source of intense debate.  This is due to the extreme polarity of views that people tend to have on the issue.  Anti-Abortion laws had previously been prevalent in every state since the 20^th century, where only some states made it legal under extreme circumstances such as rape or incest.  However, the Supreme Court decision in the Roe v. Wade case where states were unable to prohibit abortion early in pregnancy, but were allowed to impose restrictions or bans later in the pregnancy.

It seems as if the country is split between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.  There is an interesting debate on whether the government should be involved in such a personal decision of individuals.  Abortion financing is also an interesting topic.  The financing of abortion varies from state to state with some states using their policy as an incentive to reduce the number of abortions.  Costs vary depending on what point of pregnancy you are when you go for the abortion.  Laws require that Medicaid cover abortion under extreme circumstance of rape, incest or life endangerment.  There is also Private Insurance with very restrictive coverage varying in different states.  A good thing that has come from abortion legalization is that the risk of death has fallen dramatically as doctors have become more skilled and there has been a reduction in illegal abortions.  There is also an interesting and very controversial theory that allowing for abortions will reduce the amount of criminals and crime because unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.    

Meister Blog 2 Unemployment Insurance

            Unemployment insurance provides workers who have been terminated through no fault of their own with monetary benefits for a given period of time or until they become employed. One of the first economic justifications for unemployment insurance relates to the types of jobs that a recently fired person may seek. Given that people are risk-averse, we might expect a fired person to take a job for which he/she is less qualified. The overall economy and individuals are best off when people are employed in positions for which they are most qualified. Unemployment insurance has the opportunity to significantly help this issue by providing individuals with income during the unemployment period to give them more time and security to seek the best job, as well as help with consumption smoothing.

There are also some consequences with unemployment insurance. When companies are forced to pay these taxes, it is certainly possible that they will respond by decreasing wages and/or increasing prices. In addition, unemployment insurance can also result in laziness where the former-worker finds no need to rush to find a job (moral hazard). Furthermore, unemployment insurance can also lead to crowding out of private saving. When deciding the validity of unemployment insurance, the benefits and costs above must be evaluated. In my opinion, there seems to be economic justification to providing these benefits to the poor and disabled but not necessarily the wealthy. In terms of the wealthy, then the moral hazard and crowding out consequences are more significant than with the poor.

Mandatory Nutrition Labeling (ACA) - Leslye Barth

     Nutrition labeling in the US has become a hot topic since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Though the Act contains mandatory labeling laws, the enforcement of these laws has been delayed a few years as Congress and the FDA faced strong opposition from pizza and movie theater chains. The mandatory labeling component of the ACA requires restaurants with more than 20 chains to publish nutritional information, as well as any prepackaged single-serving foods at grocery stores (e.g. pre-made sandwiches, salads, etc.). Those against the mandate cite the large and costly regulatory burden that is now placed on dining establishments. Mandatory menu labeling will take "menu costs" to an entirely new level. Furthermore, they argue that the FDA overextended its power by interpreting the rule to apply not only to chain restaurants but also to grocery stores. 

     However, in my opinion, the government's interest in helping consumers make better nutritional choices will pay off. Mandatory food labeling will protect and strengthen access to healthy, nutritious food and will serve as a strong educational tool for all Americans. This is a step in the right direction to correct the asymmetric information in the food marketplace. As a health conscious individual, I am thrilled to have the ability to make more educated choices when dining in chain restaurants. On a broader spectrum, the US is fighting an obesity epidemic -- more information for consumers will prompt healthier choices and ultimately better long-term dietary habits. In fact, a 2008 study of 100 million cash register transactions at Starbucks found a 6% decrease in average calories purchased after calorie posting, indicating success of the policy. Mandatory food labeling will help to defeat the epidemic in the US, while lowering (the currently skyrocketing) health care costs. The benefits of mandatory labeling will greatly exceed the costs forced onto restaurants, and I look forward to seeing our nation move towards healthier eating habits. 

Should the Death Penalty be Legal? - David Berk

      If we look at the common sense argument, it makes perfect sense that the death penalty should be used as punishment for the worst crimes that are committed. There is a strong deterrent effect associated with the death penalty. People have a great fear of dying, so if that is the punishment for committing a horrible crime, people are less likely to commit the crime. Additionally, it is logical to say that if one person kills another, then the punishment should be the same as the crime. This teaches society that it is not ok to murder someone, and if you do so you will be subjected to the same punishment.
      However, there is a counter argument to the use of the death penalty. First, we can refute the lesson it teaches society. If we put someone to death for murdering someone, then we teach society that death is ok in a certain form. However, if we sentence someone to life in prison, we teach society that it is never acceptable to cause someone's death. Additionally, it costs about $3 million to put someone to death. Sentencing someone to jail for life with no possible release costs about one third of this total. This means that society would have extra money that could be used for economic improvement, while still removing the criminal from society forever. Overall, I believe that there is no reason to use the death penalty over life in prison. 

The Legalization of Sports Betting - Aaron Ogunro

The topic of sports betting has been a contentious issue for quite some time. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) effectively outlawed sports betting in the United States. Currently, there are only four states where sports betting is legal. To me, this is a law that needs to be overturned on a federal level. It is imperative that the federal government does it because this would create a single set of laws that would govern all the sports betting in the United States. This would eliminate disputes between states when it comes to betting. I see very few differences between sports betting and investing money in the stock market. In either situation, there is high risk and high reward, and there is a chance that one could lose all their money. Billions of dollars are made every year in the four states that do allow sports betting to continue, and there is an estimated 380 to 500 billions dollars being made illegally. If legalized, this sort of money could be taxed and used to better this country’s infrastructure and social well-being. The legalization of sports betting could also lead to more viewers of sports in the United States. More people would be inclined to watch a specific sport if they had some sort of monetary investment in the game. Increased viewers in a sport would increase the revenue for that league as well. 

            The main argument against sports betting is that it would ruin the integrity of sports in the United States. There are two points that weaken this argument. Sports betting is a major industry in England, and they have had very few instances of players, teams or coaches throwing games in order to make money. Second, as I mentioned before, sports betting would have to be legalized on a federal level to ensure there are adequate and universal punishments for those that choose to cheat in order to make money. Having universal and harsh punishments would deter players from ruining the integrity of their respective sports. Not to mention, it would also provide protection for gamblers and bookies along with transparency in the sports betting market.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/legalize-sports-gambling-020215

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/im-pro-sports-gambling-realist/story?id=28773595&singlePage=true

The Legalization of the Sale of Human Organs- Dan Hickey

An organ shortage exists worldwide, with some people estimating that an average of 18 people a day die while waiting for a transplant.  The formal process in the United States, and most other countries, is inefficient and ineffective.  One interesting solution to this can be found through the policies of Iran.  Iran has legalized the sale of human organs, using the government as an intermediary between buyers and sellers.  Australia and Singapore are going through similar processes now, as well.

A policy such as this has several economic and social benefits.  First and most obviously, it would save lives.  Providing citizens with a monetary incentive would increase the amount of donors of organs.  This sort of incentive program would raise supply to match the demand of the market.  Additionally, this legalization would reduce the amount of black market transactions.  Modern medicine has come a far way, but there are still many failures when the process is done on the black market.  Transplants are much safer when done legally.  Furthermore, prices are inefficiently driven up on the black market.  Iran estimates that the cost of a legal $2,000 kidney is $160,000 on the black market.  Given this, one concern of this policy is the exploitation of the poor.  They are most likely to need the benefits and might unhealthily abuse the system.