March 22 roundup

  • $10 million judgment “won’t hit Albuquerque property owners on their tax bills because it’ll come out of [city’s] self-insurance fund” Say what? [Albuquerque Journal via Ed Krayewski, Reason]
  • Latest Bloomberg scheme: ban display of tobacco products [Jacob Sullum, Patrick at Popehat, Patrick Basham/Daily Caller, Ira Stoll, Elie Mystal/Above the Law]
  • Female? Hispanic? Planted a backyard garden between 1981-2000, while wishing you could have gone bigger with the hobby? Feds’ ag-bias settlement may have bucks for you [James Bovard/WSJ, earlier on Pigford black-farmer settlement here, here, here, etc.]
  • Newly published, includes blurb by me: Mark White, The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism [Amazon]
  • “NYC adopts nation’s toughest law against refusing to hire unemployed” [AP, earlier here, etc.]
  • Estate of judge is suing prominent Philadelphia class action lawyer over fall at party in home [Legal Intelligencer]
  • For Wisconsin’s left, Roggensack/Fallone judicial contest might be the last hope for derailing Gov. Walker’s labor reform [Rick Esenberg]

One Comment

  • Re: hiring the employed vs unemployed.

    Total employment is a zero sum game (baring structural changes to the overall economy).
    Currently economic growth and creation of new jobs is fairly minimal. It is vital to any economy that the employed folks have job liquidity and can move around as needs dictate. Limit job mobility of the employed and the economy will only further founder.
    The unemployed are that way for a reason: 1) there are excess people for the current number of jobs that the weak economy can support, 2) those on the sidelines do not have the present skill set to replace a current worker. Barring real economic growth, jobs are zero sum; without the total number of jobs increasing, hiring the unemployed will only turn someone currently with a job into the newly unemployed.