Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

Not Cutting Down Trees is Good Business

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

In the state of Georgia, we are very familiar with the economic engine that is created by the lumber industry. Our state has the most commercially available, private timberland in the country at 22 million acres. In 2019, the industry had an economic impact estimated at over $36 billion and employed over 141,000 Georgians. Recently, however, a colleague of mine in the Murphy Center sent me a podcast from the Wall Street Journal in which the host explains the economics of the carbon offset market – that is, not cutting down trees and getting paid for it.

Historically, the best way to profit from a forest was to cut down its trees and sell it. Today, the carbon offset market is changing that paradigm and landowners can make money from trees by keeping them planted and healthy. This is because some of America’s largest corporations are eager to purchase these offsets created by the carbon absorption capacity of forests. It allows a company that cannot avoid certain emissions to offset them instead by purchasing credits, or offsets, from a landowner. Thus, this carbon offset market both reduces CO2 in our atmosphere and keeps trees standing.

So, problem solved? Maybe not. If we look just at the question ‘Do carbon markets reduce the number of trees cut down and thus reduce carbon intensity?’ the answer is, yes. But, where I have a problem with the carbon offset market, along with any market that purports to produce more stuff with less environmental inputs (also referred to as eco-efficiency), is that it ignores system-thinking.

If we want more sustainable systems and economies, we can’t just offset carbon (ie. reduce the carbon intensity of a product) – though this is an important part of the equation. We also have to reduce overall consumption. For example, in this case, it’s important to reduce the number of trees being removed from the system, but if that ultimately just passes the buck so that we produce more stuff, the impact does not change much.

I think Ehrlich and Holdren’s 40+ year-old IPAT equation is still the most elegant model for understanding environmental impact.

I = P*A*T

I – impact

P – population

A – affluence (GDP per capita)

T – technology (a measure of the amount of resources required to produce a unit of GDP)

So, if we think about carbon reduction as a technological reduction method – it reduces the amount of resources per unit of GDP – the rate at which we reduce the carbon and bring down the “T” variable is only useful if we also reduce “A” and “P” (the rate of emissions growth that stems from population and per capita income growth). In short, overall environmental impact does not change much by changing the rate of only one of your variables; they have to be considered together.

I love the idea that carbon offsets are booming. The more trees the better as far as I’m concerned. But, if the result of a carbon offset is simply to allow a company or individual to feel better about behaving in the same way that they always did without changing habits of consumption, is the impact really changing in any meaningful way? Probably not. More likely, it just encourages business as usual.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management and a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.

An Educated Labor Force? We’ve Got One

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

If you find good news boring, you should probably skip this column.

Changes in the characteristics of a population of a country, state or county tend to be gradual. For instance, changes of any significance in the median age or racial composition of a population typically require a generation or longer.

But there are exceptions. A surprising exception – at least it’s surprising to me – is the increase in the level of educational attainment of the populations of the U.S., Georgia and Glynn since 2000.

According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data, of people age 25 years or older in the U.S. in 2000, 52 percent had at least some college, while 48 percent had at most a high school diploma. Twenty-four percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, while 20 percent had not graduated from high school.

Of people age 25 years or older in the U.S. today, 62 percent have at least some college, 38 percent have at most a high school diploma, 33 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 11 percent have not graduated from high school.

That’s quite a change. Yes, it happened over 20 years, but it takes a good bit of time to produce an educated person, and it takes unrelenting persistence and dedication over a good bit of time to significantly reduce the high school dropout rate. Reducing the percentage of the 25 years or older population without a high school diploma from 20 percent to 11 percent in 19 years is a remarkable achievement.

Georgia is part of this national success. In 2000, of Georgians age 25 years or older, 50 percent had at least some college, 50 percent had at most a high school diploma, 24 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 21 percent had not graduated from high school.

Of Georgians age 25 years or older today, 60.5 percent have at least some college, 39.5 percent have at most a high school diploma, 32.5 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 12 percent have not graduated from high school.

How about hometown? Glynn is in on the success, too.

In 2000, 53 percent of Glynn residents age 25 years or older had at least some college, 47 percent had at most a high school diploma, 24 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 18 percent had not graduated from high school.

Today, 62 percent of Glynn residents age 25 years or older have at least some college, 38 percent have at most a high school diploma, 28 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 10 percent have not graduated from high school.

What’s more, this trend is going to continue for a while. Within the 25 years or older population, the level of educational attainment varies inversely with age. That is, in aggregate, the level of educational attainment is highest among younger people and lowest among older people.

 Today, while 33 percent of Americans age 25 years or older have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 39 percent of Americans age 25 years to 29 years have a bachelor’s degree or higher. And while 11 percent of Americans age 25 years or older have not graduated from high school, only 5 percent of Americans age 25 years to 29 years have not graduated from high school.

Of course, the past 20 years is just the most recent stretch of the trend in American educational attainment that began long ago. But in case you’ve now had enough good news for one day, we’ll save the long-term trend for my next column.

The Contested Morality of Mandating Masks

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

Many Georgians have strong opinions about mask mandates. Savannah and Atlanta are mandating masks again. Gwinnett and other metro Atlanta schools are requiring students and staff to mask, while Glynn County is not. Governor Kemp maintains a rigid stand against statewide COVID restrictions. Pro-maskers and anti-maskers both contend that they hold the moral high ground. These attitudes toward face-coverings amid the COVID-19 pandemic reflect divergent moral worldviews on the left and on the right.

Progressives tend to hold a collectivistic morality. Many on the modern left pursue social justice and strive to achieve equitable outcomes as an ultimate goal.

Progressives declare that it is morally imperative to wear a mask to safeguard our collective well-being. Wearing face-coverings during a pandemic reflects concern for protecting high-risk populations: the elderly, the immunocompromised, essential workers, and the unvaccinated. Progressives’ pursuit of equity extends to communities of color, indigenous groups, and the poor. These populations tend to be underinsured, have insufficient access to healthcare, and experience high rates of preexisting health conditions. Progressives contend that the healthy, asymptomatic, and vaccinated should bear the minor burden of wearing a mask if it can have even a marginal impact on health outcomes. This emphasis on requiring face-coverings reflects a collectivistic morality and pursuit of equity that dominates the public policy of progressives.

Conservatives tend to hold an individualistic morality. Justice is equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law. Those on the right valorize individualism as an American virtue. This individualistic moral worldview encourages personal responsibility and celebrates rights and freedoms.

Many conservatives assert that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. Requiring anyone to wear a face-covering is a new instance of governmental overreach that infringes on civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Much like stay-at-home orders and other restrictions, compulsory face-coverings represent an expansion of governmental control over the lives of citizens. This erosion of personal freedom threatens to persist beyond the pandemic. Perceived through an individualistic moral lens, it should be an individual’s decision to wear or not wear a mask.

Depending on one’s worldview, mandated masking is either a moral obligation to protect others or an instance of governmental overreach that threatens liberty. Folks in each camp view the world from their own moral vantage point, unable or unwilling to appreciate an alternative moral perspective on face-coverings. Collectivistic and individualistic moralities produce different policies on masking, vaccine “passports,” placing restrictions on indoor dining, and numerous other policy issues.

Not all of those on the left share these progressive attitudes, while not all those on the right embrace these individualistic, libertarian ideals. Morality is always contested among and within groups. Those with power will impose their morality on others through policies that have real-world consequences.

Most of us live in moral echo chambers. We consume media and journalism that reinforces our ideological worldviews. We cultivate a social network of peers with a common morality. In our contemporary moment of hyperpartisan politics, these moral differences are exacerbated and politicized. Unfortunately, understanding the moral worldview of “the other” has fallen out of favor. These divergent moralities reinforce real-world moral and social boundaries between progressives and conservatives.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at College of Coastal Georgia and an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center. He can be reached by email at: rscarborough@ccga.edu.

  • Reg Murphy
  • Reg Murphy Center

Number 200

Written by Skip Mounts on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Skip Mounts.

Many of you know Dr. Don Mathews. Don, excuse me. Dr. Mathews is a professor of economics at the College, a beloved teacher, the comedian at the UGA/Terry School of Business economic forecast given every January at the Jekyll Island Convention Center, and our faithful leader of ‘From the Murphy Center’ columns. However, I think he has a mean streak. Don, oops…Dr. Mathews, told me that my column today is number 200 from all the Murphy Center associates. After telling me this he said, in his loving tone, “So, don’t mess up.” So, here it goes.

Classes begin at the College next week on Monday the 16th. In partial preparation, we have been holding new student orientations over the summer. Here, we talk about procedural things like financial aid, dorm residency, grants, loans, bookstore hours, etc. We also begin to talk about the ‘Mariner way’ —– the culture of our learning environment and campus life.

As Dean of the School of Business and Public Management, I have some time to talk with our future students during orientation. I think it is important to ask our incoming scholars, “Why are you here?” I hear many things: ‘to prepare for a job’, ‘a step toward law school’, ‘I was told to come’, ‘I don’t know’, and ‘I want better.’ All are right in some way, for each student has their own unique situation at that moment in time.

I ask them to consider another reason. They are here to prepare to receive a gift, a gift of a new path for their lives that offers them more choices compared to the number of choices offered on the path they are now on. They come to college to prepare for a world with more choices.

Choices, alternatives, are good things. The ability to pick one from many is cool. What is cooler is to have the ability to say no to a choice when you think that there is no other way. Choices are basic to our freedom and to our control over our lives. Choices force others to stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of others. Back in the day, under the regime of the Soviet Union, Russian women had many choices for shoes so long as they liked black T-straps. That is the only style that shoe manufacturers made. The Russian shoe manufacturer only had to think of themselves and the payout the government offered if the manufacturer was efficient in making black T-Straps. However, with the opening of the Russian economy, more than black T-straps were available. Shoemakers had to start to think of their female customers and stop thinking of themselves. Choice changed the focus of what matters.

Choice is also the key to the civil rights issue of our time —— the quality of the education offered in public schools. To me, a quality school focuses on students and their futures. They think of more than just themselves. Choice gives families the right to walk away or to stay. Milton Friedman said that ‘choice gives an individual the ability to vote with their feet’. Choice can take many forms and one can see its local impact in many positive ways. Yet, one just needs to look at Baltimore-City schools to see where limiting choice can lead and the failure that it produces.

We also talk about entrepreneurs and choice. Entrepreneurs create choices for us as we face the problems of day-to-day life. Successful entrepreneurs think of others and rarely think of themselves. A world of choices is the goal of an entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Another way to say all this, is that we are preparing our students for the competitive marketplace where choice thrives. They will lead, they will follow, they will create, and they will live with the freedom to choose.

So, this brings #200 to an end. Don, are you good?

Thank you Buff for the space every Wednesday. Thank you Buddy for the freedom to write about ideas and for correcting my bad spelling. And thank you, Golden Isles, for all you do for us at the College of Coastal Georgia.

Dr. Skip Mounts is the Dean of the School of Business and Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia, a Professor of Economics, and an associate of the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.

The Need to Recreate a Law-abiding Ethic in Georgia’s Child Welfare System

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

I am finally listening to a book my colleague Dr. Don Mathews has been recommending to me for a couple years—Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World by Deirdre Nansen McCloskey. The book is very long, and according to my Kindle, I am only 17% into it.

In an early chapter, McCloskey argues that ethics matter more than institutions in making a country or community successful. The most obvious example she gives is of a legal system. Laws and institutions of justice only work if societal norms value adherence to those laws.

This discussion from McCloskey reminds me of one of the least efficient systems I have ever been part of—Georgia’s child welfare system. I have been a licensed foster parent for over three years.  I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of this system. First, let me say, there really is a lot of good. I have worked with caseworkers, lawyers, judges, and other advocates who have extraordinary hearts for children and who work hard every day to achieve happy, healthy, and safe permanency for our kids.

Unfortunately, there also is a lot about the system that should be improved.

I have often thought about lobbying legislators in Atlanta for better laws to protect Georgia’s children. But, the more I observe, the more I realize that in many cases, the inefficiencies are not due to poorly-designed laws or policies. Most of the inefficiencies I have witnessed are due to a lack of knowledge of the rules or, alarmingly often, needless foot-dragging accompanied by excuses not to follow the rules.

In my experience, it’s the foot-dragging that causes the most harm, both human harm and economic harm.

According to Georgia law, if a child has been in foster care for 15 months and their biological parents have not made significant progress toward establishing a safe environment for the child to return to, then DFCS should begin the process of terminating parental rights (TPR) so that the child can be adopted into a stable and permanent family—often either another biological relative of the child or the foster family with whom the child has been placed for much or all of their time in foster care.

Even with this law in place, Georgia DFCS’s own annual progress report for 2021 states that TPR was filed with appropriate timeliness in only 27% of applicable cases, and they cite departmental failures as the most frequent cause of delay.

These delays are concerning because of the trauma they cause to children and families, but they are also concerning because of the tremendous financial cost to the state of keeping a child in foster care. In 2018, DFCS reported having spent an average of over $16,500 for each child in foster care. Children in care also receive other benefits from the state such as Medicaid, the WIC food program, and state-funded daycare services.

It gets worse! If a child is in foster care for over two years, they qualify for what the state calls adoption assistance. Adoption assistance comes with state-paid adoption fees. And, until the child turns 18 years old, they are eligible for both Medicaid and a monthly stipend of at least $400, regardless of the adoptive family’s income. As of July 1 of this year, these same children also will receive a free college education from any public college or university in Georgia.

From a moral standpoint, I have no problem with granting these privileges to our kids who have experienced the trauma of foster care. In fact, I sometimes argue for expanding some of these services to include all former foster children, not just the ones who have been in care longest.

But, under current law, this is unnecessary government spending. My son’s story is his to tell, not mine, but I will tell you this much—he was in foster care WAY longer than he should have been. He and I both experienced significant trauma because DFCS ignored the 15-month law. Through this trauma, he earned the adoption assistance he now receives. But, if the state had not failed him, he could have been spared the trauma, and taxpayers could have been spared the expense.

We owe it to our children and ourselves to recreate a child welfare system that embodies a cultural ethic for following established laws and policies. Then, we can work on making those policies better.

————-

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu.

The Jones Act and the Future of U.S. Wind Development

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

Have you ever had the experience of meeting someone, and then suddenly you see them everywhere around town? Or, you learn something new and almost immediately application of this new knowledge pops up repeatedly? This is the case for me with The Jones Act.

Never heard of it? Neither had I until I met the School of Business and Public Management Executive in Residence, Bill Carter. The Executive in Residence program gives our School the unique opportunity to learn from a highly successful individual in our community who holds office hours on our campus and opens him or herself up to mentorship and guest lectures for our students. Bill Carter is our current Executive in Residence and when he came aboard a little over a year ago, I wasn’t immediately sure how his expertise in the telecommunications industry (undersea cables specifically) would be applicable to my Public Management program, but that all became clear quite quickly.

One of the first conversations Mr. Carter and I had was related to the Jones Act and the way this protectionist legislation often hindered business in the U.S., despite the fact that it was designed to protect our national shipping industry. In short, The Jones Act states that ships carrying cargo between two American ports must: 1) be built in the United States, 2) be 75 percent owned by U.S. citizens, 3) be 75 percent manned by a U.S. citizen crew, and 4) fly the U.S. flag. This sounds great for U.S. seafarers and shipbuilders.

Unfortunately, it has a number of unintended consequences. For instance, it drives up the prices of goods for island states like HI, AK, Guam, and Puerto Rico by restricting the number and types of vessels that can legally deliver goods. It’s a supply and demand issue – low supply of eligible ships versus constant or increasing demand for the goods delivered by the ships. Additionally, a cruise ship must put a foreign port between two American ports to ensure compliance with this act. That can make Alaskan cruises very tricky for cruise companies. In the context of the undersea cable industry (and other industries, no doubt), the Jones Act means that companies will simply hire foreign crews, do repairs in foreign countries, and operate work-arounds in their shipping schedule (avoiding U.S. port to U.S. port schedules) to both save money and avoid complications of the Jones Act.

Recently, another instance of the Jones Act acting in an obstructionist rather than protectionist manner popped up in a radio story I was listening to about renewable energy expansion in our country. The story discussed off-shore wind power development and how this industry might expect to expand in the coming years. One of the major challenges that was identified was the Jones Act. Not surprisingly, the parts required to build an off-shore wind turbine are extremely large and require special hydraulic systems to be installed on the ocean floor. According to the Washington Post, there are presently no Jones-Act-compliant ships that fit the installation requirements of these turbines which are being developed in the U.S. So, once a turbine is built in the United States, it can only be transported to the U.S. offshore site on a U.S. ship. Since no such ship exists, a company must then spend a tremendous amount of additional money to either stop off in a foreign port first, or build a compliant vessel. This makes offshore wind energy production much less price competitive and hinders the Biden Administration’s goals for renewable energy development.

While I am still learning about this policy myself, I can safely say it is not an elegant law. It seems to be creating many more economic problems for the U.S. than solutions and directly hurts many U.S.-based companies and even island states; It is ripe for repeal or at least reform.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management and a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.

Why local workers are harder to find

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

Plenty of local businesses have raised their wages but are still having difficulty attracting workers. Which means, of course, they haven’t raised their wages enough.

I’m sure the “raise your wages even more” assessment exasperates business owners into a froth, especially when offered unsolicited by a pointy-headed academic who has never had to worry about covering labor and a zillion other costs to make a living.    

I get that. The labor situation for employers in Glynn is indeed difficult, and the difficulty runs much deeper than supplemental unemployment compensation, shuttered day care facilities and other consequences of the pandemic.

We have some major league long-run economics going on here. Consider: 

Since 2005, Glynn’s population has increased by 19 percent, from 72,589 to 86,002. Total personal income in Glynn, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 28 percent, from $2.926 billion to $3.74 billion.   

In a word, Glynn’s population and economy have grown significantly since 2005. Our labor force, however, hasn’t grown at all.

Here are the numbers. Glynn’s labor force is currently 39,617. In 2005, it was 39,156. Allow for standard estimation error and there’s no difference.

Shifting business conditions and a variety of other factors cause a labor force to fluctuate in size from year to year. Since 2005, our local labor force has ranged between its all-time high of 41,141 in 2008 and 37,028 in 2014.

Year-to-year labor force fluctuations of the magnitude we’ve seen in Glynn since 2005 would be ho-hum if our population had held steady around its 2005 count of 72,589. Our issue is not the year-to-year fluctuations.

Our issue is 16 years in the making: 19 percent population growth, 28 percent real personal income growth and no change in the size of the labor force.

Glynn does draw workers from other counties, especially Brantley and McIntosh. (Which is why, in case you’ve wondered, the U.S. Census Bureau has Brantley, Glynn and McIntosh designated as the Brunswick Metropolitan Statistical Area or MSA, for short.)

Glynn employers certainly appreciate the help, but our MSA shows a very similar labor force pattern.

In 2005, the labor force of the Brunswick MSA was 51,817. Since 2005, it has fluctuated between 54,417 in 2008 and 49,766 in 2014. It currently stands at 53,135 – a puny change considering the 22 percent jump in the MSA’s population since 2005.

Strong long-run population growth, solid long-run economic growth, zero long-run labor force growth. That’s our local labor situation. Throw the long-run ever-rising numbers of tourists into the mix and it’s no wonder local businesses are scrambling for workers.

What’s behind this odd long-run labor force pattern? 

Have a look at the change in Glynn’s working age population by age group from 2010 to 2019, the most recent year for which county age group estimates are available. (Age grouping inconsistencies in Census county population estimates require starting with 2010 rather than 2005.)

Between 2010 and 2019, Glynn’s working age population – that is, everyone 16 years old or older – increased by 7,034. The population of 16 to 19 year olds increased by 399. The population of 20 to 54 year olds increased by 70. The population of 55 to 64 year olds increased by 1,055. The population of 65 year olds and older increased by 5,510.     

The labor force participation rate for 20 to 54 year olds is 80 percent. The labor force participation rate for 65 year olds and older is 20 percent.

Glynn is attracting retirees. Younger workers, not so much.

  • Don Mathews
  • Reg Murphy Center

New, Small, and Creative Entrepreneurs

Written by Skip Mounts on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Skip Mounts.

Readers of ‘From the Murphy Center’ know that new firms – those under 6 years of age – are the source of all net job growth in the United States economy. These firms are also the source of new entrepreneurial creativity. New and small firms also know that they cannot compete head on with older, more established businesses. To survive, the new, the small, the creative, must compete around the edges of the market with niche/unique goods and services.

I would like to think that the same could be said about academic enterprises. Are we creative entrepreneurs? While I let you be the judge of what follows, I do think some adjectives that could be used to describe the School of Business and Public Management (SBPM) at the College of Coastal Georgia might include new, small, and entrepreneurial.

SBPM was created in fall 2009. So, we are sort of new, yet a bit older than 6. Let’s just say that we are new relative to all the other units in the University System of Georgia (USG). We are also small. Programs in SBPM enroll only about 900 students. Also, from business administration to culinary arts, we are probably one of the more program-diverse schools of business in the State system. So my colleagues don’t think bad of me, we have degree programs in business administration, criminal justice, public management, workforce management and leadership, health informatics, hospitality and tourism management, and culinary arts. We are like Nick’s – a buffet of high-quality products, friendly service and simply unique. (Some will also say that with me as Dean we also have some bull.)

But are we entrepreneurial? Do we try to solve the problems of others?

Everyone enrolled in the BBA receives a general business major. However, as part of their program of study, each student chooses an area of concentration like accounting, finance, marketing, etc. for extended, in depth study.

A new BBA concentration this fall is Cyber Defense. Several years ago we added cyber courses to our criminal justice program. This was based on the idea that cyber security issues tend to end up as criminal justice issues. The recent cyber attacks on various companies and looking at Colonial Pipeline specifically, questions if business leaders fully understand cyber security and the management of cyber assets within a business context. This is a real problem. One part of a solution is to start hiring new, knowledgeable employees. So, to help we added the cyber defense concentration to the BBA program. It is essentially the same as the one we created for the criminal justice program. This offering is rather extensive, 8 courses in all, across all four years of study.  In addition, students can earn valued certificates found in the cyber security area that are expected of well-trained and qualified individuals. This is much more than a minor which is found in other business programs.

Another new concentration offered this fall is Small Business Creation. Students pursuing our BBA degree have several concentrations from which to choose. To a large degree, our students will be seeking entry level positions at existing firms. Again, a concentration adds to a student’s knowledge base that is being offered to potential employers. I suspect that this is true of almost all graduates of undergraduate business programs.

However, there are students who simply want preparation to start their own businesses after graduation. Traditional concentrations do not really prepare a student to do this. A traditional concentration is just adding specific knowledge about one area of business. However, students selecting the small business creation concentration see themselves as entrepreneurs ready to take on the marketplace. The goal of this concentration is to assist a student developed a business plan that can be executed after graduation, if not before. This program covers 18 months. A very special feature of it is that a student works, not only with faculty, but with a mentor who may come from our wonderful coastal retirement community. This is truly a unique BBA concentration.

So, are we creative entrepreneurs that just happen to be academics? You be the judge. Join us in our entrepreneurial endeavors by spreading the word of these new programs. Better yet, for real fun, give back by giving it forward, become a mentor. Drop by to learn more. I’m in 211 Academic Commons North at the College.

Skip Mounts is the Dean of the School of Business and Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia, a Professor of Economics, and an associate of the Reg Murphy Center of Economic and Policy Studies.

  • Reg Murphy Center
  • Skip Mounts

The Conflict Between Market Freedom and Human Freedom

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

Last weekend, we celebrated our country’s birthday. We celebrated our independence from the British Empire, and we celebrated our nation’s foundation on the principle of freedom. Freedom. Freedom of “all men” to enjoy the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In the same year that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently described the American ideal of human freedom, Adam Smith published his book The Wealth of Nations, describing what would become another pillar of this new country—market freedom and its close relative, capitalism.

And, so, in 1776 were born a new nation and a new theory of economics. Both were founded on principles tested through history, but each included novel and genius concepts that have forever changed how we think about the world.

What I find interesting is how these two American ideals—freedom of men and freedom of markets— have interacted over the years. While many Americans would die defending both concepts, I would argue that, in fact, the two cannot coexist without compromise.

The American experiment has made this clear. All men cannot be free unless markets are regulated.

Let’s look at some examples, using Jefferson’s three unalienable rights of freedom as our guide.

First, the right of life. When I think about what it means to have life, I think of health and the conditions necessary for sustaining or extending life. Free markets often deny those conditions. For example, unregulated manufacturing produces polluted air and water, which can cause significant health effects for the people who ingest the toxins. Additionally, a highly capitalistic healthcare market leaves many families without access to quality healthcare and, consequently, without the unalienable right of life. This became especially apparent during the Covid-19 pandemic, as the virus disproportionately killed poor and minority individuals with limited access to healthcare.

Second, the right of liberty. Our newest federal holiday, Juneteenth, is a reminder that even as Jefferson wrote about freedom for “all men,” the early American economy was dependent on denying liberty to those who were enslaved. Until June 19, 1865, when government regulation finally ended the most egregious economic practice of American history, market freedom meant denial of human freedom.

Last, Jefferson included in his description of freedom the right to pursue happiness. This evokes the ideal of the American dream, the promise that in America, one can be and do whatever they want if they are willing to work for it. This is an inherently capitalistic dream and is the reason, despite what I have written here, I still like (regulated) capitalism. Unfortunately, though, due to discriminatory practices, this dream is not available to all in an unregulated market. I have written pretty extensively about labor market discrimination here before, and I will not rehash it all. But, data as well as anecdotal evidence show unequivocally that racial and gender discrimination still exist in American labor markets, and as I stated in an article published here a year ago, It does not matter how hard you try to climb a ladder if those who built the ladder did not install rungs all the way up for people like you. Without anti-discrimination regulation, markets do not provide for everyone the freedom to pursue happiness.

Before you freak out about all this, remember that market regulation, too, is a part of the fabric of America. It is what government exists to do—address shortcomings of markets. If we truly value human freedom and if we truly believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable human rights, we should always possess a healthy commitment to examining and re-examining our economic systems to be sure they are promoting, and not hindering those rights.

————-

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu.

Inflexible remote-work policies could hurt businesses

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

My economics colleagues at the Murphy Center have been exploring some of the timely labor market trends we have been seeing in the post-vaccine economy. They have adeptly explained the economic shifts we are experiencing and explained why these shifts might have occurred. I would like to extend this line of thinking from a policy perspective — not public policy, but business policy.

A March 2021 survey (Pulse of the American Worker Survey: Is This Working? A Year In, Workers Adapting to Tomorrow’s Workplace) looked at the new remote workforce to understand where businesses need to focus their policies moving forward. While businesses may be keen to resume fulltime, in-person operations, the workforce seems to have other ideas that will undoubtedly have to be considered if companies wish to retain talent.

The American Worker Survey found that 73% of all workers say employers should continue to offer and expand remote-work options even after the pandemic is over. This number was even higher among those who have been working remotely throughout the pandemic (83%). Forty-two percent of those same workers who have been working remotely during the pandemic also indicated that if their employer does not continue to offer an option to work from home, they will quit and look for a more flexible company.

These staggering numbers are likely related to the age demographics of American workers today. According to the Pew Research Center, millennials (ages 25-40) are currently the largest generation in the workforce. Among millennials in the American Worker Survey, 1 in 3 reported that they plan to look for a new job with a different employer once the pandemic is no longer an issue. Only a quarter of Gen-Xers and 10% of baby boomers reported the same.

These numbers align with a recent New York Times article on the new YOLO (you only live once) economy. In the article, technology columnist Kevin Roose explains that millennials have enjoyed rising asset prices and stabilizing savings that have emboldened them to re-evaluate their careers and view job flexibility as another kind of benefit. Just as they would consider health care benefits as an important factor in job choice, flexibility is increasingly becoming less negotiable for them. In fact, in Care.com’s recent report The Future of Benefits, 500 human resource leaders and decision-makers across the U.S. were asked about the kinds of benefits they plan to increase, decrease, or change. Nearly all (98%) of the respondents indicated that they planned to newly offer or expand the benefits workers deem most essential: child and senior care or flexibility in work arrangements.

Even in our own field of higher education, where a sense of place has typically been seen as essential, faculty and staff job candidates are already identifying flexible work as a key job issue according to leaders within the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). These leaders further warn that failing to offer flexibility could lead to a “turnover tsunami” on college campuses. Higher Ed has lost at least 570,000 workers since the start of the pandemic through both layoffs and voluntary departure. Colleges and Universities will have to compete not just within the field now, but with other industries who are willing to offer flexibility as a benefit.

As businesses start returning to more normal operations in the coming months, it seems clear that talent recruitment and retention is going to be more important than ever. And if that recruitment/retention strategy includes millennial workers, forward-thinking businesses need to start having serious conversations about the role of remote work in their culture and operations.