The Magical Equal Protection Clause

In 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Section 1 of that Amendment contains what is known as the Equal Protection Clause:  ". . . [N]or shall any state . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  That's the whole thing.  What could be simpler?

And now last week we have a judge in California in a case called Vergara invalidating the entire California system for  job security and tenure for teachers based on this Equal Protection Clause.  According to this report from Edvard Pettersson of Bloomberg, "Judge Rolf Treu in his tentative ruling found that low-income and minority students are disproportionately stuck with “grossly” ineffective teachers, leading him to conclude the challenged laws violate the students’ fundamental right to equality of education." 

Needless to say, the teachers unions and so-called "public education advocates" are up in arms.  Here is a round-up of their reaction from Sarah Lazare at Common Dreams.  From Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association:

 This lawsuit has nothing to do with what’s best for kids, but was manufactured by a Silicon Valley millionaire and a corporate PR firm to undermine the teaching profession and push their agenda on our schools.

And this from Chicago:

 [C]ommunications director for the Chicago Teachers Union Stephanie Gadlin called the ruling "ludicrous" and "hypocritical."

The generally sensible Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View nominates the court's decision for a "Dunce Cap":  

[T]his does not seem like a very good ruling to me. Political partisans on both sides tend to treat "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "things I think oughtn't to be allowed." This is not correct, and moreover, it is profoundly destructive. The courts don't owe reverent deference to the legislature, but I do think that we should restrict the meaning of the word "unconstitutional" to, well, things the constitution doesn't allow, rather than expanding it to things the constitution shouldn't allow. Every time we use the latter definition, we travel further down the road toward rule by unelected boards of elderly lawyers.

Excellent point, Megan.  But isn't equating "unconstitutional" with "things I think oughtn't to be allowed" what the Equal Protection Clause has been about for a long time?  For decades the Equal Protection Clause has been the all-purpose mechanism for the Left to implement the items of its agenda that could not get through a legislature.  Well, you may achieve some result you like today, but now you have conceded great power to what Megan calls "unelected boards of elderly lawyers," and some day they are going to make some very major decisions that you don't like.  And then, what are you going to do about it?

The problem with the Equal Protection Clause has always been that of course every law treats some people differently from others; indeed, generally that's the whole idea.  For example, criminal laws impose crushing burdens on criminals, and few burdens at all on the law-abiding.  Could that really be unconstitutional?  If not, what is the principled distinction between that and all the other instances where equal protection challenges have been upheld?

McArdle prefaces her argument with the admission that "I Am Not a Lawyer," seemingly conceding that lawyers must have some insights into the proper boundaries of the equal protection elixir.  Well, I am a lawyer, and if there are any such boundaries I've never figured them out.  You can know as much about this as pretty much any lawyer by reading the next couple of paragraphs.

After the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the southern states proceeded to implement the system of overt racial segregation known as "Jim Crow."  In 1896 a case called Plessy v. Ferguson reached the Supreme Court, challenging a Louisiana statute that mandated segregated accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads.  The Supreme Court upheld the statute and, more generally, the concept of so-called "separate but equal facilities."  And there the matter stood until the famous 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which reversed Plessy and held that segregated public schools were inherently unequal and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause.  Brown brought about a revolution in public education, with federal judges basically taking over and running hundreds of local school districts.  Essentially nobody today would disagree with Brown as it applies to de jure racial segregation.  But the problem with Brown is that it set no boundaries for the invocation of the Equal Protection Clause.

And thus we have six succeeding decades in which the courts have found one new area after another for applying the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate large swaths of state laws and even state constitutions.  As just a small partial list, consider:

•  Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Supreme Court decided that districting of state legislatures implicated the Equal Protection Clause, and (together with subsequent cases) required all states to draw districts in accordance with the principle of "one man, one vote."  (If applied to the federal government, this principle would invalidate the Senate.)  Since 1962 the federal courts have micro-managed many state legislative districting decisions.
• Serrano v. Priest (1971), where the California Supreme Court invalidated the state school finance system, which had been largely derived from local property taxes, again based on the Equal Protection Clause.  The Serrano decision was then followed by the courts of numerous other states, who forced on state legislatures new financing systems that had not previously gained democratic support.
• Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Supreme Court struck down as a violation of equal protection a Texas statute that denied funding to local school districts for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States.
• The fight for same-sex marriage has proceeded largely under the banner of the Equal Protection Clause (although on this one, the Due Process Clause has also gotten into the act; for example, the Supreme Court found the basis to strike down DOMA in the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, since the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to the states).  Numerous courts, federal and state, have used the Equal Protection Clause to strike down one or another statute or referendum that attempted to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.  (Note that New York has about the most honorable record of any state on enactment of same sex marriage:  the Court of Appeals in 2006 declined to order it as a matter of the constitution, and thereupon the state legislature enacted a legalizing statute in 2011).

At this point the Equal Protection genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.  Judge Treu's decision may seem a stretch at first blush, but is it really much more of a stretch than Serrano, which is indeed the main authority on which it relies?  Seems to me that those who have never to date spoken out about overreaching equal protection jurisprudence but now argue that the Vergara decision is wrong have a burden to articulate some kind of a principled boundary on where the Equal Protection Clause ends.  And that boundary had better not be too obviously reverse-engineered to preserve just the decisions you like.

Infinite Credit Card Update, Cantor/Brat Edition

To the progressive -- and unfortunately to many Republicans as well -- it seems that the federal government has limitless borrowing capacity, thus making it possible for the government to cover all the downside risk of life.  And if it is possible for the government to cover all the downside risk of life, then isn't it a moral imperative that it must do so?  The next thing you know we have the government as infinite insurer for everything that is even a little hard to insure right through all the things we used to think were completely uninsurable.  "Uninsurable" -- what's that?  With an infinite credit card, nothing's uninsurable.

This only really got started in the 1960s, but within a few short decades we have government as the infinite insurer of everyone's health; of nearly all home mortgages; of nearly all student loans; of nearly all natural disasters, including hurricanes and other flooding events; of all pensions; of terrorist attacks; and I could go on.

What could go wrong?  The federal government is so huge and has so much taxing power that it could never really go the way of little Detroit, right?  Can anybody name an entire country where government overcommitments actually destroyed the economy and left the people impoverished?  (Well, yes.  In descending order of disastrousness, Venezuela, Argentina, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc., etc., etc.   And don't forget the entire continent of Africa.)

In the U.S. the gradual government takeover as infinite last resort insurer of everything has proceeded with remarkably little push-back.  Fannie and Freddie have long enjoyed bipartisan support even as they gradually used the government credit card to take over the whole home lending market, run up multiple trillions in debt, and then blow up and cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions.  The big promoter of government flood insurance, as much as anyone else, was then Republican New York Senator Alphonse D'Amato, for whom it was a great payback to the wealthy Long Island beachfront homeowners who financed his campaigns. 

Or let's consider TRIA (Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002).  Prior to 9/11 the government was not in the business of insuring against the risk of terrorism.  After 9/11, insurance companies that had just taken a big hit proposed either excluding the coverage altogether or making terrorism insurance a separate item at huge additional premium.  Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, then CEO of the largest property/casualty insurer AIG, led an industry effort to get the federal government to step up to provide what they called a "temporary backstop" for the terrorism insurance market.  With the "temporary backstop," they claimed, the market could stabilize and the private insurers would gradually come back in.   (Aside:  Greenberg is generally a friend of free markets, and in some recent years has been the Chairman of the market-oriented think tank called the Manhattan Institute.  But it is remarkable how quickly a businessman can turn to crony capitalist when the opportunity presents itself to get access to the government credit card to enhance his own bottom line.  TRIA was one of the great crony capitalist coups of all time -- the insurance companies get the premium and the federal government takes the downside risk.)

So in 2002 the government enacted TRIA.  And surprise, with the government occupying the field, no private market whatsoever has re-emerged.  TRIA is now up for renewal, and Business Insurance in its current edition has the sordid story.  (Sorry I can't find a link -- but I read this obscure trade publication so you don't have to.)  Of course, the American Insurance Association is strongly backing the renewal.  The renewal has just cleared the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and is on its way to the full Senate and then the House:

A key U.S. Senate panel's unanimous approval of a bill to extend the federal terrorism insurance backstop by seven years should speed the reauthorization process in the full Senate, supporters of the legislation contend.  However, passage in the House of Representatives is uncertain and getting it done in a year of Congressional mid-term elections could make it more difficult. 

If it was unanimous (22-0) in the Senate Banking Committee, why any problem in the House?  It's because over there there are actually a few Congresspersons who are catching on to the problem of this infinite credit card thing.  Not the least of these is one Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who is Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  Here are some excerpts from remarks that Hensarling gave at a hearing last September on the subject of renewing TRIA:

At the time [2002] it was a thought that originally the TRIA act would give the insurance industry time to re-capitalize and develop new models that they could price for terrorism risks and increase industry capacity. Three years later in 2005 Congress decided to make TRIA a little less temporary and extended it for two years. In 2007, Congress was back again to stretch the boundaries of modern linguistics by extending TRIA temporarily for seven additional years and expanding it to cover any acts of terrorism, foreign or domestic. So we all must recognize that in just five years TRIA has leapt in scope and quadrupled in length, neither of which I think could be mistaken for facilitating a transition to a viable market for private terrorism risk insurance. . . .

[H]ow can we be convinced that the federal government is any better as our National Flood Insurance Program is under water, pun intended? PBGC, $34 billion deficit, and as we look at the national debt clock, which I know is inconvenient to some, it principally turns because insurance programs -- be they social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare or others -- the government has not done a particularly good job. That ladies and gentlemen, represents a man-made disaster.

Hensarling is also known, by the way, as the proponent of the most comprehensive (although far from perfect) proposal to wind down Fannie and Freddie and get rid of them permanently.

And now we come to the subject of Cantor and Brat.  Brat has actually spoken strongly on the subject of getting rid of Fannie and Freddie.  Cantor?  He just didn't see this issue of the government taking on infinite insurance obligations as something worth fighting over with the other side.  For example, this from the Wall Street Journal of June 10:

Already this year, Mr. Cantor had drawn conservative resistance by striking a deal with Democrats on flood insurance that bypassed Mr. Hensarling's committee.

So perhaps there is hope that TRIA will actually be killed in the House.  And the rest of the federal infinite insurance program?  That will require getting together some critical mass of people who pay attention to the issue and understand its significance.  Maybe we will soon have at least one more. 

A Couple Of People Are Actually Catching On To The Affordable Housing Scam

In several prior posts I have noted that it is virtually unanimous here in Manhattan that more so-called "affordable housing" on our island is a good idea.  See, for example, here and here.  You literally need to have no understanding of numbers whatsoever to possibly think this makes sense.  But hey, this is Manhattan!

But just in the last several days, I would like to welcome a few people to the ranks of the tiny minority who are at least raising questions:  Greg David at Crain's New York Business, in an article yesterday titled "Not-so affordable housing"; Josh Barro at the New York Times Upshot blog on Saturday (also appeared in the print edition in the Business Section on Sunday) titled "Affordable Housing That's Very Costly"; and a Crain's article from yesterday titled "City calls $500K-per-unit Harlem housing 'affordable'".

Barro highlights a new development called the Abington House at 500 West 30th Street, near the trendy High Line park in West Chelsea.  This is a large building with about 400 apartments, of which 20%, or 78, have been designated as "affordable."  Using 2 bedroom apartments as his benchmark, Barro notes that the market-rate units range in price from $5850 to $8695 per month.  That's over $100,000 per year at the top end!  But the "affordable" 2-bedroom units (of which there are 17) have rents of only $687 to $873 per month -- about a 90% discount.  These apartments go to people chosen by a lottery who supposedly have annual incomes in the range of $25,612 to $42,950.

From the point of view of the City budget, this is a freebie -- nothing on the balance sheet, nothing on the income statement.  We "helped" 78 families and it didn't cost the taxpayers a dime!  But Barro correctly notes that this is an illusion.  The subsidy to each lucky family averages about $90,000 per year.  And these families aren't even poor!  Also, remember that nobody who gets one of these apartments ever moves out.  OK, that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much.  The New York City Housing Authority actually publishes figures for annual turnover in its steeply subsidized units, and it's around 3%.  That's equivalent to saying that virtually no one ever leaves except in a coffin.  If you figure that each lucky family is going to claim the $90,000 annual subsidy for an average of about 30 years, you can see that this is really a gift of close to $2 million per family on a present value basis.  Wow!

Tuesday's Crain's article by Joe Anuta highlights a new all-"affordable" development in Harlem at 404 West 155th Street.  There are 124 units, with an average cost (Anuta cites data from the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development) of over $500,000 per unit.  Compared to the Abington, that's dirt cheap!  Anuta gives the rent for a three-bedroom as $1588 per month. 

Here's a picture of the development -- Could it be more hideous? 

This makes the old time "projects" that New York is famous for look positively pleasant.  If you didn't know what it was, you would probably guess it's a prison.  And yet that $500,000 cost per unit is about two and a half times the approximately $200,000 median price of a single family home in this country.   And again, the recipients of this largesse are not going to be poor, because the actual poor could not afford even these deeply subsidized rents.  Instead, the income range for this project is up to $42,950 for a family of four, up to $79,700 for a family of six.

Greg David, the editor of Crain's, correctly points out that the only way to look at this is from the view of opportunity cost.

First, if the city asked for a cash payment from the developer, it could assist far more people in less expensive neighborhoods.  Second, the unsubsidized rents are higher than they would be if no subsidy were required. Admittedly, to understand this you must accept that rents are soaring in the city precisely because about 1 million units are rent regulated. I doubt the mayor would agree, but it is Econ 101.

David doesn't work through the numbers, so let's do it for him.  You have forced a developer (as a condition of permission to build) to give each lucky family a gift of present value of approximately $2 million of subsidized housing in Manhattan.  But only 78 families get the gift.  If you got the $2 million per family in cash from the developer, you could easily provide the same housing in a less-desirable neighborhood in an outer borough for three or four times as many families.  Or how about thinking outside the box?  You could provide comparable housing for easily 20 times as many families in Detroit.

And then there's thinking really outside the box.  How about the developer gets to keep the extra $160 million or so as profit?  If he behaves like all other developers, he'll immediately want to use that profit to build several more new buildings; and if those succeed comparably, he'll go back and build still more.  And before you know it the increase in supply will drive the price of the new apartments down to the cost of production, and even put pressure on the construction industry and land sellers to reduce costs.  This is the process that works so well in places like Houston and Las Vegas, but hasn't been allowed to operate in New York since before World War II.  This is so long ago that it's beyond human memory.  And lord knows that we can't look to unsophisticated provinces like Houston for any guidance! 

Unfortunately, there are lots of opportunities for graft in the "affordable housing" racket.  Developers get tax breaks to induce them to build, let alone in many instances sites are not put up for auction but rather given to "designated" developers who make promises that politicians like.  And the "affordable housing" developers are a great source of political contributions.  So the only way to return to sanity is for the public to catch on.  Well, now we at least have a toe in the door. 

The High Spend Vs. Low Spend Government Models

When a country actually tries to fix an underperforming economy by moving to a low spend model -- even if low only by comparison with ridiculous overspending by its competitors -- the results are uniformly impressive.  But there are relatively few examples of countries that actually succeed in implementing meaningful spending cuts, and even fewer examples of countries that are able to sustain lowered spending long enough to show the results.  Meanwhile, the effort inevitably runs into powerful headwinds from entrenched interests feeding at the public trough, from a hostile left-wing press, and from idiotic so-called "economists," like those who fill the halls of the IMF.

But then you have the countries of Europe caught in a near-hopeless overspending trap that has brought their economic growth to about zero in the aggregate.  The good news is that they are not all the same in how they deal with the problem, and over time differing policies lead to differing results that can't help but be noticed.  Simon Nixon has something of a roundup in today's Wall Street Journal, somewhat buried at page A11 of the print edition.

Basically Nixon divides the EU countries into three groups, based on their emphasis on private sector versus public sector to drive economic growth:

  The division is between a private-sector culture which believes that sustainable growth depends on exports and investment and therefore emphasizes policies to deliver open and competitive markets and flexible workforces; and a public-sector and trade-union culture which believes growth depends on putting more money in people's pockets and so favors Keynesian demand-side policies to boost government spending and encourage borrowing, and to protect jobs and raise wages.

And then he observes: "It is striking that those countries where the private-sector culture is dominant are currently delivering the strongest growth."  Really, does this surprise anyone other than the IMF and its groupthink supporters?

First up, those where the "private sector culture" is dominant, of which prime examples are Ireland, the U.K., and Germany.  Ireland is forecast to grow 1.7% this year and 3% next; U.K. is now forecasting 3.1% this year (after finally implementing some real spending cuts following several years of talking about it and not doing it).

Over on the side dominated by the public sector, we have France and Italy.  Nixon says that their growth rates this year are forecast at 1% and 0.6% respectively.   Both have public spending well in excess of 50% of GDP, with no meaningful efforts to bring that down.

Well, the good news for France and Italy is that it could be worse -- you could be Venezuela!  An even better WSJ article today on page A16 outlines what's going on there with the ongoing implementation of socialism.  It seems that Venezuela thinks it can make life fair for everybody by subsidizing the cost of basic necessities, such as food and many household items (dishwashing detergent, diapers, sponges and windshield wipers are mentioned in the article).  Thus, the way to make a living in Venezuela today is to buy the subsidized stuff, take it across the border to Colombia, and sell it on the free market for a multiple of what you bought it for.  Result: the subsidized items have all been bought up by the black market traders before you ever get to the market, and the markets are empty.  The WSJ reporter goes to a Colombia border town, and gets this great quote:

Everything you see on this street is Venezuelan," Alejandro Valbuena, a 32-year-old merchant, said on a recent day as a steady stream of loading trucks hauled in crates of dishwashing detergent and diapers behind him. "Looking around here, you can tell why socialism doesn't work."

Meanwhile, the U.S. states are more and more going one of two very different directions on spending.  Unfortunately, it will take a few years before truly unambiguous results are in; but I don't think there's any doubt how this will come out. 

Is Lack Of "Diversity" At Big Law Firms A Crisis?

The leading trade magazine for the big law firm industry is called The American Lawyer.  This month, they devote most of a full issue to what they call "The Diversity Crisis."  As they define the term, the "diversity crisis" consists of the under-representation of African Americans in the ranks of big firm lawyers, the even greater under-representation of African Americans in the ranks of big firm partners, and the still greater under-representation of African Americans in the ranks of the top partners identified by The American Lawyer itself as handling the largest and most important transactions and litigations.  The cover illustration has photographs of some 131 top attorneys identified as "[leading] big law's top deals and suits"; just three are black.  (One of those is a partner of Willkie Farr.) 

There are no fewer than four feature articles on the subject, covering some 22 pages, plus an intro called "About Our Cover" and an editorial called "Time To Call It Racism?"  Guilt pervades.  Law firms are said to be "lagg[ing]" in matters of diversity, and their record is called "bleak."  Charts show the percentage of African Americans at big law firms dropping from 3.2% in 2004 to 3.0% in 2013, while the percentage among partners increased over the same period, but only from 1.7% to 1.9%.  Numerous prominent firms are listed as having not one single black partner.  Is this a major problem?

Well, it seems to me that there is a gigantic elephant in the room that one must deal with in order to discuss this issue intelligently.  That elephant is that fact that, while African Americans may well be under-represented at the top ranks of the American legal profession, there is one small ethnic group that is hugely, hugely over-represented.  That over-represented group, of course, is Jews.  The over-representation of Jews is so large that, inherently, all other ethnic groups must be under-represented, which in fact they are.  Some groups are more under-represented than others.  It is not at all clear to me that African Americans are the most under-represented among the remaining groups, nor does The American Lawyer even address that subject.

According to data here from the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2012 there were 6,671,680 Jews in the United States,constituting 2.1% of the population.  What is the percentage of Jews among the partners of the top law firms in the country?  In an hour of internet searching, I can't find anyone who has collected current data, but I am here in the middle of this industry.  Among partners of the top law firms in New York, I estimate that at least  25% are Jews.  And then we have an entire phenomenon here of what once were called the Jewish firms, many of them now at the very top of the profession -- Wachtell Lipton, Skadden Arps, Weil Gotshal, Paul Weiss, Fried Frank, Proskauer, Kramer Levin, Schulte Roth, Stroock, Kaye Scholer, and I could go on.  The percentage of Jews among partners at these firms has declined some in recent years, but I would estimate still well exceeds 25% in all cases, and is up to half in some.  And at the very top of these firms, running the place, it's still higher.  So, American Lawyer, is this a problem?

If you are unfamiliar with the history of Jews in top New York law firms, it is a very fascinating story.  Jews immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers in the first half of the twentieth century, concentrated in New York, and after World War II they began flooding into the legal profession.  But the large and prominent law firms at the top of the profession very overtly discriminated against the Jews, in a way that no one would dare to discriminate against any ethnic group today.   A 2006 article in the New York Law Journal (no longer available online but extensively quoted at jewlicious.com here) has the following story:

Ezra G. Levin, co-chair of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel recalled that a classmate of his from Columbia Law School interviewed at a white-shoe firm in the late 1950s. “It wasn’t possible to tell from the candidate’s name whether he was Jewish or not,” said Mr. Levin. The interviewing partner led the candidate into a conference room festooned with the seals of Ivy League universities and pointed to Yale’s insignia, which bears a Hebrew inscription. “The partner wanted to know if he could read it,” said Mr. Levin.

A now-retired partner of mine, himself a top graduate of Harvard Law School in the early 60s but not Jewish, told many similar stories about the very smartest people in his class, who were Jewish, getting turned away from all the top firms, with the firms being completely explicit in their refusal to hire Jews.

But somehow it seems that the prospective Jewish lawyers just were well-suited to their chosen profession and found another way around the problem.  The linked NYLJ article contains some almost unbelievable statistics: By 1960 "Jewish lawyers actually comprised 60 percent of the city’s bar membership."  But, since many of the large firms excluded them, "these lawyers were overwhelmingly found in solo practices or small firms."    Many of the now-powerhouse Jewish firms were founded in this period of the 1950s and 60s, and started to grow and take the most profitable business away from their establishment competitors.  By the 1970s, all firms were hiring Jews in large numbers.  From the 2006 NYLJ article:

[Eli] Wald . . . points out that Jewish lawyers perversely benefited from what he calls “the flip side of bias.” He notes that the white-shoe ethos of the first half of the 20th century rejected most Jewish lawyers based on stereotypes of their being aggressive and money-grubbing. By the late 1960s, however, being aggressive and “maximizing profits” have become virtues at large firms, and Mr. Wald says he thinks Jewish lawyers were then able to benefit from the negative stereotype.

And of course, it is a necessary consequence of the great over-representation of Jews in our trade that all other ethnic groups are under-represented.  Because a group that is only 2% of the population occupies something like 25% or more of the top law partnerships, that means that white protestants are under-represented by close to 25% as against their share of the population, and white Catholics (such as yours truly) are under-represented by even more.  Asians?  According to Wikipedia they are now 4.8% of the population, and according to The American Lawyer they are about 6% of big law firm associates and 1.6% of partners.  Is this discrimination, reverse discrimination, or just what happens as people seek work that suits them?  And then there are ethnic groups that have virtually no representation at all in these big firm partnerships.  Middle-Eastern muslims come to mind.

Here's my favorite paragraph from the whole American Lawyer guilt-fest:  Buried as a "P.S." at the end of the "About Our Cover" intro, we have this unbelievable admission:

P.S.: For those of us who cover Big Law, we must do better too. ALM  [American Lawyer Media] has no blacks among the senior leaders of its national publications, including The American Lawyer. And less than 1 percent of our reporters are black.

Well, has anybody considered the possibility that blacks have just found something they prefer doing with their time?  I don't know why Jews occupy such a prominent and disproportionate place in our profession.  I do know that the most pervasive, blatant and overt possible discrimination could not keep them out.  Given the Jewish experience, and the very extensive efforts of all large law firms today to recruit and promote blacks, isn't it a little hard to blame black under-representation on some kind of hidden discrimination? 

The Progressive War Against Minority Kids

In the business world, the time honored way to break in and then get ahead is to underprice your competition and steal their business.  Your first instinct might be, you'll make more money by charging more.  Eventually, when you're on top, maybe you will.  But if you're starting out and don't have much of a track record, you need a way to get a foot in the door, and then you build from there.  The Waltons started out underpricing everybody else and rode it all the way to being billionaires.  They sell stuff rather than labor, but the principle isn't really any different when you've got nothing to sell but your time.  Lord knows that here in the law business, which is all about selling time, lots of cheaper guys are trying to steal our business every day.  And some of them succeed.  It would be great if we could come up with a way to stop that, but actually it's illegal even to discuss with our competitors how to keep the prices up.

So everybody gets to try to steal the other guy's business by selling cheaper.  Well, almost everybody.  The big exception is the group that most needs the right to underprice in order to get started, namely minority youth.  And thus we have the bizarre phenomenon of those posing as the champions of the underprivileged, namely the "progressives," in fact conducting a war against minority youth by taking away the single most important thing they have going for them to try to get started and get ahead in life, namely the ability to underprice the competition in order to crack into the working world.

Our new mayor, de Blasio, has long had minimum wage increases as a centerpiece of his agenda.  Hard to say he's corrupt, as opposed to just clueless.  He actually thinks that the government has the power to order businesses to pay workers any and all arbitrary amounts, and it will thus be so, without any adverse consequences.  The other players in the minimum wage game are far, far more cynical.  The latest maneuvering played out at the New York convention over the past weekend of something called the Working Families Party.  The WFP is not a real political party, but rather a creature created by and operated for the benefit of labor unions in the government and government-funded sectors, the biggest being education workers (UFT) and healthcare workers (SEIU).  Turns out that the WFP has a valuable "ballot line" to bargain with in the upcoming November gubernatorial election, which may be more competitive than some had thought previously.   Would they nominate someone to draw votes away on the left from Democratic nominee Cuomo?

These WFP people absolutely have as their number one interest keeping out the lower priced competition.  (I'm not sure de Blasio is savvy enough to realize that.)  And, to no surprise, the news coming out of the weekend convention of the WFP is that Cuomo essentially bought its endorsement by promising to support legislation to allow New York City to increase its minimum wage to $13.  That's no small increase from the current $8. 

Meanwhile, this report from 2013 puts the 18 - 29 year old African American unemployment rate at 20%, and Hispanic rate for the same age group at 12.6%.   I would have said that the excess that those rates reflect above the unemployment for everyone else is substantially caused by the minimum wage.  Well we're about to get a pretty good experiment to see who's right about that.  New York will raise its minimum to $13; Seattle is going to $15.  Will minority youth unemployment spike in these jurisdictions?  My money says it will.

And now, the more we learn about the new teachers' contract, the more we find out that at every decision point its goal is to protect the worst teachers at the expense of the vulnerable kids.  My personal favorite is that somehow the City agreed to replace independent teacher validators with "peer validators" jointly appointed by the union and the City.  Can there be any doubt that the goal of the union is to protect the job of every last teacher?  Then there are the new so-called PROSE schools, which the mayor brags about as encouraging innovation.  Here's what Jenny Sedlis of StudentsFirstNY has to say about them in a May 8 op-ed in the Post:

PROSE schools aren’t free from the most restrictive parts of the union contract: They can’t make changes to how they attract and retain teachers through compensation, they can’t adjust class size to adapt to new models or to afford added teachers in other subjects, they can’t exit low-performing teachers and they can’t keep their highest performers if they need to reduce positions.

Mayor de Blasio, the WFP, et al. of the "progressive" ilk, pose as the protectors of the minority kids while they are really conducting a war against them.  Can a few people please catch on?