Blogger, author, podcaster, economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University discusses the lessons learned from the pandemic with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Appearing roughly one year after his first conversation on the pandemic, Cowen revisits the predictions he made then and what he has learned for the next time. The post Tyler Cowen on the Pandemic, Revisited appeared first on Econlib.

There are good arguments to the effect that nobody should be “canceled”; but if somebody should, it would be Karl Marx. For all we know, he was a bigot and a racist who even used the N-word, something worse for the current dominant culture than what many did who were canceled or will soon be. One of economist Walter Williams’s columns was titled “The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx.” The main economic argument against the cancel culture is that of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty: freedom of speech is necessary in the search for any sort of truth. Not only do mobs historically and literally lynch unpopular individuals, but the fear of the mob also reduces the incentives to look for the truth and turns many people into wimps. Anybody can make youth errors but they are easily forgivable when the author later changes his mind; he should certainly not be punished simply for having been wrong (assuming he did not physically lynch anybody). It is true that free speech does not—or should not—allow one to shout what he wants in somebody else’s living room or on a platform that belongs to somebody else. But we can still forcefully argue that the owners of private “speakers’ corners” should not be intimidated by witch-hunting mobs, especially when these mobs, as they nearly always do, are asking for the support of the government’s armed agents. The universities where the woke-cancel culture thrives do not belong to the wokes. And certainly, the state should not subsidize activism and speech against free speech. The economist’s individualist methodology as well as the individualist values it often nurtures lead to the belief that an individual is not to be judged by the group, racial or whatever, to which he “belongs.” In a New York Times article (“A Profession With an Egalitarian Core,” March 16, 2013), Tyler Cowen illustrated the economists’ individualist values: In 1829, all 15 economists who held seats in the British Parliament voted to allow Roman Catholics as members. In 1858, the 13 economists in Parliament voted unanimously to extend full civil rights to Jews. (While both measures were approved, they were controversial among many non-economist members.) For many years leading up to the various abolitions of slavery, economists were generally critics of slavery and advocates of people’s natural equality. Two economists, David Levy and Sandra Peart, explained that Thomas Carlyle, a 19th-century man of the right, called economics “the dismal science” because economists opposed slavery. Levy and Peart write: Carlyle attacked [economist John Stuart] Mill … for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was this fact—that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty—that led Carlyle to label economics “the dismal science.” Carlyle was not alone in denouncing economics for making its radical claims about the equality of all men. Others who joined him included Charles Dickens and John Ruskin. Back to Marx, whose ideas led to the death of tens or hundreds of millions of individuals and to the impoverishment of even more. It is true that (contrary to what the typical woke seems to think) words do not kill; killers kill and rulers impoverish. Marx’s free speech was helpful in the pursuit of truth: without him, how would we know, except theoretically, where theories like his naturally lead? So what did Marx wrote that should kick him out of the New York Times, Teen Vogue, and many places of high dominant culture? But before that, remember how, after a 45-year career at the New York Times, Donald McNeil was recently harassed into resigning for having said the N-word in a conversation about somebody else who had used the word, notwithstanding his apologies. (I can only hope that speaking about somebody who spoke about somebody who used the N-word won’t bring my own cancellation.) In a similar fashion, Alexi McCammond was fired from a new job at Teen Vogue: a decade ago, the young (black) woman had apparently penned racist and anti-homosexual tweets for which she grovelingly apologized before the large masses. Marx did not live long enough to be devoured by his revolutionary comrades as often happens. The French Revolution and Stalins’s multiple “disappeared” comrades provided dramatic illustrations. Wokes are now banning their own comrades from the bien-pensant society. So here is finally (thanks for your patience!) an excerpt of a letter Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels on July 30, 1862: The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend,’ even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. … It is now quite plain to me—as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify—that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also niggerlike. This letter, written in Germain, is translated and reproduced in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works (Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1985), pp. 388-391. It is important to note that Marx wrote the N-word in English as reproduced above; he occasionally wrote other foreign words in their original language (see the preface to the Collected Works, p. XXXVIII). The same translation appears on a Marxist website, the Marxists Internet Archive 0r MIA. The site owners explain: The MIA aims to maintain an archive of any and all writings which are Marxist or relevant to the understanding of Marxism and can be lawfully published. In the past, some writers who have contributed to Marxism have expressed racist, sexist or other distasteful views. The MIA generally does not “filter out” such views … The MIA does not endorse any of the views expressed by any of the writers included here, which are provided solely for the information of the reader. A few years before the complete Moscow edition, a different translation of selected letters, including that of July 30, 1862, was made available by an American publisher: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence, 1844-1877 (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1981), pp. 81-82. When he wrote the incriminating letter, he was angry with his democratic socialist “friend” Ferdinand Lassalle for refusing to lend him money. Lassalle was Jewish and, as far as we know, had no black ancestor. Marx apparently thought or wanted to think the contrary. We can bet that no such excuse would spare any victim of woke cancellation. Moreover and paradoxically, Marx himself was Jewish, but attacking one’s own group identity must be another mortal sin for the wokes. A possible excuse for Marx would be that he was a man of his time and that historical circumstances must be taken into account. Indeed, suppressing history prevents us to learn its lessons. But the cancel culture never accepts this excuse. (0 COMMENTS)

President Biden will soon present his proposal for increasing income tax rates and tax rates on capital gains on high-income people. He also proposes to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from its current level of 21 percent. I would not be directly affected by the first two proposals: my income, though high, is much lower than the income to which the higher tax rates would apply and although I have substantial capital gains, they are almost all on stocks owned in IRA-type retirement accounts. When I pull them out, they will be taxed at normal income tax rates anyway, and so the current light treatment of capital gains doesn’t apply to my gains. I would be directly affected by the increase in the corporate income tax rate since over half of my retirement savings are in US stocks. But unless it comes to fighting a bill of attainder directed at me (and so far, that hasn’t been a threat), I don’t judge government policy by its effect on me. I judge it in two main ways. First, is it fair? Second, will it have good effects on people’s economic well-being? Judged by both standards, all three tax increases fail. These are the opening two paragraphs of my most recent article at Defining Ideas, “The Case Against High Marginal Tax Rates,” April 2, 2021. In researching this article, I dug up some earlier items I had remembered from the 1982 Economic Report of the President: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, even mainstream economists started paying more attention to the harm that high marginal tax rates did to economies. Two major factors caused their shift in attention. First, inflation from the mid-1960s to 1980 had put even middle-income people in tax brackets that had been designed for high-income people. According to the 1982 Economic Report of the President, a four-person family with the median income in 1980 faced a marginal federal income tax rate of 24 percent, up from 17 percent in 1965. For a four-person family with twice the median income, the marginal tax rate had risen from 22 percent to 43 percent! That caused more economists to pay attention. Second, a group of economists that included Arthur Laffer started arguing in the 1970s that increasing already-high marginal tax rates didn’t yield much revenue because those higher rates discouraged people from working and encouraged them to engage in tax avoidance: taking payment in non-taxed benefits rather than in money and buying more-expensive houses than otherwise to get the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction. This group of economists called themselves supply-side economists. Mainstream economists, skeptical of such claims, began to research the issues more carefully. Many actually concluded that the less-extreme supply-side claims had merit. And note the deadweight loss estimates: President Biden is likely to propose raising the top marginal federal income tax rate from its current 37 percent to 39.6 percent. Consider the effect on deadweight loss for a very high earner in the state with the highest state income tax rates: California. That earner, if self-employed, now faces a marginal tax rate of 54.1 percent, composed of the federal income tax rate of 37 percent, the state income tax rate of 13.3 percent, and the Medicare tax rate of 3.8 percent. With the federal income tax rate increase, he would face a 56.7 percent marginal tax rate. His rate would increase by 4.8 percent. But his deadweight loss would increase by 9.6 percent. Read the whole thing. (0 COMMENTS)

Last month, we hosted a Virtual Reading Group on Virginia Postrel’s New book, The Fabric of Civilization. Caren Oberg, an historian of fashion, led our discussion. (Postrel was also recently a guest on EconTalk.) Over the course of the VRG, participants were encouraged to think of questions to ask Postrel; this interview with Oberg was the result: Many of our participants suggested another VRG based on Postrel’s earlier book, The Future and its Enemies. Let us know if you share that interest, and we’ll see if we can get it scheduled. Our next VRG will be led by EconLog’s Alberto Mingardi on Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, starting April 19. Consider joining us! (0 COMMENTS)

On his blog this morning, my friend and fellow blogger Donald Boudreaux has given three cheers to Florida governor Ron DeSantis for his opposition to vaccine passports. I would give the governor at most two cheers. Why? Because one type of vaccine passport is horrendous and a huge violation of individual rights. Moreover, even aside from principle, it’s less and less effective as we get closer and closer to herd immunity. That type of vaccine passport is one that governments are considering requiring. That’s the issue on which I agree with DeSantis. But the other type of vaccine passport is one that firms and businesses are thinking of requiring before letting people into their buildings. This raises no issue of individual liberty. Well, actually, it does, but not in the way that opponents of these vaccine passports argue. The issue of individual liberty is whether companies should be free to decide whom they get to deal with. I say they should. I have long been a supporter of freedom of association, even in cases where that view has been unpopular. I wouldn’t require someone to be vaccinated before dealing with that person because I had my second Moderna shot 20 days ago. But other people have different attitudes to risk. And a business needs to take into account the different attitudes people have. Some may decide that they can get more business by assuring the public that anyone who enters their business has been vaccinated. This is a great solution to a tricky problem. It also has the side benefit of giving people an incentive to be vaccinated. We still hear about people who are nervous or hesitant about, or even opposed to, getting vaccinated. They should be free not to be vaccinated. But other people should be free not to deal with them. (1 COMMENTS)

In March, the economy created 916,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate edged down to 6%. At the same time, total employment remains roughly 10 million below trend. This leads some people to assume that the unemployment rate is sort of meaningless, and that the total employment figures show the true state of the labor market. That’s not quite right.  If you want to know how far we are from a full recovery, then the total employment figures are indeed more relevant at the moment.  But if you want to understand how hard it is to find a job, then the unemployment rate is probably the better indicator. When these two series diverge sharply, it is because there has a been a drop in the total labor force.  Million of people who were employed in early 2020 are currently not even looking for a job.  As a result, the labor market is tighter than you’d normally expect from a situation where employment is 10 million below trend, and indeed far tighter than in 2009: A record share of U.S. small-business owners reported unfilled positions in March, and firms are starting to boost wages to attract talent, a report by the National Federation of Independent Business showed Thursday. . . . [A]n overwhelming number of small businesses are having trouble finding qualified applicants to fill open positions. Over 90% of owners looking to hire reported few or no “qualified” applicants for the jobs they were trying to fill last month. “Where small businesses do have open positions, labor quality remains a significant problem for owners nationwide,” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at NFIB. “Small-business owners are raising compensation to attract the right employees.” I’m not sure what explains the recent drop in the supply of labor.  Part of the decline might reflect workers that are skittish about contracting Covid-19.  Some workers may be staying home to care for children, as many schools have closed.  The expanded unemployment program pays some workers more in unemployment compensation than they earned on their previous jobs.  I expect these roadblocks to mostly be eliminated by late in the year, and hence I expect a surge in labor force participation. But as of the moment, it’s easier to find work than would normally be the case when employment is 10 million below trend. The punch line here, as in so many of my posts, is to avoid thinking exclusively in supply or demand terms.  When it comes to the labor market, both supply and demand matter.  Never reason from a quantity change. (0 COMMENTS)

In a recent post, Sarah Skwire argued, quite rightly, that one of the great features of the market is that it makes a lot of stuff she doesn’t like. It also, of course, makes a lot of stuff that she does, including the very specific kinds of weird things that individuals like Sarah might wish to consume. For Sarah, the fact that markets produce things like olives and death metal, neither of which she wishes to consume, is great because it means that other people can get their wants satisfied even if she wants no part of them. All that markets require is a commitment to tolerance. If we want the weird stuff that we like, we have to accept the fact that the very same processes that will produce that stuff will also produce things we can’t stand.  I can assure you from first-hand knowledge that Sarah finds olives highly objectionable. This works to my benefit sometimes, because when they are served at a meal or I buy some at the store, I know they’re all for me, and I really like them. In the market, Sarah is not forced to either buy or consume what she sees as revolting little fruits.  However, this isn’t true of the political process. What Sarah didn’t address is how her examples might play out under a different set of institutions than those of the market. The nature of collective choice in markets, especially the voting process, which most closely mimics choice in the marketplace, is such that we choose among “package deals” and that everyone must accept the choice of the majority. Electoral politics, by its very nature, cannot abide the tolerance of minority tastes the way that markets do. In the most simple case, the candidate getting the most votes (or the amount otherwise dictated by the rules) wins, and he or she is everyone’s president/governor/mayor etc. Those who preferred a different candidate don’t get an opportunity to “consume” their political preference, as there can only be one winner. We are all stuck with that person. When we look at policies, the same sort of story applies. Particular candidates or parties will offer a platform full of a variety of policy proposals. Individual voters might like some of those proposals but also dislike some of them. Some voters might dislike nearly all of a candidate’s positions. Whichever candidate wins, or whichever party wins a majority, everyone will be subject to their attempts to put their preferred policies in place, regardless of whether we liked those policies or not.  Imagine going to the grocery store and rather than picking out the individual items you wish to buy, each store offered a pre-selected bundle of groceries that were available for purchase. Kroger might offer a different bundle than Whole Foods or Aldi, but each store offers only one bundle and you have to buy everything that’s in it. If we push this analogy to its limit, imagine further that you are required to eat everything that’s in the bundle. Similarly, we could imagine restaurants working in this sort of way.  You can easily see the problems. First, the stores would cater to the median shopper and diner, in a pretty good replica of the median voter theorem. Minority tastes would be largely shut out. Second, very few people would be anywhere close to fully happy with their bundle of groceries or their meal. And if you’re required to eat what you buy, some folks are going to be very unhappy about their meals. I would not look forward to watching Sarah try to choke down some olives. (Though she would be looking forward to it even less!) The overall level of preference satisfaction in politics will be far less than in the market because there’s no way to either satisfy minority tastes or offer specialized versions of common goods that better match people’s preferences. This is the problem with the institutions of collective choice: in politics, everyone has to eat the olives. The collective choice processes of politics, by definition, don’t allow for the possibility of the tolerance of others’ preferences that is the foundation of the marketplace. This is why so many political battles, especially recently, seem so high-stakes. It’s a winner-take-all game, so those who perceive themselves in the minority have every reason to fight hard, if not cheat. The more goods and services that are provided through political allocation, the more we will deal with this sort of problem. One need only think about extending the grocery analogy to health care, for example. If we think it’s important that no one is forced to eat the olives, and if we think it’s important that people are able to acquire the particular goods and services they want, we need to rely on markets to the largest extent possible. And doing so requires that we extend a degree of tolerance to the preferences of minorities that politics does not require. As more of our lives are centered around those winner-take-all political choices, the tolerance necessary for markets might become increasingly hard to come by.    (0 COMMENTS)

Or, more accurately, a customs union. With all the proposals for hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending and new taxes in the United States in recent days, there hasn’t been much good economic news. Alexander C. R. Hammond, of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and of African Liberty, writes about it in “Africa Tries Free Trade,” Reason, April 2021. He writes: On January 1, the long-awaited African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) came into effect. Aside from the economic benefits that the arrangement will bring to the continent, Africa’s newfound support for free trade and liberalization marks a clear rejection of the socialist ideology that has tormented African politics for decades. In recent decades Africa has been the sick puppy of the six heavily populated continents. A glance at the Economic Freedom of the World map of economic freedom shows why. Over half of the 50+ African countries are in the least-economically-free quartile of the world’s 190+ countries. Not a single African country is in the top quartile. Hammond calls Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt “regional economic powerhouses,” but of the three, only Nigeria is in the second-from-the-top quartile, South African is in the second-from-the-bottom quartile, and Egypt is in the bottom quartile. One of the five measures of economic freedom is freedom to trade internationally. With AfCFTA, this will increase for many African countries. This agreement is like NAFTA and its successor, USMCA: it’s a customs union. The idea is to have low or zero tariffs between and among members of the group, but a common tariff rate on imports from outside. Nevertheless it’s a big, if slow, step toward freer trade. Hammond writes: Within 5–10 years, the AfCFTA will ensure that 90 percent of tariffs on goods traded between member states will be abolished. Within 13 years, 97 percent of all tariffs will be removed. By 2035, the World Bank has predicted, this enormous liberalization effort will boost Africa’s gross domestic product by $450 billion, increase wages for both skilled and unskilled workers by 10 percent, and lift more than 30 million people out of extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 per day. According to the same estimates, by 2035, the AfCFTA will see more than 68 million people rise out of moderate poverty, defined as living on $1.90–$5.50 per day. The “countries with the highest initial poverty rates,” the World Bank says, will see the “biggest improvements.” Given Africa’s flirtation with socialism and protectionism from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, this is a welcome development. For more on Customs Unions, see Douglas A. Irwin, “International Trade Agreements,” in David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. (0 COMMENTS)

EconJournalWatch and Dan Klein asked its contributors “What 21st-century works will merit a close reading in 2050?”. You can find the responses, including mine, here and here. I particularly enjoyed Evan W. Osborne’s, Slaviša Tasić’s, Kurt Schuler’s and Scott Sumner’s picks. I have interpreted this “question from the future” as coming from somebody who “already came to an outlook like my own: “a 40 year old classical liberal in 2050. But I also assumed that she had a special interest in works that helped in shaping the nuances of classical liberal arguments in the 21st century. Besides the books I mentioned, I pondered adding others but had to leave them out because the limit was ten. Here are those that missed the list, but that I nonetheless believe will be significant and still read in 2050.   Martin Amis, Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million (Vintage, 2003) A splendid meditation on the blindness towards communist terror shown by many Western intellectuals. Many similar works may fade in memory from now to 2050, when hopefully the dangers and horror of communism will be understood for what they were by most people, but Amis’s literary powers will allow this to survive and enlighten new generations.   Luigi Marco Bassani, Liberty, State, & Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson (Mercer University Press, 2010) The years 2000-2020 will be remembered as years of “revisionist” history, particularly in the United States, that put the “cult” of the framers in perspective. Yet at a certain point, people will accept again that we cannot read with 20th century lenses the personal behaviour of 18th century gentlemen, and people will search again for works investigating their ideas and why they matter. Bassani’s book will then come in handy, as the best account of Jeffersonian liberalism.   Anthony de Jasay, Justice and Its Surroundings (LibertyFund, 2002) This is a collection of some of Anthony de Jasay’s (1925-2019) philosophical papers. Its shorter chapter (“Empirical Evidence”) is a little classic in its own right. De Jasay was a brilliant mind and should be known more widely. Perhaps by 2050 he will be.   Antonio Escohotado, Los enemigos del comercio: una historia moral de la propiedad (Espasa, published in three volumes between 2008 and 2018) This is a tremendous trilogy on the intellectual origins of the “enemies of commerce,” explaining the intellectual prevalence of the anti-market thinkers. These are long, exhausting books, but filled with insights and written by a non-academic philosopher who brings together an astonishing erudition with a splendid wit.   Biancamaria Fontana, Germaine de Staël: A Political Portrait (Princeton University Press, 2016) Madame de Staël (1766-1817) is a powerful liberal thinker who has not been forgotten and whose main works are sadly not available in the English language. Fontana’s book is a splendid introduction and would also work liberals in making sense of the circumstances of the French Revolution, which we typically tend either to worship or caricature.   Chandran Kukathas, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2003) Government and the “good life”: the second is not a responsibility of the first. This is a thoughtful manifesto for freedom of conscience and tolerance, which does not take shortcuts in answering the question “Should we tolerate the intolerant?” The problems it deals with are not going to disappear, its answers are and will be unpopular, but hopefully, with time, they may enlighten more people.   Jonathan Littell, The Kindly Ones (HarperCollins, 2006) An American writer writes in French the definitive novel over the mad slaughters of the 20th century. This book will impact the way in which future generations understand Nazism and totalitarianism.   Joel Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850 (Yale University Press, 2012) This is and will be considered for generations an essential work on the Industrial Revolution, and why it started in England.   Charles Moore, Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography (Allen Lane, published in three volumes between 2015 and 2019) Few politicians have been so associated with free market reforms as Margaret Thatcher. If The Anatomy of Thatcherism by Shirley Robin Letwin (1924-1993) is still unparalleled as an analysis of Thatcherism, Charles Moore’s wonderful biography acquaints us with the circumstances of Thatcher’s life and makes us understand better her motives as well as the challenges of governing and reforming. For those in the future who will try to make sense of the very few political experiences in which the state was actually rolled back, Moore’s book will be a must read.   Nicholas Phillipson, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (Penguin, 2010) The early 21st century will certainly be remembered as a happy period, in terms of Smithian studies. This work will stand out, as a splendid intellectual biography written by a great scholar.   Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (Harper Collins, 2009) The health of classical liberalism in 2050 will depend largely on the interpretation of the past which dominates academia and the public debate. The Great Depression is a pillar of the narrative that justifies more statism. In this book, Amity Shlaes explains why it shouldn’t be, providing us a detailed account of what happened and with a sound interpretation of it.   Vernon L. Smith, Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2007) Vernon Smith’s distinction between different forms of rationality is bound to be more fortunate, with the passing of time, as it is truly enlightening. This book is a methodological tour de force and an exploration of the fundamentals of our social and economic life. Smith is a giant on the shoulders of giants.   Tom Stoppard, Rock ‘n’ Roll (Faber, 2006) Great insights on communism and how Western intellectuals saw it in this marvelous play by one of the greatest playwrights of his generation.   Mario Vargas Llosa, La llamada de la tribu (Alfaguara, 2018) A gallery of portraits of classical liberal political thinkers written by a great novelist, who since the 1980s has been a leading voice for liberalism all over the world. Vargas Llosa not only presents lucidly and elegantly a brilliant selection of champions of this tradition of thought, he also provides the readers with some unique insights into how they became what they were.   As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases. (0 COMMENTS)

Yesterday self-described “mid-level manager” Ben White sent me this reaction to “Businesspeople Deserve Every Penny.”  Reprinted with his permission. Bryan, I read your post about the 12 Labors you’ve been subjected to shortly after I wrapped up a call with the VP in Supply Chain at the company where I work.  We spent most of the call basically reflecting on the idea that everything is a mess in the world right now and this mess is replicating across multiple industries at the same time and there isn’t an easy solution. Supply chains are interwoven and when problems occur they can feel linear at the time but each break in the chain creates multiple more outcomes so you have to get comfortable with small problems having exponential impacts. As a mid-level manager I thought your below questions were funny if you were asking them of me.  However – if the “they” you’re referring to is an executive leader, I think you’re mostly headed in the right direction of understanding them. Are they stoic?  Do they realize that hardly anyone will sympathize with their plight?  Or are they just too busy making the trains run on time to stop and reflect?   Added a few thoughts below – mostly from my mid-level perspective – along with any insights I’ve been afforded from the bosses. Stoics: Maybe some business people are – it depends what sort of crucible they’ve been subjected to.  In The Case Against Education you discuss how employers are looking for conformity in employees; these eventually become the mid-level managers (and some become executives).  I see the folks who’ve always taken the high status jobs (strategy/marketing) really crack when stuff hits the fan.  These are the students who seem to check every box and pursue jobs which look good on a resume. The leaders who’ve spent more time in the unattractive roles (operations management for example) are much more comfortable with things breaking – and living with a “control what you can control” mindset.  Some of these leaders haven’t been to college. Too busy to reflect:  I have yet to find a good leader who doesn’t advocate spending time to reflect on your actions and outcomes.  Leading people is a constant process of reflecting on your own actions to make sure you understand how to get more out of your team.  It also requires you to have your team reflect on their actions and then report back to you on how well they’re doing at executing the tasks you’ve assigned them – where they’re succeeding, where they need help, etc…It’s pretty simple “line manager” stuff – but the little stuff can be hard to do. Sympathy: Finding someone to sympathize with likely goes against a few factors leaders face.  If you’re the CEO you don’t get to cry down and you don’t have peers – it is truly lonely at the top.  If you’re mid-level then you’re in a pretty significant political battle – at least internally.  Careering is a competitive sport – if you’re looking for sympathy it’s easy to be seen as someone who can’t hack it.  If you’re commiserating over beers with a peer you have to be careful that they don’t sabotage you later.  You can talk to friends in other companies – but do they want to listen to you whine – probably not.  So it’s easier to just move on.  I guess you could post it on LinkedIn – but not sure what a signalling theory would say about a business person going onto LinkedIn to say work is hard.  Like this doesn’t really seem like something you’d want to signal to future employers (or employees). Anyway – great stuff – the Labors made me laugh today.  Was good to hit the pause button for a bit and step away from work-work.   Thanks, Ben (0 COMMENTS)