Category: Regulations

Restaurants Add Labor Surcharges to Help Pay Minimum Wage Costs

(p. B1) In lieu of steep menu price increases, many independent and regional chain restaurants in states including Arizona, California, Colorado and New York are adding surcharges of 3% to 4% to help offset rising labor costs. Industry analysts expect the practice to become widespread as more cities and states increase minimum wages.
“It’s the emerging new norm,” said Sharokina Shams, spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association. She said California restaurants are adding surcharges as the state lifts the minimum wage every year until it reaches $15 an hour by 2023. It is currently at $10.50 an hour for employers with 26 or more workers.
. . .
While adding a surcharge risks turning diners away, some restaurateurs say they want customers to understand the consequences of higher wages on a business with profit margins of generally between 2% and 6%.
. . .
(p. B2) Sami Ladeki added surcharges to the menu at six Sammy’s Woodfired Pizza & Grill restaurants in San Diego and eight more across California. He said it was a mistake to call the charge a state mandate, and has changed the wording. But he remains critical of rising minimum wages.
“This is not sustainable,” said Mr. Ladeki, who says he makes a profit of around 1% charging $12 to $14 a pizza. “People are not going to pay $15 or $20 for a pizza.”
. . .
David Cohn, who owns 15 restaurants in San Diego, including BO-beau, said his 3% surcharge wasn’t a stunt.
“We want people to understand there is a cost,” Mr. Cohn said. “How do we stay in business with margins shrinking and competition increasing?”

For the full story, see:
JULIE JARGON. “New on Your Dinner Tab: A Labor Surcharge.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., March 10, 2017): B1-B2.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 9, 2017.)

China’s “Ruthless” One Child Policy Forced Some Women to Have Abortions

(p. 15) Deng Xiaoping, China’s leader after 1978, had set a target of quadrupling the country’s per capita national income by 2000. China’s planners decided that they could achieve this goal only if, in addition to increasing the size of the pie, there were fewer people to share it.
So they determined, in their words, to “adjust women’s average fertility rate in advance.” The man who ran the program that treated women as if they were production functions was a rocket scientist, Song Jian, who had worked on ballistic missiles. Song went on to help manage the giant Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. His was a world in which unintended consequences were not important.
Population control was not unusual in the 1980s. India also had a fertility-­control program. The United Nations gave its first-ever population award to the Chinese minister for population planning in 1983 (along with Indira Gandhi). But China’s application of population control was particularly ruthless.
In 2012, Feng Jianmei, a factory worker pregnant with her second child, was taken to a clinic, forced to sign a document consenting to an abortion and injected with an abortifacient. She was in her seventh month. Pictures of her lying next to her perfectly formed seven-month dead fetus went viral. But hers was hardly an unusual case. In the 1990s, population targets became a major criterion for judging the performance of officials. It is no surprise that they carried out the one-child policy ruthlessly. Reading this account, one wonders why rape as a weapon of war is (rightly) seen as a war crime, whereas the forcible violation of women’s bodies in pursuit of government policy wins United Nations awards.

For the full review, see:
JOHN PARKER. “Little Emperors.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., JAN. 10, 2016): 15.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date JAN. 8, 2016, and has the title “”One Child,’ by Mei Fong.”)

The book under review, is:
Fong, Mei. One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.

How Uber Resisted Regulation

(p. B1) Uber Technologies Inc. has for years employed a program that uses data from its ride-hailing app and other tools to evade government officials seeking to identify and block the service’s drivers, according to a person familiar with the matter.
. . .
Uber has set up GPS rings around government offices, tracked low-cost phones and looked for other clues that regulators were targeting its drivers, such as frequently opening or closing the app or using credit cards tied to city agencies, according to the Times report. Once identified, Uber kept regulators out of vehicles by failing to send drivers their way, according to the newspaper.

For the full story, see:
GREG BENSINGER. “Uber Used Program to Evade Authorities.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., March 6, 2017): B4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 4, 2017, and has the title “Uber Used ‘Greyball’ Program to Circumvent Authorities.” )

British Government Environmentalists Increase London Air Pollution

(p. A4) London is choking from record levels of pollution, much of it caused by diesel cars and trucks, as well as wood-burning fires in private homes, a growing trend.
. . .
London’s air pollution today is different from seven decades ago, and more insidious. No longer thick as “pea soup,” as it was traditionally described, the city’s air is now laced with nitrogen dioxide — a toxic gas mostly produced by vehicles with diesel engines.
. . .
The current problem is, in part, an unintended consequence of previous efforts to aid the environment.
The British government provided financial incentives to encourage a shift to diesel engines because laboratory tests suggested that would cut harmful emissions and combat climate change. Yet, it turned out that diesel cars emit on average five times as much emissions in real-world driving conditions as in the tests, according to a British Department for Transport study.
“No one at the time thought of the consequences of increased nitrogen dioxide emissions from diesel, and the policy of incentivizing diesel was so successful that an awful lot of people bought diesel cars,” said Anna Heslop, a lawyer at ClientEarth, an environmental law firm that last year forced the British government to produce a better plan to improve air quality.
. . .
Bob Miller, 69, a cabdriver who has crisscrossed London for 30 years, wasn’t convinced. He has lost faith in recommendations by policy makers and experts, he said.
“We were told how wonderful diesel is, how they were supposed to be cleaner than petrol,” Mr. Miller said, idling his cab in heavy traffic with the window open.
“The experts make the rules, then they’re wrong,” he said, shaking his head. “I give up.”

For the full story, see:
KIMIKO de FREYTAS-TAMURA. “A Push for Diesel Leaves London Gasping Amid Record Pollution.” The New York Times (Sat., FEB. 18, 2017): A4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date FEB. 17, 2017.)

Steady Increase in Federal Regulations

RegulationsRiseGraph2017-02-03.jpgSource of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A2) In a high-profile attack on growth-killing red tape, President Donald Trump this week ordered that any agency issuing a new rule find two to repeal.

He will likely discover that the only thing harder than getting something done in Washington is getting it undone.
Vast swaths of rules are untouchable because Congress ordered them to be written or the president himself demanded them..

For the full story, see
Ip, Greg. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Trump May Find Leviathan Hard to Tame.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Feb. 2, 2017): A2.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 1, 2017, and has the title “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Donald Trump May Find Leviathan Hard to Tame.”)

Hong Kong Is No Longer a Libertarian Dream Come True

(p. 5) HONG KONG — For the 23rd year running, Hong Kong is, in the opinion of the conservative Heritage Foundation, the freest economy in the world. With low taxes, an efficient government and private businesses running the city buses and its spotless subways, this place is a libertarian dream come true.
So the story goes.
Many people who live in Hong Kong beg to differ. This has long been a city of tycoons, with a few families holding sway over the supermarkets, drugstores and real estate market, limiting competition and keeping prices high. And in the past few weeks, four words have further shaken the story line that this former British colony is a free-market nirvana.
Food Truck Pilot Scheme.
. . .
In Hong Kong, the government agency that devised the Food Truck Pilot Scheme had a new, bold and innovative idea: stationary food trucks that don’t park on the street. A spokesman for the city’s Tourism Commission explained why in an email:
“Since the urban area of Hong Kong is already saturated with traffic, it would not be desirable from the traffic management and road safety angles to allow food trucks to park and operate on public roads. Moreover, as many locations in Hong Kong have already got a number of food establishments, it would thus be desirable to introduce food trucks away from those areas.”
It’s all explained in a raft of guidelines. There are seven annexes in all, including licensing requirements (Annex D), special government loan programs (Annex B) and fixed venues (Annex F).
Then there is Annex C — “Mandatory Requirements for a Food Truck” — that lists in painstaking detail what each truck must have. Some examples: The kitchen floor space must be at least 65 square feet. Each truck must have a potable water tank with a capacity of about 32 gallons, and a wastewater tank at least one and a half times that size. The sink must be at least a foot and a half in length. And so on.
To meet all of those regulations, Hong Kong food trucks must be custom vehicles, bearing little resemblance to the decades-old trucks that congregate near the National Mall in Washington, the capital of a country that has only the 17th freest economy in the world.
All these rules and regulations have Liu Chun-ho, the owner of Ma Ma’s Dumpling, very worried. To meet the stringent requirements, he paid about one million Hong Kong dollars ($129,000) for his new Isuzu truck.
. . .
The workers at Book Brothers hope that their next location, closer to the city’s central business district, will be busier. And if they can’t sell their pork buns, they could always try something else, right? After all, that’s what capitalism is all about.
Not so fast. Please refer to Answer No. 8 of the government’s “Frequently Asked Questions: Application of the Food Truck Pilot Scheme (Pilot Scheme).”
“No alteration of the signature dish proposed by the applicant in the application form will be allowed after the submission of Application and throughout the Scheme,” it declares. “If the operator wishes to change dishes other than the signature dish, he should obtain prior written approval from the Venues and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.”

For the full story, see:
MICHAEL FORSYTHE. “Food Truck Rules Outnumber Patrons in Hong Kong.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., FEB. 19, 2017): 5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date FEB. 18, 2017, and has the title “The Economy Is Free in Hong Kong. Running a Food Truck Isn’t (See Annex C).”)

Public Policies Choke Off Entrepreneurial Opportunities

George McGovern was the Democratic candidate for President of the United States in 1972. He was a fervent advocate for expansion of the federal government.

(p. A12) We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.

My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never have doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: “Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.” It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.
For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.
Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.

For the full commentary, see:
McGovern, George. “Manager’s Journal: A Politician’s Dream Is a Businessman’s Nightmare.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 1, 1992): A12.

“Tax and Regulatory Policies” Influence Intel to Build Arizona Chip Plant

(p. B1) SAN FRANCISCO — Intel, the world’s largest computer chip manufacturer, will invest $7 billion to finish a factory in Arizona, adding 3,000 jobs, the company’s chief executive said on Wednesday after meeting with President Trump at the White House.
The completion of the factory, which will complement two other Intel semiconductor plants in Chandler, Ariz., had been under consideration for several years.
Standing beside Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, Brian Krzanich, Intel’s chief executive, said the company had decided to proceed now because of “the tax and regulatory policies we see the administration pushing forward.”

For the full story, see:
VINDU GOEL. “Intel Will Invest $7 Billion in Chip Plant in Arizona.” The New York Times (Thurs., FEB. 9, 2017): B1-B2.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date FEB. 8, 2017, and has the title “Intel, in Show of Support for Trump, Announces Factory in Arizona.”)

Economic Growth Depends Mainly on Micro Policies and Serendipity

(p. A2) In the long run, . . . , potential growth is a job for microeconomic, not macroeconomic, policy. It requires countless, painstaking fixes: raising labor-force participation with training and safety-net programs that don’t discourage work; investment-friendly tax and regulatory policies to incentivize investments that take years to pay off, if ever; and trade deals that let firms market their products to the entire world. It will also take some serendipity as firms keep hunting for the next miracle technology. No one foresaw how the information revolution would revitalize productivity in the 1990s, and the next such breakthrough will probably surprise us as well.

For the full story, see:
GREG IP. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Rewriting Recent Economic History.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 2, 2016): A2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 1, 2016, and has the title “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Post-Recession Rethink: Growth Potential Dimmed Before Downturn.”)

Brexit “as a Cry for Liberty” from EU “Edicts and Regulations”

(p. C1) The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level–rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
. . .
(p. C2) Mr. Gove has taken to borrowing the 18th-century politician William Pitt’s dictum about how England can “save herself by her exertions and Europe by her example.” After Mr. Cameron departs and new British leadership arrives, it will be keen to strike new alliances based on the principles of democracy, sovereignty and freedom. You never know: That might just catch on.

For the full commentary, see:
FRASER NELSON. “A Very British Revolution; The vote to leave the EU began as a cry for liberty and ended as a rebuke to the establishment.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 24, 2016): C1-C2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 24, 2016, and has the title “Brexit: A Very British Revolution; The vote to leave the EU began as a cry for liberty and ended as a rebuke to the establishment.”)

Complex Regulations Stifle Innovation

(p. A15) In “The Innovation Illusion” . . . [Fredrik Erixon and Björn Weigel] argue that “there is too little breakthrough innovation . . . and the capitalist system that used to promote eccentricity and embrace ingenuity all too often produces mediocrity.”
The authors identify four factors that have made Western capitalism “dull and hidebound.” The first is “gray capital,” the money held by entities such as investment institutions, which are often just intermediaries for other investors. Their shareholders, say the authors, tend to focus on short-term outcomes, a perspective that makes company managers reluctant to invest in the research and development that is the lifeblood of the new. The authors’ second villain is “corporate managerialism,” which breeds a “custodian corporate culture” that searches for certainty and control instead of “fast and radical innovation.”
A third villain is globalization, though the authors have a novel complaint: The global economy, they say, has given rise to large firms that are more interested in protecting their turf than pursuing path-breaking ideas. Finally, they decry “complex regulation” for injecting uncertainty into corporate investment and thus stifling the emergence of new ideas and new products.
Echoing the views of Northwestern economist Robert Gordon, Messrs. Erixon and Weigel lament the paucity of big-bang innovation, writing that “the advertised technologies for the future underwhelm.” They wonder why there hasn’t been more progress in all sorts of realms, from the engineering of flying cars to the curing of cancer. Responding to those who worry that robots will drive up unemployment, they say that the real concern should be “an innovation famine rather than an innovation feast.”

For the full review, see:

MATTHEW REES. “BOOKSHELF; Bending the Arc of History.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., December 13, 2016): A15.
(Note: first ellipsis added; second ellipsis in original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 12, 2016,)

The book under review, is:
Erixon, Fredrik, and Björn Weigel. The Innovation Illusion: How So Little Is Created by So Many Working So Hard. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2016.