Recap of Top Libertarian Jew Blog Entries for 2021

This time of the year is a time of reflection on what has transpired during the current calendar year. Last year, I was hoping for less craziness than there was in 2020. Between the pandemic, economic downturn, and social unrest, last year was unhinged. While 2021 was not as bad as 2020, 2021 still had more than its fair share of insanity. 

As the pandemic continued into its second year, it remained a major topic in the media and among political pundits. On my blog, the pandemic was a topic that accounted for over a third of my blog entries for the 2021 calendar year. I was hoping that it would have been less considering that safe and effective vaccines were made available (see April 2021 analysis here). There was a brief moment in which the CDC said that the unvaccinated could go around doing normal activities unmasked. My response to that CDC recommendation in May was that the CDC has botched messaging throughout the pandemic and that going back to normal means ignoring what the CDC has to say by enjoying life regardless. Maybe now, we could stop people telling us to "follow the science" while ignoring the science. That was wishful thinking on my part. 

We went from "two weeks to flatten the curve" to "wait a little longer to help hospitals" to "wait until we have a vaccine" to "get enough people vaccinated." But along came the Delta variant, and with that, the goalposts moved once more. To keep Delta in check, President Biden called for vaccine mandates. I covered the topic no less than four times this past year in which I pointed out the problems with vaccine mandates (see here, here, here, and here). 2021 was also a year in which we procured enough data to conclude that the lockdowns were both ineffective and harmful from a public health standpoint. And let's not even get into the unhelpful travel bans or mask mandates (see here and here). All of this lunacy made me realize that the pandemic will not come to an end when COVID-related hospitalizations or deaths get low enough, but when we as a society get used to accepting risk once more. 

But don't you worry. There was enough craziness to go around that the pandemic did not need to hog all the spotlight. 

• Cancel culture was another major news item. Take the Dr. Seuss controversy in which the Dr. Seuss Foundation cancelled the publication of six of Seuss' less-known works. I came to multiple conclusions on that debacle, most notably that the woke Left are the moral prudes of our time and that a small group of emotionally fragile and intellectually weak individuals should not have their sense of being offended determine what is acceptable for the rest of us. 
• In a similar vein, there was cancel culture controversy surrounding comedian Dave Chapelle's Netflix special The Closer. He made jokes offending all sorts of people, but the jokes that got the most ire were those on the theme of transgender individuals. You can read my analysis here, but I was reminded of the value of comedy, the importance of free speech, and that the fragility of the woke Left is both at odds with learning to agree with those disagree with you and the essential pillars that make up a free, democratic society. 
• In terms of economic disarray, I offered my takes on the supply chain crisis and the shortages in the labor market. 
• And let's not forget the debacle with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. While the woke Left tried to make it about race (which is odd considering the case was about a white guy shooting four other white guys in self-defense), it showed how little many on the Left believe that there is a such thing as a "good guy with a gun." The spoiler here is that defensive gun usage (DGU) is way more prevalent than the Left would care to admit. 
• But if we do want to get into the topic of race, I tackled the topic of critical race theory (CRT). Contrary to what the Left would like to believe, CRT is not about simply about having a dialogue about race or making sure we are not ignoring the nastier parts of history. CRT is a simplistic, fatalistic worldview that believes that U.S. institutions are inherently racist and [one of] the only attributes of a human being that matters is the color of one's skin. 
• On the brighter side of race relations, Juneteenth became a federal holiday. I wrote a piece on why we should all celebrate Juneteenth in the United States.

I wish you all a Happy New Year! May it be less out of whack than 2020 and 2021 were. 

Fauci Is Dead Wrong About Indefinitely Needing Face Masks on Airplanes

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been the Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, has played a major role in advising the U.S. public on pandemic measures. He has also been off the mark on numerous occasions. Here are but a few:

• In February 2020, Fauci wrongly predicted that COVID would most probably have a fatality rate of 0.15 percent, which would have been on par with the common flu. In a matter of a few weeks, Fauci went from thinking the risk was minuscule to being supportive of lockdowns, albeit only for two weeks. It ceases to shock me how quickly "two weeks to flatten the curve" turned into months. He continued to push for strict lockdowns in the latter half of 2020. He was continually critical of states on multiple occasions that decided to open "too early." The scientific evidence ended up vindicating those states by showing that lockdowns are ineffective and harmful.
• Fauci was wrong when he thought that schools should be shut down because he went under the erroneous assumption that allowing children to go to school would be superspreader events. It turns out that the science showed that COVID is a minuscule risk to children. 
• Fauci admitted openly that his goalposts of herd immunity were not based on science, but "what the public was ready to hear." 
• His flip-flopping on masks has been astounding. In February 2020, Fauci said "there is no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." He changed his mind in April 2020 supposedly because he was worried about the supply of face masks. Fast-forward to January 2021 where he went as far as saying that even the vaccinated should wear two masks, even though Fauci admitted in May 2021 that a vaccinated person wearing two masks was tantamount to pandemic theatre. 

I could list more not-so-endearing Fauci moments, but I want to move on to Fauci's latest faux pas. This one took place on a December 19, 2021 airing of ABC's This Week (transcript here). When asked if we will reach a point where we do not have to wear face masks on airplanes, Fauci's response was "I don't think so." In Fauci's mind, those who travel on airplanes will be wearing face masks for the foreseeable future. This response is problematic for a number of reasons. 

Let's begin with the efficacy of face masks generally. The pre-pandemic understanding behind face masks was that "face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill (Desai and Mehrotra, 2020)."

At the beginning of the pandemic (i.e., May 2020), I was mildly supportive of a temporary face mask mandate. In spite of the mixed evidence that we had at the time, I figured a temporary measure that had low costs and potentially high benefits was good advice at the beginning of the pandemic when we had less understanding of face masks in the context of COVID. I started to change my mind as the pandemic progressed. 

About one year into the pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) said in December 2020 that "there was only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people (WHO, 2020, p. 8)." A month earlier, the revered Cochrane examined multiple studies on the transmission of influenza-like diseases and found "there is low certainty evidence from nine trials that wearing a mask may make little to no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (Jefferson et al., 2020)." The WHO and Cochrane findings began my process of truly questioning face masks.

I continued to be begrudgingly supportive of face masks, but then came accessible vaccines. Looking at the vaccine process and the clinical data, I found that vaccines were safe and effective. Vaccines are much less riskier than contracting COVID. By the time we reached August 2021, I wrote a piece illustrating why we do not need face mask mandates. Aside from not being significantly responsible for lower case rates, I also argued that vaccines are a way more effective tool in fighting this pandemic than face masks. We also have to factor in that vaccines greatly reduce severe COVID cases, COVID-related hospitalizations, and COVID-related deaths (Scobie et al., 2021). It makes less sense to talk about COVID cases when vaccines have further severed the relationship between cases and disease severity. 

If that were not enough, a literature review from the Cato Institute shows that, as of November 2021, the available evidence of face mask efficacy is of low quality (Liu et al., 2021a). While masks are shown to reduce some measure of droplet transmission, what has not been demonstrated with available clinical data is a correlation with infection outcomes (Liu et al., 2021b). As a fun side note, CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen said earlier this week that cloth masks are little more than face decorations in the face of a variant as contagious as omicron.

More specifically, the evidence for face mask usage in airplanes is even more scant than face masks generally. The 2020 Harvard study is not based on the gold standard of randomized controlled trials, but was done through modeling. An Irish case study of an international flight to Ireland suggests that in-flight transmission was the only possible solution (Murphy et al., 2020). Here is another case study, this one being a two-hour, domestic Japanese flight (Toyokawa et al., 2020). In spite of these studies, the evidence base is still that of low certainty. The evidence base for face masks slowing COVID transmission, whether in the general sense or specifically on airplanes, is weak.

I would like to talk about the risk of contracting COVID while on an airplane. What is the risk of flying the friendly skies during this pandemic? To quote the medical journal JAMA Network from October 2020, "the risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during air travel is lower than an office building, classroom, supermarket, or commuter train." Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly testified in front of Congress saying that high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration systems capture well over 99% of airborne pathogens and converts the air every two to three minutes. The aforementioned comes from a finding in a 2020 Department of Defense study showing how low-risk riding in an airplane is. How low-risk? How good of a job are HEPA filtration systems on a plane? According to the DOD study, the HEPA filtration systems do such a good job that the risk of COVID is lower than being in one's private home or being in an operating room (see Figure below). Out of all of the indoor places one can be, being inside an airplane is actually one of the safest. 

Fauci does not care about how low the risk is on an airplane. He said as much in the ABC interview by stating that "Even though you have a good filtration system, I still believe masks are a prudent thing to do." Fauci is an eighty-year-old man for whom the only level of risk that is acceptable appears to be zero risk. After all, Fauci did say in that ABC interview that we cannot return back to normal until we finish this. 

Fauci does not care about how little evidence exists to support or refute mask-wearing. Fauci does not care about how mass vaccination has made COVID more manageable. He does not care that air filtration in an airplane is so high-quality that in terms of COVID-related risk, it is safer to be in in airplane than it is in an operating room. It does not matter that flying in an airplane without a mask is a low-risk activity. Fauci does not want us to go back to something resembling a pre-pandemic normal. What he cares about is fear of COVID and that we share his fear until the day we die.

Risk is a part of life. We do not have the luxury of living in a bubble and eliminating risk. Fauci analogizing the fight against COVID to fighting the Axis powers in WWII is another example of showing how out of touch he is. The U.S. government has declared a War on Terror, War on Drugs, and War on Poverty. Remind me again how well those "wars" are going. COVID is not going to go away. As I brought up in October, this pandemic will not truly end until we as a society can accept risk once more. If we cannot let up on pandemic regulations in the safest of conditions, such as wearing face masks on airplanes, what hope do we have of leaving the pandemic behind us? 

We should not give into fear. We should also not continue to push health regulations that have little to no evidence to support it, as is the case with face mask mandates. We cannot mask our way out of the pandemic. As the Cato Institute brings up, since the effectiveness of masks is uncertain, we should focus on practices that we know to be effective: vaccines, better ventilation systems, and discouraging crowding in closed areas (also see University of Minnesota review of masks here). I do not know whether President Biden will extend the face mask mandate on airplanes beyond the current mid-March expiration date. I certainly hope not. What I do know is that when government bureaucracy is entrenched with hypochondriacs, fear-mongers, and the most risk-averse who claim to follow science but effectively ignore the science, we end up in a dystopian society that values fear above else. This mentality that leads so-called experts to say we need to indefinitely wear face masks on planes to avoid the smallest of risks is no way to move forward and sure is no way to live.

Abortion Advocates Who Abandon "My Body, My Choice" By Favoring Vaccine Mandates Do So For No Good Reason

"My body, my choice." It is a mantra that has defined the modern-day feminist movement, particularly when it has come to the theme of abortion. The idea behind the mantra are the concepts of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice. I thought the idea of bodily autonomy amongst those who are pro-abortion was sacrosanct.....at least until the pandemic came along. What the phrase "my body, my choice" has taken on a different meaning in the political arena. The phrase "my body, my choice" is no longer solely used by the pro-abortion crowd. Those who are anti-mask or anti-vaccination have been using the mantra. This unsurprisingly has been a controversial move. 

The pro-abortion Left is angry at what they view as an appropriation and misuse of the phrase. To quote an article from Vogue, "For Republicans, it's a case of government regulation for thee but not for me." There is overlap between the anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers and those who are anti-abortion. It is inconsistent for those who argued against the "my body, my choice" argument in the abortion debate to use it when it comes to mask mandates or vaccine mandates. 

However, that inconsistency cuts both ways. Many who had been using the argument "my body, my choice" when it came to abortion have abandoned the idea when supporting vaccine mandates. Just to cite some examples, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was recently at a pro-abortion rally in which he said, "You cannot have the government attempt to take away your right to control your body. It cannot happen in America. We have to fight it, every one of us." This is the same Mayor de Blasio that had no problem mandating that all private-sector workers be vaccinated by December 27 of this year. 

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg opined that abortion restrictions are an "infinitely more invasive form of biopolitical control" than vaccines. Actress Whoopi Goldberg also lost it over the Supreme Court's recent abortion ruling because she takes issue when "you tell me what I need to do with my doctor and my family." Goldberg is also in support of vaccine mandates. I am not saying that everyone on the Left is for abortion and/or vaccine mandates, much like not everyone on the Right is against those policies. What I am saying is that the Left is more likely to be pro-abortion and pro-vaccine mandate.

Someone who is anti-abortion but says "my body, my choice" when arguing against vaccine mandates is just as inconsistent when someone who is pro-abortion abandons the argument "my body, my choice" for vaccine mandates. Which of these is more egregious? I would hazard to guess that a lot of that would depend on where one falls on the political spectrum. In any case, it is safe to say that political expediency plays a larger role than ideological purity or caring about the consistency or coherence of an argument. 

In spite of the political Left and political Right being inconsistent, there seems to be a fair bit of legal precedent established in recent years. The Roe v. Wade case notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of bodily autonomy in numerous occasions, including the purchase and use of contraceptions (Griswold v. Connecticut), not being subjected to experimental drugs or therapy without one's consent (United States v. Stanley), refusing medical treatment that can save one's life (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health), and marrying whichever consenting adult you would like (Loving v. Virginia; Obergefell v. Hodges).   

As nice as it is to cite legal precedent, those who were previously on team "My Body, My Choice" now argue that there are exceptions. A New York Times opinion piece recently made the argument that bodily autonomy is not an absolute. So did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, which has traditionally defended abortion with a bodily autonomy argument, did not find the bodily autonomy argument to be compelling in the case of vaccine mandates. Why? Although the ACLU recognizes a fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make one's own health decisions, the ACLU also argues that it is not an absolute. One's right to do something, or to not do something, should not harm others. Since the ACLU views vaccine mandates as protecting others, it is what the ACLU calls a "justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity."

Arguing that freedom has limits is not new, innovative, or radical. When I wrote my 30-plus-paragraph stance a couple years ago on why I am a pro-life/anti-abortion libertarian (with caveats, to be sure), I made that very argument supporting my stance against abortion. I used what is known as the non-aggression axiom. To quote Cato Institute scholar David Boaz, "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else." The non-aggression axiom states that as long as you are not directly harming anyone else with your actions, you are free to do what you want with your life. It is an axiom because there are limits, including murder, rape, fraud, and arson. I found that abortion violates the non-aggression axiom because it takes the life of another human being. 

Much like with the numerous pandemic restrictions, "follow the science" does not mean that an experiment is conducted and out pops an answer. What the science does with any health-related policy is that it informs our decision. Beyond that, we make value judgments. In the case of abortion, gestational development informs my view on when life begins. Those who are staunchly pro-abortion draw the line at birth, whereas those who are staunchly anti-abortion draw the line at conception. 

I draw the line at the eight-week mark for two reasons. One, it has developed the human organs and other features that make it discernibly human. Two, that is the point where an embryo becomes a fetus. Abortion is not simply a choice "between a woman and her doctor." If an abortion were more analogous to removing a tumor or a cyst, I would not have a single moral or ethical qualm with abortion. However, that is not the case. The fetus is not a clump of cells or a part of the mother's body. It is a human being with a unique set of human organs and unique DNA.  Whether we decide to give a zygote or a fetus legal standing is a separate consideration from whether they are biologically human beings or not. Again, the science informs our decisions, but does not dictate an answer about abortion policy because there are ethical, moral, and philosophical considerations. 

The same goes for the vaccine mandates. There are other considerations for vaccine mandates aside from the pandemic. There are civil rights, political freedoms, and economic costs to take into account. Also, there are potential side effects from the vaccines. No medical treatment is ever going to be 100 percent. At the same time, vaccines are still very safe and effective, so much so that the risk of getting vaccinated is still significantly smaller than the risk of contracting COVID. For the vast majority of people, the risk of statistically improbable vaccine reactions is outweighed by the risk of contracting COVID and having more than a mild case. Based on available clinical data, I am for people getting vaccinated for COVID. While I am pro-vaccine, I am anti-mandate. 

The explanation for the vaccine mandates, at least the one that President Biden used, is that we need the mandates to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. The vaccines are effective at preventing severe cases of COVID, COVID hospitalizations, and COVID-related deaths. If the vaccines are effective at preventing the nastier parts of contracting COVID, then there is no need to force those who do not want the vaccine. This faulty logic is one of the many reasons I am against the vaccine mandates. 

The ACLU and others who argue for vaccine mandates do so with the assumption that the unvaccinated are much more likely to contribute to the transmission of COVID. If that assumption proves to be false, then the argument for vaccine mandates, and by extension vaccine passports, crumbles. Yes, vaccines are effective at lowering severe COVID cases, COVID-related hospitalizations, and COVID-related deaths. As for COVID transmissions, vaccines are not nearly as effective. 

• Using data from 68 countries and nearly 3,000 U.S. counties, a study from European Journal of Epidemiology found that higher vaccination rates are not associated with lower rates of COVID cases (Subramanian and Kumar, 2021). To quote the researchers, "In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people." 
• In an August 2021 interview with Wolf Blitzer, CDC Director Rachel Walensky admitted that vaccines cannot prevent COVID transmission. 
• An October 2021 article from the renowned Lancet provides insight (Wilder-Smith, 2021), saying that "the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation."
• Another Lancet article from October 2021 suggested that those who are vaccinated are just as likely to spread COVID to those in their household as those who are unvaccinated (Singanayagam et al., 2021).
• A preprint case study shows that the vaccinated in Wisconsin have similar viral loads, and that 68 percent of individuals infected despite vaccination tested positive for COVID (Riemersa et al., 2021).
• A case study from a federal prison found no difference in transmission between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and concluded by warning that public health officials should assume that the vaccinated who become infected are no less infectious (Salvatore et al., 2021).
• Another preprint study showed a modest effect on transmission, but that by three months, the rate of transmission for the vaccinated was comparable to the unvaccinated (Eyre et al., 2021).

The existence of breakthrough cases and how vaccines have little to no impact on transmission rates has important public policy implications. 

1. First and foremost, vaccination status does not indicate whether a person is an active threat as it pertains to COVID. This means that vaccination status should not be used as a determinant to allow or deny access to a service (e.g., restaurant, concerts, entry to a country).  
2. A vaccine mandate is not a form of collective self-defense. There is no way to prove if an individual will be responsible for disease transmission, especially given how commonplace COVID is. Not everyone who is vaccinated develops immunity. As we have seen, it is possible to transmit COVID even when vaccinated. Conversely, some unvaccinated people never become infected. Furthermore, the unvaccinated who have natural immunity seem to have greater immunity than those who only have vaccine immunity. At a minimum, this should help remove stigma against those who do not want get vaccinated.  
3. It illustrates how pointless it is to use COVID cases as a metric for pandemic severity, especially at this stage. Governments should stop using COVID cases as a metric to justify pandemic restrictions, whether that is questionable mask mandates, ineffective travel bans, or lockdowns, the latter of which shows how the cure can be worse than the disease.
4. As safe and effective as COVID vaccines are, the primary benefit incurred is not of a societal nature, but of a personal, individual nature. As such, how we define the policy goal of herd immunity needs to change accordingly. 

I want to be clear that citing the aforementioned studies does not mean people should not get vaccinated. Quite the contrary! People should get vaccinated, even those who have natural immunity because hybrid immunity (the combination of natural immunity and vaccine immunity) provides the greatest protection (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2021; Goel et al., 2021). Even so, we should be honest about what vaccines can and cannot do. Just because vaccines are not particularly effective when it comes to transmission does not negate the fact that vaccines are very effective at preventing severe COVID, COVID-related hospitalizations, and COVID-related deaths. 

However, people should not be mandated to get vaccinated. Part of being free means living with the consequences of your choices, whether those are good or bad choices. People should chose what goes into their bodies, whether we are talking about food, alcohol, nicotine products, or vaccines. I think that remaining unvaccinated is generally ill-advised. At the same time, if we are to remain a free society, then "my body, my choice" (provided that it doesn't violate the non-aggression axiom) needs to mean something. 

In this context, it means that the unvaccinated need to live with the risk and the consequences of remaining unvaccinated. If that means they are more likely to be hospitalized, then so be it. That poor life choice is on them. Or to quote Democratic Governor Jared Polis, "At this point, if you haven't been vaccinated, it's your own darn fault." We do not deny those with unhealthy lifestyles healthcare access. We also do not mandate that people quit smoking and drinking alcohol, exercise three times a week, get at least 7-8 hours of sleep a day, or eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. While health is important, we do not treat it as an absolute. We should learn to live with the risk of COVID as humanity has done with other areas of life. 

Vaccine mandates are not a "justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity," especially since vaccines do not prevent transmission in any significant way. There is no compelling case in which people should be forced to take a vaccine or lose their jobs and freedoms if they do not comply. At a minimum, I hope the courts see the folly of vaccine mandates and rule against them. Vaccine mandates do not have a place in a free society and they do not have a place in a society that ought to care about the results of scientific findings. 

Travel Bans Are Nothing More Than Harmful Public Health Theater

In the "wonderful" world of COVID fear-mongering, the World Health Organization [WHO] classified the variant B.1.1.529 of the coronavirus, also known as the omicron variant, as a "variant of concern." By the WHO's definition, a "variant of concern" is a variant that is more transmissible, more virulent, and/or more skilled at evading public health measures. The omicron variant has its origins in South Africa, although it has already been discovered in 23 other countries [as of 12/1]. In response, such countries as the United Kingdom, United States, Israel, and Japan decided to impose travel bans on South Africa and surrounding countries (e.g., Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho). The premise behind these travel bans are to lower the spread of COVID, or at a minimum, buy some time for the upcoming disease or variant. While this might seem like a well-thought-out idea, the truth of the matter is that they are not an effective public health measure. 

Travel Bans Are Ineffective at Preventing COVID Spread

The pre-pandemic understanding of travel bans has been that they have minimal impact, as this systematic review from the WHO on influenza-based travel bans illustrates (Mateus et al., 2014). As Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Chris Beyrer points out, travel bans during the coronavirus pandemic have been ineffective at keeping the alpha and delta variants out of multiple countries. For argument's sake, let us look at some of the research that suggests at least some effectiveness. An article from Lancet (Russell et al., 2020) found that travel bans are most effective when "there are zero or few cases in the destination country." This Lancet finding implies that a travel ban is most likely to be successful at the beginning of the pandemic. Certainly at this stage in the pandemic, travel bans lose efficacy. 

An article from Science concluded that the travel ban in Wuhan only delayed epidemic progression by a whopping three to five days (Chinazzi et al., 2020). The caveat for this negligible effect is that the travel ban would to be accompanied by a comprehensive public health response (e.g., hand-washing, social distancing, house quarantine). 

It is one thing for travel bans to theoretically work. Looking at the research, here is how it would need to work in practice. Travel bans would need to be implemented early enough before the infection rates are too high. Travel bans work as part of a more comprehensive public health response. Even if a country is coordinated enough to pull that off, travel bans do not stop the spread of a disease. As a research brief from the Cato Institute (Bier, 2020) and an article from the Journal of Emergency Management found (Errett et al., 2020), travel bans merely delay the spread of a disease. 

Travel bans have the potential to be somewhere between insignificant and mildly effective at the beginning at the pandemic, but become negligible as the pandemic progresses. The reason for that is because we reach a certain point in the pandemic, a point we certainly have reached in December 2021, where international travelers are no longer a significant contributor to overall infection incidence. It is no wonder that the WHO advised against imposing blanket travel bans from the onset of the pandemic and continues to make that recommendation.

Impeding Future Pandemic Readiness

South Africa was able to identify, reporting, and sequence the omicron genome in a relatively quick fashion. How does South Africa get "rewarded?" By having travel bans imposed on South Africa. The problem with implementing a travel ban in response is very short-sighted. Why? As National Public Radio [NPR] brings up, if another country discovers a future variant within their borders, they very likely would be disincentivized to report the variant. After all, it was China's cover-up of the initial strain that got us into this mess in the first place.

Travel bans are all the more impactful when banning countries that do not have the infrastructure or resources to implement widespread vaccination. While it might seem noble to protect one's own citizens, the truth of the matter is that the pandemic is a global one. If this issue of getting widespread vaccination to developing countries not get rectified, we will continue to see new variants crop up. Combine the discouragement of reporting with the fact that a travel ban makes it difficult to transport healthcare workers and other healthcare resources, and what you have is a recipe to prolong the pandemic. 

Harm Caused by Travel Bans

We cannot look at the benefits of the travel bans in isolation, as if COVID transmission were the only issue at play. We also need to make sure that the travel bans do not cause more harm than they are trying to prevent. Limiting travel stymies economic growth because you are cutting off multiple forms of economic activity. That is basic economics. The question is by how much. That question is tricky to answer, especially since it is difficult to disentangle the effects of the travel restrictions from the pandemic itself or from other containment efforts (e.g., lockdowns). Nevertheless, there have been some attempts to quantify the economic costs:

• In February 2020, the Cato Institute made a back-of-the-envelope estimation that a travel-and-immigration ban would cost the U.S. economy $323 billion in the first year. 
• The Canadian Government estimated that travel bans would reduce GDP from 1.2 to 1.7 percent for 2020 (Liu, 2020). 
• The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] estimated that travel bans impose an average service cost of 12 percent of export values across sectors (Benz et al., 2020).
• In July 2021, the U.S. Travel Association calculated that travel restrictions on the U.K., Europe, and Canada were costing the United States $1.5 billion per week. 
• According to the World Travel and Tourism Council [WTTC], international tourism spending dropped 69.4 percent due to ongoing travel restrictions (p. 4). Additionally, the WTTC calculated that the United States was losing $198 million a day due to travel restrictions. Assuming that figure holds for an entire calendar year, that would amount to $72.5 billion a year. 
• The World Bank detailed how earlier travel restrictions harmed those in sub-Saharan Africa, including livelihoods, food security, and lower access to education (Paci, 2021).

There is more than the economic cost. There is also the human toll taken on people who are unable to spend time with loved ones, whether it is long-distanced partners being separated, grandparents unable to see their grandchildren, being prevented from such life-cycle events as weddings and funerals, or being unable to visit a loved one that is sick in the hospital.  

Conclusion: Travel bans do not stop the spread of a disease. At best, it briefly stalls the spread of the disease. Plus, whatever effectiveness they do have takes place at the beginning of the pandemic. At this point of the pandemic, a travel ban in the hopes of stopping the omicron variant is foolhardy. It is already in multiple countries and has made its way to the United States. Its ineffectiveness makes it all the more difficult to justify the economic and emotional costs of travel bans.

Omicron is not the first variant and in all likelihood, it will not be the last variant. We are not going to reach a moment of zero-COVID. COVID is here to stay. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can move forward and reach the point where the pandemic finally becomes endemic. Instead of enacting harmful and ineffective travel bans, what we should focus on what works, (e.g., testing, domestic travel screening, vaccines). We should do our utmost to implement localized public health protocols to minimize spread of COVID while not interrupting international trade and commerce. Sadly, travel bans do neither.

A Chanukah Lesson on the Tension of Jewish Identity and Interacting with Other Cultures

When I was lighting Chanukah candles last night, my mind focused on a specific detail about the lighting. How do we place the candles on the menorah? The candles are placed on the menorah from right to left. One of the features that drew me to Judaism is that there is symbolism in everything. I am sure that there is some symbolism behind it, or that I could at least find some. I was spending the evening with a friend, and it became more clear that I was perplexed by finding the answer to this "why" question. He then said to me, "You know, Hebrew is read from right to left. Maybe that is why the candles are placed that way." After giving it some more thought, I realized that he may be on to something. 

Hebrew is indeed written and read from right to left. In contrast, Greek is written from left to right. Why do I bring up the Greeks specifically? Because in the Chanukah story, the occupying force (King Antiochus III in particular) was Greek. One of the main motifs of the Chanukah story is that the Maccabees fought the Greeks to maintain their Jewish practice and identity. Perhaps putting the candles from right to left is another subtle way of the Jew reminding himself or herself that there are features of Judaism that make Jews different from the rest of the world. There is some truth in that. At the same time, a further look into Chanukah practices paints a more complex view of how the Jew interacts with the greater world. 

Let's start with the dreidel, the four-sided spinning top commonly associated with Chanukah. The dreidel brings up a certain paradox on this theme, one that I pointed out over a decade ago. On the one hand, the dreidel has uniquely Jewish characteristics. It has four Hebrew letters on it and it is played on Chanukah. On the other hand, look at the role of the dreidel in the Chanukah story. It was a game played in the streets to not arouse suspicion from the fact that the Jews in the Chanukah story were studying Torah, an act that was considered illegal under Antiochus' regime. Plus, the dreidel game has its origins in the practice of teetotum, a English top game that was popular around Christmas time. As Rabbi David Golinkin points out, the irony of the dreidel is that a way that Jews celebrate a victory over cultural assimilation is through the dreidel game, which is unto itself an act of assimilation. 

The potato pancakes, or latkes, are another example. If you care about history, you cannot argue in good faith that latkes have always been a part of Jewish tradition. For one, the Chanukah story is one that took place centuries after the story of receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Two, the origin of the potato is the Andes. Potatoes were not brought over to Europe until after Christopher Columbus made his mark on the Western Hemisphere. Even then, the potato pancake is a staple of multiple European nations, including Sweden (raggmunkar, potatisbullar), Germany and Austria (Kartoffelpuffer), Bulgaria (patatnik), and Poland (placki ziemniaczane). Similarly, the recipe for the sufganiyah, the jelly-filled donut eaten on Chanukah, was first published in a non-Jewish, German cookbook in the late fifteenth century (Encyclopedia of Jewish Food by Gil Marks). 

Gift-giving on Chanukah provides further insight on the matter. Looking at the history and significance of giving on Chanukah, there was a pre-modern practice of giving money (gelt) to children on Chanukah. However, this practice was quite modest in comparison to what we have today. Gift-giving on Chanukah is a primarily American practice that evolved from interactions with non-Jewish neighbors. Gift-giving as a Jewish-American practice resulted from two phenomena. One is that it was a response to Christmas. The other is that after World War II and the suburban sprawl, Jews could better assimilate into greater U.S. society. Gift-giving on Chanukah became a way to not feel left out.

For a more complicated relationship with the greater world, look at Ma'oz Tzur, a liturgical poem that is commonly sung on Chanukah. The most common melody of Ma'oz Tzur is based on a German folk song. At the same time, the poem was written at a time where Jews were being oppressed by their Christian neighbors. Johns Hopkins Professor Yitzhak Melamed details how Ma'oz Tzur has anti-Christian sentiment in light of the fact that Jews during the Crusades died "in the name of the Cross." It is true that there historically been discord, tension and animosity between Christians and Jews. It is also true that Judeo-Christian relations are, on average, better than they ever have been. We live in an age where we are not trapped in the past and we can coexist in a pluralistic society. 

If you take a look through Jewish history, the Talmud, or other aspects of Jewish culture, what you will note is that relations with broader society can be complicated and cannot be overgeneralized. There are moments when relations are good and times when they are bad. Context matters. Regardless of whether relations are good or bad, one thing that is undeniable or inescapable is that the Jewish world is influenced by broader society. As Chanukah practices illustrate, Judaism does not interact within a bubble. 

How do we resolve the tension within the paradox? One of the many reasons I converted to Judaism is because I was fascinated by the and resilience and adaptability of the Jewish people over time. The Jewish people have maintained their rituals, customs, and practices. The continuity of the tradition is fascinating. The Jewish people learned how to be comfortable with the uncomfortable feeling of being different. They also learned how to interact with and succeed in broader society. After all, the Jewish text Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) teaches that one who is wise is one who learns from all people (4:1), and that includes people who are not Jewish. 

Cultural exchange is how we evolve and better our lives. Even as the "Chanukah spirit" teaches us to be proudly Jewish, it also reminds us that Chanukah would not exist in its current form had Jews not interacted with and learned from non-Jews. That is integration in a nutshell: maintaining a sense of who you are while being part of broader society. The lesson of Chanukah is neither about assimilating nor trying to isolate ourselves from those who are different from us. It will be different for each Jew, but at the end of the day, one of the main lessons of Chanukah is about maintaining that balance between Jewish identity and being a part of broader society.

The Rittenhouse Trial: A Reminder of the Importance of Defensive Gun Usage and Self-Defense

Sometimes, it amazes me how events can become politicized so easily. Take a look at the Kenosha unrest shooting that resulted in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. On August 23, 2020, Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot in Wisconsin by a white police officer, Rusten Sheskey. In response, Black Lives Matter protests and riots ensued in the city of Kenosha from August 23 to September 1. It was on August 25 when 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse got into an altercation with Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed. Rosenbaum, along with journalist Richard McGinnis, confronted Rittenhouse later. Rittenhouse ended up fatally shooting two men and severely injuring another man. Rittenhouse was charged with multiple charges, including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide. Rittenhouse's defense team asserted that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. To make a long story short, the jury delivered a not guilty verdict based on the self-defense argument. 

If we look at the facts of the case instead of pundits' comments, it was an open-and-shut self-defense case. In this case, Rittenhouse was not the aggressor. Even Gaige Grosskreutz, the individual that was shot by Rittenhouse but survived, admitted that he approached Rittenhouse while aiming a gun at him. Rittenhouse received a non guilty verdict not because the justice system is broken, but because the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

That did not stop the politicizing or the race-baiting, which is unsurprising given that it is 2021. Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) called the case "white supremacy in action," even in spite of the fact that the individuals that Rittenhouse shot were all white. MSNBC host Joy Reid referred to Rittenhouse as a modern-day slave catcher. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which traditionally has defended the rights of criminal defendants, was peeved that Rittenhouse actually received his constitutional right to due process.

This case goes beyond the usual divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun control and the Second Amendment. What we have witnessed, especially by pundits and activists on the Left, is there is true disdain for the idea that a "good guy with a gun" could exist, especially if that guy is white. Anecdotally, I have come across people on the Left that think that the Second Amendment is some antiquated relic and that guns could not possibly have any real value. My takeaway from the Rittenhouse case is that many on the Left has true disdain for guns, even in a legitimate case of self-defense.

In response, I would like to ask the question of how prevalent defensive gun usage (DGU) is. The U.S. Department of Justice found that from 2007 to 2011, there were 338,700 instances of DGU (Table 11). This annual average of 67,740 is on the more conservative end of the spectrum of estimates, but is still higher than the 39,707 firearm deaths in 2019. That figure is arguably low for a number of reasons, including that people do might not want to divulge their gun ownership, that they have illegally acquired a gun, that crimes are generally underreported, or that they were ashamed of being victimized. 

As such, I am more inclined to accept the finding of a 2013 publication from the National Academies Press [NAP], which was commissioned by the CDC. They found that "Defensive use of guns is a common occurrence...with estimates of annual usage ranging from 500,000 to more than 3 million." In 2021, a Georgetown University professor conducted the largest survey of gun owners to date (English, 2021). Not only did Professor English find that 31.1 percent of gun owners have used their firearm in self-defense at some point, but also extrapolated that there are approximately 1.67 million instances of DGU annually. 

Yes, the exact number of instances of DGU in a given year is in dispute, as are so many figures used in political discourse. What should not be in dispute is that regardless of which figure you use, there are enough cases of DGU that it ought to be considered prevalent enough to dispel the myth that there is "no such thing as a 'good guy with a gun.'" One of the main uses of a gun is self-defense. As nice as it would be to have a peaceful world without gun violence, the truth of the matter is the continued existence of violent and criminal individuals bolsters the argument for DGU. Much like taking the COVID vaccine, wearing a seatbelt, or buying insurance, the purchase of a gun for self-defense purposes is a preventative measure. 

If self-defense does not work, then why do police officers, Secret Service agents, and the Department of Homeland Security agents carry firearms? I ask that question rhetorically because evidence finds that DGU works. To quote the NAP report again, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., instances in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." 

The importance of defensive gun usage is not some abstraction or a fantasy of some ultra-conservative, gun-wielding nut job. DGU is a common and effective form of self-defense, and I am fairly certain that those who have used a gun for self-defense would agree. These figures on DGU do not provide a case for getting rid of the Second Amendment. If anything, these figures, as well as the Rittenhouse case, reinforce the idea of why DGU is just as important now as when the Constitution was drafted.

My Takeaway from the COP26 Conference: There Is No Imminent Climate Change Crisis

Everything is a crisis these days. If you watch the news, there are multiple crises: a health care crisis, a financial crisis, a transportation crisis, a supply chain crisis, a justice crisis, an immigration border crisis. Another crisis has been making its rounds in the news: the climate change crisis. Last week, the United Nations finished its global climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland (COP26). Representatives from nearly 200 nations signed a new treaty. The signatories promise to keep global warming below 1.5ºC by 2100. Some of the more prominent ideas to maintain this ceiling that were brought up at COP26 are net-zero emissions by mid-century, cutting methane by 30 percent by 2030, reducing deforestation, and a coal phase-down. 

Part of where I take issue with such summits as the COP26 is the crisis mentality. I am not saying that crises never exist, that global temperatures are not increasing, or that human activity has not played any notable role in shifts in climate. What I take issue with is perceived magnitude of the problem. The word "crisis" comes from the Latin crisis (judgement, critical stage), which was borrowed from the Greek krísis (one of the meanings being "turning point"). Are we really at such a critical juncture that if we do nothing, the world will end up going to hell in a hand basket? No, not particularly. I am not going to cover every last point in the climate change debates both because I do not have the time and because I have covered the topic of climate change on this blog before. What I will provide today are a few reasons why I am not flipping out about climate change:

1. Going above 1.5ºC by 2100 would not be the end of the world. What happens if we do nothing? The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report can provide some insight. If we have a no-policy response and the global temperature rises to 3.66ºC, there is an estimated GDP loss of 2.6 percent (Ch. 3., p. 256). While 2.6 percent lesser growth sounds undesirable, also keep in mind that current projections show that the global economy is supposed to grow anywhere from 600 percent to 1,800 percent compared to 2017 (Leimbach et al., 2017). While it is hard to predict that far out in the future (see Point #3), it is a reasonable assumption that economic and technological progress will get better over time (see Point #4).

2. Weather-related deaths have been on the decline. You would think that with the increase of CO2 over the past century, more people would be dying from weather-related deaths. Yet here is a peer-reviewed paper from European scholars that says otherwise (Formetta and Feyen, 2019): "Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability, with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980-1989 to 2007-2016." Looking at a more longitudinal view of time, global death risk from extreme weather declined 99 percent between 1920 and 2020 (Lomberg, 2020). 

3. Climate change modeling is difficult and fraught with assumptions. Hearing that the world is going to end if we do not change our behavior on environmental policy and climate change is nothing new. At least since the first Earth Day in 1970, we have been bombarded with "gloom-and-doom" predictions about how the world is going to end in the near future if we do not do something about the environment right now. And guess what? They have not come to pass. Sometimes, I feel as if climate change doomsayers are like a cult leader trying to predict the coming of the Apocalypse. When it does not come, they simply say, "Oh, I really meant later." And yet we continue to listen to such apocalyptic predictions. 

Again, I am not saying that there are no problems related to the climate or that humans do not contribute to these problems. What I am saying is that climate change modeling is difficult. Look at budgetary and economic modeling five to ten years down the road. We do our best, but looking that far down the road is difficult. It is not because economists are stupid or because modeling is inherently problematic. It is because modeling is only as good as its assumptions. It is hard enough to make certain assumptions with medium-term budgetary or economic predictions. The pandemic should have quelled our assumptions on that front, that we can have such foresight. All the more so with climate change modeling. 

You are talking about a longer time span and more variables to consider with climate change modeling fifty or one hundred years down the road. Plus, there is a complexity predicting long-term patterns such as interactions between clouds and oceans, solar activity, physics, and how much human activity contributes to the climate change. If you need a more technical piece on the difficulty of predicting climate change scenarios, here is one from professors at the University of Colorado and University of British Columbia published in Issues in Science and Technology. But for argument's sake, let's forget the history of climate change predictions for a moment and assume that the models are at least somewhat accurate. This does not mitigate my final point below....

4. Technological development will help us mitigate climate change. Even with this pandemic, there is still technological development. Such technological developments have helped us in the past. As we progress, innovation provides both greater wealth and improved technological capabilities. HVAC systems have gotten better over time, which can help fight temperature-related deaths. Better infrastructure development improves resilience in hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding. Weather-related deaths have dropped in no small part because we as a species have learned how to adapt to our surrounding. I would take an educated guess that both economic growth and innovation in relevant sectors would lead to even greater resilience to climate change over time. 

Postscript

I am not saying shifts in climate are not going to have any impact. There are going to be some regions hit harder than others. This, to be sure, will be based on such factors as economic development, natural resources, and geography. But I do not see it as an imminent crisis that is going to destroy us all without some drastic action. Climate change is manageable if we approach it at a more level-headed mindset. Look at what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic when we resorted to panic. Before the pandemic, experts told us that lockdowns were ill-advised. But when fear took over, we locked down because of scary modeling, even though the public health experts previously told us it was a bad idea. At least now we have data to show that lockdowns do not work to lower excess deaths. In addition to lockdowns, governments implemented a whole series of regulations and practices "in the name of science" that do little to nothing to curb COVID transmission. This inanity caused billions of dollars in economic damage, considerable unemployment, a lot of mental health problems, disrupted supply chains, and greater world hunger. 

I hope the pandemic response is a lesson for those who would like to use heavy-handed government as a response. Whether we are talking about carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, investments in renewable energy so we can gradually transition away from fossil fuels, or any other policy alternative, the question we should ask ourselves is whether the cost of the policy is greater than the damage we are looking to avoid. But a first good step is understanding the extent of the problem. As I brought up before in a previous piece, catastrophic climate change projections rely on such improbable, worst-case assumptions as complete inaction, an unrealistic consumption of coal, and a lack of technological development (also see Pielke and Ritchie, 2021; and Hausfather and Peters, 2020 on how climate change activists cling on improbable, worst-case scenarios). If we put ourselves in a crisis mindset when the problem is in fact a manageable one, I will not be surprised if the attempts of world leaders to mitigate climate change will be more harmful than climate change itself. 

Source: Hausfather and Peters, 2020

Parsha Toldot: The Timeless Lesson of How Envy Causes Harm and How to Minimize It

I have studied multiple languages over the years, and I have been amazed at how much we rely on idioms in the English language. Idioms make English such a colorful language, but also difficult for non-natives to learn. One of the idioms that has fascinated me is "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face." Having its origin in the late 18th century, the phrase means that one should not do something that harms you simply because it harms someone else. There are some who would be blinded enough by revenge where they would endure anything to get payback. There is another more common reason, one that we see play out in this week's Torah portion, Toldot (Genesis 25:19-28:9). That reason is envy. 

There was a famine in the land of Canaan (Genesis 26:1). Isaac goes to settle in the land of Canaan because G-d promised that if Isaac stayed, he would be blessed (26:3-4). He stayed in the land and reaped a harvest 100 times what he was expecting. Isaac became wealthy as a result: flocks, herds, a large household (26:13-14). What happens as a result from Isaac's success? In spite of having stopped a famine, the Philistines envied Isaac (26:14). The townsfolk could not kill Isaac because he was under the king's protection (26:11; Sforno's commentary of Genesis 26:15). However, they did decide to stop up Isaac's wells and prevent him from producing more (26:15). Because of this envy, King Abimelech sent Isaac away (26:16). To recap, the townspeople drove away the guy that pulled them out of famine. They did not care that their actions meant less food production because they could not handle the fact that he produced greater material wealth. I feel like there is a modern-day lesson there about excessive taxation and regulation, but I will say that how the Philistines reacted to Isaac's success is a biblical example of "cutting off your nose in spite of your face" indeed! We see throughout the biblical texts how envy causes harm. 

• Look at the two matriarchs, Leah and Rachel. On the one hand, Rachel had Jacob's love. On the other hand, Leah was producing children. In any case, there was considerable tension between the two sisters (e.g., Genesis 30:15). 
• Miriam's envy caused her to speak ill of her brother (Numbers 12:1), thereby making her leprous (Numbers 12:10). 
• There was Joseph and his technicolor dream coat. Joseph buttered up to his father and became the favorite child. Joseph's siblings became so envious that they initially tried murdering him (Genesis 37:20), but eventually decided to sell Joseph into slavery (Genesis 37:27-28). 
• King David develops an attraction towards Bathsheba. David forces Bathsheba to sleep with him. To cover up the pregnancy, David sends Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, into battle to be killed (I Samuel 11). 
• And who could forget the story of Cain and Abel? Both Cain and Abel provided offerings to G-d. Abel gave his most precious animals. Cain tried to get away with offering less than his best. Call it a spiritual form of half-assing it. Cain did not want to put in the effort, and unsurprisingly, G-d noticed and favored Abel. How did Cain react? He was so envious that he murdered his brother (Genesis 4:3-9), an act that effectively killed a quarter of the planet's population. 

The perils of envy go beyond biblical texts. It is something we regrettably see throughout history. A good friend of mine sent me a video (see below) about how history played a deleterious role in history. For one, it helped explain anti-Semitism better. In the Middle Ages, there were very few options for someone who was not of noble blood to become wealthy. Being a merchant was one of those ways. While there were non-Jewish merchants in the Middle Ages, it was a profession disproportionately taken on by Jews. And guess what? They were good at it....so good that their neighbors were envious. It led to the Spanish Inquisition and other expulsions in which people cut off their nose to spite their face. The Jewish people were not the only ones to experience the negative effects of envy, but it does make for a good cautionary tale for us. 

Unfortunately, envy was not a relic we left in the Middle Ages. Going back to the video above, envy became a hit with the rise of socialism and communism. Not even the fall of the Berlin Wall could bring down envy. If we look at the philosophy of the social justice movement and how it is applied, the politics of envy continue to this very day. I do recognize that there are those on the political Left that are legitimately and primarily concerned with justice, even if it is quite redistributive. However, I would contend that much of what is taking place on the political Left is not primarily out of concern for justice, but motivated by envy. The way the "Eat the Rich" crowd reacts to the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk is reminiscent of the Isaac story discussed earlier. Success, a good education, and a work ethic are derisively dismissed by the social justice movement as privilege. It leads to thinking we could screw over the rich while regulating and taxing our way out of poverty. In spite of the technological progress we have made and in spite of the fact that our lives are materially better by most metrics than they ever have in history, envy still rules the day. Why? Envy is not how much one has in absolute terms, but in relative terms. Some things truly never change. 

I begin to understand why the prohibition of coveting is in the Ten Commandments (see my 2014 analysis on the topic). According to twelfth-century rabbi Maimonides, what makes coveting problematic is that it leads to committing more egregious acts (Mishneh Torah, Gezelah v'Avedah 1:9-11). Go back to the list of biblical stories I cited above. In those biblical stories, envy brought about such disastrous results as slander, murder, criminal activity, and cruelty. Envy really is an ugly character trait. Aside from committing unethical acts, why is envy such a problem?

With envy, one is constantly comparing themself to others while deflecting any criticism or need to improve on themselves. Envy does not contribute to anything positive, whether on a personal or societal level, because it is about tearing people down instead of lifting people up. Envy destroys not only others, but ourselves. The Talmud points out that envy rots the bones (Shabbat 152b). Envy also makes it difficult to enjoy life. To quote R. Joseph Telushkin in his book A Code of Jewish Ethics: Book 1 (p. 302), "Envy destroys our ability to enjoy what we already have; instead, our joy is diminished or entirely eliminated by the fact that others have more--perhaps only one thing more--than us." That would explain why Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said that envy is one of the things that removes us from this world (Pirke Avot 4:28)...or to quote President Theodore Roosevelt, "Comparison is the thief of joy."

Rabbi Telushkin hits on a major point about envy. It does not matter that those of us in the 21st century have more material wealth that our ancestors could dream of, whether that comes in the form of smartphones, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, computers, the dishwasher, the vacuum, or heating and air conditioning. If we focus on what others have and what we do not, if we continue to compare ourselves to others, we will always be miserable. 

So how do we reduce envy? After reading this article from Chabad on the topic, I concluded that of the Jewish sages, Ben Zoma, gave some sound advice in Pirke Avot on how to deal with envy (4:1). He asked and gave answers to the following four questions:

1. Who is wise? The one who learns from everyone. On the one hand, this does not directly address envy. On the other hand, learning from everyone implies a lot. Because this wisdom means that you are willing to learn, it means you do not know everything. While the Jewish definition of humility (or rather, a definition based on Jewish texts) differs a bit from how we commonly understand humility, it is still necessary to have that open-mindedness and ability to give other people space if we want to reduce envy. Also, learning gives us the ability to grow. As we will see later, focusing on your own personal growth and development reduces envy. 
2. Who is rich? The one who enjoys their lot. Yes, abject poverty is awful. The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 31:14) says that if all the troubles were placed on one scale on poverty on the other, poverty outweighs them all. At the same time, I like how Ben Zoma turns the definition of richness on its head. Richness is not about the accumulation of material wealth, but about our perspective on what we have in life. This definition sounds a lot like what philosopher Frederich Nietzsche called amor fati, which is Latin for "love of one's fate." I can see a "love life" approach to be pollyannish or looking through the world with rose-colored glasses. The phrase in Hebrew for gratitude is הכרת הטוב, or literally "recognizing the good." We do not ignore the bad or set it aside. We also do not give into complacency because Judaism teaches that we can always better ourselves. But we do acknowledge and put emphasis on what blessings we do have. It's no wonder that a traditional Jewish practice is to say 100 blessings a day. This emphasis on recognizing what we do have and how fortunate we are does help with curtailing envy. 
3. Who is strong? The one who conquers their evil inclination. For one, this quote implies that you should focus less on others' shortcomings and focus on your own. Two, you do not have a strong sense of self or self-control if you are envious. Envy is a weakness. It means that you would rather keep up with the Joneses and be yanked around by others' expectations of you. Having that envy drives you means that you are, in Marcus Aurelius' words (Meditations 12:19), are dancing like a puppet. It also means that you are not addressing what is causing the feeling of envy, nor are you focusing on what you can do to strengthen your own personality or improve your quality of life. Creating a sense of equanimity and emotional resilience means that you have greater control over your life, as opposed to being jerked around by external events over which you have little to no control. 
4. Who is honored? The one who honors others. Another undesirable outcome of envy is that you are self-absorbed. Look, I'm not here to insult self-care. I actually find self-care to be important because if you are of sound body and mind, you are strong enough (see previous point) to be there for others. R. Jonathan Sacks once said that humility is not holding yourself low, but holding others high, which is a positive-sum approach. Bringing it back to the topic at hand, Rabbi Telushkin advises us that "Helping others achieve success, and feeling a sense of personal involvement in it, is one way to diminish feelings of envy." Going back to the first point in this list, the one about learning from others, I think we can both learn from others and honor others when we see other people as human beings instead of an opponent, as "other," an oppressor, or through a zero-sum lens. 

I think there are moments in which we can feel at least a bit jealous of what others have. It is part of the human condition to want a better quality of life. However, just because there is some sort of inequality does not mean we have to tear the other person down. If someone has something we do not, we can always ask what we can do to emulate the other person so we can also have it. The commandment of "do not covet" (לא תחמד) is in the active voice. Coveting goes beyond a brief longing for something we lack. It is a brooding, festering, and active perpetuation of the negative emotions that eventually lead to something worse. Not only does envy harm others, but it makes people cut off their noses in spite of their faces, and that is not a good look for anybody.

What's Causing the Shortage in the U.S. Labor Market?: Fall 2021 Edition

2021 seems like it would be a better year than 2020. In spite of a Delta variant, we have safe and effective vaccines that have helped COVID become more manageable. One would think that as we get closer to the end of the pandemic, the economy would be getting significantly better. On the one hand, the recession did not last long. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the COVID recession lasted less than a quarter. On the other hand, the pandemic has really thrown the economy into disarray. A couple of weeks ago, I analyzed the main causes of the supply chain crisis that we are experiencing. 

Today, I would like to talk about a different abnormality occurring in the economy: a shortage in the labor market. As of the end of August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that there were 10.4 million job openings. During the same time, there were 7.4 million unemployed (BLS). The labor shortage is perplexing because there are about three million more job postings than there are workers in the labor market. With more job postings than ever, you would think people would get back to work. Yet there seems to be a fair amount of reluctance to reenter the labor force. So what gives? I plan on covering the main theories as to why people are not entering the labor market. 

The COVID-19 pandemic. I understand that the counterproductive and harmful lockdowns caused businesses to be shut down, thereby creating a labor shortage. I can even understand how in 2020, people were afraid to take a job or go back into the office for fear of COVID. After all, the media was peddling fear throughout this pandemic (Sacerdote et al., 2020). But along came the vaccines in a record time previously thought impossible. In spite of the vaccine effectiveness, many people are still reeling from the aftermath of so much COVID fear. Ironically enough, a AP-NORC September 2020 poll found that the vaccinated are on average more fearful of COVID than the unvaccinated. This fear is so potent that I wrote a piece earlier this month about how this pandemic will come to an end when we as a society reach a point when we surmount fear and learn to manage risk once more. While hard to quantify, I think this residual fear will be in the background of the labor markets in the upcoming months.

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits and Other Welfare Benefits. Unemployment benefits normally have been given to temporarily help those who lost their job. My concern at the beginning of the pandemic was that if the benefits were so large that they were either comparable to or exceeded one's previous salary, it could provide a disincentive for people to return to work. Given that the UI benefits delayed economic recovery during the Great Recession, I was naturally worried. The Mercatus Center found that expanded UI benefits have discouraged unemployment (Farren and Kaiser, 2021). Analysts at Goldman Sachs measured the main causes for the labor shortage. What was at the top of the list? As we see below, the answer to that question is "Unemployment benefits."

There was certainly a fair amount of politicking when the federal UI benefits expired. But let's keep a few things in mind. One is that only the expansion that expired. The expiration did not apply to base UI benefits. Two, there has been the addition of the expanded child tax credit. Three, there are other welfare benefits that are available, including food stamps and TANF. Four, the economic stimulus payments received in 2020 gave households extra disposable income to save. This extra cushion in cash, whether it be used for savings, consumption, or to pay off debt, reduces the incentives to return to the workplace. 

Lack of Childcare. With the increase of remote work and childcare closures, parents had to deal with juggling their childcare duties and remote work duties. Intuitively, one would think that this lack of childcare would make it harder for parents (especially mothers) to reenter the workforce. However, economists from the Council of Economic Advisers found that parents generally did not lower their work-hours during the pandemic (Furman et al., 2021). That finding suggests that lack of childcare played a negligible role in the labor market shortage throughout the pandemic. With more schools opening up, the "lack of childcare" explanation becomes even less plausible. 

Low Immigration. One of the unfortunate remnants from the Trump administration was the low levels of immigration. In spite of Trump's fears, immigration has not shown to lower employment. If anything, higher immigration levels can increase employment. As the libertarian Cato Institute brings up, we can raise legal immigration by addressing the administrative processing delays and the low immigration caps. The Left-leaning Vox also provides an argument for increasing immigration to help deal with the labor shortage.   

Early Retirees. Retirees are becoming a larger portion of the U.S. population. After all, U.S. population is slowing in growth and the Baby Boomers (commonly defined as those who were born between 1946 and 1964) are opting not to work anymore. Some of this retirement was bound to happen, but much like we saw with remote working, the pandemic served to accelerate that trend. The Federal Reserve Bank at St. Louis brings up two main reasons for the acceleration of excess retirements in its research on the topic (Faria e Castro, 2021). 

The first has to do with danger to one's health. COVID-19 disproportionately affects those who are older, especially those in the sixty-plus crowd. It is understandable that in the worst pandemic in about a century, those who are close to retirement age (i.e., mid-to-late sixties) would rather avoid getting infected with COVID if they can help it. 

The Fed brings up a second reason: rising asset values made retirement more feasible. Although it is wise to diversify one's retirement account, it is also common practice that there is a large percentage invested in the stock market because of its high potential rate of return. This is where the monetary policy of quantitative easing (QE) comes in. QE keeps interest rates low and more money flowing through the economy. This expansionary monetary policy signals to the stock markets that the Fed is not afraid to continue to buy assets to keep interest rates low. Setting aside that QE can cause inflation or asset bubbles for a moment, one of its effects is increasing the value of the stock market. The fact that we are seeing historic highs in the stock market (e.g., NASDAQ, Dow Jones) gives those in their sixties more confidence to retire early. The silver lining is that the vast majority of those who are not of retirement age intend to look for work within the next twelve months (Goldman Sachs).

"The Great Resignation." Coined by psychologist Anthony Klotz, the "Great Resignation" refers to the phenomenon in which a multitude of employees are quitting their jobs. This "Great Resignation" is in part due to the burnout caused by the pandemic. Others are rethinking how work plays a role in their life, reassessing their career choices, and reevaluating their working conditions, whether it is compensation, benefits, work-life balance, promotional potential, or overall working environment. It seems have less tolerance for "sticking it out at my current job" than it did previously. As we see in labor data from the BLS, labor retention is becoming a greater problem that employers need to address if they want to keep their staff for the long-term.

Vaccine Mandates. One of my concerns behind Biden's vaccine mandate was that there would be a significant (or non-negligible) number of unvaccinated employees that would rather quit their jobs than be vaccinated. Preliminary survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that 5 percent of the unvaccinated have quit their jobs rather than get vaccinated. While there is already anecdotal evidence of this trend taking place, it is too soon to tell what sort of impact the mandates will have on the labor market. 

Postscript

Before writing this piece, I would have guessed that the unemployment benefits were the primary cause. Looking at the Goldman Sachs analysis, it seems to be the number one cause. In that sense, I was correct. At the same time, there are other factors that play into this labor market shortage, such as declining birth rates, a skills mismatch, and the list of multiple factors that I made above. What I will conclude with is that there are some issues with the labor market that will get resolved as this pandemic comes to an end. Hopefully, the Biden administration can lower the backlog of immigrants so we can increase the labor force that way. Conversely, there are other trends that signal that some of the people who left the labor market did so on a permanent basis. In any case, we are looking at a tight labor market for the foreseeable future.