Citywide Zero-Fare Bus Systems Are a Costly, Ineffective Boondoggle

Last week, I was getting on the bus and I noticed something uncanny: almost no one was paying fare to get on the bus. I thought perhaps this was a remnant from the COVID era when they suspended bus fares to maximize social distancing between the bus driver and passengers. Alternatively, I thought people skirting fare payment was another symptom of higher crime here in the Washington D.C. area. It very well could be neither one of those things. In December 2022, the D.C. Council unanimously approved eliminating the $2 bus fare for all D.C. buses, which made D.C. the largest U.S. city to implement zero-fare buses. 

This plan was to take effect in July 2023. However, it was in May 2023 that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) asked that the plan be delayed for a year. As of date, WMATA still shows the $2 charge on its website. Fare evasion has become an issue to the point where the D.C. Council is trying to pass a bill to step up fare evasion enforcement. Regardless of whether WMATA approves the elimination of bus fares begs the question of whether the idea of free-fare buses are wise transit policy. 

The premise behind offering zero-fare transit is to boost declining ridership. There are some who view zero-fare buses as a way to improve transit access to lower-income individuals. Zero-fare buses do indeed increase ridership. You would hope that giving something away at no cost to an end-user would increase usage. In spite of increased ridership, zero-fare buses did cause other unintended consequences. 

As the 2012 National Academies report entitled Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems points out, increased ridership also increased delays, overcrowding, and "problem passengers." The increased rowdiness from these "problem passengers" could actually increase a need for security services that exceed the contact between law and enforcement and riders for evading fares (e.g., Studenmund and Connor, 1982). These are actually some of the reasons why Austin and Denver abandoned their free-fare transit. 

Another argument for the policy is to divert people from using their cars in favor of public transit, which would help with carbon emissions. A third rationale would be to ease bottlenecks on already-congested transport networks. To quote the Left-leaning news outlet CNN, "fare-free supporters also hope dropping fares will improve congestion, carbon emissions, and noise pollution from cars by getting more drivers to take transit. But results from European cities reveal little evidence it accomplishes these goals." 

A September 2020 study from the International Association of Public Transport showed this lack of evidence by concluding that "there is no evidence that free fare public transport (FFPT) alone is not enough to bring about modal shift, social inclusion, and economic development to a city." The lack of modal transfer was observed in the Estonian capital of Tallinn (Cats et al., 2017), as well as Trenton, New Jersey and Denver, Colorado (Studenmund and Connor, 1982).

Then there is the ill-conceived notion that this would actually be free. As Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman was fond of saying, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Scarcity is a key concept in economics because we live in a world of limited resources. As such, supply will almost always, if not always, exceed demand for a good or service. Part of economics is to find ways to best allocate limited resources in the midst of scarcity. 

Public transit is no exception and couching support for zero-fare buses in terms of "return on investment for empathy, compassion, and social equity" does nothing to skirt that reality. As a matter of fact, the reason why WMATA asked for a delay for zero-fare buses is because WMATA is anticipating a $750 million budgetary shortfall in 2025. I could hear a clamoring for increased taxes to help pay for zero-fare buses. Here is the thing: a March 2022 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pointed out that two-thirds of the income for transit agencies comes from government sources (i.e., taxation). Budgetary woes were an issue for transit agencies across the United States pre-COVID. The pandemic only exacerbated these shortfalls. Zero-fare advocates cannot contend that lost funds need to be recuperated somehow. 

Zero-fare systems deprive transit systems of funds that they can use to improve quality of service. According to a 2019 survey of transit riders across multiple U.S. cities from transit advocacy group TransitCenter, the main area of improvement identified by transit riders was quality of transit services. Concerns about fares were much lower on this list of priorities. This lines up with WMATA survey results from Fall 2022 that indicated that fast, frequent, and reliable service are top priorities for WMATA passengers. 

Much like with bans, a blanket zero-fare policy are a blunt instrument that causes further damage to the transit system that they are trying to save. Using zero-fare systems to deprive transit agencies of much-needed revenue would plausibly make transit less reliable, less frequent, and less safe. 

Ideally, I would have transit be privately owned, operated, and funded (also see Cato Institute analysis here). Short of that, you could have a targeted fare policy in which you offer lower-income household reduced fares to balance transit agency budgetary concerns with access to public transit. Unfortunately, I see the zero-fare crowd gaining traction because it is an easy political win that does nothing to help improve bus service quality or the budgetary woes of transit agencies.

"Time Blindness" TikToker Is Another Example of Society Prioritizing Victimhood Over Personal Responsibility

Like many Millennials, I use multiple forms of social media. While I am against a TikTok ban, one form of social media I decide to personally not use TikTok. I am not apprised to what normally happens in TikTok world. However, there was one viral TikTok post that recently caught my eye. A couple of weeks ago, a Gen-Z TikTok user by the name of Sarah Trefren (TikTok user name of chaotic_philosopher) was venting because she had asked in a job interview if there are accommodations for those who struggle with time blindness and being on time. According to Trefren's account, the interviewer replied by saying that accommodations for time blindness do not exist and "that if you struggle with being on time, you'll never be able to get a job." Trefren proceeded to opine that a culture that values being on time needs to be dismantled. She then concluded by saying entitlement is saying that entitlement is treating those [with time blindness] with such disrespect. 

Needless to say, the comment section flared up. Some were supportive of Trefren's gripe. Plenty more commenters responded with mockery and hostility. When I heard the video, it sounded like another whiny youngster making excuses because she cannot cut it in the work world. My initial gut reaction was with the naysayers that goes beyond certain negative stereotypes of the Gen-Z crowd or a more pervasive trend towards people feeling the need to pathologize everything to excuse their inadequacies. 

Forget that I have Nordic and Germanic ancestors or that business operations run more smoothly when on time. There is a reason why people get annoyed sitting two hours in a doctor's waiting room. Being on time is an indicator of reliability and trustworthiness: you get something done when you say you will or you arrive when you say you will. Furthermore, being consistently and chronically late shows disrespect for others' time. Imagine an Uber driver who cannot get their passenger to the airport on time. What about a doctor who is late for an urgent, life-saving surgery and the patient dies on the operating table because the doctor "forgot the time?" Plus, you would not be happy if the payroll department of your employer sent out an email saying, "We're not going to pay you this month. Please wait longer for your paycheck because we're dealing with a nasty case of time blindness." 

Then I thought about the concept of time blindness for a moment. Having difficulty with a perception of time is a common with those who have Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder, or ADHD for short. Estimates for adults with ADHD range from 0.4 percent to 5.8 percent. It does not show up solely in ADHD, but can also manifest in depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder. It does not have to go to such extremes. There's the phrase "time flies when you're having fun." I can say that when I have really gotten into writing pieces for this blog, I have gotten so immersed in the process that I have lost track of time and hours have passed. It happened to me when I wrote this piece! The phenomenon is called the "flow state" or "being in the zone." 

For argument's sake, let's give Trefren the benefit of a doubt. Let's assume that she is not lazy or wants to whine simply because she cannot handle the working world. Let's assume she legitimately has issues with time perception and keeping track of time, both of which result in chronic tardiness. Even if we are to assume Trefren's case of time blindness is a real condition, it does not matter. Why?

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some are not good with time. Others are bad with directions or numbers. There are those who do not have much in way of physical strength. Part of being an adult is being able to compensate and learn how to function in the world. While technology has given us certain conveniences that were unimaginable by our ancestors, the reality is that life is still difficult. Part of life is learning to surmount or at least manage life's travails and challenges.

I do not elevate time blindness to a full-blown disability. Take Helen Keller as an example. She dealt with deafness and literal blindness. Do you think that Helen Keller moaned and complained to everyone in earshot that she was blind and deaf expecting accommodations for every last thing? Of course not! She didn't whine about how life is unfair and how the world should cater to her every last need. She developed the resilience and grit necessary to co-found the American Civil Liberties League (ACLU) and author 14 books. Helen Keller did not play victim and she had way more many obstacles than TikToker Sarah Trefren has in her life. Helen Keller's strength and resolve are what make her admirable. 

This victimhood is the result of over a half-century of participation trophy and entitlement mentality in which schools teach that everyone is special. Sarah Trefren pointing her finger at society, calling for the system to be dismantled, and for people to cater to her is unsurprising given the aforementioned cultural undercurrents. It also explains how a phenomenon such as fat acceptance has gained traction in spite of a ton of evidence showing that obesity is bad for one's health. It is easier to eat a lot of sweets than it is to exercise 3-4 days a week. Laying on your couch and binging Netflix is more fun than planning a healthy diet. Stoic author Ryan Holiday once called self-control and discipline unsexy, but they are vital for living a successful and meaningful life. 

Dealing with time management is no exception. If Trefren or anyone who wants to use "time blindness" as an excuse were to take any sense of personal agency, they would buy an alarm clock or use the alarm setting on her smartphone. They could use apps and services that can help with scheduling. And don't forget about the Pomodoro technique or the number of other techniques! There is no need for employers to make accommodations when technology makes it possible to manage time. 

What Sarah Trefren does not seem to realize is that self-victimization does not lead to success. And it sure doesn't lead to happiness. When I covered the topic of why conservatives are happier than liberals, I found that resilience and a sense of personal agency are two characteristics that lead to happiness. What Sarah Trefren's reaction implies it is that she lacks these traits. The hard truth is that this goes beyond a single TikToker who has not figured out the art of time management. It is about a society that finds more comfort in laziness and victimhood. It takes a fair bit of discipline, perseverance, and resilience to overcome one's weaknesses or shortcomings. But why do that when you can cry victim and think that people will exempt you from a basic sign of courtesy and respect? 

Back when I was in college, I thought that the real world would have taken these snowflakes, chew them up, and spit them out for being too fragile. Instead, we have taken that unexpected turn of catering to their every last kvetch and encouraging fragility along the way. This is not about an isolated incident of a TikTok who cannot make it in the work world. It is reflective of a growing group of people that would rather envy than create, complain rather than fix, and play victim rather than take personal responsibility and grow. The extent to which we cater to those playing victim will undoubtedly help determine the resilience and strength of this nation in the years to come. 

Should Legacy Admissions Be Eliminated Along With Affirmative Action or Is It a Red Herring?

Last month, the Supreme Court made a great call of making affirmative action illegal. It is not only the ethical or logical issues with using overly broad racial categories that perpetuate racial tension. Affirmative action is an example of "too little, too late" in terms of education reform. I was glad to see this form of actual institutional racism disappear. This has led to pundits on the Left to bring up another practice in college admissions: legacy admissions. 

Legacy admissions, or alternatively legacy preferences, is the practice of giving preference to an applicant based on their familial relation to the alumni of that postsecondary institution. The practice started in the 1920s as a way to keep White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) in universities because admissions departments were worried that Jews, Catholics, and Asians would dominate. What started off as a policy based in actual bigotry (as opposed to woke people calling everything they dislike "bigotry"), its rationale for being nearly ubiquitous in U.S. college admissions is financial. The rationale is that legacy admissions are way to position students to become better donors in the future. Political commentators on the Left have depicted this practice as "affirmative action for white people."

I would like to look at it from an economic lens, but let's start with the assertion that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white applicants. One proxy that can help answer that question is figuring out what percentage of children's parents graduated from a university. This can at least provide a high-bound estimate of legacy admissions. According to U.S. Department of Education data (see below), Asian-Americans have the highest percentage (71 percent), followed by Caucasians (52 percent). 

While Asian and white applicants are more likely to have a parent who graduated from college, that does not mean that the applicant will automatically choose to go to school where their parents attended. The argument about demographics gets tricky because, as a report from U.S. News points out, "legacy demographics can vary between schools" and "alumni connections may not be as closely associated with wealth or race at certain institutions." Unless you can prove that Harvard or other universities maintain legacy admissions to keep white students in or minority students out, the Supreme Court is going to be hard-pressed to remove legacy admissions.  

Irrespective of racial demographics of legacy admissions, it begs the question of whether or not someone should get into a college primarily or solely because their parent attended that postsecondary institution. As mentioned earlier, the primary rationale for legacy admissions is financial. To quote one study, "legacies make better alumni after graduation and have wealthier parents who are materially positioned to be more generous donors than non-legacy parents (Castilla and Poskanzer, 2022)." Plus, legacy students are more likely to accept an offer, which means a more reliable revenue stream for college coffers. 

That is the logic used. However, it is unclear as to whether or not removing legacy admissions would have an economic impact, as a poll of economists commissioned by the University of Chicago illustrates. As Yale economist Judith Chevalier indicates, "the elasticity of donations with respect to child admission is unknown." Plus, such elite universities as Johns Hopkins and MIT have recently eliminated legacy admissions without impact to their endowment funds. 

Whether legacy admissions ultimately help with university finances does not get at if legacy admissions should be allowed. On the one hand, there is at least some level of discrimination. There are only so many applicants that get accepted because there are more applicants than there are seats. There is going to be discrimination in some form. 

We as a society figured out that racial discrimination is morally wrong, which is why I do not view legacy admissions on the same level as affirmative action. We have the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 to guide us towards a post-racial America, all of which makes affirmative action an anachronism at best and a form of institutional racism at worst. However legacy admissions got started, their main rationale in 2023 is financial in nature, not racial. 

The existence of legacy admissions is not a reason to oppose the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action. After all, eliminating explicit racial discrimination is a step towards a post-racial America. However, if we are to live in a society that judges people by the content of their character, then it would stand to reason that legacy admissions need to go. 

I could argue that private institutions should be exempt because of freedom of association. Conversely, private universities are major recipients of federal funding, particularly for research and development purposes (see federal database here). As long as that sort of funding exists, their funding should be contingent upon not using preferential treatment, whether affirmative action or legacy admissions. The same strings should be attached for the charitable-giving deduction tax break if it is given in response to a legacy admission. If the Supreme Court cannot rule against legacy preferences, then Congress should cut off funding for institutions that use legacy preferences. 

After all, this country was founded on the ideal of meritocracy. We should fight for others to have the opportunity to succeed. We should not guarantee equal outcomes, but strive for an ideal in which one's outcome is primarily, if not completely, based on individual merit. That has been the American Dream: that someone from any background, whether native-born or foreign-born, can be awarded based on their hard work and achievement.   

Those who have taken issue with meritocracy are having their version of "education" play out: increased indoctrination (as opposed to critical thinking skills), the erasure of logic and rational thinking, a lowering of the education standards, and a general dumbing down of the United States' students. I know that this ideal of meritocracy has not played out perfectly in practice and might never happen in full. Nevertheless, it is a noble ideal that has historically distinguished the United States from its European counterparts. Aiming towards an identity-blind meritocracy is the best we can hope for. 

Admissions officers do not need to use legacy status as a proxy for academic performance when they can directly go to measures of academic performance and other merit-based metrics. Using broad and crude definitions of race do not measure the quality of an applicant, and neither does whether mommy or daddy attended that university. Much like with affirmative action, legacy admissions are antithetical to the values upon which this society was founded. Removing legacy preferences would bring this country a step closer to those ideals.

Payday Loans Are Not Ideal, But They Should Not Be Banned Either

Quarrels can happen anywhere, and the public policy research world is no exception. Since 2010, Pew Charitable Trusts had been conducting research on consumer finance. This research has led Pew Charitable Trusts to dislike payday loans. For those who are unfamiliar, a payday loan is a small, short-term, high-interest, unsecured loan. Normally, they are paid on the next day, hence the name "payday loan." Per the consumer finance research from Pew Charitable Trusts, affordable small loans are preferable to the payday loans Pew considers to be suboptimal. 

What is wrong with payday loans? According to Pew, "single-payment payday loans are unaffordable and harmful for most borrowers. The repayment periods are too short, the required payments are too large, and the annual percentage rates are 10 times higher than traditional interest rate limits set by states." Most pay short-term loans within six weeks, which is why using an annual percentage rate (APR) is a misleading metric. Plus, the average APR for an average checking overdraft fee is over 1,000 percent, but I digress. 

The libertarian-leaning Southwest Public Policy Institute (SPPI) did not accept Pew's general premise about payday loans and fought back. Earlier this year, Pew released research about most major banks providing small installment loans that have better terms than payday loans.SPPI rebutted Pew with two reports: No Loan for You and No Loan for You, Too. SPPI points out that in response, Pew archived the Consumer Finance project and reassigned the project manager, Alexander Horowitz, to Pew's Housing Policy Initiative, although he has not published any housing research to date. I am going to cover at least some of this quarrel, but I independently want to ask whether these loans should be legal.

According to Federal Reserve data, 81 percent of Americans are "fully banked," which means that they have a bank account and did not use an alternative financial service (payday loans being one of those services) in the past 12 months. That leaves nearly one in five Americans that partially or fully rely on non-conventional financial services. 

It leads me to ask why people are not banked. The Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank conducted research last year on why people are underbanked or unbanked (Boel and Zimmerman, 2022). The most common reasons were inability to meet minimum balance requirements, lack of trust in banks, desire for privacy, and high bank account fees. There is a significant minority of Americans that either do not have access or do not want to have access to conventional banking services. These survey data indicate that there is a demand for such alternative financial services as payday loans. Given that the payday loans are taken out to deal with short-term shocks to their income or expenses, this would imply that the demand for such loans is inelastic. To quote the Journal of Law and Economics (Bhutta et al., 2016), "the fact that consumers switch to other forms of high-interest credit when payday loans become unavailable suggests that the demand for such loans is fueled by a general desire for short-term credit (rather than a decision-making bias that is unique to the design of payday loans)."

As for the impacts on consumer welfare, the findings in the academic literature are more ambiguous. One study suggests that payday loans increase likelihood of bankruptcy (Skiba and Tobacman, 2011), whereas another one suggests that payday loans increase financial distress (Meltzer, 2011). There are other studies that show that it does not harm or that improves one's financial situation. A study of U.S. Army members using payday loan services found that payday loan access has "few adverse effects" on credit and labor market outcomes (Carter and Skimmyhorn, 2017). One study found that payday loans have helped in times of natural disasters (Morse, 2011). Another study shows that they result in fewer bounced checks (Morgan et al., 2012). A study from Kennesaw University goes as far to suggest that payday loans improve overall consumer welfare (Priestley, 2014).

Does this warrant payday loans to be banned? Given the high interest rates, a payday loan would personally not be my first choice. I also acknowledge that my financial situation is not the same as that of other people and that some people do not care for dealing with banks. People should be allowed to make the best choice based on their circumstances, regardless of whether I think it is a sound financial decision for me or for them. 

For some people, a payday loan might be their best option, which is similar to a response I had with regards to sweatshops. Sure, I have moral qualms with sweatshops. However, for someone working in a developing country, a sweatshop might be the best option and are certainly better than the options of back-breaking agricultural labor or prostitution. The same concept of "beats the alternative" applies with payday loans. Here are some alternative options if payday loans are not available. One is to go to the underground market and ask a loan shark for the money, which is even more expensive than a payday loan and could come with getting your kneecaps busted. Another option is to simply not borrow, which could be bad if the emergency was acquiring medical care or avoiding eviction from your apartment. 

In 2019, I criticized Bernie Sanders for wanting to cap consumer loan interest rates to illustrate some examples of how payday loan restrictions played out in practice. What happened when Ohio tried to de facto make payday loans illegal? A proliferation of pawn shops and second-mortgage lending (Ramirez, 2018). In Oregon, payday loan restrictions led to bank overdrafts and late bill payment (Zinman, 2010), the former of which has an even higher APR than payday loans. And what happened with Arkansas in the 20th century when it tried to limit payday loans? Not only was there a surge in pawn shops, but many consumer finance companies simply stopped operating in Arkansas (Peterson and Falls, 1981).

The fact of the matter is that there is a demand for alternative financial services, especially for those who are underbanked or unbanked. Banks are typically unwilling to give a consumer loan for an amount as small as the average payday loan of $375. Payday loans are fast cash to help those cover an emergency situation, pay expenses, or avoid bankruptcy when conventional lending institutions fail to help. Even though payday loans are not perfect, depriving underbanked or unbanked individuals of such a lifeline and driving them towards more unsavory options is another example of harming the people that a policy was meant to help. If there is a need for a better product, lending institutions should create such a product. In the meantime, we should continue to allow for payday loans. 

Note to Washington Post: Drug Decriminalization in Portugal Has Been a Success

In July 2001, Portugal underwent a controversial social experiment. Portugal decided to decriminalize all of its drugs for personal use, including such harder drugs as crack and cocaine. Portugal has had the longest and most extensive drug decriminalization policy in play. If successful, the Portuguese case study would have major implications for drug policy across the world. 

Last week, the Washington Post (WaPo) wrote a scathing piece on how Portugal was experiencing fatigue with the experiment. According to WaPo, the Portuguese police are blaming increased crime on the drug use. WaPo described streets littered with drug-related paraphernalia, not to mention the long waits for state-funded rehabilitation treatment. WaPo poses the hypothetical question as to whether Portugal should question the success of the decriminalization. It is a question that I would like to answer non-rhetorically and to do so with some questions of my own. 

How do Portugal's drug statistics now compare to those from pre-2001? This policy was implemented in the first place due to high levels of heroin use, increased drug addiction, and Portugal having the highest HIV infection rate in 1999. Things have gotten better since then. Oxford University data show that the drug disorder death rate in Portugal was 0.8 per 100,000. In 2019, it was 0.38 per 100,000. One metric that stayed constant was share of population with drug use disorder, i.e., 0.8 percent (Oxford). Even better, a study from the Institute of Labor Economics (Félix et al., 2017) and a study from Sage Journal (Cabral, 2017) show that Portugal's drug policy caused a decrease in heroin and cocaine seizures, drug offenses, drug deaths, and a reduction in the incidence of drug addicts among HIV individuals.

How does drug use in Portugal compare to other countries? WaPo could not even avoid a certain reality. As we see from European Union data, drug use rates in Portugal are still lower than other European countries. Portugal's cannabis use is less than half of other countries as Spain, France, and Germany. As for cocaine use, it is about a tenth of these countries. As we see from the Oxford data, Portugal's drug death and drug use disorder rates remained lower than that of the rest of Europe since decriminalization. 

Even so, WaPo points out that drug use, overdoses, and drug-related crime increase from 2019 to 2023. Based on previous research, Portugal's drug policy seemed to have been going well prior to 2019. What could have possibly happened between 2019 and 2023 that could have caused a change? Perhaps a once-in-a-century pandemic in which governments across the world imposes onerous and harmful lockdowns. The United Nations was astute enough to realize the increase in drug usage was not confined to Portugal, but was a worldwide phenomenon due to the pandemic. As for the fatigue, it is plausible that two-plus years of pandemic mode and all the corresponding fear-mongering contributed to wearing out the police officers. 

Drug decriminalization by itself was not going to solve everything. Congregating with drug users and disturbing residents, leaving needles on the streets is unacceptable. Even under a libertarian philosophy, those create externalities and constitutes as a violation of the nonaggression axiom that arguably should be handled by the police. It is not perfect, but decriminalization beats the social costs that come with drug prohibition. 

Providing access to needle-exchange programs, make naloxone more available, and improving drug rehabilitation services can all be part of a more comprehensive response that can further help Portugal with its progress. But make no mistake: Portugal shifting its drug policy from punishment and incarceration to harm reduction with decriminalization was a huge step in the right direction. 

"Waiting in Line" to Legally Immigrate to the U.S. Is a Joke: How Legal Immigration Is All But Impossible

The issue of immigration in the U.S. politics is arguably bizarre. According to Gallup polling, 70 percent of Americans believe that immigration is a good thing, but 69 percent of Americans also believe that the levels of immigration should stay where they are at or should decrease. This sort of confusion ends up in U.S. discourse on the topic, as well. A common argument I have heard from the anti-immigration crowd is "I am against illegal immigration, but I am for legal immigration." As the libertarian Reason Magazine illustrates, the argument comes off as evasive. Imagine if one were to make the argument for marijuana, "I'm for legal marijuana, but I'm against illegal marijuana." It sounds peculiar. It does not advance the discussion and it does not answer whether or not current restrictions on immigration are valid or what the costs of those regulations are. 

This dodge often forms into another argument: "Immigrants are great, but they need to come through the front door. The people thinking about crossing the border illegally should wait in line and do it the right way." It sounds like a nice argument. After all, it is how my ancestors arrived to the United States. The catch is that they arrived here before the Immigration Act of 1924, which was the beginning of the United States government putting limits on the number of immigrants that can enter the country. 1924 was the beginning of a trend of stricter and stricter immigration restrictions to enter the United States. For my ancestors, the immigration process was lax. It was that lack of restriction that allowed for them to live the American Dream. Immigrants today really cannot hope to live the dream that my ancestors did, which is disheartening. 

I knew our immigration system was crippled with needless regulations, but I did not know the extent of the problem until I read a report released by the Cato Institute last month. Entitled Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible, this detailed and comprehensive report shows how there really is no line for prospective immigrants to join. One of the shocking findings of the report is that 0.9 million out of 158 million, or less than one percent of those who would like to immigrate to the United States, are legally able to immigrate to the United States. The author, David Bier, goes in great detail with the various types of legal immigration showing how the system is self-contradictory and how it is set up for many potential immigrants to fail. If you need a depressing and sobering chart of how difficult it is to navigate the legal requirements to become a permanent citizen in the United States, look below. 

This flow chart is so convoluted that you need to go to the actual report to read the text of the entire flow chart. That is how daunting and enigmatic the current "legal immigration process" is. As you can see, the system excludes the vast of majority of would-be immigrants by design. Do you honestly think your typical immigrant could navigate this eyesore? Do you think it is honest to say "wait in line" when this is what being in line looks like? When legal immigration is this hopeless, should it honestly surprise anyone that illegal immigration is often a course of action, especially for those fleeing a dire situation in their homeland? 

There are ways to reform this fiasco. After all, we reduced the illegal alcohol sales and the associated crime in the industry by ending the Prohibition. By making immigration easier, we can reduce the illegal border crossings and the problems that come with such crossings. Bier suggests such reforms as abolishing discriminatory country-based caps for employment visas, eliminating long waits for visas, removing the caps for family sponsorship, or expand the national interest waiver to include other measures of contribution to the country. If people say "I am for legal immigration, but not legal immigration," you should want there to be an actual path to citizenship. Otherwise, they are hiding the fact that, much like former President Trump, they do not want immigrants of any kind in this country.

Criticizing Affirmative Action Through an Education Policy Lens

Late last month, the Supreme Court announced the death knell for affirmative action in college admissions. In my post last week, I outlined how using race as a major determinant for college admissions is morally problematic and how broad and crude categorizations of race should not be used, especially if we want to live in a society with less racism. I do not understand how affirmative action proponents talk about eliminating racism in society yet support the institutionalized practice of judging black people by a different standard, academic or otherwise. I have studied enough of the history of African-Americans to see the resilience and persistence of African-Americans. Their ability to overcome such obstacles was especially notable during the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. Apparently, I have more confidence that black people can move forward without special treatment than many prominent affirmative action proponents do. 

Today, I want to put more emphasis on looking at affirmative action through a policy-based lens. One thing I think about is the tradeoff with affirmative action in play. The first thing I learned in my graduate school program for public policy is that there are always tradeoffs with any policy. In this case,  the game of college admissions is a zero-sum game because there are only so many spots offered to a given college. If there are more spots going to black students, it has to crowd out someone else. 

While there is some crowding out of white students, it also crowds out another demographic: Asian-Americans.  It is no accident that the plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case, i.e., the Students for Fair Admission, were of East and South Asian descent. I came across a writer at the Left-leaning New York Magazine who was for affirmative action but at least intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the tradeoff. If you want to read more about how this penalty against Asian-Americans plays out and how an Asian-American with better metrics is less likely to get an acceptance letter than an African-American with lower scores, you can read this analysis from Duke economics professor Peter Arcidiacono. So why should Asian-Americans, many of whom did not have ancestors living in the United States for much of U.S. history, be punished for how certain white people in the past treated black people? 

Before reaching my main point, I have to ask two questions. One is that if affirmative action is so vital for success, why is it there are still such racial issues with admissions nearly six decades after affirmative action existing? I find it rich that university admissions officers pretend to be the saviors that will bring about "diversity" when they are the gatekeepers that are part of the problem. The second question is how long such a policy needs to be in play. Much like I brought up last week, the affirmative action proponents do not have an objective way to determine when there is "adequate diversity, whatever that means. Plus, they admit that present and future discrimination are the only recourse to past discrimination, which means that in their minds, affirmative action should be a permanent institution. 

Now to my main outcomes-based issue that I have with affirmative action, which is that affirmative action hides the real issues facing minority candidates for college. Affirmative action only focuses on admissions and does nothing about the trajectory of students after they are admitted. Look no further than the dropout rates in this country. 

The truth is that African-American students have higher college dropout rates. One study found that 42% of Black students graduate within six years, which is below the 63% national average (Sarette, 2022). When I covered the topic of what is causing the college dropout rate, academic preparedness was one of the biggest factors. If students are not academically prepared in grades K-12, odds are they will not have the skills to succeed in college. Does it matter if a certain student gets accepted to a college only to drop out in the end? This is something that the dissenters on the SCOTUS case tacitly concede because none of them argue their minority opinion from the lens of purported educational benefits.

Affirmative action does not lead to the economic or social development of African-Americans because larger dropout rates in spite of affirmative action signal will make it more difficult for African-Americans to find good-paying jobs. This brings us to the idea of mismatch. The mismatch hypothesis posits that affirmative action results in minority students being placed in colleges for which they are otherwise unqualified, a hypothesis which could explain the higher dropout rates among Black students. I am not going to get into detail about the mismatch effect today. If you want to read more, you can either read what I wrote in 2015 or read what the Right-leaning Manhattan Institute wrote last year on the subject. 

The Right-leaning Manhattan Institute also points out racial preferences in college admissions are so appealing because they represent the path of least resistance instead of making actual change. This segues into another unpleasant truth, which is that the academic achievement gap between races already exists well before college admissions. The racial disparities exist at a young age, whether it is recognizing letters and numbers or mastering reading and mathematics. These figures illustrate how at best, affirmative action is another example of "too little, too late." There are many factors that come into play well before college admissions that make success more or less likely, some having to do with educational attainment specifically and others having more generally to do with poverty.

Instead of obsessing over race, we should focus on obstacles towards educational attainment. One of the bigger relevant focuses should be on improving K-12 education so that students, but minority students in particular, can improve their academic participation. Another should be focused on alternative post-secondary options outside the traditional four-year college. I have brought up before that a four-year college is not for everyone. For some students, getting an associate's degree or going to a trade school could be a lucrative path. We need to drop the societal expectation that everyone needs to attend a four-year college to be successful. 

In summation, affirmative action is not only an issue from a moral standpoint. At best, affirmative action is a fine example of "too little, too late." At worst, it holds back racial progress and helping all Americans, particularly African-Americans, achieve the American Dream. I may or may not get to this topic in the near future, but I will end with it as a thought. This Supreme Court ruling was overall a step in the right direction, but there is still work that needs to be done if we are going to have the American Dream be accessible for all.

Using Race-Based College Admissions Is Morally Egregious and Nonsensical

Earlier this week, we celebrated the Fourth of July, which commemorates the day that the Declaration of Independence was ratified. A major part of the Declaration of Independence is the idea that "all men are created equal" and that all people are endowed with such "unalienable rights" as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court brought us one step closer to that ideal by striking down race-conscious college admissions in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This case not only reaffirms that two wrongs do not make a right, but also that the Fourteenth Amendment means "prohibiting racial discrimination in all but the narrowest circumstances, even when such discrimination is done in service of an otherwise 'noble' goal."

My opposition to affirmative action is nothing new and it still stands even after this latest Supreme Court ruling. When it began in the 1960s, affirmative action was meant to grant special consideration to historically excluded groups, particularly African-Americans and women. The purpose of affirmative action has been to increase employment and education opportunities for these historically underrepresented demographic groups. 

The problem for proponents is that they think they are ending discrimination when affirmative action itself is a form of discrimination. To quote Ibram X. Kendi, "the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The problem with Kendi and this thought process of other affirmative action proponents is that it would be an endless cycle of discrimination. Affirmative action does not eliminate or lessen racial discrimination, but serves to perpetuate it.

As Chief Justice John Roberts brought up in his majority opinion, "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race." Thankfully, most Americans can see why affirmative action is morally problematic, even if university admissions officers cannot. The ideal of equal treatment is still held by Americans of all races. According to the most recent Pew Research polling data (see below), most Americans do not believe race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions decisions, and that includes 59 percent of African-Americans. It is a little more divided with selective colleges specifically (see here), but the general finding remains the same: most Americans do not care for race being used as a factor in college admissions. 

One of the other reasons I do not care for affirmative action is because the idea of using race as a basis for college admissions is that upon examination, it is as absurd as it is arbitrary. Justice Neil Gorsuch does a fine job illustrating the inchoate nature of these so-called racial categories in his concurring opinion in the ruling:

These classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. Take the 'Asian' category. It sweeps into one pile East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), even though together they constitute about 60 % of the world's population...This agglomeration of so many people paves over countless differences in 'language,' 'culture,' and historical experience.

Gorsuch goes through this analysis for Hispanic, White, and Black. I covered the "White" category when refuting the ridiculous notion of "white culture", so need to do that here. I will provide Gorsuch's analysis on the ridiculousness of the category of "Black":

'The category of' 'Black or African American' covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South, to a first-generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants, to a Black-identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb.'

This illogic manifests in another way. To quote Gorsuch again, "If anything attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time. American families have become increasingly multicultural, a fact that has led to unseemly disputes doubt whether someone is really a member of a certain racial or ethnic group." These crazily broad categorizations used for race similarly shows the illogic of the argument for reparations. 

It also brings up another question of what constitutes an adequate level of diversity: "Should universities be racially representative of their states, their nations, perhaps even the globe? In practical terms, it is a codeword for treating people according to the color of their skin rather than the content of their character."  As the libertarian Cato Institute rightly points out, "the diversity rationale is inherently stereotypical because it assumes that students brings something to the table by virtue of their race alone." And how do we measure diversity? The majority opinion illustrates this point: 

"At the outset, it is unclear how courts are supposed to measure any of these [diversity] goals. How is a court to know whether leaders have been adequately trained; whether the exchange of ideas is robust; or whether new knowledge is being developed? Even if these goals could somehow be measured, moreover, how is a court to know when they have been reached, and when the perilous remedy of racial preferences may cease?"

As Justice Thomas put it, "As she [Justice Jackson] sees it, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today." The use of statistical disparities is the weak argument that Justice Jackson uses in her dissent. The problem is, much like I brought up last May, that the existence of disparity does not automatically mean racism or discrimination. Plus, as Justice Thomas rightly illustrates, what schools cannot do is "use the applicant's skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for 'black' he therefore conforms to the university's monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person."

In other words, assuming that individuals are primarily or solely their skin color is not only untrue, it is racist to generalize individuals at that level. The Supreme Court was correct in ruling that affirmative action could not be justified on logical or ethical terms. As we will see in my upcoming piece, affirmative action does not a have public policy justification either.

Is Sweden's "Immigration Problem" Due to Too Many Immigrants, Its Welfare State, or Lack of Integration?

Last week, I came back from a wonderful and enjoyable vacation in Sweden. While I was walking the streets of Stockholm, an article from the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation came up on my feed. I found it fitting because the article is entitled "Lessons from Swedish Border Ignored by Biden, Mayorkas." Since 2012, Sweden's foreign-born population has grown from 15 percent to 20 percent of the overall population. This is certainly higher than the 4 percent it was in 1960. As the Migration Policy Institute mentions in its profile on Sweden and migration, a lot of this uptick was due to a wave of Syrian, Afghan, and Somali refugees in 2015. Since 2018, support for immigration in Sweden declined and views of whether immigration is good for Sweden have become more divided. Last month, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson admitted that "large-scale immigration and poor integration simply do not work." So I have to ask what happened in Sweden that made it not work. 

Based on the title and tone of the aforementioned Heritage Foundation article, part of Heritage's issue is a "open-border policy." It should be no surprise that being libertarian, I am for a more open immigration policy. In 2014, I explored the possibility of an open borders policy. This past March, I showed how immigration is good for economic growth. It does not matter that a lot of Sweden's uptick was due to refugees. In response to the Afghan refugees coming to the United States, I illustrated how refugees can be a net benefit to society. While Sweden does have a higher-than-average level of foreign-born, OECD data below show that Sweden is not the highest. Other countries (including Canada) are able to have a comparable level of foreign-born citizens and function fine.  

Maybe Prime Minister Kristersson's suggestion is correct in that poor integration is what really fueled Sweden's immigration problem. In his article, Kristersson suggests a focus on social contract, common values, and an emphasis on newly arrived immigrants learning Swedish. I think there is merit to the integration piece. Pathway to citizenship is not simply entrance to the country. Not knowing a language can be a huge barrier to finding a job, making friends, or acquiring basic services. As I brought up in my 2015 analysis on multiculturalism and immigration, a lack of social cohesion or something to unite a people creates social conflict. A study from Economic Research concluded that Sweden's migration is a net benefit "provided that migrants gain quick entry to, and a high employment rate, in the market" (Hajighasemi and Oghazi, 2021).

Instead of being able to function in greater society, we isolate foreign-born citizens from participate and live their lives. Foreign-born citizens in Sweden are 3.2 times more likely to commit crime. Immigrants are not inherently more likely to commit crime, as we see in the United States where immigrants (including "illegal" immigrants) are less likely to commit crime. It is plausible that a poor integration policy is the culprit, and not immigration per se.

Then there is the matter of the welfare state. According to OECD data, Sweden does not spend the most in social spending. That title goes to France. While Sweden has an otherwise relatively capitalist system, Sweden is well-known for having a welfare state, one that goes back to 1642 with the 1642 års tiggareordening (the Beggar Regulation of 1642). Its extensive welfare state provides such services as tax-funded healthcare, free preschool, tuition-free college, and Social Security. I am not here to get into whether the Swedish welfare state is too large. That is another topic for another time. I have to wonder about whether Sweden's welfare state attracted immigrants in 2015. When I explored the welfare magnet theory in 2019, there was some evidence to suggest that a large welfare offering attracts migrants, although I maintained my skepticism. 

It is possible that the welfare benefits could have sweetened the deal a bit in the 2015-16 exogenous shock of refugees to Sweden. The economist Milton Friedman once said that open immigration and a large welfare state did not mix. This did not mean that Friedman was against open immigration. For one, open immigration was how his parents arrived to the United States. But is more than that. Friedman was in favor of a more liberal immigration system while reducing the welfare state. 

Given the influx of migrants that Sweden experienced last decade, I can see how it can put strain on Sweden's welfare state. Much like Friedman, I would see that as an argument to shrink the welfare state, not immigration flows to Sweden. I also see how the Swedish government needs to improve its integration process if Sweden is able to handle more immigrants in the future, as well as help the vast majority of its foreign-born citizens to be productive members of society. 

Bringing it back to the Heritage Foundation's initial point of contention, Sweden's immigration issues are not the same as those of the United States. Immigration can be a beautiful thing. It was an essential component that transformed the United States into the powerhouse that it is today. Sweden has a different dynamic, but the Swedish case study does bring up questions about how integration and welfare state size potentially play a role in the overall effectiveness of immigration policy. Sweden's immigration system is at a crossroads and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.