Vaccine Mandates Likely Caused Greater Unemployment for Healthcare Workers

Although the COVID pandemic is further in the rearview mirror, especially with an upcoming presidential election, the effects of the policy response to the pandemic still remain. Lockdowns caused multiple negative outcomes, including lost educational attainment, greater mental health issues, greater food insecurity, erosion of liberal democracy, and wider economic inequality on the global scale, to name a few. The lockdowns were by far the biggest policy mistake during the COVID pandemic. I would call it the greatest peacetime public policy in human history. 

There was another policy decision that had unintended, negative consequences: the vaccine mandate. My position during the pandemic was that I was in favor of the vaccines but against the vaccine mandates. The opposition I had was strong enough where I created a list of 10 reasons to be against the COVID vaccine mandates. One of those reasons was that I was worried that a vaccine mandate would cause greater unemployment in the labor market. What about the labor market for healthcare workers specifically? 

This is a question that economists from George Mason University and William Paterson University answer with their paper, Promoting Public Health with Blunt Instruments: Evidence from Vaccine Mandates (Abouk et al., 2024). As the authors point out, it was unclear whether the vaccine mandates would incentivize or disincentivize healthcare workers to work. On the plus side, the perceived public safety could have relaxed worker shortages. On the other hand, there could be more workers that are skeptical of the vaccine, thereby creating a shortage. Here is how the state-level vaccine mandates played out for healthcare workers:

Our findings suggest that vaccine mandates may have worsened healthcare workforce shortage: following adoption of a state-level mandate, the probability of working in the healthcare industry declines by 6%. Effects are larger among workers in healthcare-specific occupations, who leave the industry at higher rates in response to mandates and are slower to be replaced than workers in non-healthcare occupations. 

In March, I detailed another negative unintended consequence of vaccine mandates: increased vaccine skepticism for all vaccines. Ignoring the scientific process, evidence, and cost-benefit analysis while propagating fear had an abysmally large amount of consequences that we feel to this day. If the findings of the aforementioned study end up being correct, then we are confounded with yet another unintended consequence of COVID-era policy stupidity. By trying to make things safer with the vaccine mandate, it looks like the vaccine mandates made things less safe by causing workers in a vital industry to leave. This once again shows the cure of good intentions is more than likely not worse than the disease itself, a lesson that seemingly continues to be lost on many public health officials.

The Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Under Trump and Biden Unsurprisingly Underdelivered

Economists have long recognized tariffs as having a negative impact on the economy, which makes sense when you look at the mainstream microeconomic theory on tariffs. In 2018, President Trump enacted tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. Before enacting these tariffs, I criticized President Trump's idea based on the merits of the argument. Trump was unable to meet a burden of proof to show how a tariff would help national security nor did he consider the economic implications of such a tariff in light of the fact that past steel tariffs for national security purposes harmed the economy. As a research paper released last week from the Right-leaning Tax Foundation about the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum illustrates, I was right to worry about the tariffs. Here are a few key findings from the Tax Foundation's research paper:

• For each 1 percent increase on the tariffs, export growth fell by 0.11 percent (Handley et al., 2020). 
• While the tariffs raised aggregate in the steel industry in 2018, it also cost steel consumers $5.6 billion. Not only did the tariffs create net economic growth, but it also meant that each of the 8,500 that the tariffs did create cost $650,000 each.
• Contrary to Trump saying that China would pay the tariffs, it turns out that it was U.S. firms and consumers that paid the price (Amiti et al., 2020). Prices increased 22.7 percent for covered steel and 8.0 percent for covered aluminum. 
• The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that the tariffs reduced steel and aluminum imports by 24 and 31.1 percent, respectively. 
• Downstream industries that use steel and aluminum experienced an annual $3.4 billion loss in production from 2018 to 2021.
• According to Tax Foundation estimates, removing the tariffs would increase long-term GDP by 0.02 percent and create more than 4,000 jobs. Some estimates have Section 232 tariffs reducing manufacturing employment by a net of 75,000 jobs.

As we see above, these tariffs have been far from being a steal. These tariffs harm the economy with no apparent national security benefit, which is why I in favor of repealing them. Tariffs are taxes on imports, so it would not surprise me to see the repeal of those taxes boost GDP and create more jobs. As much as President Trump initiated the Section 232 tariffs, it was Biden who kept them intact. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Biden is as capable of being protectionist as Trump. Unless action is taken to return powers regarding tariffs over to Congress, as has historically and constitutionally been the case, Biden will not be the last president to abuse Section 232. 

Peru's Economy Seems to Be On the Road to Recovery, But It's a Bumpy Road

Last year was a tough year for Peru. First, there was the social unrest that resulted from the ousting of then-President Pedro Castillo. Then there were the climate-related shocks caused by El Niño. These phenomena were potent enough to cause a 0.6 percent contraction in Peru's GDP, one of the worst in the past thirty years, pandemic notwithstanding. At least for now, it looks like Peru's economy is on the mend. According to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report released this past Tuesday, Peru's economy is projected to create a GDP over 2 percent starting in 2024 (p. 36). 

In spite of Peru's heightened inflation in 2023, Peru's contractionary monetary policy brought the inflation back down. Even with a shortfall in tax revenue, Peru was still able to keep its debt-to-GDP ratio low (IMF, p. 8) with its prudent fiscal policy (OECD), which is more than can be said for the United States. A favorable debt structure will at least help Peru not deal with any near-term financing pressures. The financial sector also remains strong with adequate capital, liquidity, and profitability (ibid.). There is also to be a strong recovery in fishing and agriculture, as well as a boost in the mining industry (IMF, p. 10). 

Although there are multiple factors in favor of recovery, there is one that is still getting in the way of economic progress: political turmoil. It is the reason why the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded Peru's credit rating last month to BBB-. Political gridlock and social unrest do a bang-up job of undermining both the government and economy's ability to perform. Since 2018, there have been six presidents, three Congresses, and 150 cabinet shuffles (Fitch). Ousting Pedro Castillo did not exactly give President Dina Boluatre a strong mandate to rule, especially with a weak representation in Peruvian Congress. It will be at least be before the next presidential elections in 2026 when Peru can see political stability once more. This in turn limits the government's ability to implement policies that boost investment and economic growth. Political stability would go a long way in ensuring investor confidence. 

While things are mainly looking promising, political instability creates a big unknown for how that recovery will look. Peru nevertheless has a history of corruption, weak institutions, and political unrest, as previously illustrated even in the past few years. Hopefully, Peru can pull itself out of its 2023 rut and develop macroeconomic stability for long-term growth. 

Sources Used

• Banco Central de Perú. Notas de Estudios. 
• BBVA Research. Peru Economic Outlook: March 2024.
• Fitch Ratings. Fitch Affirms Peru at 'BBB'; Outlook Negative.
• Heritage Foundation. Peru. 
• International Monetary Fund. 2024 Article IV Consultation. 
• OECD Economic Surveys: Peru 2023.

UN's Gaza Fatality Numbers Revision Shows Israel Is Not Genocidally Targeting Children and Women

On May 6, the United Nations' Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that 34,735 Gazans had been killed as a result of Israel's offensive. The May 6 numbers detailed that 9,500 women and 14,500 children died. Two days later, OCHA revised its accounting downward with 24,686 identified deaths, which means approximately 10,000 unidentified deaths. Why the discrepancy? 

The Gaza fatality estimates are all coming from Hamas, which is the same Hamas that perpetrated the October 7 attacks in which it raped, kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and decapitated Israeli civilians. The higher estimate in the May 6 figures came from Hamas' Government Media Office (GMO). The May 8 estimate came from the Ministry of Health (MoH). The MoH counts deaths that are verified both by the hospitals and the media. If the Left-leaning Vox is correct in asserting that the MoH has been more accurate in previous conflicts with Israel, then the higher GMO count is less reliable because there are no remains to confirm the death. 

Aside from other irregularities with MoH data (see more below), I am suspect of MoH data because Hamas has more at stake in this war than they did in previous conflicts with Israel. But let us assume that the MoH data are accurate for a moment. The MoH show that the UN, by relying more heavily on GMO figures, has been using data that inflates the casualty estimates by 10,000 dead, or exaggerating the figures by about 29 percent. The GOH's fatality count for women was 9,500 women and 14,500 children, whereas the MoH's count is 7,797 children and 4,959 women. Yes, war zones are messy and makes it all the more difficult to collect accurate data. Yet what we see here is that the children fatalities were exaggerated by 86 percent and women fatalities by 92 percent (more on that in a moment).  

This is not the first instance we have seen numbers in the latest Israel-Hamas War that have been exaggerated or falsified. In October 2023, the MoH claimed that 500 were struck dead in the al-Alhi Arab Hospital. The media were all too eager to erroneously blame Israel for the bombing when it turned out to be a rocket from Gaza that struck the hospital. 

This was not the only faux pas on the MoH's end. At the beginning of the war, there was a small period of time (10/26/2023 to 11/10/2023) when the MoH was publicly reporting daily casualty figures (look here for more data from various sources). As University of Pennsylvania statistics professor Abraham Wyner shows in his analysis of the MoH data, these daily casualty numbers are fabricated. If you look at the figure below, you see that the daily casualty figures were increasing in a linear fashion. War casualties do not function linearly. Some days have large attacks where others have less military action. Casualty figures are more variable in a war zone, which suggests foul play on MoH's part. 

To adequately assess a situation, you need to analyze the best information available as dispassionately as possible, a concept that was clearly lost on decision-makers during the COVID pandemic. What we see is that the data coming from the Hamas government are shoddy at best and fabricated at worst. This is more than quibbling over figures or an academic debate. Mainstream international media has been outraged because it used Hamas' fatality statistics to supposedly prove that over 70 percent of the fatalities on the Gazan side were women and children. These numbers are being used as part of the justification to naïvely call for a permanent ceasefire, charge Israel in international court with the baseless charge of genocide, or chide Israel's response for not being "proportionate," whatever that means.

Hamas has a vested interest in convincing the world to believe that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are a trigger-happy bunch looking to indiscriminately target women and civilians. After all, perpetuating data manipulation to exaggerate the deaths of women and children makes Israel look all the more reprehensible in the global community's eyes. This is in spite of the fact that Israel has done more than any other military in history to prevent civilian deaths, thereby keeping the civilian death ratio lower than many other wars fought in the modern era. 

This war is a calamity for Gazan civilians, as is the case for civilians trying to survive in any war zone. Yet no one wants to look at how Hamas planned that its citizens suffer, whether it is using its civilians as human shields or launching missiles from civilian sites. It should have been clear from the beginning of the war that data published by anti-Semitic, homophobic, genocidal terrorists who have no regard for its citizens should require greater scrutiny than normal because quite frankly, their numbers have lost all credibility. Whether it is the COVID pandemic, climate change, or the Israel-Hamas War, we should call for as much facts, rationale, and logic as possible. It has become clear once more that there are many media outlets and politicians that are not interested in such things getting in the way of their preconceived notions and sensationalism. 

Latest China Tariffs Show That Biden Can Be as Protectionist as Trump

Before becoming President, Joe Biden criticized President Trump's tariffs on China. He said that "we're going after China the wrong way” with a trade war. Shortly after becoming president, Biden implemented import quotas on steel. He kept many of Trump's tariffs intact and has managed to collect more in tariffs than Trump did. And if that were not enough, Biden imposed a series of new tariffs this Tuesday, including: 

• Steel and aluminum, from 0-7% to 25%
• Semiconductors, from 25% to 50%
• Electric vehicles, from 25% to 100%
• Batteries and components, from 0-7% to 25%
• Medical syringes and needles, from 0% to 50%

Last month, I illustrated how Trump's 60 percent tariff on China would be tantamount to economic foolishness. In another piece I wrote last August, I showed how Trump's tariffs caused such economic harm as lower employment, reduced GDP, and lower wages. I specifically pointed to how Trump's Section 301 tariffs reduced U.S. real income by $1.4 billion per month (Amiti et al., 2019), which is notable since Biden is using Section 301 to justify this latest round of tariffs. 

What compounds the inanity is that the Biden administration's United States Trade Representative released a report about how harmful Section 301 tariffs are on the same day that he announced that he was going to increase tariffs under Section 301, which would suggest hypocrisy or a lack of situational awareness. If you want to read more analysis, you can read what the Tax Foundation, Reason Magazine, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and American Enterprise Institute, published on Biden's latest tariffs. 

What I can say is this. Biden calling his tariffs "strategic" does not change the economic reality that tariffs harms consumers and the economy as a whole, which is illustrated by this research brief from the Tax Foundation. It is clear that electing Trump would cost billions through his trade war. Much like with Biden’s erroneous take on shrinkflation or attempting student loan "forgiveness," it is a reminder that election brings out ideas that make for better politics than they do better policy. If we do not want to feel the economic pain of tariffs, Congress needs to take back the power it has given to the executive branch to regulate tariffs. 

Low-Skilled Immigrants Are Not a Fiscal or Economic Drain: Another Reason for More Immigration

When it comes to immigration policy, one distinction that is made in the debate is between low-skilled and high-skilled immigration. "High" is associated with advanced degrees, such as the STEM field and doctors.  "Low" is associated with manual labor that typically does not require a postsecondary degree, whether that is such professions as construction or farming. Both from a political and economic standpoint, the case for high-skilled immigration is more obvious. The case for high-skilled immigrants is more intuitive because their innovation and entrepreneurial spirit create a more obvious, long-term economic growth. Their economic contributions vastly outweigh whatever economic or fiscal costs might arise. 

The case is less clear for low-skilled immigrants because they earn a lower salary on average, as well as having a higher demand for government benefits than their higher-income counterparts. This is why such countries as Canada had opted for a merit-based immigration policy. A recent research paper from the American Economic Association helps but that notion to rest (Colas and Sachs, 2024). The researchers revealed "an indirect fiscal benefit for one average low-skilled immigrant of roughly $750 annually [in the United States]." 

These findings are hardly a shock for me. I made the argument back in 2015. A detailed scenario analysis from the National Academies of Science in 2017 showed that the net fiscal impact of immigrants was positive. The only exception in the NAS research was a small, negative impact on native high school dropouts since they are the closest substitute for low-skilled immigrants. 

How is this the case? In part, all immigrants, regardless of immigration status or socio-economic status, pay taxes. Not only do they contribute to the economy, but they have a higher labor participation rate than native workers. 

Most immigrant comes to the United States because wages are higher. Higher wages result in greater marginal value product (MVP), which happens because the relative price of capital increases in the short-run, which raises wages in the long-run. This increase of MVP helps contribute to the greater macroeconomic growth that low-skilled immigrants bring to the table. 

Yes, we need immigrants that can write code and perform surgery. We also need immigrants who can harvest vegetables, construct buildings and roads, care for children, supply landscaping services, and provide caregiver support to the elderly. Whether we are talking low-skilled or high-skilled immigrants, the United States needs to cut through the red tape that makes it nigh impossible to enter legally and let more immigrants into its borders so that immigrant workers and native workers alike can reap the benefits. 

Cass Review and Long-Term Dutch Study on Gender Identity Put Major Dents in Youth Gender-Affirming "Care"

A year ago, I illustrated how the practice of gender-affirming care was not an evidence. The evidence base was weak enough where the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) banned puberty blockers for adolescents earlier this year. Last month, the proponents of youth gender-affirming care took a couple of additional hits to the credibility of their argument. 

The first is the Cass Review, which is a four-year study commissioned by the NHS. Hilary Cass, who is the author of the Cass Review, is a former President of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, as well as a premier pediatrician in the United Kingdom. What Cass did with the Cass Review was write and release a 400-page report on gender identity services for young people. Just to highlight some findings:

• Many youth referred to gender-identity services are dealing with other issues, whether it is neglect, trauma, or abuse. 
• There is no good evidence on long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress. 
• Puberty blockers do not "buy them time to think" or "reduce suicide risk," both of which have been used as justifications for such a practice. Nor did hormone treatment reduce the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population. 
• The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental, or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosocial development remains unknown. 
• For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.

That was not the only bombshell dropped in recent weeks. There is also a long-term Dutch study that tracked 2,772 adolescents into early adulthood (Rawee et al., 2024). 11 percent had expressed "gender non-contentedness." This figure dropped to 4 percent by age 24-26. These findings have two implications. One is that questioning one's gender is not uncommon during one's adolescence. The second is that most adolescents get over it by adulthood and become gender-conforming. The main takeaway is that these results oppose rushing adolescents into gender-affirming care. 

Why do I find this issue so irksome? Because clinical practice was divorced from the clinical evidence base. This was a practice allowed to take place for a decade in the United Kingdom without robust data to support the practice. In the process, children have been harmed and thousands were complicit in that harm. Those who claimed they were helping people with advocacy of such a service were doing nothing of the kind. 

We need to take the politics out of medical practice. I thought this was a lesson that should have been learned from the pandemic when public health officials ignored evidence-based practice, cost-benefit analyses, and simple common sense. However, it looks like there is still work that needs to be done in that arena. I hope that these studies put the global medical community back on the path of recommending practices that have a strong evidence based versus the ones that are simply steeped in political ideology.