University teaches employees how to overcome ‘discomfort’ of being white…


University of Michigan training session used ‘Privileged Identity Exploration Model’

A two-day professional development conference held recently at the University of Michigan included a training session that aimed to help white employees deal with their “whiteness” so they could become better equipped to fight for social justice causes, according to organizers.

Participants who took part in the “Conversations on Whiteness” session, held December 5 during the university’s Student Life Professional Development Conference, were taught to “recognize the difficulties they face when talking about social justice issues related to their White identity, explore this discomfort, and devise ways to work through it,” the university’s website states.

The goal was to help participants in “unpacking Whiteness” to support students and staff with issues and efforts “related to identity and social justice,” the website added.

The “Conversations on Whiteness” session was one of more than a dozen workshops offered at the conference, held Dec. 4 and 5. The whiteness session utilized the “Privileged Identity Exploration Model” to help white participants explore the “discomfort” of their “white identity,” according to organizers.

First introduced in 2007 by University of Iowa professor Sherry Watt in a College Student Affairs Journal article, the model purports to be a method for understanding how people react to stimuli that alert them of the privilege they hold. The model is to be used by “facilitators” to “engage participants in discussions about diversity,” according to Watt.

Watt states there are eight defenses people use to avoid recognizing their privilege. Examples of defenses include “denial,” where someone simply refuses to admit their privilege, and “minimization,” where someone trivializes the impact of their privilege.

The College Fix reached out for comment to the three university staff members listed as facilitators of the event: Abby Priehs: associate director of residence education; Steve Bodei: associate director of Student Life Leadership Education; and Nick Smith: director of campus involvement.

When asked why the “unpacking Whiteness” event was created, and whether or not students at the University of Michigan had complained about the quality of racial discourse on campus, Smith responded: “This is an internal training for U-M Student Life staff.” A subsequent query to Smith was not returned.

Neither Priehs nor Bodei responded to phone calls from The Fix on Monday night.

The Student Life Professional Development Conference was based around the overall theme of “Identity, Wellness, & Work: Healthier, Happier, & More Efficient,” according to the University of Michigan’s student life website.

Additional sessions were titled “Building and Strengthening Your Assessment Muscles,” “Empower, Safety and You,” and “Making Meaning: the Role of Spirituality in Higher Education.”

Another session, titled “I Don’t Feel Safe Talking About Race,” was devoted to giving staff “tools to create a safer climate to promote dialogue around racial issues.” Meanwhile “The Intersection of Well-being, and Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion on Campus” workshop aimed to help Student Life staff “work towards wellness justice for all students on campus.”

The University of Michigan is not alone in holding trainings to help staff cope with “intersecting identities.”

American University hosted a training event earlier this year designed to help staff understand their own identities.

Among the research guides available online from the University of San Francisco, meanwhile, is a “White Privilege Resource Guide” that provides resources to help researchers deal with their various forms of privilege.

MORE: Stanford University course to study ‘abolishing whiteness’

MORE: University event highlights 14 ways ‘whiteness’ oppresses society

IMAGE: YouTube

Nine Million American Men Pushed Out of Workforce by Cheap-Labor Policies, Says Obama Economist


by NEIL MUNRO19 Dec 2017

Nine million working-age men have been pushed out of the workforce by the federal government’s salary-cutting economic strategy, says a former economist for former President Barack Obama.

The admission comes as some legislators in Congress renew their push for a huge ‘dreamer’ amnesty that would increase the number of low-wage foreign workers who can take U.S. jobs.

The nine million number comes from a new op-ed by Jason Furman, a top economic advisor to Obama. Without mentioning cheap-labor labor, Furman writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. has experienced a record 86 consecutive months of job growth. But some nine million men of prime age—that is, between 25 and 54—still are not working. Most have given up looking for jobs. Helping these men get back into the workforce should be a leading public-policy priority …

The largest issue facing American men is not that they are rewarded for remaining in a recliner, but that they cannot find rewarding work. The bulk of the decline in employment has been for men with a high-school diploma or less, who have seen their employment rates fall from 97% in 1964 to 83% today. This has coincided with a decline in their relative wages: High-school grads in the 1970s earned two-thirds what their college-educated counterparts took home. Today it’s around half.

Reversing the withdrawal of men from the workforce will require rising wages. This can be achieved by improving the skills of workers through education and training and improving the bargaining power of workers to raise wages. Direct steps like expanding the earned-income tax credit could also make a difference, though the policy is absent from the current tax-reform bill—despite Speaker Paul Ryan’s past support for it.

Furman carefully excludes immigration as a reason for Americans’ low wages, but his comments come amid a renewed push for amnesty by Congress.

The push comes from Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin, and also from some business-first Republicans, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and North Carolina’s Sen. Thom Tillis.

This week, for example, the Senators have been meeting to develop an amnesty plan that would offer token border-security measures against illegal immigration in exchange for legalizing more than 3 million illegals — plus their future chain-migration relatives.

Americans’ wages grew rapidly until the 1965 immigration rewrite expanded the inflow of foreign workers after the 1975 oil-price shock, according to data provided by the Census Bureau in 2017. Since then, wages have been flat, but that stagnation has been partly hidden by the rising quality and declining cost of many items, including coffee, entertainment, and Internet services.

Amid the wage stagnation and the government-managed huge inflow of foreign workers, the percentage of working-age Americans who are not in the workforce has fallen below the work rates in Japan and Germany.

Business groups say many Americans have quit the labor market because of easy welfare rules.

Furman says federal welfare policy is not pulling the nine million American men out of the job market, noting that ” the fraction of prime-age men receiving any federal cash assistance—including disability insurance and other cash payments—has fallen to 10% in 2016 from 20% in 1975. ”

House Speaker Paul Ryan recently admitted that many Americans have been pushed to the sidelines, as he sketched out a plan for welfare reform in 2018.

“When we have tens of millions of people right here in this country falling short of their potential, not working, not looking for a job, or not in school getting a skill to get a job, that’s a problem,” Ryan said December 14. He said:

Let’s change our welfare laws so we push and pull people out of poverty into the workforce … we’re going to be able to create an economy that produces good family-supporting jobs, higher wages, that will be there for people who are stuck in poverty and welfare to go to.



Despite his press-conference focus on Americans, in 2015 and 2017 Ryan successfully pushed for an expansion of the H-2B program, which allows foresty and landscaping companies to import foreign workers for seasonal jobs. Ryan’s cheap H-2B labor helps the companies cut their seasonal and full-year payrolls, but cuts average pay and reduces the ability of sidelined Americans to take seasonal jobs.

Immigration experts fear Ryan will again try to expand the H-2B program in the 2018 budget talks, which are due for completion in January.

Both Republicans and Democrats are under intense business pressure to grow economic consumption and Wall Street’s stock values by importing foreign consumers and workers, instead of by growing Americans’ productivity and wages.

In September 2017, for example, the business-funded Hamilton Project think-tank debated why Americans’ wages remain flat — but dismissed the impact of the federal government’s policy of annually importing roughly one immigrant consumer/worker for every four Americans who turn 18 each year.

The event was overseen by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who helped found the Hamilton Project think-tank. He pushed a policy of immigration-boosted economic growth in place of immigration-restricted salary growth. He said:

If we are going to put in place a policy agenda that addresses [national economic] growth and addresses wage stagnation or sluggishness, effectively, it has got to start with a clear understanding of the facts over the last several decades, and a clear understanding of the causes … My own view as to causation is that it is a combination of the factors I have just mentioned — technological development, globalization, and decline of labor unions on the one hand, and also the abject failure of our political system to put in place an effective, inclusive growth agenda.



Subsequent panelists at the event, including Furman, dismissed the role of federal immigration policy.

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.

Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.


Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 11.48.40 AM

By Jeff Cox

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 228,000 in November while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent as the U.S. economy continues to hum along, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to grow by 200,000.

A more encompassing measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons moved up one-tenth of a point to 8 percent. The ranks of those not in the labor force edged higher by 35,000 to 95.4 million.

Closely watched wage data fell short of expectations. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent for the month and 2.5 percent for the year, versus projected increases of 0.3 percent for the month and 2.7 percent for the year.

“The November employment data is largely as expected. For an expansion that began in mid-2009, no negative surprises are welcome,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at “The lingering impacts of recent hurricanes and flooding have reverted back to relative calm in the statistics, meaning that this is a ‘cleaner’ number.”

Economist: Wage growth number from jobs report looked ‘disappointing’

Economist: Wage growth number from jobs report looked ‘disappointing’  

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 228,000 in November while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent as the U.S. economy continues to hum along, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to grow by 200,000.

A more encompassing measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons moved up one-tenth of a point to 8 percent. The ranks of those not in the labor force edged higher by 35,000 to 95.4 million.

Closely watched wage data fell short of expectations. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent for the month and 2.5 percent for the year, versus projected increases of 0.3 percent for the month and 2.7 percent for the year.

“The November employment data is largely as expected. For an expansion that began in mid-2009, no negative surprises are welcome,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at “The lingering impacts of recent hurricanes and flooding have reverted back to relative calm in the statistics, meaning that this is a ‘cleaner’ number.”

The Victory motorcycles assembly line at the Polaris Industries factory on Aug. 8, 2014, in Spirit Lake, Iowa.

Job market beats expectations with 228,000 payroll growth  

Federal Reserve policymakers have been concerned over the lack of income growth, though they are still expected to raise the central bank’s benchmark interest rate a quarter point next week. The probability dipped a bit after the jobs release but remains above 90 percent, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.

“The jobs number in the report is good news for American workers, but the lack of stronger wage growth is not,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union. “Without stronger wage growth, higher inflation remains in doubt, and that takes away one reason for the Fed being more aggressive in hiking rates.”

The biggest November job gains came in professional and business services [46,000], manufacturing [31,000] and health care [30,000]. In total, goods-producing occupations rose by 62,000. Construction saw a gain of 24,000, almost all of which were specialty trade contracts, a profession that has added 132,000 jobs over the past year.

Heading into the holiday season, retail jobs also grew by 18,7000.

Markets reacted positively to the news, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising more than 70 points halfway through the trading day.

Job growth has slowed this year — to 174,000 per month compared with 187,000 a year ago — as the economy edges closer to what officials consider full employment, or the condition where those looking for work have positions. However, Fed officials have been dismayed that the tight labor market has not resulted in significantly higher wages.

“With continued improvement in the labor market, room for continued upward trajectory in 2018 is likely limited because there’s not much slack left to hire workers for further growth,” said Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group.

The quality of job creation tilted toward full time, whose ranks grew by 160,000, while part-time positions contracted by 125,000, according to the household survey.


Screen Shot 2017-07-07 at 11.05.00 AM

Nonfarm payrolls jumped 222,000 in June, against expectations of 179,000.

By Jeff Cox

The U.S. job market roared back to life in June, with a better-than-expected 222,000 new positions created in June while the unemployment rate held at 4.4 percent, according to a government report Friday.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had been expecting nonfarm payrolls growth of 179,000 and the unemployment rate to be 4.3 percent.

Wage growth, however, remained muted, with average hourly earnings rising 2.5 percent on an annualized basis, essentially unchanged from the previous month. On a monthly basis, the rise was 0.2 percent, which actually was a shade below the 0.2 percent expectation. The average work week edged higher, rising 0.1 hours to 34.5.

The report “is another illustration that the real economy is in good health,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. “The only disappointment is that wage growth still shows few signs of accelerating.”

The jump in payrolls came following a disappointing May that saw an increase of just 152,000. However, even that number was revised up from an initially reported 138,000, and April was revised upward as well, from 174,000 to 207,000.

Employment gains have averaged 180,000 per month in 2017, a shade below the 187,000 in 2016.

Health care was the biggest contributor, with 37,000 new positions, with professional and business services adding 35,000. Social assistance added 23,000, Wall Street-related jobs grew by 17,000 and mining — a focal point for the Trump administration — saw 8,000 new positions.

“The strong job growth in June and the upward revisions for May and April suggest that the concerns about a major slowdown in job growth were premature,” said Gad Levanon, chief economist, North America, for The Conference Board.

An alternative measure of unemployment that counts discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons — the underemployed — rose from 8.4 percent to 8.6 percent.

The labor-force participation rate edged higher to 62.8 percent.Those considered out of the labor force declined by 170,000 to 94.8 million while the labor force increased by 361,000 to 160.1 million. The employment population ratio rose to 60.1 percent, a full half percentage point above its level from a year ago.

Jobs overall tilted to full-time positions, which grew by 355,000, while part-time fell by 224,000.

Investors watched the report both for headline numbers and for indications on whether worker salaries were increasing. Despite the plunge in the unemployment rate during the recovery, there have been only scant signs of wage pressures.

That lack of inflation has vexed policymakers at the Federal Reserve, which is expected to raise its benchmark interest rate once more this year. Indications from central bank officials are that they believe the low inflation pressures to be temporary, though a continued lack of wage growth could change that perspective.

Get the market reaction here.

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over USA…

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.16.59 PM

‘I represent the people of Pittsburgh NOT Paris’: Trump pulls U.S. out of climate accord saying it is a foreign attempt to seize American jobs and American wealth – and is immediately attacked by Obama.

By Francesca Chambers

Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris accord on climate change on Wednesday afternoon – deriding it as bad for American jobs and bad for the environment.

He dared opprobrium from foreign leaders, environmentalists, scientists and celebrities to say he was putting the jobs of American workers first.

‘We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be. They won’t be,’ Trump declared. ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.’

Before he even sat down, his predecessor Barack Obama launched an all-out assault, saying Trump ‘joins a small handful of nations that reject the future’.

Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire, said he was quitting advising the White House, tweeting: ‘Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.19.47 PM

America first: Trump was unrepentant in saying he was standing up for U.S. interests

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.22.23 PM

Trump complained in the White House’s Rose Garden that major polluters like China are allowed to increase their emissions under the agreement in a way that the US cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of dollars of foreign aid.

The deal is a ‘massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries,’ he said.

‘The Paris accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

‘This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,’ Trump said.


On the accord… 

As of today the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. 

This includes ending the implementation of the National Determined Contribution and – very importantly – the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune. 

The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States. 

On its cost… 

Compliance…could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Rconomic Research Associates.

The cost to the economy at this time [by 2050] would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that. 

America first… 

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. 

They don’t put America first. I do and I always will. 

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices, and in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. 

What he wants now…

We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. 

We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.

Trump said he would also end the United States’ participation in the United NationsGreen Climate Fund.

In a slap at European leaders who’d lobbied him last week, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Trump said the Paris exit is ‘a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.’

‘Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the United States economy that our own citizens and their elected representatives,’ Trump proclaimed.

Trump told off naysayers in a lengthy explanation of his decision and the effect he expects it to have on the US economy.

‘The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do and I always will,’ he said.

He outlined what he said the accord would do to the American economy: 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025; $3 trillion in lost GDP by 2050; and an average household income loss of $7,000.

Trump said he would be willing to get back in but only if he is allowed to renegotiate the terms of the United States’ participation.

Among Trump’s reasons for leaving the accord was the ‘massive legal liability’ that administration lawyers had warned him about.

The Republican president also said he could not support the agreement ‘in good conscience,’ from an environmental stand point, either, ‘as someone who cares deeply the environment, which I do,’ because it is non-binding.

It imposes ‘no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters,’ Trump said – naming India and China as countries which could ‘do what they like;.,

Sitting in the front row for Trump’s outdoor announcement chief strategist Steve Bannon, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Vice President Mike Pence – all of whom were part of a push to leave the agreement.

Trump ended months of speculation in an afternoon Rose Garden event promoted with all the anticipation of a major press conference.

He sided with conservative groups over world leaders and his daughter Ivanka, declaring that the accord poses a dire threat to the American economy and jobs market.

She was not there to see more conservative advisers applaud loudly as he said the United States was out of the treaty. Neither was her husband, Jared Kushner, one of his closest aides, who had also been said to have lobbied to stay in.

The White House tipped its hand just an hour before the president spoke, when it distributed a set of ‘talking points’ to allied organizations that proclaimed, ‘The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first.’

The document says the US is exiting the international climate accord because it is in the best interest of US economy.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.24.27 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.25.36 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.27.05 PM

A successful businessman before he was elected, Trump has already taken steps to end the ‘job-killing’ regulations his predecessor enacted in order to bring the US in line with the environmental pact.

In a May 26, 2016 speech to a gas- and oil-friendly crowd in Bismarck, North Dakota, he declared flatly: ‘We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.’

Trump also said then that if he were elected he would stop making payments to United Nations programs that fight global warming.

The talking points the White House gave to conservative organizations on Thursday said, ‘The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation.’

‘It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.’

Trump, the most unpredictable U.S. president in a century, performed as expected despite sending signals of ambivalence about his yes-or-no decision during the week and telling reporters that he was ‘hearing from a lot of people, both ways.’

Asked if America would be in or out, Trump would only say: ‘You’re going to find out very soon.’

European allies had begged Trump not to ditch the pact last week, and the White House said the president was considering their position.

When White House sources said he was pulling out on Wednesday morning, the reports set off worldwide condemnation led by the United Nations secretary general.

The Vatican called the move a ‘slap in the face’ before it was announced.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said: ‘If he really does [pull out], it would be a huge slap in the face for us. It will be a disaster for everyone.’

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.28.58 PM

Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end the United States participation in the global warming agreement.

Their ask ran as a full page ad in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

Lakely said Thursday that there were four possible outcomes of Trump’s deliberations – including a pullout that could spark lawsuits and an end-run involving sending the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

‘The Senate fails to get the two-thirds votes necessary to ratify the treaty, and it’s really dead, instantly,’ he said.

Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, said at a weekend summit in Italy he was sure Trump would back the deal after listening to his G7 counterparts.

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.10 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 4.30.41 PM


Screenshot 2017-06-01 10.38.16

Withdrawal from suspect treaty would greatly benefit US economy

By John Carney – JUNE 1, 2017

The president is expected to formally announce this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

  1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
  2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
  3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and OhioThe industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
  4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big BusinessBig businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.
  5. Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 
  6. Much PoorerThe overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.