Which prompts this response to government coffee…
From the New Yorker:
For decades, business owners have resisted higher minimum wages by arguing that they destroy jobs, particularly for young people. At some theoretical level, high minimum wages will distort job creation, but the best empirical evidence from the past decade is aligned with common sense: a minimum wage drawn somewhat above the poverty line helps those who work full time to live decently, without having a significant impact on other job seekers or on total employment.
Except it’s wrong, ignores the loss of jobs that are never created and the subsiziding impact of welfare and low-income benefits that also siphon funds away from job creation and into government redistribution.
I’ll let Orphe Divounguy explain it again:
(For example, a study of pairs of neighboring counties with differing minimum pay found that higher wages had no adverse effect on restaurant jobs.)
Of course, he doesn’t cite the study, the amount of difference in pay, or an analysis of what jobs were lost, not created, or where these counties were.
Even so, a federal minimum wage of ten dollars or more will not solve inequality. It will not stop runaway executive pay or alter the winner-take-all forces at work in the global economy.
And here we see the true intentions. The objective is to make equality of outcomes. The ideology is a belief that executive pay is “runaway” and that the economy is a “winner-take-all” scenario, rather than one of mutual cooperation for benefit. Apparently the New Yorker’s Steve Coll doesn’t understand where pencils come from.
Yet it will bring millions of Americans closer to the levels of economic security and disposable income that they knew before the housing bubble burst.
No, it won’t. It will artificially increase wages, which will then result in employers increasing their expenses to customers. There will be a transfer of wealth from the many to the few. There will be a visible result of a handful of people with minimum wage jobs making more money, but it will result in a less visible loss of wages by everyone who uses those services, by employers whose payrolls will be adjusted in favor of old employees versus new ones – meaning jobs that would be created will not be created, and it will result in overall economic loss.
Coll starts his piece by talking about increases in wages for baggage handlers at SeaTac airport, where the minimum wage was bumped from $10/hour to $15/hour by a ballot initiative. Businesses spent money pushing against it, and Coll celebrates that leftists emerged triumphant, that the “grassroots left, which seemed scattered and demoralized after the Occupy movement fizzled, has revived itself this year—with help from union money and professional canvassers—by rallying voters around the argument that anyone who works full time ought not to be at risk of poverty”.
Union money was sent in by union people who can now look forward to extracting union dues from those $15/hour workers at a higher amount than when they were $10/hour workers. Professional canvassers are leftist marxist agitators and professional shit-stirring revolutionary groups who serve no function but to create conflict that they exploit for their own personal profit. The businesses involved opposed it as best they could, but the leftists in Seattle & Tacoma voted for it.
What that means is that the expenses against the airport have gone up, and they’ll have to come up with something to balance it out. That may mean layoffs, it may mean no new hires, but most likely it will mean increased rates and fees to customers. The customer is hurt at the expense of the visible aid to the fictional oppressed proletariat.
…life on fifteen thousand a year is barely plausible anymore, even in the low-cost rural areas of the Deep South and the Midwest. National Republican leaders are out of touch with the electorate on this as on much else, and they are too wary of Tea Party dissent to challenge their party’s current orthodoxies of fiscal austerity and free-market purity.
Life on $15,000 per year is not something that someone manages alone. First off, there are massive government handouts to those of that low income group; second, as Orphe explained, a lot of times, those workers are entry-level workers just getting started – like teenagers.
The Tea Party is composed of people who understand how economics work – that you can’t just arbitrarily say “we’ll make your employer pay you more” without that money coming from somewhere. Again, Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote comes to mind:
Coll finishes with this bleeding heart plea:
The case for a strong minimum wage has always been, in part, civic and moral. Minimum wages do not create new “entitlement” programs or otherwise enjoin the country’s sterile debates about the value of government. They are designed to insure that the dignity of work includes true economic independence for all who embrace it.
The case for strong minimum wage laws has been couched in some people’s idea of what other people are entitled to. If you pay the neighbor kid $5 to mow your lawn, it’s not moral for the neighborhood to tell you that you MUST pay him $20. The result will be that the neighbor kid goes without the $5 and you mow your own lawn. There’s nothing moral about dictating to people how much a worker has to sell his labor for or how much an employer has to pay for that employee’s labor – because it destroys entry-level jobs and harms the community.
The tut-tutting busybody who wants to put the government’s gun to someone’s head and make them do what they feel should be done is not moral.
Minimum wage laws inflict an entitlement by force. The dignity of work comes from what people put into it – and earning a paycheck, not having the government hold a gun to your employer’s head – leaving you either paid more than you’re worth or unemployed entirely.
There is no “true economic independence” for a $10/hour job, a $15/hour job. Idle rich and trust fund babies have “true economic independence” – and even they can lose it if economies change. Economic independence comes from having one’s own skills that are marketable in different job environments.
If Coll and clowns who publish his Marxist drivel want to provide “dignity” and “true economic independence”, why not mandate a $100/hour minimum wage? If people made $8000 every two weeks, they’d be doing pretty well. Why not a $1000/hour minimum wage? Or a $10,000/hour minimum wage? You could work for a day and pay off student loans and buy a new car all in one.
If he’s got intellect greater than that of a grapefruit, he’d respond with “but businesses can’t afford to pay $10,000/hour.” And just the same, they can’t afford to pay any other artificial minimum wage without modifying their business model. Some businesses could handle $10,000/hour minimum wages, but it would harm them severely and result in cutting many employees, hiring no more employees, and passing costs off to customers. Some businesses can handle a bump to $15/hour minimum wages, but it will harm them as well, it will harm future employment, and the business will pass costs off to their customers.
He wonders why the Midwest and South have a lower cost of living – and that is due in no small part to not having to deal with wage inflation – those costs are passed on to businesses, which pass them back on to us.
Update: Some leftist union organizers have decided to stage strikes for higher fast food wages across the country. When they get the government to force their employers to pay them $15/hour, they’ll find that those businesses can’t stay open because no one wants to pay $17 for a Whopper or $13 for a Big Mac. They won’t be able to afford the Taco Grande meals they make.
The fast-food effort is backed by the Service Employees International Union and is also demanding that restaurants allow workers to unionize without the threat of retaliation.
It’s like I should just write “the usual suspects are at it again”.
Beating a dead horse – if they’re not worth the pay, they’re not worth the pay. That’s not a measure of their value as a human being, just their respective value in their chosen job. Demanding more wages because you’ve chosen to make an entry-level job a career is a problem with the individual’s ambition and drive and desire to sit on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, not a question of whether their employer is a greedy robber baron capitalist pig-dog.
A stupid op-ed from WaPo:
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”
Which is as stupid today as it was then. Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation. Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.
…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.
And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria. Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s. As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:
Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.
The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today. The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist. While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes. The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power. With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.
Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:
Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.
To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.
Economically, people were suffering under it. And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.
Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:
“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”
The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat). The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.
It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.
“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party. Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years. The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life. Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader. Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”
That’s the real crux of it.
Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy. In his time, it would work. In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.
Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism. Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”
Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”
Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more. Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.
When Siskiyou County, CA Sheriff John Lopey tried to buy an M1 Garand rifle through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), he was denied and told he failed to pass the background check conducted via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Lopey is a sheriff: he carries a gun and enforces the law for a living. Prior to being a sheriff, he spent 33 years with the California Highway Patrol and is a retired Army Colonel. He had Top Secret clearance in the Army.
The FBI handles NICS background checks for firearms purchases. Ironically, Lopey recently went through and passed a background check to attend the FBI national academy.
Very interesting, since he’d bought guns within the past year and had no problems. But then there’s the fact that he’s not very politically popular with the left and the Obama administration, mostly for opposing tyrannical environmental regulations that are destroying his county and region.
RED BLUFF — Sheriffs from nine Northern California counties on Saturday blasted government regulations and public agencies that, they said, have devastated their counties.
“We were sworn to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It seems we have more enemies that are domestic these days,” said Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff. “There is a movement to destroy rural America as we know it.”
Standing tall and trim in a dark suit and tie, Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey grimly delivers his message of resistance, warning of state and federal regulators moving to usurp control of local resources and constitutional rights.
“We’re in a fight to preserve our heritage, way of life, economy, public safety, health and the welfare of the citizens and the freedoms we hold dear,” he tells meeting rooms packed with his law enforcement peers and their constituents. “This is serious business folks.”
That specific statement went out to an audience of about 300 at a September gathering of sheriffs in Josephine County, Ore., one of more than a half-dozen such public meetings during the past year where Lopey’s remarks have been greeted with approving applause.
“We sheriffs have recognized that some agencies and several special interest groups are using money, influence, politics, regulations and sometimes lies to push an extremist agenda which threatens to literally destroy rural America and our way of life,” he said.
This Huffpo piece names Lopey as one of the left’s most-hated sheriffs in the nation (right next to Joe Arpaio), but the comments are much more informative about the condition of northern California than the Huffpo propaganda.
You can also just consider what Lopey has to say about the Second Amendment and consider if that might make him unpopular with the fedgov.
Now, it’s just speculation that he’d be targeted, hence the “tin foil” tag… but given that the IRS, the ATF, and numerous other fedgov agencies have specifically targeted Obama administration opponents and continue to do so all lends credence to the idea.
Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis “My Only Loyalty Is To Illegal Aliens” Gutierrez says Republicans are telling him amnesty will happen.
“When I talk to my Republican friends,” Gutierrez said, “[they tell me] all of the parts will lead to the full package.”
He made his comments on Al Jazeera America’s Inside Story on Friday. Gutierrez has called Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) his ”ally” in his quest for amnesty and has praised Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as well. He emphasized that he, like President Barack Obama, does not care if immigration reform is “in parts and pieces as long as in the end, there is a full menu.”
Last week, President Barack Obama said of the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate, “If they want to chop that thing up in five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like. Then, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that immigration reform was “absolutely not” dead.
Note Gutierrez was going to Al Jazeera to brag. And let’s not forget that Paul “Screech” Ryan is so much a RINO that Tanzanian poachers hang out by his house.
Meanwhile, billionaire Mark “Here’s A Tip – I’m Rich So Screw You” Zuckerberg has decided he’s going to flaunt immigration law by hosting “hackathons” with illegal aliens while telling you that it’s a civil right for someone else to break into your house and thereby it becomes their civil right to sleep in your bed. After all, being a citizen of one nation doesn’t mean you don’t have a civil right to the goods, services, and privileges of another nation. He’s also funding propaganda to support the right of invaders to live in your house, and telling the agents who are tasked with your protection by enforcing immigration law “screw you”. (Standby for our Facebook page vanishing if JBH cross-posts it there.)
Nice to know that somebody who made billions in the US market is ready to try to destroy the nation. And of course he won’t listen to ICE agents about illegal aliens and why we’d want to screen people for admission coming into the country. He’s a billionaire. He’s the Ruling Class through and through. He’s not going to get his store robbed by some gangster illegal alien from the Ukraine, or shanked by a “gardener” illegal alien who was hacking people up with machetes during the El Sal civil war.
He’s going to get cheap labor for programming while he ditches American workers. Democrats get free votes, Republicans get cheap labor. The American citizenry, legal immigrants, legal residents, and everyone who played by the rules and believes in the rule of law gets screwed.