People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first.
David H. Comins
Tweet of the Day
Protectionism is anti-consumer and does little more than address the symptoms rather than the disease of failing business models.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 21, 2015
Image of the Day
Minimum Wage Policy: Morally Bankrupt Prohibition or Limitation of Voluntary Gainful Employment of the Least Skilled/Experienced of Prospective Workers
Bad Judge of the Year Nominee: Washington State Judge Alexander Ekstrom
Forty-year florist Barronelle Stutzman recently declined the opportunity to provide floral services for a "gay wedding" on religious grounds; note that the businesswoman was willing to sell other products and services for the gay couple. Now note: if the gay couple decided to boycott Ms. Stutzman because they disagree with her religious views, the fascist state government wouldn't have a problem with it. So apparently some parties to a voluntary transaction are "more equal" in the "judge"'s warped mind. Do what extent does a florist have a right to reject service? What if the gays called Ms. Stutzman a "homophobe" or had engaged in misconduct while in Stutzman's place? What if there were other reasons--e.g., she was already booked that weekend, she was short-handed, she had vacation plans, etc. Oh, it's different because she admitted that she had stated a reason. (Suppose she was an atheist "homophobe" looking for a plausible excuse...) The point is a voluntary transaction is just that; if Stutzman has the right to reject service to any couple for no or any reason, it's not the government's business. If gays or their "progressive" sympathizers have the right not to do business to Stutzman, why doesn't she have the right to lockout gays and "progressives" from her shop? (I obviously am not persuaded by the public access argument.) The idea that a gay couple can force a florist to service them by declaring "discrimination" is morally outrageous: it basically enslaves a florist to the whims of any politically favored constituency and violates the very concept of the rule of law.
I have no use for the morally corrupt state attorney general who is persecuting Stutzman or the supporting ACLU, which has not exactly been an advocate for religious or economic liberty. The florist industry is very competitive; I'm sure that there are gay florists who specialize in gay weddings and a number of national chain or other florists willing to take anyone's greenbacks regardless of the circumstances, even the arranged marriage of your dog and horse. What the state attorney general and this judge-in-name-only are really doing is criminalizing politically incorrect behavior.
Choose Life: 8-12 Week Preborn Girl Jumps/Plays in Her Mommy's Womb
Facebook Corner
(IPI). From the The Wall Street Journal: "Critics of capitalism promote the myth that businesses will always pay the lowest wage they can get away with. But it’s more accurate to say smart capitalists pay the wages they need to keep employees productive and contributing to growth and higher profits.
More often than not this means regularly raising pay to avoid losing the best workers."
We should not be surprised that Big Business loves to impose high costs on less affluent competitors; when they endorse related policies from government, it's an intrinsically corrupt concept called crony capitalism. I'm not sure if Wal-Mart's move was motivated for business reasons like turnover or unfilled vacancies or more of a PR move: what I do know is that the increased costs will be passed onto its shoppers and it'll be harder to get hired at Wal-Mart.
Employers or capitalists will pay as little as possible to retain a workforce to keep their pockets lined. I don't think the government has any business regulating a minimum wage. Instead they should focus on creating an environment that promotes keeping production and services within our borders. The current policies promote part time jobs and overseas jobs. Supposed trickle down economics is misleading. It should be called trickle up. No matter what happens the money flows up. If our government actually gave a damn about the poor and WORKING class they would introduce a maximum wage and tax foreign goods and services to make it more expensive to ship the jobs over seas. But they don't care. Big corporations and politicians especially care about nothing more than making themselves rich. Walmart pays so low that many employees qualify for taxpayer funded welfare programs. So glad almost 50% of my income is stolen from me then used to supplement low wages paid by corporations and enable the people at the top of these corporations to make ridiculous amounts of money.
What a freaking moron! Occasionally you have a glimmer of truth in there (second statement). Let's start with the first one: if this is true, explain why 98% or so of jobs are NOT minimum wage. Employers with high turnover (and I think this is a factor in Wal-Mart's announced increase) also have higher training costs, etc. They have an incentive to pay up to the point your work has value to the business; this reflects your skills and knowledge you bring to the employer that enables him to achieve business objectives. If you pay an uncompetitive wage, you'll lose him to a competitor; on the other hand, if you want pay above what you're worth to a business, it'll never happen.
No, retard, your pay is not being stolen to supplement low wages--what fascist source did you get that bullshit from? Listen, retard, a number of these jobs are held by spouses and children of middle-income families who don't need government assistance. And let's agree that we should BAN the social welfare--or you're just an opportunistic, unprincipled bastard trying to make a talking point about a policy you actually support. A subsidy would be the government paying Wal-Mart to hire workers, by making them cheaper than their market wage. Wal-Mart is not a charity (I don't know where you "progressives" seem to think you have a freaking right to decide what other people earn--it's none of your business); it's paying a going wage or you wouldn't take the job--nobody is holding a gun to your head to work for Wal-Mart. Whether you're some teen looking for spending money or a single mom raising kids, it has nothing to do in terms of operating a cash register.
Finally, are you so uninformed that you don't know why France recently dropped its 75% income tax on high earners? The country's key businesses couldn't find talented executives willing to reside in France. "Maximum" wages are just as retarded as minimum ones. The former results in scarcity--jobs go unfilled; the latter results in surpluses, i.e., unemployed low-skilled labor.
This is something you won't learn from the lips of The (Incompetent) One--the Depression was exacerbated by a trade war in large part due to high tariffs passed under Hoover--there are many American jobs supporting exports. Your idiotic policy would throw those guys out of work. The way you grow an economy is by lowering taxes on investment and on income and reducing the government's stolen property and regulatory overhead.
The market should determine wages not the government.
As Marc points out, we have an imitation market. The real market would strive and sustain fair wages if it weren't for policies and regulations that undercuts our business and labor. How can we compete with China and countries that dont have to abide by our emissions and labor laws? Besides outsourcing and opening our borders? Either require other countries to live up to our standards or reduce the standards to compete with them. So far the only thing that I have seen reduced is our labor force, it's quality, benifits and salaries.
I'm sorry to see the OP's fundamentally sound economics attracting the adversarial views of economically illiterate fascists. Sweatshops, capital controls, regulations imposing our failed policies on non-suicidal economies: you fascists are really starting to bore me. First of all, the sweatshop bogeyman has long been debunked; sweatshops often provide higher than area average compensation in areas with low costs of living and are voluntarily staffed. Second, Fascist Alan's predictable anti-trade trite talking points ignore compelling economic evidence in favor of free trade and are fundamentally elitist and anti-consumer at its core, lowering the standard of living to others deprived of a wider variety and price-competitive goods and services; mercantilism is morally bankrupt and indefensible. He is also woefully ignorant, assuming wage differentials are the only salient factor of production; you often have higher logistics costs and less control over production processes. For example, the fascist conveniently overlooks noncompetitive tax and regulatory costs. He is also ignorant of the fact that the economy has been far more service-oriented since the time The (Incompetent) One was in diapers, and we cannot compete globally on high-cost semiskilled commodity labor.
(IPI). Union officials complain about “free riders,” who will opt out of the union yet still benefit from the perks of contract negotiations.But what the union bosses fail to mention is they are the ones who fought for exclusive representation rights to begin with.
What I don't think IPI emphasized enough is the government's granting of monopoly privileges to unions. This is why unions aren't as plentiful as blackberries. If you felt your compulsory union was unrealistic in its negotiations, enough to put your livelihood at risk, you had no alternative. If, say, I was a great math/science teacher but my union refused to allow incentive merit pay or market-based compensation, I have little alternative in the tyranny of the majority: not only that, but I'm often having to bust my behind, while incompetent slackers get the same reward and job protections at the expense of younger workers.
The issue, as IPI attempts to point out, is the unions present a false choice: you accept our policies and political agenda or find other work. There is no counter-union offering you no-frills bargaining with lower dues and no involuntary political expenditures and activities. The employment zones, even without unions, have to provide competitive compensation packages insofar as their business models allow. There are only so many jobs available at say some artificially high union-based costs. The law of supply and demand still holds: at higher prices, there's less demand for labor, more demand for labor substitution (e.g., technology). It's like dysfunctional minimum wage policies: prohibitions of voluntary work contracts at a market-clearing rate do not help the unemployed worker. You can't force an employer to pay you more than your work value to the employer. Unions intentionally look to manipulate labor markets to limit the supply of workers, precisely because of the law of supply and demand.
The governor is fundamentally sound from an economics standpoint: if you are trying to grow economic development and the jobs along with it, you need as little government or government-protected labor monopolies as possible to get in the way.
What amazes me is that no one seems to have learned from the lesson the UAW taught American industry and consumers after striking Ford in 1968 and GM in 1970: companies unavoidably raised prices, consumers resented both the UAW and the car companies, and took their purchasing power to where it brought more, even though it meant "buying foreign." Eventually, "Buy American" went out the window; it isn't coming back.
What the auto companies did was to cede lower-margin vehicles which basically couldn't sustain union contracts and maintain a reasonable return. (There have been management issues, too: long design cycles, mediocre vehicle reliability, etc.) So they tended to focus on higher-margin SUV's, trucks, and luxury models. Of course, other competitors with more realistic business models who could build profitable, reliable small and intermediate cars could also go after Detroit's lucrative market niches. Competition forced Detroit to compete on price in their last remaining niches, and the auto unions were in a state of denial. Bankruptcy was inevitable.
I don't know if "buying American" is out the window. I do think to be successful in the global market your costs have to be in control, you have to know your consumers, and you have to be at the bleeding edge of innovation in terms of products and services. Protectionism is fundamentally anti-consumer and does little more than address the symptoms rather than the disease of a failing business model.
More Proposals
I really had no plans to start an extended series of proposals. I know I had an extended series around the time one of my nieces got married last year and more recently two nephews and one niece have become engaged. I originally intended to do one for Valentine's Day, but for some reason I've been finding other videos. This run will continue so long as I find enough fresher clips to make it worthwhile; it may well be this is the last in the series or it could go on for a few more days or even weeks. (I suspect sooner than later.)
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall |
James Taylor, "Up on the Roof"
