Minimum wage fallacy, misguided hatred (and victim-blaming) – of free markets

Another back and forth with a person confused into supporting the politics of envy and redistribution.

Enjoy.

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

When the minimum wage is raised, it raises everyone. People have more money to spend which drives the economy and builds/expands business. If the masses don’t have money to spend, they can’t help expand the economy.

It isn’t just high school kids that make the minimum wage, many single moms and under educated workers are also struggling to make ends meet while the upper echelon enjoy the spoils of their work.

I make far more than the minimum wage (several times that, plus) – own a home, have a portfolio and have built security for myself, but I still vote democrat . There is a difference between right and wrong and hiring someone for a wage that doesn’t even allow them to sustain a life is just wrong. – But again for a Republican there is only one truth – “I got mine so screw you!”

My reply:

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

LOL. Yeah, and the Libertarians get the same BS caricature from the progressives. Anyone who does not like letting the government exchanging your liberty and wealth for their crackpot ideas that they want to chain us all to… We’re the problem. Not them, the authoritarian-progressives (a redundant phrase since the latter always requires the former) and their know it all, monopolized solution process.

Losers.

Let charity be voluntary and let the market solve problems rather than busy body know-it-alls who do more to compound the destruction of the what’s left of a functioning economy. They slowly strangle the golden goose. Thanks, but no thanks to you.

These guys understand it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

<

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind? That there is more than enough to provide? And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments. Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work? When you let “the market” solve the problems you find that the market has personal greed as it’s primary driver and there are more problems cause than are trying to be corrected. I am for a free market, to a point, but there has to be a check on abuse and our history abundantly demonstrates that abuses will occur.
 

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind?

Nobody can assure that, not even big government, with its overpaid union bureaucrats taking a fat chunk as middlemen.

And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments.

Progressives always conveniently forget that millions of people immigrated to the United States for the American Dream long before they inserted themselves into the scene by promising free lunches of “wealth now vs. a little bit later”, which was how it worked then. They fail to account for how so many pauper Europeans reached wealth beyond their dreams to varying degrees vs. the alternative.

Don’t tell me about ignoring history.

Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work?

 

Do you think a 40-hour work week was even feasible in a country that did not already accumulate unheard of amounts of wealth without individual liberty, property-rights and a free market?

Already in the U.S., long before labor laws, the U.S. employee was gaining ground vs. anywhere else in the world in unprecedented fashion. This was driven mostly by competition and free market labor fluidity, where an employee with experience could migrate to a higher wage and/or better conditions offered by competitors. Surely corporatists hated this and began their efforts to monopolize power through a stronger centralized government in order to hamstring competition / guarantee profits. Unions answered this by creating labor-monopolies that benefited their own members as the expense of consumers and non-union workers, and killed competition from non-union labor that would provide better prices or service to consumers. They were anti-liberty, corporatist bedfellows.

They may have fast-forwarded a 40-hour work week and overtime rules, but not cost-free. Long term, both contributed to making U.S. labor less fluid and competitive.

On Hong Kong and Protestors – What Should the U.S. Do?

The U.S. could simply issue a statement:

“The U.S. believes a nations’ primary, if not sole responsibility, is protecting the individual liberty of its citizens. We do not condone actions by governments that violate their citizens’ liberty, nor do we support populist democracy movements whose goal is to seize power only to swap the government with a different set of violations of individual liberty.

We hope those involved in the current problems in Hong Kong consider their ultimate goals in terms of human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We denounce any and all efforts by any party that are contrary to that sentiment.”

It would be a lie, though, because most all in the U.S. Government don’t believe this in any way whatsoever.

Progressive sounbites only work as soundbites

I’m no republican, but found a post out on politico to to be the usual lame, twisted caricature of anyone against progressive authoritarianism.

The post was a bunch of soundbites directed at the GOP — but applicable to us all, so let’s address. each   Unfortunately, smugness can be one liners, but explanations require detail, so excuse the length.

Let the caricatures begin.

***

The (GOP folks, but you can insert anyone who disagrees with progressives policy here) all…:

“Admire the American farmer but are willing to help him go broke.

Actually, plenty of R’s are big into subsidies for their own states, so this ain’t so accurate. But on farm subsidies, let’s get this straight. U.S. policy on farms is an economic catastrophe, paying people to overproduce some crops, fighting tobacco at one level, while granting subsidies to farm it at others (recall, Dear Leader Al Gore is a gentlemen farmer who benefits); forcing consumers to overpay for some crops, exporting overproduction of others, even giving it away into the 3rd-world, which undermines developing economy markets for agriculture; then we get stupid things like the “ethanol mandate” that is actually worse for the environment and caused economic problems due to the subsidy chasing going on, etc. Then there is the Mosanto protection racket BS that’s all part of the same mechanism.

So, go ahead with the smug one liner and mock others who find this all distasteful as “being against the lil ol’ farmer”. I call BS.

Stand four-square for the American home but not for housing.

Because the housing bubble had nothing to do with massive intervention in the housing market at both the Congressional level or at the monetary policy level from the Fed and our twisted banking cartel system Nor did mandating that people who cannot afford homes should still be qualified for mortgages they don’t have the incomes for is a good thing. Nor did enabling an incompetent bureaucracy filled with political appointees hired expressly to make sure everyone got a mortgage, providing a defacto guarantee on all mortgages (Freddie and Fannie) have anything to do with it.

Yes – being against such short term, feel good lunacy (that buys votes, no doubt) is against “the people”. Dream on.

Are strong for labor but stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

Last I checked, the politically connected are for this.

Certainly big business does not like labor fluidity because they want to have workers stuck who can’t find jobs. Hence, big business is always at the forefront of writing regulation “to protect the people” which always, the shock of all shocks, coincidentally adds tremendous hurdles to entrepreneurial activity that would undermine market positions of the politically connected, which would equal their best employees jumping ship for the opportunity to excel / get paid more / enjoy the profits of creating something more consumer effective at a new job.

But are unions here to save us? Heck NO! They want to carve out their own monopoly on labor at the expense of the consumer who must pay more for the same or (as has been the repeated the case in experience) lower quality product. They don’t want labor fluidity — entrepreneurial job seekers moving around undermining their monopolies in certain industries, so they legislate against freedom of choice for labor.

So you try to make it sound that cutting back on Unionized labor’s monopoly to push others around and prevent freedom of choice is a bad thing?

No wonder unions are so isolated, and progressives so out of touch. Unions are not a solution. They doubled down on the problem of corporatism.

PS – if we all became union, there would be no benefit since everyone’s wages would adjust, and costs would universally go up, and the fraud would be exposed completely.

Favor the minimum wage. The smaller the better.

Nope. Wrong again. Anyone with economic sense understands price fixing of anything creates market distortions and affects prices in other areas. A forced above market minimum wage prices unskilled labor out of the market by putting it at a price above its actual economic output. Unfettered wages are a product of supply and demand of skill sets. To pretend that entry level burger flippers are worth more than they are merely encourages employers to seek alternatives — they fast forward investment into job eliminating machinery, off-shoring, etc. Or they pay a more skilled person with higher output. Does not happen overnight, but such is integrated.

Min wages, however, immediately force consumer to pay more / subsidize the extra wage as prices must go up to account for the increase in labor cost inputs. So they have less disposable income afterward / are poorer for it, as are all the folks who used to get that spending now cut off. Moreover, because min wage is tied to union wage scales, union wages go up (a big secret reason for minimum wage support), further increasing consumer subsidies to protected workers, and hurting those who were part of the previous consumption chain now with less $$ thanks to the new law.

Yes, some will benefit. But this is like me taking money from one person to give it to another. That is good for buying votes, but it is poor economic policy in the long run. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has always been folly, but not to the economically illiterate and desperate voter min wage advocates prey upon.

Endorse equal educational opportunities for all but won’t pay for teachers or schools.

How about teachers getting paid for their quality in an open market exchange of education alternatives?

Oh, I get it. You only want UNION-Government monopolized education, run by politicians for the benefit of the politically connected –e.g. The Education Industrial complex (testing, text books, etc.) and unions. So they can charge $550k per 35 kid classroom which is a typical big union / city run school district cost. ($15k per kid is average, but I’ve seen some cities as high as $18,400 like union heavy City of Pittsburgh).

When you actually put consumer choice choosing and defining quality — rather than unions or twisted politicians — as the chief priority, we can discuss funding education, and perhaps the best charitable method for educating those who cannot afford education vs. pure entitlements.

Think our medical care and hospitals are fine – for people who can afford them.

A system ruined by 75 years + of incremental government intervention, a system of legislated oligopolies and corporatism run rough shod over consumer choice and freedom.

A system that further guarantees that no matter how badly you take care of your body you’re supposed to be entitled to whatever care is necessary to bail you out?

yeah… And Obama-care triples down on that lunacy as a solution?

Let the market do its thing with freedom, and let’s carve out the discussion of handling the charitable needs of those who can’t afford it.

Consider electrical power a great blessing as long as private power companies get their rake-off.

LOL. Government created oligopolies (utilities) are indeed a problem. Of big government politicians killing liberty / choice.

Think the American standard of living is a fine thing as long as it does not spread to all the people.

Oh, I see — 80-years of increased redistributionism and expansionary monetary policy are not to blame for the existing economic malaise.

We’ve been raiding the economic seed-corn of wealth creators who improve the standard of living in this nation and redistributing it for political purposes through both govt. meddling and through Bank Cartel / Fed policy (fractional reserve multiplier effect, etc.). And we do so more and more each year. And now that harvests are coming in leaner and leaner, suggesting famine is on the horizon, your solution is to raid more seed corn?

We were warned extensively of this happening by sound economic folks back when this started and exactly what they warned of (more bubbles of increased volatility, wars financed on debt and money priting, etc.) has come to be.

But keep supporting the same looters, and blame those who want to end it as the problem.

Admire the United States government so much that they want to buy it.”

 

Harry Truman (funny how some things don’t change)

Blah blah blah.

Progressive Operatives Are the Racists in Your Comment Section

The left has officially declared  that if your against Obama and/or progressive methods, you are a racist.  They have set about convincing everyone of this as a means of getting the fence sitters to ignore all criticism.  All very Orwellian —  thought planting kind of stuff.

Hence, there’s plenty of incentive for them to post extreme racism and hate on the comment sections of politician and news sites, and then reference that planted material in order to assassinate the entire message and messenger of the related criticisms.  The old “guilt by association” tactic.

This is, of course, impossible to prove.  But we do know that Saul Alinky’s Rules for Radicals is all about such deceit to achieve the essentially neo-Marxist / Fabian Socialist Utopia progressives wanted to enable.

And we do know progressives are all about calling other people racists…Look at the largely unfounded Tea Party accusations — Every progressive knows that racists attend Tea Party gatherings, although none has actually seen one.     They’re quick to accuse their opponents of being haters of the poor, wanting elderly to starve and arranging things so kids have no healthcare options…. Etc.

It’s all designed to put your opponent on the defense and get them off track.

It is followed by another Alinksy rule: Ridicule.  They’re “Tea Baggers”, Got it?

So why wouldn’t they be doing this?

The Sequester Bogeyman’s Gonna’ Getcha!

Those in power love a Bogeyman.  Bogeymen legitimize the power-grabbing ways of those who gravitate to power positions, and every politician since the beginning of time learned early in their career that their relevance is severely diminished when The People come to realize they don’t really need such middlemen telling them how to run their lives, or confiscating the fruits of their hard work, or generally just getting in the way of ordinary consensual behavior.

And so it is that we come to the Sequester Bogeyman, and how many in the media are either too illiterate to understand what’s being foisted on them, or as is probably more often the case, they are quite willing to be accomplices in positing up the charade because they share the same, busy-body political sentiments.

With that, I thought I’d take a few minutes to pick apart the version of the Great Sequester Crisis embraced by John Schuppe / promoted over at the NBC affiliate in the San Francisco Bay area. [Bold emphasis added by yours truly.]

The Budget Sequester: How Did It Get Here, and What Does It Mean?
The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that a million or so jobs will be lost under a full-scale sequester in 2013 and 2014.

Every day that passes without a deficit-cutting deal makes it more likely that the federal government will be forced into its first “sequester” in nearly 30 years, a problem of politicians’ own making that could suck billions of dollars out of the economy.

Gee. Right out of the gate we’re hit in the nose with an recurrent economic bogeyman.  If the government doesn’t spend money that’s cut from the budget, it will not “suck $ billions out of the economy”.   What it will do is one of several things:

  1. Leave taxpayers with more of their money.  But in the case of the massive deficit spending the current fight is all about, current taxpayers won’t see a dime of benefit from any cuts because we’re talking deficit financing, which leads us to…
  2. Lenders to the U.S. government will be forced to find other investments for their dollars they were using to aid and abet the massive debt load created by voters and politicians in the United States.  However, that, too, won’t happen because the Federal Reserve is actually currently purchasing in excess of all newly issued debt with what they call QE III (quantitative easing round 3, which in this case is a fancy way of saying “printing money out of thin air to buy debt instruments with the goal of price-fixing U.S. interest rates.   Which leaves us with the real outcome…
  3. Leaving the Federal Reserve with the choice of a) monetizing less U.S. while increasing it’s purchase of other assets (most likely shift to buying more of the existing, outstanding US Treasury debt, although it might push to mortgage debt, etc., keeping alive the Fed’s money printing trend of the last four + years), or b) simply cutting back on the present QE III pace of money printing / price manipulation in general.

So, regarding outcomes,