Democrats Offer Rehash of Same Old Song

 

Rereleasing old songs, as if they were new, works well in Hollywood as we always hope the remake of an old favorite movie will offer more pizzazz and though some do, most just let us down and we leave the theater feeling hollow. The music industry does the same thing with old songs, often over and over, and still the original is often the one we prefer best. But at least Hollywood and the music industry choose successful movies and songs to try to modernize, and still they usually fail the test of time. The Democrat Party is trotting out their oldest theme which has worked by lulling the people with stories of getting everything for free and never having to pay. The electorate soon realizes that there is no free lunch and somebody has to pay. The sad reality is that often the people who were promised that everything was to be free are the exact ones who end up paying. But the Democrats believe that they can win the youth over with their message of redistribution of wealth and everything for free with only the wealthy paying. What the Democrats are not telling them is that anybody who has a job is the Democrat definition of wealthy.

 

The War on Poverty has failed which is proven through the Cato Institute study showing that the collection of federal and state welfare benefit packages could deliver over $30,000 to a family without them working or even seeking employment. Perhaps this free stuff is the incentive to remain taking all the free stuff offered rather than working as if done to the full extent, one could keep the family fed for free. Benjamin Franklin offered some brutal and painful truths when he stated, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Benjamin Franklin allowed for people who were new in poverty, such as those whose job was abolished by unforeseen calamity such as the workplace closing, to receive temporary benefits, as their newfound poverty was not of their making. But as with many such allowances, it comes with a but, and that but is these are to be temporary and none should be supported by other people’s labors permanently, especially over a prolonged period. Franklin firmly felt that making people uncomfortable with poverty was the best remedy for their situation and not making the life of those in poverty comfortable and wanting for nothing. Perhaps it was this position which had the mint place Ben Franklin on the $100.00 Bill pictured below.

 

Ben Franklin on the $100.00 Bill

 

Numerous studies have shown that those in the United States who are considered to be in poverty have a modern flat screen television, computers, a vehicle which is more often previously owned but some have new cars, a microwave and numerous other items which could be considered to be a luxury. We remember the first time such a study was released, which was before flat screens, so then it was just color televisions and stereo systems, we were left somewhat stunned as we did not own a microwave as they were still too pricey for a retail salesperson’s and a secretary’s salaries. We found that one reason was the poverty-stricken were residing in government assisted housing while we resided in the posh suburbs in a spacious two bedroom apartment. The italicized should be read with great sarcasm as the government assisted housing area was less than a mile away across the city limits inside Philadelphia while we then resided in Ben Salem just off Street Road, yes, that was the name of the road. This is not then a new problem as this refers to a survey performed in the 1970’s when even many Democrats feared that those in poverty had become too comfortable in their poverty.

 

The truth which needs repeating, and should be taught to students in their introductory economics classes and political science classes, but that would be considered detrimental and not aiding in the proper indoctrination of the student to expect and support full Europeanizing of the United States, is that socialism has and will always fail. Another item which bares repeating is that the United States was the nation, and even before nationhood, the region where one ran from Europe and its habits, to start a new world where if one worked hard they would succeed and not have governments dictate where their moneys were to be spent. The American Revolution was over a three percent tax on tea. Let that sink in, a three percent tax on tea. It was the principle that they were being taxed to support somebody else’s spending and that this spending was done without their even being allowed a vote to elect the government taxing them to cover its expenditures. Many people in America today did not vote for those who support these seemingly extravagant welfare related expenditures, especially to allow a family to collect a government provided allotment greater than their salaries after taxation. We can fully understand one taking the government handout and not working if in order to take home an equivalent sum annually would require, if our math is accurate, over $42,500 in salary per year. That requires being employed at over $20.00/hr working a forty-hour week. With such generosity provided by the government, one would be foolish to take employment at minimum wage, even if it was the $15.00/hr that the Democrats are pushing. With welfare and other subsidies offering such free money which exceeds even their dreamed of higher minimum wage, it is no wonder that employers are unable to fill minimum wage entry positions. Oh, and guess who pays for all of this largess? Anyone making over $20.00/hr, that’s who.

 

So, where as those who have learned to live off the system may be receiving a free lunch, those who work and pay for it know that their lunch is far from free. We have heard about the degrading system which makes one wait in lines and the shame in paying for groceries with the government card and all the other horrible requirements made for people to collect these funds. We also know the other side of approaching half one’s paycheck being eaten by taxes, federal, state, county and city. Even FICA now goes directly into the general fund as the lock-box has been eliminated as the politicians found leaving little IOU’s on the “Social Security” lock-box far too tedious when stealing what was supposed to be set aside to pay for Social Security in the future. The politicians act like there still is such a lock-box, and there is, it is just no funds are ever inserted as all funds enter immediately into the main stream of cash flowing through Washington D.C. in order to pay for all the goodies they keep enacting. What the systems for eliminating poverty are now accomplishing is guaranteeing that once one reaches the stage of going onto these programs, they become all but impossible to leave simply because it would require quite a cut back in one’s lifestyle as at an entry wage one would have to take almost a one-third cut in their income.

 

Everyone remembers their first paycheck; they waited eagerly those first few weeks, regularly computing all the money they would get, all but spending it on music or the down payment on a super stereo (we were just beginning high school when we went through this calamity), and then we receive the envelope with the check with all our hard earned money inside. Then we opened the envelope and the sum in the box marked, pay to, and the shock went through our young bodies, the mind raced, we felt a little queasy and just knew something had to be wrong. We asked our go-to experts on all things in the real world, we knew them as Mom and Dad, and usually we asked Dad these questions, and Dad explained taxes and how as we were working part time we would get most of those withholdings back sometime next year. Withholdings, next year, whose idea was this rip-off, we wanted names and addresses so we could go and well, go and do something. Time proceeded along its pace and we stopped planning on spending our money until we actually had the check and even got to the point we could estimate what would be left for us. Then you are placed on the sales floor and are paid by commission against minimum wage, which made figuring out your paycheck became calculus. But that shock of the withholdings is one you never get past and when money gets tight, emergencies or whatever, it happens, that is when you really feel that the system is broken.

 

The reason is simple, by taxing the rich using the income tax you are missing their wealth as the truly rich invest, they do not work for a salary, and the average CEO gets stock bonuses and a car and chauffeur and other perks, not a big salary. They pay little to no income tax as income tax is the way the truly wealthy make sure no regular working stiff ever makes into their ranks protecting their status as those with all the power. They may eventually, if they do not reinvest their funds fast enough, have to pay capital gains taxes but only on the increased value of the stocks, the principle is never touched. Their initial wealth remains untouched and should they decide to buy another mansion, they buy it as an investment such that they get to use it as a deduction against their capital gains taxes. They often have all their expenses taken off their portfolio so as to use them as losses incurred and pay themselves some paltry salary as spending money off a trust fund set up to avoid paying taxes. The only way of touching these wealthy, the truly wealthy, would be a wealth tax, and that will never happen. Just for the record, ever wonder how Congresscritters become so wealthy on what is a mediocre income? The answer is so basic that it will really upset you, Congresscritters and their senior staff are immune from insider trading laws because they have so much insider information that they would not be able to control and invest their wealth if they needed to obey such restrictions. These are the people screaming that Trump is staying at hotels where he owns the property and they make insider deals knowing which company is about to receive billions in tax monies for some government program? Please, give us a break. They are all scoundrels.

 

The whole problem is that the monies one receives in the various welfare systems cannot exceed the take-home pay of a minimum wage earner or there is no incentive to go out and work. But the Democrats have a solution for that. Remember, their solution for high college tuition is for government to pay for college, free college, their solution to high medical bills is for government to pay the medical bills, their solution for the problem of the moment is for government to pay, their solution to all your problems is for government to pay; but the government does not earn any money, they just take it from those who work. We wish to close quoting Margaret Thatcher who once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That is exactly the problem that Venezuela is suffering, Greece is suffering, Italy is suffering and what eventually killed the Soviet Union and cripples Cuba and most of Europe. That is another reason for the United States not to go down the apparently perfect plan of socialism and instead to return to the Constitution and limited government with the powers accumulated in Washington D.C. being redistributed amongst the individual states where the people have greater control.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Sometimes Things Just Make Your Head Hurt

 

Are people really going to bring back idolizing mass murdering leaders like Joseph Stalin, more affectionately called “Uncle Joe” back in 1940s America? Apparently, they are if we are to believe the story from a Socialists, May Day, International Workers’ Day rally in Trafalgar Square in London. From amongst the parade’s extravaganza of signs, flares and flags, that is the impression we draw and what else could one believe (see images below). There really is not any different conclusion one could reach when viewing the scenes from Trafalgar Square in London. Labour Party supporters left little doubt as to their new heroes, and the direction they hope to take Britain. The May Day, International Workers’ Day rally appeared to be something straight from the Moscow original May Day rallies where people were volunteered to attend and look happy about the state of things. One might say they felt a tinge of nostalgia if it were not for the sickening knot they felt in their gut. Seeing banners of Stalin, huge banners of Stalin on display in London are not a celebration but a foreboding, a warning to all Britain of what is coming if the far left should win an election. This May Day, International Workers’ Day rally should be a wakeup call for every true lover of Britain who desires to try and salvage at least some of the beating heart of a proud nation for them not to allow such leaders to take to the fore in their political arena. Unfortunately, this is likely a muted call which will be drowned out with chants for “Uncle Joe” and his promise of a slice of pie for everyone and free everything off the backs of forced laborers and the return of collectivist farms and famine. Those were the hallmarks of Stalinist Russia and Ukraine, but that is history and nobody cares to learn history any longer.

 

Joseph Stalin Celebrated During May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally Waving the Red Flag Banners

 

Few More Shots of Marchers at May Day, International Workers’ Day Rally

 

One would think that such a march with Stalin brought to the fore would not shock us, after all youth have been wearing “Che” T-shirts thinking they were one of the kewl-people simply for wearing a t-shirt with a mass murderer emblazoned across the front and likely some feely-touchy slogan on the back all about equality, fairness and sharing (see examples below). For those who either do not remember or were never taught the reality behind Che Guevara, he was the executioner for Fidel and Raul Castro who took great pleasure in his assigned position. Che Guevara had received a medical degree in 1953 but after he became radicalized, he found that he preferred taking lives to saving them. He was the hatchet man for more than just Cuba as after he was no longer required in Cuba, Che Guevara assisted with communist uprisings in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia. It was in Bolivia where CIA backed anti-communists, also known as our butchers by the American government rather than the Soviet’s butchers, where Che was captured and found himself poetically on the other side of a firing squad. Che was born on June 14, 1928, and summarily executed on October 9, 1967, at the age of thirty-nine. Yes, we know he authored books on revolution and social equality and held positions other than official executioner and commander of the firing squads. One description of Che Guevara given by Ronald Radosh, a Hudson Institute adjunct fellow, as stated in “‘Che’ spurs debate, Del Toro walkout” in The Washington Times from January 27, 2009, “He took joy in killing counterrevolutionaries and was one of the most hard-edged, most Stalinist, pro-Soviet communists of the whole leadership.” This was the man seen on campuses across the developed world, image made larger than life and who holds a place of the grandest of illusions that Che was the best of the best and they ignore that this physician preferred killing to healing, that was the real Che Guevara.

 

Various Che T-shirts

 

Still, communism continues to hold sway and the far leftists always have the same reasoning for their desire to impose extreme socialist governance upon societies which are producing wealth and improving the standard of living over the widest range of the citizenry. But the socialist leftist revolution does not see this, they only see that some have great wealth and for them this is a crime, not an example to emulate. Their reasoning is that they know it has failed every time it has been attempted, but this time it will work as it is supposed to work because this time they are the right people who will make it work. They fail to see the basic problem with the entire formula which has two main problems. The initial problem is once the power structure is in place and they no longer serve any purpose, they will be discarded and if not careful, simply shot as someone who is no longer necessary but insists on continuing the revolution. They do not realize that the revolution is always about changing the people who have great wealth from those who produced items people desired to the leadership of the revolution, usually the top three percent of the revolutionary figures, the rest are executed or escape and live silent and wretched lives on the fringe of the new order. The other mistake is the formula of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” the formulation by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. In such a system, the intelligent choice is to have a great list of what you need and a short to nonexistent list of your abilities. Communism, or any form of extreme socialism, is based on limiting needs while forcing people to work as given the choice people will always have great hopes for realizing their needs but far less enthusiasm for working hard to realize them. Once a small percentage refuses to work but is still permitted to live at an equal level to those who work diligently and with great zeal and effort, soon the zeal wanes, the diligence become slack and effort goes out the window. This formula is doomed to fail as it works against the basic nature of people in a society. This can only function in a small group where everyone knows everyone else and thus slacking is immediately addressed by the whole group. Once the population gets large, there is no mechanism for shaming slackers, thus they begin to increase in numbers.

 

We may as well talk of why capitalism works so much better than socialism. The problem is people are, for the most part, greedy. We do not mean greedy as in avarice, but people want often more than they can reasonably afford. In socialist governance, they simply get on the waiting list and eventually they receive their desired items. Working for these items is not required because there is no connection between desires and work produced. Work is required according to one’s ability, and when one denies having any ability, in a large collective they get to skate. Further, if they are active in the ruling party and go to every party meeting, appear at every rally and show great enthusiasm, despite producing nothing of value, they will be rewarded simply due to their apparent enthusiasm, nothing more. Capitalism works completely differently. Capitalism realizes that people desire goods and services, often beyond their economic standing. Capitalism simply states that you will be rewarded for effort you make in providing something of service to the society. The more valuable your service or goods provided, the higher your reward. Higher reward means more goods and the one with the most toys wins. Greed drives production in capitalism, and that is the secret. Greed, desire for more drives one to produce more in order to be rewarded with more. The desire to acquire more items and live a richer life drives the individual to work harder and smarter. The desires are satisfied directly according to effort, not independent of effort as in socialism where as much as possible is made free for everyone.

 

But people still want something for nothing such as universal healthcare, free college educations, even free jobs created by the government simply to provide everyone with employment, not necessarily productive employment, just employment. When one adds in the fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for these government jobs, many people making less will be quitting their productive work to apply and receive, automatically, these high paying government busy work jobs. They tried this in Mao Zedong’s China. One of the government jobs was mowing the grass in the capital city of Beijing. Each person was provided a pair of nail scissors and a six-centimeter ruler and was instructed to start at one end of a large multi-acre field of grass and to measure each blade and cut them individually all to two centimeters in height. When they finally weeks later reached the other end, they were returned to the beginning and instructed to perform the same job once more. This job employed one thousand people taking two to three weeks to finish the job once only to repeat their job endlessly.. The same job in a capitalist system would be performed by three or four people within a few hours with lawnmowers, powered clippers and an edging machine. Yes, the capitalist job would also require repeated performance of the tasks every three weeks or once a month as described in the contract. The complaint the socialists have is that capitalism makes for uneven wealth with themselves, the leadership of the political movement in the socialist camp not being the ones with the wealth. It is no accident that after the socialist revolt, the leadership suddenly becomes very wealthy and live lives of excess while those who had produced much to gain wealth are removed from the equation.

 

Joseph Stalin was a case in point. Stalin was a very powerful force for the Communist Revolution which placed Vladimir Lenin in the top position. Lenin was supposed to have asked Leon Trotsky to make sure upon Lenin’s death that Stalin never takes power. Leon Trotsky was a thinker and not a man of action and definitely not a man of violence. Stalin was all those things and Trotsky had to flee but was eventually settled with Stalin as he was murdered in Mexico by a Stalinist agent. Stalin was brutal and when the farmers refused to allow collectivization, Stalin sent the military and secret police to take all their produce for the cities leaving them nothing and starving them into submission. Many farmers continued to resist and were murdered. Soldiers who had fought particularly well in the revolution were rewarded with farms and told to grow crops for the revolution. These soldiers were city dwellers and knew nothing of farming and their lack of yields proved their incompetence. This lack of food production caused famine and in order to feed the cities and prevent another revolution overthrowing Stalin, he used the military and literally stole the produce of the now conquered Ukraine. Children who , out of starvation and depravation, would try to steal into the fields seeking dregs of the harvest were simply shot. The census takers were executed such that it was never to be revealed how many died in the Ukraine. What did Stalin care, these were not real Russians and his real Russians in the cities had to be fed and kept from turning against his governing. Stalin also began to place Russians into the Ukraine so as to keep the area under his control. These Russians were agents of the government and were rewarded with, what else, farmlands for their use. Needless to point out, this led to another famine. Stalin was estimated to have caused the deaths of anywhere from twenty million to sixty million people all included. Stalin was not the worst of the communist killers as that title falls to Mao Zedong whose numbers reach into the hundreds of millions. One telling of the story through essays is the “The Black Book of Communism,” a book contested by those defending Communism. One item many forget is that the Communists are only one side of the far leftist socialism, the International Socialist. There are also the Nationalist Socialists who some insist are right wing. The most deadly examples of these nationalist socialists were the Nazis, which stands for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

 

Europe has been drifting further and deeper into socialist governance with obvious results on the horizon. It is all spelled out in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance (see image below). There are those in the United States who also support socialist governance. An example of such a politician would be Bernie Sanders whose platform included national healthcare, fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, free college education, and so much more as listed here. There are those who theorize that Communism could work provided it was applied to a nation which has a universal work ethic. This theory is most often used to claim that socialism would work in the United States simply because of the work ethic. It is believed that these efforts would continue unabated into the future. Where such a supposition might well hold its validity for those working at the time of the imposition of socialist governance, there is no promise it would continue into the following generations. The United States is already witnessing the youth expectations for a ready job waiting for them as soon as they receive their degree. Many have bought the idea that raising the minimum wage by almost doubling it would reduce poverty. In actuality it would increase poverty, cutting the numbers of minimum wage jobs by at least half if not much greater. Other results of such an increase would include many small businesses closing, automation wherever possible, a rush to produce AI humanoid robotic units, many workers who had pushed their performance simply to get a raise and a promotion now finding themselves back at minimum wage would be disheartened, the entire system would become broken, and lastly and the most oppressive result would be a general doubling of all prices as massive inflation would adjust everything to be in the same proportionality to the minimum wage, just adjusted for this level. Raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour would not produce any advantages, as within a year all prices would have reestablished their relative position to the minimum wage. For an example, let us assume that a fast food meal cost three times the hourly minimum wage, which with the minimum wage at $7.85 setting the meal price of $23.55. Now we increase the minimum wage to $15.00, what would you assume would happen to that cost for the meal? Initially it would remain the same but would very soon start to work its way up and up to $33.00 and then $40.00 and finally coming to rest at $45.00 if not slightly higher. So, within a year the average minimum wage paycheck would be worth exactly the same amount of money, but the people who own the businesses or have stocks in the large companies and especially those who own land and properties, these people would see a huge increase in their wealth and the end result would be an even larger abyss, a real chasm, separating the have’s from the have-not’s.

 

Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance

 

Should communism come to the United States through elections and the slow creeping socialism eventually overtake everything else, the same people will be in charge and giving the orders to the same people doing the work. The problem is with a higher minimum wage and free healthcare, college and all the other government giveaways, taxes would be raised on the working Americans resulting in even more being forced from the workforce as businesses tightened their belts and steeled up against the coming storms. In the end you would have approximately half the population not being productive yet receiving full benefits and the half that are working, many will not be putting their best foot forward after witnessing others getting their toes cut off for their efforts. Once the people feel the full effect of government removing the rewards for hard work and simply giving the exact same result to those putting forth no effort, that is when the workforce walks away from their jobs and the system once again will fail. This is what we can expect should the far leftists get their dream candidates into the White House. Should we assume that President Trump will be reelected and his Vice President wins a term, then it will take at least two and probably three Presidential terms for the leftists to turn everything around. The problem is after elected the same candidate twice to the Office of the Presidency, they would very likely declare themselves to be the Leader of the Revolution and President for Life. The highest officers in the military would already have been weeded with the conservative core removed and preening pretenders promoted in their place. These leftists already have pretty much a chokehold on the major cities which they regard as their own voting machines to wield as they see fit. They have taken over almost every school board and have control over the curriculums of their schools which currently produce Democrats sold on the idea of the socialist collective mentality where everything is produced by a committee where two or three people out of twenty perform all the work but everyone shares the glory. Perhaps the brakes will be applied in time, but eventually this will be the future. As we stated above and depicted, it is simply the way the wheel turns in the Tytler Cycle of Power in Governance, and there is no getting around this cycle by going the other way, that has been the proof of history. It is all very sad but true and so unfortunate. It is a result of urbanization as people residing in rural areas learn to do for themselves while those in the urban jungle learn to call a specialist. The differences are stark and spell the difference between dependence and liberty, serfdom and freedom, fear and courage, and finally living in a society best defined by some deformed and maladjusted confluence of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” described musically by Steppenwolf’s song “Monster” as compared against the Bible and Plato’s Republic with the spirit of Charlie Daniels’ song “In America” describing an alternative. Socialism becomes slavery while capitalism encourages innovations. Innovations are the necessity of a healthy economic base and without innovation, a society faces stagnation, an evil which impairs progress and curtails all hopes for a better tomorrow.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Coming Destructions of the $15 Minimum Wage

 

There are a number of Democrat run and owned cities which feel they have found the solution to poverty caused by those working merely for the paltry $7.25 per hour; the new dawning of the $15 per hour minimum wage. These cities see no problem with doubling their minimum wage and believe that the businesses, such as burger and other fast food restaurants and retail shops will have no choice as they will be unable to move from the city. They have missed another alternative that those unable to move beyond the city limits will face, total disappearance as they find it impossible to sell their merchandise at the inflated price required to pay their remaining help the overly inflated salaries. Where the minimum acceptable wage is already around $10 per hour the increase will still cause hardships for the retailers and manufacturers. Their higher priced goods will cause financial distress for those residing within the city limits without the means to get to the suburbs where the prices will actually be lower. Even the real estate will lose value as it becomes more difficult to rent their retail and manufacturing spaces and the cities slowly fall into disrepair as the people find they have little if any choice but to leave the city. With what jobs currently exist being initially cut just to remain viable, the economic base for these cities will be cut from under them. The loss of jobs will lead to decreased business which will again lead to more job loss in a slow death spiral. These cities will slowly turn into husks collapsing under their bureaucratic foolishness. They are signing their death warrant in their misguided attempt to right a nonexistent wrong.

 

When I first entered the job market the minimum wage was all of $1.25 per hour; yet nowhere in the entire area around the city where I resided could one find a job at that wage. The minimum wage by 1975 had risen to the unbelievable heights of $2.00 per hour and even that was not high enough to affect work in my home city. The reason was simple, nobody would accept such a wage nor could any employer find workers even for digging ditches at such a wage. My first job was washing dishes at a diner which paid more than $1.50 and was among the lowest paying of jobs. As it turned out I was a poor dishwasher and was fired within the first few weeks. From there I found work stocking shelves at a chain shoe store which paid even more and eventually became a commissioned sales person where minimum wage never became a consideration. Still, even friends who took construction work actually digging ditches or, as I did one summer, building railroad tie walls in a new community development were paid well above minimum wage. I know that across the nation there were many places where the minimum wage was the guideline for minimum wages of employment but that was always a starting salary. Anybody working at a minimum wage who was still making the minimum wage within six months or a year was usually soon to be seeking a different line of work as they were not up to par. Minimum wage was a test salary which was offered largely as one learned how to work at their chosen job and once they proved proficiency their salary would rise above that minimum rate. This fact was one of the truths I found wherever I moved was that any employee worth their salt made minimum wage only for the shortest of periods and once they proved their worth they received a more decent wage. Are there those who make minimum wage to start and will continue making that level no matter how hard they work? Yes, but these are a very small minority and few of them are raising a family on their salary. Those who only make minimum wage for extended periods of time will not benefit from a $15 per hour minimum wage as those will be the first people who will be let go. Often those making minimum wage for prolonged periods of time often are kept on the payroll not because they are price efficient but because their employers realize they are doing the best they are able and they remain employed more for spiritual or social reasons than economic ones.

 

 

The reality is the world is a hard and cruel place with little sentiment, though fortunately there is more sentiment just not in the workplace. In the workplace every salaried individual must fulfill a simple parameter; they must make more money for their employer than their employer pays them. Businesses are not for generosity or charity, even those in the business of charity as even they must show a profit for every employee. Their secret is the majority of their employees are largely volunteers and thus can easily take in more than they cost. Businesses need to make a profit or they serve no purpose and would soon go out of business without a profit margin. Let us take an example of a business which makes exactly the money as it pays out in salaries. How long would the owner and his family survive if this was the case? Owners only receive a salary from profits after all expenses are paid and thus employees must make more than they cost or the owner has no reason to remain open. Further, what is the owner to do when the rent for the store space comes due, the water and electric bills, the gas bill, taxes on the property and on sales, and how do they pay for the insurances for their employees such as medical (Obamacare does not come cheaply to the average business) and unemployment and payroll taxes etc. And then there are the other incidentals an employer has such as the Christmas party and cupcakes for employee birthdays and of course meals for their own family. If it is a large company then there may be stockholders who also demand profits otherwise they will take their investment capital elsewhere.

 

These are the most basic of reasons that the $15 per hour minimum wage is going to bust many of the cities employing it. There are probably a select few cities such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago and a maybe others where the minimum employable wage, not the minimum wage but for that location it acts as the minimum wage, is already over $15 per hour. These cities could make the empty statement that they are raising their minimum wage to $15 per hour knowing that virtually every employer, especially their main employers, already are paying $16, $17, $18 or even more just to find worthy candidates to fill their positions. The problem with their taking their minimum wage above the national average is it places an upward pressure on smaller and less affluent cities to follow suit when their economic situations cannot support such a wage scale. It is all well a good for the major cities where there are no shortages of employable people compared to the job base to make offers to raise their minimum wage to less than the going rate as they and their employers will not suffer. But as this is not about their minimum wage, it is about making a case to raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which the Democrat Party has been pushing, which would have disastrous results especially for rural neighborhoods and farm laborers. Small towns would find the higher prices near impossible for families to meet and employers would run their businesses as lean as humanly possible possibly leaving numerous former employees unemployed. These communities would soon be faced with taking their economies off the grid, so to speak. They would most likely turn to a barter system which is untaxable and makes things relative and neutralizes the minimum wage as what is the worth of bushels of wheat in exchange for a new roof on the barn? Soon these communities would drive out any competitors who could not accept bartered goods such as the chain stores which run only on dollars and cents. No, the $15 per hour minimum wage argument is mostly being pushed in Democrat controlled major cities such as Seattle, where their Federal Court Judge heard a case and has attempted to nullify President Trump’s immigration vetting delay from terror ridden nations. These cities already have virtual minimum wages well above that $15 per hour and thus are only going to hurt small Mom and Pop stores and other smaller enterprises or workplaces with low profit margins such as miniature golf courses, etc. The whole reason behind the minimum wage argument is to give false hope to young employees who see such a higher minimum wage as their salvations not realizing that it will only bring about a bout of inflation until the new minimum wage will be equal in buying power to the present minimum wage and will only result in the American worker becoming more expensive and thus chase more jobs overseas. This is a bad argument and can only harm America, but what do the politicians care if they can garner a few extra votes in November?

 

Beyond the Cusp