When the minimum wage is increased it forces upward ALL wages above due to wage compression. When we increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (approximately a 40% increase!), that increases the wage of those at the bottom from $7.25 to $10.10. What about someone making $8? Or $9? Or $10? The law would require that they ALL be raised to at least $10.10. But is that enough for someone previously making $8, $9 or $10? Logically, of course not! Thing is, the compression doesn't stop there. ALL wages above the NEW minimum wage are also affected!
For example, what about someone with 5 years experience and making $10.10 before the minimum wage increase? Is ANY company going to leave their wage there so that they make the same as someone just hired at $10.10? Of course not. Their wage must be increased too. Let's say their wage is increased from $10.10 to $12.50 ... ie, a smaller increase of 'only' 24%. That seems more fair, eh? But what about someone with 8 years experience who was making $12? Now someone less qualified/experienced is making $12.50, 50 cents more than they do. What do you do about that? Raise their wage also to something like $14.40 ... ie, 'only' a 20% increase. Now, what about a person who'd been making $14 before the minimum wage was increased? Can't leave them making less than someone now making $14.40, right? And so on ... with EVERY wage above the new minimum wage.
So, we can see that when the minimum wage is increased, it's NOT just the wages at/near the bottom that get increased. It forces employers to increase the wage of most(!) hourly workers.
Let's examine the resulting impact on employers. If they're forced to give NEARLY ALL hourly workers an average increase of, say 20% (remember it's a 40% increase just for those at the bottom), That's a VERY non-trivial hit to a company's bottom line. It's a historical statistical(!) fact that minimum wage increases hurts employment. Companies either slow their hiring or fire people in order to stay profitable. Would we rather they go bankrupt and have everyone lose their job?
Even President Obama's own CBO understands these economic factors. These consequences are discussed in a new National Review article that references that CBO report.
All of the analysis above is not only common sense when one considers the larger implications but historical facts verify it. We can't keep doing these things and expect different results especially when common sense tells us it's nuts. We've got to think with more common sense and a longer view of things or we're going to allow our federal and state governments to ruin our economy. We can't keep letting those knuckleheads do all our thinking for us!
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.
Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.
In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?
Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?
Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.
It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?
How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).
Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.
Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.
In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?
Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?
Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.
It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?
How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).
Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.
Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Joe Biden Boosts Voting Rights ... As If Historical Democrat Opposition To Voting And Other Minority Constitutional Civil Rights Never Happened
I was amused by the MSNBC article today, "On MLK Day, Biden Boosts Voting Rights", for two reasons.
First, Democrats historically opposed(!) voting rights for minorities and it was Republicans who historically created and passed such legislation close to 100%. Democrats were still voting in big numbers against voting rights acts less than 60 years ago ... on the 1957 Voting Rights Act for example. It wasn't until the 1960's that Democrats began supporting voting rights in a significant way. And it wasn't until the 2007 Voting Rights Act that Democrats finally caught up with Republicans in the percentage of votes supporting it. Now they talk as if they're the ones who invented this civil right (and others). Go figure.
Second, what far too many uninformed Americans don't know is that Democrat opposition to minorities' constitutional civil rights wasn't limited to the area of voting rights. Contrary to their 'leadership' claim on the party website history page they historically opposed all major constitutional minority rights efforts. It was Republicans who created and passed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. Democrats opposed them all, nearly 100% in most cases. They defeated Women's Voting Rights bills three times until the 19th Amendment was finally passed by a Republican-controlled congress. And it was Democrats who filibustered(!) against and had twice the percentage of no votes (as Republicans) on MLK's landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which makes Vice President Biden's support of voting rights on MLK day as ironic as it is welcome.
Here are a couple of references regarding the truth of this matter if you're interested:
Kevin Williamson's 2012 article.
My historical summary.
First, Democrats historically opposed(!) voting rights for minorities and it was Republicans who historically created and passed such legislation close to 100%. Democrats were still voting in big numbers against voting rights acts less than 60 years ago ... on the 1957 Voting Rights Act for example. It wasn't until the 1960's that Democrats began supporting voting rights in a significant way. And it wasn't until the 2007 Voting Rights Act that Democrats finally caught up with Republicans in the percentage of votes supporting it. Now they talk as if they're the ones who invented this civil right (and others). Go figure.
Second, what far too many uninformed Americans don't know is that Democrat opposition to minorities' constitutional civil rights wasn't limited to the area of voting rights. Contrary to their 'leadership' claim on the party website history page they historically opposed all major constitutional minority rights efforts. It was Republicans who created and passed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. Democrats opposed them all, nearly 100% in most cases. They defeated Women's Voting Rights bills three times until the 19th Amendment was finally passed by a Republican-controlled congress. And it was Democrats who filibustered(!) against and had twice the percentage of no votes (as Republicans) on MLK's landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which makes Vice President Biden's support of voting rights on MLK day as ironic as it is welcome.
Here are a couple of references regarding the truth of this matter if you're interested:
Kevin Williamson's 2012 article.
My historical summary.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
The Truth About The Unemployment Numbers. It's Not What You Hear From The Media
President Obama once again bragged about his economic policies having created 8 million jobs. Sounds good, eh? Problem is, over 10 million Americans have given up looking for work during his terms in office. Even a child in elementary school can do the math. That's a net decrease in employment of 2 million Americans on Obama's watch!
How come the unemployment rate has dropped under 7% during Obama's terms in office? Because 10 million Americans have given up looking for work. The 'unemployment rate' can decrease due to either net jobs added or people leaving the workforce and therefore no longer being counted as unemployed. (Ref. The Truth ...)
The truth is, if there were as many people in the workforce or looking for work now as there were in 2007 the unemployment rate today would be over 11%. Indeed, the labor utilization rate (the percentage of Americans employed or looking for work) is 63% ... a 34-year low! The employment picture hasn't been this bad since President Carter's policies did pretty much the same thing. (Ref. The Truth ...)
Making matters even worse is that a large percentage of jobs created by Obama's policies have been part-time. For example, through the first seven months of last year 77% of jobs created were part-time! That leads to what's called 'underemployment'. Factor in underemployment and the unemployment rate is 14.3% and it continues increasing. (Ref. The Truth ...)
Another truth the Media and this Administration don't want to talk about is that most of the real (ie, good-paying full-time) jobs were created in Republican-led states via Republican pro-growth policies. Democrat policies at the national and state levels had nothing to do with that and instead have been killing jobs all across our country.
Read The Truth: America's Unemployment Stats They Don't Want You To Know for the above information and even more really bad news that I haven't shared here.
How come the unemployment rate has dropped under 7% during Obama's terms in office? Because 10 million Americans have given up looking for work. The 'unemployment rate' can decrease due to either net jobs added or people leaving the workforce and therefore no longer being counted as unemployed. (Ref. The Truth ...)
The truth is, if there were as many people in the workforce or looking for work now as there were in 2007 the unemployment rate today would be over 11%. Indeed, the labor utilization rate (the percentage of Americans employed or looking for work) is 63% ... a 34-year low! The employment picture hasn't been this bad since President Carter's policies did pretty much the same thing. (Ref. The Truth ...)
Making matters even worse is that a large percentage of jobs created by Obama's policies have been part-time. For example, through the first seven months of last year 77% of jobs created were part-time! That leads to what's called 'underemployment'. Factor in underemployment and the unemployment rate is 14.3% and it continues increasing. (Ref. The Truth ...)
Another truth the Media and this Administration don't want to talk about is that most of the real (ie, good-paying full-time) jobs were created in Republican-led states via Republican pro-growth policies. Democrat policies at the national and state levels had nothing to do with that and instead have been killing jobs all across our country.
Read The Truth: America's Unemployment Stats They Don't Want You To Know for the above information and even more really bad news that I haven't shared here.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
First-Time Grandparents On November 14, 2013!!!
Sonrie Bee (Sonnie for short, pronounced 'sunny') was born to son Matt and wife, Heather, on November 14, 2013. We let our relatives and friends know the old-fashioned way (phone mostly but email too) but life was so crazy for us the last several months of 2013 I'm only now getting around to letting 'the world' know.
Our kids (Matt, Chris and Heather) all bless our socks off so add another to the mix. We look forward to the joy and enjoyment this new addition brings to the entire family.
God Bless You Matt, Heather and Sonnie and your family's future. Much love from here! - Dad and Mom
Friday, October 25, 2013
American Republic Enduring
An interesting quote I read yesterday:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." (Alexis de Tocqueville - French writer & historian)
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
In Celebration Of Family: First-Time Grandparents!!!
With Great Joy
my wife Karen and I join our son, Matt, and his wonderful wife, Heather,
in celebrating the impending birth of their first child!!!
In about two weeks we'll be grandparents for the first time. What a joyful, fun time for our entire family.
My 'kids', including daughter-in-law Heather bless us in so many ways; our cup overflows! We couldn't be happier for Matt and Heather at this sweet time in their lives.
You now become that unique and precious thing, a family. We pray God's Blessings on it always.
Much love, Dad and Mom XO! XO! xo! XO! XO! xo!
And It Was Republican Policies, Not Democrat, That Created Most Of Those Jobs
It's interesting to hear President Obama and other Democrat leadership take credit for the jobs growth during this 'recovery', anemic as it is. The facts say otherwise.
The jobs improvement in the US occurred almost totally in Republican-led states and has been the result of Republican policies. The states (and cities) with the worst jobs results are nearly all Democrat-led.
Republican governors and/or legislatures have implemented policies that are business-friendly. That's why businesses have been moving to their states in droves. They've also taken action to reduce their states' taxes, debt and spending. Republican states have tended to be fiscally and economically stable during this recovery. Democrat-led states have tended to be the ones in the most trouble economically and fiscally.
President Obama's and Democrat leadership's claims that their policies have led to what anemic improvement we've had in the unemployment numbers is factual nonsense. If anything, their policies have slowed the recovery.
The jobs improvement in the US occurred almost totally in Republican-led states and has been the result of Republican policies. The states (and cities) with the worst jobs results are nearly all Democrat-led.
Republican governors and/or legislatures have implemented policies that are business-friendly. That's why businesses have been moving to their states in droves. They've also taken action to reduce their states' taxes, debt and spending. Republican states have tended to be fiscally and economically stable during this recovery. Democrat-led states have tended to be the ones in the most trouble economically and fiscally.
President Obama's and Democrat leadership's claims that their policies have led to what anemic improvement we've had in the unemployment numbers is factual nonsense. If anything, their policies have slowed the recovery.
Friday, August 9, 2013
80% Of Jobs Added The Past Four Years Were Part-Time. That's NOT "Growth"!
I thought the state of our economy was bad when I found out recently that the net number of jobs added to our economy the past four years is zero. Here's a reminder of the facts about that:
Contrary to loud and frequent proclamations by the president, his democratic allies and The Media that the jobs picture is better than it was four years ago that's only true if you believe that part-time jobs are just as healthy for our country's economy and for families as are full-time jobs.
Four years after G. W. Bush's tax cuts went fully into effect we had full employment at 4.4%. After four years of President Obama's recovery programs the unemployment rate is still well over 7%, the real unemployment is still(!) near 11% and part-time job increases have outnumbered full-time jobs 4 to 1. Not only has this jobs environment not improved, it's far worse than under Bush after the same duration of jobs policies. Facts can be inconvenient things, huh?
- The unemployment rate decrease is almost totally due to people giving up looking for work and leaving the workforce. Another way to say that is, when you stop looking for work you are no longer counted as unemployed which drives the unemployment rate down.
- If the same number of people were in the workforce now (instead of dropping out of it) as were in it at the beginning of this recession the unemployment rate would be around 11%. The claimed improvement in the unemployment rate is a total illusion.
Contrary to loud and frequent proclamations by the president, his democratic allies and The Media that the jobs picture is better than it was four years ago that's only true if you believe that part-time jobs are just as healthy for our country's economy and for families as are full-time jobs.
Four years after G. W. Bush's tax cuts went fully into effect we had full employment at 4.4%. After four years of President Obama's recovery programs the unemployment rate is still well over 7%, the real unemployment is still(!) near 11% and part-time job increases have outnumbered full-time jobs 4 to 1. Not only has this jobs environment not improved, it's far worse than under Bush after the same duration of jobs policies. Facts can be inconvenient things, huh?
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Matt's and Heather's Baby Girl At 26 Weeks!
Congratulations To Matt And Heather
On The 26-Week Milestone!
Beautiful Baby Daughter, Eh?
Karen and I are so happy for our son Matt and wife Heather and we celebrate the 26-week milestone with them! They're going to be great parents and I can't wait to greet my first grandchild! :-)
TWO daughters in the family now. How cool is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)