End Result? 40% unemployment among young people. Virtually no economic growth over the last 8 years. Stagnant job growth. Declining wages. Strikes, riots, and utter chaos twice a week. Great idea. Message to Howard Dean: This is the reason, despite my current disgust with the Republicans, why I will never vote for your party. I do not want our country to turn out like this.
3 comments:
Whenever socialist invoke the argument of "Compassion" for their dreams of a welfare state, the laws of Economics (also more formally known as Yeckonomics, after the man himself) seem to back the tree hugging dreamers into a corner. Why?...
Take, for example, the case of free loving liberal who recently commented about the "living wage" in UGA’s daily newspaper. This is a fight that many brave liberals have taken up arms for. The pansy invoked the cause of "Compassion" for the reason behind a higher minimum wage. This so called "living wage" is considered by socialist has having more humane benefits than the current minimum wage that we have know. Liberals see the current minimum wage as not life sustaining(Meanwhile ignoring that fact that 1. Raman Noodles and Mickey D's dollar value menu can sustain any person earning $2/hr. 2. The US has the peculiar situation of having an overweight population who at the same time lives in poverty.)
Now, the socialist proclaims that the “living wage” is "Compassionate" because it benefits society, right? No, says Yeckonomics. When a wage is subsidized above the Market’s predetermined equilibrium wage, what happens? Well, first of all, businesses like Wal Mart will probably fire a number of employees in direct proportion to the increase is minimum wage. Then, due to increase costs and the lost benefits of economies of scale (ie efficiency), products will all be priced higher.
There you have it Mr. Compassion. For every $10/hr labor worker, one laborer was fired. And just as Michael Vick stomps a man when on the ground, price of all goods for those unemployed rise drastically. But, I the “money hungry capitalist pig”, oppose any such government induced minimum wage. I may be a heartless bastard, but no minimum wage employment will rise and cost of goods will decrease overall. More jobs, more food. Hell, while we're add it, we can invest the funds saved from labor costs to create more jobs and industries. But who am I kidding, its just not “compassionate.”
On a larger scale, the “living wage” conundrum is exactly what those crazy French Jacques have ruined their country with. You may have needed us to bail you out of numerous wars, but at least you've done a good job on the Mayonnaise, Pierre.
I could cite a million studies that show how the minimum wage hurts poor people by forcing them out of the job market.
In addition, does anyone want to take a stab at just what percentage of American workers earns the minimum wage? 50 percent? 25 percent? Try just under 3 percent. Half of this 3 percent is under 25, and a quarter of it is between 16 and 19. Only one-fiftieth of this 3% (that's 0.0006% of workers) are single parents (source:http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm).
Also, 90% of workers hired at a minimum-wage are earning above the minimum-wage a year after they're employed (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2004/06/29/12189.html).
None of this data will stop John Edwards though, because it is the passion at the pulpit that gets the attention of ignorant voters who don't care about tedious things like facts.
Stephen, that was Marcus Vick that did the stomping.
The two of you are right on, just like Coach Yeckley, when it comes to economics. This is why I will donate money to organizations who teach people job skills and find them jobs as opposed to just giving them food and a place to stay for free (sorry to say, but the free shit given out by that Catholic church here downtown in Atlanta is helping keep the homeless population up very well, and this is a problem the Church may need to rethink very soon).
And do you know why these people are protesting in france? because the government wants to change the current law to make it easier for employers to fire bad employees. Currently, you can't fire your employees, so if you hire a stupid college student who knows nothing and is as lazy as Senorita Sullivan's teaching style, then you are stuck with them for a few years. So who do the businesses hire? Experienced workers. If they could hire young people with the known ability to fire them, then they would hire them and the unemployment rate would be lower.
And can you believe we have people in this great counrty trying to get the government to impose these same laws on us?
Post a Comment