You'd think San Francisco would be the last place you'd find blatant discrimination against the young and the under-trained... But there's no denying this one... Effective January 1stits minimum wage was bumped to $10.24 an hour - making it the only city in America to breach the $10 mark, and the toughest place for a kid to get a job (not to mention what it does to the welfare rolls)... Bummer!
I didn't even know this until I heard yesterday that Subway will no longer do the $5 footlong in The City Where You Pay... Going forward, $5 will only buy you 9.74 inches of sandwich... The new jingle - "five dollar half-a-foot plus three-and-three-quarter-inch long" - just doesn't stick in your brain like the old "five dollar foot long" did...
But that's the way of it folks... When we're talking basic economics, politicians are either profoundly ignorant, or they assume we are...
Again (from yesterday's column), here's Walter Williams:
Saturday, March 31, 2012
When forced, are "better" labor conditions really better?
Under pressure, Apple's Chinese manufacturer, Foxconn, has vowed to make vast improvements to its labor conditions... Substantially fewer hours and better pay, in a nutshell...
So what do you think?
*Will, in the long run, such moves (resulting from political, as opposed to market, forces) help or hurt the lifestyle of the average Chinese citizen? Will there be greater or fewer employment opportunities going forward (after an initial hiring surge to cover the now fewer per-employee work hours)?
*Will higher prices for consumer electronics inspire faster or slower global employment growth?
*Is Foxconn ultimately making life better for the citizen of some other emerging nation, as production migrates to lower-cost labor markets?
*Historically speaking, who's been society's true benefactor - the businessman or the bureaucrat?
Per Henry Hazlitt: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
Per Walter Williams:
So what do you think?
*Will, in the long run, such moves (resulting from political, as opposed to market, forces) help or hurt the lifestyle of the average Chinese citizen? Will there be greater or fewer employment opportunities going forward (after an initial hiring surge to cover the now fewer per-employee work hours)?
*Will higher prices for consumer electronics inspire faster or slower global employment growth?
*Is Foxconn ultimately making life better for the citizen of some other emerging nation, as production migrates to lower-cost labor markets?
*Historically speaking, who's been society's true benefactor - the businessman or the bureaucrat?
Per Henry Hazlitt: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
Per Walter Williams:
Friday, March 30, 2012
Nobody's Perfect....
For me, seeing the Supreme Court in action is truly inspiring - of utter disillusionment that is... Clearly these folks are more motivated by ideology than they are the Constitution... And I'm talking all nine of them... Sadly, the Court is a mere microcosm of the group occupying the building across the street (The Capitol Building)... It's just too bad that intellectual honesty is an extinct commodity in Washington these days. And it's too bad there's no Santa Clause and no Tooth Fairy either...
Seriously folks, nobody's perfect, least of all those who'd see themsleves on the verge... They're just human beings, as susceptible to the whims of their egos as the rest of us... And would you expect humility from a "Supreme" (superior to all others by definition)? Of course not...
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman penned an article in yesterday's issue titled Elephants Down Under... He either just visited or is still visiting Australia and New Zealand... He reports that "there is a place in the world where moderate Republicans still exist"... He tells of a land where politicians work together, where they cross the aisle for compromise, where they make firm decisions on the issues of the day... Like the U.S. of the 60s and 70s*...
Why can't we have that? I mean how awesome would it be if the members of the U.S. Congress could all just get along? You know; get together, meet in the middle, come to terms on a few win wins, scratch each other's backs for crying out loud... Can you imagine what they'd accomplish? Seriously can you imagine what they'd do?
Well I can, and it scares the bejeebers out of me! I'd prefer to see them as polarized as possible... I want them politicking themselves right into their respective corners and coming out with as little as possible... I'd prefer you and I toil away at our respective vocations, meandering through the consequences of their past successes... Forever, in our individual pursuits, promoting market-based solutions to the pressing issues of the day...
Of course when our policymakers propose government-limiting legislation, which they'll have to eventually, we'll be having an altogether different conversation...
*Speaking of those wonderful 60s and 70s, here's an interesting expos
Seriously folks, nobody's perfect, least of all those who'd see themsleves on the verge... They're just human beings, as susceptible to the whims of their egos as the rest of us... And would you expect humility from a "Supreme" (superior to all others by definition)? Of course not...
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman penned an article in yesterday's issue titled Elephants Down Under... He either just visited or is still visiting Australia and New Zealand... He reports that "there is a place in the world where moderate Republicans still exist"... He tells of a land where politicians work together, where they cross the aisle for compromise, where they make firm decisions on the issues of the day... Like the U.S. of the 60s and 70s*...
Why can't we have that? I mean how awesome would it be if the members of the U.S. Congress could all just get along? You know; get together, meet in the middle, come to terms on a few win wins, scratch each other's backs for crying out loud... Can you imagine what they'd accomplish? Seriously can you imagine what they'd do?
Well I can, and it scares the bejeebers out of me! I'd prefer to see them as polarized as possible... I want them politicking themselves right into their respective corners and coming out with as little as possible... I'd prefer you and I toil away at our respective vocations, meandering through the consequences of their past successes... Forever, in our individual pursuits, promoting market-based solutions to the pressing issues of the day...
Of course when our policymakers propose government-limiting legislation, which they'll have to eventually, we'll be having an altogether different conversation...
*Speaking of those wonderful 60s and 70s, here's an interesting expos
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Makes Me Nervous...
The following, from this morning's NY Times article A Moment of Truth for Health Care Reform, caught my attention: "The critics insist that the mandate is unconstitutional because it regulates inaction. But the distinction they draw between inaction and action makes little sense. Refusing to pay a tax, for instance, is "inaction" that is clearly subject to government regulation. Choosing not to have health insurance is just as clearly a financial action - one that could shift future medical expenses onto others in the health system."
So by forcing individuals to carry medical insurance (private or public) we circumvent "the shift of one's medical expenses onto others in the health system." Really? Now I certainly don't have the answers to "our" health care problems, but I do know who pays for public programs... And I know who pays when insurance companies are forced to cover individuals they wouldn't otherwise cover...
And what then will we do about the gentleman who sits at Mickeydee's drive-thru window in his idled Oldsmobile (spewing exhaust fumes into the lungs of the children eating McNuggets and guzzling Pepsi in Ronald's playground) as he, after flicking the unfiltered Camel butt into the flower bed, orders two Big Macs, a large order of fries, three hot apple pies and a large vanilla shake? Think maybe his actions (not to mention the actions of the parents of the nugget-stuffed kids) will put a little pressure on "our" health care system? If the constitutional question is all about regulating inaction, we'll have no problem regulating this man's choice of automobile, his nicotine intake and his food... For "clearly these are financial actions - ones that could shift future medical expenses onto others" - with or without health care reform... Imagine the headline, A Moment of Truth for The Personal Choices Reform Act...
You may be a fan of The Affordable Care Act, and you may have it right - like I said, I don't have the answers... The fiscal question is, will this intervention ultimately produce the savings the CBO projects over the next ten years? I.e., will we save in the long run by spending more in the short run? The moral question is, do we continue to allow tens of millions of Americans to go without health coverage? Of course some would say the moral question is, do we force hundreds of millions of Americans to pay for the tens of millions who go without health coverage? Yes, I know, they already do... And at what point, in the interest of the greater good, do we force some bureaucrat's idealized lifestyle onto ourselves? Ridiculous? Let's hope so...
As for me, I'm a fan of freedom, and this one makes me nervous...
So by forcing individuals to carry medical insurance (private or public) we circumvent "the shift of one's medical expenses onto others in the health system." Really? Now I certainly don't have the answers to "our" health care problems, but I do know who pays for public programs... And I know who pays when insurance companies are forced to cover individuals they wouldn't otherwise cover...
And what then will we do about the gentleman who sits at Mickeydee's drive-thru window in his idled Oldsmobile (spewing exhaust fumes into the lungs of the children eating McNuggets and guzzling Pepsi in Ronald's playground) as he, after flicking the unfiltered Camel butt into the flower bed, orders two Big Macs, a large order of fries, three hot apple pies and a large vanilla shake? Think maybe his actions (not to mention the actions of the parents of the nugget-stuffed kids) will put a little pressure on "our" health care system? If the constitutional question is all about regulating inaction, we'll have no problem regulating this man's choice of automobile, his nicotine intake and his food... For "clearly these are financial actions - ones that could shift future medical expenses onto others" - with or without health care reform... Imagine the headline, A Moment of Truth for The Personal Choices Reform Act...
You may be a fan of The Affordable Care Act, and you may have it right - like I said, I don't have the answers... The fiscal question is, will this intervention ultimately produce the savings the CBO projects over the next ten years? I.e., will we save in the long run by spending more in the short run? The moral question is, do we continue to allow tens of millions of Americans to go without health coverage? Of course some would say the moral question is, do we force hundreds of millions of Americans to pay for the tens of millions who go without health coverage? Yes, I know, they already do... And at what point, in the interest of the greater good, do we force some bureaucrat's idealized lifestyle onto ourselves? Ridiculous? Let's hope so...
As for me, I'm a fan of freedom, and this one makes me nervous...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)