The Minimum Wage Distraction

Subject: Re: Fwd: The Minimum Wage Distraction


The point here is that there is a small percentage of Americans who believe
that they are living the average American life. Anyone living outside the
gates to their exclusive communities are not really Americans. They are the
rubble or the masses. And yes, it is easier for those privileged people to
live in America. But what they don't understand is that they are doing it
at the expense of the rabble and the masses. And the day is fast
approaching when their life style will be abolished. It always amazes me
that the super rich, who believe themselves to be so much smarter than the
riff raff, never see the end coming.

Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
To: "blind-democracy" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: The Minimum Wage Distraction


Hi to all.

While there are some areas where I agree with both Laisez Fair and Mr.
Bonner, I want to explore three misunderstandings that Mr. Bonner has that
really make his points about rising wages and productivity absolutely
worthless.

1) According to Mr. Bonner, it doesn't take a lot to live in the U.S. these
days. In the next sentence, he clearly points out what is wrong with his
argument without realizing it--he refers to talking with his sons on the
verandah of his Paris chateau. Because he is wealthy enough to own a Paris
chateau (or at least rent one), he really has no idea how little people
actually make and how expensive things really are in the U.S. for those at
the lower end of the economic spectrum. Mr. Bonner, I urge you to give away
all your money and then try to live (let alone rent or purchase) in that
West Virginia cottage for a month. I think you'll realize very quickly that
what money the poor do get doesn't go very far.

2) With regard to productivity, two points need to be made. First, our
economists continue to tell us that Americans are the most productive they
have ever been and that they have been this way for quite a while. If
anything (and this is my second point), we may be falling into the trap of
overproduction in some areas--producing more services (and some goods) than
can actually be sold in the marketplace (personal note Mr. Bonner: you
really ought to read more of Naomi Klein and less of Milton Friedman--you
might learn a little something you didn't realize before).

3) This prattling about gold is absolutely stupid. When the U.S. was using
the gold standard during the 1870s (a decade these people want us to go back
to, by the way), the majority of U.S. citizens were just as poor as they are
today. The use of the gold standard didn't have any effect on poverty
rates--only the amount that one could earn and still be considered poor.

What Bonner says is frightening not so much because he says it but because
so many people, especially Republicans and their backers, absolutely believe
it.
--
Ted Chittenden

Every story has at least two sides if not more.

Subject: Fwd: The Minimum Wage Distraction
From: David Chittenden <dchittenden@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:03:31 +1200
To: Ted Chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net>



David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchittenden@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Laissez Faire Today <lftoday@lfb.org>
> Date: 8 August 2013 5:05:25 NZST
> To: <dchittenden@gmail.com>
> Subject: The Minimum Wage Distraction
>
> Why the clamor over raising the minimum wage hides the country's real
> problems.
>
> If you are having trouble viewing this email please try our web version.
>
>
> LFB SITE BROWSE ARCHIVES WHITELIST UNSUBSCRIBE
> August 7, 2013
>
> The Claptrap Behind the Minimum Wage Debate
>
> Dear Laissez Faire Today Reader,
>
> Baltimore, MD -- Sometimes, it'd be nice if they'd at least pretend to lie
> to us. We're kidding, of course. But considering the latest story coming
> out of D.C. -- how President Obama personally brokered a deal for the
> political elite -- it might be easier to accept it if they at least
> pretended they weren't playing favorites.
>
> We went over this a little last week, but let's set the stage again.
>
> It all started back in the planning stages of the Affordable Care Act. The
> architects of the law were desperately trying to put something together
> that they could pass before the public caught on. While they were trying
> to piece together the 900-page health care overhaul, Sen. Chuck Grassley
> (R-Iowa) inserted an amendment requiring congressional members and their
> staff to participate in the exchanges they were in the process of
> creating.
>
> On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. What better way to create the
> best, most efficient reforms than to have the creators themselves
> participate in them. Supporters of the law rallied behind it, saying it
> showed that both sides were working on coming up with sensible solutions.
> Except, as the law went through a number of revisions, federal subsidies
> given to the political elite were eliminated.
>
> You see, there's something you need to know about how congressional staff
> members pay for their health insurance. The American taxpayer actually
> picks up 75% of their premium. That's correct: Members of Congress and the
> professional working class of lawmakers who work beneath them have
> three-quarters of their premiums paid for by working-class Americans.
>
> But Chuck Grassley's seemingly harmless amendment threatened to end that.
> The way the law was written when it was signed by the president meant that
> these subsidies would disappear. Congressional staffers were most at risk,
> considering that most members of Congress are financially well-off. The
> lawmakers on Capitol Hill feared that the increased health care costs
> would lead to a "brain drain" of professional staffers who would leave for
> more lucrative jobs elsewhere.
>
> On the surface, it looked like poetic justice. But everyone in D.C. knew
> that nothing of the sort would ever happen. Behind closed doors, the
> president assured Democratic leaders that he would personally take care of
> the situation.
>
> There was a problem. Nowhere in the law does it allow the president to do
> such a thing. But considering that didn't stop the White House from
> exempting the employer mandate for a year, they weren't going to let
> something like that stop them. The worst thing about this entire debacle
> is that the president could have found a legal way around this problem.
>
> They could have fixed the matter legislatively. Supporters of the ACA
> wouldn't have preferred this course of action, however. It would have
> risked opening up the debate about health care reform. And considering
> that public opinion about the law has steadily been declining, that's a
> risk they'd rather not take.
>
> So instead, the people in charge circumvented the laws, rules, and
> procedures the country has in place to protect a law they've banked so
> much political capital in. You'd think this would get more attention in
> the news cycle, but considering that the government is in another NSA
> surveillance scandal, we're not surprised that no one's talking about it.
>
> Sadly, this is business as usual. Thoughtful legislation that leads to
> efficient outcomes gets shunned while sound bites and juicy talking points
> get replayed over and over again. And it doesn't apply only to hot-button
> topics. Take, for example, the other policy issue that the White House
> wants you to focus on so you stop paying attention to the real problems.
>
> We're talking about the latest push to increase the minimum wage.
>
> For most people, the argument is simple. Increase the minimum wage and
> you'll help out the workers of the economy who need it the most. Except,
> like the politicians who hastily passed the ACA, no one really understands
> the implications of this "simple" act.
>
> But Bill Bonner knows. Founder and president of Agora Publishing, Bill
> built a professional career uncovering the stories that mainstream
> journalists and talking heads seem to always miss. And in today's article
> about the minimum wage debate, he shows that ignorance of the issues that
> directly affect us still exists.
>
> CANCELLATION REQUEST >>
>
> Did you see our publisher's odd request last week?
>
> It's already causing quite the stir.
>
> He's asking readers of Lifetime Income Report, Outstanding Investments,
> Penny Stock Fortunes, Addison Wiggin's Apogee Advisory and Capital &
> Crisis... to cancel their subscriptions.
>
> Hundreds of readers have already taken him up on this unusual offer. But
> we didn't see your name on the "unsubscribe" list. So here's a reminder to
> please cancel your subscription as soon as possible.
>
> Click here to find out why he's making this odd request.
>
>
> Introducing Bill Bonner's... The Claptrap Behind the Minimum Wage Debate
>
>
> Bill Bonner
> New York seems to have more than its fair share of knuckleheads.
>
> Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman are both stalwart columnists in The New York
> Times. And there's staff writer James Surowiecki at The New Yorker.
>
> More about that in a minute...
>
> First, investors are taking it easy... distracted by barbeques, family
> reunions, and the heat of summer. They're hesitating, cogitating,
> wondering what it's all about.
>
> Later this month, we should begin to see some activity. But for now,
> nothing much is happening.
>
> In the meantime, we take advantage of these dog days of summer to do some
> thinking of our own.
>
> For example, we were wondering why they are called "dog days." So we
> looked it up. Turns out it goes back to ancient Rome... and before. The
> Romans called the midsummer period dies caniculares -- or "days of the
> dog."
>
> This refers to the prominence of the constellation Canis Major, or the
> Greater Dog, in the night sky. The biggest star in the complex is named
> Sirius, also known as the Dog Star. It is the brightest star we see.
>
> Can Money Buy You Happiness?
>
> That out of the way, we return to wondering about money.
>
> Not that we care especially about money. We are more interested in what it
> represents... and how it helps us understand the world we live in.
>
> Money establishes a relationship between people. One owes. One is owed.
> One can buy. One must sell. One employs. Another is employed.
>
> You don't really need much to live. Food, clothing, shelter, a Wi-Fi
> connection. After you have the basics, everything else is no longer about
> survival. It's about status: the relationship between you and your fellow
> men.
>
> Here in the French countryside, we were sitting on the veranda thinking...
>
> "You don't really need much to live well," we explained to the children
> (who have come for a couple weeks of vacation).
>
> "All you need is a nice country house... with a well-stocked wine cellar.
> "And a good garden. You need homegrown food to eat. So you need a
> gardener... at least part time... and a good cook.
>
> "Yes, you don't need much."
>
> It takes more than money to live well. You could live much better than
> most people live... on little money. Just get a quaint cottage in West
> Virginia. Plant a nice garden. And learn to cook!
>
> But most people figure they need more money. They want large suburban
> houses, sleek automobiles, mobile phones and big-screen TVs... not to
> mention health insurance.
>
> Poverty-Level Pay
>
> You can buy that sort of stuff by getting a job that pays well. But why do
> so many jobs pay so poorly? Here's James Surowiecki in The New Yorker:
>
> "In inflation-adjusted terms, the minimum wage, though higher than it was
> a decade ago, is still well below its 1968 peak (when it was worth about
> $10.70 an hour in today's dollars), and it's still poverty-level pay.
>
> "To make matters worse, most fast-food and retail work is part-time, and
> the weak job market has eroded what little bargaining power low-wage
> workers had: Their earnings actually fell between 2009 and last year,
> according to the National Employment Law Project...
>
> "As a recent study by the economists John Schmitt and Janelle Jones has
> shown, low-wage workers are older and better educated than ever. More
> important, more of them are relying on their paychecks not for pin money
> or to pay for Friday-night dates but, rather, to support families.
>
> "Forty years ago, there was no expectation that fast-food or
> discount-retail jobs would provide a living wage, because these were not
> jobs that, in the main, adult heads of household did. Today, low-wage
> workers provide 46% of their family's income. It is that change which is
> driving the demand for higher pay."
>
> Surowiecki almost always misunderstands things. Years ago, he wrote an
> article on gold, pointing out that gold prices go up and down. He
> concluded that this made gold no better for preserving wealth than any
> other investment.
>
> But Surowiecki missed the point. Although the gold price goes up and down,
> gold never goes away and always has value. Shares in Kodak don't. More
> importantly, gold keeps an economy honest... and productive.
>
> Until 1971, when President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard,
> America's largest employers were companies that made things. In Baltimore,
> the General Motors assembly plant and Beth Steel at Sparrows Point could
> afford to pay high wages because they were very productive.
>
> Say's law: You buy products with products. If you want to buy stuff, in
> other words, you've got to produce stuff.
>
> But after 1971, the new money system changed the nature of the U.S.
> economy.
>
> The Nirvana of Rising Prices
>
> Today's largest employers don't make stuff. They are low-margin businesses
> in the service sector, retailers and fast-food chains. As Surowiecki
> points out, they can't afford much higher wages.
>
> What, then, is the solution to low-paying service-sector jobs? Tax
> credits, he says. And national infrastructure projects: new highways,
> bridges, tunnels, airports, and so forth. A higher minimum wage. "And we
> really need the economy as a whole to grow faster."
>
> Great!
>
> And get this: "You have to get consumers to accept significantly higher,
> and steadily rising, prices."
>
> Hmmm...
>
> How are people who don't earn much going to be able to pay higher prices?
> No explanation given. No mention of making things. No mention of
> productivity or investment.
>
> It is amazing how little thinking goes into this sort of claptrap. It
> wouldn't take Surowiecki long to realize that higher wages do not get you
> anywhere if prices rise too.
>
> What you really need is higher productivity. How do you get that? You need
> to save money (rather than spend it) and invest in things that produce
> more -- providing the profits necessary to pay more to the people who
> produce them.
>
> Really. Is that so difficult to understand?
>
> For the last 42 years, the feds have encouraged Americans to spend their
> money, rather than save it. And they've encouraged people to buy things
> made by foreigners, rather than make things themselves.
>
> This was the consequence (perhaps unintended) of Tricky Dicky's pure paper
> money system. When you can print up pieces of paper... and call it
> "money"... you don't need to make things! You can just go straight out and
> buy them!
>
> The irony is that taking gold out of America's money system led to the
> very problems -- low wages in the service sector -- that Surowiecki is now
> trying to solve.
>
> -- Bill Bonner
>
> [Ed. note: Tinkering with the minimum wage isn't the only way our elected
> politicians are using to "fix" our country. They've got a handful of other
> plans that will right the economic ship, and get us back on the path to
> prosperity.
>
> At least that's what they claim. But they've been claiming that for years
> now, haven't they?
>
> Bill's prediction about the unintended consequences of raising the minimum
> wage isn't the only one's made over his career. In fact, if you've been
> watching the economic meltdown happening in the Motor City, recently,
> you've seen another prediction he and a colleague have already made. The
> bankruptcy of Detroit is only the beginning.
>
> Click here to find out how bad he thinks things will get. But more
> importantly, find out what you can do to make sure you're not another
> financial casualty when things really get bad.]
> When My Accountant Wants Tax-Free Income... This is What He Does
>
> Accountants know the law. They also know that any American could legally
> get paid up to three times per month... 100% tax-free. That's 36 tax-free
> checks each year. Even the IRS says it's legal. And It doesn't matter what
> you make already. This simple strategy could work for anybody.
>
> Click here to find out how...
>
>
> Club Chatter
>
> "The ACA is fascist to the core,"writes Club member, Edward B., "because
> at its core is corporate welfare; at its core is force... If you approve
> of this piece of legislation, if you approve of the government grabbing
> that much more power over everyone's health care, everyone's bodies,
> everyone's lives, then you are pro-force. If you approve of the
> government's health insurance scheme in all its glory (all its
> IRS-enforced glory), yet continue to say that you are pro-life or
> pro-choice, then you are a liar. You are the one putting out BS."
>
> LFT: There is an alternative to the ACA. One that could save you from the
> hardships that's sure to come in the coming months (and maybe even
> years...). Click here to find out what it is.
>
> And another Club member adds, "[Saturday's] article on the Affordable Care
> Act and the president doing something with the program that is probably
> unconstitutional... well, let's just say the whole article made my blood
> pressure medicine work overtime as I continued to read. You relayed how
> many of the elected officials in the legislative body are lawyers. Well,
> that answers a lot of my questions when it comes to 'thought control,'
> err... I mean laws. Then the capper: You mentioned our judicial branch...
> the same judicial branch that was asked to rule on this program when it
> was first enacted because citizens were being forced to buy 'insurance.'
> Oh, yeah, that pack of thieves was in bed with the other thieves then. And
> here we sit now, still complaining about the whole damn thing."
>
> LFT: Sometimes, all we can do is complain. It's cathartic in a way.
>
> Thank you for reading Laissez Faire Today. We greatly value your questions
> and comments. Click here to send us feedback.
>
>
>
> Follow us on:
>
> To end your Laissez Faire Today e-mail subscription and associated
> external offers sent from Laissez Faire Today, click here to unsubscribe.
>
> If you are you having trouble receiving your Laissez Faire Today
> subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by whitelisting
> Laissez Faire Today.
>
> 2013 Agora Financial, LLC. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Reproduction, copying, or redistribution
> (electronic or otherwise, including on the World Wide Web), in whole or in
> part, is encouraged provided the attribution Agora Financial is preserved.
> 808 Saint Paul Street, Baltimore MD 21202. Nothing in this e-mail should
> be considered personalized investment advice. Although our employees may
> answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed
> under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No
> communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized
> investment advice. We expressly forbid our writers from having a financial
> interest in any security recommended to our readers. All of our employees
> and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after
> the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial
> recommendation. Any investments!
recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your
investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial
statements of the company.


_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy