Minimum Wage, Good or Bad?

   The minimum wage supporters are pushing harder than ever.
   The people in favor of it like to refer to a "living wage," whatever this is. It has yet to be definitively defined, although it is touted as the least amount of money a person or family needs to survive. They generally view the government as being responsible to force the employers to pay a set minimum hourly wage.
   Many of the leaders in the argument against the minimum wage are business owners, and they are frequently demonized for this, even though they rightly maintain that they need to preserve their profit margin in order to stay in business.
   In this they are correct. However, there is a problem with their argument which prevents them from prevailing in the debate.
   Many economists also warn against the minimum wage, as they have determined that it would only raise prices in the long run, and the relationship between prices and wages would return to equilibrium, just at a higher numerical value.
   They are also correct, but their argument has the same failing as that of the business owners.
   Those who support the minimum wage will almost always prevail through emotion and deception.
   We have all heard the many emotional arguments about these poor people not having enough to live comfortably on. There is no need to replay them here.
   Deceptively, we are told repeatedly that business owners are wealthy, greedy, individuals who aim only to pocket as much money as possible at the expense of others. This is fostered by a minority of business owners who have demonstrated themselves to be exactly that, but is certainly not true of the majority.
   In my opinion, an unfortunate side effect of this kind of thinking is that business owners are led to counter with the argument that their profit margin will not support a higher minimum wage. Although this is frequently correct, this counter does not suffice to refute the accusation of greed, mostly because people are more willing to accept the argument that someone else is greedy long before they will admit to their own shortcomings.
   What will be the effects of a higher minimum wage? The devaluation of the dollar, mediocrity in the workplace, increased unemployment, and the possible end of the minimum wage.
   To understand how the dollar will be devalued, an understanding of what the dollar really is must be accepted. The dollar itself has absolutely no value, unless its value as kindling in starting a fire is considered. The dollar is simply a means to compare value between multiple different products or services, and a convenient means to exchange them. Whether we give it a value of 1 or 10 is meaningless to the relationship between supply and demand, except where it temporarily skews this relationship in the short period of time between the revaluing of the dollar and the return to equilibrium in the supply and demand relation. The minimum wage does not change the amount of supply and demand, it just changes the amount of dollars used to measure it. The number of dollars used to measure a resource has no bearing on the amount or quantity of that resource available, nor on the need for it.
   How does the minimum wage cause mediocrity in the workplace? No matter what the business is, it has a certain amount of value to use to pay wages. The assigned value of the dollar does not change this fact. What the minimum wage does is force the business to pay an increased value to entry level and substandard workers while reducing the amount of value left to reward the better workers and those with the most experience. For example, if a business has enough available value to pay 10 workers an average of $10/hour, and there is no minimum wage, that business could start people at $5/hour, and give them generous raises as they earned them, as long as the total in wages did not exceed what the company could afford. This would be a powerful incentive for workers to stay longer and do a better job, as they could potentially triple their wage by doing so. If, however, the minimum wage was $10/hour, in this scenario the business would be required to start all employees at the $10 level, and would have no room for incentive raises. In this situation, no one would have a tangible financial reward for doing better or more efficient work, and human nature being what it is, most workers would simply work to the level of the least common denominator, eliminating competition for the higher wage which is no longer available and creating the aforementioned mediocrity.
   The resulting increase in unemployment should be obvious. Once equilibrium returns after the initial change in the assigned value of the dollar, the consumer's quest for lower prices will again take over. As long as there is an area which does not enforce the same minimum wage, there will be cheaper prices to be obtained from that area, which will increase the demand for products from that area and decrease the demand for products originating from the area in which the minimum wage applies.
   Eventually, as hourly wages are increased by government edict to higher and higher levels, the hourly wage will be necessarily replaced by other means of pay, such as commissions, piece count, and pay through independent contracts. When this happens, the minimum hourly wage will be meaningless, as it will be increasingly less available.
   The minimum wage will certainly go up, thanks to politicians who pursue votes by preying on the people who are uninformed about the economic consequences of it. Most of those who really understand it claim that it is a terribly destructive idea in terms of the economic health of the country, but I am beginning to disagree. Rather than fighting about it, maybe we should allow the politicians to raise the minimum wage as fast and as high as they dare. This would actually hasten the demise of the hourly wage, causing it to become obsolete much faster, and allowing people more opportunity to exchange value of labor, products, and services at a much more equitable level once the hourly wage is gone.
   Let's raise the minimum wage so high that the hourly wage disappears, and we can get yet one more step closer to the free market principal of exchanging value for like value.
   The central planners and socialists desperately want a minimum wage, but history shows that all of their plans succumb to the free market as they fail, and the sooner their plans fail, the sooner we will be free of them.
   
  

The Virtue of Counterfeiting.

   I have probably already lost most readers with the title. Please bear with me if you're still here, though, there is a point to this post.
   To begin our train of thought, we must look at capitalism and what it really is. We must also look at the relationship between capitalism and freedom.
   Capitalism is simply the use of a small and convenient item, such as a seashell, a metal coin, a piece of paper, or an encoded bit on a computer to represent the value of an object, product, or service for the sake of convenience.
   One of the first, and largest, benefits of capitalism was the newly found ability to convert a bulky and cumbersome product to an easy to transport quantity of money, which could be carried to or from markets or on travels, and which could be stored for future use much more easily than the bulky product which it represented.
   Prior to capitalism, travel was restricted by the difficulty of carrying enough wealth on which to subsist. After capitalism, travel became much easier because one could now simply convert goods into currency for the trip, then convert some of it back when needed.
   This aspect also opened up a whole new world of trading opportunities, as now a huge and expensive caravan was not needed to transport the wealth, all that was required was to move the more convenient currency.
   Another benefit to capitalism was the birth of the service sector, the possibility of paid industrialization, and the beginning of the end of slavery. Now, by the use of capital, the wealthy could pay people to provide services and work in their industrial endeavors, and no longer had need to directly support large groups of servants and slaves. Employment, in a real sense, had been born, and with it the ability of anyone to exchange their labor for capital, and then exchange that capital for their needs and wants, without having to produce everything for themselves or give themselves over as a servant to another.
   This ability to convert back and forth between goods and services and currency allowed further specialization, which in turn introduced better and more innovative products and further fueled trade.
   As the years went by, and the benefits of capitalism increased, a terrible thing happened. Governments learned that they could get away with requiring everyone inside their control to use their currency. The governments began to monopolize currency creation. Why was this so terrible? Now the governments could influence prices by controlling the amount of currency, and hence limiting the ability of the individual to negotiate their own prices. The governments could also control trade and wage economic war by setting exchange rates with foreign currency, or by refusing to accept it at all.
   Government involvement in currencies eventually gave the governments of the world more influence over the economies than individuals could ever hope to gain, with the exception of a few brilliant entrepreneurs who arrived on the scene from time to time, but the governments dealt with them generally by creating anti-trust, or anti-monopoly , laws, all the while trying to conceal the fact that the governments had attained the greatest monopoly of all, money.
   With the significant level of control over economies came a similar control over personal freedom by way of the ability to either easily seize the wealth of individuals or to actually change the practical value of that wealth by manipulating the currency.
   Capitalism was so abused and distorted in this manner that people began to fail to understand what it actually was, and the public attacks on capitalism stemmed from the simple fact that people, no longer recognizing capitalism for what it was, began to attack this distorted capitalism which governments had spawned and the unscrupulous gladly used for their own purposes.
   And so we come to my point. Anyone who truly values freedom must oppose and seek to eliminate the government's monopoly on currency creation and control. Up until recently, the only realistic way to attempt that was by counterfeiting the government's own currency. Of course, those in power sold this activity as a major crime against the people, but creating fake currency, in and of itself, does not affect at all the amount of goods and services on which the economy is really based, nor does it change the demand. It simply takes power away from those who seek to have complete control over the currency. By this reasoning, a significant amount of counterfeiting could actually be beneficial to freedom by diminishing government control over free trade.
   The penalties for counterfeiting could be quite severe, but now there is an even better way to advance freedom. Crypto-currencies have entered the fray. Now virtually anyone can transfer their wealth into a digital currency over which the governments have little or no control, and by so doing, increase their own personal freedom by escaping government price controls, diminishing the chance that their wealth will be confiscated, and by living and working outside of the established order.
   So give up the risks of counterfeiting, and strike a blow for Liberty by converting your wealth into whatever non-governmental currency you prefer. When enough people do this, the governments will lose most of their power over us, and we will all regain a large measure of our lost freedom.

Government Turned Upside Down.

     I don't think anyone, no matter which position they choose to take in the political debate, can deny that we have serious problems with the functioning of our government these days. I contend that most of our problems stem from the fact that our government, in its current form, is nearly the opposite of what is necessary for our system to work.
     In its present incarnation, our government is a highly centralized federal system in which the federal level is viewed as supreme, followed by the States, with the local governments picking up the scraps, so to speak. Many mistakenly believe that this is the best system based on their belief that they can not trust the local officials to do what is best for the people, so they prefer to have a single, central presence to do this. This, however, is a completely flawed argument, no matter the justification, for if we can not trust elected to properly run something as small as a city, how does it follow that they can be trusted to properly run an entire nation?
     Let's reverse the system and see what it looks like.
     Starting with the federal level, what was it intended to do? First, protect us from foreign entities and handle relations with these entities, including trade and treaties. Second, make sure that the various States respect one another's laws and people, and to ensure that States do not interfere with each other's trade or internal affairs. This is essentially the end of the assigned federal authority.
     The role of the States is much more involved, and diverse. Each State is expected to enact its own Constitution detailing its responsibilities with regard to, and in accordance with, the wishes of the citizens of that State, and that State alone. the majority of the governing currently taking place at the federal level was intended instead to be done at this level. In this way, the State would, and should, each be unique, with the people of that State selecting the form and structure of their own governance, or failing that, relocating to a different State according to their preference.
     It is the local governments which should be supreme. It is only at this level where the people of a community can actually control directly how the government conducts daily business. It is not the fault of the system that the local government so frequently do not work, but the fault of the residents of that local area. They must, whether they like it or not, take an active role in this local structure, or resign themselves to be ruled by the wishes of their neighbors.
     The very idea of restructuring things this way leads to opposition based, in my experience, on two questions. What about taxes, and who would provide services?
     The answer to taxes is simple. The local communities would collect revenue from those who reside there in whatever form they select. This could range from voluntary contributions, to tolls, to sales taxes, or any other of a myriad possibilities. The important thing is that the local community would decide for themselves. As this would cause each community to have its own unique system, a person who didn't wish to be involved in a particular system would be able to move to an area which had adopted a preferable one. In the initial stages of development, this would be quite inconvenient for some people, but in time it would begin to run much more smoothly.
     The States, in their turn, would collect needed revenue from the local communities and from activities exclusive to that State, but not directly from the people. The federals would do likewise, drawing revenue only from the States themselves, or from sources such as allowable tariffs.
     What about services? Where will these come from? Since the people and the communities will not be sending an unduly large percentage of their wealth to a higher level of government, they will immediately have the option of directly selecting and paying for whatever services that they decide upon. If they decide to have a fire department, they will have the wealth available by virtue of not having to support a top heavy government to either hire a contractor for this or to create a department of their own. Likewise with law enforcement. Who will build the roads? Those who will use them. They will either build them or do without. If the need is legitimate, the roads will follow, paid for by those who use them, not by wealth confiscated from hapless individual who will never see this road, let alone use it. Here too, the means will be determined by the community itself, not by mandate from on high.
     This is just a brief view of my position in this, but it should provide a fair glimpse of my concept of government. Hopefully it will also provide content for further thought.
   

"Buy American" Back Again.

     A new bill is on its way to the House Capital Investment Committee in St. Paul. The chief author is Carly Melin, DFL Hibbing. It would require the State of Minnesota to purchase only American made steel for public works.

     The idea sounds pretty good on the surface. It is intended to bring business, unions, and government together to strengthen the economy of Minnesota by ensuring demand for the ore from the Iron Range. 

     It won't work. Yes, it will ensure demand and help the production side in the short term, but in the long term, it will further damage the economy and create more problems as time goes on.

     First, it will ensure a demand, but it will not do this by increasing the demand for the product, it will do this by restricting competition. Disqualifying some of the potential bids will allow the remaining bids to possibly be quoted at a higher rate, and it leads to the situation where the government decides which companies will be allowed eligibility to be awarded a contract. This gives rise to the opportunity for a company to either influence the government to either add them to the list or exclude their competition. It is obvious where that can lead.

     Second, by arbitrarily excluding bids which may be at a lower cost, it necessarily drives the price of the product up. Those who support this theory would have us believe that the price would be worth paying to make sure jobs are available in one area, but who pays the price? All of us. This is just a well camouflaged redistribution tactic in which the government forces us to pay taxes, then takes those revenues and sends them to corporations of their choosing, in this case domestic steel. In spite of the beautiful, rainbow colored appearance, this is the definition of crony capitalism, which most would vehemently oppose were it in a different setting.

     This bill will likely pass into law. When it does we can expect the price of the projects the State of Minnesota decides to make us pay for will be maintained at an inflated level. I doubt that it will create any jobs, as it can not possibly change the overall demand that much, but it will benefit the unions (although probably not the union members), the industry lobbyists, and the politicians they influence. The rest of us will bear the cost in the form of higher prices for these building projects that the government selects for us.

When Did "Allow" Become a Word to Fear?

     I read the following article as soon as it was released and viewed it, as one would expect, as good news. From what I observed shortly thereafter, many other people did as well.

South Dakota approves guns in the classroom — RT USA

     Later on I thought about this for a while, and realized that there is something far more important to consider than whether or not guns will be allowed in some schools. What we are facing today is a fundamental flaw in our way of thinking, at least for most of us. It is the acceptance of the fact that we must ask the government permission to do something. This is an all to common way of thinking which evidences itself in nearly all typical conversations about laws and regulations.
     "You're not allowed to park there."
     "You're allowed to have a rally only with a permit."
     "You're allowed to build only according to our code specifications."
     "You're not allowed to run a business without a license."
     "You're allowed to possess a registered firearm of an approved type in your own home."
     "You're not allowed to drive until paying the fees and receiving a license."
     "You're allowed to reside in your home only if the property tax is paid."
     I could continue on almost indefinitely. My point has been made, though. We are now at a point where instead of allowing the government to administer only those tasks designated by the Constitution, which is the way it was intended to be, in which system the government would be powerless to do anything which we did not specifically allow, the relationship between the government and the people has been inverted.
     When the original colonies broke away from England, it was not because they wanted their independence. Although I am sure many people did have that as their main goal, the status quo would have prevailed but for one thing. The government of England at the time was a government which granted the citizens permission to engage in each aspect of their daily lives, or restricted their ability to do so. Leading up to the beginning of the Revolution, the combination of the King's complacency and Lord North's heavy handedness led to a situation in which the government had rapidly become far more oppressive than was their wont. When petitions for redress failed, falling on deaf ears, insurrection began, rapidly growing into full rebellion, then separation.
     When our current government was formed, the intention was for it to be allowed privilege to do only what we allowed, and nothing more. In the intervening years, that has been almost completely reversed. Now, with few exceptions, the government does what it will, allowing us to do only what it grants us specific permission for, frequently through the means of licensing and registration, for which it charges us the highest tolerated rate. It also prevents us from doing many things which neither harm ourselves nor our neighbors, merely because someone, at some point in time, decided that their version of how we were to live our lives was superior to our own version. Our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property are now only a picturesque facade. These rights are now fleeting privileges either granted or removed by the will of the state.
     It is time for us to take back these rights, or forever lose them, never to be regained. We must be dedicated to this task, and also dedicated to causing as many of our neighbors as possible to join us, or we will live to witness the expiration of the American Experiment, never to be resurrected.

Political Correctness. Should We Surrender, or Have We Just Begun?

     After reading several reports on Rand Paul's notable filibuster yesterday, I should be fully encouraged by the noble stand he took against the march toward destruction on which we, as a nation, find ourselves. Unfortunately, I am still filled with a sense of dismay when I view numerous comments on the results of the filibuster. How many times in the last twelve hours have I read or heard statements which all seemed to follow the same pattern: Someone finally forced the administration to admit that they believed that drone strikes against US citizens on US soil without due process are unconstitutional!
     Hallelujah! What a victory! They actually said that they believed it was unconstitutional. This is a fine example of an empty victory. How many times have they said what we wanted to hear when they obviously believed something completely different, and how many times have they said one thing only to do precisely the opposite? Will we really be so quick to bury our heads back in the sand that we have only just recently began to extricate ourselves from?
     It is not time to relax after hearing what we wanted so much to hear. Rather, it is time to turn the heat up even higher, and scrutinize their activities with even greater magnification. It is not the time to force them to say the correct things, but the time to force them to stop doing the incorrect and dangerous things.
     Where do we go from here? I sincerely hope that we have managed to find a few real leaders in Washington who can steer us back toward the proper path. Even if they don't go far enough in the restoration of our liberty, pointing us in the right direction will be a refreshing change.
     That being said, it is not their responsibility to lead us back down the path toward freedom. It is theirs only to lead the forum in which they exist. It is our responsibility to walk the path to freedom, bringing as many of our neighbors along as we can convince to take up the journey. True, we are individually responsible for our own welfare, as our neighbors are for theirs, but in this no individual can stand against the reckless might of a power hungry state.
     Now is the day that all of us who value our individual rights must work together to humble the state, so that later we will still have the freedom to go our separate ways.
     Let us not meekly accept the answers given and return to our daily routines as if satisfied, but instead let us voice our questions and complaints with an ever louder condemnation of the misconducts of those who would control us.

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

     Although this article seems to discount the possibility, I find the fact that there are some people willing to entertain the idea disturbing. Can artificial intelligence replace jurors? I believe that this topic transcends mere speculation and enters the area of a debate about individual rights.
     Can an algorithm legitimately be developed to judge an individual human being? Would it even be desirable? I do not think that there is anyone who would honestly be willing to be judged by anything less than a jury of their peers. The only reasons I can attribute to the search for a possible AI jury would be either economic or consistency, but how can economy of action or consistent results supersede justice in an infinitely variable world?
     Something to think about.