How We See Poverty

I thought this was a very interesting way of phrasing the differences between conservatives and liberals on the topic of wealth and poverty, using the SOTU and Sen. Webb's response:

President Bush's proposals tend to target various aspects of what might be called absolute poverty. By contrast, Sen. Webb is interested in relative poverty.

***
Corresponding to the emphasis on absolute poverty and relative poverty are feelings of altruism and envy respectively.

President Bush seeks to inspire altruism by encouraging Americans to compare themselves with those who have less[...]

Sen. Webb, by contrast, encourages Americans to compare themselves to those who have more, and feel envy.

I've always hated the "relative wealth" argument, and love hearing it only because it means that we're so prosperous as a nation that populists can't point to the terrible conditions of the lower classes any more as some kind of problem that needs big (socialist) fixing. In fact, the great unwashed masses apparently in need of all this government rescue have it pretty darn good.

Most conservatives I know don't oppose some kind of safety net, such that even those who have spent their life making terrible choices aren't freezing to death in the gutter. (Most of us do ask that the people seeking the net at least stop the behavior that put them in the gutter in the first place, or that they take up some part of the responsibility of getting help.) Likewise, most of us agree that helping those truly unable to help themselves - children, the truly mentally ill, the very elderly - is a proper role of the (state and local) government.

But to extend that net to a working class that is more well off than at any time and in any place in the history of the planet, simply because a few people make even MORE money, is absurd. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor may make for fun movies, but it's a terrible way to run an economy, or more importantly, protect individual freedoms.

"Giving" America a Raise?

I despise the idea that lies behind this particular Democratic slogan, which is, of course, used to sell the idea of raising the federal minimum wage. It assumes that all Americans in all industry - public and private - work for the government. It sounds generous, but the reality is that it's generosity with other people's money. And there's another word to describe being generous with other people's money: Theft.

It's dishonest, too. Most people make far more than the minimum wage, and those who do don't stay at that wage very long. Indeed - raising the minimum wage would only hurt the people at the bottom the the economic ladder (so called because all Americans have the ability to climb higher on it). If we require a "living wage" which can support a family of four, then we deprive high school students and other young people the opportunity to break into the system, while at the same time depriving an entrepreneur - the real strength of the American economy - the opportunity to mitigate the risk to his investment by hiring cheaper (and legal) labor. There's nothing wrong with expecting an 18 year old to live with three of his buddies and share the rent when he's first entering the work force.

Nor does raising the minimum wage really do anything to reduce poverty - just ask anyone who was around in 1938 facing 19% unemployment how much it helped Americans support their families.

Not only is it bad policy, but it's one of the most egregious abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause the federal government has ever foisted upon the country. Even if a minimum wage was necessary, this is exactly the kind of policy best left to the states with their highly varied economies, costs of living, etc. "One Size Fits All" programs rarely do, and all this does is take away the ability of states to manage their own economies. If you have told the founders that the Constitution they were signing would make it legal for a Massachusetts Senator who grew up on his father's money to set wage scales for a Pennsylvanian factory, it never would have been ratified. Indeed, most states have their own minimum wages, higher than the proposed federal hike. There is no pattern of better economies or decreases in poverty rates in those states, or such patterns would be part of the selling package. It is nothing more than an abuse of federal power, and a naked attempt to buy votes with other people's money.

George Will puts it best:

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to "Give America a Raise," I'll thank her to use her own money to do so. Or support more tax cuts, which have the same effect sans the negative economic impact that comes when startup businesses can't afford low-skilled employees. The federal minimum wage is bad for workers, bad for employers, bad for the economy, and makes a mockery of the federal system which once protected our freedoms (of which economic freedoms are a crucial part) by "splitting the atom of sovereignty."

Employment Law Myopia

"But if it's good policy [for the employer to treat employees a certain way], why shouldn't the government require it?"

It is because, my dear Employment Law classmate (yup, it's an actual quote from class), a benevolent tyranny is still tyranny, and how and under what authority the government makes laws is at least as important as the substance of the laws themselves.

It's because if the government makes a bad employment policy decision, we all suffer. But if one company makes a bad policy decision, only they go out of business, keeping the door of opportunity open to smarter businessmen.

It's because even good policy administered by a middleman government bureaucrat grows more costly and less efficient.

It's because government regulations cost employers money, which is then passed on to the consumer through the increased cost of the goods and services, sparking inflation. It decreases the number of employees that can afford to be hired, making jobs less plentiful for everyone. These things are not only bad for the economy at large, but they ironically impact the poorest people the most. A job with no benefits is far better than no job at all.

It's because good policy for one employer isn't necessarily good policy for another.

It's because employers have rights too, and the employers are the ones taking all the risk if their enterprise fails. Not the employee. Certainly not the government. And despite the socialist propaganda filling our casebook, even the Big Bad Corporations are not evil oppressors, nor do they have unlimited funds to hand out to the people they hire.

It's because when companies maximize profits, everyone benefits. Government revenue goes up without increasing taxes, companies can hire more people, and charities benefit.

It's because if government has the power to tell an employer he can't fire someone but for previously delineated reasons, the government has the power to tell an employee she can't quit but for previously delineated reasons. And if the later is slavery and an undermining of any concept of freedom of contract, than the former surely is as well.

It's because we have over a century of the history of World Socialism to show us the futility of state-micromanaged economies.

In essence, my erstwhile classmate is demanding that George W. Bush run every business in the nation. I wonder if putting it in those terms would make people think twice the next time they spout, "Why, the government oughta..."

Sigh. Forgive the rant. Two days in, and already the banal and juvenile tripe that so often passes for critical thinking in law school is in full sway. It is stunning that people so professedly concerned about the government stripping away of our civil rights are so willing to demand that this same government step in and manage our pocket books, our businesses, our health care decisions, our associations, ad infinitum. That the above truisms are hardly mentioned in an employment law class shows how badly the education I and the tax payers are buying suffers when ideological diversity among a university staff is so completely lacking.

Can someone please tell me again who exactly is threatening my liberty?

Prosperity amid the gloom

"[E]very election year -- meaning every other year -- brings an epidemic of dubious economic analysis, as members of the party out of power discern lead linings on silver clouds." George Will on the economy.

Worst Economy Since Hoover, Part III

This is a great rundown of the falling deficit, rising wages, rising tax revenue, and the reasons behind them (hint: it rhymes with "flax cuts"). Now, if ONLY we could get the Republicans on board to actually cut spending...

UPDATE: Yes, the link is correct now. No, I didn't mean to link to Hillary's warplans. I'd feel sheepish, but instead I blame Bushitler McHaliburton for the mistake.

Worst Economy Since Hoover, Part II

The Dow's record high clearly shows how awful Bush is. Or is it that he's to blame when it falls, but that it's out of his hands completely when it rises... Either way, it's terrible. Just terrible. I mean, if you're not outraged, you're just not paying attention.

Just wait for the left side of the bloggosphere to spin this as negative, because, after all, the middle class Americans that own stock aren't getting as rich. Yawn. Rising tides really do lift all boats, and to think our continued strong economy is anything but a positive for the nation is an indication of partisan loyalties trumping healthy patriotic good feelings for the success of our country.

Tax Cuts = Deficit Reduction: Told You So!

Conservative economic policy works. According to the New York Times (which I'm surprised printed it at all):

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

It might be unexpected to the New York Times and other liberals who don't understand that wealth must be grown (including government wealth), but not to those of us who supported the tax cuts from the beginning.

In one fell swoop, this article demonstrates the laughable falsity of "tax cuts for the rich," or the charges that "tax cuts during a war are irresponsible." And the runaway economic growth we're enjoying at the same time likewise is no coincidence.

The GOP still spends far too much of our money. But with a Democratic Congress, we would not only have more spending, but we would not have the growth that is a direct result of more money in the pockets of American business, individual investors, and of course, that Great Liberal Boogey Man: The Corporations.

How anyone can still support liberal economic policy in the face of these many years of raging success is completely beyond me.

Worst Economy Since Hoover

Record low unemployment. Rising wages. Runaway economic growth.

Kerry was sooooo right. Definitely just like the Great Depression. I'm just sayin'.

Class Warfare and Social Mobility

This interesting piece today summed up very well the class warfare arguments of the left. Basically:

• We admit grudgingly that the poor are better off now than they ever have been,
• But the gap between rich and poor matters, no matter how well the poor are doing.
• When you die, your wealth should be given to someone else. It's immoral to want to spend your money on your own children - you should spend it on someone else's instead with the government as the executor.
• The gap and inter-generational wealth = lack of social mobility, making the American Dream that used to exist a joke.
• Government should DO something to lessen the gap (i.e., wealth transfer).
• Other industrialized countries don't have the gap, and we should follow their lead.

These are all interesting thoughts unburdened by fact or experience. We don't need to guess what more governmental interference and regulation with personal wealth will do - we have dozens of examples all over the world. Our economy is growing faster than any other industrialized nation (not counting China and India), our unemployment rate is about 2.5 times lower than that of Western Europe (the heart of socialism), and our policies don't have the effect of preventing social mobility through over-regulation, creating a permanent underclass the likes of which is now rioting in France.

I hate the "gap" argument. I personally don't care if someone else is twice as rich as me, 50 times richer, or a million times richer. Because I hope to someday be in their shoes, why should I advocate a policy that would take away my opportunity to get there? The left has switched to that argument because they can no longer say that the poor are getting poorer with any accuracy. When I see someone who's really rich in this country, all that tells me is that I can get there, too.

The author states that social mobility is also on the decline. I would argue that this might have something to do with the fact that our middle class has grown dramatically over the last few decades, and people often stay middle class. I personally don't see that as a crisis.

In this country, the poor people are fat. Plumbers can go on Caribbean Cruises. According to US census figures, 46% of people officially bellow the poverty line own their own homes. Some 75% own a car. And how many do you think have color TV's, DVD players, stereos, etc., not to mention clean, potable running water, reliable sewage and sanitation services, and can afford cigarettes (still)? And even better, most of those people are young, and are in a state of transition. Think how many college students are "below the poverty line" - does anyone seriously think that's permanent? The left responds to these stats with eye-rolling hyperbole and non-statistical anecdotes.

In this country, you have two options. You can whine about other people getting stuff, or you can go out and get it yourself. Leftist economic policies, as evidenced in Europe, make it harder to go out and get it yourself, leaving you with the single option of whining about other people. Well, that and burning Peugots.

When I graduated from high school, I lived in a small trailer house in South Dakota. It was a particularly crappy one, and some "activist" trying to "help me out" would probably have considered my poverty "abject." But I was lucky enough to live in a place where such "activists" aren't given a lot of credibility, and where personal responsibility is still expected, and now, quite obviously, I no longer live in the trailer. Thank God I live in this country, where the government isn't "doing" anything about the "wealth gap," so that unlike poor Western Europeans, I had (and continue to have) the opportunity to close that gap all on my own.

If you aren't free to fail, you simply aren't free.