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."

The "Plight" of the Poor

This is anecdotal to be sure, but this story written by a Montana woman who lost a good job through no fault of her own, and is now living on $6.50 an hour, is worth a read. (Thanks to my wife for forwarding me the story.)

Notably, she states emphatically that she's not a victim. She doesn't scream about the unfairness of life, nor does she blame a politician. She doesn't decry the lack of government regulation that might have prevented her layoff, nor does she ask anyone to force her current employer to pay her more.

In fact, she says she's not even really "poor." She owns her own home and has made the decision not to touch her retirement fund. She's not in danger of starvation, and enjoys heat and potable running water and sanitation. And without including a single demand that the government come save her, she outlines the steps she has taken and is taking to climb out of the hole she finds herself in.

To many, this story is a blasphemy to the Religion of Victimhood. The idea that this woman has had and still has choices, that her situation is not immutable, that she is bettering her situation without the government doing it for her, and that she rejects the notion of poverty all demolish the argument for more Robin Hood-esque wealth redistribution. In order to justify further intervention in our lives and further encroachment upon our liberties, they have to believe that such freedom-crushing intervention is absolutely necessary. Stories like this one show that this worldview - usually held by wealthy white liberals who feel compelled to save everyone whether they want to be saved or not - simply isn't true.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't have any safety net at all. But discussion of poverty in this country is usually profoundly dishonest. Many, many of the poor in this country would have
been considered middle class only 20 or 30 years ago. And the author is not alone - many "poor" people own their own homes, have cars, have savings, etc. I don't want people starving and dying in gutters, but it's worth remembering that personal liberty is at least as important of a virtue than is living at some ever-increasing "minimum" standard of quality of life. And if you aren't free to fail, you simply aren't free.

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?

Las Vegas "No Feeding" Ordinance Unconstitutionally Vague?

Earlier this year in my future home state of Nevada, the Las Vegas City Council was forced to address the ever increasing problems threatening their city parks. Homeless and indigent people began choking the city parks, which attracted well meaning "mobile soup kitchens" (vans full of hot meals doled out for free), which in turn attracted more homeless and indigent people to the parks. Crime correspondingly rose, and the tax paying residents of Las Vegas felt excluded from the parks they paid for. The City Council had to take action.

What they did was ban the feeding of the indigent in parks. Charities were still free to operate, but no organization was allowed to feed indigents unless they also provided services to address drug and alcohol use, mental illness, etc.

Apparently believing that attracting drug addicted transients to city parks where children should be playing was another fundamental right hidden away in the Constitution for some intrepid future explorer to discover, the ACLU filed suit against the city. Yesterday, a federal judge struck down the law, apparently because it was too vague.

The law reads in part:

The following are prohibited within any City park:...The providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee. For purposes of this Paragraph, an indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance under NRS Chapter 428. L.V.M.C. 13.36.055(A)(6).

I think this law was poorly written, and have sympathy for the proposition that the reasonable person probably doesn't know what NRS Chapter 428 is, much less who is eligible to receive assistance under it.

But I think Las Vegas is doing the right thing. Not only is it better for the vagrants who need counseling more than they need a sandwich, but it's unimaginable that the Founding Fathers intended the federal Constitution to force a community to sit idly by while their parks degenerate into lawless tent cities.

And while I sympathize with the outcome reached by the ACLU, their agenda is profoundly disturbing. They were threatening to bring suit before the law was written. Clearly, the ACLU sued not to correct some vague wording, but because they want to force the community to pay for the vagrant hordes. Worse, their rhetoric implies that in the mind of the ACLU, being homeless is just as immutable of a trait as is race, as if there were no choices involved on the part of the vagrant. If the People choose to exercise their God-given liberty the ACLU purports to protect and extend the hand of charity via their tax dollars, that's fine. But to claim such a policy is Constitutionally mandated is absurd.

The real shame is that the city might have to ban all picnics altogether, or even shut down its parks if they continue to become unusable. Tyranny by the minority is no less insideous than that of the majority. It is in fact worse. In the time I've lived in this area, I've seen Seattle turned over to the ever-increasingly demanding panhandlers. Police create extra "jaywalking patrols" and strip club sting operations while ignoring the rampant crack dealing and vagrancy littering the King County Courthouse courtyard, because it's not PC to put a stop to it. Is this really the world the ACLU wants? If so, as a future Nevadan I exhort them to go live in their Seattle socialist paradise and leave the citizenry of the Silver State alone.

Here's hoping Vegas cleans up their ordinance, and remains serious about enforcing it. The Constitution should not force any city to be held hostage by aggressive indigents and their activist enablers.

Getting rid of street drunks

Seattle Times: State liquor board OKs expanding alcohol-impact zones in Seattle

The democrats in Seattle are at it again. First they ban smoking in bars and now they ban the sale of certain types of alcohol in various neighborhoods throughout Seattle. Malt liquors and fortified wines can no longer be sold in Capital Hill, the University District, Downtown, and several other neighborhoods. The most cited reason for the ban is that homeless individuals will drink these cheap liquors and urinate on the sidewalks. Many of these individuals suffer from alcoholism. Banning the sale of drinks in certain areas will not magically cure their alcoholism. One of three things will result:

A) They will be forced to spend even more of their limited money on alcohol in order to purchase such high-priced items as PBR. As a result their welfare will be worse and the public urination will continue; or

B) By some fate of God their stop being alcoholics and start drinking water instead. Low and behold, they still have to urinate. Without a home, they still piss on the street corner; or

C) They will buy their alcohol at a store outside of the restricted zones. If this happens, the amount of street drunks will not be decreased; they will only be urinating in different neighborhoods or bring their alcohol back to the same neighborhood.

The most likely result is (c). In fact, a study of a similar ban put into effect in Pioneer Square showed little improvement on the situation. Rather than cure any problems, it just hides the problem of homelessness and alcoholism in new neighborhoods. While liberals and democrats debate often about the best policy to reduce homelessness, I think both can agree that hiding the problem is not the right answer.

On a side note: A good argument about hippies for Orrin

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.