I am astounded by the assemblyman's economic delusions.
According to him, if amazon.com leaves CA, then everyone will start buying products they bought on amazon.com at the little, friendly store around the corner. He says this new tax is for the purpose of creating jobs. How does driving out a major, cost saving company equate to creating jobs? That is exactly why PEOPLE are leaving CA, not just "jobs." It's too darn expensive and this new tax thing will not stave off the exodus. It makes sense from some angle I am sure, but not a sound economic one.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Trade Offs
I read a point on the Economist's website today that reminded me how the federal minimum wage was raised to its current $7.25 in July of 2009. Probably the worst time for wages to be kept artificially high given the economic climate at the time. The higher the minimum wage becomes, the more that low skilled people will be out of work. It's an economic principle (although an unfortunate one) that those not worth being paid $7.25 will not be paid at all.
Not only does it create shortage of labor demanded, but a small proportion of our working population is currently paid at or below the minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts it at 3.6million people, which is 4.9% of the hourly paid workforce. Any raise in the minimum wage thus benefits a few already in the system but will most likely cast some out and definitely keep others from entering who may need it most.
In my own thinking I recognize there is a trade off between an ideal where everyone makes enough money to support their family, body and whatever other endeavors. However that level of prosperity cannot be achieved through wealth redistribution. A minimum wage of $100 an hour would seem to grant a high quality of life to all but at a cost of ruining businesses nearly completely. I assume most would agree to that point. Similarly, those who want to have the government regulate MPG in cars to an artificially high standard in order to save the atmosphere would be better off at just going for a ban of all cars because zero gas consumption is better than a little. There is trade off thinking in that as well: one can't ban cars because we need them so let's stretch their capabilities farther than the market demands.
Without a minimum wage there would still be unemployment, there would still be poor people, there would still be injustice. However I would wager there would be fewer in those categories mentioned when firms and individuals are granted more freedom to use the resources they possess in a manner best suited to their needs.
Not only does it create shortage of labor demanded, but a small proportion of our working population is currently paid at or below the minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts it at 3.6million people, which is 4.9% of the hourly paid workforce. Any raise in the minimum wage thus benefits a few already in the system but will most likely cast some out and definitely keep others from entering who may need it most.
In my own thinking I recognize there is a trade off between an ideal where everyone makes enough money to support their family, body and whatever other endeavors. However that level of prosperity cannot be achieved through wealth redistribution. A minimum wage of $100 an hour would seem to grant a high quality of life to all but at a cost of ruining businesses nearly completely. I assume most would agree to that point. Similarly, those who want to have the government regulate MPG in cars to an artificially high standard in order to save the atmosphere would be better off at just going for a ban of all cars because zero gas consumption is better than a little. There is trade off thinking in that as well: one can't ban cars because we need them so let's stretch their capabilities farther than the market demands.
Without a minimum wage there would still be unemployment, there would still be poor people, there would still be injustice. However I would wager there would be fewer in those categories mentioned when firms and individuals are granted more freedom to use the resources they possess in a manner best suited to their needs.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Two Great Videos
Firstly, surfing is all fun. This video shows it well.
Second, in getting across ideas of economic freedom in a quick, engaging way, this video is hard to beat.
Enjoy, ya'lls.
Second, in getting across ideas of economic freedom in a quick, engaging way, this video is hard to beat.
Enjoy, ya'lls.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Ah, Google
Thanks to a presentation I heard this week I found out about this nugget in the Google Terms of Service agreement:
It's an excerpt from section 11.1
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
I guess most of us don't transmit information we would need to worry about becoming public, but it's something to keep in mind. And like Facebook, it is information we willingly, freely provide to the company.
It's an excerpt from section 11.1
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
I guess most of us don't transmit information we would need to worry about becoming public, but it's something to keep in mind. And like Facebook, it is information we willingly, freely provide to the company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)