You Could Earn More If You Could Think Better

Flawed or outright stupid argumentation abounds online. I'm well aware "my" side perpetuates some nonsense and I'm willing to pick those instances apart. This is not one of those times. This is a time where we get to see a really, really stupid argument from the Left.

We can ignore that there's a missing "s" at the end of increase. Typing errors have nothing to do with whether an argument is a solid one or not, and Lord knows I make my own share of typing errors.

1) Let's agree for the sake of looking at this argument that "the minimum wage" hasn't been raised in years, and yet prices have continued to go up. That has nothing to do with whether or not raising the minimum wage would also increase prices. It's like asking "If shooting someone in the head kills them, how come people have been dying without being shot in the head?"

Nobody is saying that only raising the minimum wage increases prices. We are saying that raising the minimum wage is one of many things that increases prices.

2) The statement that "the minimum wage hasn't been increased in years" is misleading. There is a national minimum wage, yes. However, the minimum wage in states, counties, and cities, which is higher than the federal minimum wage in various places, has gone up.


3) Prices of some goods and services have risen due to other factors. Yes, there's supply and demand. Under that principle, most businesses will attempt to price their goods and services so as to take in the most revenue that the demand will support. However, their prices must be high enough to cover expenses, of which "wages" is just one, and also pay the owner*, otherwise they will go out of business due to not being able to pay their expenses, or they will leech off of taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies. Even if wages have not gone up, other forms of compensation (also an expense of the business) have increased, including sick pay, holiday pay, health insurance premiums, and so many more. Employee compensation, including wages, benefits, and more, is only part of the expenses a business has. It has many other employee-related expenses (training, travel, insurance), it has to pay for supplies and materials, buy/lease and maintain equipment, buy/lease and maintain space, pay for utilities (energy costs rise due to "green energy" mandates), pay for waste disposal (also rising in costs due to "green" mandates), pay taxes/fees/assessments, process much paperwork to comply with various laws, liability insurance (lawsuits!!!), on and on it goes. Many businesses have high expenses in research, development, and marketing.


And guess what? The costs of many of those things also goes up with minimum wage increases. It's not just the guy you see cutting the pizza at the take-out place. It's the people who delivered the supplies to that location and the people who picked the peppers. Other wages are pushed up as well, because if someone is making "a couple of bucks an hour more than minimum wage" he's not going to settle for now being at minimum wage as that has risen to where he is.

The effect of imposing a higher minimum wage from D.C. or your state capitol will not be limited to people working in certain jobs getting paid more. Businesses will react by raising prices, cutting employee hours, not filling vacated positions, and not expanding, or not expanding as much or as quickly. There are businesses that simply won't be started in the first place. A lot of these effects are not so easy to see but their impact is very real. If the cost of using a human is too high, machines may be used more instead of people.


Yes, raising the minimum wage increases prices.

There also is a moral principal at work here. Imagine you share a bite of something you baked with someone at work, and they like it so much they offer to pay you for you to bake for a party they have coming up. You agree to bake a certain amount and they agree to pay you a certain amount. Now imagine someone else who isn't involved in the party nor the baking steps in and says "No, that person has to pay you MORE." Why is it the intruder's responsibility to get involved? What would often happen in a scenario like that is the person interested in your baked goods would decide to call off the deal. Why is it a Senator's responsibility to interfere in compensation negotiation when one person agrees to work for another?



* Yes, owners need to get paid, too. Owners have put in their money, and often they also put in their time and expertise, taking risks and initiative. Some people apparently think owners will or should take all of the hit of the cost of higher wages, but that's not going to happen, and in most cases, it shouldn't.

How Needs Get Met

Nature, or Nature's God, has provided us with, among other things:

• Water in certain places
• Plants, animals, and edible fungi in certain conditions
• Some caves in certain places

Without work, only a few people could live in a few places on Earth: any place in which 1) a cave, free of venomous animals, will provide sufficient shelter; 2) edible plants/plants with edible parts/fungi grow in sufficient abundance; 3) potable water is available in sufficient abundance. Has there been such a place outside of Eden?

Even then, there would likely still be work in obtaining the water to drink and the plant/fungus material to eat, and the plant/fungus material would likely not have all the nutrients we need to thrive. And you're out of luck if your eyesight needs correction, or you get a serious injury or infection that requires medical care.

Here's the point.

Everything we have is ultimately the result of work and trading. Even things we have inherited or someone has gifted/donated to us are the result of work and trading. 

Very few people drink all their water, untreated, directly from, and at, a stream. 

Just about everything we eat, no matter how "natural," has been cultivated for beneficial changes over hundreds or even thousands of years, and is provided by many people working.

Whether we live in a hut, recreational vehicle camper, a tiny apartment, or a palatial estate, the shelter exists because of work.

Clothes, medical treatments, transportation, energy, mass communications, entertainment, art galleries, museums - everything is a result of work and trading.

The exception involves a non-consensual transfer, through things like force, extortion, confiscation, plunder, enslavement, and various forms of theft not yet mentioned. That still involves work. It is just that there isn't a voluntary trade.

Working and trading is how needs get met.

The more interference in these things, the more theft and destruction, the fewer needs that will be met. 

Example: Printing money or confiscating it from people who are working and using it to pay people to NOT work.

If you want food, you either have to grow it and prepare for it yourself, or trade for it. Or, someone else has to work and provide it to you out of charity or force.

Who is best at knowing what you need? You. Maybe your spouse. Not some strangers in Washington, D.C., not some strangers in New York, not some strangers in Europe.

It should be YOUR responsibility to look after your needs and those of anyone for whom you responsible, like dependent children. The less those strangers in D.C., NYC, or Europe interfere in your work and trading, the better.

Law Enforcement Officers Work at Our Delegation

"Cops don't prevent crime."

That's what "all cops are 'bad'" people say.

They'll point out that the police show up after a crime has been committed, and don't do much to make the situation better, such as actually retrieving stolen property.

The Left dislikes cops because they hinder their theft, destruction, child molestation, drug abuse, and prostitution. Those last two (maybe three) reasons are also why some libertarians hate police. 

The assertion that "cops don't prevent crime" completely ignores deterrence and recurrence. Ever notice how speeding drivers slow down when a marked police vehicle appears on the highway? That's deterrence. Criminals who are in prison can't assault people outside of that prison or steal things from them or destroy their property. That prevents recurrence.

It's true that, if a package is stolen off of your doorstep, the odds that the thief will be caught and successfully prosecuted for that particular instance of theft aren't good.

We have a justice system with the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt as the standard for conviction, privacy rights, and the police and prosecutors must make decisions about who to investigate, arrest, and prosecute in the first place. Also, all of the people involved are fallible people who can make mistakes and be corrupt. Like any other organization, a police department can become about protecting and empowering itself and certain individuals within it, rather than "protecting and serving" the public.

But what's the alternative? Law enforcement officers work at our delegation. They are public servants. The alternative is armed clans or their directly hired private guns engaging in a series of back-and-forth attacks. Steal from me? I or my buddy try to track you down, and if we do, we "take back" our property or the equivalent. But that's not likely to happen without violence. Who has the biggest clans and the most guns? They tend to be Right-wingers. Who can hire their own soldiers? The wealthy.

We found that "three strikes" worked. We locked up the career criminals and crime rates dropped. I can agree that law enforcement shouldn't focus as much on "sex for money" or killing yourself with substance abuse (but then I don't like government health care for most people). They should focus on assault, theft, and destruction. And yes, we should lock people up for those things, so we need enough prison space for them. The alternative is making them "work off" their debt under the direct armed control of their victims.

I am increasingly preferential of sheriffs who are elected directly by the people of a county as opposed to police chiefs who are political appointees.

But if someone wants to do away with police and sheriff departments, then we'll all need private security, surveillance, documentation, defense, and "restitution." That's going to involve a lot of guns.