"Fairness"

Yesterday's column by Charles Krauthammer regarding the return of the "real" Obama was extraordinary.  He reminded readers that Obama (during 2008) said that even if the evidence shows that reductions in the tax rate applicable to capital gains increase revenue, he would consider increasing them in the interest of "fairness."  Thus, in order to achieve what he regards to be "fair," Obama would propose legislation (increases in the tax rates for capiital gains) that would have the impact of reducing tax revenue.  The same theme seems foundational to Obama's current thinking regarding the "Buffet" rule, and much of what Krugman and others have said about the growing chasm between the incomes and net worth of the wealthliest Americans, on the one hand, and those of middle class, on the other.

This has caused me to focus on what do Obama and others mean when they speak of "fairness" in the context of income, wealth and taxes.  In this regard, I never hear liberals assail the earnings of the stars of Hollywood, recording, and professional sports, even though ratios between earnings those "stars," and the various people delivering services to them (e.g., the folks that wash the basketball uniforms) are no doubt staggering.

When I read the posts of the folks that have heartily endorsed the Buffet rule, I wonder whether they would find more acceptable a world in which everyone now earning between $30,000 and $80,000 suddenly earned 20% less, provided that everyone earning above $250,000 (excluding sports and entertainment stars) suddenly earned less than $100,000.

It is ironic indeed that persons (sports stars excluded) that have jobs that put them in a position to earn $10,000,000 or more per year do so without the benefit of collective bargaining (frankly, the absolute best among the sports superstars wwould earn even more in the absence of their unions).  I.e., whether we are talking Beyonce or a Wall Street genius, each negotiates for the best possible deal with no union to help them, and, if they fail to perform, there are thousands waiting in the wings to replace them.  Yet when the Wall Street geniuses end up earning a substantial multiple of the earnings of union members (imagine the operators of the trains on which the Wall Street geniuses ride to work) that can bargain collectively for the  best possible wages, we are told it is "unfair."

I suppose my point is this: Obama and Krugman care not about the fairness of the process that produces the results that we see; they care instead about outcomes.  But, so long as people are born with different levels of gifts (musical ability, running speed, IQ, etc), nothing can produce equality of outcomes.

Father

Unproven, but Likely, Positives of Facebook

Recently I've been seeing articles reporting on the decrease in drug use (with the exception of marijuana) and teen pregnancy in the U.S.. I posit that a significant explanation for these is the widespread use of social media. In the past kids exposure to drugs and sex was more whimsical. They saw characters in T.V. shows and in movies doing coke and having sex, and thought "Hey, that looks nifty. I'll give it a try". Facebook and other social media sites provide a more realistic view of these behaviors. When you Facebook stalk that kid everyone knew was doing meth/snorting coke/raving on X in high school and see that he's now incarcerated/living in a trailer/earning minimum wage at Fast Food Corp. X, you think "Wow maybe all those PSA's were right and your brain really is different on drugs." The same can be said for teen pregnancy. I know that reading the Facebook posts of girls my age with babies is an exercise in vaguely comedic horror. Rather than just that girls constantly shrinking group of friends she could have complained to in the pre-Facebook past being impacted by her horrific tales of raising an infant as a teenager, all of her Facebook friends are exposed to it, and girls who were having sex freely enough to end up pregnant probably also ended up with a relatively high number of Facebook friends after high school. It all boils down to this, Facebook forces today's youth to be exposed to a more realistic image of the hazards of hard drug use and unprotected sex than they would have in the past. It's not that it was impossible to see the effects of drug use and childbearing before Facebook, it just required more effort. Today you are just a few clicks away from a horror story that is more personal than any government study or news report, because it happened to someone you know and is accompanied by photo and verbal documentation via Facebook.
-Micah

Help Wanted

Because my wife and I live in the country, and because we have multiple barns, 8 horses and two cows, taking care of the property and animals is a lot of wwork.  Thus, for several years my wife has had a "helper" who works 2-3 days per week, for $15/hour, more than double the minimum wage.  Over the last 6 years, several different men have occupied the position. 

The first such person was very gifted in terms of mechanical know-how, repairing tractors, laying bricks, fixing electrical problems, etc.  But, he was utterly unreliable; she never knew when he would show for work.  Ultimately, he went to jail for multiple DUIs and we were forced to find a replacement.  The first such replacement hit it hard for a few days, and then tried to persuade us to accept his son as a replacement; neither worked.  We then found a middle-aged man who did a good job, but he was prone to leaving for Mexico on short notice, and reappearing, without prior notice, weeks later.

Most recently, we had an older man who was totally reliable in terms of getting here on time and on schedule, but had a tendency of "disappearing" for long stretches during the day, or sitting in his pickup while smoking cigarrettes.  Sadly, he was not a self-starter. He did exactly what he was asked to do, and nothing more.

So, this week we were thrilled when one of the workers at our church told us that he had found the right man for the job.  He was mid-thirties, and had no wife or children.  He was--until he started to work for us--working "day labor," showng up each morning at a place where other day laborers gathered to offer their services to persons in need of help.

He worked all day Tuesday, and my wife was generally pleased.  Thus, he and she agreed that he had the job starting immediately, working 8 hours a day, 3 days a week, for $15/hour cash.

On Thursday, his next working day, he did not show.  He instead left a message asking when he could be paid for the day he had worked, and making clear that he had changed his mind, and did not want the job.

Last night, he came by to collect, and explained that he had been offended when I was explaining to him that he should drive around and not over certain areas of our property, because "educated people use words that make [him] feel uncomfortable."  Well, the conversation to which he was pointing had occurred long before he agreed with my wife to take the job, and involved a mere request that he not drive over the fire-hose type water lines that supply our irrigation system.  This was obviously a pretext, so we remain baffled.  He stood to make more in three days working for us than he would if he worked five days as a day laborer.

Father

Minimum wage and unemployment

I spent more than a year of my life working at a grocery store in a bad neighborhood, making less than $2.00 per hour, but it was, at the time, the "minimum wage."  As of today, the minimum wage in Texas is $7.25 per hour.  My present curiousity, given high unemployment (especially among teens, and most pointedly among black teens), is whether reducing--or, better yet, eliminating--the minimum wage would (i) reduce unemployment and (ii) provide persons now unemployed with an opportunity to start working, and thereby gaining experience that will assist them in getting better jobs in the future.

I am aware that many studies have shown that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment, especially among teens.  I am also aware of studies that are critical of those studies, arguing that increases in minimum wage have no measurable impact on employment.

But, I am certain that increases in the minimum wage must hurt employment.  Consider this example:  suppose we increase the minimum wage to $100/hour?  Would anyone claim that such an increase would not have an adverse impact on employment?  In fact, I have always wanted a congressman to pose such a hypothetical to someone testifying in favor of higher minimum wages.  For example: if a $1/hr increase is good, would a $25/hr increase be even better?  If not, why not?

If you agree that it dramatically higher minimum wages would adversely affect emploment, then you have agreed with the trend; i.e., as the minimum wage increases, unemployment must necessarily increase.

Why, then, does no one ever propose--in the face of high and persistent unemployment--a decrease in the minimum wage?

Father