A Senate minority has killed the minimum wage bill. Republicans
say we live in a free market economy meaning wages will find the proper level;
therefore, the government should not interfere. The objective of this post is
to examine the three-legged stool of our wage economy: profits, wages, and
welfare. Careful consideration proves why Republicans vote the way they do. The
first consideration should always be that we live in a democracy, which means we
should expect those who represent us to vote in our best interest, which they
didn’t. They voted for free enterprise but voted against the workers best
interest. Why does this happen?
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
At first blush, not only Republicans but also almost
everyone else believes in the principle that the invisible hand of the “free
market” will make needed adjustments to wages; this seems intuitive. For three
billion years, the only limit on intake of what an organism, including man and
animals, needed to survive was satiety. The only thing that affected regulation
was natural abundance or scarcity, the free market. Labor is a commodity subject to the same rules.
The conclusion is that the “free hand of Adams Smith” arose out of our distant
past and only works in the most primitive situations—we do not live in a primitive
situation. We live in a highly regulated culture; unfortunately, the regulators
are the rich people and not all of the people, as our democracy was designed. Multi
national corporations, Koch brothers, Walton’s, etc are the regulators and not
labor organizations and certainly not the people. The free enterprise system does
not work, and will not work without intervention “of the people and by the people”.
Enterprises are what they are to make as much profit as possible. If employees are
involved, they are paid wages for their
work. If workers do not work, they need welfare.
For centuries, there was a biological balance;
workers produced food or commodities that they could exchange for food, once there
was enough to eat, they stopped working. Obviously, there is a straight-line relationship
between working and eating; those who did not work starved. As mentality and altruism
developed, we transferred our bestial level of benevolence from just our
offspring to those around us and “welfare” happened. There was a strong
inherent feeling or opinion about who need welfare and who did not, these
feelings as much as any other shaped our culture. It is amazing how bestial
these feelings are; could you let someone die because they did not want to work
or were not capable of working. Have you ever thought about what survival of
the fittest really means or how cruel it really is? I often hear people say, “If
they do not want to work, let them starve”. As an ex teacher, I have come to
believe that if I hear someone say something like that it probably means 10
others are thinking it.
If you were in business to make as much money as you possible
can, would you “want” to be in control so you could decrease wages to increase profits?
If you are a worker, would you “want” to force your employer to pay wages sufficient
to sustain you and your family? Would you support labor unions to raise wages
you were the employer? If wages are so low that workers have to receive welfare
to live, would you still hate welfare. Would you support having everyone paying
taxes so that your workers could receive welfare if it meant you could lower
wages to make more profit and your workers would not starve? If there were many
unemployed workers, would you “want” to believe that they are not working because
they are lazy, or that they are not working because there are no jobs? Which
answer would best justify your call for more tax cuts so you did not have to pay
welfare?
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment