LIFE IS TERMINAL

I was out in the pet cemetery digging a grave for Mori, one of our cats. Mori is still with us, but he is in the end stage of kidney failure, and as near as we can tell it’s the end of the end.  Taking a break I looked around. There were headstones for our dogs Lucky, Shadow, Jackson, Murphy, Cooper, Cody, Bud, two neighbor dogs, our cat Sydney, our son’s cat Tanner and a grave for a couple of the unknown feral cats that found their way into our yard while all of the above mentioned dogs were hale and hearty.  That’s a lot of loss.

Nature plays a cruel trick on us by giving dogs a 15-year life span, cats around 20, humans late 70s and turtles 100 years, which means that only the turtle can suffer more losses in its lifetime. (That’s just one of the five major reasons I’m glad I’m not a turtle.)

I’m not in anyway skipping over the pain of losing a human friend or family member. That is in an entirely different category, not necessarily worse, but different. I’m sure those of you who are not animal people don’t understand that last sentence at all, but believe me when I tell you I have just exposed a nasty little secret of us animal folks. 

I was reading an on-line story about the recent suicide of country singer Mindy McCready. She shot herself and the dog of her ex-boyfriend. The first few comments I read said basically the same thing, that she could shoot herself if she wanted, but why did she have to kill the dog. Remember the movie, “War Horse” we saw hundreds of soldiers killed, but just wound that horse and out come the Kleenex.  How about Marley and Me? The whole family could have been kidnapped by radical Muslims, and I would have been more concerned that Marley was left alone. “Timmy’s in the well!” I would have felt more anxious if Lassie were in the well. 

Hopefully others of you out there feel the same way or I may have to admit myself.

There is something about the fact that animals give us everything they have. They count on us for everything they need, and when we can’t give them immortality, only just lessen their suffering, we seem to have let them down just when they needed us the most.

The last of us we can give them is the hardest to give, to make the decision to end their suffering and to begin ours, and to be there at the end and hold them in our arms just like we did all of their lives. Then we will hold them in our hearts the rest of our lives.

Those damn 100 year turtles are starting to look better….

THE WAGES OF EVIL??

We have had the minimum wage since the late ‘30s. You would think the question of whether or not a government-imposed minimum wage is good for all concerned would be settled but alas, no. So, what Congress will be voting for is politics, not economics.

The core of the minimum wage issue is what we believe the purpose of a business to be, and, on that point, I think we have agreement. Both Conservatives and Liberals hopefully understand that the purpose of a business is to make money by providing a product or service that is wanted/needed by society. Where the two philosophies differ is about what to do with that money when it enters the business.

 The Liberal believes the income should be divided based upon fairness and equality. What the worker gets paid is determined by what the worker needs to live the “American Dream.”

 The free market Conservative believes the income is divided up according to the worker’s value, productivity, skill, and importance to the organization.   What the worker gets paid is generally determined by comparable jobs in the industry/location.                                    

As a Conservative I have issues with the minimum wage, (or as the Liberals call it the “Living Wage”).

Liberal philosophy is based on the two-legged stool of fairness and equality. In order to provide fairness and equality where it does not naturally exist (which is everywhere), it must be unnaturally implemented, and who better to unnaturally implement something than the government. (This is where the term “income redistribution” fits in nicely.) A mandatory minimum wage is really “income redistribution” within a business.

The concept of minimum wage begins to fall apart when we realize the government can force a worker to be paid a certain amount, but it cannot force a worker to be more productive to justify that increased wage, or the business owner to hire any additional workers at all. The government also cannot insure the business will not “let go” those folks not producing what the government says they are worth. Businesses need to get more value for each additional dollar spent but with the forced minimum wage they may actually be forced to get less value for the dollar.

 If I, as a business owner, have a job that I believe warrants a $5.00 per hour wage and the government tells me I have to pay that worker $9.00, I have choices. I could take that money from my pocket or the pocket of my share owners (who have taken all of the business risks), or I could not fill that job (notice today’s high unemployment among youth, minorities and other unskilled workers). I could increase the workload or cut back hours of those now receiving the additional income (Thus increasing the wages but decreasing actual income) or invest in more technology to accomplish the task (farm machinery, ATMs, the self check out at food stores), or I could relocate outside that particular government’s jurisdiction. None of theses choices are driven by good business policy but by outside government intervention.

 The higher the price of something, the less is bought. If a business has to hire someone at an “inflated” wage, it will look for the most skilled worker available, leaving the young and older unskilled workers out in the cold (If the government forced the price of a BMW and a Yugo to be the same, how many people would choose the Yugo?)  A high minimum wage reduces the number of low skilled and young people in the workforce thus creating more unemployment and increases the much publicized middle class income inequality by reducing the income of the already lower income folks. The bigger organizations can better handle a higher wage base so they will continue to do well. While the small business owner struggles, the big time CEO thrives, thus increasing the much maligned income disparity.

(I assume the government will also have to pay the new, higher wage. Guess from whom  they will get the additional money?)

I have read articles written by proponents of raising the already highest in the nation minimum wage in Santa Fe, New Mexico stating that an even higher wage is necessary because of the high cost of living in the city. I wonder if those folks ever stop to think of what might be a significant factor in causing the city’s high cost of living in the first place. A business may move into a community with a high minimum wage, but that business moved in spite of the higher wage, not because of it.   We have to ask, “Who benefits from an artificially high minimum wage?” Not the business, not the customer and therefore not the community as a whole.  It is argued that a higher minimum wage puts more money into the community. That is an interesting thought, but that money comes from someplace and that someplace now doesn’t have it to spend.—a problem with redistribution.
 Among those who do work and earn the minimum wage, researchers have found that 60% are secondary income earners and live in households currently above the poverty line. So is an increase in minimum wage really reducing poverty?

Is it possible that a higher minimum wage could be a contributing factor to today’s high drop out rate?  Dropping out of school or not updating skills are choices that have consequences. Could an artificially high minimum wage be perceived as a positive consequence thus encouraging dropping out?

This raising of the minimum wage will not only affect those entry level folks who are the direct recipients, but since I’m sure there is currently a wage differential between levels in an organization and that differential will continue, so everybody up the line gets a raise whether they are worth the extra money or not.  Business owners then have a pay structure not based on any specific value to the organization but on an arbitrary number picked out by a governmental entity that doesn’t know or understand the effected business. I heard a union member on TV say that he thought the minimum wage should be $30 per hour. I thought, “why not?” As long as we seem to be picking numbers out of a hat, $30 has as little relevance to reality as $9.00.

 Also, what if a new worker chooses to work for less pay in order to learn the business, but because of a high minimum wage the boss will not hire him? That, in itself, can’t be good for the economy as a whole.

Employer and employee are really a buyer/seller arrangement. How many other buyer/seller arrangements do we have where the government can tell the seller what he must sell his “thing” for, and what the buyer must buy it for?

Now, of course, the Conservative model is not without its faults. Business management can get greedy and underpay its employees, but in a truly free market that underpaid person would leave the low paying job, and the business which pays the best for a particular skill will get the best workers and ultimately be the most successful, thus requiring Scrooge, if he wants to remain in business, to compete.

On the question of do we want a higher minimum wage, Congress may soon be voting for a Liberal philosophy, i.e. the money in an organization should be distributed as evenly as possible, or a Conservative philosophy, i.e. everybody in an organization is not an equal contributor. I feel for a business to be a successful and productive element of society, the business must be allowed to make its own decision on its most significant expense, wages.

A vote for increasing the minimum wage feels good, it feels like the right thing to do, but I think we all know just because something feels good doesn’t make it right.

THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT...

The characters

Reginald and Vanessa
Reginald inherited his wealth. He’s a trust fund baby. He thinks of no one but himself (not even his trophy wife Vanessa). His main life’s objective is finding ways in which he can enjoy his wealth. He has all the toys money can buy. He has the private jet, yacht, homes and cars all over the world.  He feels he is head and shoulders above the common man. He is a man of privilege. What’s his is his to enjoy every day of his life.

Bob and Sydney
Bob and Sydney started their business in their garage, second mortgaged their home, went thru tough financial times (which tested their marriage). After one bankruptcy they reorganized and came out the other end smarter and ready to go. They have since hired 250 people and are now one of the most profitable up and coming companies in the US. Bob and Sydney have a nice home in an upscale neighborhood, send their two children to good schools, have a trust fund set up for their kids' future and still work 40 plus hours a week. They know they have a good life, and they also know how much blood, sweat and tears they put in to it. They have started a foundation to aid new entrepreneur couples.

Frank and Sally
Frank is a high school graduate, Sally has her GED. They have 4 children and just getting by with Frank’s hourly salary and some extra cash they pick up by Sally’s baby sitting. Frank lost his job through downsizing at his company. He has very actively searched for jobs for over a year. They live on his unemployment check and Sally’s baby sitting extra cash. He doesn’t want "charity," but cannot feed his family without it. When he is not walking the streets looking for a job (he had to sell his car), Frank attends the community college to pick up some new skills to broaden his job potential.  This is not they way he wanted his life to be, and he is determined to do everything he can to get himself and his family back on track.

Peaches Williams
Peaches was never married, has six children, with five men. She has never worked. She lives off of welfare for herself and her children, three of whom live with her mother who is also single and on welfare.  Peaches has a car, cell phone, flat screen TV, and she and her current boyfriend eat well off of food stamps. She and her family are devoted members of the professional poor.

When Liberals contend that we should tax the rich to redistribute the nation’s resources, that it’s unfair that some folks should have so much while others have so little in this land of plenty, they use Reginald and Vanessa as an example of the rich and  Frank and Sally  as an example of  the poor.

“You want to let those people who have more money than they can ever spend and have no idea what the rest of us are experiencing, partying in their penthouses with their servants, big top hats and cigars while we have hardworking people out in the world who are living in tenements and ghettos and can hardly put food on the table?”

Republicans when describing the tax breaks for the rich describe the working rich (Bob and Sydney ) and the non-working poor (Peaches Williams).

“You want to take money from people who have sacrificed so much and given back so much in the way of innovation, creativity, good jobs and charitable donations and give that money to people who have voluntarily contributed nothing and whose main job is looking for who they can get something from. You really want to take money from the productive and give to the unproductive?”

Both are true.