Officials in the ASG have been spitting out a lot of rhetoric about the evils of profit and money. It’s very typical of politicians to take the moral high ground when it comes to this subject. However, we should always question their integrity whenever they criminalize moneymaking activities.
Togiola says we need a government airline because “airlines are only looking for profit and gain.” So our governor is implying that neither he nor public employees look out for profit and gain, and so travel services are better off in their hands rather than in those of greedy entrepreneurs.
But what does it mean to profit? Profit is the money one makes after paying for his costs. A businessperson profits after he makes enough money to pay his employees, rent, utilities and other expenses. How about public employees and the governor, do they profit in a similar fashion?
It turns out that they do! Public employees and the governor do not work for free nor do they break even. They need to make more money than it costs them to pay for breakfast, drive to work, catch the bus, eat lunch and all the other expenses they incur to complete their work day. What they make in excess of their daily costs is their profit!
And if public employees were not trying to increase their profits, then why do they keep asking for pay raises?
Profit entices entrepreneurs to do things at the lowest cost available. The lower their costs, the higher their profits. Non-profit and government agencies do not have the incentive of lowering costs because they can always raise taxes and do not face competition. Accountability is not sought unless someone kicks them in the butt (FBI, DOI, GAO, etc.).
It is not common for the spirit of charity to be lost on profit seeking individuals. Many successful people and organizations find value in giving away their money to causes they care about. In his book, The Enterprise of Education, James Tooley notes, “The ‘cost per achievement point’ in the private unaided schools (in India) is less than half that in the government schools (in India).” He also goes on to say, “Impressively, the great majority of the (private unaided) schools offer significant number of free places – up to 20 percent – for the poorest students, allocated on the basis claims of need checked informally in the community.”
For-profit schools doing better than public schools and even providing free seats for the poorest of poor. Wow. I bet you won't hear that from a politician.
Togiola should put the blame for the lack of airline competition where it belongs: the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920). This federal law prohibits foreign carriers from operating between two U.S. ports, and that is why Hawaiian Airlines is our sole provider. But considering our racism and anti-immigration stance, perhaps foreign airlines shouldn’t even bother with blessing us with their for-profit business.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Minimum Wage Scam
After employee representatives Bridget Martin and Jeff Turkus advocated a living wage during the minimum wage hearings, one must ask whose interest they are really looking after. It is very tempting to believe that such a law is in our best interest, and that we should honor these two men for being our heroes in shining armor.
Between 1996 and 2002, 82 cities and counties in the United States enacted living-wage laws. Such wages ranged from $7.00 to more than $13.00 an hour. Economist Jeffrey M. Perloff stated, " Consequently, these laws may lower the quantity of labor demanded for the employees of covered firms because uncovered firms (including businesses from nearby cities) can hire labor at lower wages."
Competition between different communities is exactly why the U.S. Congress imposed the federal minimum wage. Representatives from several states would loathe the fact that other states would have lower wages for the same type of work. Thus, a high-wage state would lose jobs to low-wage states. The late Murray Rothbard, an economist with Ludwig von Mises Institute, noted, “During the 1966 Congressional battle over a higher federal minimum wage, the late Senator Jacob Javits freely admitted that one of his main reasons for supporting the bill was to cripple the southern competitors of New York textile firms.”
Another economist, a Nobel laureate, the late Gunnar Myrdal, stated in his book, An American Dilemma, that the 1930’s minimum wage law had hurt African Americans the most. Since blacks were willing to work in conditions and for pay not favorable to most whites, employers ignored their racism and prejudice to employ black workers. As soon as the government forced wages up, employers had no incentive to ignore their bias. We should thank the government for encouraging discrimination with its intervention into the marketplace.
It seems clear to me that Mr. Martin and Mr. Turkus are looking after their own interests and not ours. We would be accused of the same if we tried to impose our minimum wage laws on countries with whom we compete. Do we care about their poor? Hell no. What we care about is that their low wages may take our jobs away from us one day. Using the same logic, is Mr. Martin and Mr. Turkus trying to get us to raise our wages so that less jobs would migrate from the mainland and Hawaii to American Samoa?
Who’s being immoral here?
Jobs don’t create themselves. Workers don’t create their own jobs either. Entrepreneurs, who organize everything, put up the capital and take the risk, create jobs. StarKist creates jobs. McDonalds creates jobs. Local and foreign businesses create jobs. Employee representatives and politicians do not.
The most moral way to set wages is through negotiation between employees (unions) and employers without state interference.
Between 1996 and 2002, 82 cities and counties in the United States enacted living-wage laws. Such wages ranged from $7.00 to more than $13.00 an hour. Economist Jeffrey M. Perloff stated, " Consequently, these laws may lower the quantity of labor demanded for the employees of covered firms because uncovered firms (including businesses from nearby cities) can hire labor at lower wages."
Competition between different communities is exactly why the U.S. Congress imposed the federal minimum wage. Representatives from several states would loathe the fact that other states would have lower wages for the same type of work. Thus, a high-wage state would lose jobs to low-wage states. The late Murray Rothbard, an economist with Ludwig von Mises Institute, noted, “During the 1966 Congressional battle over a higher federal minimum wage, the late Senator Jacob Javits freely admitted that one of his main reasons for supporting the bill was to cripple the southern competitors of New York textile firms.”
Another economist, a Nobel laureate, the late Gunnar Myrdal, stated in his book, An American Dilemma, that the 1930’s minimum wage law had hurt African Americans the most. Since blacks were willing to work in conditions and for pay not favorable to most whites, employers ignored their racism and prejudice to employ black workers. As soon as the government forced wages up, employers had no incentive to ignore their bias. We should thank the government for encouraging discrimination with its intervention into the marketplace.
It seems clear to me that Mr. Martin and Mr. Turkus are looking after their own interests and not ours. We would be accused of the same if we tried to impose our minimum wage laws on countries with whom we compete. Do we care about their poor? Hell no. What we care about is that their low wages may take our jobs away from us one day. Using the same logic, is Mr. Martin and Mr. Turkus trying to get us to raise our wages so that less jobs would migrate from the mainland and Hawaii to American Samoa?
Who’s being immoral here?
Jobs don’t create themselves. Workers don’t create their own jobs either. Entrepreneurs, who organize everything, put up the capital and take the risk, create jobs. StarKist creates jobs. McDonalds creates jobs. Local and foreign businesses create jobs. Employee representatives and politicians do not.
The most moral way to set wages is through negotiation between employees (unions) and employers without state interference.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Celebrating One's Independence Day
Today, on July 4, 2005, many will be celebrating the birth of a country. Today, I ask that you celebrate the birth of the recognition and protection of the individual. Countries come and go, empires rise and fall, but on July 4, 1776, our forefathers enshrined individual rights in the Declaration of Independence. On July 4, 1776, government was instituted among Men, not above Men.
Tonight, pop off a firework in honor of yourself. If anyone asks why you are so self-serving, just say, “I ask not what my country can do for me, but I ask what I can do to take care of myself and my love ones so that the rest of country doesn’t have to.” Now that’s real independence.
Go out and enjoy it, celebrate it, be unashamed of it and fight to protect it.
Happy Birthday good old U.S. of A.
Tonight, pop off a firework in honor of yourself. If anyone asks why you are so self-serving, just say, “I ask not what my country can do for me, but I ask what I can do to take care of myself and my love ones so that the rest of country doesn’t have to.” Now that’s real independence.
Go out and enjoy it, celebrate it, be unashamed of it and fight to protect it.
Happy Birthday good old U.S. of A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)