Cartoons, Economy, Issues

Cartoon: McAutomated

7

Those who are demanding a huge hike in the minimum wage think they are going to get a raise when they are likely to get nothing more than a pink slip. Check out the latest Branco Toon and share with your friends.

 

  • scott
  • Kevin

    The simple, economic FACT, is that in a free market of products and services, an employee ONLY has “a job” by performing a service that adds value to the employer that exceeds the value of the paycheck. Otherwise, the employer is running a welfare program, which private business definitely is NOT. Minimum wage jobs are only intended to be for entry-level positions that return very little value to the employer. Earlier minimum-wage jobs were eliminated when the required wage exceeded the value added to the employer (movie theater ushers come to mind). Soon, computer-based kiosks in fast-food stores are going to eliminate many of these jobs. Its pure economics.

    • Reverend Joe Ruyle

      Great comment, Kevin! It’s refreshing to read a comment based on sound reasoning and basic economics rather than the typical “living wage” claptrap the left keeps promoting. Very few regular people have even a rudimentary understanding of economics anymore since it’s rarely taught in schools or even colleges these days. They don’t understand the fact that the economy is a dynamic system that balances itself. Artificially tinkering with one part, wages, ripples throughout and affects every other part of the system. Static thinking liberals invoke the “Law of Unintended Consequences” every time they try to “fix” something they perceive as a problem.

      • Kevin

        Very true Joe! Not that I am bragging about actually having read the whole book, but your reference to the economy balancing itself is what I think Adam Smith was talking about in his masterpiece, “The Wealth of Nations” (he talked about the “invisible hand”). I have the book on my bookshelf (its about as thick as “Atlas Shrugged,” which I have read), but have only read through the first chapter (on Division of Labor). It was published in 1776 (yes, its sometimes called the Economic Declaration of Independence), and so the writing style is long (sort of like the Federalist Papers), but well worth the effort to read if you’ve got the time. I do find it humorous when the Left talks about unintended consequences (“Gee, THAT wasn’t supposed to happen!”), as though they failed to listen to a single word any conservative ever said on the subject – probably because Rachel Mad-cow said it was “hate speech!”

        • Reverend Joe Ruyle

          I have not read the Adam Smith work but will put it on my retirement reading list. Thomas Sowell is probably a lot easier to read than Mr. Smith and he has a knack for simplification that makes navigating the economic mine field a Sunday stroll in the park. Milton Freedman gets a bit deeper (not that Mr. Sowell can’t) but anyone with a logical mind can get through his writings easily enough. (Which, I suppose, eliminates most on the left)

          The liberal problem is assuming that there is no fluidity in an economic system and it is instead static. To them the balance beam on the scale has been glued in place so adding to one side doesn’t affect the opposite side. Reality, of course, is different. Even IF increasing the base wage didn’t force the employer to either increase prices or cut staff the longer range issue is more money in the economy. If more money is available then prices will tend to rise for other goods and services because they will still be “affordable” even if a bit more expensive. At some point the amount of cash available comes back into balance with the costs of goods and services (or the other way around) and the worker is left with the same level of buying power they had prior to the wage increase…… unless the increase lead to bracket creep and they now owe more in taxes.

          As you stated so well in your initial response, wages are based on the value the worker adds to the system and asking if you want fries with that isn’t exactly a high value task. To artificially inflate the task value by legislating that the entry level worker be paid as much as some folks who have been on the job for years and earned their wage along the way is only begging for economic disaster. I believe both California and Washington State are finding this out first hand now. (and yes…. conservatives warned them of exactly what would happen….. but liberals always know best)

          • Kevin

            You are spot-on! Liberals seem to think that if they want more tax revenue out of “the rich” all they have to do is increase the tax rate. This logic would imply that if the tax rate is currently 55%, if you want twice as much in taxes, just double the tax rate, and collect 110% of their income! Of course, this doesn’t work, as the people who used to pay 55% now quit their jobs or close their businesses, and the government then gets nothing from them. (“Gee, THAT wasn’t supposed to happen!”) In more mathematical terms, liberals generally use linear thinking (your reference to static thinking). They think they can solve an economic system by simply inverting a matrix. The reality is that the system is actually a dynamic system, and the solution is much more involved, being a system of differential equations where different interactions are represented as feedback coefficients. I’m a nuclear engineer, not an economist, but there are economists who do this kind of macro-economic modeling, and the field is called Econometrics. The problem is that no mathematical model can simulate the whole system, because there are always unforeseen feedbacks (and there is a strong similarity here to the atmospheric scientists who do global warming simulation). In economics, Benoit Mandelbrot wrote a book, “The (Mis)behavior of Markets, A Fractal View of Financial Turbulence,” where he shows that real financial market behavior is more complex than what current financial planners think. For one thing, certain basic assumptions (like all transactions are independent of each other and can therefore be modeled using Gaussian distributions), are flat-out wrong. Real distributions of extreme, low-probability events (like market crashes) tend to be distributed by empirical power laws, not exponential distributions (so the probabilities of large deviations from the mean fall off slower than what a “Bell Curve” model would predict). Participation in the markets are therefore higher-risk than what planners think. As an engineer I can say that computer models are not the same thing as reality, or as the computer scientists say, “garbage in, garbage out.”

  • jerry1944

    Machines cost a lot less than a person and easyer to repair when needed . When the min wages goes up all wages go up and when everything catches up its all back to the same Unions have that fact figgered into there contract plus some in most cases

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Name:
Email:
Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!