By Tina Grazier
“Every man for himself” is the way that many on the left characterize the philosophy of conservatism. Articulated most recently by Ronald Reagan when he spoke of the entrepreneurial spirit that built this great nation, rugged individualism is the desire of the individual to participate. Rather than being a selfish trait it is dynamic. The mischaracterization from the left reveals an arrogance of thought that oozes from gray matter incapable of appreciating the human spirit. How is it that this ridiculous definition continues given the history of innovation and prosperity of the United States? Chris Mathews offered a clue recently when he stepped forward to claim that if the Chilean miners were rugged individualists “they wouldn’t have gotten out, they would have been killing each other after about two days” (see video).
What a sad, or is it pathetic, notion of human capability! Chris believes that except for an elite few, human beings are helpless, needy slobs, lacking in the kind of self interest necessary even for preservation. He believes humans lack creativity, desire, urge, and intelligence. He believes that unless or until government steps forward to hold hands and provide funding and guidance a citizen’s world will not turn. He believes that you, dear reader, are nothing but a lump of clay requiring government hands to shape you into a neat little peg that will fit into an officially authorized and subsidized hole.
Dare I say it? What an idiot! Chris goes on to claim that the rugged individual is incapable of working with others. He implies that rugged individuals do nothing to assist others or contribute to anyone but themselves. History, of course, makes a sham of the man’s silly observations but he continues in his bigoted and arrogant observations!
Consider the many ways that individual Americans have taken matters into their own hands. From crossing the Great Plains to putting men into space rugged individuals have risked and worked with others to create new methods, products and technologies. By acting in their own interests, and taking the bull by the horns, they forged ahead and creatively grew cities and towns, businesses and products, methods and practices…including those that have made it possible for Chris Mathews to sit in his chair and talk to the entire world. What’s more, the prosperity and improved conditions that followed the efforts of these individuals created the wealth that build our universities, museums, hospitals, and other institutions and provided the backing and support that makes the arts possible. Government hasn’t exactly withered on the vine either!
Does conservatism embrace the “every man for himself” attitude characterized by Chris Mathews and others on the left? Hell no! Conservatism is a philosophy that believes every individual has great potential to become a responsible, contributing, satisfied member of society. Conservatism recognizes the creative spirit that innovates and also appreciates not only those who step forward to lead the way but also those who step forward to make the vision become viable in the world.
All work is honorable. Cooperative effort is a natural outcome that follows innovation of the entrepreneurial spirit. Providing for oneself through participation in this dynamic cooperative adventure is both honorable and invigorating. The rugged individual exists in every man if it isn’t beaten into submission by dictatorial powers from on high. Freedom is the atmosphere that allows the rugged individual in each of us take flight. Our resolve should be to encourage this in every citizen. Excessive government oversight, control and hand holding does nothing to inspire individuals.
By the way…the Chilean minors survived because a strong spirited group of individuals helped and supported each other. They were saved by the innovations that made recue possible.
Chris Matthews has always had a head full of nothing. He’s offended the right and the left numerous times because of his stupid, ill-thought out comments. Politicizing this issue is just plain ridiculous; there is nothing political about it. Michelle Malkin politicized it as well in one of her blog posts a few days ago, and it didn’t make any more sense than Matthews’ interpretation.
As for “rugged individualism,” like any characteristic, it has a good side and a bad side. The achievements Tina lists are worth celebrating, but we shouldn’t forget the consequences that Americans’ westward expansion had on the indigenous people that were already here.
Is “conservatism” inherently about “every man for himself?” I don’t think so, but I do know that many conservatives behave this way. Rush Limbaugh this week joined Michele Bachmann in arguing that we should eliminate the minimum wage. If that doesn’t come from a mentality of “I’ve got mine, so screw the rest of you,” I don’t know what does.
Chris: “…but we shouldn’t forget the consequences that Americans’ westward expansion had on the indigenous people that were already here.”
Interesting point but what is the point in bringing it up? Should people refrain from striving to relocate, innovate or take care of themselves out of fear of unknown or unintended consequences? How does your point apply in terms of the proposed alternative, as articulated by Mathews, that government should care for and manage our lives?
“Rush Limbaugh this week joined Michele Bachmann in arguing that we should eliminate the minimum wage. If that doesn’t come from a mentality of “I’ve got mine, so screw the rest of you,” I don’t know what does.”
Chris you have a lot to learn. The position has nothing to do with what anyone has or doesn’t have. It isn’t a position born of attitude. It’s about letting the market decide the value of work. It has to do with creating more entry level jobs, especially for young people. It has to do with eliminating inflated employee costs that undermine and destroy jobs (as happened in the car industry when union forced higher compensation, regardless performance, caused jobs to be lost to machines or other countries). It’s also about giving people incentive to better their skills rather than expecting others to provide them a “living wage”.
Is everything about attitude with you guys on the left? Are you capable of considering a position on the merits? Such nasty attitudes toward others will rob you of valuable insight into how things work…too bad.
Tina: “Interesting point but what is the point in bringing it up?”
The point is that at times in our history Americans have behaved in a selfish and destructive manner…just as all cultures have. And these acts were often done in the name of some of our greatest ideals…expansion, God, “rugged individualism” and the constant search for a better life. The most exceptional thing about America is that we are always striving to do better. But if we don’t acknowledge the mistakes along the way, along with the great achievements, then how do we know what the ideal is, and where do we draw the line in the future?
We can’t move forward if we don’t know our own history. That “Columbus Day” still goes unquestionably celebrated by most of our country should be a good reminder of that.
“Should people refrain from striving to relocate, innovate or take care of themselves out of fear of unknown or unintended consequences?”
What was done to the Native Americans by the European settlers and later, by our own country, was not an “unintended consequence.” It was systematic and intentional destruction.
“How does your point apply in terms of the proposed alternative, as articulated by Mathews, that government should care for and manage our lives?”
It depends on your meaning. My views on when government should intervene and when they shouldn’t are quite a bit more moderate, by world standards, then your own.
“Chris you have a lot to learn. The position has nothing to do with what anyone has or doesn’t have. It isn’t a position born of attitude.”
Tina, Rush Limbaugh will not be affected if the minimum wage is eliminated. As a business owner, you probably won’t be affected, either. I will. I’ve never heard anybody working a blue collar job say that the minimum wage should be eliminated; I do know of several billionaires that advocate this position.
Perhaps it’s not a position born of attitude, but of circumstance.
“It’s about letting the market decide the value of work. It has to do with creating more entry level jobs, especially for young people. It has to do with eliminating inflated employee costs that undermine and destroy jobs (as happened in the car industry when union forced higher compensation, regardless performance, caused jobs to be lost to machines or other countries). It’s also about giving people incentive to better their skills rather than expecting others to provide them a “living wage”.”
Tina, do you know anything about the history of this country before minimum wage laws were enacted?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to scrape by even WITH a minimum wage job?
Do you have any alternative solution for families who would struggle if their wages were lowered from the current minimum? (Other than “work more hours” or “find a better job,” which are not real answers.)
Did you know that after Britain enacted minimum wage laws, they saw no impact on employment rates, and that in the U.S. the states with the highest employment are the states with the highest minimum wage?
Do you realize that lowering minimum wages might actually LOWER INCENTIVE for many people to work, and make them realize that they could actually make more money on welfare, thus furthering government dependency?
“Do you realize that lowering minimum wages might actually LOWER INCENTIVE for many people to work, and make them realize that they could actually make more money on welfare, thus furthering government dependency?”
Actually Chris, if you look at history it is more likely that they will lower the wage rate to the point that someone is going to realize the only rational position is to kill Tina and take all her money.
But that is life, as she would say.
Mark, in some cases I’ll bet you will be right, but what if the laws were written that welfare was only temporary? The more able and the younger the less you could get? There’s an incentive and if there were lots of jobs available because small businesses could easily afford to hire someone…wow, think of what a better country we would be!
This is why I can’t stand to watch Chris Mathews, some of the dumbest things come out of this guy’s mouth!
Chris your comments are interesting and reveal your training. You don’t think in terms of individuals going about their business, making choices and surviving as best they can. You think quite often in terms of what one group does to another…or in terms of the collective “we”, almost like life is conspiracy or should nbe controlled from on high (not God).
Chris: “Americans have behaved in a selfish and destructive manner…just as all cultures have.”
As all people will forever except for transformation through devine intervention. It is the fallen nature of manthat ensures this inevitable reality.
“And these acts were often done in the name of some of our greatest ideals…expansion, God, “rugged individualism” and the constant search for a better life.”
People had God in mind and they were certainly looking for a better life but I don’t know you can say these things caused what you call “destructiion”. If they did then I suppose we would also have to say that lethargy, atheism and laziness are the causes of peaceful coexistance or equal distribution of abundance.
“But if we don’t acknowledge the mistakes along the way, along with the great achievements, then how do we know what the ideal is, and where do we draw the line in the future?”
If we are going to acknowledge mistakes and use them as a basis for moving forward then we had better realize and acknowledge the whole truth. The PC meme that the white invasion was the cause of destruction is a small fraction of a much larger story and should be kept in perspective, including the differences in all cultures at the time. Otherwise we end up demonizing one group and romanticizing the other.
“That “Columbus Day” still goes unquestionably celebrated by most of our country should be a good reminder of that.”
Do you know why Columbus Day is a big deal? It’s only been a big deal in the last 15 or so years. Prior to that it was one of those dates on the calendar that was mostly ignored except perhaps by first grade teachers beginning to introduce kids to how America came to be. Columbus Day has been celebrated because it’s a PC way to beat up the white man. It’s born of bigotry and misplaced hatred.
“My views on when government should intervene and when they shouldn’t are quite a bit more moderate, by world standards, then your own.”
Moderate? Interesting. The experimnet you call moderate has been greatly discredited. Have you been watching what is going on in Europe…France, Greece, and Spain. Those countries have become so moderate that the people are barely able to work without whining. Now that there are not enough “rugged individuals” left among them to finance the so-called moderate big government solution they are finding themselves in a real pickle. That is the essence of the moderate world. As it turns out it is an extreme solution that kills aliveness, creativity, urge, abundance, opportuunity, wealth and even charity. It also takes a huge toll on family because people no longer rely on each other…instead they rely on “the state”.
“Rush Limbaugh will not be affected if the minimum wage is eliminated.”
Irrelivant.
“As a business owner, you probably won’t be affected, either.”
Actually I’m in a position to offer high school students a few hours every week to do some very repetitive work. I’d like to as a matter of fact the unemployment rate for high schoolers is very low. This is the kind of work that would teach young people responsibility and discipline while giving them a sense of what it is to hold a job, show up on time and perform certain tasks. It would give them some spending money taking some of that burden off their parents. But if I have to pay an ever increasing min wage the extra responsibility and trouble to me is not worth it. A lot of teens could be helped with car insurance and gasoline costs, savings for a car or college, or simply for dates and extra curricular expenses.
“I will. I’ve never heard anybody working a blue collar job say that the minimum wage should be eliminated; I do know of several billionaires that advocate this position.”
I won’t comment on what you might make if Min wage laws were eliminated. You seem the type of person that would show up on time, work hard and be reliable. For all I know you would make more than you do now. Minimum wages forced on employers gives him zero ability to promote and pay more to those who are more valuable as employees. In many instances good workers are subsidizing the wages of fellow workers who don’t perform well.
There is another factor here that most people don’t consider. Min wage laws force all wages higher. When wages are forced up the cost of goods and services are also forced because employee costs are usually a businesses greatest expense. So the money you make as a min wage earner does not buy as much as it did when the min wage was lower. (union pressures have had the same effect).
Let me ask you this, Chris. If you had to know how to run a business, how to determine what to pay an employee, and how to ensure that both you and your employees remained employed would you seek this advice from the min wage earner or the billionaire?
“Perhaps it’s not a position born of attitude, but of circumstance.”
Rush Limbaugh was in such a lousy financial position at one time that he had to buy food with his credit card because he had no cash. Whoopie Goldberg started out on welfare. She didn’t earn what she has now because of that welfare check…she acted selfishly in her own interest pushing herself onto the stage. She worked hard to get where she is. A lot of people with money in this country started with nothing and had to struggle…it’s nothing new.
“Tina, do you know anything about the history of this country before minimum wage laws were enacted?
Yes I do. Do you…and are you sure you have the whole picture?
“Do you have any idea how hard it is to scrape by even WITH a minimum wage job?”
I know what it’s like to scrape by on less than a minimum wage job. I was not always an older business owner.
“Do you have any alternative solution for families who would struggle if their wages were lowered from the current minimum? (Other than “work more hours” or “find a better job,” which are not real answers.)”
First of all everyone assumes that wages would be lowered on families if the minimum wage disappeared. In many cases, maybe most, it wouldn’t happen. Instead it would give employers options for future hiring. Secondly, if an employer today got too stingy people would not work for him. There is always a better job to be found down the street.
Apple growers in Washington have reported that Americans, even young people, won’t pick apples even for better than minimum wage. So many young people expect work to be glamorous or to make them look important. They show up for the money not to perform the work.
There are no easy answers for people makiing minimum wage. The two you mention are the most reliable immediate solutions. Another would be to get better training or change professions. That’s not easy either. It takes sacrifice and struggle. It is literally how thousands of people better themselves every year.
I can also tell you this. I know people that have survived on a lot less than what we’re talking about. It wasn’t easy; having no food to offer your children for days at a time is not easy. Being chased by the Khmer rouge while trying to escape Cambodia couldn’t have been easy for one friend of mine…arriving in America without anything but the clothing on her back having survived that horror made her strong…a rugged individual who scraped by on rice, saved more than she spent, lived several families to a house, and eventually owned her own business in America.
Americans are spoiled and have little appreciation for real struggle and suffering…thank God we are so blessed. It would be wise to discover in our history what made this rags to rishes story possible for so many people. I can assure you it wasn’t government control of wages or anything else!
“Did you know that after Britain enacted minimum wage laws, they saw no impact on employment rates, and that in the U.S. the states with the highest employment are the states with the highest minimum wage?”
Do you have proof of absolute cause and effect? There are other factors that could explain these differences.
“Do you realize that lowering minimum wages might actually LOWER INCENTIVE for many people to work, and make them realize that they could actually make more money on welfare, thus furthering government dependency?”
Not if welfare wasn’t a permanent solution. Welfare as a way of life must end for that very reason!!!!
Your problem is that welfare has always been around. How do you suppose people survived and prospered before there was welfare? As they approached 16 years of age what do you think they were thinking about? What were their parents telling them about what they needed to be doing and thinking about? How many of them worked at home (on the farm) or by doing menial tasks for others before graduating from school? Do you think they expected to have as much as early as people seem to today? Do you think they realized that their future was in their own hands and they would succeed depending on their own efforts?
Mark: “Actually Chris, if you look at history it is more likely that they will lower the wage rate to the point that someone is going to realize the only rational position is to kill Tina and take all her money. **
But that is life, as she would say.”
Very funny :DDDD
The cruelty factor is so BIG with you moderates;
Scrooge looms very large…like a spector. Every business person is evvil and stingy as he**. It’s incredible!
I know, or at least I hope, this was a joke, Mark. The idea that any business person could lower wages as you describe and remain in business is silly. A more generous competitor would take all the good workers and clean his clock. The market works in a vibrant network like we have in the US…or could have if it weren’t for the egregiously intrusive/destructive blunders of governemnt.
Jack I don’t watch him either…I saw this on the web…of course!
Don’t have time to respond to everything right now, but I must respond to this:
“Secondly, if an employer today got too stingy people would not work for him. There is always a better job to be found down the street.”
No, there isn’t! That you think there is shows your complete detachment from the reality of unemployed people in this country.
Tina,
Yes, I was joking, in my dark sort of way, but I was also speaking truth.
Misery leads to violence.
I agree that we could lower the minimum wage and create jobs, but at what cost? The minimum wage is a bench mark for all other wages.
So we add jobs by cutting wages. How does that help working people?
I realize that this thread has moved off the original topic, but that is good because the original premiss was faulty; the American West was not the bastion of rugged individualism. Just the opposite; the west was the most federal of all parts of the country. Noted western historian Richard White has called the west, “the kindergarten of the federal government,” the place the federal government learned to be the government we know today.
All of the rugged migrants moving onto the plains were protected by federal troops and settled on property surveyed and divided by the federal land office. All of those railroads were built on federal land using federal loans following federal survey teams. All of those great 19th century universities were build on federal land grants.
Sorry Tina, but your understanding of US history is mythical.
But you are right that Mathews’ understanding is even worse.
“Chris your comments are interesting and reveal your training. You don’t think in terms of individuals going about their business, making choices and surviving as best they can. You think quite often in terms of what one group does to another…or in terms of the collective “we”, almost like life is conspiracy or should nbe controlled from on high (not God).”
This is a fairly simplistic analysis of how I think. Why does it always have to be one or another with you? Yes, individuals do go about their business, making choices and surviving as best they can. They have a better chance at surviving if the government ensures that they be made at wages which are non-exploitative. I can’t believe we’re even debating that.
“As all people will forever except for transformation through devine intervention. It is the fallen nature of manthat ensures this inevitable reality.”
Yes Tina, sin will always exist. How sin manifests is important to analyze. For instance, I could reply to your demonization of welfare that there will always be lazy people, people who take advantage of systems, etc. But that would not be a satisfactory answer because it wouldn’t get to the root causes of the issue.
“People had God in mind and they were certainly looking for a better life but I don’t know you can say these things caused what you call “destructiion”. If they did then I suppose we would also have to say that lethargy, atheism and laziness are the causes of peaceful coexistance or equal distribution of abundance.”
I never said those principles caused destruction. I said that they were used to justify it.
“If we are going to acknowledge mistakes and use them as a basis for moving forward then we had better realize and acknowledge the whole truth. The PC meme that the white invasion was the cause of destruction is a small fraction of a much larger story and should be kept in perspective, including the differences in all cultures at the time. Otherwise we end up demonizing one group and romanticizing the other.”
I agree in principle, but I am not sure what you are criticizing. I don’t know of any class in the U.S. that teaches only the bad parts of American history and not the good.
“Columbus Day has been celebrated because it’s a PC way to beat up the white man.”
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would “PC” people who want to “beat up the white man” celebrate Columbus Day? The liberals I know who care one way or another want Columbus Day stricken from the calendar.
“Moderate? Interesting. The experimnet you call moderate has been greatly discredited.”
Minimum wage laws have been discredited? Interesting. When I think of countries without a minimum wage, I think of Mexico. How’s that working out there?
“Actually I’m in a position to offer high school students a few hours every week to do some very repetitive work. I’d like to as a matter of fact the unemployment rate for high schoolers is very low. This is the kind of work that would teach young people responsibility and discipline while giving them a sense of what it is to hold a job, show up on time and perform certain tasks. It would give them some spending money taking some of that burden off their parents. But if I have to pay an ever increasing min wage the extra responsibility and trouble to me is not worth it. A lot of teens could be helped with car insurance and gasoline costs, savings for a car or college, or simply for dates and extra curricular expenses.”
I would be interested in a proposal that exempts people under 18 from minimum wage laws. You could make a case for this. What I’m failing to see is how that translates to “Abolish minimum wage for everyone!”
“Minimum wages forced on employers gives him zero ability to promote and pay more to those who are more valuable as employees.”
“Zero ability?” Really? I didn’t know that no one has received a promotion in the U.S. since minimum wage laws were enacted.
“Let me ask you this, Chris. If you had to know how to run a business, how to determine what to pay an employee, and how to ensure that both you and your employees remained employed would you seek this advice from the min wage earner or the billionaire?”
What advice, exactly? Whether we should keep the minimum wage or not?
I would ask the minimum wage earner, since he/she is the one most effected by this policy. The billionaire may have to cut costs or change aspects of his business model to accommodate minimum wage laws, but he will still be a billionaire. The min. wage worker has much more at stake.
“Whoopie Goldberg started out on welfare. She didn’t earn what she has now because of that welfare check…she acted selfishly in her own interest pushing herself onto the stage. She worked hard to get where she is. A lot of people with money in this country started with nothing and had to struggle…it’s nothing new.”
And is Whoopi Goldberg out there advocating for the elimination of welfare and the minimum wage? No. She is grateful for the safety net she was provided.
“I can also tell you this. I know people that have survived on a lot less than what we’re talking about. It wasn’t easy; having no food to offer your children for days at a time is not easy. Being chased by the Khmer rouge while trying to escape Cambodia couldn’t have been easy for one friend of mine…arriving in America without anything but the clothing on her back having survived that horror made her strong…a rugged individual who scraped by on rice, saved more than she spent, lived several families to a house, and eventually owned her own business in America.”
That’s great for her, but I’m pretty sure it would have been even better if she wasn’t being chased by the Khmer rouge.
There is a lot of value in hard work and in overcoming adversity. But you’re romanticizing it. You’re acting like throwing more hardships in the way of people by taking away their safety net and a guaranteed living wage if they work is a good thing for them. It’s not.
“Americans are spoiled and have little appreciation for real struggle and suffering…thank God we are so blessed. It would be wise to discover in our history what made this rags to rishes story possible for so many people. I can assure you it wasn’t government control of wages or anything else!”
I can assure you that progressive institutions such as labor laws, unions, etc. had a hugely positive impact on the quality of life of Americans. Every historically competent citizen knows this.
“Do you have proof of absolute cause and effect? There are other factors that could explain these differences.”
Actually the studies did not claim that the correlation proved causation, but I thought it was worth bringing up.
“Your problem is that welfare has always been around. How do you suppose people survived and prospered before there was welfare? As they approached 16 years of age what do you think they were thinking about? What were their parents telling them about what they needed to be doing and thinking about? How many of them worked at home (on the farm) or by doing menial tasks for others before graduating from school? Do you think they expected to have as much as early as people seem to today? Do you think they realized that their future was in their own hands and they would succeed depending on their own efforts?”
What was the life expectancy then, Tina?
What is the life expectancy now?
What was the standard of living then, Tina?
What is the standard of living now?
You are, like so many conservatives, romanticizing the past. This is a natural response to confronting problems in the present, but it does absolutely nothing in the struggle for a better future.
Chris: No, there isn’t! That you think there is shows your complete detachment from the reality of unemployed people in this country.”
There is when government doesn’t screw up the economy as it has done and continues to do right NOW!!! Government caused this current unemploynment mess!!!!!
“They have a better chance at surviving if the government ensures that they be made at wages which are non-exploitative.”
The argument for government intervention had some merit when the local employer owned both the business and the only available store. There is no question that employees were being treated unfairly, even cruely, by the employer at one time. Those conditions do not exist today.
Employees have many more options and employers have a lot more competition. In fact, in some industries the issue has been turned on it’s head with employees holding the employer hostage. In biting the hand that feeds it unions have crushed the car industry. The unsustainability of excessive wage and benefit increases is born of the same greed of the old greedy business owner. That this (union) has been allowed in government is unforgivable. Consumers and taxpayers are paying more for both products and services and the economies of states and the fed gov’t. It’s all a big unsustainable mess. Do you also think government should try to ensure this kind of exploitation of taxpayers and consumers doesn’t happen? To be consistant you should. On the other hand how do we trust government when they, under progressive policies, have colluded to make the mess?
The best way to keep all people in line is through individual responsibility. When employers have to deal with employees one on one and face to face, both are kept more honest (in most cases). Employers are also kept honest through consumer pressures and reputation. If an employer was being exploitative workers would seek employment elsewhere and management would be forced to change or go out of business.
“But that would not be a satisfactory answer because it wouldn’t get to the root causes of the issue.”
Leftists are continually looking for the root causes of things like laziness, selfishness, or greed because they believe they can change the nature of man to create utopia by fixing things. They can’t but it doesn’t stop them from trying, over and over again! I think this is what they call insanity.
“I never said those principles caused destruction. I said that they were used to justify it.”
You said they were done “in the name of”…sounds like cause to me.
“The liberals I know who care one way or another want Columbus Day stricken from the calendar.”
Thank you for making my point. If they did not hold a certain animus toward the white man and his “destruction” why would they bother or care?
“Minimum wage laws have been discredited? Interesting. When I think of countries without a minimum wage, I think of Mexico. How’s that working out there?”
Do you really think that the problems in Mexcio stem from a lack of minimum wage laws? That’s as ignorant a statement as I’ve ever heard!
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Man-Mix/Mexican-Law.html
So you tell me…how is all that government intervention and control working out for Mexicans?
Socialist/Marxist policies and ideas have been discredited all around the world. The union was formed from Marxist ideas of equality and power to the people. The power, however, actually goes to the union bosses, the workers are used as a means to extort money, from the employer…the employer is simply a mark in this criminal style of negotiating wages and benefits. Government control of wages amounts to the same thing.
Freedom, property rights, and the law has made it possible for the people of this country to prosper.
I would be interested in a proposal that exempts people under 18 from minimum wage laws. You could make a case for this. What I’m failing to see is how that translates to “Abolish minimum wage for everyone!”
How is abolishing the minimum wage any more rediculous than forcing minimum wage for everyone?
Lets look at it from another perspective. Well keep it simple for the sake of this discussion and leave out taxes, benefits or other considerations. Pretend you are a new business owner. Youve been able to survive on what your business makes after expenses but lately the work load has gotten to be more than you can handle and youd like to hire someone to do some of the work. You look at the books and determine that you could afford to pay one more person, part time, but you can only afford to pay $6.00 an hour. Should you be able to advertise to see whether or not anyone responds to the ad? Should a person who does respond be able to accept the lower than minimum wage? Maybe hes retired person that would like to work but doesnt care about a lot of money and doesnt need medical. Maybe its a housewife that would like to work part time for some extra money but doesnt want to put the family in a higher tax bracket. Shouldnt these people have the option of working for less and shouldnt the business owner be allowed to make the contract with the individual if his offer attracts someone?
Minimum wage laws appear to make a difference but if they do the difference is minimal. The minimum wage forces all employee wages up, limits job opportunities, and forces prices up. What have you gained when food, clothing, and services cost more?
“Zero ability?” Really? I didn’t know that no one has received a promotion in the U.S. since minimum wage laws were enacted.
You got me on that one. I was thinking of union shops and union rules. I was thinking about the inflexibility that min wage pressures create in terms of new hires and in terms of overall employee costs. As an employer I often feel like my hands are being tied by regulation…many of the decisions I might make with employees are not allowed even though we would both benefit from it.
What advice, exactly? Whether we should keep the minimum wage or not?
NOhow to ensure that both you and your employees remained employed! Would you seek advice from someone with actual experience or froma minimum wage earner?
I would ask the minimum wage earner, since he/she is the one most effected by this policy. The billionaire may have to cut costs or change aspects of his business model to accommodate minimum wage laws, but he will still be a billionaire.
Most people who hire other people are NOT billionaires. The problem with pro minimum wage thinkers is that they ASSume that most business people are wealthythey are not.
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24
And is Whoopi Goldberg out there advocating for the elimination of welfare and the minimum wage? No. She is grateful for the safety net she was provided.
She would have made it anywaythats the point! We arent discussing whether or not people are grateful. If we were I would guess a lot more people are ingrates, sponging off the taxpayer, than those who truly appreciate some help and move on to better themselves. Besides, I do not advocate for eliminating safety nets for people who are truly in need! Its incredibly frustrating to always have these discussions devolve into extremeand falseportrayals of what I have proposed.
That’s great for her, but I’m pretty sure it would have been even better if she wasn’t being chased by the Khmer rouge.
What the he** does that mean?
There is a lot of value in hard work and in overcoming adversity. But you’re romanticizing it. You’re acting like throwing more hardships in the way of people by taking away their safety net and a guaranteed living wage if they work is a good thing for them. It’s not.
Im not romanticizing it. I am accepting it as part of life. You are romanticizing poverty as a helpless condition that can only be fixed by government control. We have thrown much more than a safety net. We have thrown enough to allow a permanent lifestyle to anyone who chooses it. A way of life that lacks dignity for those with a conscience, and has made people come to expect something for nothingto expect someone else will pay for the basic necessities of life.
I can assure you that progressive institutions such as labor laws, unions, etc. had a hugely positive impact on the quality of life of Americans. Every historically competent citizen knows this.
Every competent citizen knows the history, the value, and ultimately the destructive nature of progressive institutions that are not held in check or made impermanent. As I said before, there was a reason labor unions came into being and wage laws were enacted. Employers were being real a-holesa huge mistake in the big picture. HOWEVERnow those institutions that you revere so much are acting like the businesses of old. They have become the greedy destroyers of the economy, schools, and business.
What was the life expectancy then, Tina? ** What is the life expectancy now? ** What was the standard of living then, Tina? ** What is the standard of living now? ** You are, like so many conservatives, romanticizing the past. This is a natural response to confronting problems in the present, but it does absolutely nothing in the struggle for a better future.
All of those things have improved because of hard work and entrepreneurial effortsNOT minimum wage standards. My experience based on the past (history) is not romanticized. You just have nothing but current standards to compare it to. And you, like so many liberals, are so certain that conservatives are greedy and lacking in compassion that we naturally treat others badly. Its so arrogant.
You cannot conceive that a business owner would want to compensate employees fairly. You cannot conceive of wages determined according to factors such as the skill required to complete the task. You cannot conceive of your fellow citizen being able to create his own standard of life by seeing what he likes to do and seeing what he needs to learn or accomplish in order to have it. You can only think in terms of social outcomes determined by control of government. What a pathetic, robotic vision of mankind and his possibilities.
Mark: “Misery leads to violence.”
A miserable person with a propensity toward violence might be further stressed to violence in poor conditions but we have history in this country that suggests that violence is a result of a poor upbringing in an atmosphere that tolerates (and glorifies) violence and(misery) poverty.
Thomas Sowell talks about growing up in Harlem in the thirties. Harlem was full of poor people but, as he describes it, families were intact, were likely to regularly attend church, and every mother on the block would give any kids mother a full report if he stepped out of line. He describes a neighborhood park filled with families picnicing on the weekends. He describes people who might have cheap clothing but they were kept clean and ironed to crisp perfection. People were mannerly and kids were respectful. Their parents expected them to appreciate what they were given and better themselves by doing well in school. Chris would say that this is a romantic view. I wouldn’t want to tell Walter Williams that. The reason it isn’t is because it rightly describes the attitudes, behaviors and expectations that made civility, cleanliness, respect and a solid work ethic possible even in poor communities. It isn’t that there wasn’t crime, the occassional battered wife, or thug kid hanging out on the corner…it’s that those things were the exception rather than the rule.
“I agree that we could lower the minimum wage and create jobs, but at what cost? The minimum wage is a bench mark for all other wages.”
Since it is a benchmark for all other wages it artificially inflates wages and causes prices of goods and services to rise…your paycheck has a slightly higher number on it but so do the grocery, power and telephone bills.
So we add jobs by cutting wages. How does that help working people?
Why not ask how working people can help themselves? Why not place emphasis on how working people can better their own lives instead of expecting more from a job, particularly when nothing more has been done to increase sales or save costs on the job?
The idea that an employer can afford to automatically and continually raise wages year after year whether or not there are increases in profits is a bit arrogant and lacking in consideration. That puts the entire responsibility for improvement in employees lifestyles and wealth solely in the hands of the employer…where is the employees responsibility to improve his own wealth and lifestyle? (Same for government workers…their employer, the taxpayer, is asked to bear the burden for his improved lifestyle)
In the long run eliminating the min wage law would help working people in several ways. If not guaranteed a “living wage” (whatever that is) working people will learn to be more conscientious about their own futures. Working people will be more likely to plan, to save, to find ways to create wealth for themselves, to improve their skills. They would likely also see prices for some things come down and some jobs return to America. And as I have said before, more entry level jobs would be available for teens.
“In the long run eliminating the min wage law would help working people in several ways. If not guaranteed a “living wage” (whatever that is) working people will learn to be more conscientious about their own futures. Working people will be more likely to plan, to save, to find ways to create wealth for themselves, to improve their skills.”
What a fantasy world! And you call liberals elitist?
Tina, you are a character alright, one straight out of a Charles Dickens’ novel.
Working forty hours a week at minimum wage provides an income that is below the poverty line. The only for a single parent to make ends meet is to work 60-80 hours a week, and then when do you suggest they improve their skills?
Chris is right, you are completely out of touch with working families
Mark: “What a fantasy world!”
Really? OK. You tell me how you would expect human beings to react. What will they do if washing dishes in a diner only pays $4.00 an hour? And what will the diner do if no one shows up to take the job? Common, genius, enlighten me.
Are you so stuck in some fantastic vision of a utopian state that you believe people will shrivel up and die if the imperious state doesn’t step in to care of business for them? Do you really have such a superior attitude?
“Tina, you are a character alright, one straight out of a Charles Dickens’ novel.”
Oh goodie…which one?
“The only for a single parent to make ends meet is to work 60-80 hours a week, and then when do you suggest they improve their skills?”
I expect them to do it however they can just like countless others before them have, but only if they really want to. Obviously some folk don’t mind living in poverty, especially since they can depend on liberals to provide that lovely safety net.
The problem with so many people today is they have learned, through many welfare generations, the victim’s defeatist attitude. They have been told that unless someone else does something for them they don’t have a chance to live much less improve on their own lives. It’s so sad.
Entry level positions are never meant to support a family, by the way. And individuals that assume the responsibility for making a family SHOULD give some thought to what it will take to care of them before the need to take an entry level job arises…and they would have before 1965 when the utopian welfare fix to the horrible conditions of the poor came into being. Minimum wage increases are just more government “help”. How’s that worked out so far? How have these people been helprd out of poverty?
Unfortunately in UTOPIAN dream states children are not encouraged to expect life to be about hard work, overcoming adversity, and standing on your own two feet. They are not expected to be responsible about sexual activity, to be married before having children, to make sure they have skills or an education, to save for the future, and to expect life to be challenging and unfair and difficult at times.
Instead the pointy headed leftists have determined that encouraging artistic expression and oddball we are the world ideals and values is more meaningful to people. They suggest investigation and experimetation of sexuallity, diversity training, green awareness, embracing the compassion of the welfare collective, the importance of the fashion statement to sell your brand, becoming a star…or VIP in community organizing or politics. (Fantasy Inc.) None of which prepares anyone for living a responsible self-sufficient life.
People are strong; they have incredible will….IF it isn’t blunted into oblivion with worthless, frivilous bilge!
What you are really saying with your argument is that business should be in the business of ensuring no person lives in poverty; that even the lowliest of jobs should award the worker wages and benefits that place them in the middle class…just to be fair. Of course what you don’t think about is how stupid that is because it would ultimately eliminate the middle class…poverty would become the norm.
“Chris is right, you are completely out of touch with working families”
And you are?
Or are you sympathetically advocating for improving lives through handouts that you don’t have to provide? How easy it is for you to say all work is worth some arbitrarily higher rate. And just how high should it go? And what would happen if it were raised to that level? What would happen to the price of goods and services? For that matter what would happen to the economy as a whole?
See you don’t have to concern yourself with the realities of the work place or the economy so you can afford to be generous…and feel SMUG about it.
Bury that head a little deeper, Chris. The realities that you won’t bother to look at will visit even your job one day soon if enough like you continue to ignore the warnings. Those of us who actually create jobs can see both sides of this issue, can see what doesn’t work, and given the realities, is willing to try another tack.
What if all of the money we spent on welfare over the years had been spent instead on training? What if we had required those who benefited from that training to pay back into the training system so they could have dignity about the help they had received and so that others would then benefit through their efforts? This system would have worked better to give people a sense of belonging to the community, it would have kept poor families intact and it would have prepared those people for higher paying jobs.
“Tina, you are a character alright, one straight out of a Charles Dickens’ novel.” Mark
Mark, the kind of character I see in Tina is quite different than what you see. I see the kind of character that embodies those terms that I could easily use to describe some other characters like Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Paul Jones and a few others that come to mind.
They all remind me in some fashion of her patriotic strengths and her virtuous Christian thoughts. What is remarkable is, she sees so clearly what democracy ought to be and what is right and wrong. It’s inspiring.
She epitomizes in my mind what it means to be an American patriot.
There are times when I read what Tina has said that I am dumbstruck by her wit and talent.
I feel lucky.,…no, make that very privileged to have her share her thoughts with us here. I also appreciate you too Mark, but for different reasons! ; ) Lets just say you bring the best out in Tina as you challenge her and us to t-h-i-n-k through our positions. .She is indeed a Dicken’s character and more!
Tina,
You are the most divisive person I know. You divide up the world into business owners, and the rest of us who should be so happy you exist, because without business owners the world would be empty.
Jeez.
Without trained workers, you owners would have nothing coming out of your factories. Without teachers, there would be no trained workers. I could go on.
We are all equal; owners are not more equal than others.
Tina, you keep using the word “reality” to describe your stance and the word “utopia” to describe the stance of Mark and I.
If you are so confident that your position is based in reality, then surely you must have some kind of empirical evidence that the claims you are making are true.
I’m curious, then, as to why you keep relying on hypotheticals to make your case. If minimum wage laws are as damaging to the economy as you and others claim, then there must be some objective data that proves this.
I have already pointed out that employment has not been negatively impacted in states with a high minimum wage, nor was it negatively impacted in Britain once minimum wage laws were enacted.
If you have contrary evidence, please provide it.
Mark: “You divide up the world into business owners, and the rest of us…”
If that is what you think I’m about then two things are very clear to me:
1. I have failed to adequately communicate to you.
2. I’ll have to work harder.
“…who should be so happy you exist, because without business owners the world would be empty.
Come on Mark. I think that’s way off base. What I’ve been asking is that people who are not business owners begin to develope some appreciation for the contribution businesses, including corporations, make to society. I do this in response to some very negative and hostile attitudes toward both business and “the rich”.
I think the hostility has been ginned up politically to divide Americans. From my point of view a broad understanding allows both you and I to look for workable solutions to the problems we face.
“Without trained workers, you owners would have nothing coming out of your factories.”
I have not said workers were not valuable, in fact, I have said over and over that all work is honorable. I’ve said that people deserve to be compensated on merit and contribution. I have talked in particular about the contribution of teachers and I have defended them.
Your accusation about workers is a bit erroneous. Workers wouldn’t be available only if they didn’t exist. If they didn’t exist there would be no need to produce goods or offer services. Sometimes workers are trained on the job. If not they recieve training for a particular job in school or in the service. Either way if a worker doesn’t want a job with a particular company someone else will.
Companies don’t exist to supply jobs; they exist to make money…profits…but they do offer the opportunity for people to find work if they want it. It’s a subtle difference but an important one. People need to get that THEY are responsible for their own income. Your income is the profit you make from your labor. The company doesn’t “give” it to you…YOU EARN IT!
“I could go on.”
Wish you had!
“We are all equal”
Good…start acting like it! Take equal responsibility! Afford corporations equal respect!
“owners are not more equal than others.”
Never said they were.
An aside: Reading back over my previous remarks I realize I referred to you in one instance as “Chris”. Apparently in my mind you two are fairly interchangable with respect to your positions. My apologies to both of you once again.
Jack your comments both overwhelm and humble me. Thank you for your generous and complimentary support.
Mark, at first I almost thought you were being humorous. You accused Tina of being divisive for her stand on business, but once again I just don’t see it. I think you must be reading more into her comments than what she has actually said or you have a socialists view? I hope its not the latter!
From my humble perspective Tina rightly recognizes that business is the very life blood of this nation, and every other nation for that matter. Workers (including you teachers) would have absolutely nothing without businesses supporting you. Businesses are vital for creating secure incomes for everyone, revenues for government and they give us entrepenurial opportunities, they help grow science and all the arts. It’s not a matter of being equal – it’s a matter of recognizing our priorities! If I had to choose between the continued existence of the Teamsters Union or the auto industry, I’ll choose the auto industry. They are not equals.
People make up businesses; they are not a class to be pitted against another class such as the working poor, they are all people, but with one big difference. These business people have risen to the top of their chosen profession. They are our nations best leaders, innovators and creators. They are the providers for other people who support them.
We should encourage people to be their best so they too can rise to the top of their professions; this is capitalism at its finest. This makes us strong, progressive and dominant among other nations of this world. In a free and democratic society we have a catalyst to make it all happen, but when government over regulates and over taxes the process slows, taken to its extremeit stops. Your hope, opportunity and pursuit of happiness thrive when a democracy functions as it should, with a limited government that restrains bureaucracy and all its imposition upon business.
Business is everything to us and it’s the role of government to protect and preserve the elements necessary to allow business to do what business do so they may prosper, so we may all prosper and rise to our fullest potential. Its a simple, beautiful and ingenious concept too bad so many people still don’t get it.
Tina you’re welcome, but you deserve it, I was just being honest.
“Workers (including you teachers) would have absolutely nothing without businesses supporting you. ”
Jack, that is blatantly untrue. Worker and farmer cooperatives exist all over the world. Now you can make the claim they are inefficient, but you can’t argue they don’t exist.
“These business people have risen to the top of their chosen profession. They are our nations best leaders, innovators and creators.”
Then why are so many accused of corruption? i give them this, they are good a picking parents. Take GWB, what exactly did he do to get into the baseball business?
I am not against business or businessmen/women. I don’t like apologists who overhype the upside while dismissing the downside of capitalism.
We need big governemnt to counterbalance big business.
Government is not the only thing we need to downsize, and it can’t be first or the people will suffer the abuses.
Workers (including you teachers) would have absolutely nothing without businesses supporting you. Jack, that is blatantly untrue. Worker and farmer cooperatives exist all over the world. Now you can make the claim they are inefficient, but you can’t argue they don’t exist.
Mark, in the context of what we were discussing, business in America, without business everything falls apart. You introduced a new paradigm as an example why I am wrong. Okay, so be it, I’ll go with it, because cooperatives are still a form of business too, even if they are founded by communism.
They create a product and it is sold to people who want and or need that product. Co-ops can be profitable in America. This is because of our business climate. Where it gets messy is when a totalitarian government regulates how much product shall be produced and then they tell the consumer what they need.
We don’t need big government to match big business. All we need are reasonable laws that have a limited restraint on business effeciency and a maximum effect on business ethics. The Nanny state idea is counter productive to a prosperous economy and it impacts individual freedoms as well as businesses ability to compete.
You have it right that there should be a reasonable balance between government and business and of course we have made that attempt, but it’s a work in progress. We have laws against monopolies and criminal activity and we have inviromental laws too for obvious reasons and we generally accept these as good, but the difference in our thinking is not so much the value of such things, but the degree to which they are employed.
We’re not competing to break even against the world’s other nations, we’re in it to win. Regarding winning, government has to be retrained so it is strong enough to protect our rights, but it is weak enough not create failure in our economy. This is always going to be a delicate balancing act and it deserves much consideration.
“cooperatives are utlimately a business too, even if they are founded by communism.”
FYI, the coop movement started in America. The Populist Party advocated for a cooperative commonwealth where people organized to work for themselves.
I agree on the need for balance, and that some protections go too far and create a “nanny state” as you call it. I sad before, Post Scripts is best when it argues for small limited government. You get “out there” when you try to promote one way as the only way.
I was about to say I agree with most of what you say, until this:
“We’re not competing to break even against the world’s other nations, we’re in it to win.”
This kind of thinking has led us down the wrong path for long enough. I am not into living life as a competition, just to see others lose. What would Jesus do?
Or am I introducing a new paradigm?
“but the difference in our thinking is not so much the value of such things, but the degree to which they are employed.”
Quoted because we need to emphasize this as much as possible these days. The “socialist/capitalist” dichotomy is way too prominent in our national discourse right now, and it is having a hugely negative impact on our analytical skills.
Mark: “Take GWB, what exactly did he do to get into the baseball business?”
After working in the oil business in Texas he had enough money to make an investment in baseball. Find the lowdown on the entire venture at this ESPN site:
http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html
“I don’t like apologists who overhype the upside while dismissing the downside of capitalism.”
What do you think is the downside? Please address capitalism and not criminal activity…we have a justice system to handle those breaches of our trust. Make sure you cite intentional harm and not unintended occurances like the breaking issue with Toyota (which was later found to be untrue and likely political)
I’s like to say for the record that it has never been my intention to “hype” the “upside” of corporations.
“Government is not the only thing we need to downsize, and it can’t be first or the people will suffer the abuses.”
Laws and the Justice Department aren’t enough?
“You get “out there” when you try to promote one way as the only way.”
Freedom is about people living as they choose. I don’t think anyone who writes for PS advocates “one way” to live or to do business. The wonderful thing about Ameirca is that we are free.
Mark Quoted Jack and replied: J-“We’re not competing to break even against the world’s other nations, we’re in it to win.”
M-“This kind of thinking has led us down the wrong path for long enough. I am not into living life as a competition, just to see others lose.”
Why do you think winning means others lose when it comes to business and competition? When Jack said we want to win he means we want to strive to be number one not crush everyone else.
People in business aren’t thinking like that, why do you?
I think I understand what you’re saying Chris…that too many assumptions are being made by those on the right and left, is that it?
So this is your poster-boy for rugged individualism?
I ask again, other than picking the right parents, what did GWB do to become an owner. Here is what ESPN says:
The sequence of events related to the purchase and sale of the Texas Rangers by George W. Bush and his partners:
1988
October: While helping manage his father’s presidential bid, George W. Bush learns that Bush family friend and Fort Worth oil man Eddie Chiles is putting the Texas Rangers up for sale. (His father is elected president in November.)
1989
January: Bush is first mentioned in news reports as a potential candidate to run for governor of Texas in 1990, despite never having held public office. Republican leaders express concern about his lack of credentials and experience.
April: Bush helps arrange a syndicate to purchase controlling interest in the Texas Rangers for $89 million. He borrows $500,000 to buy a small stake in the team and convinces the investor group to make him managing general partner. Bush becomes the public face of the team, while co-general partner Rusty Rose assumes control over the financial side. He receives a reported salary of $200,000 and begins lobbying for a new stadium for the club, which plays in a renovated minor-league facility, Arlington Stadium.
He knew people. That is it, plus the old rule that it takes money to make money.
Mark: “So this is your poster-boy for rugged individualism?”
So the best you can do is cop an attitude? YOU brought GWB into the conversation, not I! (And yeah, he could be a poster MAN for the rugged individual…he has accomplished a lot in his life…could have been a Paris Hilton instead given his good fortune of birth)
“I ask again, other than picking the right parents, what did GWB do to become an owner….”
You conveniently leforget the years he spent in the military (they get paid you know) and his yeears in the oil business. (Envy and bitterness don’t really become you Mark, nor does it speak well to your own character given your invocations of “what would Jesus do”)
“He knew people. That is it, plus the old rule that it takes money to make money.”
Yes, he knew people. So what? Also it takes being willing to risk that money as well.
Do you know much about the Bush family foundation, Mark? No? Not surprised. They don’t advertise or promote themselves!
The Bush family spends not only their money but their time in charitable work…Barbara raised her children to be both humble and grateful for what they have and to make a personal contribution to society. She also taught them not to flaunt it!
People are born to poverty and to wealth. What matters is what you do with what you are given. GWB is a man of character and he has given more than most, including eight years of a very challenging presidency.
Also for the record…I don’t mind being an apologist for a man of character but I don’t consider information offered to counter ignorant, bigotted, snide remarks.
Tina,
You need to remember the original point:
Jack: “These business people have risen to the top of their chosen profession. They are our nations best leaders, innovators and creators.”
I point out that many of the people did nothing more than pick the right parents. I bring up GWB, and you defended him with an ESPN article that points out that he didn’t really do anything to own a team, and that he made a lot of money because he knew people.
His character is irrelevant to the discussion. I simple point out that he did not rise. He was born there. As any sociologist or demographer will tell you, the greatest correlation to wealth is birth place.
NO, NO, NO, birth location has very little to do with creating wealth or being a leader. Moreover it is the type of government one is subjected too – not geography. Let me give you an example:
Mark remember when America was in darkness, when there was no future, despair filled our hearts and then along came Osama Obama, born in a Kenyan manger came to us and He gave us light when there was only darkness before His coming.
He gave us hope and He gave us his Obama dollars and He made the poor rich…my gosh, we are about to have free healthcare! And love is all around us now – don’t you feel the love Mark?
Now I ask you…did America move? No. Osama Obama single handedly changed how government works. He has run off the evil Pharasese and sacked the money lenders. He has denied evil lobbyists power in Washington. He and only He…. has created wealth for the masses and cleansed the democratic party of all corruption. He has shown us the promised land Mark and lo it’s been here all the time, hidden from view by the GOP and the Bush family. Surely you can’t deny this? You say its all about geography and say nay Mark – He, the chosen one, born benneath a Kenyan star … He did it, He became our leader and He changed everything and saved us from ruin and restored our hope….Hope Mark -think about it! Geography, ha!
Mark: “As any sociologist or demographer will tell you, the greatest correlation to wealth is birth place.”
Maybe everywhere else but not in America! Americans have freedom! Americans aren’t limited by class or circumstance of birth. Many Americans have created wealth for themselves. There are countless rags to riches stories. Here is a small sampling:
Most people are well aware of wealthy people who live on the family fortune (although not all wealthy children are treated to Dads fortune when they start out. Bill Gates dad firmly believes that rich kids have to make it on their own.) Im pretty sure that GWB and his brothers also made their own way in life. That doesnt mean they didnt benefit from the contacts they had that you and I dont have but it does count for something. (Bill Gates started Microsoft in his garage.)
But beyond these few rich kids are a whole list of people that started out poor or middle class and have become wealthy. Another bunch have become quite comfortable by their own efforts. Here are some examples:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/richest-americans-youve-never-heard-of/19560107/
Jack Taylor founded Enterprise Rent a Car with seven cars in 1957 and grew the company to a $12.1 billion enterprise by 2009.
At age 17 Fred De Luca started opened a sandwich store with $1000 he borrowed from his friend, Peter Buck. Buck went on to launch the chain, Subway, in 1967.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-rags-to-riches-stories.php
Mark there are a lot of Americans that you never heard of that have become wealthy or moderately wealthy because of dedication, innovation, and hard work.
The important point about your attitude is that it is based on false assumptions, both about America and about some of the people who are born to wealth. The lesson to take from our exchange is that anyone in America with some good old fashioned grit can better his circumstances greatly. The concept of rugged individualism, the belief that one can do anything, allows any person to “change his stars”.
Rags to riches stories are told because of their rarity, not because they are common. Some people do change places, but the majority of people stay in the situation they are born into.
In America, anyone can become rich, but not everyone, and that is the rub.
Mark, it’s not as rare as you think if you include those who have made a comfortable living and are satisfied with their level of accomlishment and wealth.
You seem to be trying to make the case that Americans need government because they cannot depend on themselves (rugged individualism) by telling us that the only way to “get rich” is to be born to it. Worse yet, you seem to imply that the only road to happiness is to be extremely wealthy (if not you have the right to be churlish and resentful).
I’m telling you that is a terrible way to think and live!
Not everyone cares to become very wealthy but most would like to make a comfortable living that will support a comfortable retirement. Yes, some of my examples are high profile, like Oprah, but you sure as he** can’t deny that she came from poverty and a broken home and made it because of the support of her grandmother, hard work and her own desires. Moreover, millions of Americans that were pretty hard up following the depression and WWII brought themselves up out of poverty and into the middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy class. I think you have to concede that they did it, for the most part, through their own efforts. The GI bill played an important part in turning the corner for the American economy and these people, however, the people still used those resources wisely, lived frugally, and created comfortable livings for themselves and their families.
“but the majority of people stay in the situation they are born into.”
I disagree. Until recently generations of kids were better off than their parents were. The current downtrend can be attributed to selfish addictions, lax principles and stupid government policies.
As recently as 2008 one in 50 households made more than $250,000 a year.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html
The average median income is $50,000. A year.
http://www.mybudget360.com/what-does-it-take-to-be-middle-class-in-america-today-living-on-50000-per-year-in-america/
If those people wanted to get rich they could by living very frugally for several years and investing the bulk of their income to grow a nest egg that would then become a basis for wealth building over a number of years until retirement. But they dont do that; they live for the day spending extra money on lattes, fast food, Cd’s and DVDs, high priced cars, the latest electronic equipment, bigger homes than they need, and other extravagances.
Heres an interesting statistic. Even if it isnt 100% accurate its still an indication of what people do that keeps them stuck in the middle class or in poverty:
http://www.blurtit.com/q309596.html
Mark Id like to see a movement in this country to reeducate and inspire people to take a different approach to life. I do think that Jesus would want people to be more prudent and hard working. I do think Jesus would want me to encourage people rather than discourage them by telling them they just werent lucky enough to be born rich and therefore are destined to be helpless and needy (of government help). And I honestly dont understand why people on the left cant get how much more people would be served, at all levels of income, if we changed just this one attitude. I dont understand why they want to continue the policies that have led to institutional poverty, dispair, and loss of dignity.
Ive watched people try to make a difference in the lives of others all of my life. People do truly want to see others in a better place. Yet they refuse to take the advice that those who have achieved would give them. In fact they tend instead to malign them and accuse them of terrible things that are just not true for the vast majority of them.
Frankly Im dumbfoundedhow in the world did the people of America come to this place?
“In America, anyone can become rich, but not everyone, and that is the rub.”
And the lefts love of handout policies, the destruction of families that has followed, the destruction of our educational systems, and the stubborn refusal to entertain the ideas offered by people who know how to make money have pretty much ensured that it will remain as you indicate. Self fullfilling prophecy!
It’s too bad because it is not the legacy that our founders and their progeny left us. It certainly isn’t the legacy left to me by my parents, both of whom moved into the middle class from poverty without the aid of the GI bill or other government programs.
“Osama Obama, born in a Kenyan manger”
Is this supposed to be satire? Because, to be generous, it’s not very clever.
Tina, the conversation between you and Mark seems to have moved to sweeping generalizations. I’m still waiting on actual evidence that minimum wage laws, specifically, cause the sort of economic and spiritual destruction you’re referring to.
Chris, sorry you did not enjoy my meek attempt at humor. However, beyond the humor I was merely trying to point out that here was a humble person who rose to great status because of the type of government here and not like the one in Kenya. Therefore one must conclude Mark was wrong when he said it was mostly about where one is born that determines their future. Was this a bad example? I’m sure I could find a few others.
Chris: “I’m still waiting on actual evidence that minimum wage laws, specifically, cause the sort of economic and spiritual destruction you’re referring to.”
I don’t think I asserted that minimum wage laws cause spiritual destruction although I think it could be argued that not being able to find work could be very destructive to the spirits (and in some cases the lives) of many black or poor youths who might turn to pusing and/or using drugs.
As far as evidence all I can offer is my experience as a business person and some studies. Here’s some of what I found:
http://epionline.org/teen.cfm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-5.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm
Chris, one more thing. I think I represent a typical of small business of 10 employees or less. None of my full time employees makes minimum wage. Right now I only have one part time employee and he also makes more than min wage. I have a few occassional workers that fill in for me and they make minimum wage. I think most employers want to be fair. Wages (and number of employees) are determined first of all by what we can pay but we also take into consideration what we think the work is worth and the skill required to perform it. Remember most business owners have been employees and all have been first time employees at some point in their lives. We aren’t the evil ogres we are often made out to be. At the same time, most of our employees have never experienced making payroll. They have no idea what it takes to hire someone and sustain that hire. If they did they might be a little more understanding.
Tina, thanks for the links. Those did provide some more tangible support for your position.
However, much of what was written struck me as highly theoretical, rather than proven. There’s a lot of talk about what should happen, but very little about what the actual observable results have been. And the statistics were not very dire. A 10% increase in the minimum wage causing teen unemployment to increase by 1-3% does not seem to be that big a deal, especially when one considers that a single mother raising two children will now be more likely to earn a wage to support her family. That seems a fair trade-off to me. The teenager might be better off focusing on school. Entering the workplace early can be good for many kids, but for just as many it can lead to getting stuck in dead-end jobs or in a career that doesn’t pay much.
However, as I said before I would be open to a proposal for exemptions for teenage workers. It could be reasonably argued that a teenager out to make some extra money doesn’t need a minimum wage in order to get by. The single mother, however, certainly needs that and likely more.
It’s interesting that you recently posted an article about rising employment in Texas. In 2009, the minimum wage in Texas was risen from $6.55 to $7.25. At the same time, Texas has the largest number of workers working for minimum wage or less. The rise in minimum wage has not seemed to have led to less employment, but rather higher wages for those employed.
http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/may/13/linda-chavez-thompson/texas-has-highest-proportion-workers-earning-minim/
I agree that an extremely high minimum wage would be counter-productive. I also agree with you that theoretically, minimum wage laws could lead to higher unemployment. It certainly makes sense on paper. But if I don’t see it actually occurring in reality, then I think there may be something wrong with the theory.
David Cohen makes a good case for the minimum wage in today’s TIME article:
“In recent years, while the wealthiest Americans have gotten richer and richer the top 25 hedge-fund managers personally took in more than $25 billion last year minimum-wage workers are being left behind. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today is 17% lower than it was in 1968.
Most Americans across the political spectrum support strong minimum-wage laws. Many liberals like them because they put more money in the pockets of people who desperately need it. Many conservatives favor them because they make it worthwhile to have a job and reward people for getting out of bed every day and doing an honest day’s work. (Read “Working for Free: The Boom in Adult Interns.”)
A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 67% of the American public not only supports the minimum wage but would like to increase it to $10 an hour. When voters get to weigh in, minimum-wage laws do very well. In Florida in 2004, while President George W. Bush was winning the state over John Kerry, voters supported a $1 increase in the state minimum wage by a margin of 72% to 28%. A year later, initiatives to increase state minimum wages appeared on the ballot in six states Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Missouri, Nevada and Ohio and passed in all six…”
“…When the minimum wage was raised last year to $7.25, 63% of the workers who benefited were women. Single parents make up 7% of the workforce, but they were 10% of the people who benefited from the last minimum-wage increase. Some 2.2 million children were in families whose incomes went up.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026515,00.html#ixzz12wZNhL4o
Chris I appreciate you thoughtfulness about this issue. While I understand the heartfelt desire to assist young struggling parents I’m not sure raising the minimum wage ultimately helps them that much. It’s difficult to make a comparison one can prove because after years of minumum wage increases we don’t know how wages would settle out if the market decided these things. I’m sure it would be different depending on the job. Minimum wage increases are a killer for restaurants, for instance. The nature of the business makes it very difficuilt to keep the doors open when employee costs become too high. I notice you don’t have much to say about the employers ability to meet minimum wage standards. It may seem irrelevant that a “business’ go out of business. Many of us tend to think of businesses as buildings and products. But they also represent people trying to make a living and feed their families and they are also offering a group of employees an opportunity to work. I think people should be able to address these matters among themselves. No business owner OWES another person a living. He owes them decency and a safe work environment but he doesn’t owe him a living.
“It could be reasonably argued that a teenager out to make some extra money doesn’t need a minimum wage in order to get by. The single mother, however, certainly needs that and likely more.”
I don’t think anyone could argue the truth in this statement. I don’t think anyone wouldn’t wish a person in this circumstance all the best. I do however take exception to the state making this possible by forcing employers to pay a given amount for the work they have to offer.
Quoting Mr. Cohen “In recent years, while the wealthiest Americans have gotten richer and richer the top 25 hedge-fund managers personally took in more than $25 billion last year minimum-wage workers are being left behind. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today is 17% lower than it was in 1968.”
The minimum wage workers earnings are not effected by what other people make. This spread the wealth philosophy comes from the idea that there is only so much to go around and if some people are getting rich then others are being short changed. THIS IS A LIE. It is unethical for an economist to imply such a thing. A persons earnings depend on a few things: training or skills, education, ability to show up and perform well, ambition, willingness to stretch and learn new things, willingness to embrace change and risk, taking advantage of every opportunity. Too many of us are not encouraged or taught to go for it, to stretch, to seek a successful future. Too many of us are discouraged and blunted early in life and too many have not been taught how to “create wealth”. Also too many of us have been taught that life, wealth, is a zero sum game. That’s why the comparison to “the rich” and the unfairness of it all is such a successful political ploy. It disgusts me.
“67% of the American public not only supports the minimum wage but would like to increase it to $10 an hour.”
Oh he**…why stop there? Why not twenty or sixty? we can all be comfortable then, right? And why shouldn’t employers also provide all employees with a new car every year? what is the principle behind the idea? If it is making sure everyone has a “living wage” regardless their education or skill level…why bother to have people go to school at all? why not just let them play till their eighteen and then place them in work farms where they all get paid the current “living wage” standard and given a house, car, healthcare and groceries! Oh…and of course a yearly vacation?
I’m being silly…or am I?
“”…When the minimum wage was raised last year to $7.25, 63% of the workers who benefited were women. Single parents make up 7% of the workforce, but they were 10% of the people who benefited from the last minimum-wage increase. Some 2.2 million children were in families whose incomes went up.”
WOW! Why do we have so many single women with children who are unsilled? And you wonder why I’m concerned about the trend we see appening in America, including the ever growing minimum wage. Chris why is it the responsibility of the employer to make sure all of these women are taken care of? Why do we think in terms of what employers owe a woman and her children instead of what she needs to do to better her circumstances? There are countless other citizens who have extremely well paying jobs but they aren’t held responsible. They aren’t required to similarly pitch in simply because they are employees rather than employers.
So we create a system where people who take a risk and offer jobs are further required to subsidize fellow citizens, possibly putting unsustainable pressures on their own ability to stay in business, just so the spread the wealth crowd won’t have to feel badly for single mothers? As a human being I feel for anyone that faces the challenges of single motherhood but I can’t see that businesses should be forced to make wage decisions based on an arbitrary government decision.
One other thing you didn’t address is the fact that raising the minimum wage also forces prices higher. We have seen this happen in fast food and other restaurants. We either see higher prices on the menu or smaller portions and often hours are cut or employees let go. It’s rediculous to think that you can raise the cost of doing business without effecting the cost of the product or service. (government fees and taxes also have that effect)
Chris I applaud your research efforts, ya done good. All of it pretty much has to do with a social perspective. Social concerns are human concerns best left to individuals, families, churches, charities, and other social networks. Government isn’t the answer.
My arguments are based on experience as a business owner and on an underlying, and I think fundamental, principle. I think it is wrong to make employers responsible for any persons life. Employers are all different; their circumstances are different and their earnings in any given year are different. Employees also have individual circumstances and their needs and wants vary.
You are not alone in thinking that employers are in business to give other people a living or that they owe those people a living. It’s a popular way to think. But in the bigger picture it isn’t necessarily the best way to think. People in our society would be better off if they learned to make decisions and choices that work in their own favor and that give the children they have a better shot at life. We see that happening less and less. We won’t see it happen again if we continue to make government the father figure in everyones life and the reason we don’t have to do much ourselves to improve our lives and circumstance.
This is one thing…there are countless other ways we tell people every day that government or someone else will pay. What’s worse we let it be known that people can vote to force others to give them something…wages, food, housing, free education…
I think this way of thinking goes against everything that America stands for and everything that makes human beings strive to be the best they can be.