Today, the news is full of "immigration reform." The gist is that with 11 million illegals in this country we have to do something to make them legal. The proposals include a "path to citizenship."
Be clear: Immigration made this country and should continued if not increased.
My family has three dear friends one of whom waited almost 10 years for a green card (and holds a Ph.D.), another who is still waiting (and holds an MA in physics) with the third (bachelors in business) getting married (who had to return to her home country and get in line for a "fiance" visa.
Now, the government in its infinite wisdom (and desire to get the votes of 15 million American Hispanics) want to legalize the illegal immigrants who are currently here.
Three arguments include 1. they will go to the back of the line for citizenship, 2. making them legal will mean an economic boom in the United States, 3. they are here, albeit illegally.
On the first. Sure they go to the back of the line--while continuing to work here, live here, enjoy American life here. There are millions of people all over the world who would like to go to the back of that line--at least the way that is being proposed.
The second point--economic boom. Are these politicians consulting with ANY economists? Dump 11 million people into ANY economy and you will have an economic boom. Or are they saying that if we admit 11 million Indians, Chinese, Andorrans, Chileans or any other nationality there WON'T be an economic boom?
Last, they are here even though it's illegal. At least this I can understand. If enough people rob banks we will legalize bank robbery. Is this ludicrous or what?
Bottom line: We need and want immigration. Millions of aspiring people from around the world want to come here and contribute. Why are 11 million illegal people more deserving than 11 million other potential citizens?
When the next 11 million people get here illegally do we make them citizens also?
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Liberal misunderstanding about business
A dear friend and I frequently tilt about the responsibility of business to its employees, the rightful role of the wealthy, the nature of labor, etc.
He is a liberal and I am a fiscal conservative (read almost any of the blogs here).
Dennis maintains that a business cannot exist without its workers and the wealthy have a responsibility to share their wealth. After all, they may have inherited it or at least gained it through a system in part supported by workers. Dennis has me set to read (and I have bought "Turbulent Years," (Irving Bernstein) a history of the American labor movement.
Surely he must be right: We should all treat each other with respect and dignity. Workers should earn a living wage; a business needs its workers. Those fortunates with wealth should share some of it. Who could argue with that?
My friend lives in (I think) Montgomery County, Ohio. It ranks 161 of 3115 counties in giving at 4.7 percent of its median $46,600 income--$2,206 median giving. I live in Lee County, Mississippi (poorest state in the U.S.). Lee County ranks 488 of 3115 counties in giving at 7.5 percent (median of $4,312) with a median income of $57.200. (Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy)
So, our communities differ in income, rank and giving.
He is a liberal and I am a fiscal conservative (read almost any of the blogs here).
Dennis maintains that a business cannot exist without its workers and the wealthy have a responsibility to share their wealth. After all, they may have inherited it or at least gained it through a system in part supported by workers. Dennis has me set to read (and I have bought "Turbulent Years," (Irving Bernstein) a history of the American labor movement.
Surely he must be right: We should all treat each other with respect and dignity. Workers should earn a living wage; a business needs its workers. Those fortunates with wealth should share some of it. Who could argue with that?
My friend lives in (I think) Montgomery County, Ohio. It ranks 161 of 3115 counties in giving at 4.7 percent of its median $46,600 income--$2,206 median giving. I live in Lee County, Mississippi (poorest state in the U.S.). Lee County ranks 488 of 3115 counties in giving at 7.5 percent (median of $4,312) with a median income of $57.200. (Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy)
So, our communities differ in income, rank and giving.
High executive pay not what it appears
My good friend and former classmate Dennis Stewart sent me a chart showing U.S. executive pay at 400+ times that of workers while other countries' executive pay was a fraction of that compared to their workers.
I agreed with him that this seems exorbitant. (However, I then read the University of Virginia study at http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/uploadedFiles/Darden/Faculty_Research/Research_Publications/Matos%20USCEOsPaidMore_2012_09_20.pdf and found much less to agree with.
Coincidentally, our local paper carried an article on disappearing middle class jobs in the U.S. That got me thinking even more.
Let's hypothetically say we cut executive pay substantially. Would that mean more jobs for unemployed workers? Not necessarily. Our paper's AP story noted the tremendous incorporation of technology into U.S. business and industry--so the lost jobs will never come back.
The reduced pay might mean higher pay for existing workers or lower prices, but neither would change all that much. More likely, the extra money would go to owners (shareholders) or to capital investment in additional technology. Neither bodes well for higher pay or for more jobs.
It is not as easy as we think.High executive pay and workers
I agreed with him that this seems exorbitant. (However, I then read the University of Virginia study at http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/uploadedFiles/Darden/Faculty_Research/Research_Publications/Matos%20USCEOsPaidMore_2012_09_20.pdf and found much less to agree with.
Coincidentally, our local paper carried an article on disappearing middle class jobs in the U.S. That got me thinking even more.
Let's hypothetically say we cut executive pay substantially. Would that mean more jobs for unemployed workers? Not necessarily. Our paper's AP story noted the tremendous incorporation of technology into U.S. business and industry--so the lost jobs will never come back.
The reduced pay might mean higher pay for existing workers or lower prices, but neither would change all that much. More likely, the extra money would go to owners (shareholders) or to capital investment in additional technology. Neither bodes well for higher pay or for more jobs.
It is not as easy as we think.High executive pay and workers
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Unions hurt labor and the economy
Been thinking this morning about a good friend. He asked me to read "The Turbulent Years," a history of unions in the U.S. Union membership in the U.S. dropped from 11.8 percent to 11.3 percent in 2012 (newspaper this morning).
Union folks hate Right to Work--why should non-union workers get the benefit of union negotiations? Sounds reasonable. But, if it's accurate, why isn't union membership soaring as nasty municipalities, schools, businesses and corporations abuse their workers? Oh, yes, the economy is bad and workers fear for their jobs.
I have been a member of a union and managed union workers and I can tell you that is baloney. It is almost impossible to fire an incompetent union worker, so if people fear for their jobs, they should be rushing to unions. They are not.
Bottom line: unions hurt workers as they drive wages above market rates and technology is brought in to replace workers.
Union folks hate Right to Work--why should non-union workers get the benefit of union negotiations? Sounds reasonable. But, if it's accurate, why isn't union membership soaring as nasty municipalities, schools, businesses and corporations abuse their workers? Oh, yes, the economy is bad and workers fear for their jobs.
I have been a member of a union and managed union workers and I can tell you that is baloney. It is almost impossible to fire an incompetent union worker, so if people fear for their jobs, they should be rushing to unions. They are not.
Bottom line: unions hurt workers as they drive wages above market rates and technology is brought in to replace workers.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The demon is us pogo
Several respected and dear friends responded strongly to a post I did on Facebook, so I will try to sort out what my point was here.
My starting point is that the electorate has spoken and spoken that it wants big government. Mr. Obama presses that and so does the leadership and rank and file in the Senate. I assert that we must accept that. It will bring higher taxes, especially on those of means.
But it also means higher taxes on the less well off. The rise in Medicare deductions for all earners is a point.
My friend Dennis asserts the "rich" have raped the poor. Well, the well off have done better for the last 20 years than the less well off. The question I ponder is: Will higher taxes and greater government spending remedy this problem?
The answer I come to is, "No." If higher taxes had been the answer, FDR's high rates would have made us wealthy. Or even Clinton's rates. None of my liberal friends have deigned to explain how with houses sizes doubling in the last 40 years, car ownership at 2-3 per household, Internet penetration at 70 percent (estimates range from 60 percent to 94 percent access), air conditioning (at about 85 percent) and a host of other objective indices could possibly be described as being "raped." (Dennis's word).
Anyone who has traveled in the Third World laughs at American assertions of "poverty" in the U.S. We do not know deprivation. If you do not know the word, look up "kwashiorkor."
Some positions seem to think that a lazy slob woke up one morning and said, "Guess I will rape the little guy today and get rich." In fact, less than half of U.S. wealth is inherited. Newsweek (RIP) ran a cover story years ago. Reporters found most millionaires got it the old fashioned way. They began as a plumber, worked 40 years, saved and lived below their means. (see "The Millionaire Next Door," Thomas J. Stanley for a full discussion)
No thinking American would decry higher taxes if our government did not waste it. Are you one of those worried about a Sudanese biplane dropping an M-80 on Sioux Falls? If not, why are allowing the federal government to burn 25 percent of our budget on military spending? (whitehouse.gov)
Does it bother you that Murtha (D-PA) had an airport built so he could get to D.C. easily? Or that Ted Stephens had a bridge built to an uninhabitable island? Or that Jamie Whitten built a waterway through Mississippi that carries almost no goods? Or that a Chicago alderman (actually a woman) says the president needs to "send some bacon" because it's a "quid pro quo."
Do you assert there are no jobs when the National Manufacturers Association polled its members and found nearly 500,000 high skilled jobs unfilled for lack of applicants?
Several years ago, I lived in a town in Georgia and a plant closed. Working in economic development, I wanted quick turnaround training to get folks back to work. What I found is that many (nearly all) collected unemployment (it was high fishing and hunting season) and figured the plant would re-open by the time unemployment ran out.
If you have not read "Losing Ground," (Charles Murray), you should. Pay particular attention to the SIME and DIME discussion (Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiment). Guarantee people an income and guess what? Their average number of hours spent working DROPS. Are they victims too?
Mr. Holland tried to set tax at 75 percent and the wealth migrated to Belgium. Americans of wealth won't leave the greatest country ever conceived, but their capital sure will.
Demonizing people of wealth will not solve a $16.4 trillion deficit. Some wealthy people are jerks; some poor people are grabby takers. But most Americans are in the middle. Want to know how your tax dollars spent? Go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt.
Conservatives and liberals alike must accept that our fiscal woes will take pain to solve. Higher taxes and cuts in defense and transfer payments alike. Sorry folks, that's just the way it is.
My starting point is that the electorate has spoken and spoken that it wants big government. Mr. Obama presses that and so does the leadership and rank and file in the Senate. I assert that we must accept that. It will bring higher taxes, especially on those of means.
But it also means higher taxes on the less well off. The rise in Medicare deductions for all earners is a point.
My friend Dennis asserts the "rich" have raped the poor. Well, the well off have done better for the last 20 years than the less well off. The question I ponder is: Will higher taxes and greater government spending remedy this problem?
The answer I come to is, "No." If higher taxes had been the answer, FDR's high rates would have made us wealthy. Or even Clinton's rates. None of my liberal friends have deigned to explain how with houses sizes doubling in the last 40 years, car ownership at 2-3 per household, Internet penetration at 70 percent (estimates range from 60 percent to 94 percent access), air conditioning (at about 85 percent) and a host of other objective indices could possibly be described as being "raped." (Dennis's word).
Anyone who has traveled in the Third World laughs at American assertions of "poverty" in the U.S. We do not know deprivation. If you do not know the word, look up "kwashiorkor."
Some positions seem to think that a lazy slob woke up one morning and said, "Guess I will rape the little guy today and get rich." In fact, less than half of U.S. wealth is inherited. Newsweek (RIP) ran a cover story years ago. Reporters found most millionaires got it the old fashioned way. They began as a plumber, worked 40 years, saved and lived below their means. (see "The Millionaire Next Door," Thomas J. Stanley for a full discussion)
No thinking American would decry higher taxes if our government did not waste it. Are you one of those worried about a Sudanese biplane dropping an M-80 on Sioux Falls? If not, why are allowing the federal government to burn 25 percent of our budget on military spending? (whitehouse.gov)
Does it bother you that Murtha (D-PA) had an airport built so he could get to D.C. easily? Or that Ted Stephens had a bridge built to an uninhabitable island? Or that Jamie Whitten built a waterway through Mississippi that carries almost no goods? Or that a Chicago alderman (actually a woman) says the president needs to "send some bacon" because it's a "quid pro quo."
Do you assert there are no jobs when the National Manufacturers Association polled its members and found nearly 500,000 high skilled jobs unfilled for lack of applicants?
Several years ago, I lived in a town in Georgia and a plant closed. Working in economic development, I wanted quick turnaround training to get folks back to work. What I found is that many (nearly all) collected unemployment (it was high fishing and hunting season) and figured the plant would re-open by the time unemployment ran out.
If you have not read "Losing Ground," (Charles Murray), you should. Pay particular attention to the SIME and DIME discussion (Seattle and Denver income maintenance experiment). Guarantee people an income and guess what? Their average number of hours spent working DROPS. Are they victims too?
Mr. Holland tried to set tax at 75 percent and the wealth migrated to Belgium. Americans of wealth won't leave the greatest country ever conceived, but their capital sure will.
Demonizing people of wealth will not solve a $16.4 trillion deficit. Some wealthy people are jerks; some poor people are grabby takers. But most Americans are in the middle. Want to know how your tax dollars spent? Go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt.
Conservatives and liberals alike must accept that our fiscal woes will take pain to solve. Higher taxes and cuts in defense and transfer payments alike. Sorry folks, that's just the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)