A picture is worth a thousand words:

From Innocent Bystanders via TJIC
Freakin’ Obama.
Raise the cost of labor.
See, labor, like copper or plastic, oil or stamps, is a commodity. Businesses need commodities to operate. Businesses see how much a thing costs, calculates value analysis and then buys some. How much depends on that analysis. For example, if copper becomes too expensive, business will try to find a way to use less of it. Perhaps substituting for something else; a batter value. Stamps too high? Go to bulk mailing, or e-mail services. So it goes with labor.
Why people don’t see this is beyond me. For example, if we are interested in reducing unemployment, why don’t we mandate that all McDonalds have twice the current number of workers on each shift? If one McDdude is good, certainly two McDudes is better? Yes?
No.
See, at some point, more labor doesn’t mean more revenue or profits. Now, at some point it does. If I have to wait 20 McMinutes for my McBurger, I am going to walk out the McDoor. Here, more labor would be worth it to the store. However, once McDonalds has reached the point that it is servicing the clientele adding more labor doesn’t add up. The cost doesn’t justify the return. The simple truth is that the amount of labor someone buys is limited to the business model. Raising the unit cost of labor reduces the units. Or, increases the price of the widget.?
So, does raising the minimum wage increase or decrease employment? In an article from the Wall Street Journal, it seems that studies show jobs will be lost:
There’s been a long and spirited debate among economists about who gets hurt and who benefits when the minimum wage rises. But in a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, economists David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Bank reviewed the voluminous literature over the past 30 years and came to two almost universally acknowledged conclusions.
First, “a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent (though not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects.” Second, “studies that focus on the least-skilled groups [i.e., teens, and welfare moms] provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects.”
Now, let’s continue to pretend that we don’t know, for sure, that raising the minimum wage will result in job loss. Let’s instead use the Global Warming argument. What if it’s just possible that it does? Why raise it? What is the upside? And there, gentle reader, is the rub. As far as I can see, there is no upside. Very very few people actually make the minimum wage or less. Almost none of them will be making the minimum wage in a year. Most of them are from families with annual family incomes well well above poverty. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people making the minimum wage. And for those that do, they would rather make that amount than make the true minimum wage: $0.00.
Posted in Economics
Tagged Democrat, Liberal, Minimum Wage, Politics, Unemployment, zEconomy
This past Thursday, workers at a Smithfield Foods went to work covered by a Union contract. And from all accounts, they are very very happy to finally be so covered. For example, the article mentions as benefits:
“We really did accomplish something with this union,” said Mattie Fulcher. “We might not have gotten the raise that we wanted, but that will come in time. This is our first contract, and it is a start.”
Now, it’s hard to gauge “success” of this contract for the members. Among the most glaring omissions of the article are the pre-contract benefits. For example, what have the pay increases for the average worker been for the past 4 years? Or, what was the pay multiplier for holidays and overtime before the Union came in to “save the day”? We do get an idea of what pre-contract life might have been in respect to sick leave:
Fulcher said that on Thursday she got a 40-cent-per-hour raise…and she began earning sick time for the first time since going to work for Smithfield. The sick time is unpaid, but in the past workers earned disciplinary points that could lead to firing if they stayed home sick.
Okay, so lemme get this straight. The new Union contract says that Ms Fulcher is able to begin to accumulate sick time. Sick time that is unpaid. And this is different than in the past when the worker was afforded unpaid sick time but could, if abused, be fired for taking too much sick time? Now, the article doesn’t mention this specifically, it does point out that employees were given “discipline points”; whatever that means. Look, I work in corporate America and my sick leave policy is pretty straight forward and generous. If you are sick, stay home. As often as you are sick. And guess what? few of us ever really call in sick. But when we do, our bosses mark it down and track us. Cause, ya know, far be it from an employee to take every other Friday off and claim to be sick. Sheesh.
Next on the hit list, guaranteed hours:
The contract will also guarantee workers at least 30 hours of work each week…
Awesome. Really awesome for peope who wanna work more than 29 hours a week. Really REALLY bad for folks who don’t. Cause guess what? Those people get fired. No company in their right mind is going to pay someone 30 hours of pay for 15 hours of work. Nice.
And the last piece of good news:
Union members will begin paying dues of about $7 a week…
So, Ms Fulcher gets a $0.40 per hour raise AND gets to pay $7 bucks a week. Let’s say, just for fun, that she works 40 hours a week. 40 hours at $0.40 is $16. Assume a 15% tax burden and that 16 bucks goes to $13.60. Of which $7 goes to the Union. In the end, she gets $6.60 a week, or about $26.40 a month. The Union’s take? 7 bucks. 7 bucks or $28 a month. Guess who makes out better here? The worker or the Union? In this specific case, even considering that Ms. Fulcher kept her job, the Union made more money than she did. But let’s not forget the folks that lost their job as a result of this. In the end, they have lost the most.
Posted in Economy, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Employment, Unemployment, Unions, zCarolina Politics, zNorth Carolina
I was reading the News and Observer this morning and saw that Smithfield Packing finally succumbed to the kudzu that is Unions.
Smithfield Packing, union agree on NC contract
TAR HEEL, N.C. — Smithfield Packing Co. and a union that worked for years to organize a huge North Carolina slaughterhouse say they have agreed on their first contract for the plant.
I have not yet taken the time to check and see if Smithfield Packing is a publicly traded company or not, but I am sure that the value of this company just took a 10% hit. Not only that, but employment in the company went down today as well.
I repeat, there is nothing, not ONE thing that is good about unionization within a company. Unless, of course, you are a Union official.
Unions effectively tax … [company] investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.
And a less competetive company is a company that is not as valuable as a more competitive compant. If you need further proof that Unionization is a bad thing, take a look at the States with the highest unemployment rates and see how many of them are Union states and how many are right to work.
Heck, I’ll save ya the time:
| 1 | Nebraska | Right to Work |
| 2 | North Dakota | Right to Work |
| 3 | South Dakota | Right to Work |
| 4 | Wyoming | Right to Work |
| 5 | Utah | Right to Work |
| 6 | Iowa | Right to Work |
| 7 | Montana | Forced Union |
| 8 | Oklahoma | Right to Work |
| 9 | New Hampshire | Forced Union |
| 10 | New Mexico | Forced Union |
| 41 | Kentucky | Forced Union |
| 42 | DC | Forced Union |
| 43 | Tennessee | Right to Work |
| 44 | Ohio | Forced Union |
| 45 | North Carolina | Right to Work |
| 46 | Nevada | Right to Work |
| 47 | California | Forced Union |
| 48 | South Carolina | Right to Work |
| 49 | Oregon | Forced Union |
| 50 | Michigan | Forced Union |
Interesting list, huh?
So, recently over at Applied Rationality we have been discussing legislating Mandatory Sick Leave. Dave seems to be of the opinion that we should mandate paid sick leave to all employees while I maintain that such a benefit more resembles increased pay and would reduce the incidence of labor. Minimum wage has long been a favorite of mine and this new legislation seems to be another version of the same.
I think it’s exactly this type of legislation where we as conservatives fall down and really fail to serve the public. As champions of this type of legislation, it is the Left that is doing the PR job of getting out there and shaping the message. They are in front of the cameras talk about laws that will help the “Average American”, the “Working Man” and “America’s Middle Class”. They are getting the message out in the nightly newscasts, newspapers and magazines. And they are doing it well. They have been able to successfully shape the public opinion to the point that most of the nations feels that it is the Liberal Left and the Democrats who are standing up for the rights and well being of the average guy.
And we are letting them.
We don’t have anyone that is able to go out and change the shape of the conversation. We don’t have anyone that is willing to take this law, conduct the research and bring the message into the homes of all people everywhere that this tpe of legislation HURTS the very people it is aimed at helping. By mandating such demonstrably bad policies, what we are doing is legislating those of us who can least afford to be out of a job–out of a job. We are building a scenario where employers are going to reduce the number of employees on their payroll. And they are going to begin with the least skilled most marginal among their employees. Rather than helping people, this law and others like it is destructive.
And we are letting them.
Now, I’m not willing to give the Democrats enough credit to come up with one of these Black Helicopter theories that says they are doing this on purpose in order to create a dependent Nation. I really really don’t think they are that, umm, well, thoughtful. I really do think that they are trying to actually help people. I do. But they are wrong. They are taking the easy way out and, it just so happens, that this easy way out plays very well in the court of public opinion. But the facts remain, this is horrible legislation and we know it. Or should. And we should be singing and shouting it out from rooftops all across America. And we should be changing the tone of the conversation that it is Conservatives who are championing policies that actually DO help people.
Of course, we should then actually enact that policies…but thats another post for another day.