Rule targets price-breaks for the ladies. What’s next: Ban senior citizens’ discounts? Free meals for kiddies at family restaurants? When busybody bureaucrats team up with lawsuit-happy attorneys, trouble looms. Big Brother stirs. Lunacy prevails among the North Star State’s brave new bureaucrats.
State Cop: “You’re under arrest. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law…”
Bar Owner: “What on earth for? I’ve done nothing wrong, officer.”
Cop: “You’ve been witnessed serving half-priced drinks to ladies in your establishment. That’s against state human rights rules.”
Owner: “You gotta be kidding. Is this April Fools’ Day…or what?”
Tentacles of an overreaching state bureaucracy would bring down price promotions at bars, such as fun-filled ladies nights, a tradition that may be kaput in my native Minnesota. As the late TV host Jack Parr used to say, “I kid you not.” Surreal it may seem, it is true.
Faceless bureaucrats’ intrusion into private lives of guys dating gals, of women stopping by a friendly bar for a cocktail, to say nothing of encroachment on bar owners trying to boost sales and spread a little good will, is strictly out of the Theater of the Absurd. Read on, gentle reader, and weep for such small-mindedness. Here are the gory details:
The state’s Dept. of Human Rights, emulating 1984′s “doublethink,” has declared it is “illegal gender discrimination” to offer special prices for the ladies. No joke.
Human Rights Commissioner James Kirkpatrick, like Big Brother himself, insists low price policies such as for ladies nights violate the state’s Human Rights Act. His novel interpretation is made with a straight face, not as parody, which may tell us something about the humorless, pathway-to-hell depths to which my state’s bureaucrats have stooped.
No ladies’ nights? Why, one might as well deny Santa Claus, or the fact it snows in Minneapolis in the wintertime.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick, again with a poker face, says his Ministry of Truth-like rights’ agency “will pursue any and all complaints” about such benign, lady-favoring pricing policies. By such promotions as ladies nights, he asserts, the bar is guilty of “denying men of the right [emphasis supplied] to a full and equal opportunity” to get a few cents off their bar drinks, too. Whew!
Imagine: Guilty of selling at lower prices! Get thee to a nunnery, bar owners. Do penance for your crimes against the presumably dateless, envious lounge lizards. These hollow males would change bar culture forever to save a few cents on their drinks. Call this the work of spoilsports, selfish and not-at-all chivalrous clods.
So far Minnesota bars owners have ignored the edict. Bully for them. They’ll take their chances at serving ladies in the time-honored fashion. At least one Minneapolis bar owner scoffed at the idea of a ban on ladies nights. His barkeeps will continue to serve ladies at lower prices. It boosts business, he says, and creates good will for his drinking establishment.
What humorless louts are behind this movement? Easy. Lawyers, naturally, plying their sullen trade. More and more, an overabundance of them, pouring out of law schools, hungry for aggrieved parties, losing all touch with reality, pursuing loony cases, clogging an already inefficient legal system with frivolous lawsuits. No wonder garden-variety lawyers rank so lowly in the public eye.
A New York lawyer who makes his living this way says: “Men [on ladies' nights] have to pay more because an accident of nature denies them” discounted drinks. Come again? First, they don’t pay more, but regular bar prices. “Accident of nature?” Get real. Can’t his client bar patrons simply waddle down to another bistro not favoring the fair sex? Why must they imbibe at the one that does?
Ladies’ night is an institution that draws patrons, spurs bar sales. Guys buy low-priced drinks for their dates and other lady friends, and pay full price themselves. Single women come in after work for a cool one, and who knows whom they’ll meet? Of course all of this puts plus dollars in the cash register, and generates sales taxes. It’s a win-win-win deal. The greater danger it seems, is driving home, with all that implies, particularly for the dating class.
While human rights crazies take on bar owners, what about other dastardly things taking place right under their upturned noses? Such as ladies availing themselves of price break on meals for mothers on Mother’s Day?.
What will be the fate of “kids-eat-free” days at family restaurants? Parents save a few bucks on low price meals for the kiddies, pay full price for theirs. What’s the harm? Age discrimination, my ass.
For that matter, why should veterans — full disclosure, I am one– get price breaks on anything at all, including Twin ballgames? What did we vets do except to put our lives on the line for our country.
Finally, price perks for the crotchety, coupon-clipping seniors reek of discrimination. (Note: I am one of those, too.) We get price breaks at restaurants, at RV parks, at race tracks, at theaters and, yes, to ball games. Well, we have paid taxes all our lives, that’s all. What’s the harm here?
Price breaks for ladies, kids, veterans and seniors could become victims in a cold-hearted, no- fun, rights-crazy culture and of lawyers doing what lawyers do, that is, sue, No matter how silly, or laughable, or Kafkaesque. It’s Theater of the Absurd, played out on a stage of strutting lawyers and petty government bureaucrats out to control others. Big Brother is watching YOU!
Watch out. America. When busybody bureaucrats team up with desperate lawyers to deny even ladies nights, trouble looms. Remember, your oxen may be next to be gored.
If there is better evidence that we have too many lawyers, I’d like to see it.
And liberals wonder why they’re so roundly despised these days! I’d be interested in knowing who first made complaints about this “problem.”
Gestell:
I’m not convinced the average man on the street makes the connection between liberals and what they advocate; the cause and effect are just too far separated in time. I know this might be an isolated incident but a very liberal friend hates political correctness, affirmative action, diversity, and just about every other liberal initiative like the one in this article. Who did he vote for? Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barrack ǿbama, presidential candidates from the very party that gives us what he hates.
Then again, I like to think it is a true random sample indicative of the norm.
I’d love to vote for a competent party on the left, but I can’t seem to find one here in the US. There are many “supporters” of the Democratic party that only want the useful social programs and not much of the other crap. However, the social programs are important enough to put up with the other crap. For now.
Martel732:
What “other” crap? It’s all crap.
Says you. Given the economic systems of other Western republics, and all those developing nations practicing state capitalism, I’d say there is plenty that is not crap.
It is possible to have leftist party that is not an inept cobbling of minorities. In fact, this is the case in most other nations. Just not here.
reply to Martel732
The US has never had anything really resembling the sort of leftwing parties (generically, Social Democrats) that are found in many other countries. Even when the Democratic Party was in full flower, with its New Deal coalition of voting blocs in place, it was never really a leftwing party except by American standards.
The Democratic Party is still not a genuine party of the Left now. Note that many corporations contribute big-time to Democratic candidates, which they would not do if they regarded the Democrats as dangerous lefties.
The ideological spectrum is quite narrow in the US. We get all excited about ‘left’ and ‘right,’ but barely know the historical meanings of these labels. Many countries have what we might call ‘conservatives’ but much further to their right are nationalist and neo-fascist/Nazi parties. Such countries might have several flavors of socialists and an old-fashioned Communist party on the left, but even further to the left might lie Maoist parties.
One of those big historical questions is: why didn’t the US develop a genuine labor party/social democratic party at about the same time such parties developed in Western Europe? One answer is that it is very difficult to create a major American party; it has happened only a few times in our history. The present-day Democratic Party is historically continuous back to the Jacksonian era (1820s) and the Republicans date from the mid 1850s. No other large, competitive national parties have formed ever since those times.
What does it take to be an American major party? Such a party has to operate nationally; it can’t be just a regional party. It has to be able to develop an organizational structure that penetrates through the layers of government from the national level right down to the town and voting precinct level (and everything in between–states, counties). The party has to be able to survive major electoral defeats. So, even when Republicans have won big nationally, the Democratic Party doesn’t disappear, and the reverse also holds true for the Republicans. Parties built on a candidate (such as the Teddy Roosevelt ‘Bull Moose’ party or Ross Perot’s party) die when their candidate is no longer alive or interested in running anymore.
So, the start up costs, so to speak, for a major party are…major.
Then add the 800 pound gorilla: the way we count votes. Virtually all elections at all levels in the US have a winner-take-all format. Someone can lose by 1% or even by 1 vote, and get absolutely no presence in government. Many political scientists think this may be the single most important reason the US has only two major parties at any one time. If we had proportional representation, as most parliamentary democracies do, there would be more incentive for other parties to form and try to get candidates elected.
Suppose that instead of one member in the House of Representatives from a congressional district, the US had set things up so a typical district sent something like 3 or 4 representatives to Congress. There would be a real incentive for more than two parties to compete. Of course, the US will never change the way we count votes. Americans will never get used to the concept that an election could have more than 1 winner. It’s just….unAmerican.
Then add the 800 pound gorilla: the way we count votes. Virtually all elections at all levels in the US have a winner-take-all format. Someone can lose by 1% or even by 1 vote, and get absolutely no presence in government. Many political scientists think this may be the single most important reason the US has only two major parties at any one time. If we had proportional representation, as most parliamentary democracies do, there would be more incentive for other parties to form and try to get candidates elected.
This will be a major cause of our downfall. And the Constitution is unalterable. Perfect.
Martel732:
Re: “It is possible to have leftist party that is not an inept cobbling of minorities. In fact, this is the case in most other nations. Just not here.”
I suppose so. The problem is that, for it to work on a large enough scale, you have to take away peoples’ rights. The Communist Party ruled the Soviet Union and much of Europe for a long time. It still rules China. It doesn’t happen here because, as you say, Leftism is a minority position … a very small minority. In order to survive, Leftists must form a coalition of small interests; that’s why you see bizarre things like homosexual groups supporting abortion rights, and vice versa.
Re: “Given the economic systems of other Western republics, and all those developing nations practicing state capitalism, I’d say there is plenty that is not crap.”
It’s been said that people vote with their feet. The Frankfort School of professors fled the Nazis just before WW-II and got political asylum in the U.S. After the war, they all moved back to West Germany with the exception of Marcuse who remained in the U.S. Now if socialist countries are such paradises, why didn’t they move to one of them instead, say East Germany?
Their fraud is exposed by the fact that they themselves did not, nor do present day examples, live according to their professed ideologies that they would foist on the gullible, and should be proof-positive to the most causal observer and dimmest Doubting Thomas, with only the least of their wits about them, that there is not so much as a grain of truth them. A more recent example is that darling of the Left, Noam Chomsky who, it turns out, is a poster child for capitalism http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=1019055 . The number of Hollywood Leftists [a redundant term, BTW] and college professors is legion who think such redeemers as Castro and Kim Jong Il walk on water, yet they prefer to live in the U.S. Why?
There are socialist systems less extreme than those ruled by communists, and if they are preferred over America’s system, why don’t you move to one of them, say England where you don’t even have to overcome a language barrier? I suspect the reason is you and the aforementioned proponents of Leftism know that they are 100 percent total crap, and they are crap because they take away peoples’ rights.
Gestell:
Not to re-open an old argument, the only part of your last that I disagree with is the statement that Nazis are right-wingers. This myth persists only because Hitler invaded Russia in WW-II, not because of ideological differences. Nazism and fascism are both Leftist because they are proponents of big government.
There are socialist systems less extreme than those ruled by communists, and if they are preferred over America’s system, why don’t you move to one of them, say England where you don’t even have to overcome a language barrier? I suspect the reason is you and the aforementioned proponents of Leftism know that they are 100 percent total crap, and they are crap because they take away peoples’ rights.
Actually I’m fine with losing rights. The whole “freedom, freedom, freedom” thing is just an experiment in the grand scheme of things. Freedom has its pros as well as cons. The cons are beginning to stack up now that we are no longer a frontier nation. Also, I believe erosion of rights in inevitable because of rising populations.
The short answer to the moving question is that, ironically, I can’t afford to. Most nations that are proficient at socialism are very selective when it comes to immigration, otherwise they end up like California in a hurry. It is very interesting that non-American leftists are very much NOT bleeding hearts.
Canada, for example, prefers immigrants to have ~100K in the bank. If I had that kind of jack, I wouldn’t want to leave America in the first place. America is a paradise for those with that kind of money and those with nothing. However, it is becoming increasingly hard on the working poor (me), which is a disaster in the making.
Your examples of Kim Jong and Castro are again just American nonsense. No one in China or Germany or Brazil takes those jokers seriously. If you have ran into leftists in America that do, you are but proving my very point. Conservatives here get a distorted and watered down view of the left.
Martel732,
“Also, I believe erosion of rights in inevitable because of rising populations.” What does population density have to do with rights? Whether I live in rural Arkansas where I do, or in a major metropolitan area such as New York or Chicago; I still have the right to own property, the right to equal treatment under the law, and the right to be protected from un-warranted searches. How does population density effect rights?
“Canada, for example, prefers immigrants to have ~100K in the bank. If I had that kind of jack, I wouldn’t want to leave America in the first place. America is a paradise for those with that kind of money and those with nothing. However, it is becoming increasingly hard on the working poor (me), which is a disaster in the making.”
My life is far from Paradise. I still have to work for a living. $100k doesn’t even qualify as wealthy in this country, let alone rich. Those numbers place us squarely in the middle class. I don’t know how far you think money like that goes, but it would only pay all of our expenses for maybe four years tops.
At current interest rates of 2.5% it’s certainly not enough to retire on as we can only live @ six weeks on $2,500.
“…except by American standards.” The only standard that matters.
reply to sedonaman:[and a brief reply to Martel]
Many conservatives have a very inadequate understanding of the left in historical terms. You mentioned the Frankfurt School, which included, among others, Marcuse. But what you seem not to know is that this group of Marxists had been critical of the Soviet Union from the 1930s forward. Very, very few academic Marxists–I’ve only met one in nearly 40 years–had good words to say about Soviet Communism. There is even a name for the orientation of such people: “Western Marxism.”
For Western Marxists, the Soviet Union had no meaningful connection with Marx, and so these Marxists were as critical of Stalin as any conservative would be. The Western Marxist claim is that Marx neither predicted nor does his theory require any sort of totalitarianism. They point out that Marx’s ultimate agreement was with many of the 19th century anarchists: no state, no central government at all. Marx differed from the leading anarchists of the mid-19th century about the means of change. Many of the anarchists thought they could move toward their goal by killing off kings, prime ministers, etc. Marx thought this was idiotic.
The only phrase in Marx’s voluminous writings (the old East German standard edition ran to 56 volumes)that one can point to is: “dictatorship of the proletariat.” However, in context this refers to the very short-lived government he thought the victorious revolutionary workers would need to set up to consolidate their success. In a very short time, to use the famous line from Marx’s co-author, Engels, the state would “wither away.”
Why? For Marx the only reason government exists is to protect the owners of the means of production, i.e., the capitalists. If there are no more capitalists, and the workers collectively control the means of production, “ownership” no longer exists and thus there is no need for government. Without the economic problems generated by capitalism, there will also be no criminals, and thus, one more reason for government to vanish.
Before I get jumped by anyone on IC, note: I’m not defending or agreeing with this, I’m simply describing it.
More could be added, but Western Marxists refused to regard their position as having anything to do with Soviet tyranny. Politically speaking, Western Marxists were usually pretty well satisfied with the European social democratic state, and most of them quietly removed ‘revolution’ from their Marxist vocabularies.
For Martel: While the Constitution can certainly be altered, note how seldom it has been. Our constitution has only 17 amendments that were added after ratification. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments, added (reluctantly) by James Madison to try to insure ratification. Something as basic as the way we count votes is very, very unlikely ever to be changed by amendment or anything else. So, we’re stuck with two major parties.
Two major parties impose serious limitations on new or ‘third’ parties as political scientists call any or all of them. In economic terms, the two parties form an oligopoly, and start-ups have little chance against this. The best way to proceed is to try to take over a major party. Conservatives began to do this with the Republican Party in the late 1960s and continued to work on this for decades. The Reagan nomination and victory in 1980 was their first big success. However, there were still pockets of liberal to moderate Republicans entrenched in various positions. In my opinion, the Tea Party is the way conservatives have to complete the process of transforming the Republican Party into a true conservative party. That’s why Tea Partiers have to settle in for a long process–what lefties in the 1960s liked to call the ‘long march through the institutions.’
Full conquest of the Republican Party can’t be done in a year or four or more. But it can be done.
My life is far from Paradise. I still have to work for a living. $100k doesn’t even qualify as wealthy in this country, let alone rich. Those numbers place us squarely in the middle class.
At least you get to thump your chest about working for a living. The working term there is “a living”. The working poor work long hours and get practically nothing in return. My check goes directly to housing, food, energy, and my car. There is practically no difference between the way I live and people on welfare. So why should I line up to get exploited by Amazon? Because somehow, someday its going to magically “get better?” So I can feel better about myself for not “leeching off the system?” I feel like a fool is what I feel like.
Corps might as well be honest and proclaim their lower-income employees slaves, because that’s practically what they are. I put in nearly as many hours as my managers, and they make six figures, while we do the hazardous and back breaking work. They spend all day jawing with Seattle and making Excel sheets with formula mistakes. I can only assume you are more productive and are at least somewhat deserving of a six-figure income.
I don’t know how far you think money like that goes, but it would only pay all of our expenses for maybe four years tops.
It goes a hell of a lot further than what I make or am likely to make in the next 20 years. That’s how far it goes.
“Also, I believe erosion of rights in inevitable because of rising populations.” What does population density have to do with rights? Whether I live in rural Arkansas where I do, or in a major metropolitan area such as New York or Chicago; I still have the right to own property, the right to equal treatment under the law, and the right to be protected from un-warranted searches. How does population density effect rights?
I forgot to reply to this above. As you pack in more people, more rules are generally needed to keep the peace. I understand this is hard for a country person to understand, but in a city, one’s neighbors’ activities can affect one’s quality of life significantly. Therefore, more rules are needed to reduce the effects of having so many people crushed together. Unwarranted searches become more acceptable when you are worried about the crack-dealing apartment that’s one floor above you. This has been a trend throughout history. People, in general, will trade some freedom for security. It’s all a question of degree.
I personally think that everyone would be much happier if the cities and rural areas had wildly different laws applied to each area. Of course, this could make travel between the two very difficult. So perhaps that is not workable. For places like Singapore, however, draconian rules make for a very prosperous city.
Martel732,
I didn’t mean to confuse anyone. I make far less than ‘six-figures’. What we have in savings is the accumulation of a lifetime (so far). And it represents a lot of stuff my wife and I either did without, never bought, or significantly delayed the purchase of.
Even now, there are things we just cannot see buying. My wife’s car is 12 years old, mine is 6. Only reason mine is newer is because we needed a full-size truck, but it was bought used. We don’t own a large home. We make lists ahead of time and grocery shop for a month at a time. This not only cuts down on what we spend at the store, it also ensures we’re not traveling back to the grocery store every couple of days thereby saving gas. We don’t go out much, we’re homebodies. We’ve developed a lifestyle over our two decades of marriage that allows us to put our savings goals above all else.
We began with little back in ’89 when we married. I rode the bus to work and we ate a lot of beans & rice. It was a year before we had saved enough to buy our first ‘luxury’ purchase. At the time; we lived in California so decided to purchase an air conditioner as opposed to a TV. We bought our first TV on our third wedding anniversary. I could go on but what’s the point? We decided a long time ago that saving was priority #1 and that’s what we did.
“Therefore, more rules are needed to reduce the effects of having so many people crushed together.” Excessive rules only have to be created when people fail to discipline themselves. Besides, it doesn’t often work as you cannot really legislate proper behavior.
Re: “There are many ‘supporters’ of the Democratic party that only want the useful social programs and not much of the other crap. However, the social programs are important enough to put up with the other crap. … Actually I’m fine with losing rights.”
What I see here is a willingness to surrender your rights for social programs that take care of you instead of your taking care of yourself. This is not the characteristic of a mature adult; it’s the attitude of a child who is happy to be subject to his parents in exchange for security. Adults use their freedom to make good lives for themselves by cooperating with others, and they raise their children to be self-reliant adults as well. They do not insist that the government become their parent.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dus-stripbooks-tree&field-keywords=the+liberal+mind&x=0&y=0
Besides, it doesn’t often work as you cannot really legislate proper behavior.
Seems to work in Singapore. Just saying.
What I see here is a willingness to surrender your rights for social programs that take care of you instead of your taking care of yourself. This is not the characteristic of a mature adult; it’s the attitude of a child who is happy to be subject to his parents in exchange for security. Adults use their freedom to make good lives for themselves by cooperating with others, and they raise their children to be self-reliant adults as well. They do not insist that the government become their parent.
I’m glad its childish to want health care, a decent place to live, and decent food for my children. I”m not talking about trips to Vegas here. What part of working poor don’t you understand?
These things are becoming increasingly unaffordable on the “open market”. And its not because of rampant inflation. It’s because employers don’t want to pay anything. And they don’t have to, because the cost of labor has been driven down so low.
Corps have figured out that Americans have no where to go, even if we wanted to. There is no free market, there is no supply and demand, all there is is profit maximization for the share holders. All countries with a higher standard of living have appropriately high hurdles to immigration, so we can’t go there. A skilled person could probably get a work visa to a 2nd world nation, but those are clearly inferior. Corps could cut salaries by another 25% or more for the rank and file workers and they would have to eat it. There is no where else to go.
One of the oldest conservative errors is this one: one “cannot really legislate proper behavior.” That’s what law does; it’s what every legal system in human history has done. And custom is necessary to back this up. In most societies, customary behavior is simply understood as ‘proper behavior.’ Conservatives who understand their own position are supposed to celebrate and venerate law and custom. Russell Kirk defined the conservative as the “law-abiding man of tradition.”
“I’m glad its childish to want health care, a decent place to live, and decent food for my children. I”m not talking about trips to Vegas here. What part of working poor don’t you understand?”
Sounds like you want something for nothing. Would you prefer the government confiscate all the nation’s wealth and divvie it up to each according to his need?
“These things are becoming increasingly unaffordable on the ‘open market’. And its not because of rampant inflation. It’s because employers don’t want to pay anything. And they don’t have to, because the cost of labor has been driven down so low.”
When you go shopping, do you pay more for your items than you have to? I met a small business owner not long ago who said one of his employees asked for a health care plan. The employer said OK, but it would have to come out of his salary. The employee wanted it for free. If you were that employer, what would you have done?
“Corps have figured out that Americans have no where to go, even if we wanted to. There is no free market, there is no supply and demand, all there is profit maximization for the share holders. All countries with a higher standard of living have appropriately high hurdles to immigration, so we can’t go there. A skilled person could probably get a work visa to a 2nd world nation, but those are clearly inferior. Corps could cut salaries by another 25% or more for the rank and file workers and they would have to eat it. There is no where else to go.”
Ah, those evil corporations. Both my sons delivered pizzas while in school, and they both told me that the most expensive satellite TV packages they saw were in the poor neighborhoods. On the other side of the coin you have people like a girl I once met who walked to work and shopping until she saved up enough to pay cash for, not a Cadillac, but a $1,800 VW Beetle. You can’t make a general statement that covers everyone, but if there is one that comes close to describing the plight of those who are complaining and have a sense of entitlement, it would be something like, “There is a lot of mis-placed priorities around.” You finished K-12 attendance and immediately expect a middle class standard of living. Well, it ain’t gonna happen. Even a bachelor’s degree today isn’t what a H.S. diploma was 50 or 60 years ago. You have got to face the economic fact that the only way to increase your salary is to increase your value to your employer, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.
As far as inflation is concerned, you are the cause of it because you demand more services from a government that has reached its maximum ability to tax http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/graph_of_the_day_for_may_19_20.html . The only alternatives left for the politicians are to quit their offices or “borrow” the money. This “borrowing” causes an increase in the money supply. Bingo! Inflation.
Sounds like you want something for nothing. Would you prefer the government confiscate all the nation’s wealth and divvie it up to each according to his need?
I think that our level of technological achievement would allow for some minimum living standards to be feasible. Again, in the overall spectrum of possible economic systems, the US system and the German system are not that far apart. But the differences are enormous for the bottom half of the earners. A wealthy people in Germany still buy whatever the hell they feel like. There is no need to start nonsense talk of confiscating wealth. That is a last resort even for China, and only Russia employs this regularly.
When you go shopping, do you pay more for your items than you have to? I met a small business owner not long ago who said one of his employees asked for a health care plan. The employer said OK, but it would have to come out of his salary. The employee wanted it for free. If you were that employer, what would you have done?
Health care payments should not be the burden of individual citizens nor employers. It should not be a free market commodity. Of course it is ridiculous to ask for “free” health care. What do you think the VAT tax in EU nations is for? Fun?
You have got to face the economic fact that the only way to increase your salary is to increase your value to your employer, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.
This is why I hate economics. There are no facts. It’s all subjective, unlike chemistry or physics.
US workers are setting productivity records constantly and wages still aren’t going up. As far as I can tell, increasing my value to my employer just gives them more money. I know that this is the way things are supposed to work in theory, but this system seems to be falling apart.
On top of this, the management I work with seem incapable of using simple math to determine true process efficiency. I think they each doctor the numbers for their pet projects. I fail to see how these people are going to recognize with individual wage slaves are more valuable than the others. Even if they do, what happens then? They most scalp other companies for their white collar workers. These are the kinds of glass ceilings Americans are now facing.
“There is a lot of mis-placed priorities around.”
I will agree with this in that many Americans have no idea how to handle money. The poor in this nation have the double whammy of not much money to work with and usually no education as to what to do with it. I am the first to agree that welfare hand outs are not an effective social program.
However, I run a fairly draconian budget and it is still very, very difficult. It would be so much easier if I didn’t have to own a car. But guess where I live? Good ol’ spread out USA. The end of cheap energy is going to squeeze the lower classes like a vice. The working poor need to be taken care of ahead of the “layabouts”, and this is not happening. Just having a job in many cases is just not good enough.
Ah, those evil corporations
I would not call them evil per say, but I believe the term depraved indifference applies nicely. When one wage slave gets sick or hurt or pregnant, just replace them with a new one. (For less pay, of course)
You finished K-12 attendance and immediately expect a middle class standard of living. Well, it ain’t gonna happen. Even a bachelor’s degree today isn’t what a H.S. diploma was 50 or 60 years ago.
That’s the bill of goods being sold to millions every year. I’m not sure how telling students the truth would fare: “You will likely be a corporate lackey or in a pointless service industry. Even with a college degree, you will face very limited options for advancement, regardless of how hard you work, because there are too few positions for the workers available. Your only hope is to suck up to your boss and hope he and management toss you some kind of promotion.”
As far as inflation is concerned, you are the cause of it because you demand more services from a government that has reached its maximum ability to tax http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/graph_of_the_day_for_may_19_20.html . The only alternatives left for the politicians are to quit their offices or “borrow” the money. This “borrowing” causes an increase in the money supply. Bingo! Inflation.
I just stated that inflation was NOT a problem yet. And I think its a poor idea to just print money like Obama has been. It is possible to run a social democracy with a balanced budget, its just a matter of priorities and discipline.
I didn’t mean to confuse anyone. I make far less than ‘six-figures’. What we have in savings is the accumulation of a lifetime (so far). And it represents a lot of stuff my wife and I either did without, never bought, or significantly delayed the purchase of.
Wow. I am always mystified by conservatives who make less than 100K/yr. It seems to me they are voting against their own interests. Still, I must salute you dedication to your principles. Your fiscal discipline must also be commended.
I wasn’t born with a house, acreage, and a savings account. I’m 55 years old and have had a job, of one sort or another, since I was sweeping out a dry cleaning store after school when I was 12. All during that 43 years of labor, I always had a saving account. Started out with a $5 deposit each week. Did my best to increase that deposit by another $5 each week next year. Increased it another $5 year after that and did the best I could to keep that pattern going. If the choice was buy something nice or make the savings deposit, I made the deposit. Twenty years into this and we were putting away $100 a week. We held the weekly deposit there ever since. It’s allowed us to buy our property and save that $100k.
And I don’t see how this is “voting against my own interest.” This is really a simple philosophy. No one should expect to receive more than he’s willing to give. No one should expect to spend more than he’s able to earn, no one should expect to obtain more than he’s willing to contribute. Something for nothing doesn’t exist. Someone; somewhere must be deprived of his just earnings every time somebody else receives a good or service of value without paying for that good or service. When I was a lot younger, I didn’t want everyone else to be dragged down to my level, I wanted to discover how to elevate myself to their level. I didn’t want the government to tax the rich man until blood shot out of his eyes in order for me to have a little easier life. I wanted the opportunity to become rich myself.
I didn’t succeed; at least not the way Bill Gates or Tiger Woods did. But I feel great about my life. My wife and I have all we need and most of what we want, and I thank the Lord for it each day. And I didn’t do it on handouts, or favoritism, or beating somebody else out of what he already had. We played the game, took our lumps, and made it work. It’s all about attitude.
Gestell,
If you can legislate proper behavior; then I ask you why are not Washington DC and Chicago Illinois; each with such draconian gun ownership laws that they were subject to SCOTUS decisions, not two of the safest cities around with murder rates approaching zero? There were 474 homicides in Washington DC in 2009, there were 458 in Chicago. I’ll be willing to bet another gun law won’t change the statistics or the behavior much. What do you think?
I’ll be willing to bet another gun law won’t change the statistics or the behavior much. What do you think?
Different people respond differently to different laws. The Japanese, for example, swallow many societal rules that we never would.
I don’t believe gun control is a worthwhile issue in the US not only because of the many gun supporters, but because American criminals have a tendency to think that they will never be caught, and if they are, the punishment will be a delayed effect.
In order to enforce gun laws with attitudes such as this, one would have to have immediate consequences such as immediate execution for committing gun-based crime. Since I believe even China uses kangaroo courts, this would require authoritarianism above and beyond China. Not very reasonable from a pragmatic view.
When I was a lot younger, I didn’t want everyone else to be dragged down to my level, I wanted to discover how to elevate myself to their level. I didn’t want the government to tax the rich man until blood shot out of his eyes in order for me to have a little easier life. I wanted the opportunity to become rich myself.
Yeah……. that’s the problem. I feel like the wealthy are hording all the wealth, making this a less and less likelihood for myself or anyone else in my position. I think a lot of Democrats and socialists in general feel backed into a corner (I might be wrong) and the attitudes of big Wall Street firms don’t do anything to help this at all.
There have been periods of history where forced exaction of wealth from the upper class was necessary. I’m not sure whether we are there yet or not.
Re: “Yeah……. that’s the problem. I feel like the wealthy are hording all the wealth, making this a less and less likelihood for myself or anyone else in my position.”
This is the zero-sum idea. Wealth is not fixed, otherwise where did all our prosperity come from if the rich hoarded it all for themselves? Each worker contributes to the total wealth of the nation, so they cannot hoard what you produce; they have to pay you for it.
That’s the idea behind capitalism. Each person has the ability to trade his labor for a wage he negotiates. Likewise; each person has the ability to negotiate the price he is willing to pay for goods & services. If you don’t like the wage, you are free to go elsewhere. Likewise; if you don’t like the price, you are free to go elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to the heads of Wal-Mart’s employees (forcing them to work) or their customers (forcing them to shop).
People shop at Wal-Mart because the price is compatible with the quality they expect. They believe they receive value for their dollars. People work there because they agree to the trade of their effort for the wage paid. They believe they receive value for their effort.
Progressives are always suggesting that workers are being exploited by companies. For instance; I believe that you, Martel732, feel ‘exploited’ by Amazon. You weren’t clubbed over the head one night and woke up to find yourself chained to a pallet jack in a warehouse the next day. You agreed to the job, the hours, and the wage scale. Even though you are less than happy with your condition now, there was a time when you thought this situation tilted to your advantage. If you are dissatisfied, you may seek another position. I seriously doubt those security guards at the warehouse are stationed there to keep you from walking off the job.
About twenty-three years ago I was the Director of Quality Assurance for a printed circuit board manufacturer. I was interviewing people for an opening I had in my inspection department. One applicant said; “I’d really like to work here, but I need to make $10 an hour.”
I said; “The job pays $8.50 an hour.”
He repeated; “I need to make $10 an hour.”
I said; ‘You need to understand something. We’re not negotiating between $8.50 and $10 an hour; we’re negotiation between $8.50 and nothing as there are four others waiting to interview for this same position outside on the bench right now.” The person stormed out of the office and I hired the next person who interviewed because $8.50 was agreeable to her. Moral of the story; don’t over-value your skill set.
Bill:
Re: “Progressives are always suggesting that workers are being exploited by companies.”
I think it’s part of their anger at God for making them “earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.”
Sedonaman,
You may be correct; although I’m more inclined to believe it stems from their belief that all companies and businesses should be ‘not-for-profit’ institutions.
Bill:
“I’m more inclined to believe it stems from their belief that all companies and businesses should be ‘not-for-profit’ institutions.”
That’s undoubtedly part of it, although I never met a Lefty who didn’t expect to profit from his work and investments, which is what makes capitalism work. And, there’s plenty of evidence they’re mad at capitalism too.
This is the zero-sum idea. Wealth is not fixed, otherwise where did all our prosperity come from if the rich hoarded it all for themselves?
I believe that wealth is fixed. The planet itself has only so many resources to go around. So how can wealth expand forever? Technology can drive down the cost to produce goods, but the total amount of available raw resources is fixed. So yes, I believe mercantalist theory is the correct theory.
America’s wealth initially came primarily from utilizing the natural resources of the nation and a lot of exploitation. Read what working conditions were like in Reconstruction America. They were a lot like current day China, or worse.
America’s recent wealth came from rebuilding the free world after WWII. We literally had a monopoly on all production for the Western world. How could we NOT make money? Now that other nations are back on their feet, we have real competition for things like oil and rare earth elements. Competition that is using our free market philosophies against us to gain unfair advantages.
Think about it. America has always had cheap, endless energy sources. Even petroleum fit this bill until the 1970s. This is such a huge advantage for generation of wealth that I can’t think of a suitable superlative. We have yet to adapt to the new realities. America is configured to operate under a cheap energy model, which is going to come to an end one way or another.
Each worker contributes to the total wealth of the nation, so they cannot hoard what you produce; they have to pay you for it.
No, they don’t. Not really. That’s the problem. If all employers decided to pay $1/hr that’s what everyone would make. They would keep everything. This is the philosophy of modern corps. It seems like it wasn’t always this way, but the new philosophy is definitely to stick it to the workers as much as possible. The way I see it, only the state can stop this from happening.
This is an extreme example, but again, American productivity has never been higher, but wages haven’t risen since 2000. Corporate profits, however, haven’t suffered much at all. How do you explain this? It sure sounds like they are hoarding the wealth to me.
You may be correct; although I’m more inclined to believe it stems from their belief that all companies and businesses should be ‘not-for-profit’ institutions.
That’s not necessarily true. If a given government has say a 40% stake in a company, they certainly do want that company to make profit. The difference is that these dividends get to be used for the public budget, instead of all going to the corporate elite.
I think it’s part of their anger at God for making them “earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.”
I’m not angry at God. I’m angry at management who make about 5 or 6 times the money I do for no adequately explainable reason. Quit implying laziness. I am not lazy. I know many people with leftist philosophies who are not lazy. There is no logical reason for our management here to make so much more money.
That’s undoubtedly part of it, although I never met a Lefty who didn’t expect to profit from his work and investments, which is what makes capitalism work.
That’s just it. I don’t profit from my work. I just squeak by. And I can’t afford investments. So how is this system good for me again?
Martel732,
I believe you may be confusing wealth and resources. Arguably; resources may be defined as ‘fixed’ from the standpoint that all matter that will ever exist was created @ 14.5 billion years ago. That statement is enough to conclude that resources are a ‘static’ quantity.
That does not place a ‘static’ value on wealth. Petroleum existed but was worthless to the Neanderthals. Just as the value of hydrogen isn’t worth nearly as much as it will be when we solve the engineering challenge of controlled fusion.
A combination of culture and technology is utilized to create wealth. One may argue that the most immediate way to begin to create wealth is to encode property rights into the laws of a country. It’s not hard to discern that countries that allow for the easy acquisition and disposal of property, of all types, create far more wealth than countries that restrict these rights.
You cannot define wages as wealth. Although they are measured in the same format as dollars they are different manifestations of dollars. When you pull an order for a customer you cannot be said to be creating wealth. You are merely earning your pay. When a person or a company discovers a new use for an existing resource, or discovers a new method for manipulating that resource unlocking previously untapped potential; that new ‘use’ allows for the creation of wealth that did not previously exist.
In previously historic times copper was worth X, tin was worth Y, but through the discovery of melting copper and tin and mixing it in a ratio of 90% copper and 10% tin, we discovered bronze. That new use added additional value to both the stand-alone metals.
Finally, money isn’t much good if it is not put to use. It is up to the individual that accumulates that money to decide how he puts it to use. He may invest in a business by buying stock. He may invest in a City or State by buying a bond. He may invest in a bank by purchasing a CD, or in an insurance company by purchasing an annuity. No person of means allows his or her money to languish in a vault somewhere uninvested, or places it in a mattress. Your major issue here is that YOU believe YOU know of better places that THOSE PEOPLE should be investing THEIR money; like health care for all, free college tuition, and a 1,500 square foot home for each and every person on the planet; and a guaranteed ‘living’ wage.
What is actually so disenguiniuos about all this is that while you believe I should share the cost of your health care, and your boss should share a large percentage of his paycheck with you as well; you are sharing little with others less fortunate than yourself? I’ll bet there’s a pair of homeless people out there right now that would love to spend evenings on your couch and have the ability to help themselves to the leftovers in your refrigerator. Lead by example. If I’m supposed to care for those less fortunate than myself, show me how by demonstrating the courage of your convictions and directly assuming responsibility for the care of several of those less fortunate than yourself. Progressives are usually really good at telling other people how they should be sacrificing for their fellow man but are awful short on self sacrifice. This is why it’s so difficult to take ya’ll seriously. AL Gore is worth tens of millions of dollars, but tells us all we must redistribute our income to save the planet; then climbs into his private jet to fly to his next speaking engagement. You may take comfort in the fact that you are no different. You denigrate your superiors because you are certain that they are idiots that didn’t earn, but somehow, inherited their positions and six digit salaries. So in order that Martel 732 be treated in what he imagines is an equitable manner, I should foot the bill for your health care and they should share their salaries with you.
“oh, no!” you say. “You’ve got it all wrong. I don’t’ think you should pay for my health care, the government should.” Since government cannot create wealth, it can only confiscate it from others who originally earned that wealth; what’s the difference huh?
If I’m supposed to care for those less fortunate than myself, show me how by demonstrating the courage of your convictions and directly assuming responsibility for the care of several of those less fortunate than yourself.
Mysteriously enough, I don’t have the time or the resources to do this. Who does though? The ultra-wealthy who make their money off others’ labor.
This is why it’s so difficult to take ya’ll seriously.
I realize that the Democrats are horribly hypocritical. Again, I am not one of them. I vote for them only under duress.
I believe you may be confusing wealth and resources.
Resources ARE wealth. You can add additional value to materials, but you MUST have the materials to start with.
This why economics is a horrible, horrible topic. No one can agree on even base definitions. There is are no facts, there are no laws. It is perhaps even more murky than psychology.
“Resources ARE wealth.”
A resource is any physical or virtual entity of limited availability that needs to be consumed to obtain a benefit from it.
Wealth is the abundance of valuable commidities or material possessions or the control of such assets.
Apparently, they ARE different.
“I don’t have the time or the resources to do this.”
Exactly! I have no place to tell you what you should be doing with your time, talent, or treasure because I don’t know enough of your circumstance; you have no place judging me or any other by saying; ” I declare you to have too much income, you should give what I believe is your extra to ______ (fill in the blank). None of us has the ability to decide what anyone else does with what he earns. And it’s even worse for anyone to say; “The government ought to take possession of that other’s wealth for my benefit.”
Instead of striving to figure out how to extract what you believe to be non-earned ‘extra’ money from all those who happen to have $5 more than you do; you should be in favor of government getting out of everybody’s way and allowing all of us to reach our potential by earning all we can.
Martel732:
Re: “I’m angry at management who make about 5 or 6 times the money I do for no adequately explainable reason.”
What could be more Marxist than that statement? Marx dismissed the idea that management produced added value. The idea that management produces nothing is only a theory, and has never been demonstrated to be true. However, Adam Smith in Chapter 1 of his The Wealth of Nations has an actual real-life example of a pin factory. He observed that two workers working independently could produce about 100 pins per day, but two workers working according to a particular division of labor could produce 4,000 pins per day. Obviously, management, by dividing the labor, increased productivity quite substantially, thus adding value (wealth). And you refuse to see this and dismiss it as worth nothing.
Modern examples include Ford Motor Co. which streamlined auto manufacturing so the average man could afford a car which up to that time was a toy for the rich; and Walmart, which started out as a small one-store company in Arkansas and expanded across the country. Did the non-management workers do these? They couldn’t possibly because they lacked not only the experience and know-how but also, most critically, the authority to commit the company and borrow the money to do so.
You might expand your narrow Leftist view by reading The Wealth of Nations and then Marxism by Thomas Sowell.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: Death to Ladies' Nights at Minnesota Bistros http://bit.ly/91oIdh [...]