Along with having greater freedom in America another benefit of legalizing drugs would also be bringing down taxes on everyone else who is not using them. The laws to regulate all drugs could be very similar to the laws of alcohol and tobacco. Of course you could not do drugs and then drive as that could possibly cause harm to someone else against their will. However, the tax benefits of legalizing drugs would definitely be a positive.
Another benefit of legalizing drugs would be the reduced crime. After drugs are legalized the black market would begin to disappear. The gangsters on the street corners would be put out of business and the drug related shootings would be eliminated. After all, why would any consumer want to buy their drugs on a street corner and potentially put their life in jeopardy? When consumers are buying drugs on the street they are buying an unregulated product from an unknown dealer. However, once legalization happens consumers will naturally flock to a drug franchise or registered corporate entity where the drugs they are selling have been tested for quality. A legitimate business owner has a natural incentive to sell quality products or they lose their profits and lose their business.
In the end, the federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with regulating drugs. These laws should be best left to the states as every state is not the same. If the people of a particular state want to legalize a particular drug or all drugs they should have the freedom to do that in their state without the federal government trying to force their beliefs on them. One of the best parts of leaving the federal government out of these matters is that if you don't like the laws in your state you can easily move to another state. However, when the federal government gets involved and sets uniform laws for every state then if you don't like it you have to go through the process of moving to an entirely different county. If you truly value freedom then you will allow others to live their lives the way they wish even if you don't agree with their beliefs. The drug debate is often difficult to understand since most of us have never used drugs. However, we should treat others as we would want to be treated. If you want others to dictate your life then this may not make much sense but if you don't like being forced to do/not do something then live and let live.
If you reside in one of the following states then the government believes they know what is best for you and you are completely incapable of making an educated decision on your own regarding what's best for your family.
- New Jersey
- New York
- North Carolina
- West Virginia
Although payday loans typically involve interest rates that can range from 100% - 1,000% the majority of these loans do get paid back as soon as the consumer gets paid exactly like the name suggests. Therefore, the damage done from the interest rate charged is minimal. However, this does not stop liberals from capping interest rates on these loans and therefore eliminating payday loans completely in 13 states.
When a consumer needs a loan in an emergency situation the first place most consumers will go to is their bank. However, for those consumers with bad credit a bank may be unable to lend any money. The only other option to get some quick money is typically through payday loans. When the loan is taken out the borrower provides their banking information so that the loan will be repaid through electronic payment. In return the borrower gets the money they are in need of on the spot. The borrower can decide to repay the entire loan on their next payday (the smart choice) or defer their payment to a later date which is typically not a good idea due to the high interest rates.
In the end, as long as a company is being fully transparent with the rate and fee details this transaction should be allowed to happen. When two parties form an agreement that is in no way harming anyone else they should have the freedom to carry out that agreement without the government denying them their freedom to do so. The problem here is that the egotistical liberals think they know what is best for each American family. The next time you need to make an important decision for your family don't talk it over with your family because the omnipotent liberals are going to make that decision for you. Just remember, YOU KNOW NOTHING!
Live & Let Live.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is much like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We know that the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability. ENDA is set to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. Supposidely, the law would not apply to religious organizations, members of the armed forces, or companies with fewer than 15 employees.
The problem with both ENDA and the Civil Rights Act is that while the intention is to help, these laws also take away the freedom of the business owner. No one should force their beliefs upon others whether it be Republican's not allowing gay marriage or gay's forcing business owners to run their business a certain way. When a company first starts off the entrepreneur takes a risk and puts a lot of time and money on the line. The business owner has ownership of his/her company just as an employee has ownership over his/her own self. If a business owner does not want to hire someone who is gay that is their right. It is their company and their building which was accomplished by the risk they took. If someone is not hired by a company then they have the right to work for another company or start their own. Perhaps, they could start a company that only would hire gays. The second issue that is has drawn out this legislation is the claim that gays do not make as much as their colleagues. I have good news regarding wages though. Regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation any employee has the right to quit their job and find another if they feel they are not being paid enough. There should be no entitlements! I'm not sure what has happened to America but when it comes to employment you have to earn what you get.
ENDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provide freedom for some while taking it from others. Passing a gay marriage law would be great because while I am not gay, two others who are would not harm me in the least bit. In addition gays should have every right to the same protections and benefits that being legally married allows a non-gay couple. However, ENDA is wrong because it takes away freedom from business owners just like TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act has done. The problem here is not equal rights but rather a group of people who feel they are entitled to something and do not want to work for what they get. If someone who is gay is getting paid less than their colleugues than they can quit. However, if someones skills are truly valuable to a company, whether they are gay or not, their employer will give them the equal pay they are looking for not because they are required to by the government but because that person earned it!
- "73,000 Maryland residents will need to find a new health plan next year, as insurers drop plans that don't meet new federal guidelines"
- "80,000 Louisianians' health insurance policies will be canceled under Affordable Care Act"
- "300,000 to Lose Health Coverage in Florida"
- "500,000 Californians Lose Health Policies"
- "...at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014"
- "Anyone who likes their health plan can keep it."
- Barack Obama
It appears that Obamacare has finally began to sicken the majority of Americans. My question is how did anyone believe this plan would actually lower health insurance rates to begin with? It is not possible for the government to require health insurance companies to provide additional coverage at a lesser cost. When you go to purchase a vehicle and you want to add splash guards, pin striping and a moon roof you know that the price of the car will not decrease! I'm not sure how the President could have ever thought this could work. The general summary of what is happening now to Americans all over the country is that due to the additional requirements Obamacare has put on health insurance companies rates have gone up to cover those expenses. A recent NBC News report stated,
"George S., 62, of North Carolina, said he was 'prefectly happy' with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The 'comparable' plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible."
As if it couldn't get worse the website has never been fully functioning and is still filled with plenty of glitches. After months of planning and $634,320,919 later the website will not allow most users to complete the enrollment process. The few users that do get through end up regretting that they did. In South Carolina an attorney wanted to shop for cheaper insurance through healthcare.gov and later found out that all his personal information had gone to a random guy in North Carolina! The next question you have to ask is how many others have been affected by this glitch? A follow up question could be if this website is having this many problems than could this be a hacker's dream come true?
Between the flawed economics, the broken promises and the broken website there should be no question why we should never involve government in something as important as health care. We now should know that when it comes to the Affordable Care Act the information given to the American public from President Obama has been a lie.
"If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period."
"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."
"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."
"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make itmore secure and more affordable."
Even if America went back to a pre-Obamacare system we would have better and more affordable insurance. However, a true resolution for a more affordable healthcare can not be achieved through government intervention but rather with less government intervention. If competition were allowed across state lines insurance premiums everywhere would go down drastically due to the increased competition among insurance companies. A new idea for lower health insurance doesn't have to be 20,000 pages long or have 11,588,500 words in it. A new plan for lower health insurance is just simply asking our government to eliminate laws that prevent competition. The fact that competition lowers prices is common sense which our current President seems to be lacking.
- Angelina Jolie - Wanted to star in the first "Atlas Shrugged" movie.
- Chuck Norris - "I would go to congress , I'd line up every member of congress, and I'd have Ron Paul, who I believe is the, probably the, one of the more honest ones there, and I'd say Ron, point out the honest ones." "Ron Paul is the only guy I trust"
- Drew Carey - "As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you're screwed."
- Clint Eastwood - "I like the Libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want as long as they're not harming people."
- Vince Vaughn - Vaughn endorsed Paul’s 2009 book, “End the Fed,” with the following blurb: “Everyone must read this book—Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans—all Americans.”
- Billie Joe Armstrong (Lead Singer of 'Green Day') - Registered as a Libertarian in the state of California
- Peter Thiel (Founder/CEO of Paypal) - In 2012, Thiel, along with PayPal co-founder Luke Nosek and Scott Banister, an early adviser and board member, put their support behind the Endorse Liberty Super PAC, alongside Internet advertising veteran Stephen Oskoui and entrepreneur Jeffrey Harmon, who founded Endorse Liberty in November 2011. Collectively Thiel gave $3.9 million to Endorse Liberty, whose purpose was to promote Texas congressman Ron Paul for president in 2012. As of January 31, 2012 (2012-01-31)[update], Endorse Liberty reported spending about $3.3 million promoting Paul by setting up two YouTube channels, buying ads from Google and Facebook and StumbleUpon, and building a presence on the Web.
- Willie Nelson - In 2012 Willie Nelson endorsed Libertarian Party Candidate, Gary Johnson.
- Joe Rogan (Host of 'Fear Factor') - "I support Ron Paul"
- Jonathan Davis (Lead Singer of 'Korn') - Wants Ron Paul to replace President Obama in the White House.
First a quick overview of The Better Business Bureau (BBB). The BBB is a non-profit organization that operates with absolutely zero funding from the government and therefore zero effect on your taxes. BBB issues business reviews on all companies and has been operating for over 100 years now by collecting dues from businesses who qualify and agree to adhere to BBB's high standards for business ethics and marketplace trust. Therefore, consumers know that choosing a BBB Accredited Business is a safe bet due to the rigorous background check completed on each business beforehand. BBB issues ratings for all businesses which is calculated by an algorithm that takes into account several different factors such as complaint volume, time in business, background information and other factors. A common misconception is that company's rating can increase if a business is Accredited with BBB, however, BBB Accreditation is not factored into the algorithm that computes a company's rating in order to keep every business on a level playing field. There are over 100 regional BBB's throughout the United States & Canada. Each BBB is independently governed by their own boards of directors, but must meet international BBB requirements, which are monitored by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.
The best thing about BBB is the services the organization provides are absolutely free to consumers. The BBB has handled complaints regarding marketplace transactions & advertising issues before the FTC even came into existence, except BBB does not need to collect tax money from you in order to do it. According to the FTC's website, the mission of the FTC is "To prevent business practices that are anti competitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers; to enhance informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process; and to accomplish this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." The BBB has this exact same mission as well but does not require tax money from consumers. BBB regulates the market through their rating system. Each company has a rating that is calculated by using the algorithm I previously mentioned. If that rating drops then consumers that check up on a company via BBB.org before using them will see that and through due diligence will then decide whether or not to hire a company. In the end, if the rating for a company is bad consumers will not choose to do business with that company and the business will lose profit. The BBB also works very closely with the media so if there is a bad company out there not only will that company have an "F" rating but you will hear about them on the T.V. or radio as well.
The BBB can also help you with all of your financial complaints exactly like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The website for the CFPB states that complaints can be filed related to banks, credit cards, credit reporting, debt collection, money transfer, mortgages, student loans & vehicle or consumer loans. Ironically, BBB handles all of the complaint categories listed on the CFPB website. The BBB can even shut down fraudulent financial websites when the F.B.I. or FTC does not have time to do so.
The BBB can do the work of the FTC & and CFPB without increasing your taxes or adding to the Federal debt which has now currently passed $17 Trillion! Take a look at the chart below which illustrates how much it takes to run each of these government agencies and ask yourself where they are getting the money for this. The answer is you!
|Agency/Organization||Start Date||2014 Budget for Public Funding|
|Better Business Bureau (BBB)||1912||$0.00|
|Federal Trade Commission (FTC)||1914||$301,000,000.00|
|Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)||2011||$497,493,387.00|
Before making a purchase, smart consumers advocate for themselves by checking background information on a company before choosing to do business with them. Consumers are able to visit www.bbb.org to check a business review online or simply call their local BBB office for detailed information on a company. BBB resolves around 80% of all complaints it receives. If a complaint goes unresolved the rating for the company will be affected and therefore serve as a warning to other potential consumers. Once a business becomes aware of a rating decrease they naturally will have a change of heart and resolve a complaint since businesses are incentivized by profit. However, for the remainder of complaints that go unresolved the consumer should then proceed to file their case in court for a resolution.
Although the government agencies above claim to be a free service to consumers it is ultimately the consumer that is paying for them via increased taxes. The BBB has successfully served the United States & Canada before any of these government agencies were even created and they have done this at no cost to the consumer. If you are in favor of the government agencies listed above then I urge you to call you congressman and ask for an increase in your taxes so that more money can be allocated to government run consumer protection agencies. However, if you have ever filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau then you probably already know that they get the job done must quicker than the government agencies do. The U.S. is currently nearing $17 Trillion in debt and they are wondering where to cut spending. Why not eliminate the government agencies listed above since the free market already has these services covered? Sounds like a Billion Dollars of tax payer money wasted to me.
In 1935 FDR signed into law the largest social welfare program in the United States. Many consider Social Security to be a pyramid scheme due to less people contributing and more people collecting it. Social Security offers the incentive for Americans not to save any money for retirement since the government is going to take care of them. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that U.S. citizens have no right to their Social Security contributions. Furthermore, according to an Associated Press Article, people retiring today are the first generation of workers who will have paid more into Social Security than they will ever receive. More and more people are now starting to realize that they are indeed a victim of The Social Security Pyramid Scheme.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Pyramid Schemes "are quite seductive because they may be able to deliver a high rate of return to a few early investors for a short period of time. Yet, both pyramid and Ponzi schemes are illegal because they inevitably must fall apart. No program can recruit new members forever. Every pyramid or Ponzi scheme collapses because it cannot expand beyond the size of the earth's population. When the scheme collapses, most investors find themselves at the bottom, unable to recoup their losses." Sounds familiar right!? This is exactly what is happening with Social Security which means that the collapse of Social Security is inevitable.
I want you to look at your paycheck and calculate how much Social Security Tax & Payroll Tax is taken out. That amount is the amount you could be putting towards your private retirement account which you would have control over. Shouldn't you have the freedom to use the money you make as you wish? Social Security is essentially like having your retired neighbor knock on your door and ask for a check from you so they are able to retire. However, it is not your responsibility to pay for your neighbor! This Social Security Administration (SSA) is now bigger than ever. The SSA is so big it is now hiring for positions such as "Counterintelligence Operations" with job duties including "working with members of law enforcement" and "resolving counterintelligence" that presents a "credible threat" to the SSA according to a recent posting on USAjobs.com. This latest example sounds like the biggest welfare program should now belong in a spy novel! Who would have thought that the socialist retirement program would need someone to " prevent hostile or enemy intelligence organizations from successfully gathering and collecting intelligence" which happens to be the definition of 'Counterintelligence'.
The resolution is simple. We need to begin phasing out this failing program. What I want to hear from our President would be the following.
"Every American born beginning today will not receive Social Security and will not be forced against their will to contribute to it. Instead, when they wish they can have additional money taken out of their paychecks and put towards mutual funds that they actually own. Any other Americans who wish to back out of the program can do so without penalty. These Americans will not receive any check in the future but will also no longer be forced to contribute. Once this decision is made it cannot be changed. All Americans who wish to continue to contribute can do so and will receive their Social Security benefits when the time comes."
This resolution will allow Americans the freedom they deserve in deciding how they want to allocate their money for their own retirement. The best part about the proposed resolution is that everyone wins. The citizens who wish to take the risk of not owning their own money can let the government handle it and the American citizens who wish to make a profit on their investment can do so without the government putting their filthy hands all over it.
When a price cap is put in place it discourages businesses from increasing their supply of necessities during a time of disaster. Without a price cap the business has every incentive to increase their supply of products/goods that are in demand because they will be able to charge more due to the demand and earn a greater profit. However, when a price cap is put in place the incentive a business has to increase their supply is reduced dramatically. Another unintended consequence of price cap laws is that it will bring a black market to the industry. After a price cap is put in place people like me will go to these stores and buy up as much supply of the product in demand and then re-sell it outside the store at the true market price which is much higher than the caps put in place. Therefore, consumers will not benefit from this price cap either way.
Anyone who can grasp the concept of freedom knows that consumers do not have to purchase a product if the price is too high. If the price is indeed too high the business will not sell any of their product and will go out of business unless the price is brought back down. Therefore, it does not benefit the business not does it make sense to set prices too high because they will not sell anything. However, if the price remains high it is only because consumers are willing to pay that price for the product. Here's the kicker, without a price ceiling there is a PROFIT motive which will increase competition which will actually push down the price due to the increase in competition. Sometimes it's strange how economics works isn't it. Most laws are put into place with the best intentions but most of the time they simply yield the same negative results. A new law that was meant to help consumers will typically just throw a corkscrew into the daily operations of a business which will end up hurting consumers in the end.
The main reason price gouging laws are put in place is because demand for a product is too high and/or supply is too low. However, as long as consumers have free will there is always an option to not purchase a product if a price is indeed too high. If enough consumers do not purchase the product the business will be naturally forced to lower the price to what the consumer is willing to pay. Price cap laws encourage hoarding and prevent the product from getting to where it needs to go. Even if you think price gouging is unethical, putting in a price cap doesn't make sense since it will only cause a decrease or ELIMINATION of the supply which prevents the product from reaching the people that need it the most! This is why price caps can sometimes lead to chaos since the product is only available on a first come first serve basis so you can bet people will be running to get in line! Price caps will always result in a shortage, leaving most consumers completely without a necessary product in the time of need. To truly help consumers, there should NEVER be a price ceiling so that everyone can have an opportunity to purchase a product if they wish.
The thing about the national debt is that eventually you have to pay it back. Spending beyond your means can be fun for only a short amount of time but like I said the U.S. will have to pay it back. Paying off the national debt can be accomplished by either raising taxes, reducing spending or printing dollars like crazy so the U.S. can then pay the debt back using cheaper dollars. However, if the last option is chosen this will also result in hyper inflation which would lead to economic destruction.
Since President Obama seems to enjoy raising the debt we are faced with a tough decision which I will now ask you. Would you rather raise taxes for everyone or make major spending cuts to balance the budget?
- The U.S. national debt is on pace to more than double during Obama’s eight years in the White House.
- Barack Obama will accumulate more debt then ever other U.S. President in history combined.
- Since 2007, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio has increased from 66.6 percent to 101.6 percent.
- During Barack Obama’s first four years in the White House, the amount of new debt accumulated by the federal government is equilivant to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States.
- The United States already has more government debt per capita than Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland or Spain.
- At this point, the United States government is responsible for about a third of all the government debt in the entire world.
- According to the U.S. Treasury, foreigners hold approximately 5.6 trillion dollaras of our debt.
- The amount of U.S. government debt held by foreigners is about 5 times larger than it was just a decade ago.
- Between 2008 and 2012, U.S. government debt grew by 60.7 percent.
- Obama still hasn't balanced the budget!
A recent NBC News article has stated that food stamps will be reduced in November of this year. This may be the beginning of a series of cuts to the socialist food stamp program that 48 million American's have taken advantage of.
The food stamp program is set to scale back its benefits on November 1st of this year. If you live in a household of four than your benefits will decrease by $36 according to USDA.gov.
Based on these numbers we now have more American's on food stamps then at any other time in history so maybe this is a good thing that the benefits are being reduced. Would it be so bad for food stamp receipients to go to a free soup kitchen instead. The hungry can also obtain free food from charities and food banks. The food stamp program is simply yet another socialist program that welcomes fraud. Heck, just last month a store called "Obama Express" along with nine other retailers in Baltimore, Maryland were arrested for exchanging food stamps for cash instead of their intended purpose which of course was meant to be food. If the poor/hungry don't care enough to use them for their intended purpose then why continue the program. Socialism never works and only adds to the $17 Trillion debt! There are so many non-governmental organizations out there that provide for the hungry so much more efficiently than a government ever could.
FDR may have had one of the most difficult tasks when it comes to the economy but the socialist policies he implemented only made things worse and they are still harming the U.S. economy today. To begin, FDR was the only U.S. President in history to issue an executive order for a 100% income tax on all income over $25,000 which is about $350,000 today. Putting an income limit on the most productive U.S. entrepreneurs only incentivized those captain's of industry to exert minimal effort once that income cap was reached. Therefore, once their income reached that limit for the year they would stop hiring and expanding their companies after all they weren't going to see another penny of the profits. The already high unemployment rate was not made any better by preventing business owners from hiring. Furthermore, to fund the war, congress also broadened the base so that almost every employee was paying federal income taxes. Following shortly after was withholding taxes in 1943.
As if a 100% income tax and a new withholding tax wasn't enough, FDR created the biggest pyramid scheme that is still in play today called Social Security. Social Security has less and less citizens paying into it every year which is probably why the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have no right to their Social Security contributions. Furthermore, it has now been proven that if you were to retire today you are not going to get back what you have already put into the system. Then there's the issue of the debt ceiling. If America ever defaulted on its debt which seems very possible at this point considering the U.S. has gone from about a $5T national debt in 2000 to $17T in 2013, then there is a chance that once again Social Security checks would not go out. So like I was saying we are now up to a 100% income tax, a withholding tax, a Social Security tax and a payroll tax which was put in place to fund the Social Security system which can be taken away at any time because we the American people have no control over the money that we put into it.
FDR not only prevented the unemployment rate from dropping with an enormous increase of taxes but he also stifled economic growth by telling businesses they could not hire as many workers by signing into law the minimum wage. FDR seemed to think that picking an arbitrary, artificially high wage would make everyone richer but instead it only caused a higher unemployment rate. Anytime a wage is set above the market equilibrium a surplus results. Even though surplus sounds like a very positive word, a surplus of labor is also commonly referred to as unemployment!
The last major mistake I want to point out is FDR's confiscation of privately held gold. This executive order that was issued by FDR demanded that gold was to be sold to the U.S. Treasury and the price of $35 per ounce. If any U.S. citizen was caught hoarding gold they were off to jail for 10 YEARS if a fine of $10,000 ($500,000 today) was not paid. This shows that FDR had not read or understood Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution that states, "Only gold & silver can be used as legal tender." It wasn't until 1975 before it once again became legal to own gold.
I apologize if I have offended every teacher out there that thinks FDR saved the U.S. during the Great Depression but the truth is that if you value your economic freedom at all you will understand the great harm this President is still doing to our economy today. Without a minimum wage the unemployment rate would be lower. Without a socialist retirement system we may actually earn a little return on our money. Lastly, without the several tax increases FDR put in place we may actually realize that we should have the freedom to use our own money as we please. To each their own!
Some would argue that working for minimum wage does not afford you the means to survive. I would agree and would argue that it is because of minimum wage laws that wages are so low. Why not find a way where no minimum wage is necessary and workers can get paid MORE than what the current minimum wage is today! The truth is that minimum wage laws lower the wages of the people it intends to raise them for. Anytime a wage is set above the market equilibrium a surplus results. Even though surplus sounds like a very positive word, a surplus of labor is also referred to as unemployment! If minimum wage laws did not exist, each market would set a wage where the number of people looking for jobs would equal the number of jobs available so everyone who wanted a job would have one. This sounds a little too good to be true for most people so it helps to look at an example of a country where no minimum wage laws exist. In Singapore there are no minimum wage laws so of course everyone is getting paid one penny an hour and the standard of living is crap right?. Wrong! In Singapore, with the absence of minimum wage laws, everyone who wants a job has one. Singapore currently has an unemployment rate of 2.1% which has caused the demand for labor to skyrocket! When a company goes out to look for a new worker to build their company they have a much more difficult time finding that person with such a low unemployment rate. Therefore, a company must offer higher wages or better benefits than their competition in order to attract and retain workers. On the other hand, if a country has a high unemployment rate employers know that there are many people looking for jobs so they can get away with paying them a lower wage since there are so many workers currently making $0 due to being unemployed. I would imagine that if you would ask most hard working unemployed Americans if they would rather be unemployed or have a job that pays less than minimum wage they would choose the low paying job. It least with a low paying job it gives them an opportunity to prove themselves and also would provide valuable work experience needed to obtain a higher level of employment. The elimination of minimum wage laws would allow for these unemployed workers to be given that opportunity.
|"Anytime a wage is set above the market equilibrium a surplus results. Even though surplus sounds like a very positive word, a surplus of labor is also referred to as unemployment!"|
Examples of the harmful effects generated by minimum wage laws unfortunately can be found everywhere. One recent example of the harmful effects of minimum wage laws can be found at the New York Hilton Hotel. The Hilton in New York has recently eliminated room service. On May 31, 2013, the Hilton on Sixth Avenue announced that they would be eliminating 55 jobs. John Fix, senior vice president of PKF Consulting recently said, "I don't think anyone makes a profit on room service because of its labor costs," he then added, "I'm sure all the big hotels will be looking at what the Hilton is doing." The problem is not that workers are not getting paid enough. The problem is that one group of legislators think they know what wage is best for every industry out there. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the teenage unemployment rate is currently 23.7%! I bet if you ask these teenagers without cars and without money for movie tickets if they would work for less than minimum wage the majority of them would say yes because their current unemployment status is not getting them anywhere and is certainly not getting them any respect. Once again, the legislators are setting an arbitrary wage above the market equilibrium resulting in greater unemployment.
On the other hand, minimum wage advocates will attempt to point out that a high minimum wage will not hurt a country's growth. The example is typically that Australia has a $16.88/hr. minimum wage while the U.S. sits at $7.25/hr. which would put Australia's minimum wage at 2.3x the amount of the United States. However, what this argument fails to take into account is the cost of living difference. For example, a pack of cigarettes in the U.S. is around $6 while in Australia it is $16.57 which is 2.8x the amount of the price in the United States. Furthermore, a pair of jeans on average will set you back $40 in the U.S. while in Australia they hover around $92.05 a pair which would make them 2.3x more expensive in Australia. In the end Australia still has an unemployment of 6% which means 6% of the population still can't find a job. Do we really want to settle for a 6% unemployment rate when it could be at 1% or better!
So what is the optimum minimum wage? The answer is $0 because it differs by industry, market, geography, etc. It's almost laughable that some egotistical individual can think that one wage is best for everyone. A $9 minimum wage in Iowa might sound a heck of a lot better then a $9 minimum wage in DC. A $10 minimum wage in the U.S. may sound great but if implemented in Australia people would barely survive. An easy way to sum this up is, "to each their own." Let each citizen decide how much they believe they are worth. Freedom is the answer.
The common misconception is that if minimum wage laws were eliminated then workers would get paid much less. However, in the case of Singapore, the supply of labor is equal to the demand for labor and workers of course have the option to work for the wages they are offered by a business. If the wage offered is too low for them they have the freedom to look elsewhere or get paid nothing and be unemployed. On the other hand, if a country has a high unemployment rate then employers know that there are many people out of work and looking for jobs so they can afford to pay them a lower wage since there are so many workers currently making $0 due to being unemployed. Said differently, the demand for labor has fallen to a point where the business has the upper hand and can dictate the wage they are willing to pay with no negotiation.
In the end, an increase in wages can only come from an increase in the demand for labor and/or a decrease in the supply of labor. In countries like Singapore with unemployment rates hovering around 1% the average household income (per capita GDP) sits at $61,400! In contract, America's unemployment rate sits around 7.6% with an average household income of $50,700. To create this demand for labor there needs to be economic freedom. Freedom for employers to decide what a fair market wage will be and freedom for workers to decide how much their time is worth. It is impossible for one politician to predict what wage is most efficient for every industry because it will never be the same. The answer is simple, if a business is offering a wage that is too low then no one will work for them but when the business's demand for labor becomes necessary for an increase in their profits the business must & will raise their offered wage, believe it or not, without the government telling them they have to!