The Welfare Cliff

Of course people should be concerned about the world's poverty-stricken people. It is a worthwhile cause to fight for: reduce the poverty in our world, fight hunger, see that everyone has clean water, etc. Being concerned about the "welfare" of others is only natural however selfish we are. 

Some people today seem to think that the world's poverty should be dealt with by the government because it is their responsibility. 

Flickr image by Ben Phelps-Rohrs

But to say such a thing as that, is to say that it is my responsibility, my family's responsibility, and everyone else paying taxes in the United States to give to the less fortunate or the poverty-stricken. Responsibility. 

It is my belief that, being a Christian, I should help others. 

It is not the help itself that I have a problem with. It is where the help is coming from. 

My opinion is that of the French economist Fredric Bastiat, whom I will quote from his fantastic book The Law.

"You say: 'There are persons who have no money,' and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only if it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. 

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice."

The Welfare State in one way or another, through taxes or borrowing, is paid for by the public. So when people think that they are getting something from the government for nothing, think again. Think about all those people, including those who receive welfare benefits (who pay for certain taxed products), who are plundered by each other. Independent (welfare-free) citizens who are paying heavy taxes to provide for the welfare of others when they could be giving so much more to society through their productiveness. At the same time, welfare recipients are being plundered by independent citizens because these poverty-stricken people could be so much better off. So it's plundering of plunderers. 

I will in my next post give my opinion on how to help the poverty-stricken, and to forewarn: it does not involve government assistance that is supposedly "owed" to its citizens. 

Just Plain Stupid

An increase in the minimum wage is a topic I am really passionate about because I am not for it -- it is appallingly shallow-minded. I believe I will just come right out and say the word that I really am thinking of: just plain stupid.

Go ahead politicians, raise the minimum wage. Distribute the wealth. Inequality is so not fair. The middle class is disappearing and we need to fix this massive problem by adding more government programs. Those are common phrases about a topic that is constantly appearing in headlines everywhere and a topic that many people are concerned about.

Before anyone makes the claim that I am oblivious, unconcerned, and uncaring because the poverty in our world today needs to be addressed... let me clarify why I believe that the increase in the minimum wage is a stupid idea.

When you force employers to pay employees more when they can't afford it, do you think they will hire more or fewer people? Do you think that they can afford to charge low prices? Do you think that they will increase the quality of their products? Do you think that employers will hire low-skilled workers like young people fresh out of high school who need the job experience and the money, ahead of older and more experienced college grads or seasoned highly skilled employees? What are the answers to these questions? 

There will be more unemployment, especially among low-skilled (probably low-income) people, there will be higher prices on the majority of goods and services, and the quality of certain products and services will go down. The employers will cut back because they want to still make a profit to keep the business afloat. Min wage is already making living harder for everyone, what do you think an increase will do?

The lower-income people will be hurt worse than everyone else, ironically –those are the very people that the minimum wage was designed to help. With the decrease in the possibility of getting a job when you really need it, an increase in prices, fewer choices of products and decreases in quality– poverty will increase. 

What needs to happen to decrease poverty and increase the standard of living for all Americans, is the demise of the minimum wage itself. Employers then can decide when they want to pay their employees more, and for what reasons. 

When an employer is doing extremely well due to the high demand for their product(s)/service(s), and the work environment is great due to good employees, then that employer will more than likely be able to afford to pay their employees more, possibly hire more workers, and increase the quality of their products, but at the same time always look for news ways of technology to incorporate into the business – lowering costs. The freedom of the employer will increase the standard of living for not just the people working for the company, but for everyone due to the increased quality of products and moderate to low costs. Of course, what I mean by low costs is the lowest cost possible, considering ever-rising inflation (which acts as a tax on all goods and services.)

However, when an employer is forced to pay their employees more, when those employees may or may not have been worth the raise (what I mean is not ultimately the worth of the employees themselves, but rather the relationship between their work and how much profit the company is making). If an employer cannot afford to pay more for their employees, then not only is the company worse off, but so are consumers. Higher costs of products all across the board mean that low-income people will not be able to afford certain products they once were able to afford, in addition to the cut-backs on quality that will make them worse off than before the wage hike.

Like many instances, government meddling decreases the standard of living for us all, but particularly the poor in this case. Let employers decide what they want to pay their employees. Competition in the free market for employees will increase the wage by itself, without a minimum price for employees. 

A Thank You

Today I was thinking about what happened a few days ago while I was at work. Really affected me, and had to share my thoughts.

An elderly woman was behind this young military man in my checkout lane at the Piggly Wiggly. I was checking out the soldier when the elderly woman turned and spoke to the solider. 

She said "Thank you for your service young man." 

The look on this young man's face was one I will never forget.. his whole face lighted up with sincere gratitude and humbleness. 

I smiled. This was a great moment of a person expressing gratitude for someone else's sacrifice and dedication. 

What really stood out to me, about this event, was the ability of the elderly woman to tell this young soldier thank you.

So many times, I have wanted to say thank you to someone, in everyday situations or to military men and women especially, but did not have the guts to do it. Why? 

Thank you Servicemen. (Flickr image by USAG- Humphreys)

As I ask myself this, I guess it comes down to your own pride and what others think of you when you say something random and simple like that. 

But to think deeper, to say thank you to people when you really feel gratitude is what you should do if you are thinking of your pride. Because the simple things that we say to each other, like thank you or I love you are the things in life that matter the most. Along with apology. 

To express your value and love to others adds to your character, and says to the world, "I know who I am, and I am proud to be able to say things that come from my heart." 

Human beings are imperfect though, and continue to say things and do things that we know are not right, or not true. But we can strive to do the right thing, and pray to God that we can do it when the right moments come that will never come again.

Why It's Important for My Generation to Understand the Financial Crisis

Since reading John A. Allison's incredible perspective of the Financial Crisis, I have learned just how important it is for not just me to know the causes, but for my whole generation.

I plead with you to take the time to find out exactly what happened, by doing some research on the Internet (other than Wikipedia) and/or reading at least a part of John Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute, and retired Chairman and CEO of BB&T's excellent book The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure. You will not only discover what happened and why, but discover a whole new outlook on the problems of our world today, and discover the possible solutions that is ultimately: less government and more freedom. If Americans can understand that, then we have hope to not make these mistakes that caused the Financial Crisis in the future.

To me, this is the most powerful part of the book, and when I say powerful, I mean that it struck me as the root of many of the problems that exist today in the world. The following is an excerpt from the chapter entitled "The Deepest Cause is Philosophical."

"The deepest cause of the Financial Crisis is not economic policy. The fundamental cause is philosophical. The financial crisis is a result of the philosophical ideas that have been taught in the liberal arts departments of the most prestigious universities in America for more than 50 years.

The fundamental cause of the financial crisis is a combination of altruism and pragmatism. Altruism does not mean kindness toward others; it literally means 'other-ism.' Altruism is defined as selflessness, that is, believing that everyone else is more important than you are. The good of the individual is irrelevant. It is only the good of 'others' that matters, and this is interpreted by liberals as being the good of 'society.' This assumes that society is a living entity and that the effect on actual individuals does not matter. In reality, however, there are only individuals. There is no entity as society.

The 'common good' (or the 'public interest') is an indefinable concept. There is no such thing as the public. The public is only a number of individual people. When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, the good of some people takes precedence over the good of other people, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificed animals.

Altruism should not be confused with benevolence. Altruism means that other people (society or the tribe) are more important than you are. Altruism is an unquestioning duty to others. It is not about being nice to people. It is self-sacrifice.

A classic economic error made by liberals is to assume that good intentions produce good outcomes. Economic theory unquestionably demonstrates that so-called good intentions often produce very bad outcomes. This is the 'law of unintended consequences' that is so relevant to policy makers and others who not only fail to achieve their aims, but also cause results that are directly opposed to their aims – as when central banks and regulators seek to ensure 'safe and sound' banking, but instead make banks and the system more dangerous and precarious. However, if you are an altruist, moral good is defined by your intentions to help others, not by the actual outcome. In fact, altruism often serves as an excuse for bad behavior (and bad intentions)."

To summarize, Allison goes on to make the point that by being an altruist, you could make the claim that everyone has the right to health care, a home, etc. etc... all free. And because of those "rights" then you then must also have the "right" to steal a house away from someone just because everyone should have a house, even though that person may have worked very hard for it. This logic is opposite to what the Founding Fathers believed, that we have a right to what we work for, not for something someone else worked for.

Altruism suggests that we should all try our hardest to make sure everyone is equal – if you're productive you need to give away your wealth even to those who are nonproductive. Allison sums it ups further "In fact, it implies that no one has a right to her own life. Everyone is everyone else's property. This is a rejection of the concepts of rights."

Business people cannot be altruistic if they want to maintain successful businesses. But what if business people instead were pragmatists? Pragmatists argue that nothing is for sure. You must always act for short-term, never consider the long-term consequences. Some business people of today were/are altruists, or pragmatists, and because of their erroneous philosophies, contributed to the fall of their companies and the decline of our economy. 

"The combination of altruism and pragmatism leads to the 'free lunch' mentality... that leads to a lack of personal responsibility, which is ultimately the death of democracies."