1. There are so many absurdities, red herrings, misdirections, outright lies, and scams put forth by big government devotees and the "economists" who offer them support, that the subject is always fertile ground for both revelation, and for laughter.
2. The latest conjured up is "income inequality," looked at aghast by Liberal, when, in reality, income is neither distributed by government, nor the business anyone else but the earner.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
3. Minimum wage laws???
A detriment to the less skilled, but pressed by the do-gooders who never think beyond stage one.
4. I like the ol' 'women are paid less than men for the same work' myth.
I'm sure that works on focus groups made of women....but, not when the perveyors are asked to defend it.
After all, if women did earn 77% of what men did for the same work, what employer wouldn't fire all the men and quickly accrue a 23% bump in his bottom line.
And, have a more attractive workforce!
5. But none bash the nonsense as well as Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context. This guy is da' bomb!
I love this one because he uses economics fallacies to put the community organizer in his place!
"Editor, The New York Times: You report that “[t]he president ... reiterated that it was ‘an embarrassment’ that women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar men make” (“Obama Signs Measures to Help Close Gender Gap in Pay,” April 8).
Because our President is such a smart man, we cannot doubt that he is correct to explain pay differences across broad groups of workers (such as “men” and “women”) as resulting from unjust discrimination against members of the lower-paid groups.
But our smart President (no doubt because of his super-busy schedule) missed an instance of even greater pay inequity: that between young workers and older workers. Bureau of Labor Statisticsdata show that workers aged 16-24 make only 54 cents for every dollar earned by workers 25 and older. It’s embarrassing that our nation tolerates such discrimination.
Free-market ideologues will excuse this grotesque difference in pay with assertions such as “young workers aren’t as productive as older workers.”
But our smart President isn’t fooled by these corporate apologetics. He understands that worker pay is set arbitrarily by firms run by executives with biases against people who are not like them — biases so deep and powerful that each of these executives willingly sacrifices the extra profits that could be made by offering to hire, at slightly higher pay, underpaid women away from rival firms.
Because Mr. Obama knows that worker pay is determined by employers’ whims and prejudices, he will understand that the only sensible explanation for the disgracefully low pay of young workers is discrimination against those workers. And so I look forward to our President signing executive orders aimed at closing this shameful pay gap.
Sincerely,"
Competition Job One - The New York Sun
Did he do a job on Obama and the dopes who buy Liberal agitprop, or what???
2. The latest conjured up is "income inequality," looked at aghast by Liberal, when, in reality, income is neither distributed by government, nor the business anyone else but the earner.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
3. Minimum wage laws???
A detriment to the less skilled, but pressed by the do-gooders who never think beyond stage one.
4. I like the ol' 'women are paid less than men for the same work' myth.
I'm sure that works on focus groups made of women....but, not when the perveyors are asked to defend it.
After all, if women did earn 77% of what men did for the same work, what employer wouldn't fire all the men and quickly accrue a 23% bump in his bottom line.
And, have a more attractive workforce!
5. But none bash the nonsense as well as Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context. This guy is da' bomb!
I love this one because he uses economics fallacies to put the community organizer in his place!
"Editor, The New York Times: You report that “[t]he president ... reiterated that it was ‘an embarrassment’ that women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar men make” (“Obama Signs Measures to Help Close Gender Gap in Pay,” April 8).
Because our President is such a smart man, we cannot doubt that he is correct to explain pay differences across broad groups of workers (such as “men” and “women”) as resulting from unjust discrimination against members of the lower-paid groups.
But our smart President (no doubt because of his super-busy schedule) missed an instance of even greater pay inequity: that between young workers and older workers. Bureau of Labor Statisticsdata show that workers aged 16-24 make only 54 cents for every dollar earned by workers 25 and older. It’s embarrassing that our nation tolerates such discrimination.
Free-market ideologues will excuse this grotesque difference in pay with assertions such as “young workers aren’t as productive as older workers.”
But our smart President isn’t fooled by these corporate apologetics. He understands that worker pay is set arbitrarily by firms run by executives with biases against people who are not like them — biases so deep and powerful that each of these executives willingly sacrifices the extra profits that could be made by offering to hire, at slightly higher pay, underpaid women away from rival firms.
Because Mr. Obama knows that worker pay is determined by employers’ whims and prejudices, he will understand that the only sensible explanation for the disgracefully low pay of young workers is discrimination against those workers. And so I look forward to our President signing executive orders aimed at closing this shameful pay gap.
Sincerely,"
Competition Job One - The New York Sun
Did he do a job on Obama and the dopes who buy Liberal agitprop, or what???
