What would you have done? Seriously, think about what you would do if I held you captive and every day, punched you, kicked you, slapped you, tortured you, starved you. In my eyes, you were no prize, after all. You were a terrorist. You and your people threatened my comfortable way of life, my security, my wealth and family.
If after almost 30 years of this, if you were set free, what would you have done? Where would you have gone and what would you have done?
Who could blame you for coming after me? Who could blame you for wanting my head on a platter, for creating riots and insurrection and, frankly, taking over everything and kicking me and my kind out?
It's difficult to imagine how you would react, other than wanting some revenge, a payback, an eye for an eye. Conversely, what would it take, after all that, to turn the other cheek? To forgive me, to hug me and love me and trust me. to laugh and cry with me and welcome me into your home? What would it take for you to say "the past is the past, lets build a new world together?"
Nelson Mandela went through all of this and more, and not only forgave his oppressors, he taught his people to forgive them and he taught his oppressors to forgive his people. He could have been president for life, yet he served only 2 terms. He realized that this was not about him but was about the ideals of a moral, fair and just society. He taught love, humility, fairness, equality and justice. We are a very long way from a perfect world, but Mandela will cast a warm and gentile light along that long and difficult path in the hopes that we don't stray too far off.
God has given us so few of these rare, selfless individuals who not only see the big picture but are filled with the spirit of a loving God and embody that same love for humanity. His lessons are timeless. His impact will be felt for generations. Shed a tear for him today and then thank God for sending him to us.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
If not $15, Why not $20
This argument seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. Whenever the left does not like the headlines, they run raising the minimum wage up the pole. Today fast food workers are threatening a 100 city walkout. Pardon me while I try to stop quivering.
Everyone claims to have the compassionate answer here.
Why not raise the minimum wage so these people can pay rent and buy groceries - to have a living wage?
Why not pay them enough to put put gas in their car, or enough to buy a car for that matter?
Why not pay them enough to cover their newly increased healthcare costs?
Why not pay them a little more so they can enjoy the value and pride of home ownership?
Why not chip in a little more so they can enjoy a vacation now and then like everyone else?
Why not a few cents more here and there so they can buy new shoes or a winter coat?
Do you have no compassion? Are you just a greedy capitalist?
Why not pay them $15 an hour? Is that such a big deal? And when you realize that $15 was not such a big deal, and only raised the cost of a burger a few dollars, why not gamble and pay them $20 or $25 per hour. Really though, you can reason any way you want, if all this makes sense, just dig a little deeper in your greedy pockets and pay these folks 40k or 50k per year.
Conservatives use this argument pretty well to articulate that arguing for an increase without considering the cause and effect on the market is irrational. It would be nice to pay a high school kid $20 per hour - but if nice was the only factor, it would surely be even nicer to pay him $30. But no one will pay for a burger and fries what they pay for a nice steak at the Chop House. No one! So there is a balance to be struck.
But who gets to decide is at the core of the argument. Business wants to let the market decide. In every market there is a wage point where you can't get people who are smart enough or industrious enough or reliable enough to get a job done. From that point up there is a marginal increase in all of those factors as wage rises. But there comes a point where good, smart, hard working people will not do a job because it either does not challenge them or they feel the job is beneath them for where they are in life. There is also a point where the marginal increase in pay will not get any more work done so it is not benefiting the employer.
If there were no minimum wage, you might see starting wages in some sectors drop. But who will apply and who will get those jobs. At some point, employers need to raise the rates they pay because competition for good labor drives it up. When I was a teenager, I made $2.37 per hour. I told my boss I was leaving because I could make $2.50 elsewhere. I was a hard and reliable worker and he raised my wage to $2.60. I think minimum was something around $2.25 at the time. From that point forward I got regular raises.
A job at a fast food restaurant is not a career for most. Some who like it may move up to asst manager or manager and beyond. But the labor is just labor. Cooking food there is not a skill - its all either mechanized or run by timers so no one has to think. It does, however, provide an environment to learn for first time workers like teenagers. You learn to follow directions. You learn to adhere to a schedule and be on time. You learn how a chain of command works. You learn, hopefully that you are capable of more. You learn that this is not a job you want to do for life so a living wage is not the point. You hopefully learn that hard work gets you a raise. You might learn that not following the rules gets you fired - still a valuable lesson. Employers at this level of the market understand that they are getting blank workers. No skills, no experience. They will have expense in training and they will have high turnover as employees build their skills and learn to market them in environments where there is more money to be made and more challenges to be met.
Can the federal government be the arbiter of fairness? Should there be a national minimum wage based on some perceived living wage? Is the living wage the same in New York City or San Francisco as it is in Kalamazoo Mi? Of course not. You can get an apartment in MI $300 or $400/month. In the mission district of San Francisco its over $3000 per month - and that's the cheapest part of the city. Gas in California is in many places $1 higher per gallon than it is in South Carolina.
Question: How then do you set an appropriate national minimum?
Answer: You can't. If you feel you need it, you have to do it locally or at least at the state level.
What about unions? This is supposed to be their bread and butter. Rallying and uniting workers to the benefit of all. Unions are surly behind the current fast food strike movement. But to what end. Unless the plan is to make career workers out of fast food employees, they will not bite. It's too easy to close an operation and open it elsewhere. The long term prospect of a union gaining a foothold in that environment is no greater than the likelyhood that employees see that job as a career.
So back to the reason this is in the headlines... Its there because someone does not want us focusing on healthcare.
Everyone claims to have the compassionate answer here.
Why not raise the minimum wage so these people can pay rent and buy groceries - to have a living wage?
Why not pay them enough to put put gas in their car, or enough to buy a car for that matter?
Why not pay them enough to cover their newly increased healthcare costs?
Why not pay them a little more so they can enjoy the value and pride of home ownership?
Why not chip in a little more so they can enjoy a vacation now and then like everyone else?
Why not a few cents more here and there so they can buy new shoes or a winter coat?
Do you have no compassion? Are you just a greedy capitalist?
Why not pay them $15 an hour? Is that such a big deal? And when you realize that $15 was not such a big deal, and only raised the cost of a burger a few dollars, why not gamble and pay them $20 or $25 per hour. Really though, you can reason any way you want, if all this makes sense, just dig a little deeper in your greedy pockets and pay these folks 40k or 50k per year.
Conservatives use this argument pretty well to articulate that arguing for an increase without considering the cause and effect on the market is irrational. It would be nice to pay a high school kid $20 per hour - but if nice was the only factor, it would surely be even nicer to pay him $30. But no one will pay for a burger and fries what they pay for a nice steak at the Chop House. No one! So there is a balance to be struck.
But who gets to decide is at the core of the argument. Business wants to let the market decide. In every market there is a wage point where you can't get people who are smart enough or industrious enough or reliable enough to get a job done. From that point up there is a marginal increase in all of those factors as wage rises. But there comes a point where good, smart, hard working people will not do a job because it either does not challenge them or they feel the job is beneath them for where they are in life. There is also a point where the marginal increase in pay will not get any more work done so it is not benefiting the employer.
If there were no minimum wage, you might see starting wages in some sectors drop. But who will apply and who will get those jobs. At some point, employers need to raise the rates they pay because competition for good labor drives it up. When I was a teenager, I made $2.37 per hour. I told my boss I was leaving because I could make $2.50 elsewhere. I was a hard and reliable worker and he raised my wage to $2.60. I think minimum was something around $2.25 at the time. From that point forward I got regular raises.
A job at a fast food restaurant is not a career for most. Some who like it may move up to asst manager or manager and beyond. But the labor is just labor. Cooking food there is not a skill - its all either mechanized or run by timers so no one has to think. It does, however, provide an environment to learn for first time workers like teenagers. You learn to follow directions. You learn to adhere to a schedule and be on time. You learn how a chain of command works. You learn, hopefully that you are capable of more. You learn that this is not a job you want to do for life so a living wage is not the point. You hopefully learn that hard work gets you a raise. You might learn that not following the rules gets you fired - still a valuable lesson. Employers at this level of the market understand that they are getting blank workers. No skills, no experience. They will have expense in training and they will have high turnover as employees build their skills and learn to market them in environments where there is more money to be made and more challenges to be met.
Can the federal government be the arbiter of fairness? Should there be a national minimum wage based on some perceived living wage? Is the living wage the same in New York City or San Francisco as it is in Kalamazoo Mi? Of course not. You can get an apartment in MI $300 or $400/month. In the mission district of San Francisco its over $3000 per month - and that's the cheapest part of the city. Gas in California is in many places $1 higher per gallon than it is in South Carolina.
Question: How then do you set an appropriate national minimum?
Answer: You can't. If you feel you need it, you have to do it locally or at least at the state level.
What about unions? This is supposed to be their bread and butter. Rallying and uniting workers to the benefit of all. Unions are surly behind the current fast food strike movement. But to what end. Unless the plan is to make career workers out of fast food employees, they will not bite. It's too easy to close an operation and open it elsewhere. The long term prospect of a union gaining a foothold in that environment is no greater than the likelyhood that employees see that job as a career.
So back to the reason this is in the headlines... Its there because someone does not want us focusing on healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)