Wondering what the moral difference is between a black man plundering a Ferguson shop keeper via looting and a white man plundering a San Diego shop keeper via referendum?
Is minimum wage hike 15 or 44 percent?
Do I or do I not have the authority to use force against my neighbor to make him pay his employee more?
If I do not why does my vote for it make it just?
If the majority opinion makes it just why was slavery immoral? Is this a lesson we wish to pass on to our children?
Do we wish to live in a society where any right or freedom can be removed by majority vote?
What hope is there for a community where individuals desire to live by such a code?
It is time for this to stop. We are Christians and moral persons first. Democrats and Republicans second. We may not be able to change our neighbor but we can change the man in the mirror.
That in itself would be a lesson for our children and hope for our future.
# # #
Eric is a member of the San Diego Republican Central Committee, Co-Founder of the San Diego County Republican Liberty Caucus and im2moro and former Rock Church Citizen of the Year. He has other funny ideas (i.e. the earth is round, the moon is made of cheese, dogs go to heaven — but cats don’t, and chocolate isn’t bad for you it just makes your clothes shrink).
Comments 46
Eric,
Let me ask you the question you proposed with a slight twist.
Your question:
“Do I or do I not have the authority to use force against my neighbor to make him pay his employee more?”
My question:
Do I or do I not have the authority to use force against my neighboring community to make them live under a community plan they do not want?
http://watchdog.org/164589/minnesota-minimum-wage-2/
A cafe in Minnesota tacked on a $.35 surcharge as a “minimum wage fee”. They’re getting lots of publicity (good and bad) for such an action.
I think it’s a great idea! Now everyone who eats there can take pride in knowing that THEY are the morally superior customers who support “social justice”.
Brian,
$0.35? Is that per meal, per table? What happened to all the claims that raising the minimum wage would raise costs exorbitantly? Some claimed they would have to raise their prices by 20%. Others said even more.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/05/12/what-13-09-would-do-to-small-business/
Read what the Department of Labor said about the issue:
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
HQ, I think you are comparing something too specific to be compared to something so broad. A community plan that takes away my rights? No. A community plan that does not? Probably yes, then.
Hypocrisy,
“Do I or do I not have the authority to use force against my neighboring community to make them live under a community plan they do not want?”
We only have the authority to use force for defensive reasons (i.e. protect life, property, protect from fraud and enforce contracts.)
Michael,
How about your right to breathe clean air and not have higher asthma rates than the rest of the County?
The Barrio Logan Community Plan referendum received 90% yes votes from voters in Barrio Logan, but the rest of us San Diegans “used force” to overturn the plan.
I think that Eric’s point is that you don’t have the right to take your neighbor’s money and give it to your neighbor’s employees. Because it is a property issue. The money I earn is my property. The money a business owner earns is his/her property.
I don’t think anyone would make the argument that you have the right to put toxic chemicals into the air.
But I could be wrong about his point and the difference between your question and his, HQ.
Michael,
We did just vote to continue placing houses next to potentially toxic materials and the Republican Party strongly fought to make that happen.
As for for your first sentence, are you (or Eric) saying we should have no minimum wage laws?
Every argument I can think of that is against raising the minimum wage is also an argument against having a minimum wage.
Generally, the minimum wage law has been ok. Hasn’t done much damage, but hasn’t done much good either. Philosophically, I should be able to offer anyone any amount of money to do work and they should be able to decide to take it or turn it down.
Eric,
Why did the Republican Party support overturning the Barrio Logan Community plan through a referendum when over 90% of the people who live in that community were in favor of the plan.
What’s morality got to do with it? The threshold questions for law are whether, for the feds, the constitution permits the law and, for the states, the constitution forbids it.
HQ,
That’s $.35 per check. I don’t care how many studies you show, from centralized planners, who posit how best to spend money they never earned; it’s still plunder.
At least this little cafe is offering transparency so it’s customers know who the marauders are now. More of this transparency is appreciated. I can’t wait until January when Californians will see just how much the religious extremists are stealing from them at the pump.
Michael,
Thank you for your consistency of thought. I wonder if Eric also believes that we should have no required minimum wage.
Brian,
My only point about the $0.35 is that it is a long way from the doomsday predictions that raising the minimum wage will increase prices 20% or greater. I don’t know the average check of that particular diner, but I would assume that $0.35 is no more than 1-2%. And yes, I am willing to pay that to ensure that anyone willing to work full-time earns enough to not need further government assistance to avoid living in poverty.
As for the studies you disparage, I was actually talking about real world examples, not Ivory Tower hypotheses. I will repeat my challenge: show me one city, county or state that lost businesses or had their economy tank after they raised the minimum wage. Or show me one time when the federal government raised the minimum wage and it had a negative effect on the economy.
Let’s start with a contemporary economist:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams/collusion-against-our-youth.html
“According to the widely shared Jackson/Sharpton vision of the world, racial discrimination must have been less during the late 1940s than it is today. In fact, as early as 1900, blacks as a group were more active in the labor market, a statistic known in economics as labor force participation rate, than whites. This was true up until the late 1950s. Anyone with one ounce of brains would reject the argument that less racial discrimination accounts for the lower black teen unemployment rate and greater labor force participation during earlier periods.
So what might that help to explain? The major villain is the minimum wage law. With each increase in the minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose relative to whites and teen unemployment rose relative to adult. “–Professor Walter Williams
This shouldn’t surprise anyone–the genesis of all minimum wage legislation was the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). DBA was, by design, a protectionist scheme to prevent black Southerners from competing for white Northerners jobs.
Comments in support of DBA:
“I have received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.”– Rep John Cochran (D-MO)
“That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”– Rep Miles Allgood (D-AL)
It wasn’t just black workers DBA sought to prevent from competing–it was nativist too.. Read the co-sponsor of the Act, Rep. Robert Bacon (R-NY):
“We urge the extension of the quota system to all countries of North and South America from which we have substantial immigration and in which the population is not predominantly of the white race.
Only by this method can that large proportion of our population which is descended from the colonists have their proper racial representation.”
Crazy, huh? Professor Williams seems to be observing the results of what WAS INTENDED TO BE racist legislation but frankly, his observations weren’t original. The COMPTROLLER GENERAL’S OFFICE, way back in 1979, suggested that DBA be repealed… BECAUSE IT WAS RACIST:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126529.pdf
This was going on BEFORE DBA though. Frederick Douglass wrote about it, in 1913, in “The Tyranny, Folly, and Wickedness of Labor Unions,” and Booker T Washington wrote about fixing the price of labor, in 1913, in “The Negro and the Labor Unions.”.
Marcus Garvey warned, in 1925, in “Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts: when he wrote:
“If I must advise the Negro workingman and laborer, I should warn him against the present brand of Communism or Workers’ Partizanship as taught in America, and to be careful of the traps and pitfalls of white trade unionism, in affiliation with the American Federation of white workers or laborers. It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist.
I am of the opinion that the group of whites from whom Communists are made, in America, as well as trade unionists and members of the Worker’s party, is more dangerous to the Negro’s welfare than any other group at present.”
“Or show me one time when the federal government raised the minimum wage and it had a negative effect on the economy” (that’s you, HQ).
You convinced, yet? Fixing the price of labor has destroyed employment for people of color and immigrants. I can’t abide that sort of policy. All men should be afforded equality of opportunity.
Brian,
The original Davis Bacon Act was written to protect local economies from an influx of cheap labor. You are absolutely correct that it was also intentionally racist. Were you further aware that the sponsors of the bill, Senator Davis and Congressman Bacon, as well as the President who signed the bill, Herbert Hoover, were all Republicans?
Today, the Davis Bacon Act is still protectionist in nature; its main role is to keep cheap labor from outside counties from lowering the wages in a given county.
But Davis Bacon is different than the minimum wage laws we have been discussing and I want to address your points on minimum wage since you at least made an attempt to answer my challenge.
Let’s start with teen employment. The biggest factor affecting teen employment is the fact that adults are working later in life, many not by choice but do to the elimination of pensions from much of the private work force. This will get worse in a generation or two as we eliminate public employee pensions as well. Still, I do agree that an increased minimum wage will cause employers to keep the experienced senior citizen over the first-time teenage job seeker and in an earlier thread, I did say that there should be a lesser minimum wage for anyone under 18, and maybe for anyone under 21.
As for the effect of minimum wage on the African American worker, don’t you think that the number of single mothers, the breakdown of inner-city schools and the increase in gang activity are much more compelling reasons for the employment gap?
I find it a little “Through the Looking Glass” that a Republican would lecture that “Fixing the price of labor has destroyed employment for people of color and immigrants. I can’t abide that sort of policy. All men should be afforded equality of opportunity.”
Here’s a quote directly from the “Ivory Tower” study that you cited:
“Put yourself in the place of an employer and ask: If I must pay to whomever I hire $7.25 an hour, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, vacation, health insurance, unemployment insurance, does it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate so as to have a skill level that allows him to contribute only $5 worth of value an hour?”
Seriously? So Caucasians have the skill level to demand a higher wage but African Americans innately do not? Now, who is acting the part of a racist?
And back to the original challenge, I would still like you to name a single City that had a mass exodus of businesses after the minimum wage was increased. Mr. Williams didn’t cite any, and after all, that is the argument being made by the opponents of a wage increase.
And just for fun, we are all still waiting on Carl Demaio’s plan to reform Social Security and Medicare.
But it’s not through the looking glass for Democrats to lecture on racism? Haven’t Democrats championed enough racist, slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, black kids can’t go to school with white kids, keep the federal government segregated, interracial marriage ban, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps public policy?
As a Republican, Democratic input on race issues is adorable, but forgive me for not taking it seriously due to the decades and decades of atrocities the left side of the aisle has forced on minorities in America.
“I find it a little “Through the Looking Glass” that a Republican would lecture…”
Explain please.
HQ, read “The State Against Blacks” by Walter Williams, where he explains that high minimum wage settings allow racists to avoid hiring people they dislike.
And yes, ON AVERAGE blacks are NOT as good as employees as whites — for many reasons, starting with union-dominated urban public schools and the government breakup of the black family (via welfare). Is that a racist statement? No more racist than saying the average Asian is a better student than the average white.
Brian,
I have just never found the Republican Party all that concerned with destroying opportunities for people of color and immigrants.
Is that all that you got out of my response?
“Is that all that you got out of my response?”
Yep. Good day.
Michael,
Do you have any examples from the last 50 years?
I am not a member of any racial minority so I won’t presume to speak for any. I will simply let voting records speak for themselves. I think that is very overwhelming evidence, don’t you think? Or do you believe that the Republican Party knows better than the individuals themselves what is best for them?
Richard,
“…high minimum wage settings allow racists to avoid hiring people they dislike.”
If the wages were lower, would racists then be forced to hire people the dislike?
HQ, yes racists WOULD have to reluctantly hire people they didn’t like — because in a free market, disliked people would work for a lesser wage. If the racist decided to pay premium wages for his racial preference — foregoing competent labor he didn’t like, some OTHER evil businessman would hire the (perceived) less desirable employees for less, and subsequently offer lower prices than the racist, and “steal” the racist’s business. Thus greed would have a tendency to overcome racism — with greedy businesssmen paying help a commentate rate for what they produce, rather than the color of their skin.
As I said, read the book.
Richard,
So what you are saying is that if we want Blacks to have jobs, we have to lower the wages to a point that no self-respecting White person would take the job.
I am looking forward to seeing that line of argument in an anti-minimum wage increase ad.
HQ says: “if we want Blacks to have jobs, we have to lower the wages to a point that no self-respecting White person would take the job.”
No, HQ, “we” don’t have to do anything. We don’t have to collectively lower wages, or raise ’em.
People should be free to offer jobs and offer labor at prices that they will accept. HQ, as a devoted Big Government guy, you simply can’t conceive of that being a nongovernment, non-coerced process.
The minimum wage law may have done more to unemploy blacks than any other lingle piece of legislation we could have come up with. Apartheid South Africa was at least honest when they passed minimum wage legislation — they made clear that the purpose was to forbid blacks from offering their services at a lesser price than whites.
Richard Rider says: “HQ says: ‘if we want Blacks to have jobs, we have to lower the wages to a point that no self-respecting White person would take the job.'”
Actually I didn’t, nor would I ever say something so disgusting. The next time you quote me Mr. Rider, please include the entire quote. What I said was “So what YOU (RICHARD RIDER) are saying is that if we want Blacks to have jobs, we have to lower the wages to a point that no self-respecting White person would take the job.
And whether or not wages are lowered because of a lower minimum wage (mandated by the government) or no minimum wage (let the free market set the wages), YOUR (RICHARD RIDER’S) point was clear.
You (RICHARD RIDER) believe that in a truly free market, African American could not earn the same wages as Caucasians so the only way that they are going to get jobs is by accepting lower wages than their Caucasian counterparts. I think that way of thinking is repugnant.
“Do you have any examples from the last 50 years?”
I don’t. After fighting for racial equality for over 100 years, Republicans finally stopped the Democrat’s efforts to suppress rights based on skin color.
“Or do you believe that the Republican Party knows better than the individuals themselves what is best for them?”
Deciding how much you will pay a person to perform a job and deciding how much you will take to work a job is the individual knowing what is best for him/her. A union or government deciding what everyone has to pay and what everyone will be paid is very much the collectivist stance. Generally, Republicans side with the individual like they are doing in the minimum wage debate.
Michael,
My question “Or do you believe that the Republican Party knows better than the individuals themselves what is best for them?” referred to the fact that African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
So do you truly really believe that individuals know what is best for themselves or is that only a campaign slogan?
HQ, you claim to be simply saying what I said. Show me where I said “if we want Blacks to have jobs, we have to lower the wages to a point that no self-respecting White person would take the job.”
You made that up as something that I said. Show me where I said that. I didn’t say it, nor do I support that (as you correctly put it) repugnant idea. HQ, the truth is that YOU said that — pretending you were me.
Take ownership of what you post, HQ. Even as a fake person.
Richard,
When someone starts by writing, as I did, “So what you are saying is…” what follows is definitely not going to be the opinion of the writer. It is also not going to be a direct quote from the person being referred to as “you.” What follows will be the writer’s opinion of what “you” meant.
Did I get your opinion right? Let’s review what was actually said and then decide:
First, you quoted a book which said “high minimum wage settings allow racists to avoid hiring people they dislike.”
Then, you said “ON AVERAGE blacks are NOT as good as employees as whites.”
I responded with a question: “If the wages were lower, would racists then be forced to hire people they dislike?”
And you answered my question by saying “HQ, yes (if wages were lower) racists WOULD have to reluctantly hire people they didn’t like — because in a free market, disliked people would work for a lesser wage.”
Putting that all together and excusing my use of the term “self-respecting,” I do believe what you were saying is that Blacks could only get a job if the wages were low enough that a white person wouldn’t want the job.
“…African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.”
– Yet despite being 13% of the population, African Americans make up 40% of the male prison population.
– And 1 in 3 African American males 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision (imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation)
– And 1 out of 9 African American men will be incarcerated between the ages of 20 and 34.
– And African American males ages 30 to 34 have the highest incarceration rate of any race/ethnicity.
– And 11.5% unemployment rate for African Americans (while it is 5.4% for whites)
– And 24% of African Americans live in poverty (compared to 11% of all races combined)
So…if Democrats have been on their side for a couple generations now (as you point out), is this what Democrats think is best for African Americans?
Michael,
Nice try at deflection, but it won’t work. I asked a simple question. Do individuals know what is best for themselves or don’t they? The Democratic candidate in the six elections has gotten over 90% of the African American vote. If you are saying that electing Republicans would be better for them, then you are saying that individuals do not know what is best for themselves. So which is it?
“If you are saying that electing Republicans would be better for them, then you are saying that individuals do not know what is best for themselves.”
I am having a problem with this statement. Why is this true?
Michael,
Come on. 90+% of African Americans vote Democratic. Obviously, they think that electing Democrats is in their own best interest.
If you think they are wrong and that they would be better off electing Republicans, aren’t you saying that they don’t know what is best for themselves?
HQ, generally, most public policy ideas that are considered right-of-center are better for each individual. It is tough for me to answer your question or relate to it because I don’t determine people’s needs based on their skin tone. Unless I am buying them sunblock, I suppose.
I certainly am not advocating taking away anyone’s ability to vote for who they want. Nor do I think that describing a different point of view threatens anyone’s right to make their own decisions.
Michael,
I think we have beat this one to death. You (and others on this blog) believe that African Americans would be better off if Republicans were elected. African Americans, in overwhelming numbers, disagree with you.
HQ, the numbers show you are 100% correct. The majority of African American voters support Democrats. That is fact.
But my opinion is that based on other facts,…like the high poverty rate, high unemployment rate, and high incarceration rate among African Americans…African Americans have a hard case to make that Democrats and their policies have been a good choice for their community. And that Democrat policies have never been a great choice for African Americans.
Actually Michael, in a sense, I disagree. The truth is that, from a need standpoint, the welfare of thee black community IS dependent on government — the harm is seldom understood. Consider:
* Blacks are aggressive about race (and playing the race card), so they’ve been able to obtain overpaying government jobs at a rate roughly twice their demographic percentage. MOST blacks rising to the middle class are government workers. Hence their fierce loyalty to bigger government.
* The welfare plantation has had a crippling effect on the black procreation cycle — too often making it more profitable to have children WITHOUT a father in the household. Yes, this perverse incentive has affected all races, but none as dramatically as black families (well, actually, the LACK of black families). Legions of blacks are both harmed by welfare and addicted to it. Naturally they vote for those who provide the welfare.
* Here’s a controversial observation: By making drugs illegal, the government provides lucrative employment to entrepreneurial and/or violent blacks — paying far more than the few unskilled, dead-end fast food jobs that lousy urban black schools train them for. I’ve actually been told by low income blacks that the drug business money is crucial to low income black neighborhoods.
All in all, blacks are easily the most government dependent race in America. It is no surprise that they are captive of the Democrat Party.
In spite of the terrible unintended effects of government (ESPECIALLY the lack of education provided by “black” urban public schools), most blacks will NOT abandon the Democrat Party — they are too dependent on it. I wish it were otherwise, but I’m afraid the “black community” is a lost cause for Republicans.
I gave a talk to a media class at National University last year. The subject was the Republican Party and a student asked why there isn’t more outreach by the Republican Party to minorities. I clarified that I only speak for myself and am not totally familiar with every outreach program the Republican Party is working on, but that I tend to see Republicans form groups around issues and Democrats form groups around heritage or race.
I was asked why. So I asked an African American student at the front of the class “what should we all assume about you because of the color of your skin?”
His answer was “nothing”.
So that’s why.
I’d rather Republicans debate issues, come to consensus, stick to their principles, and concentrate of getting more voters over every skin tone to vote for Republicans.
“I’d rather Republicans debate issues, come to consensus, stick to their principles, and concentrate of getting more voters over every skin tone to vote for Republicans.”
That’s a great soundbite, but when those principles lead you to policies that result in stiffer penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine, eliminating pre-election day voting on Sundays and the deporting of grandma, you are never going to achieve the goal of “getting more voters of every skin tone to vote for Republicans.”
As for “com(ing) to consensus,” there is a strong consensus in this country that the federal minimum wage should be raised and an even stronger consensus that there should be comprehensive immigration reform. These are just two of the issues that have strong bi-partisan support in the real world, but on which the Republicans in Washington won’t even allow a vote.
I suppose the only thing we’ve proven here, HQ, is how easy it is to derail a discussion with claims of racism.
Michael,
I don’t think I ever claimed that Republicans were racist, but perception is reality to most people.
This was a well written article and an interesting perspective. There was a great conversation going on around it until racism was injected. I took the bait and I am sorry I did. I’m choosing to stop with the mistake I made.
I hope that the conversation picks up right before it was effectively ruined. My apologies to everyone for my part in that.
I think it’s useful to discuss how well-intentioned policies have racist results (war on drugs and minimum wage come to mind). I think it’s deplorable that race baiting was used to silence serious critique of those policies.
I have little time for that