July 8, 2012

"A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him."

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the

Wealth of Nations

by Adam Smith 1776
Book 1, Chapter 8
Of the Wages of Labour

July 8, 2012

"In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages."

In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages. If in the linen manufacture, for example, the wages of the different working people, the flax-dressers, the spinners, the weavers, etc., should, all of them, be advanced twopence a day; it would be necessary to heighten the price of a piece of linen only by a number of twopences equal to the number of people that had been employed about it, multiplied by the number of days during which they had been so employed. That part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into wages would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise only in arithmetical proportion to this rise of wages. But if the profits of all the different employers of those working people should be raised five per cent, that part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into profit would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise in geometrical proportion to this rise of profit. The employer of the flaxdressers would in selling his flax require an additional five per cent upon the whole value of the materials and wages which he advanced to his workmen. The employer of the spinners would require an additional five per cent both upon the advanced price of the flax and upon the wages of the spinners. And the employer of the weavers would require a like five per cent both upon the advanced price of the linen yarn and upon the wages of the weavers. In raising the price of commodities the rise of wages operates in the same manner as simple interest does in the accumulation of debt. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations

by Adam Smith 1776
Book 1, Chapter 9
Of the Profits of Stock

May 18, 2012

Creative Destruction vs. Creative Construction

The policies of one candidate will destroy our future and the policies of one candidate will build our future. Plain and simple.

April 26, 2012

Robert Reich answering questions on Reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/sucza/im_robert_reich_former_secretary_of_labor/

April 25, 2012

The Inequity of Private-equity Hustlers

What are these phantasmagoric money machines that they call "private-equity firms?" They're much in the news these days, because a fellow who was a private-equity magnate is presently running for president. Mitt Romney piled up a quarter-billion-dollar personal fortune through his Wall Street equity outfit, Bain Capital, and he now claims that, because of his success in that business, he knows how to "fix" our economy.

Before you cheer that, note that private equity whizzes are all about The Fix — not necessarily a good thing. They operate by borrowing big piles of cash at high interest rates from rich speculators to buy out XYZ Corp. Then, to meet the interest payments owed to the speculators (and to siphon off a financial killing for themselves), the fixers do two things: One, they plunder XYZ's assets, selling the profitable chunks of the corporation; and two, they severely downsize the XYZ workforce, firing as many workers as possible and demanding deep wage cuts and benefit givebacks from the employees they keep.

It's a raw redistribution-of-wealth scheme, shifting XYZ's wage payments from its many workers to a handful of wealthy high rollers. The process downsizes America's middle class, while creating no real economic value. Nothing equitable about it.

http://www.nationofchange.org/inequity-private-equity-hustlers-1335359225

April 15, 2012

Mitt Romney: Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits

WASHINGTON -- Women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes," and will air during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.

Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.

Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html

April 15, 2012

Hey Ann Romney....

How about working to ensure that parents receive a living wage so they are able to have the choice of staying home to raise the children. Thanks.

April 1, 2012

Looking at the protest photos and I am left wondering..Why so few whites?

The murder of Trayvon Martin isn't about race. It was for George Zimmerman. That is plain for all to see and hear. For the rest of us, this murder should be about Trayvon Martin's rights. This beautiful child had every right to be walking down the street. He had every right to be left alone. George Zimmerman violated every one of his rights and yet he remains free to continue to enjoy his. Justice is not a black/white issue, yet I don't see an even representation of people standing up for this child. I know so many whites who believe that this murder is a complete injustice, so why the lack of representation on the ground? Where are all the high profile folks? I don't see them standing beside the Reverend Al. We need to come together in all ways to get justice for this child...this beautiful child.

(I shouldn't have to say it ...but I am a white female)

March 28, 2012

Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes.'

Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.’
Posted by Ezra Klein at 01:09 PM ET, 03/28/2012


Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. He specializes in constitutional law and is the author of many books on the subject, including 2004’s “Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court.” He also wrote a brief on behalf of 104 law professors arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional. We spoke this morning.


Charles Fried, who served as Reagan’s top lawyer, was not impressed by the Supreme Court yesterday. (Harvard Law School) Ezra Klein: Tuesday’s arguments seemed to focus on the question of a “limiting principle.” So is there a limiting principle here?

Charles Fried: First of all, the limiting principle point kind of begs the question. It assumes there’s got to be some kind of articulatable limiting principle and that’s in the Constitution somewhere. What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/reagans-solicitor-general-health-care-is-interstate-commerce-is-this-a-regulation-of-it-yes-end-of-story/2011/08/25/gIQAmaQigS_blog.html

March 27, 2012

The Horrors of an Ayn Rand World

The Horrors of an Ayn Rand World
By Gary Weiss, Alternet/St. Martin's Press
27 March 12


An Objectivist America would be a dark age of unhindered free enterprise, far more primitive and Darwinian than anything seen before.

here is no real doubt what an Objectivist America would mean. We may not be around to see it, but it's likely we'll be here for its earliest manifestations. They may have already arrived.

The shape of a future Objectivist world has been a matter of public record for the past half century, since Ayn Rand, the Brandens, Alan Greenspan, and other Objectivist theoreticians began to set down their views in Objectivist newsletters. When he casually defended repeal of child labor laws in the debate with Miles Rapoport, Yaron Brook [President of the Ayn Rand Institute] was merely repeating long- established Objectivist doctrine, summarized by Leonard Peikoff as “Government is inherently negative.” It is a worldview that has been static through the decades, its tenets reiterated endlessly by Rand and her apostles:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10656-focus-the-horrors-of-an-ayn-rand-world