Minimum Wage

I was having a familiar argument with one of my socialist friends. He was talking about why we should raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The specific number isn't all that important to me, of course. I believe it is simply not the role of government to dictate these types of things and that it will create adverse conditions in the economy (namely higher unemployment.)

But he said something during our talk that was revealing. He was making that familiar argument that the current minimum wage is usually not enough for somebody to support a family. As I was pointing out that wages are set not by how much the worker needs as it is by how much value he brings to the business, he said something about the "guy at the top" deciding what the worker gets paid. And then added that the current system is "failing for millions of workers."

First, I questioned what it was that was failing. Is it the system that is failing, or the worker? While there may indeed be millions who are "failing" there are hundreds of millions who are not, But it is also not true that the boss is the one determining his wages. Wages are determined by the marketplace, Which means that a specific worker's wages are not just determined by his current boss, but by any potential future bosses as well. Any boss has to consider what other people might pay that worker, in particular his competition. 

Am I Missing Something?

As I have been saying all along, Obamacare has very clear incentives, and they are not directed in a way that will make young healthy people buy more expensive health insurance than they did before. In fact, the law provides even stronger incentives to not buy insurance, because the policies they have to buy now are more expensive and with higher deductibles. Meanwhile the fine is a joke (less than $300 max versus health insurance premiums that will crowd, if not exceed $2,000.)

But step back and think about it. The whole reason for the individual mandate was to force young people to buy more insurance and more expensive insurance because they were not doing so in large enough numbers to balance out the actuarial tables. So in an effort to “make” them buy more, they managed to raise the price of the premiums while simultaneously making the fine virtually insignificant. Does anybody see this as helping accomplish their goal? If they wouldn’t buy it before, what on Earth makes them think they will now? Oh and remember the reason you used to want insurance? You know, how you would buy a policy in case you got cancer or some other serious disease? We all did so because you can't buy insurance after you get sick, right? Wrong. Now you can't be denied no matter how sick you are! So why buy "insurance" ahead of time?

Well, maybe they will all buy insurance out of loyalty to Obama. After all, they voted for him.

Getting Personal

I used to think that the tendency of liberals to vilify their enemies with such ferocity, was due to the threat that person posed to them. So for instance, Sarah Pailin represented a threat because she was a conservative woman. Worse, was that she was on the Republican running against an all male ticket of Democrats. They had to take her down HARD. Ted Cruz is Hispanic with better academic credentials than Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, clerked at the Supreme Court and was an international debate champion. So naturally he is a crazy radical.

But now, I'm starting to think that it's all because they need to personalize it. They have a hard time defeating ideas. They are not very good at fighting an idea. You have explain yourself, you have to use facts. They are much better at provoking emotions. And it is much easier to manipulate one's feeling about another person, than it is to manipulate their feelings about a concept.

The Liberal Arsenal

• pkbormes
• Brookline, MA

Time for Dems to remind people who caused the shutdown, wasted 24 billion taxpayer dollars, and risked the full faith and credit of the United States. That should overpower Republican lies about an effort which, after all, is intended to HELP the average American.

This is just a typical post from a NYT article about the Koch brothers efforts to hang the ACA around the necks of Democrats. But it contains everything in their pathetic arsenal. First is the shutdown. Some liberal think tank conjured up that $24 billion number as the "cost" of the shutdown (not taxpayer cost.) It was one of those studies extrapolating economic ripple effects where a family is not driving to Yellowstone, not buying gas, and not staying in a hotel. Then they look at the hotel and gas station not buying supplies and not paying staff and the staff not going grocery shopping. You get the picture. they can come up with any number they want. Then there is the threat of default, conveniently ignoring that only the executive branch could cause default to happen. And finally, the last refuge of liberal scoundrels: He had good intentions.

New Attitude

I had been suffering through a period of political depression, if you will, where I was loathe to get into "debates" on internet message boards because I felt as if nobody was looking at the serious fundamental issues with Obamacare. Not the web site mind you, but the basic economic incentives that were in it and what effect they were going to have on our economy, our healthcare system and our insurance industry. I was constantly poo-pooed as not knowing what I was talking about, and had to endure lectures from Paul Krugman fans on why I was so wrong about rates going up, people losing their coverage or just plain old meddling by the government in the economy.


But suddenly, the message boards are just delicious. I have gotten almost giddy reading the liberal responses to all the things I had been predicting for months. The best ones are when some conservative (or increasingly, a moderate Democrat) will rip into Obama for lying about not losing your coverage, doctor etc. Talk about changing the subject! It usually goes like this:
Conservative: He didn't mince words. He said you could keep your insurance NO MATTER WHAT! But he knew all along they were going to get dropped.
Looney Liberal: Oh yeah? Well Bush said there were WMD's.It's so pathetic it's funny.But the best one was the guy who got infuriated that Obama was being called a liar. He tried to say that Obama had merely been talking about what he hoped would be attained. You can't expect to hold him to a campaign promise.No, that would be more like Scott Walker saying he would create 250,000 jobs. That would be a hoped for goal. Saying you won't lose your health care "no matter what" when you know that's not true, is lying about a fact. But they cannot stop spinning and the results are just hilarious. There are several strategies they are trying. the first is to claim Obamacare is actually a Rebublican bill. They wanted something else entirely but got this forced on them by Republicans, who weren't able to add a single amendment and consequently did not give it a single vote in either house. Fallback position number one is to say that the coverage you are losing was really awful and you should be glad to be rid of it because your new policy wil cover so much more and be so much better for you. Cost? Oh, why worry about that? It's better! Don't you want better insurance? If you get that cheap stuff it won't pay for your drug rehab or maternity coverage. Well yes, it is true that being a young Amish man might lead you to believe you don't need that, but somebody's got to buy that expensive stuff so we can cover all those existing conditions. but their ultimate ploy will be to blame the insurance companies.  Just read this from the Huffington Post where they try and explain that Obama didn't lie about keeping your coverage.



 "In other words, your plan is grandfathered in unless your insurer explicitly makes it worse by jacking up your deductible or otherwise monkeying with your coverage in an attempt to screw you, which is the basic stated business model of insurance companies."

Of course he conveniently glosses over the fact that it was Obamacare that REQUIRED all these changes, which in turn invalidated your ability to keep it. They really have no respect for your intelligence.

Ideas Versus Personalities

Have you ever noticed that liberals hate to argue about or attack ideas. They much prefer to target people. So they will avoid a debate about whether or not it is a good idea to allow public unions, but can't wait to sling some shit at Scott Walker. The more a conservative worries them, the harder they attack. This is particularly so whenever the conservative is from one of their affinity groups. The most vicious and sustained campaign they ever ran was against Sara Palin. How dare they!! A woman? Gotta take her down hard. Herman Cain. A black conservative?? No way. He had barely made it to the top of the polls before they nailed him in the sleaziest way possible. Ted Cruz is Hispanic and has better academic credentials than Obama. So the label they slapped on him was "radical." He might even be CRAZY.

For eight years nary a word was spoken against conservatism. But George W. Bush  was regularly designated the worst person in the world. And when conservative ideas are implemented, they will redefine the reasons for you. So when Paul Ryan says he opposes Obamacare because it's fiscally irresponsible, they say he just doesn't want poor people to have insurance. It's all so much easier if you can start with the premise that he is just a bad person to begin with.

The Hostage Fable

Once upon a time, there was a man who owned a home. And on this home, he had a mortgage.

Actually, he had a mortgage, a home equity line of credit, and a couple of credit cards. He and his wife had been living in the house for years. They had refinanced a couple of times. And they had taken out the equity line of credit a few years back before the real estate market crashed. When home values did fall, they found themselves, not "under water," but close. They were treading water. They were making all their payments on all the debt. And they were covering their regular bills as well, they just weren't putting a dent in the debt.

The decided that what he really needed in order to get himself out of debt, was to borrow some more money, invest it and increase his income such that he could start to pay down some loans. So went to the banker who held the mortgage, the equity line and his credit cards. He told them of his plan and asked if he could get another $25,000 to fund his new venture. But this was something he had done before.

He had originally taken out the line of credit in order to fund his investment, but later decided to remodel the house instead with the first $25,000. Then he had taken another $25,000 (on his line of $50,000), but bought a new car and went on vacation. Now his line was maxed out. So he asked the bank if they could see their way to increasing his line of credit. The bank took a look at his history and his balance sheet, and said, "We don't think more debt is what you really need right now. We think you should look for ways to cut your spending, and try and work that debt down first. If you were to do that for a year or two, maybe prices recover and we can find a way to increase your line later."

To which the man said, "Oh, yeah? Well, I'll tell you what, if you do not give me another $25,000 loan right now, I will stop making payments on my mortgage, my line of credit and my credit cards. I will default on all my debts and I will immediately file for bankruptcy. You'll be stuck selling my house at an auction, and I will make sure you spend big legal fees to pursue my other debts."

So. Who is holding whom hostage? Who is being the proverbial "suicide bomber?" The banker or the man?