I’m in a kind of “comedown” mood this morning. No, I didn’t get wasted yesterday; it’s a purely psychological phenomenon. You see, yesterday was “Talk Like A Pirate Day,” one of my favorite days of the year. Drives the C.S.O. nuts, but she knows it’s only one day a year. Happily, the many telemarketers desperate to sell me an extended warranty on my cars or security services for my home don’t know that. I’m sure yesterday has winnowed my phone number out of many of their Rolodexes. (Rolodices?)
Add to that that there are still people unacquainted with the concept of zero. Some of them posture as economists and public policy analysts:
Leftists are arguing that a $15 minimum wage is far too low; instead, many are calling for a $26 minimum wage.
As originally noted by Foundation for Economic Education correspondent Brad Polumbo, online debate about the policy started with an August article from the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research. Economist Dean Baker argued in the piece that the minimum wage ought to keep pace with overall economic productivity.
Having the minimum wage track productivity growth is not a crazy idea. The national minimum wage did in fact keep pace with productivity growth for the first 30 years after a national minimum wage first came into existence in 1938…
Think of what the country would look like if the lowest paying jobs, think of dishwashers or custodians, paid $26 an hour. That would mean someone who worked a 2000 hour year would have an annual income of $52,000. This income would put a single mother with two kids at well over twice the poverty level.
And, this is just for starting wages. Presumably workers would see their pay increase above the minimum as they stayed at their job for a number of years and ideally were promoted to better paying positions. If we assume that after 10 or 15 years their pay had risen by 20 percent, then these workers at the bottom of the pay ladder would be getting more than $60,000 a year.
Baker acknowledges that the policy would cause mass unemployment if implemented in the present economic order; however, he recommended fundamentally restructuring the economy such that wealthy Americans earn less income.
Glory be to God! There is no limit to the rapacity of the Left. My original reaction was YGBFKM. (Expand it yourself. Yes, the fourth word is profane.) But then I found myself recalling another hard-left “analyst,” a certain Teresa Ghilarducci:
Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration….
The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”…
All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.
I have no doubt that Miss Ghilarducci and Mr. Baker would cross-endorse one another’s policies. It’s powerful evidence for the contention that they hate people. Really! What would the consequences be for blue collar workers and retail sector workers, whose jobs are already threatened by the advance of automation, expert systems, and applied artificial intelligence? What prospects for retirement would they have?
But as the late Konrad Adenauer once said, the good Lord put limits on Man’s wisdom but none on his stupidity. The Left has a single aim, expressible in two and only two words: Control everything. Control who may and may not work, who may and may not spend or save and how much, who may and may not travel and to where and for how long, and so forth. That such control invariably reduces the whole of society to poverty doesn’t seem faze them. “This time,” they say, “we’ll do it right.”
It’s not just here. Hearken to what’s just been put in process in our neighbor to the North:
Surprised? Why? Canada has moved faster Leftward than has the U.S. Not that our Left hasn’t voiced similar proposals and “let’s edge up to it” notions here. Were you aware that various “policy analysts” have proposed the complete elimination of cash? It only started with the elimination of the higher denomination bills. Quite recently, “Republican” economist Ken Rogoff suggested that we eliminate the rest of our physical currency and go “pure digital.” Think about it.
The COVID-19-propelled refusal of many retailers to accept cash and the drive for “contactless payment” in all circumstances should have given any thinking American pause. Thinking Americans are our target audience here at Liberty’s Torch. I hope the citations above, added to the cash-aversion that flowed from the pandemic, are sufficient to make my point. My arm is already weary from flogging this horse.
That’s what I’ve been saying – there IS no coin shortage, it is a completely manufactured crisis. You watch – first, it’s actual cash coinage that is removed from the system, then pricing will no longer be ‘close enough’ to the dollar amount you have on you. Eventually, you will be reduced to carrying around paper money with no relationship to actual value (and, not getting change for any expenditure), or using card access to your own money.
You watch – the next step is elimination of generic refillable debit VISAs, that allow some degree of privacy over your purchases. We’ll be told that they contain harmful viruses (of the computer kind), or are linked to crime (and the government will make people hesitant to use them, lest their stored money be confiscated). The chips will eventually follow (it will be touted as a way to keep your cards safe from theft – not that the chip would stop someone from using the hand of a live/dead person to make their purchase).
What one man can secure, another can hack.
Indeed! “For every engineer, there is an equal but opposite engineer.” — Me.
It is a ploy to move everyone to a cashless society under the false guise of “it’s safer for everyone”. BULL. it’s all about controlling who does what, what they spend on what, controlling what they can spend on and when.
So you’re telling me that paying in cash is going to be more germ/virus/bacteria free than using credit/debit cards, everyone putting their card into and touching a card reader that everyone else in a 20 mile radius touches. Thats more germ free? Everyone still comes in contact with it. And just how are you supposed to make any transactions with electronic transfers through cards or cardless readers when the juice quits for whatever reason. Maybe someone plugged in to many lectric cars and blew the entire local grid. Guess what boys and girls. when the lectric goes off, U B Broke unless you got it in your pocket. Just ask Kalifornika how often the lectric goes out.
They have another piece of proposed legislation, that I think is in the big, $3.5 T “infrastructure” bill; they’re going to require banks to report every transaction made on every account over $600. That’s a large percentage of all the bank transactions there are and tons of work for the smaller banks.
It’s similar to the current reporting requirements for $10,000 and over cash deposited or withdrawn except it affects every check, every debit card, every credit card, everything, and it drops the required trigger level by 94%.
As you say, control everything. Get rid of cash, go over to something that can double in “value” or be halved at any moment.
It astounds me that anybody who calls themselves an economist can say “… $26 an hour … would mean someone who worked a 2000 hour year would have an annual income of $52,000. This income would put a single mother with two kids at well over twice the poverty level.” As if more than doubling federal min wage wouldn’t start off a massive round of inflation and price increases in everything, until everyone is worse off than when it started.
Last I saw, even Paul Krugman was finally getting that right. “As Paul Krugman explained, “So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.” ”
Anyone can call himself an economist, and many do who lack the barest understanding of supply, demand, and substitution. “Money cranks” (Cf. von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit) have woven elaborate theories to justify unlimited government debt, unlimited creation of new currency and credit, and the complete negation of everything the classical economists have known since Smith and Pareto. But they have no explanations for why their theories have failed repeatedly: Revolutionary France, Weimar Germany, Peronist Argentina, China under Chiang Kai-shek, Chavez’s Venezuela, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe…
I can only hope we learn not to trust a self-styled “expert,” in economics or anything else, ever again. But it’s a thin hope at best.
The cashless soceity is being promoted as a convenience – especially to the young, who were born in the digital age and are comfortable with that world – and now on the basis of public health. That’s all smoke-and-mirrors… straight-up propaganda.”Going cashless” serves the billionaire oligarchs, those who would rule over the rest of humanity, in the following ways:
Cash confers a degree of privacy upon transactions that our would-be masters don’t like and don’t want. A digital form of currency would route every transaction, no matter how small, through the leviathan. The big-boys would know what you buy, when and in hat quantity. Bye-bye privacy.
Since each and every transaction is digital, i.e., networked through the central banking-government-corporate leviathan, every transaction would be taxed. The big-boys would get their cut every time, and the amount of wealth collected would mount up fast. More money for nothing and chicks for free, as the old song says.
Last and perhaps most-sinister, digital currency proves an enormously effective tool of social control and weapon of repression. If your “social credit score” drops too low, or you’ve been a dissident, the powers-that-be can restrict access to your electronic account, or in extremis, zero it entirely. Poof! No more money, no more life.
Orwell and Huxley were not supposed to be instruction manuals for tyranny, but here we are!