On unions, unionists and their lies

Every page of the history of the past 150 years belies the communist / unionist dogma that they are necessarily "internationally minded" and that there is some kind of unshakable solidarity with the "workers of the world." The fact that unions in more highly-developed economies are consistently active in lobbying efforts against opening immigration from lesser-developed economies proves that these unions and their leaders are willing to condemn their “working brothers” (falsely so-called) in these poorer nations to a life of poverty and poor working conditions in order to protect their own privileged life of higher wages and benefits.

Democrats are wrong about government spending and job creation

Note that the official William J. Clinton Presidential Center website claims that during Bill Clinton’s administration the nation "Moved from record federal deficits to record surplus" and "Began paying off the national debt" while "[Creating] nearly 23 million jobs" and supporting the "Fastest and longest real wage growth in over three decades." Also, during this time "Family income reached record highs, "Unemployment was the lowest in over three decades," the "Lowest overall poverty and child poverty rates since the 1970s," and "Lowest percentage of Americans on welfare in 32 years" was also achieved.

How did they do it?

• They reduced the size of government, having the "Smallest federal civilian workforce in 40 years."
  
• They reduced the burden of federal spending on the economy by having the "Lowest federal spending as a share of the economy since 1966" and the "Slowest per capita growth of government spending since the 1950s."

TODAY'S DEMOCRATS ARE WRONG!

On what one cannot do when seeking real progress

The following is common mistakenly attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative.
You cannot really help men by having the government tax others to do for them what they can and should do for themselves.

— William J. H. Boetcker

The story for the misattribution goes all the way back to the original publication.

The quotation by this local preacher was printed on a flyer that bore Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on the other side. Some, at the time, apparently thought that both quotations to belong to Mr. Lincoln. It has been very commonly publicized as the words of Lincoln to this day.

Chances are, however, that our illustrious 16th President would have heartily endorsed the sentiment.

On capitalism and exploitation (falsely so-called)

The “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) crowd and others have frequently used the terms "capitalist" and "exploit" together where "exploit" is referenced in its negative connotation. Many times this application of the term refers to the "exploitation" of foreign workers. While acknowledging that, surely, some workers worldwide are likely subjected to truly coercive means (genuine "slave labor"), the "exploitation" term is wrongly applied on a far larger scale—generally by those with concealed motives or out of pure ignorance. Allow me to tell you why I say this.

For twelve-and-a-half years I lived in El Paso, Texas, which, as you may know, lies just across the Rio Grande from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. As a businessman, I had reason to know something of the so-called "Twin Plant" operations (or maquiladoras), where U.S. companies frequently had facilities both in Juarez and El Paso. I also knew folks who lived in Juarez, Mexico, on a personal basis and had reason to converse with them on many topics.

At the time (mid-1980s), the typical U.S. plant in Juarez was paying workers something under two dollars per hour (I don't recall the precise figures). The typical U.S. plant was relatively new, air conditioned, well-lighted, and the firm provided safety training and safety gear to its workers. In many cases the U.S. firm also provided a cafeteria for the workers; and in some cases, these U.S. companies also provided on-site day-care for working mothers. Working at, let us say, $1.75 per hour, a worker in such a plant could make $70 in a normal 40-hour week, not including the value of the fringe benefits such as day-care or a free company cafeteria.

Also, however, among my personal acquaintances, was a typical young woman who worked for a Mexican employer—a baking company. This woman worked in a hot (not air conditioned) bakery for up to 60 hours a week. There was no company cafeteria and no on-site child-care paid at the expense of her employer. This young woman took home, on average, $11 to $16 (US) per week. That amounts to pay in the range of thirty cents ($0.30 US) an hour.

The differences between the working conditions and pay supplied by that nasty old U.S. company "exploiting" Mexican workers (as folks ignorantly decried) versus the working conditions and pay at that fine, wholesome, and upstanding Mexican firm explained clearly why—for every opening at the U.S. company's plant—there were more than 300 people just standing in line, waiting to "exploited" under such circumstances. These Mexican workers could not wait to be "exploited" at five or six times the pay, and working a 50 percent shorter workweek!

It is impossible to compare wages across such economic boundaries. No, $1.75 per hour—even in the 1980s—would not be a living wage for a man with a family in the U.S. But for a worker in Mexico, it was a rich wage for which they were more than grateful.

Exploitation, in its negative connotation, cannot happen in the absence of coercion or fraud. Most U.S. firms—I am convinced—do not participate willingly in situations where fraud or coercion is being used to unfairly extract labors from people—any people. Nevertheless, thousands of ill-informed people—especially those with strong allegiances to unions—will wrongfully call what the U.S. firm  was doing (as described above) "exploitation." It is, but only in the positive connotation of the term. (If you don't know what that is, then look it up. You need to understand it.)

Big Government damages the economy, reduces wages, and more

Without being overly dramatic, it is a fair statement that the presence of government is, in itself, induces economic distortions into the economy. This is true for at least two reason:

1. Taxes, collected in any form to support government operations, change the basis of economic calculation and take resources (e.g., capital, manpower) out of the private economy
   
2. Government regulations take further resources from the private economy, by forcing businesses to employ capital and manpower in efforts to comply with these regulations

The larger government grows, the taxes it takes to support it and the more regulations it promulgates, the greater the economic distortions. However, the effect of government growth (as a percent of GDP) is not linear. Instead, as government grows beyond a certain point, the curve turns upward exponentially.

Texas A&M University’s Edgar Browning, writing in Stealing From Each Other (2008), concludes that out own excessive government reduces average incomes in the U.S. by about 25 percent. The more the U.S. politicians insist on growing spending, the more average American incomes will be squeezed downward.

Mind you, the squeezing will occur only against the middle class. The extremely wealthy—especially those connected with international banking and capital brokerages (Wall Street)—are affected by this squeeze. Similarly, those at the bottom of the economy are not greatly affected. They are sheltered mostly because they are being propped up through (damaging) government entitlements and supports (e.g., welfare, minimum wage mandates).

There’s more damage

As government grows, the more it creates a top-down bureaucracy that was formerly alien to our American tradition of individual liberty. The growth in federal power and over-regulation tends to destroy both diversity and innovation in state and local governments by seeking to impose nationwide uniformity through its rules. Federal aid to states is always accompanied by reams of regulations that reduce freedom and operating choices.

In short—whether we run trillion-dollar deficits or not—cutting federal spending is beneficial because the cuts automatically contribute to the dispersion of power (back to the states) and the expansion of liberty.