Minimum Wage

The government regulates the labor market by setting a minimum wage that firms must pay their workers. So is a minimum wage worth it? It has the same effect as a price floor on a product. If the equilibrium wage is higher than the minimum wage (price floor), then the minimum wage has no discernable effect on the market, since the equilibrium point will be above the minimum wage. If the equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage, however, then there will be a surplus of labor: at the artificially high minimum wage, demand for labor is lower than supply, meaning that there will be unemployment (surpluses of labor). In this situation, not every worker who is willing to work for the minimum wage will be able to find a firm who wants to hire them.

There are strong arguments for either side. On one hand, if the minimum wage were removed, there might be lower unemployment, but workers might not make enough money to support themselves and their families. On the other hand, with the minimum wage in place, the employed are able to make more money, but many more workers are forced into unemployment and forced to take welfare, while making no contribution towards national productivity.

Whom does the minimum wage hurt the most? Firms will always want skilled workers who can make large contributions to productivity. When the minimum wage is installed, however, it is the least productive workers who are cut from payrolls first. The skilled workers will keep their jobs, perhaps even with higher pay; but the unskilled workers, because their marginal revenue product is lower than the new minimum wage, will be unemployed. The irony of the situation is that most people who advocate a higher minimum wage are hoping to help out the workers at the bottom of the ladder, when in reality, a higher minimum wage could very well put those workers out of a job.

My Opinion: The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot pay an employee. Let the market forces work it out without installing artificial price floors.

Federal Pork on its way to Utah

"OREM, Utah (AP) -- A section of Alpine Loop would get a $2 million study in a federal spending bill agreed to by House and Senate negotiators on Friday.

The bill would bring $21 million in federal spending to Utah, and Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said that $6.3 million of that is for his 3rd district, which covers parts of central and western Utah.

The House passed the measure 392-31. If approved by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would bring:

-- $600,000 to Provo for the city's new performing arts center,

-- $500,000 to Orem to widen Geneva Road from 1600 North to University Parkway

-- $200,000 to Eagle Mountain for community development and park improvements."



Now, as much as I like freebies, this is one I'd rather not be getting (not least of all because it isn't actually a freebie). I don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a road that only we in this area use. And I really don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a performing arts center in Provo and for "community development and park improvements" in Eagle mountain.

The sad part is that this is exactly the kind of government spending that happens all over the place all the time. My tax dollars are probably paying for some performing arts center in Iowa and a bunch of parks in California. These aren't things I will ever use, so why should I pay for them? Conversely, the people of Iowa and California won't ever be using the parks in Eagle Mountain or the performing arts center in Provo, so why should they pay for them?

The underlying issue really is, why are people being forced to pay for these services at all unless they are actually using them? Should the government be allowed to essentially steal money from people to pay for these things? Why can't these things be paid for directly by those who use them? Why does the government have to decide which services we the people "need" and should all be forced to pay for?

Sadly, the answers to those questions are probably too simple, which is why the government and the people of this country can't figure them out.

Socialist Mayor Rocky Anderson Proposing Letting Fuel Efficient Cars Park for Free

"[Salt Lake City] Mayor Rocky Anderson is pushing an ordinance to allow drivers of alternative-fuel, fuel-efficient and low-polluting vehicles to park free at all city metered parking."

This is insane. Here we go again trying to use the government to legislate morality. Hmmmm... I think pollution is bad and so I think I am going to try to force people to pollute less by making them pay more for parking if they don't. Never mind that the next guy has to pay for that spot and he pays just the same in taxes every year as the guy who runs that hybrid.

This is essentially a fine for people who don't buy a certain type of legal vehicle. This is also another scoot closer to socialism. The goverment needs to control less, not more. Let the people keep their freedoms, don't take them away under the banner of "saving the world" from itself.

55-Year Prison Sentence For Dope Dealing

Due to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, Weldon Angelos (a 25 year-old father of 2), has been sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling drugs while in posession of a gun. Many call the sentence extremely harsh, and even the judge who had to hand down this sentence said that it was, "cruel, unjust, and even irrational."

I have always advocated stiff penalties for crime. Yet, even I agree that in this case a 55 year prison term for this offense (in which the gun was not even used, but was present) is probably much too harsh.

We have a problem in this country. Or sentencing guidelines are too complicated, and in some cases flawed. What's worse, people who get sentenced to a long prison term often get out much earlier due to things such as overcrowding. We need to come up with simple, fair, and enforceable prison sentencing guidelines. Someone should be sentenced to an exact amount of time, and good behavior should be able to get them out a little earlier, but not a lot.

When you go to the grocery store, do you see a price tag that says "$5.99 - $15.99" on anything? Of course not! And do you also think that you'll be able to take it to the checkout stand and have a good chance of only paying $2.99 for it? Not a chance. Each crime statute should have a specific sentence. Mathematical modifiers should be tacked on for repeated offenses. Good behavior should only be able to get you out of 10% of your sentence, at the most. For a 5 year-term that is a whole 6 months. If you're convicted to 5 years in prison, you should spend 5 years in prison (minus up to 10% for good behavior), not 2 years, not 5 to 15 years. What kind of message are we sending? And what kind of an unfair system are we sponsoring here that can reward people because too many others have committed crimes and so there isn't enough room in the jail for them?

Medicine for "Addicted" Gamblers?

There are aparently many people who claim that their gambling habit is so bad that they can't possibly stop on their own. And even worse, they claim it is not their fault, that they are somehow chemically difficient in a way that keeps them addicted. Now, while I believe that certain people are more predisposed to some types of behavior than others, I don't believe that anyone has truly lost their freedom to choose whether or not they gamble.

Let's say for a moment that someone was chemically difficient, to the point where they truly cannot stop themselves from gambling. Why go to work? Isn't it easier to commit crimes to get more money faster and for free rather than going to work? Why don't they just mug the first guy they see? If you look at a person who actually is chemically altered to where they can't control themselves anymore, such as a person who is very high on certain illegal narcotics, they truly act like maniacs. Many police officers around the country can attest to that. They made the active choice to take the drugs in the first place, which then took away their freedom to make choices while they were high. And while they are high they don't care about anything else, which then makes them very dangerous as they tend to hurt anyone around them to get more drugs. This is why they are arrested in such a state and why narcotics are illegal.

So if some people can truly be chemically altered by gambling, then shouldn't it be illegal too? And shouldn't these people be locked up long enough to go through the gambling withdrawal symptoms, just like a druggie? I mean, really, if they're really chemically altered then they could just mug someone or kill someone so they could have more money to gamble. But, we don't do that, which I am glad for. The reason? These people aren't really chemically altered so they can't stop gambling. It is simply a lack of personal control. They do not have the personal fortitude to decide to stop. They get a rush from it just like a junkie does from drugs, or a runner gets from adrenaline, or some other regular person gets from eating a certain food.

Let's not take every instance of people who don't want to change their lives bad enough to do so, and turn it into a clinically diagnosed disease and then try to come up with a medicine to fix it. Let's encourage personal responsability to both the gamblers, the casinos, and the institution that lends money to gamblers. Let's not just throw taxpayers' money at research and an attempt for a "cure" when really all we're doing is making Joe Taxpayer pay for people's gambling habits. This is a land of freedoms, and personal choices, and (less and less) personal responsability. Let's take some and quit passing the buck.