Liberal Rhetoric 101: Static Budget Predictions

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed raising the Federal Minimum Wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour. Liberals have, of course, trumpeted the idea as raising standard of living for the poor (a concept Biblical Conservatism refuted in Compassionate Intentions (No Results Required) a few weeks back).  Today we're going to focus on another claim liberals have made: Raising minimum wage will only cost employers X, and therefore shouldn't be a financial hardship!

Setting aside the fact that this claim ignores that employers rarely do what liberals say they "should" do because liberals often ignore the realities of human nature (which is subsequently why socialism and communism don't work and capitalism does, but I digress) -- this claim also uses the fallacy-ridden practice of Static Budgeting.

Liberals will tell you, using this principle that an employer with ten minimum wage employees who average thirty hours a week will only have to pay $525 more a week and that shouldn't require much of a price increase to compensate! 

Other than the fact that this "only $525 a week" is somebody else's money (therefore making it awfully easy for that liberal to make that claim) there is a second massive hole in this claim: it ignores the chain reactions within the price increase that a business owner has to plan for in raising prices to compensate for the new wages he is required to pay.  Let's bring up a few of these unseen potential costs:

• The business may not be able to swallow the increased costs and therefore may cut their employees' hours to compensate.
•  The above cut in hours could impact the quality of service for their customers. For example, a fast food restaurant who cuts customers will necessarily move more slowly in their food preparation. That means they will not only be able to serve fewer customers in a day -- which cuts their incoming revenue -- but they may also lose customers over that, further cutting their incoming revenue.
• The business will need to raise the prices of their product. When prices go up, many customers will buy the product less frequently. That means, again, a cut to incoming revenue.
• Some of the suppliers of the materials business owners require to supply their customers needs may also pay their employees minimum wage, which means that their operating costs may go up. 

These four  examples are not the entirety of the hidden costs of raising minimum wage. Each of these four are potential costs associated above and beyond the static prediction that liberals give considering ONLY the immediate cost of raising minimum wage -- the cost in the payroll ledger.

Liberals love to budget the projected costs of anything statically. They love to ignore the reactions that may happen in a free market that are catalyzed by the initial change.  They love to ignore the predictable market reactions to any change. It doesn't work that way. Liberals love to pretend that the laws of physics that also apply to a free market doesn't apply when they raise minimum wage, taxes, etc. don't actually apply. They expect their action to not set up a chain reaction.

Except that's what always happens. Static budget predictions never come true. There are just too many other things that effect the cost of a minimum wage increase, or tax increase, or healthcare mandate that aren't taken into effect. Business owners don't just compensate for the costs that will DEFINITELY happen. They compensate for the costs that COULD happen, because failure to do so could cause their business to collapse.

Ask yourself what THAT would do to people's "standard of living?"

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Theory Over Experience

"You're just going to have to trust me on this one...I'm the one with the degree in Economics, remember?"

This was an argument I once heard from a liberal when I had the audacity to question the predicted results of a minimum wage increase. The general point of this was "I'm an expert, you aren't, so my opinions are above your questions."

This is different from true expert testimony, by the way. A true expert, when giving testimony, has to do more than establish their credentials by their vocation or degree, at least with a person who does not know enough about them to trust them at their word.

Often times, it usually focuses on education, rather than real world experience. Academics (that is college professors or researchers) tend to think their book smarts far outrank the real-world experiences of others. To give an example, having a degree in Economics often gives a person knowledge of Economic theory, but given the diversity of theories it doesn't necessarily give them understanding of what actually works in the real world (often it doesn't, actually).  A person who has actually run a business understands more than a person who studies theories.

When it comes to the effect of a minimum wage increase on both the real spending power of a minimum wage employee as well as on the employer, I can claim real-world expertise. Why is that? Because I managed a national chain restaurant for a few years and oversaw a minimum wage increase. During that time, I saw the effect on pricing of our product and discussed how it effected some of my long-term employees (especially those who were actually making above the minimum wage because they earned raises).

I told this person that the real impact of the increase would be an economic drop because business owners would have to increase prices and cut hours. Further I explained it would be a real money loss to the employee who had already earned raises over minimum wage and a zero real dollar gain to those who were making the old minimum wage.

I was told my real-world expertise doesn't matter, because they had a study from an Economist that proved the increase was positive.  The Economist quoted hadn't run a business. They just knew the theory behind the increase.

It's the same mentality that claims that Keynesian Economics works based on theory. Keynesian Economics doesn't have real-world success stories, just failures. If we were applying real-world success to our choice of economic planning we'd follow a school of economic thought like Supply Side Economics or the Austrian School of Economics, both of which have seen historical success.

Bottom line is this: Real world experience means more than theory, because it's been exercised in practice.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Disagreement = Hate

You disagree with gay marriage? You must be homophobic! You disagree with illegal immigration? You must be racist! You disagree with spending trillions on welfare? You must hate the poor! Right? Right!

At least that's what liberals would have us believe. In short, to love a person, you must love their actions too.  Anyone who is a parent or indeed anyone who has a child in their life knows this is foolishness. I love my nephew, but that doesn't mean I love the smell of his diapers. When I was a child, my parents loved me. They didn't love the fact that I once forged my father's signature on a poor test that had been sent home to be signed.

There was a clear separation between the actions and the person. You can love your adult child while disapproving of the fact that they are living with their significant other while being unmarried. You can love the poor without wanting to give them government handout after government handout that encourages them to stay in poverty.

The same is true for issues like gay marriage. As those of you who read this blog know, I am opposed to gay marriage.* It's not a secret. That doesn't stop me from befriending a gay person in any way. Actually, my high school best friend is gay. (We grew apart due to distance, not due his preferences.)  He unequivocally knew how I felt about his lifestyle, but he also knew I was his friend and loved him like a brother.

Despite what liberals tell you, it is more than possible to love a person while disliking his actions. Jesus modeled this exact principle in the Gospel of John:

³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.  But what do You say?”  ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
 
⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?  Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11

Jesus modeled precisely the OPPOSITE of this attitude of "if you disagree with a deed, you hate the person."  In fact, he demonstrated the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus explained the truth of this matter: You can love a person without loving their actions. You can love a person while disliking/disagreeing with their actions.


So why do liberals bring up this ridiculous accusation? Simple. They want you to be subconsciously forced to agree in action with their mentalities. So many people's decision to believe that "homosexuality is genetic" is based on this rampant claims of "hate!" despite the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence.**

Add in the claim that being opposed to gay marriage is identical to being opposed to interracial marriage (and therefore being opposed to gay marriage is exactly the same as racism) and too many Americans have buckled, including far too many Christians, because they don't want to be considered "hateful."

As with most other Liberal Rhetorical claims, this one is about shutting down debate.  Yet the truth is it is clearly possible and reasonable to dislike a person's actions and still love the person.


* To be more specific, I am opposed to applying the label of "marriage" to homosexual unions. I respect the Constitution -- specifically the 14th Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection under the law -- so I also say that government should in no way hinder the creation of a similar union amongst homosexual unions with the same legal rights while noting that it isn't an identical union as marriage. To me it is no different than saying that my driver's license to drive a standard car is not the same thing as my friend's motorcycle license.

** Although the Drive-By Media takes any so called "study" (barely tested hypotheses, mostly), the vast majority of the respected Biology community has not even touched this issue, so drawing this conclusion is sophistry.  Furthermore, to claim that any genetic condition is therefore how God intended the person to be is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of sin nature theology. Simply stated, when sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell, so many issues began to enter human DNA. This includes but is not limited to genetic conditions like diabetes, auto-immune diseases, digestive disorders like Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Diseas; not to mention genetically inherited addictions like so-called "Crack Babies."