The United States of Amerika

The New World Order in the United States. Not quite the utopia the progressive liberals promise.

We need American jobs

If only more people in DC would think like this, maybe we can begin cleaning up the mess the previous scoundrels made for us.

This is not about right or left, this is not about Democrat or Republican, this is about America. The TEA Party is about America!

Don't you find it ridiculous that it takes so many pages to define what a authorized borrower is? And that is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many layers of regulation placed on our job creators, its no wonder they move over seas. In fact our jobs czar, Jeffrey Immelt has decided to move GE out of Wisconsin, and move to China.  And Obama accuses Romney of outsourcing.

Watch the speech again. That is what true bi-partisanship looks like.

How much are you worth?

Why does anyone have a job? It is not complicated. You and everyone has a job for one reason, and only one reason.  Someone has a great idea for something, say they want to produce food, people need food and want a variety of it. So this one person (lets call him Stan) figures out a way to produce his food product, and lots of people like it. But now he has a problem, more people like his product than he can produce by himself, so here is where your job comes in. He needs to have someone help him produce his product, so he finds you to help him (we'll call you Joe). In exchange for helping him produce, you agree to take X amount of dollars as compensation for your labor. So we now have an exchange of something (usually a wage) for something of value to him (your labor). TA DA! the first job is created.

This is the only reason you or anyone else has a job, there is too much work for one person to do for himself, so he finds other people to handle the excess labor. In our small world everything is working great. Stan now can produce enough, and Joe has negotiated a price for his labor that he thinks is "fair". Until..... the day that Joe sees another person (Phil) doing a similar job and making X+1 dollars. So you now feels slighted because you are not making the same wage as Phil. So you ask Stan for an increase in your compensation (a raise), Stan says okay, because he has more customers and can pay more for your labor. Yippee! you are now compensated more for your labor.

But now Phil finds out that you are getting the same as he is getting, only he is actually doing more labor, so now he feels that he is making less than he is worth, so he goes to his boss to get a raise. Competition has now been entered into the whole labor market. And it works, Stan is happy, Joe is happy, and Phil is happy.  The system works. It is called Capitalism.

Now we add the labor union leader (Norma) into the picture. Norma thinks that Joe is being wronged, and should be making the same  as Phil, it doesn't matter that Joe is happy, all that matters is that Norma thinks he is not being treated "fairly". So Norma convinces Joe to have her represent him in labor negotiations where she will guarantee better wages and better working conditions. She believes that Joe should be making X+3, but Stan cannot afford to pay Joe X+3. This, of course, doesn't stop Norma from demanding x+3, in fact she will make it impossible for Stan to make any money because she will have Joe not do any work (a strike) for a time to force Stan to pay Joe x+3.

Before Norma came in our little system was happy. Nobody felt slighted that they were not being paid less than they were worth. But Norma now introduces class envy into the labor exchange process. "Stan is making his money off the back of Joe's labor, and isn't sharing sufficiently," Norma whispers in Joe's ear. Stan negotiates with Norma and is forced to pay Joe X+3, but it puts him at a great disadvantage in the market in which he is competing. Eventually Stan cannot afford to pay Joe anymore and lays him off. Now Joe isn't even making X, much less the X+3 Norma negotiated for him. So who get the fingers pointed at them? Stan the "greedy, selfish Capitalist". But who is really to blame in this scenario? I think its Norma, who thought that she could demand more for Joe than Stan could pay.

So that leaves us with today's dilemma, labor unions have been demanding higher wages and more benefits from the taxpayers for years. They have told workers that they are worth X+10 ( it doesn't matter that the society cannot continue to pay them X+10 any longer), they are worth it and feel slighted if they do not get it, because of their "intrinsic value to society".  Who is to say that a teacher, or a firefighter or cop has more "intrinsic value" to society than a farmer, or a truck driver? We cannot continue to demand that one portion of society (non-union labor) continue to sacrifice more each year for another, smaller, portion of society (unionized labor).

Just because the labor union says you are worth X+10 dollars, doesn't mean that the society can pay you X+10 dollars. So what happens when society says, "Enough, we can only pay you X+8 dollars"? Well look at the Capital Square in Madison, WI to see what happens. We the people are not saying you are not worthy of our compensation, what we are saying is we don't have the resources that you believe, and we cannot continue to give you more of those resources than we ourselves need.

This is not a fight over a pile of excess money laying around (as the labor unions would like their members to believe), this is about an ever decreasing pool of money, that we all need access to.  Just because you are a member of a labor union doesn't mean you get more access to it than I do. If you think Phil will willingly chip into Joe's wages when he is now getting less compensation than Joe, you are not thinking clearly. Phil is tapped out, and now he is outraged as well.

We cannot continue to listen to Norma and have Joe get mad at Phil. Both Joe and Phil are laborers, even Stan is not evil and corrupt because he wants to keep the fruits of his labor as well. Nope! Our problem is Norma's class envy, and meddling into a system that has worked for a very long time.  The enemy is not Capitalism, it is class envy! Have we sold our souls for a bowl of cheap oatmeal?

How do you define compassion?

The next time a progressive calls you greedy try this argument. How compassionate is it to take resources from a worker and give it to those who do not work. Notice I didn't say those who "cannot" work. There are jobs available. McDonalds is hiring, but most people who are unemployed will not take that job because they somehow feel the job is beneath them.

The Bible says if a man will not work, he should not eat. Notice it doesn't say if a man cannot work. It is not about ability or aptitude, it is about will. If a man chooses not to work because he can get more resources from not working, then we have the problem with entitlement. How compassionate is it to let a man take from the resources of others who contribute, when he is able to contribute himself, but refuses to? That is not compassion that is greed, and it is happening all the time with the current poor.

Many of them are poor because that is the path they have chosen. The welfare mom who keeps popping out babies to increase her monthly allotment from the workers while giving nothing back to the world. The OWS protesters who have college degrees but will not work for a company that doesn't give them a six figure salary. The union laborer who demands a larger salary and extreme benefits packages while the taxpayers cut corners and scrimp and save to put money away for a retirement that they may never be able to afford. The illegal alien who takes cash payouts with no paper trail and pays nothing in taxes, and has children born on our soil only so he can claim citizenship for his child.

All of these are a drain on our society, and this is what God was saying when he said a man who will not work should not eat.

So the progressive will pull out the whole compassion argument at this point. "How can you be so greedy and not share with those who aren't able to work?" But I made sure to point out this is for the man who chooses not to work, not those who through some physical or mental incapacity cannot work. The system itself is broken, because some think that it is our responsibility to take care of everyone. But how compassionate is a system that takes what someone has duly earned through hard work and gives it to someone who refuses to work?

So then the, "But through no fault of their own, they cannot find a job." diatribe will come out. If they are willing to take a job that makes less than they feel they are worth, then I have no problem helping them out. But if they refuse to work because they think a job is beneath them (can you hear me OWS?) than once again; how compassionate is it to take from the hard working individual to give to those who will not work?

"But you have greater advantage, these people have so much more to overcome to get a decent job." Oh really, so the fact that I had to work for $.50 per hour take home, after paying for child care is good enough for me but not for thee, then I have no compassion for those who think minimum wage is not enough. Work is not a guarantee, it is a privilege. Many more people need to realize that they are not "owed" a job; you need to work for it, and work hard for it, especially if you want the six-figure salary.

My contention is that it is actually harmful to just allow people to scrounge off the hard work of others. It disincentives work and removes the sense of self-worth people need to feel good. The whole movement of equalizing outcomes is harmful to the nation and the people, it makes work anathema. If you don't get to keep the fruits of your labor, what reason is there to work? This is not compassion, it is actually more harmful to the people to let them continue to sponge off of society.

The solution is not an easy one, for the most part people believe that they are entitled to a living; whether that be through a job, where there is no need to actually work hard, or to an entitlement program where they need not work either. So how do we again instill a sense of worth to employment? I don't know if there is anyway to do it other than to rip the band-aid off in one quick rip. Yes it will hurt in the short run, but we have to do it. We have a whole segment of society that will scream at the top of their lungs, but if we are to have any compassion, we need to do it fast and we need to do it soon.

No more kicking the can down the road. No more false compassion.