Many that are running or planning to run on the left side of the aisle have made the minimum wage issue a prime concern of their campaigns. This does make sense as 58% of Americans according to a Pew Research Center poll support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. While those that support an increase may have the best intentions, good intentions don’t make good economic policy. In fact, raising the minimum wage has disastrous effects on the economy and hurts those that it aims to help.
The hardest job of any employer is to find good employees and to keep them. How do they keep these valuable workers? This can be done through benefits such as higher pay, healthcare, vacation days and so on. When employers have to compete with other employers for labor, the workers benefits increase. In fact, a 2013 Congressional Budget Study found that just raising the minimum wage to $10 would cost the nation 500,000 jobs. Even a slight rise in the minimum wage by just $1 could result in a 4-10% increase in the likelihood that a business will close according to the Harvard Business School. With the current minimum wage at $7.25 and the new call to raise it to $15, that's an $8 increase which will result in a 32-80% likelihood that a business will close. On top of this, new entrepreneurs will see these high costs and simply not try to open new businesses. This means that already established companies will go under, causing job loss, and new companies won’t take their places, keeping those jobs lost. Even the lucky few who do get to keep their jobs will see their hours cut as employers try and stay afloat. In fact in 2013 Seattle raised their minimum wage to $13 an hour and the average worker lost $125, a rather large pay reduction for those struggling to make ends meet, and anyone who’s had a job will know that there's always that ping of jealousy upon finding out a coworker makes more then they do. So in order to keep their more senior or specialized employees happy, businesses will have to give them a raise as the minimum wage would now make the most basic dishwasher’s pay the same as the more advanced, and perhaps older, fry cook. This would further strain the profit margins of businesses and in order to reduce costs, employers will be less likely to hire teenagers who are looking for their first job as that unskilled teenager is just that, unskilled, meaning that a business will have to pay more for unskilled labor when they could pay the same price for a more skilled laborer. In order to have the dream job you need to have the first one. With new businesses no longer starting up and employers having to fire workers to keep costs down, this creates a California situation, meaning that in places like California (with a high minimum wage) we have employees competing for jobs which usually means they’ll take whatever comes their way, no matter the benefits offered (or lack thereof). This would mean that businesses no longer have an incentive to offer better benefits for their workers as there is a lack of jobs so people will take what they can get. In economic terms, this is a lack of supply (jobs) with a high demand (people wanting jobs) causing a shortage and an inelastic situation. However let's say the minimum wage (both state and federal) are abolished, wouldn’t that just mean employers will take advantage of their employees? The answer is they’ll try to but we forget that we live in a free market society meaning that I don’t have to stay at a job that only offers me $5 an hour. Instead, I am free to go next door to the place that is offering $10 or the place across the street that’s offering $12 an hour and healthcare. The point is, businesses will have to compete amongst themselves for workers. No matter how greedy the employer, they still need workers and the only way to get them is with good pay, minimum wage just hurts both the employer and employee. -Jared Zimmerman
0 Comments
Since the United States has pulled out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, most (if not all) our European allies have followed suit in limiting business to Iran. This has lead to the isolation of Iran, turning Iran into a sort of North Korea in terms of ostracization.
This forced isolation is a good thing as it keeps the radicals (indeed Iran is a radical nation) from, "infecting" for lack of a better term, mainstream society. This isolation has also stunted Iran's nuclear program as Iran is no longer getting the necessary materials needed to make atomic weapons (though they are most likely still trying). However Iran is also no longer getting raw materials to help rebuild its collapsing infrastructure. This lead many Iranian youth to protest the dictatorship of Iran a couple of months ago. As this infrastructure continues to disintegrate more protests if not open rebellions are almost certain to take place and the West must be ready to aid these groups (though this is a matter for another day). Another plus to the US pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal and Europe turing it's back on Iran, is the more or less forced relationship being built between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Twenty if not ten years ago someone were to say that the Jews and the Arabs would be working together in the Middle East most of the world would laugh. Yet here we see the age old idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" being done to the benefit of not only the Middle East but also to that of the United States. Instead of American troops having to be sent there (a threat to lives and taxpayers) we see Israeli and Saudi troops working together in the region against Iran. Overall it would appear that everyone (save Iran) is benefiting from the US pulling out of the deal. - Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 2/8/19) Right off the bat it is necessary to note that one: in no shape or form does this piece seek to bash homosexuals. This article is simply a thought experiment. Two: For a majority of this blog, I as the author have tried to refrain from majority opinion pieces and rather majority factual articles. However this piece will have to be an exemption.
The idea for this piece began when a friend of mine stated that she was a liberal for various reason but then used the phrase "and because I love gay people". I then stated that as a conservative and in fact a majority of conservatives don't hate gay people but we do find a problem with homosexual marriage. I then asked her why can't a brother and sister marry? Or a son and mother, daughter and father or some other incestuous combination. My friend was dumbfounded for lack of a better term as she had never been asked this before. I must admit I found this point interesting as it is a rather common point made by those that are pro traditional marriage (if not this point then at least the famous "why can't I marry a dog" argument but I find the incestual point much stronger and often times more convincing). Anyway, the point is if a pair of homosexuals can marry why can't a brother and sister marry? Doesn't the heart want what the heart wants? And isn't it a form of bigotry that family members can not marry other family members? I mean who are we to say that no brother and sister can not marry. Of course most would (rightly) answer no that they can't but the more pressing question that needs answering is why? When asked this, most people are offended at the comparison of homosexual relationships and incestuous ones. However thirty years ago the comparison of straight relationships to homosexual ones was deemed offensive. So what gives homosexuals the right or "pass" to be offended at the comparison between themselves and inceoutusu couples when straight couples are called bigots when they object to the comparison between them and homosexual couples. Hasn't homosexaul marriage become the new striaght marriage in the way that straights and homsexuals can marry but incstous one can't? Doesn't this make straights and homosexuals bigots? Either everyone can marry whoever they want or their needs to be a standard and for most of human history that standard was traditional marriage. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, the definition of marriage is left without a standard as there is no plausible argument against inceosus marriage or for that matter sticking to only two per marriage (Belgium is already looking at the legalization of three per marriage). Again I as the author want to reiterate that this is not an attack on homosexuals or even homosexulity, this is just a question that is going to need to be answered in the coming years as this will become an issue in our lifetime. - Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 2/1/19) The 2020 elections began at the conclusion of the 2018 midterms and oh boy have things really taken off.
It began with Senator Warren announcing her run for the presidency and with former Vice President Joe Biden stating he'll "look into it." However there are deep problems with both would be candidates, Warren will/can not get over her DNA test failure (which showed that she is much less Native American then she claimed). This would give Republicans wonderful campaign ads as Warren is a major part of this new, far left progressive (which has turned regressive) Democratic party. The problem with Joe Biden is that his own party doesn't like him. Many left wing news organization such as the Washington Post and the Huffington Post have claimed Biden is "a creep" and that many female staffers felt "uncomfortable" around him (turns out there's more evidence on Biden then Kavanaugh). However while this is a major problem, a bigger problem democrats face is that Biden isn't left enough, he's much to center. When your "thought leader" is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who just stated she wants to tax Americans 70% for her "New Green Deal") you need to be left of Marx to reach anywhere near her outspoken basis (or just have failed an economics class). A third possible candidate is Beto O'Rourke, who lost to Sen. Ted Cruz (a possible Republican candidate but chances are he won't run until 2024). The problem is that fans of socialism prefer Bernie Sanders over this supposedly "new Kennedy". Yet the problem with Sanders is that accusations of sexual assault are running rampant against his 2016 presidential campaign which could lead his supporters to going to O'Rourke but even with these supporters O'Rourke isn't center enough like Biden to get those independent voters. All in all there are about "two dozen" democrats looking at their chances in 2020 so things are bound to get interesting. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 1/10/19) President Trump ended 2018 on a sour note (at least on the foreign policy scale) by beginning to plan the withdrawal of all American troops from Syria and half of our troop presence in Afghanistan. This is foolish foreign policy which will lead to more Iraq's and a possible nuclear taliban.
Whether or not you agree with President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq (I do but that's a discussion for later) the invasion wasn't what established ISIS. It was President Obama's premature pulling out of Iraq which created ISIS. How? Well when you overthrow a nation's government AND then leave, someone's going to take the position of top dog. Look at Europe for example. When Nazi Germany and its allies were defeated, the Soviet Union and her satellite states took power. Whether we like it or not we are in the business of nation building, especially in the Middle East. A direct consequence of lowering our troop presence in Afghanistan is the possibility of the taliban becoming more active in the region. This is especially troubling when it comes to Pakistan as our troop presence in Afghanistan has helped lower terrorist activity in that nation. However if/when we pull out then this allows a power vacuum to occur (much like what will happen in Syria and what did happen in Iraq) and since Pakistan does have nuclear weapons it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the chances of the taliban gaining nuclear capiolotes increases dramatically. All and all if we pull out we will have to return. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 1/3/18) On Friday, the world lost a good man. And it truly was the world that lost him as is evident throughout our own country and in Kuwait where Bush lead the coalition to liberate that country from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Bush was a member of the greatest generation, fighting in the Pacific during World War II (during which he was shot down), he was head of the CIA, Vice President for both of Reagan's terms and finally the 41st President of the United States and father to the 43rd President. Yet it should be noted that his last words were to his son, George W. Bush, "I love you, too". We need to come together in moments like these and respect the man not for politics (of which there are numerous things I disagree with) but for what he was, a man that wouldn't attack his opponents personally, a war hero, a husband and a loving father. We also shouldn't try and use the death of anyone to try and push our own political narrative (like what happened at John Mccain's funeral). All in all, farewell 41. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 12/5/18) Hungary and Ukraine. These are two countries that are very rarely talked about in American media, much less used in the same sentence. However the growing rift between these two countries are starting to embolden one of our historic enemies, Russia. The major cause of conflict between Hungary and Ukraine has to do with the 1920 Treaty of Trianon which saw the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and left half of Hungary's population stranded throughout Eastern Europe. 156,000 of these ethnic-Maygars are in Western Ukraine. Recently, Ukraine just past a law stating that secondary schools (middle-high schools) must teach in Ukrainian. This of course has angered Hungary as Hungary has been in the process of trying to reach ethnic-Maygars across Eastern Europe since 1930. Hungary has in response barred Ukrainian admission into NATO. This has all played out right into Putin's hands and as Russia has recently sized three Ukrainian ships this is much cause for concern. If Eastern Europe continues to be divided then Eastern Europe will return to being nothing more than an extension of Russia. Now is the time for the United States to make both countries come to the table and work out a deal. How? By threatening to take back all financial and military aid given to both countries. The West must be a united front against the Russian bear and if we start arguing amongst ourselves the West has already fallen. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 11/29/18) With growing Chinese aggression not only in trade but also in military form the United States needs allies in the that are in close proximity to China to help keep them at bay.
India currently claims that China occupies 14,000 square miles in the Aksai Chin along the northern border of Kashmir and during the summer of 2017 Chinese forces attempted to build a road through Indian territory to Bhutan. The Chinese countered that it was Chinese territory and all Indian forces need to withdraw. India has also been a vocal opponent to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which is more or less Chinese funding for Pakistani infrustruce with the goal of modernizing Pakistan. Of course a modern Pakistan is not in the interest of India which gives the US a perfect opening to get India at the table. However why India? India is the only nation that has had anti-Chinese rhetoric and be directly connected to China. India is also one of the few nations to compete with the strength of the Chinese military (due to its multiple conflicts with Pakistan) and is one of the few nations with nuclear weapons. An alliance with India would also allow the US to give weapons (even more so than we already do) to the Indian military rather then send even more American troops when we are already engaged in the Middle East, especially with the growing threat of Iran. And it would allow the West to hold the Chinese feet to the fire when pressuring Beijing on its construction of military bases in the South China Sea and its aggressive invasion of the Arctic and Africa. In other words if the United States were to miss this opportunity we would be nothing but foolish. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 10/31/18) Due to the outcry against President Trump on redefining the word "sex" in Title IX (back to its original meaning of biological sex) the debate on "transgenderism" is now back in session.
If we keep to the standard of biology (XX and XY) then we get the answer that there are only two genders. However once we stray from this hard standard there are a multitude of questions/problems that need to be answered. For example this idea of basing policy or decisions on how an individual feels has opened up the doors to ideas such as "transspecies" (the idea that someone can identify as another species), "transagism" (the idea someone can identify as a different age then there biological age) and even "transracialism" (the idea that an individual can identify as a different race). These new ideas of course have a brought upon a flood of problems or soon to be problems. Some of these problems/questions that need to be answered by the "trans" movement are: can someone that is biologically 35 years old marry someone who is also biologically 35 years old but identifies as someone who's 6 years? And if there's someone whose 25 years old and they currently have a job but now they self identify as an 8 year old does that person's place of employment now have to fire them as keeping that person hired is now child labor? Or how about a person who is biologically a 14 year old can that kid now identify as a 21 year old and thus be able to buy alcohol? Of course these questions may seem ridiculous and they would be utterly ridiculous if we stayed at the standard of biology but that's not what the "trans" movement wants. They want to go based off of a person's feelings and by going based off this there is no reason anyone can't be anything and the "trans" movement can not pick and choose which "transism" it wants to support because to do so would be a complete contradiction to their entire movement of feelings. - Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 10/25/18) The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), a forum between China and all states of Africa ended yesterday. The goal of these talk, for China to begin competing against the West in Africa and most likely the Middle East. During these talks the Chinese are setting themselves up as the "savior of Africa" in which they are trying to persuade the African states to subjugate themselves to the Chinese State (in reality the Chinese Communist Party). In fact this can already be seen in Kenya, Ethiopia, Angola, Djibouti and Nigeria which have had their entire railway system funded by China.
The danger of this is of course Chinese influence in the region and with China having a rating of "Not Free" according to Freedom House, it is safe to say that China isn't exactly advocating for freedom like it's Western counterparts. It also may not stop at just influence as many African states find themselves in crippling debt to China and could end up like Sri Lanka, which wich was force to give up it's Hambantota port for 99 years to China due to debt. In the end it is up to the United States and our allies to advocate for freedom abroad and if we turn over the "top dog" position to China, millions if not billions will suffer as a result. -Jared Zimmerman (originally published on 9/26/18) |
Bringing you a
|