A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public


By Jonathan Swift (1729)

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couples who are able to maintain their own children, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom; but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remains one hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, laborers, and four-fifths of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants; the mother will have eight shillings net profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

As to our city of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service; and these to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable; and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission be a loss to the public, because they soon would become breeders themselves; and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly), as a little bordering upon cruelty; which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality as a prime dainty; and that in his time the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty's prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who without one single groat to their fortunes cannot stir abroad without a chair, and appear at playhouse and assemblies in foreign fineries which they never will pay for, the kingdom would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition; they cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it; and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies; and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.

Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a-piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby increased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating: and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.

Sixthly, This would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. We should see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousand carcasses in our exportation of barreled beef, the propagation of swine's flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables; which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well-grown, fat, yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a lord mayor's feast or any other public entertainment. But this and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh, besides others who might have it at merry meetings, particularly at weddings and christenings, I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where probably they will be sold somewhat cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. This I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual Kingdom of Ireland, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for an hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt two millions of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, cottagers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect: I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

The End

Venison Poisoned to Keep Homeless From Eating It

EXCERPT:

The Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission (SBRM) in Louisiana has been serving specially-prepared venison, or deer meat, to hungry folks throughout the region for many years. The state's deer management program actually encourages hunters to donate their extra venison to this and other non-profit endeavors, as deer meat is high in protein, full of nutrients and best of all, clean and untainted by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

The program has been so successful, in fact, that many state representatives routinely donate money and other resources to the deer processors that volunteer their own time and resources to prepare the meat and ensure its safety before shipping it out to local food kitchens like SBRM. What better way to salvage all that deer meat that would otherwise go to waste as a result of deer population control than to donate it to people with no other food to eat?

The Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals (DHH), however, has a different opinion on the matter. After catching wind of the program, DHH took swift action to completely destroy it, claiming it violates state law. Even though SBRM receives absolutely no funding or support from the state, DHH basically assumed the authority to declare that serving venison to hungry people in need is off limits.

According to officials from DHH, deer meat is apparently "not permitted to be served in a shelter, restaurant or any other public eating establishment in Louisiana." So, without a second thought, the soulless agency swooped in like a vulture and demanded that the program end immediately. DHH even went so far as to declare that the 1,600 pounds of deer meat in SBRM's possession be immediately thrown into a dumpster, and have bleach poured all over it in order to ensure that nobody ate it.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039827_government_food_charity_oppression.html#ixzz2Ptv4tRNs

90% of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard

The good ol' days. We always hear about them from our parents and grandparents. Some of us were there and still look back with fond nostalgia to the heyday of American capitalism. The 1950's defined the American ideal. We had emerged from World War II as the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and we were ready to cash in on our victory.

There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.

Our parents and grandparents were no slackers. They had paid their dues through the most destructive war mankind had ever known, they had struggled through the misery of the Great Depression before that. They were grateful to be rewarded now with an honest day's pay for an honest day of work, and spiteful of those godless Communists who could promise only drudgery. Our own social contract worked out just fine. Our obligations to our neighbors and to our country were tempered by the personal liberty prescribed in our nation's Constitution. The harder we worked, the better life would be, and there were no free rides for anyone. The promise of freedom was never more clear. Each man would be made or broken on the basis of his very own efforts. And for the time-being, it was upheld by a government we still believed was for the people and by the people, serving the interests of the people.

In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan.

In 2012, the average cost for an automobile was $30,748, slightly more than double what a minimum wage worker would be paid, before taxes, working full time.

So does this mean that the average American worker only works half as hard as his counterpart in 1950?

A lot of people would be quick to answer yes, absolutely. The average worker in 1950 probably did work twice as hard as today's worker, many might agree. Which might explain too, why even someone like a grocery clerk, a department store salesperson, a delivery driver, why so many jobs paid well enough for a person to actually support a family on back then, while today most people think of such jobs as "lowly" or "meant for high-school kids."

I remember when I first entered the labor market myself back in the late 1980's, that being a grocery store cashier or department clerk was still considered to be a viable career option. There were plenty of adults supporting households on what they earned in those postilions. No one was getting rich, but the bills got paid. For a young teenager like myself, there was the promise of a competitive wage, regular raises, benefits, and even retirement if I put in the time there. Hardly what a worker today can expect from a company like Wal-Mart.

But is this because people are actually working less, are they any less skilled? Quite the opposite actually.

A projectionist in a movie theater was once considered to be a prestigious technical grade career, that required an apprenticeship rather than a college degree. Today, it's a minimum-wage job. While much of the "old art" has gone the way of the Dodo bird due to changes in technology, and while more and more classic projectionists are finding themselves out of work entirely, movie projection itself is not completely automated. Even with the newest digital projectors, a knowledgeable technician is still required. 

There are still some old techniques and skills that the worker still needs to understand, the fundamentals of projection with lighting and lenses and so forth. But rather than splicing together platters of film, the modern projectionist must understand complex  computer programs. There is also the hardware to maintain, such as the computer terminal used to control the projectors, or even the speakers and sound system components of a theater. While the technology has indeed made a dramatic shift, the need for a skilled technician still remains. So why are the old projectionists out of work now, and why has this job become a minimum wage endeavor with little prestige?

Quite simply, because worker productivity has been undermined by depressed wage standards. The projectionist unions have had their backs broken, and the high-school kid who is good with computers will come in and do the job for video game money. There ends the once prestigious career of movie theater projectionist. Either that high school kid will move on to college in a year or two to be replaced by another high school kid, or he will be stuck in a dead-end job with his pay raises tied to the Federal minimum wage increases. A minimum wage that is far less than what he would have earned in 1950. 

From 1950 to 2000, the productivity of the American worker increased roughly 400%. This means that the standard of living for the average American worker should be 4 times higher, or that it should only take one-fourth the number of work hours to enjoy the same standard of living as someone working the same job in 1950. In the year 2000, we were working 4 times harder and/or smarter than our parents and grandparents were in 1950. One worker today, is doing the work of four or more employees in 1950.

This runs contrary to what they tell us of course, and what we even tell ourselves, about everyone being lazy good-for-nothings today. But clearly this self-hating mindset is brought on by psychosocial factors, rather than mathematical truth. 

Productivity and Workweek

The hard data for that particular study only runs up to the year 2000, but we want to get a little bit closer to where we are at today. Using the data from that study, we can project that by 2010 worker productivity had increased by at least 425% since 1950, and even more by 2013. For the purposes of this essay though, with the the data that is readily available, we will adjust the entire data set to 2010 dollars.

If we take the inflation adjusted minimum wage for 1950 then multiply that by 4.25 to account for increased productivity, according to the working standards of previous generations, a minimum wage worker today should be paid $28.56 per hour in 2010 dollars. That is $2.48 cents more than 75%  of American workers in 2010 who were paid less than $26.08 per hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Shadowstats

The disparity in wages versus productivity has no doubt only increased in the last few years, for which the numbers have not yet been fully published. More alarmingly though, the picture is actually worse than that portrayed by the flawed methodology of the BLS statistics. For example, if they reported the unemployment rate the way it was measured back in the 1930's we would see that unemployment was actually higher in 2012 than at any point during the Great Depression.

But these aren't the only numbers they tinker around with ni order to trick the public. Another example is how they make it rather difficult to find what the median hourly wage is, or how they make a mean wage appear as a median wage. Mean average income and median income are not the same thing at all in most cases. Knowing about weighted averages and an understanding of the difference between mean and median are fundamental to understanding these figures. The mean average income is simply the average of all incomes combined. But because of widening income disparity, because the highest wage earners are paid proportionally much more than the majority of other workers, the "average" is now only what about the top 35% of workers actually earn, rather than half of Americans in the job-place. The median is the true dividing point where 50% of workers earn either less, or more than the given amount, and is much lower than the mean average of salaries paid out to American workers.

The BLS reports that in 2010 the mean hourly rate was $21.35 with a median figure of $16.27/hr. Annually this amounts to $44,410 and $33,840 respectively. Both figures fall well below our inflation-adjusted productivity-based 1950 minimum wage rate of $28.56/hr, yet these numbers both appear to be much higher than actual income when compared to figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to that agency, the mean annual income for Americans was $38,328 and the median was a mere $26,175. This means that in 2010, half of American workers earned less than $12.58/hr. That is 227% less than a minimum wage worker in 1950 when the increased 425% productivity is factored. 

The discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is roughly 130%. This means that actual wages are 1.3 times lower than what is reported by the BLS. According to them, the 90th percentile of workers earned less the $39.97/hr. But if we reduce that wage by 130% to be in line with the more accurate methodology of the Census Bureau, we can extrapolate that 90% American workers actually earned less than $27.98/hr. This is 58-cents per hour less than our adjusted 1950 minimum wage.

With that remainder change, and considering that we have not factored increased productivity and inflation between 2010 and today, it could easily be said that even more than 90% of American workers earn less then a minimum-wage worker in 1950.

So just to recap here. If we were paid for our output as an employee today as compared to the standard expected of a worker in 1950, the minimum wage in 2010 would have been $28.56. (The actual minimum wage was only $7.25/hr.) $28.56 was slightly more than 90% of Americans who earned less than $27.98 per hour. Hence, 90% of American workers earn less than a minimum wage worker earned in 1950.

This serious disconnect between how hard we work and how we are actually compensated for our labor is clearly reflected in the bulging income disparity between the majority of Americans, and the wealthy who are reaping the profits of our labor.















Not only are we working harder in every hour than ever before, we are also working more hours in a week. Back in 1950, most Americans enjoyed a 9-to-5 sort of job. The 40-hour workweek was absolutely typical, sick time and vacation time were expected in almost any field of work, and most household operated on a single income.

Today, roughly 75% of us work more than 40 hours a week. Although 134 countries have a law which caps the maximum number of hours for employment each week, the U.S. does not. We often think of the Japanese as fanatically dedicated workers, yet the average American worker spends 137 more hours per year on the job. The U.S. has no law requiring sick time, and is the only industrialized nation that does not require any annual paid leave time of any sort.

The United States is also the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer any parental leave. The average in Europe is 20 weeks, and even in the rest of the world a worker can expect at least 12 weeks parental leave. In Lithuania they enjoy a year off fully paid, and a second year at 80% pay to split between two parents however they like. In Ethiopia, workers enjoy 90 days of full-pay parental leave.

Despite not having any time off to care for them, 70% of children are raised in a home where all adults work. In 1960, that figure was only 20%. The impact on our children has been severe, with depression, suicide, and juvenile crime at unprecedented levels. Pharmaceutical companies offer up chemical solutions to social problems, while public schools have been transformed from institutions of learning to indoctrination hubs for corporatist ideals.

Contrary to the popular belief which has been brought about through clever social conditioning and propaganda, pushing women into the workplace never actually had anything to do with empowerment of women. By 1950 there was nothing stopping a woman from holding a full time job or pursuing a career if she chose to. Indeed, many women had held jobs once thought of as "man's work" during the war years. Some women stayed on in those jobs, others went back home to raise families. If the so called "women's liberation" movement of the 50's and especially the 60's had actually been about freedom for women, ask yourself why so many women today are utterly depressed over the fact that they are unable to stay home to raise their children and be the glue which holds their family together.

Beginning in 1950, under the Truman Administration, the United States became the first known industrialized nation to explicitly (albeit secretly) and permanently forswear a reduction of working time. Given the military-industrial requirements of the Cold War, the authors of the then secret National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) proposed the US government undertake a massive permanent national economic expansion that would let it “siphon off” a part of the economic activity produced to support an ongoing military buildup to contain the Soviet Union. In his 1951 Annual Message to the Congress, President Truman stated: 

"In terms of manpower, our present defense targets will require an increase of nearly one million men and women in the armed forces within a few months, and probably not less than four million more in defense production by the end of the year. This means that an additional 8 percent of our labor force, and possibly much more, will be required by direct defense needs by the end of the year. These manpower needs will call both for increasing our labor force by reducing unemployment and drawing in women and older workers, and for lengthening hours of work in essential industries."

From this we see that drawing in women (and old folks) to the workforce was a move to support the same military-industrial-complex the President Eisenhower would warn us about in his farewell address a decade later, not for anything as noble as freedom for the fairer sex.


Ignoring the greater social implications of political feminism and whether or not you want to buy into some of these larger agendas that have been spelled out, we are still left with certain simple economic facts. By enticing the vast majority of women into the workplace the demand for labor was seriously undermined, essentially cutting pay-rates in half. The net result was that every time a woman went to work, she wound up cutting her husband's pay rate in half. Which is why we see today that it takes both parents working full time to support a family, rather than the traditional roles of breadwinner and homemaker.

None of that should be interpreted as a gender bias either. It makes no real difference whether the father or the mother chooses to stay home with the children. The economic concern is simply that the labor pool was flooded, depressing wages and bargaining leverage across the board. By the end of the 1970's, the labor pool of America's women had been fully exploited, and the government-supported corporatists set their sights south of the border to Mexico and Latin America for another labor pool to exploit in order to further reduce wages in the United States.

The end result of all of this comes back again to the main topic of this essay. That today, more than 90% of American workers now earn less than a minimum wage worker in 1950. This is why we always feel like we can never get ahead no matter how much harder we work. This is why the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer. This is how our economy has been reduced to rubble. It was no accident. Welcome to Third World America.

What can we do about it?

We can stand up and demand, in one unified voice as American workers, an honest day's pay for an honest day of work. We can demand a minimum wage that reflects a basic standard of living without need of welfare assistance, social programs, and predatory loans from vampire bankers.

For more information on the minimum wage and how it effects you, please read:

Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage

Wal-Mart: Lower-Prices, Higher Taxes

One in Three Americans Face Poverty, Latest Census Study Shows

World's Richest Woman Wants You to Work Harder for $2 a Day

 

 

 

 

Tweet

Minimum Wage vs. Libertarian

I like a lot of stuff Julie does, and consider myself a libertarian as well, but I have to completely disagree with her on this issue. Her reasons for opposing a minimum wage are logically unsound, based more on Neo-Con propaganda than facts.

Rebuttal to Minimum Wage Argument Made by Julie Borowski


In her first few sentences, I do agree with Julie. I would like to know where the heck Obama came up with that figure as well. It does sound awfully arbitrary. Speech rhetoric that probably won't go anywhere anyway, but will appease the working poor for a time fooling them into believing that the Democrats are actually looking out for them. I don't trust politicians, and as much as I support an increase in minimum wage, I don't expect Obama to deliver any better than he delivered on his promise to close GITMO or to repeal so much of the tyranny imposed by the Bush administration.

There is another standard we can look at though, regarding minimum wage. Something a little more thought- out than the hollow promises of political speechwriters. Let's have a look here for a moment, at the proposal by the Minumum Wage Workers' Union of America:

Analyzing a Pracitcal Minimum Wage

On this page, we will itemize a sample budget for a single person in order to analyze what a fair standard would be for a minimum-wage worker. It is our position that a person working eight hours a day, five days a week, at any job, should be able to support themselves to a minimum basic standard of living. This practical wage is necessary in order to elevate the class of working poor to contributing members of society. Working for anything less than what is needed to subsist on independently, is nothing short of slavery.

All figures are based on national averages, for a Federal standard.

RENT ------------------------------$1000
BASIC UTILITIES --------------$200
ADVANCED UTILITIES ------$150
FOOD ------------------------------$300
NON-FOOD GROCERY -----$50
CLOTHING -----------------------$75
TRANSPORTATION ----------$500
HEALTHCARE -----------------$350
MISCELLANEOUS -----------$400
------------------------------------------------------
Average Basic Monthly Expenses  $3,025

A full-time job at 40 hours per week is 173.2 hours per month calculating 4.33 weeks in each month. To find a reasonable minimum wage, we divide the average basic monthly expenses figure, by the number of hours worked. For the average American worker to support themselves without government assistance or by borrowing beyond their means, that worker must earn...

$17.47 per hour

Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty. 

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.
At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011.  Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Click link for full article and detailed description of how budget figures were calculated.

Wage-Slavery

Essentially, what that author is pointing out, is that anything less than a practical minimum wage is slavery. And not only slavery, but slavery subsidized by taxpayers who are next in line to become slaves themselves, in perpetual economic decline, as designed by the Federal Reserve System.

In the days of racial slavery, the slave owners were obligated to provide for the needs of their workers. To pay for the food, shelter, clothing, and even provide the basic medical care for their slaves. Contrary to some modern perceptions of those times, a slave worker was as expensive as an automobile is today and treated accordingly. Sure, there are some people who beat on their cars. But for the most part, responsible car owners make sure that their car is well kept and given proper maintenance. That was true too, in the shameful era of the slave laborer.  

Now some may see it as vulgar to compare a human being to an automobile, but this is only to highlight the depravity of what we are seeing today with the exploitation of low-wage American workers. They are treated worse than slaves, worse than automobiles, in many ways. No oil changes and running on empty, yet expected to run hotter and faster each and every day.

As if the abuse of the low-wage worker were not enough, the middle class-worker, the common taxpayer, is being forced to subsidize the labor costs of the corporations. Rather than mandating a corporation like Wal-Mart pay their own true labor costs, by paying a wage so that their employees can subsist, you, the taxpayer, are now forced to make up the difference through social welfare programs. Now you must pay for the "oil changes" on their equipment and put "gas in the tank" so to speak, with foodstamps, medical care, and so forth, to keep the corporate labor force running.

As a libertarian, I believe that providing for liberty over slavery is a noble cause, not to mention lower taxes and making companies pay their own expenses. 

But I digress. Let's dig into Julie's next point now.


"Why not 50 or 100 dollars...? (paraphrased)

Because Julie, we are trying to establish a minimum wage, not a free-for-all.

Now this cuts right to the core of the role of government. As a libertarian, I believe that the only role of government is to protect the interests of the people, individually and/or collectively, from those who would exploit our liberty to nefarious ends. Therefore, I believe it is within the purview of Constitutional governance for the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce in such a way that a worker must be paid an equality wage that will provide for their most basic living expenses as a human being, in order to prevent said workers from requiring social welfare subsidies.

In essence, if you want to do business in the United States, you must pay your workers enough so that they may afford the bare essentials without need for government assistance to merely survive.

Without such protection from our own government, there is nothing to stop exploiters from demanding that we all work harder for $2 a day. There is no liberty for a working stiff who makes less than a worker in some third-world country.

As Americans, we are supposed to be doing it better and smarter than the other guy, to be a beacon of hope, not to reduce ourselves to a point of global communism. If Libertarians, as a political party don't agree with that, then maybe I am in the wrong camp.


"Any minimum wage... will prevent some people from getting a job."

Is it your position then, Julie, that there should not be a minimum wage at all? That we should take our $2 a day and be grateful for it?

The reality is that a higher minimum wage will only marginally cut into the profits of companies, who exploit the welfare system in order to subsidize their own labor costs. As we showed above, you only get lower prices at Walmart, because you pay more in taxes to pay the food, healthcare, daycare costs, etcetera, for their workers... whether or not you even shop at Walmart.

If a company could actually afford to lay off workers, they would, will, and do, regardless of payroll obligations. Millions of people have been laid off in recent years, without any minimum wage increase. They have already been doing this to the detriment overall economy, as quality of goods and services plummet, while CEO's are steadily increasing historically unprecedented wealth. If you can't afford to pay your employees an honest day's wage for an honest day of work, then you simply cannot afford to be in business and it's time to close your doors.

If it takes 100 employees to operate your shopping center, then you can't lay off 20 of those people simply to protect your profit margin. Your business will not function properly and customers will move to your competitor, who provides better service and/or products. A company only hires as many people as they need. That is true no matter what the minimum wage is.

"Gee, I got a fat bonus, I think I will hire some people I don't need."" -said no CEO ever

In short, no, a minimum wage increase will not prevent anyone from getting a job if there is a job to be done.

 
"Let's say I'm a ... teenager."

Between the "why not $50 an hour" bit and now this teenager gambit, Julie is clearly relying on false-logic tactics of disinformation, with "straw-man/red herring" arguments.

Teenagers are not the only minimum wage employees, and only make up a small portion of that labor class today, thanks to depressed wages and skilled workers being forced into unskilled jobs.

More and more adults with families are trying to support those families with minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage standards are not there to protect some high school kid who is living at home with their parents, and who needs the money for a new set of headphones. The people who are filling these jobs today are trying to feed their own children and keep a roof over their heads. The less they are paid by the companies who are profiting from their labors, the more the taxpayers will have to contribute in order to keep these families from starving to death in the streets.


"...I want to work for $7 an hour, you want to hire me for $7 an hour..."

This is the one point in her argument that cuts to the core of libertarian principles. The free will of two people to enter into a business arrangement. In an overly simplistic interpretation, Julie sees the minimum wage mandate as infringing upon the liberty of these two persons. What she fails to acknowledge is that without a minimum wage standard in this country, companies will be infringing on the liberty of people who don't want to make that same deal, but who are then forced to by circumstances outside of their own control and the impositions of corporate greed.

No man is an island, no business arrangement exists in a vacuum. This is why we have codes of ethics and laws to protect against unfair business practices from Wall Street to your local farm stand. This is why you can't put a gun to someone's head and say, "either your brains or your signature will be on the contract." This is why you can't serve someone a plate of food that will make them sick a half-hour after they walk out of your restaurant, and then claim, "buyer beware."

If this potential employee and the employer were to enter into an arrangement for pay below the minimum wage, they would not be practicing liberty, they would be in effect conspiring to undermine the worth of other workers who were not party to this arrangement.

There will always be someone who is willing to work for less. There are people in India and China who work for pennies a day. Here in America, illegal immigration and related labor exploitation has been detrimental to our economy, thanks to the dampening effect on wages and thanks to a total lack of labor bargaining leverage by American workers. This hasn't just effected minimum wage workers either, but the entire working class across the board. The market is flooded with workers who will work under the table for less than what is mandated by labor laws, putting everyone's wages and jobs in jeopardy.

If the majority of jobs in America only paid pennies per hour, what do you think that would do to your own pay rate? Again, minimum wage standards are not there to protect some teenager who wants his first job, the standard is there to protect the labor market as a whole.


"...and maybe in a month or two would have given you a raise if you were any good."

Well, if the employer can afford to give a raise in a few months, he can afford to pay a fair wage right now! If you hire someone, at any pay rate, and they cannot perform the job, you fire them. It's as simple as that.

Besides, entry level pay rates are not a negotiation. They are a set standard regardless of your resume and skills. If your local burger joint is hiring a cashier, it's a minimum wage position, whether you are a teenager looking for an after school job, or you are a single mother who just got laid off from your job as the manager of a burger place across town that just closed down. A manager looking to fill the cashier position isn't going to pay someone with experience a few more dollars per hour to do the same job that the kid with no resume can do for less. They also are not going to give that cashier a raise, ever. Now granted, a cashier who works hard might be promoted in time to another position that pays better, if someone else gets fired or leaves, but that cashier position will always pay the same minimum wage amount.

As a side note and personal anecdote, I used to work in a contract position with a state government. When the contract was originally signed, it called for the employees to be paid a rate that was double the minimum wage at that time. If the minimum wage were to go up under this Obama plan, it would be the first raise for those employees in 20 years.


"...fire employees, cut their hours..."

False. An employer cannot cut the number of man-hours required to perform a task. It's as simple as that. Also, employers do not keep people on the payroll as a matter of charity. If they didn't need that employee, they would have already fired them, regardless of what they were being paid. Even if you are paying a person $2 an hour, if you don't need that person there, it's a waste of money to keep them there.


"...and raise their hiring standards..."

To what? College educated burger flippers? The market is already flooded with unemployed and underemployed skilled workers. The employers don't have to raise their hiring standards, the market has done that for them already. In the past several years, studies have shown that half of college graduates are either unemployed, or are working minimum wage jobs unrelated to their field of study.

So if a raised hiring standard really is of relevance here, then clearly the employers need to start paying a lot more for these college-educated grocery baggers.


Market-liquidity

Wikipedia explains this principle stating...

"In business, economics or investment, market liquidity is an asset's ability to be sold without causing a significant movement in the price and with minimum loss of value."

This is a concept that seems to be foreign to people like Julie and opponents of a minimum wage increase. Low-wage workers are more likely than any other class of worker to spend what they earn. If you pay them more, they will spend more, creating economic stimulus.

This was the principle and reasoning behind former President Bush's economic stimulus plan, when he mailed everyone a $300 check.

Why is the economy in such dire straits right now? Because employers are forced to pay too much for unskilled and entry-level workers? No, it's because no one is buying anything. How do you get people to start buying things again? Make sure they have the money to go buy things, while instilling consumer confidence in the markets.

Increasing the minimum wage will create market liquidity through increased spending. More spending means greater demand  for goods and services to be delivered. Greater demand means more jobs for people who are out of work right now, to deliver more goods and services. More goods and services being delivered, means lower per-unit cost for all of the things we spend money on. More people with jobs, cheaper goods and services, means even more spending, creating economic vitality and prosperity for all.

Who Owns the Money?

Bank of International Settlements, Switzerland

Ask yourself something. Why doesn't anyone eff with Switzerland? Why does the Pope have a Swiss Guard? Why was the antichrist himself, Adolf Hitler, too scared to invade Switzerland while he pocketed the rest of Europe?

Do you really think that money in your pocket, in your bank account, is yours? Bwahahaha! Joke's on you fool! It's not your money, you rent it, at interest. 

Who Controls The Money? An Unelected, Unaccountable Central Bank Of The World Secretly Does 

An immensely powerful international organization that most people have never even heard of secretly controls the money supply of the entire globe.  It is called the Bank for International Settlements, and it is the central bank of central banks.  It is located in Basel, Switzerland, but it also has branches in Hong Kong and Mexico City.  It is essentially an unelected, unaccountable central bank of the world that has complete immunity from taxation and from national laws.  Even Wikipedia admits that "it is not accountable to any single national government." 

The Bank for International Settlements was used to launder money for the Nazis during World War II, but these days the main purpose of the BIS is to guide and direct the centrally-planned global financial system.  Today, 58 global central banks belong to the BIS, and it has far more power over how the U.S. economy (or any other economy for that matter) will perform over the course of the next year than any politician does.  Every two months, the central bankers of the world gather in Basel for another "Global Economy Meeting".  During those meetings, decisions are made which affect every man, woman and child on the planet, and yet none of us have any say in what goes on. 

The Bank for International Settlements is an organization that was founded by the global elite and it operates for the benefit of the global elite, and it is intended to be one of the key cornerstones of the emerging one world economic system.  It is imperative that we get people educated about what this organization is and where it plans to take the global economy.

Sadly, only a very small percentage of people actually know what the Bank for International Settlements is, and even fewer people are aware of the Global Economy Meetings that take place in Basel on a bi-monthly basis.

See the rest of the article by clicking this link to The Economic Collapse

Also see:

Money as Debt (VIDEO)

Who Owns The Federal Reserve?The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks