GUALFIN, Argentina – Yesterday was Labor Day.
Most of the world pays homage to its sweating, busing, trucking classes, its poor huddled masses… yearning for a cushier seat and a better deal… onMay 1.
President Grover Cleveland chose the first Monday in September.
On Friday, the Dow fell again – down 272 points. But don’t worry, Tobias Levkovich, Citi’s chief U.S. strategist, told CNBC there was a 96% chance (96%, not 95%!) that the Dow would be higher one year from now.
Well, we can’t fight those odds, can we? So b… b… buy!
No, wait. What does he know?
Nothing! Just like the rest of us. We’re all guessing. But our guess is that the risk of losing money is 82.7% greater than the risk of not making more.
No, make that 82.8%…
So, let’s go back to Labor Day.
Of great interest to people in America, as indicated by the newspaper headlines, is how much other people earn.
No one – or almost no one – writing in the editorial pages works at McDonald’s or earns the minimum wage. But practically every one of them has an opinion about how much people on low wages should earn.
A “living wage” is what they say they want. Thirty-thousand dollars a year is the amount we’ve seen discussed.
Of course, a national living wage is absurd. It costs far more to live in Manhattan than in the Ozarks. And it is far less expensive to live with Mom and Dad than to have a place of one’s own.
But we are not so much concerned with the practical details as with the theory.
We have been told that the people who work at McDonald’s need to earn more. But what about those who write for the editorial pages? Perhaps they should earn less?
If well-educated, well-liquored, and well-paid employees can decide the wages of McDonald’s workers, surely the burger flippers should have the right to fix the wages of the chattering, meddling, and improving classes.
Were that to happen, our guess is that the well-paid know-it-alls would take a pay cut. Which seems proper and just.
We walk into McDonald’s, and a minimum-wage worker serves up our order. We get what we pay for and are content with the transaction; we do not begrudge the worker his recompense.
We read the paper, on the other hand, and we get bilge and nonsense.
Generally, we get decent service and good value for money from the blue-collar worker.
What do we get from the white-collared clown?
Logically, there are only two possibilities. Either wages are determined by a free give-and-take between those who offer their labor and those who want to buy it. Or someone sets wages according to his own standards.
The do-gooders want to use other people’s money to raise the wages of the least well paid, but they make no mention of their own.
Nor do they even offer to pay more for their hamburgers so that McDonald’s can pay its workers more.
And what about the poor people who cannot find jobs at all?
If the minimum wage were raised, there would surely be more of them – either because McDonald’s could not afford to hire so many people at higher salaries or because it had replaced its minimum-wage employees with machines!
But the price-fixers are so self-satisfied taking what they think is the high road – driving along comfortably in their Subarus and Priuses – that they can’t be bothered to look out the window. If they did, they would see that setting prices always – always! – makes people poorer, not richer.
Nevertheless, we will give them the benefit of the doubt, if there were any, by trying to imagine how the world could be improved by setting wages for other people.
So let us begin with a modest nod to fairness: If it makes sense to set the wages of the least among us, why not the most?
If people not involved in a labor transaction can know better than the participants what the terms should be, why not set the salaries of editorialists? Publishers? CEOs? Sports celebrities? Movie stars?
There may be cheapness on the low end, but there is extravagant generosity on the other.
If one side should be fixed, why not both?
You can see what a jolly undertaking this would be for a bureaucrat with a sense of mischief. Instead of allowing the market to set prices, we will set them ourselves.
Yes, we will not stop at rigging the stock market. We’ll rig the labor market, too – by assigning salaries where we think they should be.
So, let’s have a go. We have taken the lead to propose annual salaries for the following trades according to the good we think they do society.
Entrepreneurs (including your editor), poets, inventors, and whacked-out metaphysicians – $100,000
Priests, teachers, mathematicians, scientists, pilots, nurses, and filmmakers – $85,000
Corporate CEOs, prostitutes, writers, bartenders, hedge fund managers – $75,000
Drivers, laborers, clerks, salesmen, farmers, firemen, policemen – $50,000
Psychologists, bone crackers, doctors (including witch doctors), financial planners – $40,000
Government employees (those not included in the groups above), politicians, drug dealers, world improvers, economists, counterfeiters, psychiatrists, sociologists, political scientists, pollsters, and flimflam artists – $30,000
We do not mean this list to be comprehensive or final. It is just a suggestion – a point of departure toward a “fairer” distribution of national income.
Readers are invited to make their own contributions. Write to[email protected]
The effects of a slowdown in China are biting hard in Brazil, the world’s seventh largest economy.
Following a spectacular boom – fueled mainly by exporting commodities to China – Brazil has entered recession.
GDP there contracted for the first two quarters of 2015.
And as you can see from today’s chart, this is bad news for investors in Brazilian stocks.
The iShares MSCI Brazil Index ETF (NYSE:EWZ), which tracks the performance of the Brazilian stock market, is now closing in on its 2009 lows.
Those still bullish on the prospects for global growth should pay close attention.
U.S. Economic Confidence Index Hits 11-Month Low
Combined losses of more than 1,000 points in the Dow have helped push Americans’ confidence in the economy to its lowest level since September 2014, according to a new poll by Gallup.
This Country Wants to Ban the Use of Cash in Stores
The Danish parliament has proposed a law that would allow stores to refuse to accept cash in exchange for goods or services. Now, the Danish chamber of commerce is backing the move.
The Currency Wars Are Just Heating Up
Global currency wars could devastate the savings of millions of Americans, warns one man who’s worked on classified projects for the CIA, DoD, and other U.S. intelligence agencies.
Will governments outlaw cash, as Bill warned in last Wednesday’sDiary?
One reader sees a major flaw in the plan…
Good points on “the case for outlawing cash.” However, here is one big practical reason why I don’t think it will ever happen, despite what the Fabian Socialists at the Financial Times think.
How can the state and local government thugs and politicians get their bribes if there is no cash?
Cash has been a great historical median in America down through the ages for local politicians, police, judges, building inspectors, customs officials, etc., to get paid off.
How will they get paid off now under the FT’s scheme?
One would have to go to Staples and buy a bunch of gift cards to hand out. Just think, if you had to carry a wallet full of, say, $100 gift cards. That would seem impractical, but I guess they would fit just as well into a big brown envelope.
And what if the building inspector doesn’t want a $100 Staples card, then you have to run all over town to get the right gift card… very inconvenient. Also, the gift cards can be traced back to the original purchaser. So the secrecy is gone.
Just think… places like New York and Chicago would come to a standstill. Nothing would get done in the private sector without the appropriate “grease” being applied at strategic points to the political machinery. Do you think the locals will put up with this? Hell no. Why they’d run poor Gillian Tett [the U.S. managing editor of the Financial Times] out of town on a rail!
Clearly, you haven’t thought through this argument very thoroughly. But I’ll stop short of scolding you for intellectual laziness.
– Tom S.
Here’s last week’s most popular letter.