We would like to believe the Government plans for things -- but does it? During this past Presidential campaign, the complaint of the Democratic candidates was President Trump didn’t have a plan for the pandemic. Once elected, President Biden promised a plan that would have 100 million people vaccinated within his first 100 days in office. As the weather becomes uncooperative, there are delays in getting the vaccines to the people. I am reminded of two simple truths in military planning. First, the plan never survives the first contact, the second we never finalize the plan we just run out of time to make changes.
As I look at all the policy changes being implemented it sure doesn’t look like the government has an overarching plan to make America better than it was. Rather they seem to be implementing policies that made good sound bites, but in the end, will do little to make life better for the most vulnerable of us. For example:
There is a great push to make $15.00 the national minimum wage. There is also the rallying cry for “a living wage,” whatever that is. At the same time, the government policy is to allow unfettered access into America by those seeking its refuge. These two policies would seem to limit the economic well-being of the poor while growing their dependence on the state for survival. Of course, we can argue the morality of replacing humans with machines, but all the moral arguments in the world won’t stop the inevitable. Machines improve productivity and when they are cheaper than the human, they become the choice of every business there is. One has only to look at the auto industry to see this reality. As union wages grew and robot technology developed how many union members were replaced by the robots who could do their job better and cheaper? The same can be said for cashiers at supermarkets and fast-food places. Can you go into a Walmart these days without seeing a self-checkout lane? Of course, there are those who will resist such a place but they will not stop the move if it becomes the economical choice for the store.
But replacement by machines is only one side of the problem. As much as the socialists of the DNC think the government controls all things, that is simply not the case in a predominately market-driven economy. The law of “supply and demand” would seem to be unavoidable. As we bring more unskilled labor into the United States who will they displace as they attempt to find employment? It certainly won’t be the University Professors, will it? They will displace the minimally skilled for sure, but should we assume only the minimally skilled? Wouldn't we assume those with a wide range of talents seeking to escape the failures of their own country would seek a better life here? That is, after all, the American model. Those with marketable skills will also begin to displace the salaried employees making far above the minimum. In fact, we already replace a lot of our potentially skilled workforce by importing cheaper skilled labor to work in our high-tech companies?[1] Why shouldn’t we expect those categories of exemption to expand as the government meets the needs of its high-tech donors? What a wonderful way to keep the profits of those companies high while reducing labor costs, and limiting the potential of our own citizens to find jobs that would help them escape the trap of poverty.
And then there is the myriad of policies to make the world green, save the environment for future generations, and enrich those who can profit most from the policies. Like my Mom used to say, you’ve got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelet, and so it is with the policies of this administration. One of the President's first acts was to stop the building of an oil pipeline. There are, of course, good things and bad things with this decision. One side will point out how the oil that would flow through the pipeline won’t stop, it will just be moved by other means (like the railroad system Warren Buffett owns). Those who favor this decision will point to the environmental risks of pipelines that leak, and the need to begin our transition away from carbon-based fuels. Caught in the middle of these debates are the human beings who work in the oil fields of North Dakota, Montana, and Canada who will perhaps lose their jobs, and the average American who will pay a higher price for fuel to run their car or heat their home. Again, the poorest among us will be the ultimate victims. But as John Kerry pointed out the skilled labor building the pipeline can then find work in some kind of green factory assembling solar panels. My question to John would be “isn’t it cheaper to hire the recent immigrants from South and Central America for these simple tasks?”
Aside from the grandiose “Green New Deal” proposals of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez where we abandon trans-oceanic air travel for trains, is there really a plan that makes these environmental policies practical, affordable, and actually does eliminate man’s impact on the environment? If joining the Paris Climate accord is any indication I’m guessing not. As we see in most environmental protests, the activists tend to leave a lot of garbage behind, expecting someone else to clean up after them. We are pushing policies for the sake of enriching someone; the question is who?
Finally, we have new policies ranging from “diversity for all” to elimination of “hate speech.” It will be interesting to see how science, morality, and the law are shaped by these favored policies of the new Democratic Reich.[2]
[2] Purposely chosen to acknowledge our societal debt to Charles Godwin, creator of “Godwin’s Law” This in no way refers to Robert Reich, although I am sure he would love to be part of the new Reich.
No comments:
Post a Comment