If I ran things around here: #2

Frequently we hear scuttlebutting on the raising of the minimum wage and its adversarial impact on smaller businesses. This criticism of raising the minimum wage seems to be just and valid, as smaller businesses frequently run on smaller profit margins and costs of labor play a tremendous role in determining the cost of the product and services provided by that company. The more expensive that the product or service becomes, the less likely it is consumers will purchase the product if there is a cheaper alternative available, logic seems to dictate. Again, that seems to be a fair argument. This issue becomes a sticky big company vs. small business matter when it is put into a real-world context. Why?

Through economies of scale, as long as sources are maximizing their outputs as efficiently as possible, larger firms will be able to compete better as they are able to defray costs more effectively. Of course, this holds true when ideals are only tested in theory and not in practice. In practice, the result can be similar, but doesn't necessarily hold true. Which brings me back to the main point: costs increase by statute for everyone. Is there a way to defray costs out so that competitive wages for all are possible?

I would propose so, although this idea has its own shortcomings. I would rather see the institution of a maximum income law. For all points and purposes, no person who does not have a serious medical condition which must be treated with the greatest medical care should need to have more than X dollars. What that X sum is, I don't know right now, but for all intents and purposes, it's a substantial sum.

There have been upsets and stirrings in the American public regarding the gross overcompensation of individuals, frequently members sitting on executive boards, CEOs, and other persons of high executive office in large corporations, who receive grotesquely large compensation packages whilst bankrupting a company. (See Enron run. Run Enron, run!) Frequently this money is more than any average American could ever imagine personally having, amounts being in the tens of millions of dollars. Now let us consider the following proposition: Is it just for executives who mismanage a company and get fired to receive amounts of money that most people could ever dream of? It seems to run counter to the idea that the best job done gets the most compensation.

So don't pay it. Or get taxed out of it. There are myriad better ways to expend that money than through hypergratuitous compensation. Because really, what is running a company into the ground worth? If I can come up with an equation and figure out what that maximum income would be, I'll post it. I'm thinking that it's likely around 1.5 million yearly. Possibly less.

But yes: If I ran things around here, no person could make more than $X (where X equals the result of an as-yet undefined equation which I think will yield an X of 1.5 million).

If I ran things around here: #1

I've done a variety of working over the past several years, and, yeah, though I'm still young and pretty naive, I have a couple ideas that I think could make America a better place.

During the summer of 2005, I worked at a gas station (which shall remain nameless) in Brunswick, Ohio. People of all stripes came in, from Gary Kucinich (Dennis' brother who ran in the Dem primary for the 13th Ohio Congressional district) to stoner high school kids wanting to buy blunt wraps for their "tobacco" (or at least that's what they said it was for.) I was informed that McDonald's was always hiring when I didn't immediately authorize a pump (which sent me off to the bathroom in tears - that dude was a jerk and a half) and was twice accused of stealing money from the registers (something that I've always considered myself and have been above doing). One of the things that people on welfare/food stamps can do in the state of Ohio - and likely elsewhere - is purchase cigarettes and junk food. So here it comes: if I ran things around here #1.

If I ran things around here, no one would be allowed to use food stamps to purchase cigarettes, sodas, or junk food. Cigarette smoking and junk food eating (or gorging) create a further drag on an already taxed health-care system and if you're going to waste taxpayer money, you'd best waste it on a Bridge to Nowhere.
By no means am I saying people shouldn't eat 2 bags of Doritos, drink 3 2-liters of Pepsi, or smoke 1 1/2 packs of Camels a day, but what I am saying is that they should be spending their own money on it. What do I think should food stamps and welfare money be spent on? The basic stuff. No, not Basics. Basic food stuffs, like bread, eggs, milk, fruits, vegetables, meats, potatoes. You know, stuff that only clogs you arteries when used in combination.

How would this be accomplished? Well, we can figure out how to tax certain items and not others, we should be able to divvy up what can and cannot be purchased with food stamps. It's not that hard, it's just a matter of getting politicians to do what's right for country as a whole and not small-minded interests for a change.

Well, that actually is pretty hard.

But that's just the first thing on a whole laundry list of matters which I think ail our modern American society.

Next time: If I Ran Things Around Here, #2

-rsl