So, I get the NEA Today (no link, not gonna hep them) in the mail. (I know, it’s hypocrisy. Well, as I’ve discussed in my about page, sometimes lives take courses that lead places and you end up in places where you find imperfections. Sometimes we must accept the duality of our lives. ‘Tis better to acknowledge then deny.) And they have a “union unfriendly” shopping guide. Well thanks guys, now I know where to shop.
You needn’t ask, as WalMart is prominently castigated. I shop WM, and do so proudly. Here’s the opening line, and perhaps the greatest display of economic stupidity ever published (well, until the next article from you know whom!!):
You work hard for your money, so why hand it over to businesses that don’t support public education or basic worker rights like union organization, fair pay, and adequate health care coverage.
You almost have to feel sorry for such people who type that and think they’re being profound.
You don’t “hand over your money” to anyone unless they have a gun pointed at your head. You exchange money for goods and services. They already support public education through onerous taxation. Wouldn’t it be nice it public education supported them. Public educators (and I ought to know!!) live off the wealth created by the producers in society. Public education is a luxury good.
I explained this once to a colleague as we discussed child labor in foreign countries. Aghast that I would actually think it a good thing, he argued that they should be in school. Sure, because those nations have them right? He tried to make the case that we are “wealthy because we have public education”. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. We have public education precisely because we are wealthy. The concept didn’t sink in, nor did it sit well. See, we can afford to keep a very large part of the labor pool out of the workforce. And it is due to the level of technology and productivity of the workforce. Younger workers are not very productive and thus, not very valuable. In economicese, the opportunity cost of schooling teenagers is rather low.
Fair pay? Please. Higher pay is attributable to greater marginal returns and greater marginal productivity. Higher nominal wages will only lead to higher nominal prices. Is it my responsibility as a consumer to support another worker?
Adequate health care? Egads, people have a right to health care? And we wonder why the health care system is in such a mess. The costs of providing health care have to be accounted for somewhere.
Such ideas are marxist through an through. It is based on the nonsensical labor theory of value (Keynes’ sole factor input by the way) and surplus value. In other words, all value of a good is determined by its labor input, as if capital is inconsequential. Perhaps a quick read of Hayek might help. And of course, the surplus value, i.e. profits, is extracted from workers’ just compensation.
And we wonder why we are in such a horrible situation. Young kids are being indoctrinated with such awful and dangerous ideas in public schools.
Here’s a scary stat from the article: one out of every 100 Americans is an NEA member. Can one percent of the population really be that dangerous to the other 99%? I’ll let you decide!
And that was followed by this deep insight:
If more educators spent like Maney [teacher who shops only union friendly firms], it could have an enormous effect.
Yes, impoverishment for one. Paying more for less is not a path to prosperity.
Firms mentioned in the article include Starbucks, Dominoes, Overstock.com, and Outback Steakhouse. So, take your better half out to a nice steak dinner at Outback, have the babysitter order a pepperoni pizza from Dominoes, and after dinner, stop by Starbucks for a couple of mocha-frappa-latte-chino-letto-half caf-soy-with-a-twist-whatevers.
And, to tell her how much she means to you, order her a nice pair of earrings from the overstock.com.