The case against job automation never made any sense to me, and it’s always made by people who are afraid their skills will become irrelevant, as machines and software are built that can perform jobs better and faster than any human can.
I can’t think of a more selfish act than being against economic progress so that one can continue to get paid to do a job less efficiently than it could otherwise be performed by someone else–or something else. Somehow, those against job automation are never as eager to discuss progress made in the past that has undoubtedly had a positive impact on society, despite the same kind of fear-mongering they participate in today.
Inventing better and faster ways to do things allows us to spend less time focusing on some jobs and leaves us with more time to dedicate to others that cannot be automated. More >>
The first amendment is the most well-known of all constitutional amendments. It states that the government cannot punish you for what you say, even if what you say is reprehensible.
Everyone claims to support freedom of speech, and they understand that supporting someone’s right to say what they want to say is not the same as agreeing with whatever is being said. I don’t think many Americans would support the idea that we should put in jail those who say racist things, because they understand that even jerks should have the freedom to say what they want, in a free society.
What I don’t understand is why it is so hard for many to apply the same logic to other areas. As a libertarian, I support the rights of everyone to deny service or employment to anyone, for whatever reason, even if I completely disagree with the reason, or find it reprehensible. More >>
Many who disagree with us are actually not all that well-informed about the positions that they are against, so straw man arguments are common in political debates. A Straw Man is a fake position, one that your opponent puts forth as being your own, so that he can argue against it, rather than argue against your real one.
Some do this in order to intentionally mis-characterize your position. Others just don’t know any better, for the information they have about what you believe in, comes from highly biased sources that themselves either don’t understand what your beliefs are, or they intentionally lie about them in order to appeal to others’ emotions and get them to be against what you stand for.
I always say that the best way to really understand a political topic, and to make yourself prepared to debate others on it, is to first try to see if you can state, as detailed as possible, your opponents’ positions, not from your point of view, but from theirs. Try to put yourself in your opponents’ shoes and see if you can argue their points. If you have trouble doing this, it means you don’t understand their views well enough and you have work to do before you can claim that your views are right, and theirs, wrong. More >>
One of my favorite things about writing, is trying to come up with different ways to take a complex issue and simplify it for others to understand. I find the Minimum Wage to be one of the most frustrating topics in politics, because the most basic and important law of Economic Science–the law of Supply and Demand–already tells us exactly why setting a minimum price on labor is a bad idea.
But Economics isn’t as interesting to most as it is to me, so I wanted to come up with an example to illustrate the unintended consequences of minimum wage laws, without having to talk about supply and demand. I thought it’d be worthwhile to take a look at what the consequences would be if we were to apply minimum price laws to something we’re all familiar with.
Applying the Minimum Wage to Cars
Imagine being told that you aren’t allowed to sell your car for less than $3,000, and say you have an old car that isn’t worth more than $2,000. Would you say you would have a hard time selling it? Your $2,000 car would have to compete with nicer cars that are worth $3,000. Why would anyone buy your car for $3,000 when they can buy a car that is actually worth that much? More >>
It seems like the more complex a political issue is, the more it gets over-simplified by the Left, who have become experts at turning everything into a black-and-white situation. Whenever they present their solution to the public, they always start with the false premise that their solution works. Rather than make the debate about which policies would actually solve the problem, they would like everyone to come to the quick conclusion that if you are opposed to their solution, you must be against any solution, and you just don’t care about the people they are trying to “help.”
If you believe minimum wage laws hurt the poor, you must hate the poor. If you don’t believe it is the government’s job to take taxpayer money and pay for everyone’s birth control pills, you must hate women. If you don’t like Affirmative Action laws, you must hate minorities. If you don’t believe in giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, you must hate immigrants. If you believe we should ID people who vote, you must be against minorities voting. If you don’t like gun control laws, you must not care about the children. If you don’t like Obama, you must be racist. More >>
Film executive and producer Harvy Weinstein, has plans to make an anti-gun movie and take aim at the NRA. This is the same Harvy Weinstein that has produced a number of violent movies featuring the very guns that he believes “we don’t need in this country.”
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The vast majority of Hollywood is liberal. Rather than focus on what they do best, making movies, many in Hollywood use their unique position to promote the democrats’ political agenda.
Matt Damon is known for being a huge supporter of the public school system, yet sends his kids to private school. “Ultimately we don’t have a choice,” he said. I think Mr. Damon lacks understanding of the word choice. He has the ultimate choice. He can send his kids wherever he wants, private or public. On the other hand, parents who are not fortunate enough to have Matt Damon’s income, really don’t have a choice because Damon and the unions he supports, oppose vouchers, which would actually allow those parents to pick where their kids go to school. More >>
It’s one of the latest democratic talking points. Obama and the democrats are hoping to benefit in the 2014 elections, by bringing to the public’s awareness, the gap that exists between the income of the wealthy and that of the poor and middle class.
But why is “income inequality” even a problem? Is their ideal society one of income equality? I hope not. Income inequality is a feature of a free society, not a drawback. The fact that any man in the United States, even those born poor, have the opportunity to become richer than others, is what incentivizes them to take risks, and start businesses that provide the rest of us with the products and jobs that we need. It’s this promise that you can become rich if you can find a way to provide enough people with something that they need or want, that sparks innovation. It’s what provided the incentive for people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many others that have changed the world for the better. More >>
Minimum wage laws are one of the best examples of the negative unintended consequences that often result from good-intention laws that end up hurting the very people they are meant to help. For those who lack the most basic understanding of economics, it may seem like common sense. If there are people who don’t make enough money, why not just pass a law requiring that they be paid more?
Labor as a good
The problem with this approach becomes obvious once we start thinking of labor as just another good that is sold on the market. When we work for an employer we are essentially selling that employer a service. Economic laws apply to this good just as well as they apply to goods like milk, meat, etc, and yet many would agree that there is no need for government intervention when it comes to the price of these other goods. More >>
College tuition costs have been skyrocketing and the more they go up, the more the government tries to help make college more affordable. Americans owe $1 trillion in student loans, even more than they owe in credit card debt. The federal government has been involved in student loans since 1958, either by guaranteeing loans made by private banks or by giving out loans themselves. Tuition rates have been increasing at about twice the rate of inflation, and still, proponents of federal student loans have yet to connect the dots.
Their intentions are good, but the government’s involvement is precisely what has resulted in the rise of tuition costs. Why do schools continue to increase their prices every year? Because they can. The government gives the schools whatever money they ask for, because “we must help everyone get a college degree.” If the government were to give everyone money to buy computers, the price of computers would also skyrocket.