If you are a rich guy and find yourself, through your company or your investments, in the business of employing people to get things done that you need to do to make money, wages are an ultimate and constant evil. The workers, like Uncle Sam, always have their hands in your pockets, wanting to take your money and your profits. If only wages were lower! All you need, then, is a bunch of Capitol Hill sycophants (known as Congressmen) and some think tank verbalizers to come up with some round about reason as to why what you want will be good...for...everybody! Hooray! Cutting wages will mean full employment.

To be a Republican and a \"leader\" in an elected position, you don't have to actually believe that the position papers are true. You just have to think they could be true and are worthy of a good try. We've seen this before with the famous Laffer Curve (laughable curve?) of the 1980s. If one of these crackpot ideas proves wrong, even screechingly wrong, no worries, just move on to the next one and blame everyone but yourself for the problems that popped up. The very rich do well all the time, even in recessions.

Just after the vote in Wisconsin taking away most of the bargaining rights of state union employees, the new governor of the state announced that his victory would create 250,000 new jobs in the state Wait! Wasn't the vote supposed to be about budget problems? Wasn't it supposed to be about not making the voters pay for benefits that could no longer be afforded? How did it switch to a jobs creation bill? The governor was using the same Mellon like concepts mentioned in Paul Krugman’s column in the NY Times: cutting wages means more employment. So, if the state workers get shafted, then more jobs will be available, because ALL employers can pay less. Why, if this was his noble purpose, did Gov. Scott Wallace not say so sooner? Was he afraid to make the argument straight out? The governor seems to recognize a basic truth that the decent paying jobs in a given area help set the standard for all jobs, because people will naturally seek out the better pay when they have the chance. Employers have to pay more to keep their workers.

Let's be clear: America does not need five million more jobs paying poverty wages. It doesn't need more Wal-Mart jobs where 28 hours a week is counted as "full time" employment and many workers have to use various welfare programs to keep from starving or being put out of their housing. The Republicans have argued for decades that we'd all be rich and comfortable, if we just cut government down to size. Now, they say we will all get jobs, as long as those who already have jobs take huge pay cuts.

Next move: turn any worker who wants a pay raise into an enemy of all workers. “We’d have more money to hire workers if you wouldn’t demand a pay increase.” Wait a week or two. Millions of people are buying into this and complimenting themselves on how smart they are at seeing the big picture.

Doug Terry

4.1.11

CONTACT THE TERRYREPORT

       HOME PAGE

end

Wal-Mart earns $3.4 billion, raises forecast

By Aaron Smith, staff writer November 16, 2010: 8:44 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Wal-Mart Stores posted third-quarter profit of $3.4 billion and raised its full-year guidance Tuesday, in a closely watched report that could shed some light on consumer spending.

Wal-Mart reported earnings per share of 95 cents for the third quarter, compared to an adjusted 82 cents from the year-earlier quarter. After taking into account a 5-cent-per-share tax benefit, the results matched the consensus forecast of 90 cents per share from analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters.