Friday, April 24, 2009

Frying ourselves with Davis Bacon

Politicians' bipartisan support for wasteful labor union policies continue to cost taxpayers dearly. Recent events, however, may help draw attention to this widespread practice.

The Club for Growth released its Congressional report card Thursday. The first highlighted House vote was one that would have allowed taxpayers to excape having to pay Davis Bacon "prevailing wage" requirements for public projects.

Only two of Kentucky's six House members -- Reps. Geoff Davis and Hal Rogers -- voted for taxpayers on this one in 2008.

And just last month, Kentucky's state Senate killed not just one, but two such bills.


Hempy said...

The Club for Growth is another feudalist organization that touts feudalistic economic principles. It's opposition to "prevailing wage laws" are designed to make working Americans tributary to the wealthy, i.e., the lords of the manor.

Higher wages means more profits. That's Adam Smith's capitalism. You won't hear that from the Club for Growth. Higher wages puts more money into the body politic.

In Federalist Paper 30, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions.The Club for Growth has a "drain-the-tub" Grover Norquist and a Gov. Tim "Bring-Down-the-Bridges" Pawlenty (R-MN) mentality.

Neither is the Club for Growth fond of American ideals and values.

In Federalist Paper 36, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

The national administration must go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society.By opposing prevailing wage laws, the Club for Growth is more interested in impositions on workers to reduce their pay. Nothing is said about the wages of the owners.

GMAN said...

In regards the comments of Hempy regarding prevailing wage.

It is very interesting that you use the analogy of feudalistic economic principles in describing prevailing wage. I couldn't agree more. Although the "lords of the manor" as you refer to them are not the business owners but the union management / bosses.

I also find it very interesting that you reference Adam Smith but wrongly. Higher wages do not mean more profits. Higher wages are a cost to a business. Just because a company pays higher wages doesn't mean that they make money, usually the opposite is the case (i.e. American auto industry).

While I understand you are trying to give validity to your arguement regarding prevailing wage you must be careful where you get your quotes. In Federalist Paper 30, Alexander Hamilton says "Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital prinicple of the body politic"

Do you really believe that spending trillions of dollars would be considered "with propriety" as Mr Hamilton states?

You claim that higher wages puts more money into the body politic.

When the state pays prevailing wage with taxpayer money they are paying three times the amount they would pay otherwise.

This is like you paying me $100 to do work that would normally cost $30. Then I give you $5 back and you claim a profit.

Is it any wonder that we are in the financial mess we are in?

Prevailing wage is what it is - a union subsidy. Not to the workers but for the jobs of the union bosses. Every wonder why someone who gets elected to union office never picks up a hammer again? Being the "lord of the manor" is a pretty sweet gig.

If after these points you still feel that union pay for workers is the right way to go, then please answer the following questions:

Was your house built by union carpenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, etc?

If so it cost 30% more than non-union but the value is no different.

Do you drive only union made cars?

Are your televisions, computers, furniture, etc, union made?

Do you only go to union stores (that leaves out WalMart)?

My belief is that you don't.

Like all consumers you seek the best value and the lowest price to meet your needs and wants.

That is the most efficient and effective means to do business.

If the government would do that we would all be the better for it.

Oh and by the way, that would be the main principle behind Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". You may want to actually read it versus cherry picking a quote here and there.

Anonymous said...

Hello to all, this is my 3 opening message. I base your site alongside link [url=]40 catalog[/url] . Content don't be indignant on newbie OffisP!