I wish there was a magic wand that somebody could wave and all of us would have more money. Or maybe Santa Claus could play that role, 
or some version of the Tooth Fairy.
And if that magic person only had limited powers, I would want more money specifically for those with modest incomes.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in this fantasy world. As a society, we can’t enjoy output unless we first go through the toil and trouble of working, saving, and investing.
Heck, even some leftists have admitted that you can’t redistribute unless somebody first produces.
But that doesn’t stop some politicians from practicing free-lunch economics. They tell us, for instance, that government can impose a higher minimum wage with no job losses.
And now the Obama Administration is claiming that it can expand overtime eligibility rules without any adverse impact of base pay, hours, or employment.
In my role as the designated bad guy who has to inform people there’s no magic wand or Santa Claus, here’s what I told the New York Times.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, who warned that employers might cut pay or use fewer workers. “If they push through something to make a certain class of workers more expensive, something will happen to adjust.”
I also shared my putative wisdom with the International Business Times, underscoring the principle that government shouldn’t intervene in labor markets.
“Our view is pretty straightforward,” Daniel Mitchell, a fellow at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington D.C., told International Business Times by phone on Wednesday. “From a philosophical perspective the government shouldn’t get involved with labor contacts between two consenting adults. You can’t impose more labor costs and have them magically disappear.”
I also pontificated on this issue for CBS News radio, but the “highlight” of the day was having to dispel economic myths in a series of TV interviews.
In this debate for Nightly Business Report, I had to explain that faster growth was the only effective way to improve living standards, but my opponent somehow thought we should go back to the glorious 1970s.
And in this interview with Ali Velshi on AJ, I’m stunned that he blames today’s weak job market on free markets.
Last but not least, I made what will probably be my last appearance on Larry Kudlow’s great show on CNBC and used the opportunity to say we shouldn’t copy Europe’s failed welfare states.
Larry is retiring at the end of the month and he will be sorely missed.
P.S. Lots of people are suffering because of Obamacare, especially taxpayers and patients.
But since our main topic today is jobs, let’s not forget that millions of workers are being screwed over by this bad law. They’re losing jobs, losing hours, and/or losing take-home pay thanks to Obama’s ham-fisted intervention.
If you like gallows humor, Reason TV addresses this issue in a new video. Enjoy.
And if you like Obamacare parody videos, here are the other ones that will produce some smiles and laughs.
*The head of the National Socialist Workers Party finds out he can’t keep his health plan.
*A creepy version of Uncle Sam wants to know about your sex life.
*Young people discover that they’re screwed by Obamacare.
*One of the biggest statists of the 20th century is angry that the Obamacare exchanges don’t work.
*A consumer tries to buy Obama-coffee.
By the way, if you’re concerned about America’s fiscal future, here’s a video on Obamacare that definitely is not funny.
International Liberty 
[…] You don’t make workers more attractive to employers with laws and regulations that increase the real and/or potential costs of employing those […]
“If the Bernanke-Yellen interest-rate confiscation of wealth is not the solution to full employment, then what is? ”
“Usury in the USA”
By Noureddine Krichene
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-140314.html
Why should low wage workers get all of the benefit from minimum wage and overtime laws? The middle class should get a break, and everyone.
I propose the Fair Raise Act of 2014. Whatever your salary was on 12/31/13, you must be paid 20% more starting November 30, 2014. Your current employer can fire you, but it or any other employer must pay you the higher wage (or compensation, as determined by 600 pages of accomodating rules) or face heavy fines. The only exception is when you work in an entirely different industry, following your supressed dreams.
You have worked all your life for stingy employers who have always underpaid you. You are clearly worth more, but employers have implicitly colluded to keep your wage down. That is why they always ask about what you were paid in your last job.
You can’t effectively bargain on your own because you have no unity with your fellow workers. Throw away your fears and embrace the power of unity. Workers of the world unite. Employers will have no choice but to pay you what you are worth, because other scab workers won’t be able to underbid your new, fairer wage provided under this act.
Your new wage is indexed to inflation of course, so that increases in the money supply will not eat away at your newly granted bargaining power.
In a few years, when things settle down, we’ll do ‘er again.
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com
To clarenceswinney,
What is your source for “overheard”?
BEWARE VOTING MACHINES Remember when the President of Diebold (vote counter for Ohio) was overheard telling George Bush”I guarantee you Ohio”. Bush won by 16 points. A major Ohio paper had a good record on accuracy of exit polls. They had Kerry winning by 16 points. In North Carolina my vote was reversed on my review. Be sure to always ask for a review of your vote. If it is reversed report it to county chairman.
Ed:
Wall Street firms voluntarily pay to get the best people. If increasing low end pay voluntarily increased quality or productivity by an equivalent amount, it would be in the interest of companies to do it.
However, the experience of those hiring at the low end of the scale obviously reflects a different pattern, or those that kept wages low would lose out to competitors paying higher rates.
While there are exceptions, like Henry Ford and Costco, such exceptions have more to do with the type of work involved or the clientele of the organization.
When an employer faces additional labor costs, he has four alternatives:
1. Reduce hours worked. Remaining workers must become more productive by increasing individual work load or automating.
2. Increase prices to consumers.
3. Watch profits fall. Growth will slow and job growth will stall.
4. Go out of business, voluntarily or involuntarily.
No business can survive that does not adjust to circumstances. While the intent of labor cost mandates is to shift money from employer to worker, the consequence is more likely to be job reductions or consumer price increases, since business survival is dependent on maintaining profitability.
At the top level of earners in the U.S., making them more expensive is considered good management. Last year the bonuses paid to 165,000 Wall Street workers totaled more than the total wages paid to every worker making minimum wage (about 7 million, as I recall).
Every Wall Street company will tell you that paying more money means better workers, harder working workers, and greater success in the long run.
Didn’t you study economics?