From: Nicholas Dronen <ndronen@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:02:43 -0500
> Okay nicholas, perhaps there is a little resentment in my attacks on the
> wealthy. But are you denying that your statement (the first in the bunch)
> is not a product of resentment of the poor, whom you call free-riders? I'm
> sure I could be a rich person--a business person or something--can you be a
> poor person?
My comments about free-riders were intended as a joke, pure and
simple. I presented a "problem" in economics and used it as if I were
a heartless businessman. Nothing more.
It is obvious that many of the rich are cold-blooded and ruthless
(although the middle and upper-middle class social-corporate climbers are
probably more vicious). But what follows from that?
I don't love the rich, nor am I one of them, nor do I play golf, and my silver
car is rusty and old thank you very much. (Golf courses are a horrible waste of land.
And yellow shirts are annoying. And most businessmen don't talk about philosophy.)
Also, Jeff, I have been poor. I have lived in a station wagon and lived on cold hot
dogs and cheese.
There is a tragic lack of knowledge of hard economic issues on this list. For
example, minimum wage laws *do* *lower* employment rates. Talk to any economist (a
person who has *studied* the issue) and s/he will tell you that when a government forces
firms to pay no less than $x/hr. to its employees, there is less money available to hire
more people. Another way to think about it is: if the restaurant industry were forced
to pay no less than $100/hr to servers, how many servers would restaraunts be able to
hire, much less keep? (And a comment by a gentleman in Toronto that denied that this is
even a plausible explanation went totally unnoticed by any contributers to the list.)
What is interesting is that, *most* (but not all) of those same economists will
concede that it is probably better to have a wage basement with a little unemployment
than it is to have no minimum wage and less unemployment.