San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 5, 2015

I Am Not A Shill For Business

Sometimes people complain to me that I am nothing but a shill for business.  Conversely, they claim that I seem to be utterly incapable of seeing any good in government.  That sort of imbalance, they say, is indicative of a zealot with an unbalanced mind who is incapable of offering any real insight about the nature of our world.  Indeed, they continue, government is not perfect but neither is business.  Why must I constantly attack government and give business a free pass?  They conclude their series of accusations by giving me a long list of all of the things government does well, including all of those instances of alleged market failure where government must step in to save the day.  Let's consider these things today.
Let me begin by saying that I made up the first paragraph.  Nobody has ever said any of those things to me because the only place I talk about these issues is on this blog and, relatively speaking, nobody reads this blog.  I mean no disrespect to the sixteen members who have signed up to receive this blog, thanks for your support, but nobody who worships at the throne of government is ever going to engage me on this blog.  They are far too afraid of being exposed for what they are to do that.  So I am forced to make up things that I believe these poor deluded people should be saying.  I know if I were a worshiper of government I would accuse me of being a business worshiper and then I would justify my outright dismissal of all the arguments I have presented in this blog over the years on that ad hominen basis alone. 
That having been said let me make it clear that all humans are sinful.  All humans are guilty of both original and actual sins.  All humans are selfish, self centered and almost incapable of rising about a self-referential thought.  Apart from the tiny handful of true Christians in the world, who are actually capable of a non-sinful thought or behavior, everything that is thought about or done by the vast mass of humanity is all sinful to the very core.  Sin makes no distinction between those who work for themselves, a profit seeking corporation, a government embedded corporation or the Beast itself.  That being the case there is nothing inherent in government work that makes it evil in and of itself.  What makes the things which are done by government evil are the sinful motivations of those who populate it.  And, surprisingly enough, the same is true for business.
A distinction must be made between those businesses that are relatively free of government influence and corruption and those that are so closely related to the government they become what are essentially quasi-governmental institutions.  If you go back and read through the posts to this blog you will discover that I staunchly defend independent businesses but I have hardly ever discussed the nature of quasi-government profit seeking corporations.  That is due to the fact that I do not consider quasi-government profit seeking corporations to truly be a part of the free market.  The free market is, get ready for this, free.  Government, as our first President once told us, is a gigantic coercive Beast that lives to expand itself by means of force, power and coercion.  There is nothing in the nature of government that is free.  So when profit seeking corporations align themselves with government in order to obtain special privileges and the profits that go with them, those corporations are no longer operating in the free market.  They have moved into the coercive market and their profits are as immoral as the things government does to us on a daily basis.
Sadly, in this greedy and power seeking land, many businesses, especially old large ones, have aligned themselves with government in order to protect themselves from competition and garner monopoly profits for themselves.  I condemn all of them.  They are all as evil as the government itself.  They are all as greedy and guilty of theft as the government itself.  They will all be held accountable on the day of judgment for their sins, just like those who have worked for a government that flaunts and ignores the perfect moral law of God and refuses to allow it into the public square.  How many profit seeking businesses are of this type?  I have no idea.  I am a small businessman.  My janitorial business does not have connections to the government.  I do not ask the government to protect me from my competitors nor do I ask the government for special tax breaks or enterprise zones in which to operate.  I want the government to leave me alone and I do everything I can to steer clear of governmental interference in my business.  And I know lots of smaller independent business people who think the same way I do.  We try to avoid the influence of government, not to court it in order to use it as a means to expand our profits. 
Ultimately I believe the issue boils down to one simple truth.  The free market is the most efficient and effective instrument to deal with the fact that men are sinful.  This is due entirely to the principles of consumer sovereignty and personal freedom. Those two principles do not exist in the world of government.  Consumers of government services are not sovereign.  On the contrary, government services are provided on a take it or leave it basis.  In many cases the law of the land mandates the use of various government services. When it comes to quasi-free market activities provided by the government there are no such things.  Everything is already determined by the power of the government to coerce its citizens into doing precisely what it desires.  Do I really have to go into detail describing how the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are not free?  After all, the SDA is a democracy and in a democracy the majority rules.  The 49% who make up the minority are not free as the will of the 51% is imposed upon them.  Do you really believe we could get to the point where the top 49% of the income population provides 98% of all federal income tax revenues if the members of the top 49% were truly free?  Enough said.
Things are different in the free market.  Producers of goods and services must deliver precisely what the consumers want, when they want it and for a price they are willing to pay or they will suffer financial losses.  Everything that is produced must ultimately find a consumer for that good or service or all the members of the production process will suffer losses.  Companies go bankrupt all of the time because the consumers decide that they no longer want what is being offered the way it is being offered at the price it is being offered.  Conversely, companies make boat loads of money when they deliver to the consumers precisely what they want.  In a phrase, the consumer is sovereign.
Consumers are also free to buy whatever they want.  Pardon the poor grammar but consumers are not given the choice of one thing, as is the case with government provided goods and services.  Millions of businesses carve out niches in the economy by providing specialized goods and services to small numbers of people who are typically willing to pay a premium for that service or good.  The superabundance of goods available to consumers in the SDA is staggering to the mind when compared to the relative abundance of goods throughout human history or, today, in many other countries around the world. All of this has come about because consumers are sovereign and free to do as they please with their money.
How does this relate to managing the sinfulness of men?  Both producers and consumers are sinful.  Both producers and consumers are only interested in themselves.  But due to that little thing called self-interest, producers are forced to think about what the consumer wants.  A producer does not know what to produce, and thus satisify his own self-interest by means of sales and cash income, unless he first discovers what consumers want.  That forces him to be other-interested and works against his natural tendency to steal from and exploit others. In government no such impulse exists.  Government employees have no need to satisfy their customers wants and the customer comes to be seen as an inconvenience.  Compare UPS and the USPS to get a pretty good idea of what I am writing about here.
In addition, it is always bad business to kill your customers.  It is also bad business to sell them items that will poison, maim or otherwise do harm to them.  Customers talk to each other.  Reputations are made and destroyed based upon how well a producer delivers the goods to the consumers.  The free market, through its process of rating the quality of goods and services produced, is infinitely superior to any government regulatory body when it comes to policing the activities of sinful businessmen.
Some businesses are bad and some businesses are good.  All bad businesses are bad because of their symbiotic relationship with government.  Government, as it exists in the SDA today, is always bad.  There is the theoretical possibility that government could actually do something good but we are long past the potential for that in the SDA today.  So when I extol the virtues of business remember that I am talking about the free market.  I would never defend the activities of parasitic and sinful businesses that use the coercive power of government to feather their nests.  A pox upon them all.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Bill Pesek Hates The Takata Corporation

William Pesek of Bloomberg News penned an article several weeks ago that ran on the Denver Post editorial page.  The title of the article was "Takata is the real safety hazard, not its airbags."  Maybe you recall the story.  Takata is the Japanese company that manufactures airbags that are used in cars made by dozens of car companies around the world.  Until last week the largest consumer recall in the history of the world was related to Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol product.  Thanks to oppressive governments operating and expanding with excessive anti-business regulations, that dubious distinction now belongs to Takata.
Bill, if I may call him that, is a free market hating socialist of the worst type.  He has never met a profit seeking company that he did not hate with a passion.  On the other hand, being the socialist that he is, Bill also believes that government can solve all of humanity's problems......sort of.  Bill is a firm believer in the ability of the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to solve all of the world's problems but he is far more skeptical when it comes to the government powers entrenched in Japan.  Bill believes that Japanese politicians are in bed with those evil profit seeking corporations so they both are condemned in his eyes.  Here is what he wrote, "The Japanese government and media have enabled the company's obfuscations.  Takata Chairman Shigehisa Takata and his team weren't ever hauled in for a parliamentary grilling.  And Japan's notoriously docile media consistently soft-pedaled stories that threatened to shame the national brand.  Fortunately, foreign media -- and US lawmakers, who initiated their own investigation of the airbags -- weren't so quick to let Takata off the hook."  Praise the government of the SDA.  Praise the US lawmakers. Besides meddling in all of our affairs, the federal government of the SDA is also involved in the business affairs of other countries.  I guess the SDA really and truly must be exceptional if it is our role to police business activity around the world, constantly looking out for something we do not like.  What would the world do without us?
So just why is Takata being forced to recall 34 million of its airbags?  You read that right.  34 million airbags need to be recalled to auto shops around the world where  qualified mechanics will do whatever repairs are necessary to make sure it never happens again.  But what, exactly, is the recall designed to make sure never happens again?  What horrible series of tragedies and what huge amount of human suffering have brought about the need for such a wide-scale recall?  To answer that question I have to quote the first paragraph of Bill's diatribe against the free market.
Bill wrote, "The dubious honor of triggering the largest consumer recall in US history now belongs to the Japanese auto parts supplier Takata.  Thirty four million of the company's airbags, having been determined to have caused at least six deaths and injured more than 100, will have to be replaced."  You read that correctly.  Takata has manufactured and installed 34 million airbags in automobiles around the world.  Of the 34 million airbags it has made, six of them have been involved in accidents in which a passenger was killed and another 100 of them were involved in accidents in which a passenger was injured.  Six deaths out of 34 million possible deaths does not sound like bad odds to me.  It is incomprehensible to me that Takata would be ordered by the governments of the world to recall its airbags when only six people have been killed out of 34 million potential deaths.  Can you think of a more egregious example of government overreaching into the free market than this absurdly extreme case?
According to Wikipedia, 669,000 people were killed around the developed world in automobile crashes in 2001.  The top three causes of car crashes were drunk driving, speeding and driving while playing with your PED (personal electronic device).  Hundreds of thousands of people die while engaging in those three activities and driving a car every year.  So what is the big deal about the alleged fact that six people have died from airbag accidents ever since Takata started making them?  Airbags became required by law in this over regulated country in 1991.  That is 24 years of potential accidents and only six people have been killed in over two decades around the entire world.
I have no idea what the motivation is behind the SDA government's, and others who are conspiring to destroy Takata, persecution of the airbag company.  It makes no sense at all.  By far the most effective way to reduce automobile fatalities would be to not allow stupid people who drive drunk, speed and play with their PEDs while driving to get into a car.  I am sure some enterprising bureaucrat could come up with some bit of technology that would forbid access to a car if any of those three conditions are present.  I know such devices already exist to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel.  Why leap over the opportunity top save hundreds of thousands of lives just to persecute a company that makes government mandated airbags that have killed six people over the past twenty one years?
Strangely absent from Bill's article on the evil nature of the Japanese government and the profit seeking Takata Corporation was any mention of the fact that it is the federal government that mandates the use of airbags.  I hate airbags and I would never own or drive a car that has one installed in it if I could get away with it.  I asked the dealer to remove, or at least deactivate, the airbag in the first car that I purchased that had one.  He chuckled at my naivety and politely informed me that he did not want to spend the rest of his life in prison.  It seems to me that the families of the six people who were killed should be going after their own governments for relief.  Were it not for the government decree that all cars must have airbags those six people would be still among us today.  Why is the government not being held accountable for their deaths? 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Best Valedictorian Speech Ever

I attended a high school graduation yesterday.  An extended family member managed to graduate from government school and invitations were sent out to all other extended family members announcing that fact.  When I graduated from high school, admittedly a long time ago, I didn't send out announcements declaring that fact.  I was aware that other students did such a thing but even back then I could tell that high school graduation announcements were little more than a means to beg for gifts and cash from extended family members who the graduate never thought about throughout his entire high school career.  Not being interested in becoming a beggar, I passed on the tradition of graduation announcements.
After receiving my announcement I dutiful purchased a card, stuffed it with cash and set off for the ceremony.  To my dismay the event organizers had decided to conduct the ceremony outside.  The school had an auditorium that was sufficiently large to accommodate the ceremony but, for some reason that I did not understand, they decided to hold the ceremony on the grass outside.  It was near 90 degrees with a hot sun bearing down upon my bald head when the ceremony began.  It did not take long before the sweat was pouring from my body, soaking my clothes and making me unnecessarily uncomfortable.
After the processional and the introduction given by a government school honcho, the valedictorian rose to address the audience.  I was prepared for the worst.  I was shocked by what I heard next.  Allow me to  write a paraphrase of the best valedictorian speech I have ever heard.  It went something like this:

"We all entered this high school after graduating from the eighth grade in our previous government school experience.  That graduation was a farce and, despite our tender age at the time, most of us knew it.  The entire process was nothing more than the concoction of some government school psychologist designed to enhance our allegedly low self esteem.  As we have proven over the past four years, none of us suffers from low self esteem.  If anything, we all esteem ourselves too highly.  So, to our parents who had to sit through that previous waste of time, let me apologize for the fact that you have to do it again four years later.
To our teachers I would like to say thanks for nothing.  Quoting Paul Simon I would declare that when I look back at all the crap I learned in high school, it is a wonder I can think at all.  Thanks for nothing when you taught us political correctness.  Thanks for nothing when you taught us Keynesian economics.  And most of all, thanks for nothing when you taught us to worship the government.
Now, let me get down to what I really wanted to talk about today.  I don't really care about the teachers, the parents or even my fellow students.  All I care about is me.  Therefore, I am going to tell you all about me.  Ever since I was born I can remember lying in bed at night thinking about how I liked girls.  At first the thought did not dominate my thinking but it was always there.  By the time I entered high school thinking about girls had come to dominate my thought life.  I would daydream about girls while in physics class.  I would watch the girls during gym class as they did whatever it was they were doing on the other side of the athletic fields while we were out there running around.  Finally, one day, a girl actually paid attention to me and we had a conversation.  It was love!
We rapidly progressed from our first conversation to walking along together hand in hand, then arm in arm.  Our first kiss was a magical moment in a darkened parking lot on the outskirts of the school one rainy night after a football game.  About a month later we had sex in that same car and in that same parking lot.  We were both pretty drunk at the time so I don't remember a lot about it but I am sure it was magical as well.  About a month after that we broke up.  About a month after that I had another girlfriend and the process started all over again.  Like I said, I really like girls. 
All of this is not to go into the sordid details about how all of those girls were not good enough for me.  That should be obvious.  My point today is a simple one....I like girls.  I felt compelled to tell you that here today and I expect you to applaud me for the fact that I was willing to come out to you with the truth about my heterosexuality.  Thank you for listening, if you really have, and good riddance."

Last Friday the Denver Post carried a page 2 article entitled "Student couldn't out self to class."  The article told the sad tale of a Longmont high school valedictorian who was not permitted to declare that he is a homosexual during his valedictorian speech.  The principal of the school required the student to submit his speech in advance and, after reading the proposed speech, he contacted the student's father to explain why he would not allow it.  The student told the paper that "one of my themes is that I was going to tell everyone my secrets.  My main theme is that you are supposed to be respectful of people, even if you don't agree with them.  I figured my gayness would be a very good way to address that."  How declaring he is a homosexual has anything to do with a high school graduation was not described.  Why a coming out party should be the focus of a valedictorians' speech was not addressed.  What was addressed was the fact that when the principal informed the father about the censorship of the speech the father said that he had no idea his son was a homosexual.  How about that for showing respect?  This God-hating sodomite was going to announce to the world that he was a homosexual without even telling his parents first. I find it hard to conceive of a way he could be more disrespectful of his parents.  Oh well, homosexuals are not known for their logical consistency or their respectful behavior.
Public reaction to the story was predictable.  All sorts of militant homosexual rights groups are demanding the principal be fired and the student is being hailed as a courageous hero who has suffered for the cause of righteousness.  Nobody has brought up the fact that if homosexuality is supposed to be a common, normal, and above all, moral way of life, why should a high school valedictorian decide to make it the focal point of his speech?  He might as well deliver a speech about lettuce or the primary colors.  His homosexuality should be, if his world view is accurate, a total non-issue.  Of course, his world view is not accurate and that is the source of the problem.
The speech I described above did not happen.  I wish some valedictorian had the knowledge, wisdom and courage to deliver a speech like that but we all know that is impossible.  But how does my imaginary address differ from what this homosexual student wanted to do.  Both are entirely self absorbed.  Both are totally unrelated to what is actually taking place.   And, in the case of the homosexual advocacy speech, one of them has a clear political and social agenda.  Once again the homosexuals demand that we affirm their behavior. Once again they thrust themselves upon us and demand our support.  And they have the audacity to say that they are only coming out about who they are when they do these sorts of things.  Hypocrites and liars, all of them.
I had prepared this blog post yesterday.  Today I sat down to read my morning paper and there, also on page 2, was the headline, "Valedictorian allowed to give news in speech."  The first paragraph of the story informed me that, "A Carbondale high school valedictorian received a standing ovation when she came out as gay during her graduation speech, in contrast to the treatment received by a Boulder area top student who was banned from making a similar affirmation."  The principal, who was aware of the contents of the speech in advance, said, "Her speech was courageous and would help other students feel safe at school.  She gave us insight about how we have to lead our lives."  Well there it is.  Teenage homosexuals are paragons of moral virtue.  We should all follow their courageous examples and praise behaviors that the God of the Bible condemns.  But, most importantly, we all must feel safe while attending government school.  Amen.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Militarized Police Killing Record Numbers of SDA Citizens

The same year that the director of the Colorado Department of Transportation declared that it is possible to go an entire year without a single fatal accident on a Colorado roadway, the police who are expected to enforce the new rules that will save so many lives, are killing citizens at an alarming rate.  You can find the blog post about how the perfect combination of new rules, electronic highway signs and police enforcement have come together to guarantee that no person ever dies on a Colorado highway again here.  To find out how killer cops are mowing down citizens as if there is no on.
The headline of my Sunday Denver Post was "2015 rate is twice 10-year figure."  The sub-headline was, "Nearly 1,000 such fatalities could be reached this year."  When I saw the headline I immediately tried to guess what the underlying topic might be.  Clearly many more people are dying this year than have in the past as a result of something.  I wondered if maybe it was the bird flu.  Nah, I thought, the bird flu has not transmitted to humans yet.  Then I wondered if it was AIDS patients.  I haven't heard much about them lately.  But it didn't make sense that they would see such a dramatic upturn in deaths.  Then I thought it must be the total number of suicides by homosexuals.  I thought this was going to be the introduction to an article about how we all need to love homosexuals so they will stop killing themselves.  As it turned out, all of my theories were in error.  The article was about the number of Socialist Democracy of Amerika citizens who have been killed by the police in 2015. 
According to the article originally published in the Washington Post, the following statistics accurate sum up the state of affairs that exists between the militarized police forces of the SDA and its citizens:
  • The rate of fatal killings at the hands of the police in 2015 is more than twice the rate of fatal killings by the federal government over the past decade.
  • According to an independent analysis by the Denver Post, police are now killing SDA citizens at the rate of 2.6/day.  
  • 50% of those who have been killed by the police are white.
  • 80% of those who were killed were armed with guns, knives or "revving vehicles."
  • So far this year 49 people who were killed were unarmed.
  • 16% of all the killings were of unarmed citizens.
  • Eight of those killed so far this year were children.
  • 50% of the killings were related to citizens calling the police to deal with some sort of domestic disturbance.
  • 25% of those killed were identified as "mentally ill."
  • The other 50% of those killed were usually related to robberies or serving warrants.  No distinction was made between those two categories.
  • 20% of those who were unarmed were killed while running away from the police.
  • In less than 1% of the cases where a cop kills a citizen is the cop charged with a crime.
  • Of the thousands of killings over the past decade only 54 have produced criminal charges and in those 54 cases "most officers were cleared or acquitted."
So there you have it.  The police in the SDA are no longer made up with people like Barney Fife.  The police forces roaming our streets are heavily recruited from prior military personnel.   Police training is now para-military training and the cops have been instructed to treat SDA citizens as the enemy.  Is it any surprise that we are dying like flies?

Monday, June 1, 2015

Robert Reich On The Minimum Wage...Lunacy In Action

I was reading various articles at last week when I came across a gem.  In one short article I discovered examples of both logical contradiction and extreme economic ignorance characteristic of the career politicians who rule over us.  The article was about an old bureaucrat who decided to come out in favor of a $15/hour minimum wage.  Here are a couple of excerpts from the story:
"Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is adding his voice to the chorus calling for a pay raise for Americans at the low end of the labor market's totem pole.  In an interview with 'On the Money', the cabinet member under President Bill Clinton weighed in on the fierce debate over the minimum wage. Billionaires like Warren Buffett have held forth on the subject, while big companies like McDonald's, Wal-Mart and Target are under pressure to increase what they pay their lowest-level employees. Earlier this year, both retail giants agreed to pay part- and full-time employees at least $9 per hour.  Reich, who served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997 and is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, supports a wage increase for workers in Los Angeles.  'I think it is a good thing, in the sense that the minimum wage nationally is 25 percent below what it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation,' he told CNBC.  Still, not everyone agrees. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report last year that an increase in the federal minimum wage to just $10.10 an hour could raise the incomes of 16.5 million workers. On the downside, the agency warned such a move could also result in the net loss of 500,000 jobs. For Los Angeles and other cities, Reich dismissed predictions that higher wages will result in fewer jobs, citing the multiplier effect. 'Minimum wage workers, because they spend almost everything they're getting in terms of wages, that spending is local spending that stimulates creation of new jobs in the area,' Reich said."
Did you get all of that?  If not, allow me to help you to understand Reich's lunacy.  Reich begins by asserting his belief that a government law raising the market wage for unskilled labor from whatever the market will bear to a mandated $15/hour is "a good thing."  Why does he believe it to be a good thing?  "Because the minimum wage nationally is 25 percent below what it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation."  Does anybody see a logical connection between Reich's belief that a government mandated wage for unskilled labor being a good thing and the fact that the present minimum wage is lower than it was in 1968?  I sure don't.  What does the one have to do with the other?  If the minimum wage was a bad idea in 1968 it is still a bad idea today.  If the minimum wage was a good idea in 1968 then it is still a good idea today, despite the fact it is somewhat lower today than it was back then after adjusting for inflation.  If the goal is simply to force employers to pay more money per hour for unskilled labor than what the free market would dictate, then the minimum wage is always good regardless of how much more than the free market price it forces employers to pay for labor services.
Economists who do not draw a paycheck from the government understand that forcing employers to pay more than the free market price for unskilled labor services will result in employers paying for less of those services.  The inexorable rule of economics always applies....when the government artificially raises the price of something you will get a surplus of that item and when the government artificially lowers the price of something you will experience a shortage of that item.  Therefore, when government artificially increases the price of labor the economy will experience an increase in the number of people who want to sell their labor services.  But since the higher wages are not the result of market forces, employers will actually end up employing fewer laborers at the higher wage rate.  Unemployment, or a slower rate of increasing employment, will always be the result.  By the government's own report, drawn up by the CBO, the proposed increase will destroy one half million jobs.  How does Reich respond to this economic fact?
Reich reaches into his Keynesian bag of toys and pulls out the old "multiplier effect" theory.  According to Keynes and Reich, when the minimum wage increases as a result of a new government rule,  the aggregate spending in some random geo-political zone also increases proportionately since we all know that the folks receiving the new, higher wage immediately rush out and spend it on stuff.  Then, according to the hair-brained theory, this increased consumer spending magically creates enough jobs to replace those that were destroyed by raising the minimum wage in the first place.  As even a child can understand, if this theory is true it is possible to spend our way to never ending prosperity.  If an increase in the minimum wage to $15/hour will increase consumer spending and create new jobs, why not increase the minimum wage to $1500/hour and make us all rich beyond our wildest dreams?  Socialists, Keynesians, government worshipers and Reich never answer that question.  I wonder why?
Reich's blind spot has to do with the structure of production.  He envisions the entire economy as one lump, with consumer goods magically appearing with no underlying basis for their existence.  Then, people who are suddenly wealthy, because the government has increased how much they make each week, go to Wal-Mart and buy all sorts of shiny new things.  Because somebody has to make more of those shiny new things employment will go up.  The real world is not that way.  For Apple to produce a computer it is necessary for some miner to go into a pit and dig out some iron ore.  That iron ore then needs to be processed into steel.  That steel then needs to be molded into the casing for computer components.  Likewise, some entrepreneur somewhere has to take some grains of sand and convert them into silicon, which is then converted into computer chips.  Apple can never produce a computer without those two industrial processes first taking place.  Now, Mr. Reich, how is increasing the minimum wage for the person digging rocks out of the ground from $9/hour to $15/hour going to result in more jobs?  All his employer knows is that this fellow now costs him 67% more to employ than he did yesterday.  If the mining company is operating on a thin margin it will be forced, all other things being equal, to lay off 2/3res of its mining employees.  That is not going to bring about Reich's desired result of higher employment and those shiny new computers the new higher minimum wage earners want to buy will never be produced because the intermediate steps of production will not allow it.  Reich completely ignores the fact that finished goods do not just magically appear.  Each step of the production process is effected by his new rule and any step that is hindered by the higher wage rate is going to suffer, resulting in layoffs and higher unemployment.