Here are a couple of hypotheticals to illustrate how the current fashion for across the board increases in the minimum wage will often do more harm than good.
X company has revenues of $1,000,000 a year, a line of credit with the bank and a well established business. After all other business costs have been paid the company has $400,000 left to divide up between owners and workers. The owner pays himself $200,000 and pays his top manager $80,000 a year (pay, payroll taxes and workers compensation) leaving $120,000 a year for other employees. He has four other employees, he pays them at minimum wage, $10 an hour, with mandatory other payments such as payroll taxes, sick leave and workers compensation that takes up the last $120,000.
Y company has revenues of $250,000 a year. After other business costs have been paid Y company has $170,000 to divide up between the owner and workers. Y company also has 4 employees paid the minimum wage, $10 an hour. As with X company that takes up $120,000 leaving $60,000 for the owner.
The city enacts a minimum wage ordinance bumping the minimum wage up to $15 an hour. For each company their new cost for their 4 employees will now be $160,000 a year.
X company will grumble, but will be able to adapt. It has the cash flow and the bank connections to deal with the disruption. Perhaps the owner reduces his annual take to $160,000 to cover the new costs. The increase in the minimum wage as to this company will probably be good for the city wide economy, more money will be in circulation from people who spend most of what they earn, and less money will be driving up asset prices.
Y company, on the other hand, will be in severe financial straights. If the owner absorbs the cost of the additional wages he will now be making $20,000 a year, less than the old minimum wage, much less the new one and less than any of his employee's make. His only other options are to fire someone, or make substantial cuts in employees hours, or close the business. It is a lose / lose situation for everyone, including the economy of the city.
In any given city it is hard to know how many companies are more like X company, and how many are more like Y company. If 95% of the companies are like X company, the minimum wage hike will certainly be a net plus (although hard on the Y companies and their employees). If 95% of the companies are like Y company the minimum wage hike is going to cripple the cities economy.
A relatively simple solution is to create an exception to the minimum wage hike. Any company that can demonstrate that owners and management are not making more than, say 300% of the average earnings for full time workers in the company is exempt from the new minimum wage (although still subject to the old minimum wage).
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
The NY Times Magazine and Child Porn
In the New York Times Magazine for April 19, 2015 there is an article by Sally Mann, a photographer, about pictures she took of her naked children and published in a book in 1992. To me this article and the surrounding circumstances seem to be utilizing borderline child porn to promote book sales, under the guise of Art.
I'm not much in favor of government censorship, but I do believe citizens in a free country need to exercise some self censorship to protect core values.
This current NY Times article is promoting a book to come out in May. The excuse for the new book (besides making more money) seems to be to allow the author to make her case that, in publishing the 1992 book, she was innocent and naive.
The 1992 book, the current article, and evidently the new book appear to me to simply exploiting photo's, that would probably be of greatest interest to pedophiles, to generate controversy and sell books.
The Times Article is illustrated by a picture promoting the article on the Table of Contents page of the magazine. The picture is titled "The Perfect Tomato" and the picture's focus is on a naked girl of perhaps 8 to 10, standing sideways to the camera on a picnic table in a dancers pose, with what are apparently a few barely visible tomatoes at her feet.
The article itself contains a number of small pictures and three large pictures. Some of the small pictures are innocuous but some, and all the bigger pictures seem to me to be featured for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
The first is of a young girl, maybe 5 to 10 years old, naked face down, although her head is turned sideways so a profile of her face is visible, laying in the grass with grass cuttings scattered over her body.
The second of a young girl, again maybe 8 to 10 years old, standing in front of the camera wearing nothing but roller skates, but looking away from the camera towards activities on the deck behind her, with her hand down blocking the view of her crotch, with the hand curling in toward her crotch.
The third photo I have no problem with, it is not of a child, it is a self portrait of the photographers upper torso, and head, head turned away from the camera so the face is not visible but one breast and an erect nipple are prominent. But it does seem to confirm the underlying use of sex for artistic and commercial advantage.
The article is long and Ms. Mann is eloquent (or glib?), essentially trying to make the case she was simply recording innocent pictures of her family and didn't expect to generate so much publicity when she published the book in 1992. However, I find the photo's chosen for publication, particularly the larger ones, seem to be chosen explicitly for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
Certainly a child can strike any of the poses inadvertently and innocently, because children can be innocent about how they might be perceived. But Ms. Mann and her husband are adults. I am left with the sense they are either incredibly oblivious to the risk of sexual abuse many children face or they is scarily dishonest and glib. Given the new publication of these pictures it is hard to avoid concluding they chose provocative pictures to create controversy and sell copies of her book, and are perfectly aware of what they were doing.
A bigger concern is why the New York Times is promoting this book. The Times not only choose to publish an article about a person that, to me, is using photo's that could be viewed as child porn to promote her book and career, but featured the article in the Table of Contents of the magazine.
The brutal truth is the buzz generated by this controversy will probably sell lots of books, both the author and the NY Times will make a lot of money of it.
But I for one want to express my displeasure. I urge everyone to not buy the book and let the NY Times know you we find it disturbing they are promoting a book that seems to be trying to build a following by skirting the line between childhood innocence and child porn.
If you share my concerns spread the word.
I'm not much in favor of government censorship, but I do believe citizens in a free country need to exercise some self censorship to protect core values.
This current NY Times article is promoting a book to come out in May. The excuse for the new book (besides making more money) seems to be to allow the author to make her case that, in publishing the 1992 book, she was innocent and naive.
The 1992 book, the current article, and evidently the new book appear to me to simply exploiting photo's, that would probably be of greatest interest to pedophiles, to generate controversy and sell books.
The Times Article is illustrated by a picture promoting the article on the Table of Contents page of the magazine. The picture is titled "The Perfect Tomato" and the picture's focus is on a naked girl of perhaps 8 to 10, standing sideways to the camera on a picnic table in a dancers pose, with what are apparently a few barely visible tomatoes at her feet.
The article itself contains a number of small pictures and three large pictures. Some of the small pictures are innocuous but some, and all the bigger pictures seem to me to be featured for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
The first is of a young girl, maybe 5 to 10 years old, naked face down, although her head is turned sideways so a profile of her face is visible, laying in the grass with grass cuttings scattered over her body.
The second of a young girl, again maybe 8 to 10 years old, standing in front of the camera wearing nothing but roller skates, but looking away from the camera towards activities on the deck behind her, with her hand down blocking the view of her crotch, with the hand curling in toward her crotch.
The third photo I have no problem with, it is not of a child, it is a self portrait of the photographers upper torso, and head, head turned away from the camera so the face is not visible but one breast and an erect nipple are prominent. But it does seem to confirm the underlying use of sex for artistic and commercial advantage.
The article is long and Ms. Mann is eloquent (or glib?), essentially trying to make the case she was simply recording innocent pictures of her family and didn't expect to generate so much publicity when she published the book in 1992. However, I find the photo's chosen for publication, particularly the larger ones, seem to be chosen explicitly for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
Certainly a child can strike any of the poses inadvertently and innocently, because children can be innocent about how they might be perceived. But Ms. Mann and her husband are adults. I am left with the sense they are either incredibly oblivious to the risk of sexual abuse many children face or they is scarily dishonest and glib. Given the new publication of these pictures it is hard to avoid concluding they chose provocative pictures to create controversy and sell copies of her book, and are perfectly aware of what they were doing.
A bigger concern is why the New York Times is promoting this book. The Times not only choose to publish an article about a person that, to me, is using photo's that could be viewed as child porn to promote her book and career, but featured the article in the Table of Contents of the magazine.
The brutal truth is the buzz generated by this controversy will probably sell lots of books, both the author and the NY Times will make a lot of money of it.
But I for one want to express my displeasure. I urge everyone to not buy the book and let the NY Times know you we find it disturbing they are promoting a book that seems to be trying to build a following by skirting the line between childhood innocence and child porn.
If you share my concerns spread the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)