The Problem With Whites.

Yesterday, the Democratic candidate for governor in Texas, Farouk Shami, stated that "Hispanic labor is essential to the Texas economy." To the extent Texas relies upon cheap labor, he is right. Nevertheless, given the contentious nature of debate over immigration, particularly in a state like Texas, perhaps that was not a statement someone running for governor of Texas should make. It is true that without immigrant labor, illegal immigrant labor in particular, many products and services would become more expensive. It is not just that business parks, homeowners and golf courses would have to pay more to keep their lawns manicured. It would affect all Texans. For example, it would cost the state more money to maintain roads if the companies they contracted with could not rely on immigrants (legal and otherwise) to pour asphalt and lay drainage pipe in the blistering Texas sun for minimal wages.

It is argued that many homes and apartment complexes might not be built if paying minimal wages to the construction workers could not be relied upon. Those that would be built would require using cheaper material in the absence of cheap labor. (Often, cheaper materials are used even in the presence of cheap labor). Years ago, when I worked construction and built houses, there was an abundance of white workers to be found. This was because the pay was good. Once some companies decided to increase profits by lowering costs, not only were cheaper materials sought, but cheaper labor as well. Once one company did so, the other companies were obliged to do so to stay competitive. It was not long until cheap material and immigrant labor were found at nearly every building site. Many workers making $10 to $15 an hour were replaced my immigrants making $5. The houses built were of inferior quality with inferior material. Homeowners were able to acquire a house cheap, but that was because it was a cheap house. Nearly every step taken to reduce the costs of those houses became apparent to the homeowner in a few years. The houses may have been affordable, but they were not very good.

Many roads would not be built or paved without cheap labor. Even the state relies upon the cheap labor supplied by contractors who use immigrants. Immigrant labor, illegal or otherwise, is cheap because it is abundant. If a laborer refuses a job because he feels the pay is insufficient, another will gladly take it. And therein lies the problem. Many whites, and others for that matter, will not pour asphalt, mow golf courses, build houses, or generally do any other laborious or unpleasant task for the wages that are usually offered. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants will. A business that needs, or wants cheap labor can find it. There is absolutely no incentive to pay workers more. Wages stay low. Immigrants stay employed. Products and services stay affordable. Everyone wins. Well, not everyone.

The downward pressure immigration puts on wages may keep prices low, but it also keeps wages low. It also keeps people unemployed and poor that would not be so otherwise. When some whites refuse a job, objecting to the paltry wages they are being offered, they are often characterized as haughty, lazy, or pampered. To the people who object at being asked to pour asphalt, work construction, or toil in factories for near poverty wages, an employer can simply mention that if they are unwilling to do the work for the wages offered, he can easily find someone who will. The person he will find will likely be an immigrant. It is not unlikely the immigrant he finds will be an illegal immigrant.

Against the benefit to the economy that cheap labor offers is set the unemployment and poverty caused by that cheap labor. "Cheap labor" is simply another way of saying low wages. One benefit of cheap labor is cheap products and cheap services. The other benefit is higher profits. There would seem to be a cycle at work. Cheap pay leads to low income. Low income demands cheap products and services. In order to produce cheap products and provide cheap services, one must pay low wages. Competition serves to keep the cycle going.

If many whites will not accept wearisome and unpleasant jobs under the wages and conditions offered, it is likely because they are just not desperate enough. It was the desperation of the characters in the novels of Dickens that led them to lives toiling at the miserable jobs under the horrible conditions for the paltry wages that they did. It is the desperation of immigrants that lead them to accept the jobs and wages they do. As a very successful business owner, Shami is no doubt familiar with how demanding and selfish workers can be. Especially the white ones.

Shami continued his blundering when he stated that "You don't find white people who are willing to work in factories." Curiously, back in the day when people could earn good money working in factories you could find many whites working in them and many more who wanted to. Maybe many white workers just haven't become desperate enough or are too slow in abandoning their hopes and sense of pride to take difficult and menial jobs at the wages offered. Maybe when they become desperate enough and their pride is broken they will once again be competitive. Until then, white workers will be scorned by "business men" like Shami for their haughty and pampered ways.

Many suffer when wages are kept low, not just the workers. Households suffer when they struggle to meet their needs. Consumers suffer because the quality of products and services decline. Business suffers because their markets are truncated. Communities suffer because their residents frequently require more services than they can pay for. But businessmen like Shami not only thrive, they get rich. It is not good policy to chastise a large sector of the electorate for wanting more for their labor. It may be good business to keep costs down and wages low, but unless the benefits of good business are spread around, it is not really good business at all. Certainly not for workers. Moreover, it is bad politics.

It is not that Americans, white or otherwise, are lazy or effete. It is not difficult to find Americans willing to work in factories, pave roads or shingle roofs. But it is difficult to find Americans willing to do those things for $5.00 an hour. That is the problem.

Fighting Obesity With the Government's Help.

First Lady Michelle Obama recently gave a speech on the need to fight childhood obesity. To soften, or perhaps hide the politics of her speech, she told the audience she was addressing them not simply as the first lady, but as a mother and as a wife. To underline the point, she noted the difficulties she and her family had eating right on the campaign trail. She even mentioned how she was "shocked" when she noticed that her children had put on a "few pounds". It was this disturbing observation that contributed to her commitment to launch a campaign against childhood obesity.

Throughout her speech, the First Lady stressed how obesity among children is not simply a personal or familial issue. Neither is it a local or state issue. It is a national one. It is necessary for obesity to be a national one if the federal involvement is to get involved in the eating and exercise habits of America's children. The veneer of limited government must be preserved. Her calm, measured tone and her personal anecdotes of fighting the battle of childhood obesity gave the speech a feeling of deep sincerity. Her "shock" at finding that her own children had gained weight while on the campaign trail made the issue personal. She felt shocked because she believed she was a good mother and that she was "doing what I was supposed to do." The experience of discovering her children had gained weight was "disorienting." If childhood obesity can sneak up on the first family, how much more sinister a problem is it with the nation at large?

Her bona fides established, she went on to list a series of alarming statistics associated with the rise in childhood obesity as well engaging in economic casuistry by noting the costs associated with it due to lost work, the greater occurrence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other afflictions that affect the overweight. She stated that her husband's administration will join the private sector in combating the rise in childhood obesity. It should be pointed out that the government joins nothing. Like the Mafia, once the government becomes a partner in something, it becomes the government's.

Because she came at the problem as a mother, not a politician, any implication that her speech had a political agenda was blunted. Being a concerned mother is not a partisan position. Everyone is this together, from the First Lady on down. Secondly, it is much more problematic to be critical of a caring and loving parent who is only trying to help than a politician proposing policy. Yet, despite her soothing and sincere tone, she was proposing policy. Once her credentials were established, she laid out a list of programs she and her husband were pursuing to address the problem: and the list was a long one. From increasing physical activities in school to increasing the number of farmers markets, it was clear a lot of thought had been given to the issue. I can only presume the government will create farmers markets by giving tax breaks. I would hope that Obama is not considering opening a government franchise but, given his disdain for the free market and his appetite for government expansion, it cannot be ruled out.

The First Lady's speech was not simply a response to an alarming report or the realization that her family had put on a few pounds. It was a postion that had been given a lot of thought. Celebrities have been lined up to make speeches and commercials. Task forces have been established and policies prepared to offer support and guidance to schools. The FDA will work with food retailers to revise food labels so as to help parents make "healthy choices" in the supermarkets, as if the government and labels are needed to tell people that macaroni and cheese, ice cream, Twinkies, and soda pop will make you fat.

The creation of the FDA task force is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all. Implicit in the need for a task force to be formed is the notion that Americans are incapable of addressing the issue on their own. The plots of the fast food industry and the merchants of sloth are simply too seductive and too wily to be discovered and resisted by the average individual. The secrets of eating in moderation and exercising are too well kept to be stumbled upon. But the sinister machinations of the food industry are only part of the problem. The torpor of the American public must be overcome as well. It is believed that many Americans will only get off the couch and stay out of the ice cream section at the grocery store if the government makes them.

Of special irritation to those who seek to help the public shape up and lose weight are the many adults and children who know they are overweight and don't care. Their disinterest in their appearance and improving themselves is a bewilderment to the vain and self absorbed. They are the ones who would buy Twinkies no matter how largely or how prominently the number of calories or percentage of fat is printed on the box. They are the ones who, if they are to be helped, must be compelled or reeducated to change their ways. So compel and reeducate them the government will, especially if they do not want help or do not care that they are obese. They must be helped lest they grow ever in size and number to the point where they threaten to undermine the economy and bankrupt the nation.

The obesity problem in the U.S. we are told has become too large and too dangerous for anyone but the federal government to address. Parents have proven unable to prevent or reduce their own, or their children's size or weight. State and local governments have been ineffectual in their attempts to limit the girth of their citizens. Without the federal government's help, many will be condemned to obesity, illness, and early death. Perhaps most tragically, those people will have suffered and died needlessly. If only they had known that being overweight was unhealthy and that there were ways to avoid obesity, their fate would have been different. Only if the government is allowed to help, will people no longer be condemned to live their lives being unhealthy and obese. A solution is finally at hand, but only if counterrevolutionaries and the merchants of sloth and gluttony can be kept from hiding it.

According to modern liberalism, every overweight child is society's problem. Society's problems are the government's problems. Anyone with doubts concerning the motives or sincerity behind the desire for government involvement in the struggle against childhood obesity, need only look to the First Lady. She is a mother fighting the same struggle against childhood obesity as every other. If she thinks the government can help, who are we to doubt her?

Why Would He Even Run?

Recently, Scott Lee Cohen was nominated as the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in Illinois. Last night, less than a week after his nomination, he dropped out of the race. The reason he dropped out of the race is because it was recently revealed that he had been accused of abusing his wife. Not only that, but it was also revealed that an ex-girlfriend of his was a prostitute. Not only that, he was accused of threatening his ex-girlfriend and holding a knife to her throat. Not only that, he admits to using steroids. The steroids might help explain some the allegations against him.

The question should not be why he dropped out of the race. The question should be why did he even think of running in the first place. Society has become rather lax in its insistence on the moral rectitude of those who would hold public office. Infidelity is certainly no longer the obstacle it once was. Using steroids and even visiting a prostitute these days are things a politician might try to explain. But abusing your wife and holding a knife to your ex girlfriend's throat, (even if that ex girlfriend used to be a prostitute) are thankfully things still out of bounds. Perhaps Cohen was just pushing the envelope. I hope not. It would be depressing to think that Cohen was simply ahead of the curve.

Cohen might have just thought no one would ever find out. If so, that was his biggest mistake. That blunder alone should render him unfit for public office.