Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Are You Paid What You’re Worth?

Most people would probably say “ NO”, but they would have trouble defining what their worth really is. A good definition of what is the right pay for a worker is: You don’t get paid for time you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the time you work. In other words, is your production worth it to the company or organization to pay you the amount they pay you? Many people today feel that they should be paid for the job classification, irregardless of what they contribute to it. Equal pay for equal work, is the rallying cry for years by the “ feminists” when they petition for getting more pay for women. Equal pay determination is easy if two people are doing the same or similar work. But, the objectivity blurs when you try to compare two dissimilar jobs. How do you compare a teacher with a truck driver, or a sales clerk with a carpenter etc., as other factors also enter into the determination of what a person should be paid? Due to physical differences in men and women, there will always be some disparagement in how men and women are compensated. Men, overall, are physically stronger than women, so therefore they are more prone to be attracted to jobs that many women shy away from such as, firemen, combat military, manual labor etc. That’s also true with women, who tend to be attracted to certain jobs that men won’t do such as, nurses, elementary teachers, checkout clerks etc. That’s not to say men and women don’t crossover to work at the jobs mostly held by the opposite sex, but, in the main, stereotypical job selection by men and women hold up as stated. The “ political football” of raising the minimum wage, is an area where the government gets involved when it really shouldn’t. To have the government set an arbitrary base pay rate for hourly workers without any consideration as to how that wage can be compared to production, as needed by the employer, generally brings “unintended consequences”. It generally means, mostly in the teen age group, that there will be fewer jobs available, thereby causing higher unemployment for those on the lower rung of the pay ladder. By raising the minimum wage, you will also cause a demand for an upward adjustment by other workers immediately above the newly set minimum wage plateau. Think of all the entry level positions that might be lost here in the Delray/Boca area, if we price these workers out of the market by artificially raising their wages without any thought of the economic hardship placed on the employer. That might seem beneficial for the worker, but if his employer has difficulty meeting that increase, that worker may be laid off or have his work week cut back. That’s an example of the “ unintended consequences” of trying to be “ generous” to workers without regard to the value that the worker brings to the job. Some use Europe as an example of putting into place higher minimum wages, but when you see that the unemployment rate, in most European countries, is twice that of ours, it should give pause for thought that artificially determining what someone should receive as pay, determined by the government, might not be in the best interests of the worker or for the country’s economy, as a whole. The demagogues, of course, will vilify those who would oppose a spike up in the minimum wage, but pure, simple economic logic, will win out in a serious debate as to its merit, but emotion seems to always trump logic, most of the time, so the pressure to constantly raise the minimum wage will be forever present and most likely approved by the pandering politicians. In conclusion, politicians should let the “ free market” determine the pay of the workers ( except in instances of coercion and fraud or exploitation), because the unintended consequences of arbitrarily setting pay scales, is more detrimental to the worker than letting the productivity of the worker determine his worth in the marketplace. Remember, you don’t get paid for the hour. You get paid for the value you bring to the hour.
Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Friday, January 23, 2009

Rickles Roasts The Donkeys

This isn't new, but amusing nonetheless. I hope I'm never on the receiving end because Don Rickles does not play.

Hello, dummies!
Harry Reid is so physically unimposing, he makes Pee Wee Herman look like Mr. T. And Reid's so dumb, he makes Speaker Pelosi look like an intellectual. Nevada is soooo screwed!
Speaking of the Speaker… Nancy Pelosi, hubba, hubba! Hey baby, you must've been something before electricity.Rimshot.

Charlie Rangel… still alive and still robbing the taxpayers blind. Rangel runs more scams than a Nigerian Banker.
Let's all admit it… Barney Frank slobbers more than a sheepdog on Novocaine. How did this guy get elected? Oh, that's right… he's from Massachusetts.
You know, if Senator Dodd were any more crooked, you could open wine bottles with him. Here's a news flash, Dodd: when your local newspaper calls you a "lying weasel", it may be time to retire.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, I really respect you… especially given your upbringing. All you've overcome…. I heard your birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory.
They say President Obama's arrogant and aloof, but I don't agree. Now it's true when you enter the room, you have to kiss his ring. I don't mind, but he has it in his back pocket.

With all due respect.
I've found that if you add "with all due respect" to the end, any insult is okay.Don Rickles is merciless.

"Chuck on the Right Side"

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Letter to Professor Watson

Dear Professor Watson:

Shame on you, the “ unbiased” professor of American Studies at Lynn University, Robert Watson. Once again, you showed your unbridled animus toward now ex-president George W. Bush, by making comments, not very gracious comments in the S/S on Jan. 21, that denigrate him and his administration. Using the hackneyed term “ lies”, which is part of the usual lexicon for liberals describing Pres. Bush and the Republicans, showed total shallowness and disrespect for the man you disagree with philosophically.

As a so-called “ historian”, you violate all the concepts as to what a true historian should be. Politicians should never be “historically” judged, while still in office or immediately thereafter, because no one knows how his policies, which were enacted while in office, will work out after a period of time has elapsed after leaving office. You have constantly, over the past few years, claimed that Pres. Bush was the “ worst” president. As an historian, you have the right and duty to criticize or praise a sitting president, but, professionally, you don’t have the right to spread false and malicious statements about him and his policies to further your partisan agenda.

You are the poster child for what academia should not be, but is. A gaggle of ultra-liberal “ Woodstock Wusses”, who try to brain-wash a gullible public into believing that your socialist agenda is the way to go.
Shame on you, once again, for being the total ingrate that you are. You are totally irrelevant.


Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Friday, January 9, 2009

I Just Don’t Understand!

It amazes me, as a “goy” (a gentile), that some of the most vociferous detractors of Israel are Jews themselves. Most of these detractors seem to be part of the far-left, liberal, secular progressive branch of Judaism. They are hell-bent on apologizing for the Muslim terrorists and their actions against Israel and the western democracies, most notably the United States.
They constantly bring up the canard of “ moral equivalency” to the response that Israel takes to defend itself from people who are trying to kill them. These same “ apologists” are also in the forefront of giving aid and comfort to our enemies or detractors around the world. These “ self-hating” Americans are dedicated to blaming America first for anything negative that happens in the world. They champion the oppressive regimes in Cuba. Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and blame the U.S. for all the ills in those countries.
These same apologists, who all seem to be afflicted with the malady CRI
( Cranial Rectal Inversion), are constantly claiming that we are the one’s responsible for terrible violations of their “ rights”. They are against all means that we initiated since 9/11 to protect us from future 9/11’s or worse. Profiling, wire tapping of suspected terrorists, forceful interrogation of captured terrorists, all seem to be “ excessive” and depriving the terrorists of
their rights. When you ask them how they have been personally affected, they have no answer but give vague generalities about non-existent violations.
These same “ Woodstock Wusses” are the same people who say that Israel and the West should negotiate with these terrorists who want to kill and behead them. They erroneously think that you can sit down and reason with these butchers and appeal to their good hearts and good intentions. They don’t seem to realize that we have been trying that for over 30 years with no positive results. All we got for those efforts are more killings, more rockets, more kidnappings, more suicide bombers and endless vitriol eagerly propagated by a pliant main stream media around the world and in our own country.
Because I strongly support the State of Israel, doesn’t mean I’m prohibited from criticizing Israel and it’s policies, but when it comes to it’s national survival and standing up for their right to defend themselves, I take a back seat to no one or no group.
This hate America and hate Israel crowd not only makes apologies for the Muslim terrorists, but they also support the oppressive regimes and tin-horn dictators right here in Central and South America. These same misguided people support and apologize for the likes of Castro in Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela, Correa of Ecuador, Morales of Bolivia and Ortega of Nicaragua, all the time blaming the U.S. for all that is wrong in those countries. Now you can see why I don’t understand why educated ( with no common sense) people will act and do such misguided things and think they are compassionate.
Maybe someday they will understand.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"