On Your Own

Speaking at a fundraiser this week, President Obama tried to frighten Americans with the grim warning that if he is not re-elected in 2012, “you will be on your own.”  Promises, promises.

Fear not, wards of the State; on January 21 of 2013, the only part of government that we will be rid of is the current occupant of the White House.  There will be another President, and he or she will preside over the same unmanageable leviathan that Mr. Obama would like us to believe will simply vanish into thin air if he is not re-employed to run it for four additional years.   If only it were that easy. 

There is no question that this is now a nation divided, and the President’s dire warning brings the line of separation into clear focus.  To the dependent class, the idea of being left “on your own” is terrifying.  To the producing class, it is liberating.   Pick your side. 

What is wrong with being on our own?  That was our #1 priority growing up.  As teenagers we could not wait to graduate from high school, to get our own car, to get the heck out of our boring little mining town, to get out from under our parent’s stupid rules, and to go out and find our place in the world.  

Some of us went into the service, some of us went to college, some of us went to work in the big cities, some of us went to California or Arizona or Las Vegas or Alaska, and some of us stayed home.  We discovered that the world had not reserved a place for us to “find”; we discovered how to make our own way in the world.  And we did – on our own.

We became doctors, lawyers, architects, executives, professional golfers, radio personalities, business owners, teachers, firemen, pastors, airline flight attendants, career military, casino dealers, accountants, public administrators, nurses, salespeople, artists, welders, loggers, firefighters, mechanics, beauticians, tavern owners, and every other profession and trade imaginable.   We wanted to make our friends and family proud of us and we did – on our own.

We became parents, spouses, volunteers, advocates, investors, philanthropists, community leaders, chaperones, mentors, coaches, bloggers, advisors, board members, deacons, council members, scoutmasters, carolers, big brothers and sisters, fundraisers.  We wanted to make a difference and we did – on our own.

We did not do all those things because government made us; we would not stop if there was no government to give us its permission.  And “on our own” does not mean alone – we were taught by our mentors, encouraged by our friends, supported by our families, strengthened by our congregations, inspired by great leaders, challenged by our adversaries, and developed by our bosses, paid by our customers, made great by our competitors. 

If President Obama is not re-elected, we will not be alone; we will still have our mentors, friends, families, congregations, leaders, adversaries, bosses, customers, and competitors.  But according to him, we will be on our own; and thank God if he is right.  Because that’s what freedom is – being on your own. 

The President encourages his constituency to think like children – afraid to be on their own, jealous of the other kids’ toys, coveting the bigger allowances of the neighbor kids, angry at their own parents for not giving more, frustrated that life is unfair.  They hate the rich for being rich, the pretty for being pretty, the happy for being happy, and the winners for winning.  They demand a world of stickers and hugs and do-overs; they don’t like bedtime and they don’t like to get up and they don’t mind pitching a fit in public so we can all be unhappy with them.

And Mr. Obama has also burdened his opponents with the unwanted responsibility to be the parents of his beloved dependent class.  We resent having to care for our shiftless and surly teenagers; we tire of their sass, their ingratitude, their eye-rolling certainty that we are stupid and uncool.  We have tired of paying their way, fixing the car they crash over and over, apologizing for their rude behavior in public.

All of us have been teenagers, and many of us have now raised teenagers, so we can see a bit of ourselves in both caricatures.  And we know what it took to put the rancor and resentments that builds between parents and children behind us and to start again to treat each other with respect.  What it took was for the teenager to move out and live on their own.  That is when we got along.  

When our son went out on his own, it was my proudest day as a parent.  We knew he would struggle, as we did; we knew he would make bad choices and suffer painful consequences, as we did; we knew that he would become responsible when he had to; as we did.  And we trusted him that he would succeed on his own terms, taking care of himself and his family and helping others in their hour of need.  The rebellious youth became a man – on his own.  Same as it ever was.

Need is not an acceptable lifestyle choice; dependent is not a career.  If we cannot live on our own, who are we supposed to live “on”?   Who is it that owes us our existence at their expense?  Why is it our neighbor’s obligation to fend for us when we will not fend for ourselves?  Who will keep us when all of our brothers are kept?

The President has done us the great service of presenting his vision for American with rare and remarkable clarity – a nation of stunted-development dependents incapable of living on their own.  And he has revealed to us the full measure of his ego – the entire nation of wards could not possibly survive without him as our President. 

Mr. Obama, you can spend the rest of your life dependent on the government and its pension – being President is a tough job and you have earned it.  But the rest of us would be thrilled to live on our own, to make this the land of the free again.  Thank you for telling us what we need to do to bring that dream to reality.        

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website http://www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.    

Safety Net

Libertarians are often asked how we would provide a social safety net with the Constitutionally-limited government we advocate.  My answer is that there is only one reliable social safety net – a job.

Our first obligation to each other is to be economically autonomous, to produce more than we consume.  We cannot be our brother’s keeper if we can’t even keep ourselves, and there is no reason to believe that only some of us are capable of carrying our own weight.  Libertarians believe that every able-bodied person is capable of self-reliance and independent living – we don’t consider ourselves to be gifted or special.

To be economically autonomous we must become employable; that is our own responsibility.  We are not born that way; we are born helpless and dependent, our only native skill is annoying someone more capable until they give us what we want.  Some people spend a lifetime perfecting that craft.

Last month, Wisconsin’s employment fell by 4,000 jobs.  And yet, 20,000 job openings were added to the state’s job bank website.  Job boards overflow with open positions that require vocational training, certificates, credentials, and professional expertise. A company seeking a certified lab tech to test for hydraulic fluid contamination will not hire a public high school graduate with 39% math proficiency, a union foundry worker with 30 years experience, or a person with a masters’ degree in 19th century Lithuanian atheist literature.

Liberals’ pro-job rhetoric never turns into reality because they defend the policies that produce mediocre public school graduates, protect union privilege and subsidize occupational obsolescence, and have raised academic irrelevance in post-secondary education to an art form.   Employment starts with being employable.

Employers complain of shortages of skilled trade workers, and also report candidates who decline employment offers in order to take advantage of extended unemployment benefits.  We have been conditioned to think that everyone wants to work, and that unemployment is a misfortune visited upon a person by luck.  But for many, if not most, extended unemployment is a choice – a very bad choice.  

Because a job does not merely provide income; a job also delivers self-esteem, pride, respect, confidence, and responsibility.  It is the uninterrupted aggregation of job experience over a long career that prepares one for the highest-paying positions. Over time, a job instills discipline, imparts wisdom, teaches teamwork and compromise, and gives a sense of community.

The great fallacy of the progressive movement is the notion that government could deliver any those things.  Government can only take money from one person and give it to another; it cannot transfer pride, or responsibility, or confidence.  It cannot turn boys into men, girls into women, apprentices into masters, existence into prosperity.  The value of a dollar given evaporates when it is spent, while the value of a dollar earned compounds forever. 

It is the job that turned us boys into men; that prepared us for fatherhood, marriage, community service.  It is where we learned accountability, consequence, the pride of achievement, the confidence that we can grow and learn and teach.  It is how we learned to control our tempers, to self-regulate, to self-motivate, to leave the party early, and to get up before the alarm goes off.  It is the place we discovered our parents were right all along.  It is where we started to take things seriously.

It was the truly disgusting, awful jobs we did that motivated us to gain the skills that make us employable in more comfortable surroundings.  It was the realization that we had nothing to offer worth even minimum wage that pushed us to learn how to become more valuable. It was the long-ago discovery of the pride of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps that keeps us yanking on our wingtips today.

It is a job that sparks the entrepreneurial spirit that drives people to self-employ, to invent, to change the world.  Jobs teach valuable life skills: courtesy, problem-solving, persuasion, negotiation, judgment, decision-making, urgency, time management, prioritization, handling disappointment.  Is there a course in the public schools that can teach even a fraction of that? 

In reality, the so-called safety net of the modern welfare state is a snare that captures and binds the spirit.  It is no coincidence that communities most highly dependent on the “safety net” are afflicted with all manner of social pathologies and dysfunctions.  It is the workplace, not the welfare office, which stabilizes families and builds vibrant communities; in no sense is perpetuating dependence on government welfare charitable.

To think that compassion can only be measured by the amounts spent on government programs ignores thousands of years of history and denies the role that families, churches, fraternal orders, clubs, and communities play in the development of whole persons. A whole person needs to work, or support the spouse who does.   

Employers are the most charitable of citizens; we not only provide income, we provide the opportunity for people to discover how high is up for them.  We provide a place for them to develop their character, to become skilled, to produce in surplus, to be part of something bigger than themselves, to create, to add value.

A handout won’t do that; a government check won’t do that; a temporary make-work job funded by a government agency won’t do that.  Do you want to help your fellow man?  Then lift the burdens that government has imposed on employers in this country – excessive taxation, regulation, and permission – and let more of our neighbors and friends become whole persons again.   

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website http://www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.     

Living Wage

Here is the truth we all hate: we get paid what we are worth.  Plus or minus a temporary distortion that will be restored to equilibrium by the market in due time, of course. 

And everyone earns a living wage, too – just not equal to the living we would like to do.  We all would like to get paid a lot more for doing what we like, but the value of what we do is only determined by what someone else is willing to freely pay for it.  Riding around on a Segway and yelling is just not worth very much, no matter how good you get at it. 

Those who advocate for a government-mandated living wage should instead focus on increasing the worth of those whose labor is not worth very much.  A law cannot turn $5 worth of labor into $10 worth of labor, it can only make $5 worth of labor cost $10.   That’s why the jobs aren’t coming back. 

Whenever we read about some CEO or Wall Street trader making tens of millions of dollars, we compare it to our income and think it is grossly unfair that anyone should make that much.  Instead, we should ask ourselves what those guys and gals do that is worth $20 million more than the law requires someone to pay them. 

Can you manage a multi-billion hedge fund that will beat market returns?   I can’t.  Do you even know how derivatives work?  I don’t.  Can you run a profitable multi-national corporation with tens of thousands of employees?  Not me.  What did you do last year that you should have been paid millions for?  Perform delicate surgeries?  Arrange a merger?  Host a hit TV show?  Invent a new drug?  Build a killer app?  Cure a disease?  Run a casino?  Win the Super Bowl?   Me neither.

If you make $20/hour, it is because the value of what you produce in that hour of work is $21 or greater.  If the value of what you produce is only $10, then guess what – you aren’t going to make $20.  And certainly not $20 million, regardless of what Oprah makes, and regardless of what her opinion of a living wage is.

The notion that every job should pay a living wage is one of those emotionally satisfying ideas that make no rational sense. Whose lifestyle are we entitled to – Lindsay Lohan’s or some monk who eats pond grass?  And what does what we would like to spend have to do with what our work is worth, anyway?  

If two people both make the same widgets at the same rate, should the one with 6 kids and a bad nicotine habit get paid four times as much as the single person with frugal tastes?   What does the chain smoking family man do that is worth four times more?  And who will pay four times as much for his widgets?   Not me.   

Get ready, Wisconsin, because the news media loves to sensationalize boring government budget issues with the heartbreaking stories of people at the margins who will be shattered by any proposed reductions in the size of government. It started already: “How can I live on $15,000?” pleads the tearful mother who is paid only minimum wage.     

We are supposed to be moved to give her another $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever the magic number liberals have attached to the term “living wage”.  We are called greedy and uncaring if we even question the premise that it is our duty to subsidize her family.  Tell me, what is so caring about people who earn six figures demanding those who earn seven subsidize those who earn five?  Generosity is when you give your own money; looting is when you give someone else’s.    

They ignore the reality that the $5,000 or $10,000 must be taken away from working people with families of their own who are struggling just as hard to live on their wages.  No one writes their story; there are no zombies publicizing their cause, no drummers banging out their grievance, no chanting and rallies and boycotts on their behalf.     

“How will I live?” is the wrong question for that mother to ask, and we are the wrong ones to be questioned.  The right question, the one she needs to ask herself, is, “why is my labor still only worth $15,000 after 20 years of working?”  Hoping to be paid more, expecting to be paid more, even demanding to be paid more will not make that mother worth more.

She needs to acquire skills and develop competencies that will pay her three or four times what she is worth now.  She will not acquire those skills from food stamps, rent subsidies, Badger Care, the EIC, or voting for either Democrats or Republicans.

She must improve her skills herself; it is her responsibility to be worth more and hers alone.  It is kindness to tell her so in plain language; it is unkindness to continue the deception and call it progressive. 

Only when she is worth more will she earn more. She must take courses, seek training, earn certificates and credentials, practice, and gain experience. And she must develop judgment, technical competence, trade mastery, interpersonal skills.  She must not wait to be promoted; she must make herself promotable.  And it will be very hard – no one is carried out of poverty; we all crawled. 

In the process of increasing her worth, she will do something more important; she will liberate herself.  She will declare her independence from government.  She will own herself and she will have something of great value to pass on to her children – pride. 

Statists will tell her she can’t make it on her own, and they will smugly convince themselves they are right.  But they will not convince those of us who have done it, because we know better.  And they are no friends of the working poor, who will achieve no more than they believe. 

Perpetual dependence on the state is not living, and no dependent wage is a living wage.  The only way to be independent is to earn more, the only way to earn more is to be worth more, and being worth more is our own responsibility. 

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website http://www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.

Quit Suffering

A bright young man noticed my Libertarian Party lapel pin and posed this gotcha question to impress his friends: “so what is your answer to current suffering?”  My response: “quit suffering”.   His friend’s analysis of the exchange: “schooled”.

“Schooled” may be a bit harsh, but “quit suffering” was certainly not the answer that the first fellow expected.  The modern-day debate about poverty has always revolved around what the government should do about it.  Government spending on poverty programs is the liberal’s unit of measure for public morality.  But the truth of the matter is that there is very little the government can do about poverty, except create more of the stuff with bone-headed monetary and fiscal policies.    

Fortunately we live in America, where most poverty is avoidable. If we graduate from high school, don’t do drugs, don’t do crime, get married and stay married, have children (after we are married), and get a job, 99.4% of us will avoid chronic poverty on our own, without any government assistance.  That is what the Census Bureau’s poverty statistics tell us.   

However, if we drop out of high school, we are 3 times as likely to be poor than if we graduate.  If we are unmarried with kids, we are 4 times as likely to be poor than if we are married with kids. If we are unemployed, we are 10 times as likely to be poor than if we work.  The unemployment rate for felons is over 70%, and it is 100% for burned-out drug zombies.  

Which is not to say that you don’t have an absolute right to quit school, have kids out of wedlock, get divorced, quit your job, blow your mind, or commit a victimless “crime”.  You do, you do, you most certainly do.  You just have no right to pass the consequences of your own actions off to your neighbors. And we are not obligated to pick up your tab.  Freedom is a Dutch Treat lifestyle. 

People don’t do all those things because they are poor; people are poor because they do all those things.  In the main, poverty is a choice.  Ok, rich liberals, feel free to go berserk now if it will make you feel better about yourselves. But this isn’t about you; it is about helping people actually get out of poverty.  There is no reason for able people to be “trapped” in perpetual poverty, as some basic math will illustrate:

According to the Labor Department, the poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults, two children) is $21,756. If mom and dad work even minimum wage jobs, household income will be $30,160 or 138% of the poverty threshold. And dad can work another part time job (I’m old fashioned that way), raising the family income to $37,700 at minimum wage.  Get OJT, take continuing education courses, get promoted, and wages will increase in proportion to the value added – at just $10/hr family income is $52,000 when both parents work a combined 2.5 jobs.    

Don’t tell me it can’t be done.  I did it. And I did it because it sucked to be poor, not because a liberal cared about me.  Millions of Americans fall down and get back up again each year without waiting for the government to fix our problems at someone else’s expense.  Poverty statistics show that up until 2008, most poverty was episodic – i.e. lasting a couple months – typically caused by a job loss, domestic breakup, catastrophic medical event, or similar visitation of bad times.       

Yes, it is hard work to quit suffering; and so what – life is hard for everybody.  Two income families are the norm nowadays.  Millions of small business owners would love to only work 60 hours. Most people have worked two or three jobs when we had to, and went back to school so we would not have to do that forever.  Many of us work at jobs we don’t like. Staying married is hard work, too, and so is taking a pass on the bong so we can pass our drug tests. Intemperance is a lot easier and a whole lot more fun than restraint, but restraint is what keeps us out of jail, on the job, and out of poverty.

The young man should have asked himself: what is the government’s answer to current suffering? Answer: more suffering.  Five decades and a few trillion dollars into the war on poverty, poverty is winning; the current poverty rate is higher than when we gave the socialists their head in 1965. As long as there are government poverty programs, there will be sufficient numbers of poor people to justify them; recipients are a necessary ingredient of the welfare state.   

This week’s tax compromise extends “temporary” unemployment insurance benefits out to three years.  Three years!  In any of the five previous recessions going back to 1970, the median length of unemployment did not reach three months.  When State unemployment insurance premiums go through the roof next year, it will be fun to watch the President try to figure out whose butt to kick. 

Government does not own the franchise on morality.  Politicians do not help poor people when they blame their plight on others. Government schools create poverty by leaving students unprepared for the world of work and unacquainted with free markets.  Welfare encourages chronic poverty, except for the government workers it overpays to fill out useless forms for each other to file. Our drug laws create legions of felons unnecessarily.  A century of collectivist social engineering has decimated the nuclear family and desecrated the ideal of self-reliance. The government’s track record is deplorable – the more it spends, the more it harms.    

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes a mom and a dad and a church of your choice.  The anecdote for poverty is liberty, not government; liberty is the absence of government in choice.  Poverty is not overcome by social consciousness; it is only defeated by individual responsibility.  Our young people need to learn that poverty is avoidable and need to be taught how to avoid it:  graduate, get a job, get married and stay married, have kids, don’t do drugs, don’t do crimes, and don’t look to government to solve your problems.   

Quit suffering.  It is a choice, not a life sentence.

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website http://www.timnerenz.com/ to find your moment and order his new book, “Tooth Fairy Government.”