"Tithing Table" for Budweiser executives

So, we were drawn to this Wonkblog story, Bud Light’s latest advertisement has a big problem by Drew Harwell, because mel ball is preparing “specially marked” Budweiser cans for the upcoming conventions. You’ll be able to see the first here July 4, two weeks before the Republican National Convention.The Democratic can will be revealed a week later.

Harwell's Budweiser story, though, is not so much about advertising; it’s about equal pay for equal work, which we’re all for, and that doesn’t mean that the women now playing Wimbledon should only get 60% of what the men do, because they’re playing best 2 out of 3 while the men are playing best 3 out of 5. We’d never suggest that. (And we reprehend the suggestion of one of our consultant-colleagues - made in jest, we are certain - that male and female Budweiser executives be paid according to the male and female share of the Budweiser market.)

With regard to what seems to be the lower end of the Budweiser executive pay scale according to the article: Neither of us have a lot of sympathy for anyone making $360,000 a year no matter how much her predecessor was making, though we wouldn’t suggest she shouldn’t make as much as he did. We do see the principle of the thing.

But, speaking of which – principles – we have, with the help of friends in various low places including (especially) non-profits, drawn up the following “tithing” table, suggesting percentages of “giving back” people in various income categories should consider. It works like a tip chart; in other words, for those that have trouble multiplying, actual numbers are given. (And, of course, these are only suggestions.)

Stamp of approval

                              

Dividing by 2

An admission of guilt – or wide-eyed, stupid innocence: I’ve never taken an economics course; so I know nothing of how economists do what they do. I have always assumed, however, that it involved numbers; and that suggested to me that they would be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide across more than one scenario.

However. And correct me if I’m wrong.

I came across this article this morning: “How Health Care Creates Wage Inequality” by Robert Samuelson. “You can add health care to the causes of growing wage inequality in America,” Samuelson begins. And, “it’s simple arithmetic” according to Mark Warshawsky of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. But here’s the way the “arithmetic” works – Samuelson’s “simple example.”

Assume an imaginary company with two employees: one makes $50,000 a year, the other $100,000. Suppose that the firm has purchased a family health plan, costing $12,000, for each. So the company’s total compensation costs — wages, salaries and fringe benefits, including health insurance — are $112,000 for the higher-paid worker and $62,000 for the lower-paid employee.

part of the twos table

Now look what happens when the company decides to raise its annual compensation costs by 5 percent, but health-care spending is increasing 10 percent. The insurance cost goes up $1,200 (that’s 10 percent of $12,000). This reduces what’s left for wages. The lower-paid worker receives an overall compensation gain of $3,100 (5 percent of $62,000), but after deducting the $1,200, only $1,900 is left for wages. Meanwhile, the higher-paid worker receives a $5,600 gain, which — after deducting $1,200 for insurance — leaves $4,400 for wages.

Presto, wage inequality has increased. Even though the company raised its compensation package by 5 percent for all workers, the wage and salary gap between the best- and worst- paid workers widened. Pursuing one type of equality (health coverage) inadvertently worsened another type of inequality (wages and incomes).

But – again, correct me if I’m wrong – what if the company doesn’t want to “worsen” one type of inequality for the sake of another type of equality? It’s simple arithmetic. In this instance, it takes the total left for wages, $6,300 ($1,900 + $4,400) and divides by 2, giving each worker a wage increase of $3,150.

     How hard is that?

Lower court rules on second amendment*

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
          the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A modest proposal: those that keep and bear arms shall be (regardless of age or gender or anything else) subject to draft into a well-regulated militia and sent immediately to wherever national security . . . well, actually, wherever.

(Granted, this immediate posting involves time travel (to 1939), but we said . . . wherever!)
_______________
* Lower than low: the court of public opinion that meets at Corner Coffee on Thursdays.

Originalist Idiots' Pictorial Guide to the 2nd Amendment.

This is a musket. The owner has bullets, wadding, etc. enough for 6 shots with which to provide his family protein for the winter.

This should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

* * * * *

This is an effing AR-15. The owner has enough ammunition to kill 50+ people in practically no time.

This (with all its brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins) should be put on a barge, taken to the most desolate - the uttermost - part of the sea, and drowned.