Financially Straight table busser who’s worked at the same pancake house for 54 years, and still makes minimum wage

Think about this for a moment, a minimum wage earning table busser that’s financially secure. When Othea Loggan started his table bussing job he was making $1.15 an hour, the federal minimum wage at the time, which was enough, he recalls now, to save up and buy a small house. Can minimum wages buy a person a house today? Yes, a society without a minimum wage would probably enable people to buy houses a lot faster being that the cost of living would more than likely be less than it is now, which would evitably deflate the value of the currency.

Unfortunately, when most people view delation they envision the rich having more than enough money to buy up everything, but the truth is what deflation does is it gives more people, more access to more stuff, so it no longer becomes just about how much money you have, but what you do with it. with all the money floating around what would actually happen is the cost of lending would most likely come down with inflation, what allows the cost of lending to be so expensive is the lack of options there are currently available.

In most countries right now it makes absolutely no sense to keep your money in the bank, it’s much smarter to invest your money, however the stock markets of the world, are controlled by the global elites, which is something that doesn’t happen when there’s an economy that’s allowed to breathe normally. This economy we’re living on is on steroids, it’s heavily medicated and every once in a while it gets a free market shock by a politician that allows it to run instead of walk

What would happen if we lived in a free market environment; by now human behaviors would have changed. There would be a lot more Othea Loggan’s and a lot less government dependent citizens. The social injustices of the world would have been combatted on a local scale as opposed to a federal scale and the culture of the local economy would reflect the needs of local community instead of the needs of a federal mandate. Because a large amount of Americans look to the Federal government for leadership, being that in America and most other countries the Federal government takes the largest share of taxes, locally people revolve their lifestyles around this.

If the far away entity like the Federal government promises to subsidize or provide welfare for particular individuals and companies, most citizens will position themselves to profit from what the Federal government does, they will even revolve their lives around qualifying for these welfares, which in turn leads to poverty-stricken communities not being forced to look at solutions to their local problems. If the government as an example is going to provide corporate welfare, the companies receiving the welfare don’t have to find ways to be more efficient with the resources they have. If the government promises to provide welfare for the middle class, a large segment of the middle class won’t change their spending habits. If the government promises to give welfare to the poor or the people who don’t want to work, those individuals will position themselves to be on the receiving end of those benefits.

It’s human nature and that’s why stories like the one you can click to read below are so rare.

Meet the table busser who’s worked at the same Wilmette pancake house for 54 years

Understand that individual written about is financially secure, now how could a person who made minimum wage his entire working life be financially secure in this day and age? Well, the answer is simple and revolves around his work and spending habits. Different people spend their money differently and if a politician is going to reward you for having reckless spending habits, chances are your not going to be inclined to change, there are some people who will change but most people won’t, so for most poor, middle and rich people/companies they’ll always be something to complain about and they’ll always be a politician that will cater to irresponsible spenders.

I want to make it clear that I’m against a minimum wage, I also think people should take a closer look at Switzerland’s government and pay close attention to their tax structure to see how the needs of local communities should take precedence over the needs of the federal government. In Switzerland it’s the municipal governments who get the most taxes from citizens, it’s why I can almost guarantee you that you probably don’t know who the President of the Swiss Confederation is in 2018?

what Othea Loggan represents to me is that any all of us can find a way to make it work if we try hard enough. However, what it appears that their trying to represent in this article is the power of minimum wages. Personally, I think minimum wages should be abolished, in Switzerland, they don’t have a minimum wage, instead, they have unions if you believe your hourly rate shouldn’t be less than a certain amount you join a union it’s really that simple. What a society doesn’t want to do is remove its flexibility, what a minimum wage does is it doesn’t allow people or careers that could help your economy exist, because it’s too expensive to operate there.

In the event of a market crash in a country like Switzerland for example won’t have to worry about creating a law to abolish the minimum wages to stimulate the economy, instead union leaders would simply have to make temporary concessions in pay, meaning maybe until the economy gets better employees will have to take a pay cut or have their salaries froze at a particular pay scale.

This lack of a minimum wage also allows employees to be involved in the success of the business. A minimum wage is all good for employees once it’s implemented but in time it becomes an expectation and because it’s a government creation, minimum wages give employees a false sense of entitlement and a disconnection from the company they’re working with. Furthermore the company itself has to be careful about how it reports it’s financial gains because the employees will typically view the world from a sense of entitlement and they’ll look as profits as not good for them but as something that’s being used to exploit them, so to add to minimum wages employers will additionally form unions which compounds the problem on employers.

This is why a lot of U.S employers moved their operations to low waged, lower regulated areas of the world. Sure, word on the street right now is Donald Trump is bringing jobs back to America, however, what will happen when trump leaves? The legacy Trump is leaving American’s is a legacy that entitlements work as long the right person is leading you. This is in very many ways the Leftist position to politics and this is where Donald Trump is playing a very dangerous game.

I keep saying as a Canadian that Trump’s policies are going to hurt Canada in the long term because Democrats would love to be able to use Tariffs as a means to pay for their social programs, plus when they get back in power they’ll, of course, start to change the regulatory framework of the U.S economy to match their ideals, which of course will be job killing and result in higher taxes, the Democrats will, of course, blame the rich and use the rich as their means to raise taxes on everybody else. But after 8 years of Trump, the people might welcome change.
Personal responsibility, small government, with the municipal governments have more power than federal governments is the best system if you ask me. Great story about Othea Loggan I just wish it had been framed differently.

Interesting times ahead.