Swickard: Maximum unemployment with the minimum wage

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Nobel Prize winner in Economics Milton Friedman not only opposed raising the minimum wage, he opposed the very concept of a minimum wage. There was not any government program of mandated wages that he embraced. The reason he gave for his opposition was that the notion of a government mandated wage violated economic principles and would harm the very people said to need it.
      In his 1980 television series, Free to Choose, Friedman says, “The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills… The law says here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for 2014), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour.”

     Friedman continues, “So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.”
      There are a couple of studies in 1992 which are noted by people pushing minimum wage that found no change in fast food restaurants when the minimum wage went up. These studies have not been replicated and most of the rest of the hundreds of studies about minimum wage are clear that increasing the cost of production without increasing the ability to produce is a barrier to companies staying in business.
     When the minimum wage was first proposed the effect on the least skilled workers was understood by those politicians. Only recently have the media been able to obscure these outcomes. The political opportunities were such that politicians and labor unions could prosper while the least productive members of our society paid a dreadful price.
     The forces pushing a minimum wage never look at it like economists. What happens in minimum wage situations is the maximum unemployment of the least skilled member of our society. Why? Employment is dynamic and businesses cannot support paying for something not received.
Businesses could pay out money without a fair return for a while, but all businesses will end up bankrupt if they pay too much for labor without a resultant increase in productivity. Many businesses run on a skinny profit and changing the labor costs without changing the productivity of workers will cause businesses to fail.
     The minimum wage debate is almost entirely from the side of the person without adequate productive skills. That person must exist on very little money. I worry about someone else. What about those least skilled citizens who do not have a job and cannot get one? They are now less likely to be employed.
     This is especially so for young people who have never had a job. Getting that first job is a problem because they have no job history and unless they come from a technical high school or college, they do not have the productive skills such that the employer can make a fair trade.
     So most of these young people sit at home, mostly in their parent’s home and they do not gain skills while the politicians and unions talk about raising the minimum wage even higher. Alas, the unemployed cheer for a higher minimum wage without realizing a higher minimum wage puts jobs even further out of their reach.
     The government likes a minimum wage increase for three reasons: it pushes all wages higher thereby increasing employment taxes for the government. It likewise increases Social Security and Medicare taxes and it increases the need for government to help those poor young people without a job.
     The label on all of this is fairness but it is one-sided. It only looks at those people receiving, not those people paying. It does not look at those people who must be laid off or are never hired. Finally, it does not look at the businesses that will close because their razor thin profit margins become a loss.
     The unemployed have a much harder road to live than anyone employed.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Paying Americans too much or too little

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Question: when is the notion of “any” considered not enough? And, when is the notion of “much” considered too much? Answer: when the government decides the compensation for American workers.

     Lately, along with the push to increase minimum compensation, there is now a push to impose a maximum wage. Some Americans are getting too much compensation so the government must stop them.

     I cannot lay my finger on the part of the United States Constitution that says the government can make me pay someone more or less than I desire. The founders thought that emancipated adult citizens had the right to make any deal for compensation if both sides agree. If they do not agree, they do not have to trade.

     Economist Milton Friedman wrote, “There is one and only one social responsibility of business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

     All of the horror stories about workers being abused involve times in America’s past that are no longer germane to the argument. If someone is not making any money right now and wants to work for less than the minimum wage it is wrong to keep them unemployed. Further, they are not gaining productive skills.

     The minimum wage punishes the least productive Americans. It is not their fault that they are just now joining the workforce but the truth is they have few skills. When there is a minimum wage the least productive are the first to not be hired. So, is long-term unemployment better than working for less? The minimum wage should be completely abolished and let each citizen make their own deal to trade their productivity for wages.

     But that will not work politically because politicians trade upon being able to give the bounty of one citizen to another for their vote. It is also the dreams of the elites to decide what you need and then impose how you will work and what compensation you will get for your time.

     Where does this come from? The government minders use the American Fairness Doctrine that the founders of our country completely rejected. This rather new doctrine says that the government must decide what is fair regardless of what citizens think.

     The founders of our country thought each citizen should have equal opportunity but it was up to each citizen to get their desired results. They recognized that each of us should be free to work harder, longer or smarter if we want, or, importantly, not to do so if we were willing to accept the consequences.

     Alas, our country has fallen into some notions seriously at odds with what our founders intended and what most Americans want. Yes, some Americans can be bribed with other citizen’s money but know this: if the shoe goes on the other foot these same citizens who are happy to take someone else’s money will be outraged if the money is taken from them.

     So here is the new way government is going to make a more perfect union: our current leader have the idea that some people have less than they need while some have more than they need. In their mind the government minders think they know what each needs so the government will tell them, nay, force them to have what the government thinks is fair. 

     This is especially so with the notion that some American simply have too much. Take it from them for fairness. So tell me: what could possible go wrong with some pencil-necked bureaucrats in Washington deciding what you need and do not need? 

     Soooo, is your hair on fire yet? Mine is with the notion that some paper-pusher sitting at a desk far away from me can control my life in that way. Every day in every way the government takes over more and more control of your life.

     It does not matter that I did not vote to let nameless, faceless dictators control me. The government lives to gain power over the citizens. Shall we resist the loss of our freedoms?
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Cow flop lessons apply to ObamaCare

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. As I wrote last week, I have had trouble with my new “healthcare.” It reminds me of something my brother did to me when I was five. Bill is three years older and when we were young that was significant.

     One day he and a friend were jumping off of one side of a barn into plowed ground. It was a fall of about six feet. After I watched a while I asked: did it hurt when he landed.
He and his friend got an odd look on their faces. He put his hand on my shoulder as a sign of trust. “Yes,” he said, “It sure does hurt unless a person knows what to do so it does not hurt.”

     Wow, to be able to jump off things and it not hurt. I asked him for the secret. He leaned closer and said confidentially, as if he was about to impart something important, that if I kept my eyes closed real tight, it would not hurt.

      Double wow, so that was the secret. I was always trying to find the secret to things. And I had just found out how to jump off things without it hurting. My brother and his friend stood by the side of the barn in disbelief as I climbed to the top of the one story barn, firmly closed my eyes and said, “Oh, boy!”

     First off, I was not going to waste this secret going off the side onto plowed dirt, no; I jumped off the front of the barn with an air of pleasant expectation, like trying a new flavor of ice cream. Very quickly I learned what a credibility gap is all about. I did not break anything, but for a time I was not sure.

      Luckily I hit in the middle of a pile of cow flop which I would have missed if my eyes had been open. The good news is the cow pies broke my fall a little, but I would not recommend cow flop as a pillow, even if it is relatively soft when you jump off a barn.

     What made matters even worse was that I went into the ranch house crying and trying to wipe the cow flop off of me. Heads would roll if I had anything to say about it. I had the intention of getting my brother in big trouble for the dirty rotten trick he had pulled on me. Then it happened. 

     The first adult seemed slow to understanding why I was crying and fussing while covered with cow flop. Suddenly the first adult got the story and I am sorry to say laughed. I guess it just came out.
Further, I am sad to say that instead of sympathy which I deserved, instead of the kindness for my misfortune, instead of going out there and swatting my brother as he surely deserved. Instead, the first blabbed to the rest of the adults and they all laughed. It was cruel cow-flop laughter and I remember it started with that same expression that had been on my brother’s face.

     In fact, about all I got from the fall into the cow flop was a close look at that expression. I remember it well even now. When I see that expression I keep my eyes open.

     Democrat politicians tell me how great the Affordable Care Act is. Some snicker as they say the new insurance will be better, cheaper, less hassles and with much better medical outcomes. None of it is true as we are finding out. Further, none of the members of Congress even read the bill they passed.

     And right into the proverbial cow flop me and many other Americans have plunged. As I said last week I am fighting a losing battle to get the insulin to which I depend. There has been a change in my Standard of Care. A year ago I had a healthcare plan that was exactly what I wanted.

     And Democrats in Congress who passed ObamaCare including New Mexico Senator Tom Udall who passed it without reading it have not been held accountable. 

     In November my vote will be to throw them out of Congress.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Cranky Columnist Complains Happily

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Hello, I am a cranky columnist. I did not start out that way but I certainly am one now. Example: I went in the Comcast store to make a payment. A guy told me to sign in and then directed me to the Service Line.

     I protested, “I do not want to change my service, I want to make a payment. The textbook way is to be in the payment line.” He shook his head, “No, payments are in the Service Line.” Mr. Cranky came out of my mouth, “I see you got your prescription for stupid pills refilled.” Well, one of us enjoyed it.

     Lately it seems I am getting crankier and crankier. Worse, I am really enjoying it. Another example: last September I was thrown off my medical plan by the Affordable Care Act. So I have spent gobs of time trying to get another plan with Democrats telling me that the problem is I am resisting signing up for political reasons.

     Not so. My old plan took me back month by month when the new plan was not ready. Finally last week I got my new policy. I was prouder than when I got long pants. However, I went to the pharmacy to check on a prescription. “I am sorry Mr. Swickard; your prescription for Insulin has been rejected by the new insurance.”

     So far it has not mattered whether I was cranky or not, I cannot get my Insulin. You might ask why does Michael want Insulin? Answer: because he is an Insulin dependent diabetic. When Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House said you would have to pass the Affordable Care Act to see what was in it, I never thought some person in our nation’s capital would want to take Insulin away from me and call it Affordable Care.

     Now I do not expect this impasse to last too many more weeks, but I have had a cranky-fest talking to people on the phone and in person. While it has not moved the marker even one inch closer to me getting the drugs I need to stay alive, at least I have enjoyed the moments of pure unadulterated crankiness.

      When I was just a button of a kid I remember someone being a Cranky Old Hatchet. At the time I could not completely understand the description but tended to drift away from that person at all times. We kids were not allowed to be cranky, only adults… old adults.

      Now at the age of 63 I have developed into a rather gracious radio talk show host who retains the ability to verbally rocket something at laggards, lunk-heads and liars. Example: the Post Office has an Overnight option which I was told took two nights Las Cruces to Albuquerque, a distance of 230 miles. It was pure joy to say in my crankiest voice, “Seems they ought to call it Overnights.”

     Then Shuckins, it was delivered at 10:45 the next morning extinguishing a full day of crankiness that I was looking forward to spewing. It is their under-promise and over-deliver policy and it ruined all my fun. Luckily at a drive-in soda place a few minutes later I attempted to use a free coupon for a soda and was told it would be cheaper if I bought something. 

      Gosh, that next couple of minutes was fun, well fun for me. My voice dripped with sarcasm when I asked, “Cheaper than using a free coupon?” There might have been a perfectly good answer that would have satisfied someone not intending to be cranky. But I was riding a wave of good old American cranky.

      Most of the people who are targets of my wit could not care less what I say. They respond, “Just move along Grandpa, you and that alleged humor should go back to the days of Black and White television.” Ah, lovely crankiness.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: What it takes to get my vote

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “This is a frightening statistic. More people vote in ‘American Idol’ than in any US election? Rush Limbaugh
     It is frightening when more Americans vote in television shows than in real elections. Something must prompt them to do so; to make American Idol more important to them than Congress. There must be some reward to be so taken in by television and not real life. Trouble is I cannot for the life of me guess what that is.

     We have 545 politicians (Congress, Supreme Court and President) who are running rough-shod over the American public while most Americans do not notice. One reason they do not notice is that the media operates as part of the ruling class and not as a watchdog to freedom. Politicians love it. Why our citizens allow the media to enable politicians to lie and cheat the American public, I cannot understand it.

     In the coming mid-term elections our nation teeters on the brink of disaster far more than at any time after the Civil War. We are a nation so disconnected to the news that Man-made Global Warming is believed more than that Americans landed on the Moon and returned safely. I cannot for the life of me guess why.

     As to the elections, we have people professing to have the best wishes for the teens who cannot get jobs. These same people want to raise the minimum wage even higher. The minimum wage does not let employers pay for what someone can trade productively.

     That is exactly why low-skilled young people cannot find work and yet it is the very thing some political leaders are pushing. These politicians are running on raising the minimum wage which will keep more of our young people unemployed. And, go figure, most of the young people vote for them because a higher minimum wage sounds like they will be making more money. No, they will still be unemployed and unemployable.

     What unemployed workers need more than anything is to get a job, any job for any wage because any wage will be more than they are making now. But their elected leaders seem to want to keep them jobless and in poverty. Worse, the media conspired to obscure the result of minimum wages: joblessness.

     Further, many politicians, perhaps unknowingly, spout principles from the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of personal property rights, a heavy progressive income tax, government controlled minimum wage, government control of banks, government control of communication and transportation and the mandatory free education for all children in government run schools.

     There are many more intrusions into our society but the above list is shocking in that while every step into a communist idea seems good, taken all together it does seem like the government runs us, not the other way around. The idea of the United States Constitution was for citizens to limit government and the idea of the myriad of rules now being churned in Washington is for government to limit citizens.

     So for anyone to get my vote I want two things: more jobs and a reduction of government intrusion. Notice I did not say the abolition of government intrusion, just a reduction. If there is no way to even take away a little of the government hold over the citizens then we live effectively in a dictatorship and it does not matter who we elect.
     As to jobs, I want our legislators working at creating jobs in the private sector for Americans who want to work. I cannot force anyone to work, but we should not provide incentive for able Americans to not work. Someone has to pull the cart and we have lots of people riding and few people pulling. Unless we reverse that trend everyone will have to walk. Period.
      To get my vote forget all of the other stuff. Just push jobs and take government’s foot off of my neck.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Freedom from losing our freedoms

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. In President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech he spoke of four freedoms: these were the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Two of those: speech and worship are in the Bill of Rights and two: the freedom from want and fear, were not realistic.

     There is no way government can inure citizens from want and fear. FDR said in his first inauguration in 1933, “The only things we have to fear is fear itself.” What about the notion government can guarantee citizens freedom from want?

     FDR’s Four Freedoms have been in the public eye for several generations. The freedom from want has shaped public expectations such as Minimum Wage and the War on Poverty. Government cannot give each citizen all that they want.

     In the year 2014 there could be a new Four Freedoms: Freedom from losing all of our Bill of Rights. Freedom to not have unusual concerns about food supplies, energy and the ability of our military to protect us. Next we need the freedom to have public education that is focused on the students and not the adults and which is not used for propaganda. Finally I would want the freedom from tyranny by our police and bureaucrats. 

      The intention of the founders of our country by passing the Bill of Rights was for government to be limited in how it could handle citizens. Inch by inch courts have interpreted the Constitution to mean exactly opposite of what it originally meant. When a section says… Congress shall make no laws… it is now interpreted to mean …Congress shall make laws… go figure.

     More so, little by little each right in the Bill of Rights has been repealed without a vote of Congress or the people. Do not let anyone kid you, when the police come you are considered in our society guilty until proven innocent even if we mouth the words the other way. 

     The freedom of our food supply is constantly challenged by Wilderness activists, the EPA and political action such that a consistent supply of beef is not assured. Our country has more energy than it can use in the abstract but must import energy because part of the government works against the energy companies. And our military has been shredded by politicians who never served and seem to hold the military in contempt. If America had enemies they would do exactly what our government is doing to us now. 

      Our education system over the last seventy years has absolutely nothing to do with students at the core and everything to do with the adults who make a good living. Even worse, the colleges are turning out journalists and teachers who feel free to deal in propaganda rather than just report or teach. So our society is polarized by the lack of honesty in the media and in our public schools.

      Finally, in my lifetime it seems our public servants think of us citizens as giving units to be pushed around and taken advantage of rather than to serve. The police leader of the State Police Academy recently said he would not disclose his curriculum that is how the police are trained to use deadly force. He said he would burn those materials before he would let citizens see them. 

     Deadly force by the police now seems the norm with innocent citizens killed without recourse. We citizens are treated as if we are criminals by the police and the media is full of horror stories. Further, the bureaucrats make being in business iffy at best. They constantly increase regulations and rules to the point that many business owners give up.

     I would like a government that was not about itself but actually served the people. I would like to keep our Representative Republic from becoming a Communist Nation. Who will join me in the fight?
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Using Carrots on Students

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. There is a lot of talk about getting students to attend school out of a sense of duty and to avoid the truant officer. We can get students into schools using a stick. And, there is a slim chance that some students will thank us in their prayers for teaching them discipline. Don’t hold your breath. Student outcomes usually worsen rather than improve.

     It has been years since I was smacked for being a slacker in high school. I remember the time well. Also I was an English teacher at Albuquerque High School a long time ago. Carrot or stick: I understand both sides of the issue and it is my opinion that carrots work so much better than sticks.
Even though there is mandatory attendance, there is not mandatory buy-in. Schools may have their body, but not their mind. Students have free will and many are incredibly shortsighted. They should eat right, do homework, drive responsibly and not hang with the “wrong” kids.

     Each day they should rush to school and sit all twitterpated to hear what words of wisdom the teacher has to say. My father said, “The military cannot make someone do something, but it can make that person sorry they did not.” That is the philosophy of the stick. And it works some of the time.
However, it does not work with those students who, when told that if they do not graduate they will end up living under a bridge. They usually roll their eyes and say, “Oh, well.” For those students that stick is just a waste of time. At least a third of high school students do not graduate from a free public school education.

     What do we want? We want the students to enthusiastically embrace education and apply themselves to it, and graduate. So why not cut to the chase and use a carrot? Charlie Munger in Poor Charlie’s Almanac wrote, “When you do not get what you want, check the incentives that you are using.”

     These students who do not come to school can learn all of the words to a hundred rap songs with ease. They learn elaborate skateboard tricks. Many are multi-talented in art and music. Why? Because the reward **THEY** want is within their control.

     The secret to getting what we want them to do is to use a carrot they want. What do they want that we can ethically provide? Cars rate high on the student “cool” meter. What if at graduation a new car is given away by a drawing? The keys are given right then to a graduate. That would get their attention.
Additionally, to focus their attention, each student could “earn” extra chances for the graduation car. They have to graduate to get a chance at the car and there is a component for academic performance such as one entry for each C, two for each B and five for each A. Likewise attendance could garner extra chances. There is no guarantee someone with a 4.0 and perfect attendance will win, but it increases the odds.

     The cost of a car and maybe some other “cool” things is so minuscule compared to the cost of one third of our future walking away from a free education. Schools continually get more money for intervention programs. Most just provide employment for adults. Here is something that might work.
     At the end of the ninth, tenth and eleventh grade there might be a drawing for “cool” things just to keep the interest up. These are practical carrots rather than platitudes about twenty years from now. To kids fourteen, four years is a dark enough hole to peer through. Twenty years is beyond comprehension. And do not pull out the one kid who gets the twenty-year speech. There are millions who do not.

     Let us rethink using the stick and concentrate on using the carrot for student success. 

Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Jobs only occur when businesses flourish

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” Milton Friedman
     The 2014 New Mexico Legislature is coming to an end of its 30-day session. There have been lots of controversies aimed at getting the members of the Legislature reelected in November but little else to help the people who need help the most: unemployed and underemployed New Mexicans.
     The every other year 30-day legislative session in New Mexico concentrates on a state budget and anything else that catches the governor’s fancy. Me, I fancy jobs because jobs make New Mexico strong and we are not strong in our business sector.
     For most people there are many more advantages to jobs than unemployment. Sure, with unemployment Democrats can throw palliative money at voters for the purpose of getting votes. They stand before cameras talking about helping New Mexico families. It gets them reelected but the people remain unemployed.
     The underlying issue to what ails New Mexico is that the New Mexico State government along with County and Municipalities are not doing the right things to support businesses in this state. So businesses are not hiring enough New Mexicans for our economy to improve.
     More so, the least likely to be employed are the least skilled since we have minimum wage laws which prohibit businesses from dealing honestly with potential employees. Businesses should be able to compensate employees by what the employee can do for the business.
     New Mexico needs to lose the notion that government knows best for the citizens and let the citizens make their own economic decisions. The marketplace will bring prosperity to New Mexico if New Mexico confines its interference to making sure, as Milton Friedman says, “business…engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
     Every other political intention takes away from a vibrant economy and gives political power to the power brokers who prosper when the average New Mexican does not. They play upon emotions with slogans, some of which are right out of the communist playbook… which incidentally did not ever work in any communist country. Income equality comes right from Karl Marx and has never worked.
     For those who think more government is the answer there is only one question: show me where bigger and bigger government has worked. Yes, it hires more cousins but in taking money out of the economy to run the government it spoils the economy and brings greater suffering to the most fragile citizens.
     Obviously, if New Mexico is to prosper, really prosper, then the people who want to choke businesses must be voted out of office. They are pleasant fools who spout the communist/socialist line without realizing the harm it does New Mexicans.
     We need to vote out those in both parties ruining the New Mexico economy and vote in those who realize that in a vibrant marketplace “A rising tide lifts all ships” as John Kennedy said.
     The problem is there are almost more government workers in New Mexico than non-government workers. How can anyone get control of the runaway government? Only when the government workers themselves realize that if they completely kill businesses, there will be no more money for them. Self interest.
     It is the first rule of the marketplace, you must take care of your customers or long-term you are gone. It also is true of those government workers. Milton Friedman observed, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
     The huge increase of government policies and programs over the last few decades in New Mexico have all begun with good intentions but the unemployed and underemployment in New Mexico are the results.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Repeal all minimum wage laws now

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. The minimum wage is an example of wage control. There has never been any country where wage controls have helped the workers. Wage controls always cause lots of economic problems and it gives government much more control of our lives.
     We do not need polls, advice columns, or politicians sputtering, the economic data is compelling. When a minimum wage is imposed, it excludes the very members of the society that need a first job. Further, it treats employers improperly making them fund socialist benevolence via an unequal trade with their employees.
     How so? Businesses take a product and convey it to customers. Done correctly there must be a profit so the process can continue. The employer trades money with employees for their productivity in this process.
     If the value of the employee productivity is less than the money the employer gives the employee then there is an uneven trade. Both employer and employee must prosper for the relationship to continue. The employer must pay enough that employees can exist while employees must give employers enough productivity that customers are satisfied by quality and price.
     Further, customers decide how much they will spend so prices must conform to customer behavior. Therefore, if the cost of the product including the cost of the employee productivity is more than the customer is willing to spend, the customer will not buy. Often businesses will fail. This is Economics 101.
     So when the government forces employers to make a bad bargain of paying employees more than their productivity is worth one of two things will happen: the loss is passed on to the customer who is free to buy or not because the product costs more than it should. Customers are free to buy from any vendor so employers who lower the employee cost can lower purchase price.
     The second thing is that some employers may mechanize to keep from paying more for the employees than the employees can deliver in productivity. This is an adaption many businesses have used because of the minimum wage laws. Currently, many low-skilled jobs have been mechanized or moved off-shore.
     Know this: it is not the fault of the employee that they do not have the skills, knowledge and abilities to match the productivity requirements of the artificially imposed minimum wage. They are just starting out in the job market. Their first job is where they are supposed to develop these productivity skills. Raising the minimum wage only increases the disparity of wage to productivity and leads to more unemployment of young people.
     Most importantly I am not turning Economics into Socialism where the needs of the workers are more important than sustainable financial transactions. Break that economic system and you get unemployment of the least productive members of society either by mechanization or businesses no longer being viable.
     Should New Mexico raise the minimum wage? No, what New Mexico should do is improve doing good business in New Mexico by rejecting any wage controls including the minimum wage. Adam Smith’s invisible hand will lift up the low-skilled workers currently unemployed and unemployable because of the minimum wage. Nothing holds people into poverty like the minimum wage laws.
     The big lie is that the minimum wage is necessary so that employers do not take advantage of low skilled workers. The problem is economics not employers. Let low skilled workers make an honest deal with employers to get into the job market. Businesses are already paying taxes to fund government benevolence so it is wrong to require businesses to directly fund the benevolence from the proceeds of their businesses.
     Vote people into office who will fix this problem so our least productive citizens, mostly kids, can get the all-important first job and increase their productivity and therefore wages. And throw out the socialists in our government who are holding our citizens in poverty because of their need for political power.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Parent-Teacher Conferences, Chinese Style

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  A friend recently returned from a visit to her childhood home in Liaoyang, China. She has resided in America for many years and is an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher at an area elementary school. While home she captured on video some of her former city. Also, her nephew had a parent-teacher conference so she took a video at his school.
     The kids looked almost indistinguishable from kids in America. Some smiled, some were shy, some boisterous, they laughed and played outside the school. Walking into the elementary school the kids spoke to the camera when questions were posed. I was surprised they replied in Chinese to Chinese questions and in English to English questions. Most students in China have some conversational ability in English by third grade.
     The parent-teacher conference was crowded. I asked what percentage of Chinese parents attends parent-teacher conferences. She replied, “All of them.”
     I pushed for the reasons for perfect attendance in China. “First there is strong parental concern about their children. Secondly, Chinese society informally demands parents participate. People not attending are seen as not caring about their children’s education. There is the perception in China that without parental involvement children will not do as well in school.”
     The group activity was to review the major test given at the end of the semester. The teacher and the parents reviewed each question, not just the scores of the test. The teacher worked each math problem on the board while the parents took notes. This was so these parents could help their children with the material covered by the test.
     The video showed some parents were writing on their children’s test the correct way to find the answer. None of the parents were sleeping or bored or looking out the window, they were all watching the teacher.
     Additionally, the teacher explained why each question was asked and made sure parents understood the intent of the lessons being tested. This took a couple of hours. The video only showed part of it, but I was assured the parents participated the entire time.
     Later at the individual meetings the teacher presented strategies tailored to help each student. This happens every semester throughout their public school career.
     Liaoyang is a relatively nondescript city. It is representative of China’s educational programs. This parent teacher-conference was not staged; rather, it was captured because my friend’s nephew was in that class.
     It seems Americans do not support their children’s education as well as other nations like China. The American support seems to be in consumer goods such as new shoes, clothes or the newest music.
     This allows our children to be well-dressed illiterates but does not address their need of parental involvement. Many American children have their own televisions, video games and music systems in their rooms. They do their homework in isolation, if they do it at all. And the parents say they cannot spend time with their children because they are too busy making a living.
     As a nation our public school children have more financial support and less personal time from their parents. The American per capita spending is above many other countries. Know this: I am not saying that the way China educates their children is better than ours, only that there is a significant difference.
     Some American parents go to every conference though most parents have other priorities. You can draw your own conclusion. I believe the single most important factor in a child’s education is the degree to which the parents are involved.
     It certainly makes for interesting questions: should parents be required to educationally support their children? Do the children have the right to sue for lack of support when they finally realize that their contemporaries have gotten a much better education?
     Or do parents have the right to have children and expect schools to compensate for their lack of parental support?
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

The reason to vote for school bonds

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. In 1975 I was working for the University of New Mexico. In front of the UNM library were 200 or so of the most coveted parking spaces on the entire UNM campus. In this parking lot people could park close to where they were going rather than miles away.
     This parking lot was so attractive to some people that they came to work early just to get one of these fine parking spaces. It was quite a status symbol to go out to that center of the campus parking lot and nonchalantly get in your car. As you drove away you would wave to the less fortunate people who had to go quite a distance to get their car.
     As happens to all good things, one day the UNM leaders declared this wonderful parking lot would be closed forever. We were incredulous at the announcement. A friend complained, “The very idea of them using taxpayer money to turn our valuable parking spaces into, can you believe it, a duck pond. We have to do something.”
     The battle was not pretty. Signs on campus proclaimed, “We don’t need no stinking duck ponds, we need more parking lots.” Other signs said, “The taxpayers cannot afford to be building duck ponds.”
     The protests, including a rude song, President Bud Davis’s Duck Pond, luckily fell on deaf ears. The protests continued until the first day the water and the ducks and the sunshine made everyone feel great.
     Here is the point of my story: today the UNM Duck Pond and Commons Area is one of the defining campus symbols of UNM. Best I can tell, pretty much everyone cherishes the duck pond.
     In fact, if someone desires a beating all they have to do is go to UNM and propose turning the duck pond into 200 parking spaces. It might even be worse. They might be shot at sunrise on three consecutive mornings for just such a suggestion.
     The duck pond has attracted many new students to UNM. When they come for the campus visit it is one of the first places they go. So whatever the university spent on constructing the duck pond is more than covered by the money the additional students bring to UNM over the year. Therefore, it is good UNM officials had foresight and thick skins.
     The same syndrome applies at school bond election time. First, it is the mechanism to fund capital projects in school districts. We pass bonds for the future. Shortsighted people oppose bonds because that money does not provide personal benefit.
     In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward got the United States to buy Alaska for $7.2 million. At the time it was called Seward’s Folly. We now know it as an incredible benefit to America.
     To the Americans in 1867, it was going to be many years before Alaska became a resource. By then many of the citizens who paid for Alaska were dead. Should they have paid for Alaska since it did not make their lives better?
     Regardless, I am glad they did. The same holds true about the school bonds in several school districts, they will primarily benefit future generations.
     I support the bonds, even though I do not have any direct personal need for those services. Countless people before me made financial sacrifices so I could have roads and parks and public school buildings. Even after I am no more future generations will need these facilities. We are not the last generation to live in New Mexico nor should we act in such a manner. Pass these bonds. Years from now we will be glad we did.
     Now if the issue is voters do not trust the school board to make wise use of the money, the answer is to still pass the bonds but throw the incumbents out. Either way, it is very important for voters to pass the bonds.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Better to solve problems than create new ones

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Solving problems is a funny business. The other day someone asked how to deal with thousands of wild horses starving in New Mexico. They wanted to prevent those horses from starving. So I combined that with another problem.
     The reintroduction of gray wolves into New Mexico has caused ranchers in those areas huge problems because the aforementioned wolves not only eat deer and elk, they eat cows. Why? The cows are easier to catch and must taste good.
     The most pernicious cow catchers are gathered by the authorities and housed in a pen for wayward wolves to get them to quit killing cows. But the damage to ranchers is of concern. So to review: horses are starving and wolves are killing cows.
     Problem solver that I am: why not move those hungry wolves to the areas where thousands upon thousands of wild horses are starving. The wolves will put the horses down and live happily ever after since they are killing machines.
     Forget the legal fight in Roswell about horsemeat packing. Natural predation will cull out the weak and sick wild horses leaving the strong to survive in a much smaller herd. It is a win-win solution. However, I do expect the wolves to protest, “Hey, this meat tastes like dog food.”
     There is another unrelated problem that is not as easy to solve. Through a state Constitutional Amendment process Colorado legalized marijuana and now members of the New Mexico legislature are looking at a state Constitutional Amendment to do likewise in New Mexico. The problem as I see it is the New Mexico legislators have not adequately considered the problems this will cause. Let me count them:
     First, it is the wrong way to make societal changes. The legislature is designed to enact those types of rule changes. Evoking the Constitutional amendment process is a chicken way to avoid the governor’s veto and opponent advertisements saying said legislator is soft on drugs. If it cannot pass in the people’s house, it is not a good idea.
     Second, as Colorado is finding out, it not only opens Pandora’s Box but a whole host of Pandora Boxes not the least of which is that it is an activity both legal and illegal at the same time. The United States is a land of laws. It is what makes our country different than other countries that have “situational” laws.
     So in our country every activity should be legal or not. I do not want our New Mexico State Police in gun battles protecting New Mexico citizens from the national Homeland Security forces over what is legal statewide but not nationally.
     Third, because of the dual nature of legal and illegal, the money collected from the sale of statewide legal marijuana is considered nationally to be the proceeds from an illegal activity. People in Colorado are now finding that FDIC insured banks do not want anything to do with “Drug Money,” so they will not take deposits or allow financial transactions using debit and credit cards. What to do with all of that drug cash?
     And most importantly it harms New Mexico’s workforce because Federal workers and transportation workers cannot test positive even once for marijuana. When people drink, twelve hours later there is no remaining trace. Anyone who is even around marijuana being smoked has the potential to be tagged as a drug user for reportedly thirty days.
     Many pilots, truck and bus drivers along with workers at the labs and military bases will be considered unfit and removed from their jobs. New Mexico already has employment issues.
     Finally, we do not know to what degree citizens driving after taking marijuana are impaired. What is the standard? Colorado just went into the valley of stupid without thinking about these problems, why must New Mexico?
     It is much easier for New Mexico to fix the starving horse problem with wolves than legalizing marijuana.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Using guns to solve problems

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. We had another student bring a gun to school and used it this week. It is in the media with lurid descriptions yet something is missing. When a student brings a gun to school and uses it why did the student think using a gun would solve problems?
     In this instance and to my way of thinking, in all other shootings it caused more problems that they could have imagined. But dozens of times each year in our public schools the same action is played out with often fatal results.
     So where did they get the notion using a gun would solve their problems? Did they learn it in school? Of course not, it is not part of the school curriculum. It is not modeled behavior by teachers to shoot problem students.
     Yet, like it or not, students are bringing guns to school apparently with the belief that the guns will solve their problems. If they do not learn that notion in school, they must learn it somewhere else. Oh, I know, they learn it in their home.
     Most parents reject that premise. “I certainly don’t teach my children that shooting someone will solve problems.” But they do. The message is allowed to be transmitted repeatedly to their children. It is under their aegis that kids watch hour after hour of television and movies where the solution to problems is shoot someone.
     The average school age student watches hundreds of “shootings to solve a problem” a week. Heroes as well as bad people, all larger than life, solve their problems with guns. I cannot think of a major movie star who has not shot someone on screen. How sad.
     The research strongly suggests watching television and movies influences kids. We know for certain that advertisers believe in this influence by the billions of dollars spent trying to amend the behavior of children in their buying habits. If the media can influence the clothes worn and the language used, it is one small step to influence the way that children solve problems.
     The responsibility to prevent this influence lies with the parents who must take the steps to protect their children from this proven influence. If they do not, they are guilty of child abuse. While it is passive, it is nonetheless abuse. These children are killing and being killed.
     I have seen mothers not require safety belts for children who fuss about them, as if they are doing the child a favor. The courts find such parents to be guilty of child abuse for not protecting their own child. Perhaps if the police question a child bringing a gun to school and finds the parents did not regulate the intake of television and movies it will be designated as passive child abuse by the parents.
     The copycat syndrome has been well established. Violence seen on TV is replicated in society. Many kids are only doing what they have spent thousands of hours watching on television. It is not a defense that not all children bring a gun to school, what we have established is the link of children viewing violence and then acting violent.
     I’m not saying kids should be kept completely away from TV, but it should be carefully screened. Television and movie violence is so pervasive because it is the most easily created form of drama, “Is someone going to die or not?”
     It is not an issue to stop television from showing the use of guns, rather, the issue is that parents must stop letting impressionable children watch hour after hour of this “guns will solve problems” message.
     Think of it like planting a tree. The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago; the next best time to plant a tree is now. The best time to start screening television programs for your children was 10 years ago. The next best time is now.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Notes from the land of the setting sun

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. It was 45 years ago that man first orbited the moon. The moon was landed upon six times with the last time four years later. Sadly, America walked away from the moon and ceded the moon to the Chinese who this month landed and sent a rover to stir up the moon dust.
     Perhaps that is the way it should be with great nations, they can only be great as long as the people feel the challenge to be great. Then they must join the rest of the nations in the world who are just trying to get from paycheck to paycheck and not lose their minds with their teenagers. Average nations do not reach for the stars.
     As we start 2014 it reminds me of when Japan was rising and China was drifting down into a lesser nation. It took a long time for China to repose into a third world but now they may be on the rise again.
     In the year 607 A.D. a Japanese leader, Prince Shotoku, sent a delegation to China lead by diplomat Ono no Imoko. He had the dubious honor of carrying this message: Greetings From the Leader of the Land of the Rising Sun To the Leader of the Land of the Setting Sun.
     That made China mad. How mad? The aforementioned Japanese diplomat returned home to Japan all cut up in a box. In fact, the insulting message resonated several times in history when China wanted to stomp Japan. Twice they were caught crossing the sea in a typhoon which is not the textbook way of invading.
     And then Japan, full of themselves leading up to WWII devastated China killing thirty million Chinese. Now it would seem China is the Land of the Rising Sun and Japan, who do not understand free markets, is the Land of the Setting Sun. China going up, Japan going down.
     There is Greece, Spain, France, and other European nations plummeting into the financial abyss of spending more than they have for generations. That brings us to America. Should we also be known as the Land of the Setting Sun?
     Tony Blair said the measure of a nation is how many people want in and how many want out. Some Americans are leaving our nation to escape our confiscatory tax policy. Their problem to find a government not fouling its own nest.
     Here in America our space program has mostly been dismantled. The space station was put up as a fueling area for craft reaching to the moon and planets. But America now hitches rides to the Space Station on Russian craft. Russian President Vladimir Putin this week said he is going to revitalize the Russian Space Program.
     What is the American plan? No plan. We are waiting on the 2014 elections to make any meaningful change in our society but then it will be into the 2016 presidential elections and so we cannot make any kind of real change and then in 2017… sorry, the 2018 elections are coming and we cannot make changes. And so on.
     I have to admit the fall of our great nation was on my watch and I feel it every day because the America I inherited as a young man was so very different from the America now. That was a “Can do” America that could go to the moon and return safely. Today we have trouble going to the store and returning safely.
     We cannot be a great nation while asking for government handouts. The people cannot lead America to greatness when they are sitting on their butts with their free phones and subsidies. America cannot be great in the unemployment line.
     Government makes wealth in a small fraction of our population while destroying the greatness in our citizens. It is 2014 and the clock is ticking. Citizens make the sun rise while government makes the sun set.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Happy New Year, we made it to 2014

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Years ago one of my fears was growing old and feeble. Yes, it seemed so awful to become an old fool who cannot remember his friends and family. Then one year I lost that fear. It was completely gone. Instead I wonder each year if I can make it to the next year.
     The change came when I found out that I had cancer. Everyone who has cancer has that one moment when the enormity of our mortality chokes them. My first thought was that I did not mind dying but I did not really want to be there when it happened.
     While going through the cancer treatments my thoughts focused on making it to the next Christmas and New Year. Next year and the New Year took on a whole new meaning. And I have not lost that perspective.
     Almost every day there is some moment when I recognize that this world would go on quite fine without me. Not to say that I have anything against living. I am enjoying being here so I hope I am still alive and well at the end of 2014. That is my resolution.
     When people say that for their New Year resolution they wish to lose weight or read more books, frankly, I am not interested. I am still day to day, week to week appreciating life. It also helps to tolerate watching Congress, The Cowboys and Miley Cyrus, Me, I am just glad to be here, who cares about them?
     During my bout with cancer I lost my mind and it was quite unpleasant. For one thing, I could not drive for a while during the worst of it. Further, I could not remember why I had walked into a different room.
     Finally my mind came back complete with my sick sense of humor. I rejoiced. Whenever I have something funny to say it tickles me first. A New Mexico politician got caught at an airport with pot in a suitcase. I observed on the air that she was my favorite pot-i-tician. She was less than amused but I was ever so glad to have some of my brain back.
     Though there was one time when it was the cancer and treatments that brought to me an interesting experience. During the time when my brain was gone I kept a notebook next to the phone and would take notes because minute to minute I was a mental basket case.
     One time the phone rang. The caller said my first name so I said hello. Truth be known, she thought she was talking to someone else and had called to announce her divorce. I was less than enthusiastic which angered her. I explained that with the cancer treatments I had lost my mind but it would return in a couple of months.
     Mollified by the explanation she asked if I was going to the high school 25 year reunion in a few months. She wanted to, how shall I say, experience my physical presence as she claimed we had done just a year earlier. Total blank for me. Then I said, “I may be sick but I went to my 25 year reunion three years ago.
     She gasped and asked, “Is this Michael…?” She said a last name that was not mine. “No,” I said, “This is Michael Swickard, the newspaper columnist.” She took it hard and I told her that it would be quite a while before I could write columns again.
     Over the years I have seen the other Michael but never mentioned it to him. Still, I wonder if she did. See, we do not need lots of stuff in our lives. Even a little cancer can entertain us for quite a while. In the coming year I hope each of you stays safe and sane.
     If not, I hope you get some good stories out of it.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Christmas wishes to all who celebrate Christmas

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. To all who celebrate their connection to a religion now or at any other time of the year, I bid you good cheer. It does not matter which religion, I am happy for you. Within my circle I say Merry Christmas. It is not said to be aggressive toward other religions, I am simply celebrating Christmas.
     We who celebrate Christmas must defend Christmas because some in our country would remove it. Example: A few years ago I wrote my annual Christmas column and was surprised when a local legislator publically called me an anti-Semite because I wrote favorably about Christmas.
     I do not step back from my Christian beliefs despite name calling. That column brought up an interesting question: Congress declared the Christmas Holiday more than a hundred years ago. They specifically used the word Christmas. It seems Congress indicated this country is a Christian nation by such a designation.
     People of other faiths can protest that our country has no business celebrating Christmas. Perhaps we should put it to a vote. Once and for all let Congress vote Christmas or not. Then no one could destroy Christmas if Congress affirms.
     Yes, I know that our political leaders will not put it to a vote because they have no guts. While I am not trying to force this view upon anyone, I am just stating the obvious. This is a Christian nation that is very tolerant of all religions.
     In other countries there is not much religious tolerance. In the Middle East you would get your head cut off for our Christian beliefs. My issue is to tolerate other beliefs but not let those beliefs take over my country. I do not want to force my religion on anyone any more that I want to be forced into another religion.
     Years ago I was the Board Chair of a Campus Ministry. Our building was rarely used on Saturdays in the summer. A different Campus Student Union was working on their building and asked if they could use our building on Saturdays for a month. I said yes and brought it to the board.
     Some board members were scandalized but I held firm. The issue that I felt most concerned about at a college campus was the un-churched. I was glad for every member of a student union. I had spent my undergraduate life at this student union. I still went to other campus student unions upon occasion and did not look at them as the enemy.
     It was a bit of a tussle but the board finally approved the use of our student union building by a different denomination while they fixed their building. The interesting thing was over the next few months we did a couple of joint projects with this other student union and it was great.
     At Christmas I hold all religions in my heart and pray that each serves its believers well. I have room in my heart for a love of other religions as long as they do not try to take me over. Again, I am defending my belief, not trying to put it upon anyone else. Further, if someone wants to work on a day I consider holy, all the best to them, and the same for me.
     It is the season of giving in my religion. While going to college forty years ago the question of giving came up in one of our Bible study sessions. Some thought that the appropriate gift was ten percent. Another student thought that we should give until it hurts.
     I was sitting next to a student named Randy who shook his head, “You should never give until it hurts. That is ridiculous. Rather, what you should do is give until it stops hurting.”
It is my wish that all Americans can worship as they wish. Me, I will be the one singing and saying Merry Christmas.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

The urgent need for urgency

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. While I am painting with a broad brush, there does not seem to be much urgency in our nation and especially in our young people for anything. Americans are lollygagging along going trillions of dollars further in debt and only being concerned about which politician promises the best plunder for their vote.
     Americans show no urgency about our national debt which if you combine the on-book and off-books debt, it is more than half a million dollars for every man, woman and child in America. This means that every American must stop taking from the government chest and they must repay all of that money or that debt will be passed on to the next several generations.
     Being that far in debt should make every American kick the wall. But most citizens want even more debt so they can continue doing what they have being doing for years, ignoring the debt entirely. Their plan is to take the bounty from government now and leave the pain of repayment to their children.
     Speaking of their children, the young people also show no urgency about this debt being laid on them. I would have to assume the lack of urgency on the debt is either out of ignorance or they, themselves, plan to leave the debt to their children.
     These citizens think if we do not look at the national debt, it does not exist. And politicians smilingly say, “You are right, vote for me and I’ll give you more stuff from the public funds than my opponent.”
      I was talking to a college president recently. He mentioned that college students today routinely take a four year degree and turn it into six years or more of lollygagging around the campus while acquiring thousands of dollars of student loans. His concern was their lack of urgency about getting done with college and getting out into the workforce to start repaying the loans.
     I like the word urgency. It is only used in some aspects such as sports but not much in legislatures and Congress. For our legislators and leaders there is always tomorrow. Further, no matter the crisis we must wait until after the next election to fix any problems. But then there is an election after that election so no movement.
     Again, painting with a broad brush, many college students are in no hurry to get out of college. However, the other day I did talk to a sophomore college student in Mechanical Engineering. He had worked the summer before driving a forklift for a chile operation.
     That student seemed focused on getting in and getting done and getting on with his life. It was nice to see someone who is hearing the clock ticking. America is like someone standing on the Titanic and commenting that the water is only coming into the ship one gallon at a time. Correct, but oh so incorrect.
     Even though Americans live much better lives than their grandparents in general, there are no guarantees that we American can continue to live so well much longer. Who am I to spoil the American dream of all taking and no giving that is foisted on our young people today?
     Well, first of all, I am telling the truth. And I do agree that always taking and never giving sounds ever so nice for them. But it is nothing but a lie.
     Further, it is a lie they will discover at some point. Other countries, one by one, are discovering the lie. In Greece the citizens are rioting because their leaders lied to them for a long period of time and promised so much. The Greeks were lulled into expecting to always be takers and not givers.
     But the world does not work that way for very long. Then it will happen. At that point we may see urgency to continue taking and not giving. Sorry, time’s up.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: What do you believe in the news?

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Sometimes in newspaper stories the truth of what happened in the story is easy to see. At other times it is not. To deal with this ambiguity I have always wanted to enable readers to give a confidence rating to these more ambiguous stories. It would be a way of showing which stories, well, smell fishy.
     So some stories are just a matter of facts. An example would be: Bif Largecrash drove his rust colored 1986 Ford truck off the side of a hill last Saturday. He did so while trying to tune the radio to a different station because he said the song playing reminded him of his ex-wife’s lawyer.
     He was thrown from his truck and rescuers found him still clutching the aforementioned radio knob. An ambulance took him to the Emergency Room where he received 17 stitches and a stern lecture. Police chief, Al L. Blanks said, “It sure was good thing that the ground broke Bif’s fall or he could have been hurt.”
     Others stories contain more conjecture. Example: At the recent Town Council meeting Town Councilor I. M. Shady called Mayor Dee Power a cheater and stupid. “Am not,” replied Power. “Which one?” asked Shady. “Let me think,” said Dee.
     In the second example there is a conflict of opinions. We all have had those conflicts of opinion. It would be nice in the newspaper to have a section where the “conjecture” stories were all listed so that readers could indicate if the person is a cheater and stupid or just one. We need to know this.
     Here are some examples of facts and conjectures. Rate your confidence in the statements from 0 to 100. A rating of 100 means you are completely confident of it being true, like something your mother told you, whereas 0 means you do not believe it at all, like something politicians promise on the campaign trail.
1 - President Richard Nixon was a crook. _____
2 - Americans did land on the moon. _______
3 - Aliens crashed a space ship near Roswell. ______
4 - The police arrive quicker than pizza delivery. _____
5 - Van Gogh was an artist because he had no ear for music. ______
6 - Eight out of every five people cannot do math. _____
7 - Outlaws are more interesting than in-laws. _____
8 - Elvis is still alive. _____
9 - Japanese remember Pearl Harbor better than Americans. _____
10 - If taxes are outlawed, only outlaws will have taxes. _____
11 - The Marquis de Sade is an ObamaCare Administrator. _____
12 - 81% of American schools are below average. _____
13 - The number 13 is unlucky. _____
14 - If two wrongs don’t make a right, try three. _____
15 - 90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name. _____
16 - Illegal aliens were the biggest problem Native Americans faced. _____
17 - All astrology is Taurus. _____
18 – Deming is a bad place to be stopped by police ________
19 - You’re only young once but you can be immature forever. _____
20 - Newspaper Columnists are better looking in person. _____
We could do other questions. In fact you can send your answers to these questions or more questions for me to ask to michael@swickard.com. I will compile the results and perhaps put out more questions. It all boils down to how much confidence you have in the news.
     Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Selling losses sells out the program

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Football is a New Mexico passion, like putting Hatch Green Chile on eggs. This is especially so for high school football. Last week’s meeting of two Las Cruces high schools was held in the New Mexico State football stadium because about 25,000 fans always come to that game.
     Then the next day New Mexico State held their own collegiate football game with a crowd of about 10,000 fans. I am a fan of both high school and college football. So I enjoyed the Las Cruces High Mayfield game and then the NMSU/Boston College football game the next day. There was one thing I did not enjoy.
     During a call-in show that followed the Aggie game a listener questioned NMSU selling losses, indicating this practice was not appropriate. Selling losses means taking on national powerhouses for cash which the powerhouses gladly pay to have a week off from their grueling schedule.
     Powerhouse teams pay for a patsy to come get beat up while they rest. The patsy takes the cash and calls it good. The caller was told NMSU selling losses would continue a few more years with NMSU perhaps selling three losses next year for financial reasons.
     I have always opposed the ethically bankrupt practice of selling losses by NMSU. This has been for at least thirty years. In that time I have written dozens of columns of protest. Each time the answer is that NMSU just needs to do it another year or two. But that has turned into three decades of no success for the program.
     Last year NMSU was tossed out of the Western Athletic Conference and there has been a vigorous effort to close the football program. I have resisted all calls to end NMSU Aggie Football. In the last three decades I have had season tickets every year and gone to almost every game.
     But, selling losses every year for thirty years has imperiled Aggie football and not brought any success to the program. It is insane to continue doing what has not worked. Football programs are judged by three criteria: win/loss record, attendance and Bowl Games. Selling losses loses in all three categories.
     NMSU holds the record for how long it has been since going to a Bowl Game. Several of the years that NMSU was selling losses would have been Bowl Game years but for those sold losses. Also know that NMSU did not sell any losses the years they went to the Sun Bowl or they would not have been invited.
     Frankly, selling losses must stop now. Do not sell losses next year or perhaps lose the program. When NMSU sends student athletes into harm’s way not to win games, rather, to get money selling the loss, NMSU announces to the world they are losers. Each year NMSU makes selling losses seem like there is no urgency for win-loss records or Bowl Games in NMSU’s football program.
     With more than thirty years of data on this approach, we are certainly equipped to answer the question: how well does it work? It has been a complete disaster chewing up many fine coaches and programs over the years. NMSU has not had a truly successful season while they were engaged in selling losses.
     I always thought someone in the leadership would at some point in the more than thirty years say, “Been there, done that, let us try something different.” For thirty years NMSU has sold out the win-loss record and not sold out the stadium. They have sold out their Bowl Game aspirations. The fans have stayed away. Yes, there are hard core fans, myself included, who come faithfully despite, “Rain or dust or gloom of defeat.”
     Now the money is important if we are to continue the employment of all of the people who work in the Athletic Department. But does the tail wag the dog in this endeavor? Is it acceptable to maintain that employment by selling out the program?
     I agree the football program needs more money. However, if we must have benefit car washes, bake sales, kissing booths, rent-a-dog for a day, home delivery of cow-chips… whatever… we should do what it takes to not ever sell losses again.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

My dog Conrad, the NMSU Aggie football fan

Me and Conrad

© 2013 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. My dog Conrad, like me, is a New Mexico State University Aggie. Naturally over the years we have attended many NMSU Aggie football games. Best I can tell he has been satisfied going to the games as long as I get him a double order of wieners.
     Conrad fits right in around the NMSU campus because most people just treat him like a graduate student. Being an Aggie, he enjoys football. He does bark disgustedly at “Bonehead” plays and certainly displays same-species aggressiveness toward referees.
     Mostly he is happy with an outing. He has a tail-wagging good time to the beat of the Aggie Pride Band. He woofs the Aggie fight song with the best of them, “Aggies, oh Aggies, we’ll win this game or know the reason why.”
     Conrad knows why the Aggies do not win consistently in football. In fact, most Aggies know why. There is a big difference between knowing why our team does not win often and accepting it.
     Conrad is philosophical about the Aggies losing the first, “What was it? Six or seven games of this year?” Grrr, woof woof woof woof woof woof woof. OK, it was seven. But then they won the Homecoming Game. Conrad showed his Crimson Pride strutting out of the Stadium victorious.
     You should have seen how worked up he got when earlier that week a newspaper columnist suggested the Aggies should shut down the program and concentrate on their Cow Chip Throwing Team. Conrad made a sound like he was coughing up a hair ball. Then he sulked for the rest of the day. He does not a bite, but that columnist would have gotten a piece of his mind if Conrad had email.
     So he was quite tail-wagging happy when the Aggies broke their losing streak at Homecoming. He even smiled at the cat a few times out of pure Aggie happiness.
     Some people wondered why he did not try out for the replacement role of Smokey the Wonder Dog from the 1990s. Smokey ran out after each Aggie kickoff to retrieve the kicking tee. The home audience loved it.
     That replacement role now is held by Striking, the Also Wonder Dog, who is doing a great job. Conrad thought it was funny last year when the opponent runback fell right on the tee. Striking zoomed out but could not find the tee for all of the human bodies.
     An Aggie football player saw his trouble and personally walked him over to the tee. Striking woofed, “Thanks” and hurried it back to the sideline. The crowd, including Conrad, hollered in appreciation.
     Conrad did not try out for Striking’s job. He was too busy being the News New Mexico Radio Talk Show Official Dog.
     Now the Aggies played this last weekend. It did not go as well as the week before. Conrad sat patiently by the radio and kept pulling for the Aggies but to no avail. I cooked a couple of football wieners so we could at least enjoy the bonding experience of football wieners, but he was sad. Still, there is next week.
     Conrad is looking forward to the game with Boston College this Saturday. He read up on their mascot, Baldwin, the Eagle. Conrad wondered why they did not alliterate a Bulldog from Boston. I told him Georgia already had the Bulldog. He shrugged and continued wagging the Aggie Fight Song.
     I was curious about what Conrad thought about the Football Team so I sat him down for an interview: “What about all of the people wanting NMSU to drop football?” I waited, but Conrad would not say anything.
     “So Conrad, what can NMSU do to have consistent success?” No answer. It went like that with me asking Aggie football questions and Conrad not talking. It finally dawned on me that even if Conrad knew, it was useless to ask him.
     I guess if Conrad was Francis, the Talking Mule or Mr. Ed, I might have something to report, but Conrad is not talking. He is just going to the Aggie football games and enjoying himself.
     What a good idea for us all. Come enjoy the food, football and of course Striking, the Also Wonder Dog.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com