Category: Economics

For those of you who have the luxury of living in what we refer to as Free America (aka places like New Jersey), you may not realize that our state governments wants to help us control our intake of alcohol. For that reason, we have beer laws that forbid us from buying more than 2 packs at a time – unless that is, you go to a distributor, in which case you’re buying a case at a time. We are also only allowed to buy beer from bars, restaurants, and distributors. Many bars have a “take out” section where you can grab a six pack to take home with you.

Wegmans, the most fabulous grocery store in the world, realized that with cafes in each of their Pennsylvania locations, they could qualify as a restaurant-type establishment for a license to sell beer. Under the law, the PLCB recognized that they did indeed qualify and granted them licenses to sell beer. For the consumer, it’s still not as easy as picking up a pie at Wegmans. See, the beer can’t be sold with your groceries. You have to buy it in a closed off area of the store at separate registers. The only thing it makes any easier is that I don’t technically have to drive anywhere else. It still requires two trips to/from the car and two different transactions. They also don’t have the world’s best selection, though it is certainly better than most takeouts near us.

Other beer sellers got jealous and sued.

The Malt Beverage Distributors Association, which represents 450 beer distributors across the state, had challenged Wegmans’ license on a number of grounds.

The group says letting Wegmans sell beer would allow other supermarkets and big retailers to horn in on the beer-selling trade by establishing their own eating areas and applying for licenses to serve beer and sell six-packs.

That, the association warned, could put beer distributorships – many of them small mom-and-pop operations – out of business.

More from the distributor lobby:

Robert Hoffman, the attorney for the distributors, said the ruling puts them at a competitive disadvantage because supermarkets can offer “a zillion things to get you in the door.”

Hear that sound, Hoffman? That’s the world’s smallest violin.

How dare we consumers not be forced by the legislature and courts to buy from the companies who pay his salary! How dare competitors be allowed to offer more and different products! Boo freakin’ hoo, Hoffman. As a consumer, I think I’ll swing by Wegmans this weekend and pick up a six pack or two, grab a bite from their cafe, and knock my grocery shopping out for the week. Next week, I will also get in touch with my local lawmakers and ask them to ignore your lobby because as voters, we want more choice. Hell, maybe I’ll ask them to just consider disbanding the entire freakin’ system so we can buy as much or as little beer as we want at any damn store we want.

If there’s one thing people seem to like arguing about, it’s gold. Frequent commenter Ian Argent, over on his blog, has two posts on the difficulty of the gold standard here, and here.

Megan McArdle notes on gold fever:

I’m going to dispute the notion that gold is a good hedge against the apocalypse.  In the event that the US economy melts down so far that buying gold was a good alternative to holding US dollars, then buying canned goods, ammunition, and medical supplies was an even better alternative to gold.  The only scenario I can think of in which it makes sense to stockpile a lot of gold is one where you and your household goods are unexpectedly teleported into the sixteenth century.  If you worry a lot about this, then by all means, stockpile gold.  But you should also probably take the precaution of stockpiling antibiotics and how-to books on dentistry.

I currently have no gold holdings, largely because I’ve been worried about it being a bubble. Of course, I’ve been thinking that since 2005, which had I invested all my money in gold then, I would have doubled it. But I’m wary of buying at the top of a bubble. I would never have the courage to hold gold long term.

I’ve never understood the libertarian fascination with the gold standard. Currently our currency is worth money because the government says it is. Libertarians have long wanted money backed up by gold. But what backs up gold? It’s never seemed to be a good idea to have your money supply dependent on something you have to mine from the ground.

Gold may be a good hedge against inflation, perhaps, but my inclination will be to pump my current cash reserves into the primary asset that is my house if inflation takes off. I need a new kitchen, a new shower, a good bit of exterior work, new driveway, and a once over of the yard by a  decent landscaper.

As for preparing for total meltdown? Well, I think I have enough guns and ammunition available for barter to take care of myself pretty well.

I don’t even want to hear about Mike Huckabee polling well. Given how much the GOP’s fortunes have improved just based on outrage over the Democrats profligate spending and regulating (even after 6 years of the same by the GOP), I think the folks that like Mike Huckabee need to be drummed out of the party. I’m all for a big tent and everything, but Mike’s Jesus Juice isn’t something you can build a majority with. I’m fine with having a coalition with Christian conservatives, but religion and family aren’t promoted by big government. Bitter and I continue to live in sin because of the hope and change keeping our household underemployed, with the constant prospect of being unemployed. Makes planning an expensive event months later difficult. I can’t believe we’re the only people in this boat. Apparently birth rates are falling too, since people are afraid to start families because of the economy.

So Social Conservatives need to forget about Huckabee. The Hope and Change is killing family values more than anything.

Hey

Countertop here.   I used to blog quite regularly over at the Countertop Chronicles, but life seems to get in the way, and my blog posts are pretty sporadic these days.  In any case, Sebastian and Bitter asked me to chime in here with some words of wisdom and I thought I’d honor that.  Been traveling a lot my self, which is why its taking me so long to post anything.

But I have a couple of posts I’d like to do over the next few days while they complete their exotic and romantic trip to the “birthplace” of our president.  Who, as a resident of the DC area, I just love.

And of course, if you ever needed a reason to hate that bitter soul anymore, his destruction of the US economy (and my associated love of his actions) should really open your eyes.

You see, as a lawyer/lobbyist working for a trade association in DC Obama has been VERY good to me.   I’m not going to get into my specific situation, but I wanted to share with you some salary survey data from the American Society of Association Executives (along with the League of Lobbyists, one of the two major DC lobbyists lobby groups – yes, even us lobbyists have lobbyists.  Are you surprised???)

If any of you know any lawyers, or read Above The Law (or even Instapundit or the Volokh Conspiracy), let these numbers, pertaining to the legal head of organizations sink in for a moment (i can’t link to them because they aren’t publicly available on the web.  For a not insignificant fee, you can purchase their salary books.  Your employers HR department probably has copies of it – thats one of the tools they use in negotiating salary).

For all organizations in the US, the average base salary in 2008 was $165,306 but in 2010 – after 2 years of recession/depression that average salary has dropped to $159,631 a decrease of nearly $6,000 a year.  But average’s are skewed by high salary’s, so looking at the median, you see the situation – nationwide – is even worse with median salary dropping from $155,400 in 2008 to $140,137 in 2010 or about $15,000.

Now, as an aside, to the average American making $65k a year, these probably seem like insanely high salaries and warrant little tear shedding.  But put it in this perspective, considering the legal profession overall.  These are the salary’s for folks who have a long and successful legal history, basically in house attorney’s who have practiced for 15+ years.   The average Above The Law reader – going to a big law firm – would SKOFF at these.  Those fools (and I say that with the understanding that 99% will be unemployed, divorced, and with a miserable life within 8-9 years)  who take jobs at BIG Law firms are looking at making somewhere between $165-$185 a year WITH NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Andrew Sullivan’s under blogger was  looking into the insanity of this system just a few weeks ago.In my experience, it was only inevitable that the people hiring law firms would eventually stop paying for these overpriced goons.

But, that’s an aside, lets get back to the reason I am loving Obama these days. When you start to look at the same numbers, but focus only on how well the  “folks” in Washington, D.C.  are doing, the divide between the Haves and Have Nots is shockingly clear for all to see.

2008 Average Salary: $202,875
2010 Average Salary: $217,925  an increase of $15,000 a year

2008 Median Salary: $187,319
2010 Median Salary: $210,000 an increase of $23,000 a year

Now, its true that that salary base in DC has generally been higher than the rest of the country (though not as high as Chicago or New York) but I find it hard to believe the gap has EVER been this high.  While the median salary of a Chief Legal Officer around the country has dropped $15,000 the median salary in DC has actually seen an increase of $23,000 a year – an annual projected earning divide of $38,000.

That’s real money, no matter who you are and the reason this DC based attorney is THRILLED to be in DC and not Cleveland or Detroit or Kansas City or L.A. or anywhere else (even though we producer nothing of real value in DC).

SayUncle reports on how companies that he’s worked for have saved significant money moving their operations out of California. This is certainly not going to help to restore California’s slumping housing prices. California is still the home for high-tech jobs, however, but one thing (other than their crappy gun laws) that’s prevented me from moving there is the fact that housing was unaffordable, and the salary differential was never high enough to justify the wildly inflated cost of living. I’ve never understood why tech jobs aren’t fleeing California by the busload and headed for greener pastures, like Austin.

You know we’re heading for the ledge with the accelerator pushed to the floor when noted free market economists are telling us we need to be more like Germany.

This isn’t much of a surprise, but the results are still rather stunning:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

I could have told you that. Read the whole thing. What’s amazing isn’t that they do worse than conservatives and libertarians, but how much worse they do.