re:  "Let's you and her fight" [sic]

In the Wednesday op-ed concerning "family issues", the Chronicle decries the state of the American worker with regard to government-enforced benefits for American workers.  In claiming that Americans enjoy "paltry maternal benefits compared to other industrialized nations" and that "there is no area of family concerns in which the United States shines", the editorial board calls for greater government intrusion on businesses and employers to force them to provide more benefits to the American worker.

What the Chronicle editorialists ignore, however, is that doing so raises the cost of labor, providing a disincentive for businesses to hire workers.  Even with the US economy in a downturn with regard to the labor market, our current 6.1% unemployment rate, considered high in the US, is still lower than most industrialized countries, especially ones that have government requirements concerning paid leave benefits and more socialized health care.  American workers do extremely well when comparing per capita income and GDP per capita — American businesses, freer from the shackles of government, hire more workers and pay them more than their counterparts in other industrialized countries.

The question then becomes:  would we rather have more people working, holding jobs that are better paying, or more people unemployed, waiting for a job with those government-guaranteed benefits?  The Chronicle editorialists seem to prefer the latter.

The best way to encourage economic opportunity is not to expand the government, but rather to expand freedom.  Reduce the cost of labor and remove the disincentives to growth even further by reducing taxes and bureaucracy, and watch the economy grow even faster, creating more jobs, opportunity, and wealth.  Businesses and individuals are better stewards of their own money than bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith