Tuesday, April 17, 2012

New Common Sense: Henry Ford: No Model P(rogressive)

 

To ensure email delivery directly to your inbox, please add
newsletters@heritage.org to your address book now.

If you're having trouble viewing this message, please view it online.
 

The Heritage Foundation
New Common Sense
Applying First Principles to the Issues of Today

At Heritage

Picture this: The Buffett Rule vs. Obama’s Budget.

Question of the week: Does government spending in a recession lead to economic growth?

Around the Country

Liberals don’t understand business: How Paul Krugman would ru(i)n Steve Jobs' Apple.

“Social Darwinism”: Isn’t three generations long enough for a talking point?

Quick Thoughts

Presumption of Titanic proportions: Allen Guelzo on how technology is no match for nature.

Church and State: Clearing Thomas Jefferson’s good name.

From the bookshelf: We are programmed to think that anytime there is a problemwhether it is companies going bankrupt or schools keeping kids stupidgovernment action is the way to solve it. Using his decades of reporting, John Stossel, in No, They Can't: Why Government FailsBut Individuals Succeed, tackles how our intuitive reactions lead us astray.


 

Henry Ford: No Model P(rogressive)

Obama has a new role model for his Buffett Rule tax—Henry Ford. It’s an odd choice considering that Ford advocated free-market capitalism and opposed redistributive policies. Despite the lucrative government contracts, Henry Ford refused to participate in FDR’s 1933 National Recovery Act (let’s not forget that Ford Motors was the only “big-three” automaker to decline the recent government bailout).

So why cite Ford as support for a redistributive “fairness tax”—especially one that discourages investment in the sort of successful companies Ford worked to create?

In his stump speech for the Buffett Rule, Obama argues that Ford was a progressive who understood that “prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few.” Accordingly, Ford paid high wages to redistribute his unwarranted profits to the middle class.

Yes, Ford’s $5-a-day wage in 1914 (a little over $100 by today’s measure) was more than double the average autoworker’s pay. And yes, Ford felt a personal moral obligation to pay his workers well and help reduce poverty (what he called “welfare capitalism”). But paying high wages to valuable employees wasn’t a redistributive  plan
it was good business.

We were not distributing anything,” he explained in his autobiography,“ we were building a future. A low wage business is always insecure.” Ford needed the $5-a-day wage to attract and retain skilled workers
and stay ahead of his competitors. He estimated the high wage reduced the number of new employees he had to hire and train by 200,000 people per year.

Henry Ford was the Steve Jobs of his day, and cars were ipods of the 1920s. Just as Apple pays high wages to engineers to produce cutting-edge gadgets, so Ford paid high wages to retain skilled labor to build cars. Ford paid these wages because the market allowed—nay, demanded—them. Far from driving a top-down progressive policy, Ford was effectively responding to the needs of the market.

And how did Ford react to blatantly redistributive policies? “I do not think that this country is ready to be treated like Russia for a while,” Ford said of the New Deal, “There is a lot of the pioneer spirit here yet.” That sentiment would apply to the Buffett Rule. The rule would impose a 30% alternative minimum tax rate on all income (now defined to include wages, capital gains, and dividends) above $1 million dollars. The Buffett Rule stifles American industriousness: it will weaken the economy by discouraging investment and reduce the deficit by a mere 0.5%. Worse than the policy outcome is the destructive hubris underlying the proposal: the Buffett Rule assumes that only government redistribution can help the middle class.

Obama learned the wrong lesson from Ford’s $5-a-day wage. Ford created remunerative jobs for the middle class—not because of stringent progressive regulations and redistributive programs—but because his company had the freedom and the flexibility to respond to the needs of market.


                      
Forward this message to a Friend!   Quote of the Week
                          


Visit our new First Principles Page. Your first stop for First Principles.


If the people lose control of the arteries of trade and the natural sources of mechanical power, the nationalization of all industry should soon be expected. Our forefathers were alert to resist all encroachments upon their rights. If we wish to maintain our rights, we can do no less.

~ Calvin Coolidge

For more quotes, visit westillholdthesetruths.org

About The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute -- a think tank -- whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400


No comments: