Bernie Sanders and ‘Chocolate milk syndrome’

Sanders' solutions are high taxes, high minimum wage, and small banks. So what's the problem he wants to solve? Not poverty, not by a long shot.

Bernie Sanders and the 90% Tax
Bernie Sanders and the 90% Tax

WASHINGTON, June 9, 2015 — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to reduce income inequality in America. He wants to tax the most successful Americans and give the money to the poor; he wants to raise the minimum wage; he wants to break up the big banks.

His policies are based on what I call the “chocolate milk syndrome.”

When my three children, who are close in age, were very young, they would come into the house on a hot summer day thirsty. “We want chocolate milk” they would scream. So I sat them down at the table and put three identical size glasses in front of them. I then filled each glass with about the same amount of chocolate milk.

Surprisingly, their primary concern was not the absolute amount of chocolate milk in their glass, but rather the amount in their siblings’ glasses. As long as neither sibling had more, they were happy. If one sibling got slightly more, the others complained wildly until the glasses were even.

“What’s the difference how much she got as long as you are content with how much you have?” I would often ask. But they just wanted to make sure no one got more chocolate milk than they had. As long as no one got more, each was happy.

It seems that Bernie Sanders’ economic policies suffer from the “chocolate milk syndrome.”

Sanders wants to raise the federal income tax rate to 90 percent on marginal income for those who have very full glasses. He wants this even though it would reduce the amount of investment capital going into the economy and turn it into consumption for people who have less, who can’t afford the amenities that Sanders believes are essential.

The long term result of this would be a stagnant economy, possibly a stagflation similar to the one we experienced in the late 1970’s.

Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage. Some of his supporters think the minimum wage should be $15 per hour, which totals $30,000 per year paid to an unskilled worker. This would be the wage even if that worker’s efforts added less than $30,000 to the employer’s bottom line. After all, they argue, look how much more chocolate milk other people have, with no concern for who actually contributed what to chocolate milk production.

Raising the minimum wage would hurt the people Sanders is trying to help by dramatically reducing the number of jobs available to them. Either, like small businesses in San Francisco, employers would vanish and take their jobs with them, or they would find ways to replace labor with capital goods.

McDonalds long ago got rid of busboys and dishwashers by replacing them with disposable dishes, and reduced the number of cashiers and the need for them to be numerate by replacing cash registers with computer screens. At the same time they dispensed with the need for moderately skilled cashiers and replaced them with kids who didn’t even need to be literate.

At Applebee’s, a customer might order their chocolate milk by tapping a touch screen rather than talking to a server, and pay with a swipe of a smartwatch. The technology is already there. All that’s needed is to make workers more expensive than the technology that will replace them.

The ripple effect would be worse. Critics of Walmart point out that Costco makes a profit by paying its twice as much. But Costco is able to get the best workers, leaving the least skilled to get a lower wage at Walmart. Raise Walmart wages to Costco levels while demanding only Walmart levels of work, and Costco has to raise its wages to keep its high-quality workers.

If a minimum wage worker earned $30,000 per year then a worker with some experience will want $40,000. Workers with costly skills and education will demand even more. And so it goes.

Consumer prices would skyrocket; jobs would be lost. That’s stagflation.

Sanders wants to break up the largest, most successful financial institutions, which also happen to have very full glasses of chocolate milk. He says that smaller banks would ultimately be safer for the country and easier for the government to regulate. He blames the financial crisis on the lack of government regulation, particularly for the largest banks.

The reality is that the federal government caused the financial crisis. Financial institutions were highly regulated, but given the incentives to follow the government’s perverse lead. In 1995, the federal government set a goal to raise the percentage of households that own homes rather than rent, to 70 percent instead of the historical 62 to 64 percent rate. This meant that up to 10 million new households needed mortgages that averaged $200,000, which many could not afford. This totaled $2 trillion.

Lending institutions were pushed to provide those loans which, because their customers could hardly afford them, were highly risky. Those loans were bundled together in what were later called “toxic” assets.

When the economy slowed in 2007, a string of defaults eventually engulfed many of the 10 million households and most of the $2 trillion debt. Housing values began to fall, and borrowers, who owed mortgages on homes now worth less than the mortgage, began to default. The effects of this ran like wildfire through the financial markets, resulting in the “Great Recession.” Today the home ownership rate is 64 percent.

Breaking up the banks would be disastrous for the U.S. financial system and would the banking system less secure, not more.

Sanders’ entire economic policy is based on the Chocolate Milk Syndrome. What he should realize is that the solution to income inequality is not taking chocolate milk from those whose glasses are full, but rather by providing opportunity for everyone else to put as much chocolate milk in their glass as they desire.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Malone

    Even young children are in tune with the reality that income inequality is inherently immoral. If we fixed it, we would have a better society.

    • Jack

      Well said. I think his children should have written this article instead. It probably would have been worth reading then.

  • Jack

    Breaking up the banks is a good idea. How does it make the system less reliable? If one fails then it is no big deal. The government doesn’t have to buy them out or do a damn thing because the effect on the economy would not be catastrophic. Not to mention, it creates more competition between them which should result in a better product for the consumer.

  • race_to_the_bottom

    This chart is not surprising; the incomes of the top 1% have been falling and the incomes of the bottom 90% have been falling or stagnant at best. Many people have simply become too poor to pay taxes. This is supposed to be seen as a gain. Some gain.

    When businesses and people move out of San Francisco, it is because of the outrageous theft that landlords extract from everyone there. It is certainly not high wages. I know; I was one of them.

    The real value of the minimum wage has fallen. For example, to equal the 1970 wage of $1.60 it would need to be raised to $9.35 according to CPI figures. However, the CPI grossly understates the real cost of living which is why it is no longer called the Cost of Living Index. It is simple to do the math on this with figures from the real world, especially including housing. This does not even begin to address the question of whether, in a time of a growing economy and productivity gains, like in the fast food examples cited by the author, workers should be able to share in those gains in the form or real wage increases. This has not been happening as can be shown by the famous chart showing the divergence of productivity and wages. You can find in online.

    It is true that employers will replace workers with machines whenever they can, as they have always done. That is why we need to encourage high value added enterprises and not be content with a McDonalds economy for our people.

    The mortgage crisis was because of the no down payment liars loans mortgages which inflated the housing bubble. Nobody forced these mortgage writers to abandon the prudent lending requirements which had existed in the past. The government could have banned such practices but didn’t. Thank you, Alan Greenspan.

    The bottom line here is that the writer is carrying water for the billionaire class which has been bleeding the country and its people dry. They can be expected to say we can’t afford to save ourselves and our children’s and grandchildren’s future, but we can afford more tax cuts for them as they hide their money in the Cayman Islands away from the IRS.

  • Charlotte Scot

    The original income tax only affected 1% of the people…the wealthy. When Eisenhower was President the marginal tax rate was 90%. So the 90% rate Bernie Sanders has said he wouldn’t rule out is ,nothing new. The economy thrived in the 50’s… the only real problems in the 50’s were the social injustices…unfortunately some of those still exist today. 90% did not ruin the country in fact it had quite the opposite effect.

  • bomber9996

    “Sanders wants to raise the federal income tax rate to 90 percent…”: If you had read anything of what he has said you would know that what he is saying is: it is not fair that the 1% pay 11% to 17% in taxes while the 99% pay 33+% in taxes and that needs to be changed in whatever way it can.

    “Raising the minimum wage would hurt the people…”: if you would look at other places that have already done this, you would understand that is NOT what happens when the minimum wage is raised.

    “The reality is that the federal government caused the financial crisis. Financial institutions were highly regulated…”: do you not know that there was deregulation?

    “Breaking up the banks would be disastrous for the U.S. financial system…”: and this is based on what evidence?

    This whole article is full of “talk” and “opinions” with no research behind it. There are facts on income inequality, there are facts on what caused the recession, there are facts on the effects of raising the minimum wage, there are facts on banks and businesses being “too big to fail”. If you do not have the time to look them up before writing then please do not write on the topic. We have been doing the same thing for the past 40 years and look at where it has gotten us. It is time for change, not blaming everyone else, just figuring it out and making it work. Please help be a part of the solution!

    • Cal

      Well said, man!