I recently blogged here about misguided attempts to reduce obesity in South Central Los Angeles by banning new fast food eateries. In the wake of a Rand study that shows the folly of this plan, there are now calls to... "limit" convenience stores in the 'hood. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These self-imagined do-gooders won't rest until no new private businesses are able to start up in that area. Also, below, I talk below about the likely big screen television ban in California. Yup - you read that right.

Jerry Hirsch of the Los Angeles Times reports on the misguided attempts to prevent obesity.

Separately, researchers looking at the shopping patterns of schoolchildren in urban Philadelphia found that more than half the 800 students they surveyed reported that they shopped at a corner store at least once a day, five times a week. Almost a third visited a store both before and after school.

On average, the students spent about $1 and purchased 356 calories of snack foods and drinks each visit. Chips, candy, sugary beverages and gum were the most frequent purchases, according to a study published online today. It also will appear in the November edition of Pediatrics, a medical journal.

How to curb such purchases is a top priority for policymakers attempting to reduce the obesity rates in poor communities.

What about free enterprise? What about freedom of choice?

"We need to look at a moratorium on these convenience stores," said Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils Inc., a nonprofit health policy and education organization in South Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles City Council is set to consider a proposal that would limit the density of these small food stores in South Los Angeles, said Councilwoman Jan Perry, a proponent of regulations adopted last year establishing a moratorium on new openings of fast-food restaurants whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles.

I know a sure-fire way to reduce obesity rates in that area: ban fat people from the area.

Marc Lifsher at the Los Angeles Times reports on the TV ban.  The industry, of course, is asking lawmakers to let consumers vote with their wallets.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

The association's views weren't shared by everyone in the TV business. Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.

So Vizio is happy that they'll have less competition. That's no surprise.

If all TVs met state standards, [Ken Rider commission staff engineer] added, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant.

And that’s what this is really about, right? Trying to avoid building new power plants. Sorry, but we're going to need new power plants. Start building!

I’ve heard this one again recently.  It is said as though there is something wrong with an executive, such as a CEO, getting millions of dollars in some form of compensation, while thousands of workers are being laid off from the company.  I don't think that belief is necessarily true.

It is understandable that the people getting laid off have some resentment, because that is human nature.

But unless the layoffs are a result of the company failing and thus going out of business, then an executive is entitled to whatever compensation he or she is contractually owed.  Taxpayers should not be paying that compensation.  As long as that compensation is through other legal means, I don’t see the problem.

There is nothing wrong with a thriving and successful company layoff people off, if doing so will help the company perform even better for investors and customers.  I say this with the caution that not all things that look good on paper actually turn out so well.  If the layoffs reduce morale among those who remain or otherwise negatively change the culture and interpersonal dynamics of the company’s workforce too strongly, the company as a whole could suffer.  But if the layoffs clean out dead weight and trim the fat, then that’s a good thing, and hopefully those laid off will find an even better job, even if they create it themselves.  Unless there is a contract that says otherwise, a company does not owe anyone a job.

Company owners should be able to set executive compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options, or whatever, in a way that best suits them.  I don’t buy the idea that CEOs must be guaranteed eight or nine figures or the company will have trouble finding someone.  I’m sure there capable people with the right temperament who can be found for a minimum of seven figures, someone who can keep the company growing enough or at least strong enough to not be beaten out of the market by the competition.  As an investor, I would prefer that the compensation packages reward executives for the overall health of the company, and not for doing things that will hurt the company in the long run.  (For example, it is easy to boost a quarter’s profits by selling off fixed assets, but if you don’t have a way of making money anymore, that will be a problem!)  But that should be up to the owners of a company (shareholders), not a Senate committee.

So try to avoid a knee-jerk reaction when you hear about an executive getting millions of dollars while employees are being laid off.  It might not be a bad thing.

The editors at the Los Angeles Times are anti-choice.  Oh, they still support a woman’s “right” to have someone else slaughter her baby.  They are against choices when it comes to food and bags.

They argue that it makes sense to arbitrarily ban new “fast food outlets” in an arbitrarily defined part of the City of L.A. called “South L.A.” (which means South Central, or the hood) when:

When the area suffers from a historic lack of the kind of planning ordinances and design guidelines that govern traffic flow, development and general livability in places such as Westwood and Pacific Palisades.

C’mon.  This is not a traffic issue.

When the failure of the planning process leads to such a concentration of drive-throughs -- with their garish signage, cookie-cutter design, street-fronting parking lots and idling cars -- that it dissuades supermarkets and other businesses from locating nearby.

Business go where they can make money.  The fast food business are there because people there choose to use them.  The main reason a business, such a supermarket, would not locate there is because the regulations and crime (including riots) make it too difficult to operate at a profit.

When developers and investors mentally write off the area for anything other than fast-food franchises, figuring that residents must want them or there wouldn't be so many.

They do want them.  What franchisee is going to open up where there are no customers?

When the city's economic geography, politics and practice create a self-perpetuating business wasteland and catch-as-catch-can projects that never match the aspirations of its neglected populace.

The editors think the people of this area are too stupid or too lazy to go after what they want.

They also think we should all be punished because some people litter, arguing for a ban on plastic shopping bags.

I like plastic shopping bags.  They can be recycled, they are convenient, they are made out of a natural substance (petroleum), they have many convenient uses, and they help prevent the kind of food contamination possible when reusing non-plastic bags to carry food.

Why not punish the people who litter?

And so can “downsizing”.

To be sure, if you made your living making a CD player that holds 200 discs and is designed for the trunk of a car, you were not happy about the advent of portable MP3 players.  But as a consumer, isn’t the technology more convenient?  Nobody likes to lose their job, but if you find a better job or start up a new business that brings you a better life, aren’t you better off?  If everyone always had it easy, there would be a lot of innovations and advancements and consumer choices that never would have come about.

As communications and transportation (shipping, travel) technologies and industries have advanced, it has made the world a smaller place.  Employers are going to build and keep facilities where they can find the best workforce for their needs; the most freedom to do what they want without interference from the government, organized criminals, or unions; and infrastructure supporting their operations, including transportation of materials.

And where is the best workforce going to be?  The best workforce is going to be where labor with the right qualities is most plentiful.  “Right qualities” may include certain physical abilities, skills, talents, knowledge/experience, creativity, ethics, and ability/willingness to follow directions.  These workers are likely to be found where they can have a decent quality of life, which means they need housing, relative safety from crime, etc.  This is why you don’t see a lot of companies clamoring to move into the gang-infested areas of Los Angeles, for example.  It is hard to get employees who live out of the area to commute in, and there may not be enough locals capable of performing the work needed.

World trade helps, even if we “lose” some jobs.

The more each part of the planet is making the most of its resources, the better it is for more people on the planet.  It does not help us if the rest of the world has no money.  If they have no money, they can’t buy our products and services, nor can they provide capital, nor can they travel here to spend their tourism money.

If they aren’t producing products we can buy, the people who are producing those products have less competition and don’t have as much pressure to keep their prices down.

But if you want your state or county or city from losing businesses, consider what policies are being enforced in that area.  Are they business friendly?  Is there adequate physical and utility infrastructures?  Is there too much regulation?  Are taxes too high?  Is crime too high?  Is there a decent workforce?  Is there access to supplies?  Is there easy access to markets?

If you are so bent on protecting every tree and every gnat and insisting that  having any job should mean that a person will have good health insurance, housing, education form them and their extended family, then you are likely to lose business and lose much of the tax base, and… jobs.

Make yourself desirable as an employee, and if one employer no longer has use for you, you'll have a better chance of landing a better position elsewhere.

Leftists and foreign panhandlers try to guilt U.S. citizens by complaining that we have so much of the world’s wealth, and we get the best of what the world grows and manufactures, while there are so many people in the world who don’t even have the basics needed for a healthy life.

Well, rather than just accepting that we should feel guilty for having it so good, let’s ask… how did things get this way?

Did we invade other countries, enslave their people, and take their resources as plunder?

There are three examples where people today say “yes” without getting laughed out of the room.

1. The European colonists invaded the territory of native peoples to form what became the U.S.
2. There was the slave trade that brought Africans to the area as slaves.
3. The U.S. expanded westward, taking over area previously controlled by Spain (and briefly, Mexico),

I’m not going to argue about what evils were perpetrated upon the American natives.  Michael Medved covered that recently.  But there wasn’t much international trading products that we appropriated from the natives, and there wasn’t a formalized structured country.  And yes, people in the U.S. engaged in the deplorable practice of buying people as slaves from African slave traders- and again, Michael Medved wrote about that recently.  Finally, not just wars (settled by treaties), but purchases expanded the U.S. to the west coast.  The last of these were finished up in the mid 1800s.  That is long before the U.S. became an international superpower.

In subsequent wars, our nation had the chance to permanently acquire many other lands, our at least plunder their resources.  But we didn’t.  On the contrary, we assisted in rebuilding the countries.

Our wealth as a nation is not the result of ill-gotten gain.  It is a result of several factors:

1. The brilliance and courage of our founding fathers for setting up nation of laws that promoted free market capitalism, self-reliance and upward mobility, a smooth transfer of power, and the protection of individual liberty.
2. A populace with a strong Judeo-Christian work ethic and morality.
3. These, in turn, attracted the adventurous, motivated, and inventive from around the world, who migrated to the land of the free, where they then sought the best ways to use…
4. Our natural resources (thank you, God!).
5. All of this was protected by a strong military.

We should not feel guilty about our wealth.  We have encouraged success by rewarding it.  We have produced products – especially media, software, and technology – that the world has clamored to buy.  Our companies have also expanded to bring industry, jobs, and a higher standard of living to developing countries.

The guilters would have us believe that we are taking more than our fair share of the pie, when actually we are making the pie bigger for everyone.  As long as the sun is shining, the pie can get bigger.

In addition, the citizens of the U.S. voluntarily send aid all over the world, and a good chunk of our tax money also goes to foreign aid.  We couldn’t send the money if we didn’t make it to begin with.

Should we be helping those kids starving in the muddy roads of distant places?  Yes, definitely.  The best way of helping them for the long term is exporting the best of our worldview to them, sans the undue guilt.  If a population group never moves beyond growing/hunting only enough food for themselves, they can’t contribute to the rest of the world and, at the same time, raise their own standard of living.  Maybe someone in that population group would be a better doctor, engineer, teacher, or composer than farmer or hunter.  Maybe there are natural resources there that can help people in other parts of the world get what they need or want.

Christianity, free market capitalism and limited government in the form or a republic are some of the best gifts we can share.

Enjoy America, and work to preserve what has made us great..

Our buddy Ray Sherman of Duarte, California strikes again with another letter to the Pasadena Star-News about Wal-Mart.

One of the reasons letters on Wal-Mart are getting printed in the Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley papers is that there was a recently failed attempt to recall some members of a city council who approved a Wal-Mart, which recently opened.  But on to Mr. Sherman's latest letter.  Here's the only quote I need:

You should be telling Wal-Mart shoppers that the low prices they're gaining are at the expense of their fellow workers.

As I've said before, Wal-Mart's employees are there voluntarily, Mr. Sherman, getting compensated at a rate to which they've previously agreed.  If they don't like the conditions there - if they think the pay is too low, or they aren't getting the benefits they want, or the conditions aren't safe and pleasant enough, they can quit!

In employment compensation, people deserve only what they have agreed to - nothing more.  What if a heart surgeon you knew to be the best told you she'd fix a problem with your heart for a grand total $300?  Are you going to insist that she take more?

Everyone has something to offer their follow man from one or more of the following - time, physical strength, a smile, beauty, charm, leadership, conversation, company, knowledge, skill, talent, money, land... you get the idea.  Sure, some people have more to offer than others, or something that's in higher demand, including ambition.  But that's the way life is, and no union or government is going to be able to completely change that, no matter how much they interfere.  It is up to each individual to trade what he or she has for what he or she lacks and needs or wants.  In this case, a Wal-Mart employee has time and the ability to perform certain tasks, and Wal-Mart has money.  They make a voluntary exchange.  It is up to each person to ask for what he or she needs.  It isn't up to Wal-Mart to decide what a person needs.  It is up to Wal-Mart to decide if the company should part with a certain amount of money for that person's labor.

The beauty of this is that people can get what they need or want by serving their fellow man.

I've worked a low-paying hourly job.  Why?  Because I liked the perks, it gave me experiences that I needed, and the hours fit my lifestyle. The pay was low despite the fact that I had to pay a union a good chunk of "change" every month, and that was on top of high initiation
fees.

Eventually, I was more experienced and more educated, working a higher paying professional job, and lower paying job was no longer a fit for me.  I quit.  That employer no longer owed me anything, and I no longer owed that employer my time and energy.

This thinking that someone who lands a job - any job - should have all of their needs automatically taken care of by their employer for the rest of their lives, regardless of ambition or effectiveness, is not natural.  You have something to offer, and so does your employer.  You agree to swap those goods/services upon certain conditions.  That's it.  That's all there should be.  No government agency should interfere and mandate that your employer offer you more if you were unable to negotiate more.