The social media debate on our story about Sweet Betty's closing has been, um, interesting.

Opinions have been wide-ranging, from "people don't want to work" to "restaurant owners don't pay enough."  

A sampling and my thoughts:

"Yet you have the government saying that unemployment is at all-time low but retail or restaurant has lack of employees."

Well, if unemployment is low, that means there are fewer people looking for work.  That means it is harder for existing businesses to fill open positions.  More people working leads to a "lack of employees" looking for work. 

That was a small business they should have been able to run themselves, with little help. I know, because I did the same exact thing. They either weren't willing to do what it takes to be successful or they weren't willing to pay someone what they were worth. Simple as that.

Clearly, a comment by somebody who has never owned a food service business.  Running such a business means multiple jobs overlap -- taking orders, cooking food, washing dishes, cashing out customers, and then somebody has got to keep the books.  It's not a one- or two-person business.

They are getting money to stay home and not work!!! Stop the free hand outs... And watch how many people look for work...

Extended unemployment benefits ended a long, long time ago and the economic evidence is the payments had little impact, when still active, on people's willingness to work.  There are currently 900 people drawing unemployment in Genesee County, according to the most recent Labor Department data.  That is not a number that screams "People are mooching off unemployment insurance payments."  

3% unemployment rate yet why are there almost a million on welfare! Time for workfare for the lazy!

Actually, in the U.S. there are nearly 60 million people drawing some sort of assistance, and nearly all of them who are of working age and not on full disability have jobs.

Then there are the people who blamed the owners:

Love how they say it's the workers why not blame the owners for not paying more for the work or putting on the work outfit and working themselves. Simple supply = demand and people have a life simple you wanna pay minimum wage you get minimum result

crazy how they’re closing and many other family-owned restaurants aren’t…time to stop blaming staff and look to themselves as to where the problem lie, whether it be their management or their product.

And some readers did jump to their defense, such as Susan Macomber:

The owners,family and friends worked there 99% of the time...They were very hard working and very friendly, and the food was delicious...The owners also closed for holidays and closed at times to give their workers some time off because they couldn’t get enough help. And they paid their workers well.

More blaming the owners from somebody who almost certainly never owned a business:

Unemployment is lowest it's been in 40 years... only the failed businesses are having trouble finding employees. The strong survive my friends, it's survival of the fittest, and you ain't fit.

Look around you, there are help-wanted signs everywhere.  There was a time, more than a decade ago, when economists considered an unemployment rate of five percent to be "full employment."  The idea is that at five percent, being unemployed was transitory.  People moved quickly from one job to the next.  It was temporary and the normal economic shuffling of the deck as businesses changed strategy, closed for various reasons, or people quit jobs just to have the time to find a better job. 

Also, COVID itself has taken a lot of people out of the workforce.  More than one million people in the U.S. have died, and nearly half of them had not yet reached full retirement age, and presumably, a lot of them were or could be in the workforce.

This is a very, very tight job market, probably the tightest any of us have seen in our lifetimes.

So let's talk about the free market:

This makes me so sad. I love Sweet Betty’s!!! But I get it. No one wants to work anymore, or if they do, it’s completely on their terms and hours. Businesses everywhere are impacted by this.

Here's the thing  -- in a free market, people can choose where they want to work.  They want to work on their terms.  I want to work on my terms.  You want to work on your terms.  We all want that opportunity.  I own my own business so I can work on my own terms.  When I worked for other people, I worked hard and improved my skills and knowledge so I could advance and make more money.  That's working on my own terms.  When there isn't a tight labor market, employers have the leverage to say, "work on my terms or leave" (perhaps with more nuance than that).  In a tight labor market, the power imbalance shifts to the workers.  But that's how free markets work, should work, and we want them to work if we want a thriving economy and an improving standard of living for everybody.

One reader asks legitimate questions:

How much were you paying? How many hours did you guarantee? Was it a regular schedule, or did it vary from one week to the next? Were your cooks treated with respect ot treated like they were disposable? People work when they feel like they are valued. If that's not the case, they go elsewhere. There are LOTS of jobs out there. Make yours the one everyone brags about.

Those are all things that will impact the ability of a business to hire good and qualified people.  However, there is only so far a business can stretch on pay and hours and benefits.  Running a business is not as easy as this reader makes it sound,  as I'll address later.

Another take on the "people don't want to work" theme:

To all who wonder why they can’t get help….. PEOPLE DONT WANT TO WORK TODAY! THEY WANT TOP PAY FOR DOINB LITTLE! There are plenty of jobs all over…. It seems to me that if you REALLY want a job or NEED a job…. Then take one of the jobs!!! Money is money!

Let's just say there are in fact people who don't want to work.  There are undoubtedly some people who don't want to work. Period.  There is no wage that will entice them to leave their bedroom.  But this poster seems to assume that just because there are jobs, there are jobs that the people without jobs want to take those jobs.

There are a number of reasons that people not working won't take a job you think they should take: They're not qualified. It doesn't fit their career path.  The hours won't let them take care of their children or go to school.  The job won't help them advance their career and could even derail it.  Or maybe the job you think they should take isn't just offering enough of an incentive to give up fishing to go to work.  Money is, as the poster says, is money.  And yes, sometimes it takes more money to entice a person to take a job.  

In order for a worker and an employer to find each other, the worker needs to be qualified to work the job that's open.  Even if a worker who has spent the past few years pushing a broom is willing to take a job as a line cook, that doesn't mean he's qualified to be a line cook.  Employers don't like to hire unqualified people because they don't have the track record to ensure they can do the job or will stick with it.  Unqualified workers cost money and can be a disaster.

A more nuanced take that deserves a response:

Restaurants took the worse beating when that Covid crap shut N.Y. down. The ridiculous cost of living made it so minimum wage skyrocketed. Instead of putting caps on rent increases and utilities the more pay made prices go up MORE. Small business owners suffer because with their overhead and insurance payments they cannot afford to hire as much workers. Everyone suffers. And people complain about higher costs in restaurants. They HAVE to raise prices just to make ends meet.

Restaurants got a lot of financial help during and because of the pandemic restrictions.  All of that money being pumped into the economy is part of the cause of current inflationary pressures (it's basic economics: increase the money supply and prices generally go up).

Restaurants by and large stayed alive with delivery and curbside pickup while maintaining lower overhead with the dining rooms closed. When the economy kick-started again, companies were scrambling to fill open positions.  A lot of former workers found new jobs, retired, started their own businesses, went back to school, decided to become stay-at-home spouses, picked up a job with Uber, Door Dash, or Instacart, or otherwise left the workforce (and not just because they became lazy, but in the human condition, there is always some of that, too).  With a shortage of workers, restaurants and other businesses were forced to raise wages. That started before the current inflation cycle and is one of the multiple causes of today's inflation.  The sad thing is, the wage gains workers first realized after the end of the pandemic have been wiped out by inflation. 

Adrian Fitzgerald Harris has an informed view:

Low Birth rates, massive boomer retirements and no one solving the immigration problem have caused some of this.

The decline in the stock market might coax some people out of their early retirement. The low birth rate isn't going to change so long as we remain a first-world economy. So that leaves immigration.  Want more workers?  Let more workers into the country.  We need about one million working immigrants flowing into this country ASAP.  That would spur the kind of economic growth we need to stave off a recession and stem inflation.  The economy would boom.

Terry Paine left an intelligent comment:

You can tell the people that have never had a business with employees before. Maybe these business geniuses could offer some advice on what an employee's pay should look like since we know $14 to $17 is not enough. Then the employer can make a decision whether they can themselves take that big of pay cut or if raising the cost to the customer will reduce sales enough that the business has to close anyway. Tough balance.

I can say that their standards for hiring wait staff is pretty high since I have enjoyed every one I've ever had wait on me. That standard might be just as important of more important than the food.

So to sum up.  There are two main camps here: blame the employers and blame the employees.

How about if we not blame either?

Running a small business is hard, especially a food services business.  You have government regulations to worry about, employees stealing (a big problem in a mostly cash business), taxes, insurance, lots of overhead, employees who have their own lives and own issues that you need to balance, supply issues, competition to worry about, customers who complain, and so on.  You pretty much have to be insane to run your own business.  It's a hard life.  Thank God there are people who do it though, because small business owners are the true backbone of America and our communities.  They offer more charitable support to their communities, give communities a sense of cohesion and pride, and the owners are often more involved and more often make fine mentors for the young people they meet.  

And employees have their own wishes and desires. They have aspirations, dreams, ambitions.  They might have families to care for or passions they wish to pursue away from work.  They are often not business owners themselves because of these other constraints or priorities.  But humans evolved to acquire resources to make their lives more stable and better.  For the vast majority of us, we want more money and better things, so naturally, we want better pay.  And if we can't get better pay, then we look for other tradeoffs, such as more time to go fishing or play in a rock and roll band.  

In our rush to make everything political these days, we miss how complex our economy really is and how something as seemingly straightforward as a restaurant closing is really about a world of competing economic forces. Sweet Betty's closing is sad. It shouldn't be fodder for scoring political points.

I swear some of you folks out there think we live in a socialist community -- a community controlled by central planners who decide what business goes where.

And you pretty much think those central planners are pretty stupid.

Everytime news gets out of a new retail development, social media explodes with comments about what "they" should put there -- A Wegman's, an Olive Garden, a Sonic, a Mighty Taco, or whatever chain some commenter thinks is his or her favorite.  Always a chain, by the way, not "I hope some ambitious local person opens a locally owned business there so the community realizes a greater economic benefit."  

I often want to ask, sometimes do ask, "who is 'they'?"  I really want to know who these people think the "they" is who decides what businesses get to open where.  I think I've gotten an answer once.  He said "the bureaucrats." And when I explained it didn't work that way, his rejoinder was, "It was just a figure of speech."

I think it's important that people understand there are no central planners in our economy.  It's important that people understand how free markets work.  If people don't understand, we are in greater danger of the socialists taking over.

But after more than a decade of dealing with people on social media and the "they" comments, it's clear it's a losing battle. They just won't learn or listen.

When a business is announced for a location, the "they" comments persist.  "Why are they putting that in there?  The last thing we need is another of that type of business."  For example.

Often, that's followed by a prediction of failure for the new business location.

One thing to say about chains, they didn't become big chain operations without knowing what they are doing.  Before they even scout a specific location, enter into negotiations for a lease, or start drawing up plans, they've done market studies.  They know the population, the demographics, the wages earned, how much of the market there is to capture with what they have to offer and how they plan to offer it.  The executives are not just rolling the dice and hoping for the best.  They don't operate under the delusion of "if we build it they will come." They have pretty good data that predicts a high likelihood of success.

All the data in the world, of course, doesn't guarantee success but the probability of success is high when the data suggests there is an opening in the market.  You may think they are wrong but be humble: you don't have the data they do. You're just guessing and chances are, you're guessing wrong.

And here's the thing -- this isn't a socialist economy.  Private property owners and private business owners can spend their own money however they wish, and take whatever chance suits their fancy.

In fact, if a proposed business location meets all the zoning requirements, it follows all of the applicable laws, government officials can't deny private business owners the right to risk their own money as they choose.  They cannot deny a business the opportunity to open just because they might personally think that particular business is a bad idea.  That is how government agencies get sued.

If a proposed business objectively meets the standards laid out in the zoning code and all other applicable laws, municipal planners have no choice but to approve any application that is before them.  And those applications are narrow in scope to ensure the only criteria being considered are issues of zoning -- the number of parking spaces, setbacks, environmental impact, signage, size, and so on.  There is no law that limits the number of pizza joints, donut shops, or coffee houses that can locate in a community.  

You can't put a concrete factory in a residential neighborhood and many jurisdictions limit strip joints to specific sections in town (municipal officials cannot, on Constitutional grounds, totally bar adult entertainment establishments) but other than those broad definitions, there is no legal way for local officials to block a business based on the type of business it is or its perceived chances of success.

In a free market, we wouldn't want government officials to have that kind of power.  Economies thrive because people come up with new ideas and risk their own money trying to push those ideas forward.  When you put artificial barriers up to entrepreneurship, whether it's for the chain owner or the local owner, you are beating a path toward poverty.

Trade policy expert Scott Lincicome famously (among economists, at least) coined the phrase (which was made into a t-shirt):

Tariffs Not Only Impose Immense Economic Costs but Also Fail to Achieve Their Primary Policy Aims and Foster Political Dysfunction Along the Way

What this means is that tariffs increase costs, either to other producers or eventually to consumers, which reduces the flow of cash to other productive uses, which ultimately increases inflation and harms productivity.  Tariffs -- a form of central economic planning, aka, "socialism" -- harm economic growth.

Some of the current inflation we face now is the result of tariffs imposed over the past four years. 

And they are hurting the domestic production of other goods.  A current example is the harm tariffs have imposed on nail manufacturers, who have been forced to pay more for steel.

Rather than eliminate tariffs on steel, however, the U.S. trade policy position is that other countries that produce nails are selling their nails too inexpensively so imported nails should be taxed at a higher rate.

The Cato Institute:

Third, the case shows how “injury” to a domestic industry is often blamed on foreign competition but is actually the result of bad U.S. policy. In particular, the U.S. government has spent the last four years working to increase the domestic price of steel (nails’ only major input) via tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As discussed here last year, the tariffs quickly increased U.S. steel prices far above the prices of the same materials abroad, thus undermining steel-consuming manufacturers’ competitiveness versus their foreign counterparts. In this case, the tariffs made American-made nails more expensive—a fact that Mid Continent Nail (the company petitioning for these AD/​CVDs on nail imports) itself confirmed. In particular, the company experienced direct cost increases of 25 percent resulting from the Section 232 tariffs, 19 percent of which it passed on to its customers.

Protectionism isn't good for American consumers nor is it good for American workers.  If we want to put America first again, we will reduce and eliminate tariffs on imported goods and let the free market flourish.

Cassandra Elmore — charged with three counts of animal abuse and/or torture — deserves her day in court, and it’s too bad she didn’t take advantage of that for the second time.

Charged after her dog was found to have overdosed on some type of narcotics three times, Elmore, 30, was granted an extension during her brief appearance on July 26 after requesting time to obtain her own attorney. She agreed to the terms and was warned that a warrant would be issued if she didn’t show up. The case was to be at 1:30 p.m. Aug. 11 in City Court, and Elmore was a no-show.

A warrant was issued, but apparently it didn't reach the Batavia Police Department, and Elmore was given another court date for today, Sept. 8. Once again, she did not show, and a warrant was issued again. Meanwhile, Elmore was recently charged after a traffic stop on Aug. 30 with criminal possession of a weapon, obstruction of governmental administration, aggravated unlicensed operation 3rd, uninspected motor vehicle, and insufficient tail lamps.

Elmore was allegedly driving on a suspended license. During a search of the vehicle, she was allegedly found in possession of two sets of metal knuckles as well as various items of drug equipment.  Elmore was processed at Batavia PD headquarters and released on an appearance ticket. 

While people may have mixed feelings about the case, and a final decision has yet to be made, there is one true victim: Oddey, the dog diagnosed as having ingested narcotics to the point of overdose.

Elmore has been free during this time, however, Oddey was remanded to Genesee County Animal Shelter more than two months ago. If that doesn't seem like a long time, imagine your own pet being at a shelter with people and surroundings that are unfamiliar to the pooch. Sort of ironic that the accused criminal is free while the victim sits behind bars.

Nothing against the shelter or the dedicated animal control officers and volunteers that work with the animals there, but Oddey was apparently, and quite likely accidentally, drugged, and now must wait out his fate at a strange place. No doubt, staff and volunteers are treating him well, but it's got to be confusing at the very least. 

This may not seem at all atypical of a victim’s plight upon waiting for a court case to finish  — suffering more repercussions than the perpetrator — but it still remains unclear whether this canine will go to another home or be returned to Elmore.

That’s often the forgotten part in these stories: what about the animal victim? Shelter volunteer Wendy Castleman has said that Oddey is doing well, which is great to know. However, he can't be sent to a foster home or put up for adoption while the legal case against Elmore is pending, or until she surrenders ownership.

Hopefully there will be a really good-news story at the very end. Just as Elmore has deserved the benefit of doubt up to now, Oddey deserves his own due process to relax in a safe, comfortable and loving home.

• For prior coverage:
• Elmore asks for more time    
• Oddey showing signs of drug intoxication 
• Woman charged in dog overdose arrested again

 

Calm down, people. I see your comments on social media. 

Paul Doyle and Cornerstone Church in Batavia are not jeopardizing the church's tax-exempt status by hosting the ReAwaken America Tour, no matter how political you may believe the event to be.

And no matter how odious you may find it.

The activity is protected by the First Amendment, and that is good for all of us.

Here's what the IRS says about political activity and nonprofit status:

• the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
• net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
• no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
• the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
• the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy. 

The First Amendment protects free speech and was written with the specific intention of protecting political speech.

From the earliest days of the republic, churches received tax-exempt status because of the belief that religious institutions should be free from government entanglement.

The Establishment Clause cuts two ways -- no government-mandated religious belief for individuals and no government interference in religion.  

Taxation leads to government entanglement.  Think for a moment about the damage an unsavory government agency could do if it had an audit or enforcement power over churches.  

Tax-exempt status isn't some government charitable contribution to religious organizations, or even an attempt to help them make more money to serve some mission that benefits society (though that is part of it).  It's primarily designed to keep the government from interfering with religious freedom.

We lose sight of that original intention because religious organizations operate under the same tax-exempt status as every other nonprofit organization.  That is by design because, again, the government must remain neutral on the question of religious freedom, and by applying the same rules to religious organizations and secular organizations, they ensure neutral, objective standards are being applied equally.

The IRS is very clear -- endorse candidates, lobby for legislation, and you're engaged in impermissible political activity.  

But no nonprofit is prohibited from hosting a political event or speaking out on political matters (though most are loathe to do so out of fear of the IRS).  Such a prohibition would violate the First Amendment rights of the organization and its members.

But the government, through IRS, has created a firewall between nonprofits and political campaigns to prevent potential corruption, the potential abuse for political purposes of nonprofit status.

There are some in the religious community, such as Pastor Jim Garlow, at Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, Calif. (a church I used to attend many, many years ago, when John Maxwell was pastor), who believe that the IRS rule violates religious freedom.

The problem with Garlow's position on changing the IRS rule just for churches is that it would diminish the concept of equal treatment of all nonprofits.  That could lead to the end of all prohibitions on campaigning and lobbying for nonprofits if the IRS is to remain neutral in how it enforces such rules.

Without government neutrality, religious freedom is jeopardized.

Which is why Cornerstone Church's political activity this week is an activity we should all defend if we really cherish our liberties.  We may find some of the content of the speeches offensive and odious. We may see the ideas advanced by some of the speakers as a threat to our democratic republic.  But it's all free speech.  And the best defense against speech we find distasteful is more speech. It is not calling on the government to censor the speakers or using the government to deprive them of their platform.

As much as Donald Trump's name gets bandied about, he is not currently an official candidate for any office, so speaking favorably about Trump is not a violation of the IRS rule. Of course, even if he was a candidate, speakers in a religious venue can still speak favorably of him without telling people to vote for him (an endorsement).  There is no evidence that speakers at the Tour are using the Tour to call for legislative changes (the other IRS portion of the rule).  While there is a lot of pray and praise in the remarks at the rally, it is clearly a political rally, but a Constitutionally protected political rally.

By the terms of IRS rules and the Bill of Rights, that's OK.

On social media, links to the IRS's complaint site have been repeatedly posted by some people.  It's ironic that people who think the speakers at ReAwaken America want to impose some sort of dictatorship are calling on the rest of us to use the power of the state to try and shut up their political opponents.  That's calling for government censorship and that is just as objectionable as any belief anybody may have about what these speakers stand for.

If you don't like the Tour, use your free speech right to speak out. Hold your own rallies and press conferences, as some have done. Feel free to say you don't want RAT in our community because you think it makes our community look racist, uneducated, and backward (if that's what you believe).  Tell Paul Doyle he shouldn't have brought RAT into Batavia (if that's what you believe). But don't expect the government to shut down an event or organization you don't like. That's just authoritarianism under another banner.

The Democratic Socialists of America are coming to Batavia on Friday to teach us about fascism. 

Oh, the irony.

From the Constitution of DSA:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit ... We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, ...

In other words, authoritarianism -- just like the fascists -- dressed up in the pretty language of egalitarianism.  

The attack on private profit should scare all of us. It means the wages you earn -- what Edmund Burke called the "fruits of labor" -- shouldn't belong to you. Your profits, the money you earn from your labor, should belong to the state. The state should decide how best to spend what you earn in order to better distribute the resources.

In socialism, there would be no private property, no locally owned small businesses, and nobody working on trying to create wealth for themselves and their families. It would all be share-and-share alike.

We saw already how well that worked in the Soviet Union. 

DSA members I've debated with over the years like to say that they just want to bring a European kind of socialism to the United States. This is supposedly a kinder, gentler kind of socialism. The major problem with their position is that the countries they point to -- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. -- are not socialist. They are solidly capitalist, free market economies. Their spending priorities are perhaps different, but there is no prohibition against private enterprise, against individuals and shareholders owning companies, and even growing fabulously wealthy, even becoming billionaires. There are in fact, 12 billionaires in Norway and 30 in Denmark.

You know who is socialist: Cuba and North Korea -- failed, dictatorial regimes, and China, wealthy, but one of the most repressive governments on the planet.

It's hard not to despair for the future of America sometimes. We are beset by right-wing blowhards on one side who think they should control the levers of power and tell the rest of us what to think and how to live, and a growing socialist movement on the left who want to destroy the very thing that made America prosperous -- the free market. 

Now, these two conflicting ideologies are converging on Batavia while those of us in the middle, who simply want to go to work and take care of our families and be left alone to live in peace, can only standby and gape in disbelief. 

Suggested reading:

• The Conservative Sensibility, George F. Will
• Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker
• The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood