The Panic Over $15 Per Hour

The following article came across our desk this afternoon:

SEATTLE’S MINIMUM WAGE CRASH: $15 to ZERO! Profits Tumble!

I wanted to take this opportunity to look a little more closely at the issue, and refute some of the points made in that piece.

To start, it is not surprising that profits will take a hit from any wage increase. After all, the money to pay workers has to come from somewhere. Right? But ask yourself this question. Should you, the taxpayer be the one paying for the labor costs of a private company? Or should that private company, in business to turn a profit, be paying their own labor costs?

Even in the era of slavery, the business owners were responsible for maintaining the basic needs of their labor force. This included food, shelter, clothing, and even medical care for the sick and injured. Contrary to the popular notion of slaves being disposable and abused on a whim, slaves were actually a valued commodity. This is not to say that abuse did not happen, or that slaves lived a good life by any means, but at the same time they were an expensive component to the enterprises for which they labored. The purchase value of a slave at auction might be compared to the cost of a new work truck in the modern day, and then all the additional expenses to maintain that "equipment" for the duration of service.

Whether through charity or taxpayer supported welfare subsidies, should you be paying the expenses for private businesses? It is my position that employers should be mandated to pay a wage which is sufficient for a worker to maintain their own basic necessities (or have those necessities provided directly by the employer.) Taxpayers should not have to pay to feed the workers of a private company any more than we should be expected to pay for the fuel in their trucks, or the mortgage on their building. And just like gasoline has a price tag, so too should the cost of labor.

How do we set the price for labor in America? Well, here is one good example of how it could be done:

Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage

Business should pay their own actual labor costs, not the taxpayers, and not charities. If it costs "X" amount of dollars for a person to subsist, that is, to get by with the basic necessities of life in modern America, then employers should be mandated to pay "X" amount of dollars, broken down hourly. Socialized labor is not the answer to our economic woes. Mandating a living wage is essential for true capitalism to thrive.

In short, yes, profits will take a hit. As they should. Just like business profits will take a hit here in the Hudson Valley when Central-Hudson raises their rates on electric soon. A business expenses should be drawn from their own profits, not from the wallets of taxpayers.

Now we will dig into the article itself, starting with this excerpt:

According to the National Review Hotline, Kathrina Tugadi owner of Seattle’s El Norte Lounge, no longer hires musicians for her restaurant, she said she can’t justify expenses that don’t directly “add to the bottom line.”

What concern is that of mine whether or not she hires musicians for her restaurant? Is she in show business, or the restaurant business? Now granted, it's nice for musicians to get work wherever they can find it, but eateries are hardly the backbone of the music industry. If she was not getting some value from those musicians to begin with, it was already a poor business choice to be hiring them in the first place. A waste of money. Is she a charity contributing to starving artists, or a business? No savvy entrepreneur pays for workers they don't need. And to cut workers you do need, only lowers reduces your customer service standards, while doing a favor for your competitors.  

She likely hired those musicians to provide a certain ambiance, and to draw in customers who would pay to eat there, while enjoying the band. So by eliminating the musicians, she is slashing service to her customers, and eliminating an entire demographic from her customer base because it doesn't add "directly" to her bottom line. Many of her customers may have been there for the music as much, maybe even more than the food itself. This is a classic example of the old "penny wise and a pound foolish" that we often see in debates regarding wage hikes. Or the old "cut off your nose to spite your face" routine.

It sounds like maybe the musicians really were the only thing keeping her business alive in the first place, as the article continues:

And, she says, hours will have to be cut: El Norte Lounge plans to stop serving lunch and only serve dinner.

Don't blame a wage hike for the fact that your restaurant doesn't know how to turn a profit on the lunch crowd, and don't expect taxpayers to subsidize your failing business model. If she can't afford to open for lunch and can't afford a band now, then it was only inevitable that those cuts would have been made soon anyway, with or without a wage hike, as she struggles to keep a failing business afloat in an economy where inflation is ever-present for any and all business costs. The article then goes on to say that she may not even be able to stay in business at all.

So in other words, this article is citing a failing business, with a flawed business model, as a reason why workers should not be paid a living wage. It's time to sort the wheat from the chaff. It sounds to me, like her business is already dead, and she just didn't know it yet. Life-support by way of artificially depressed wage standards is not the answer to create a thriving business.

Business doesn't make money based on what it can save, or shave off from their expense budget. It doesn't make money by passing along costs to taxpayers or consumers. A business makes money by bringing in people through the front door. Which clearly she is not interested in if she is firing the band that draws customers, and closing her doors in customers faces.


Now the article brings up another form of job loss, thus:

Even Pagliacci Pizza, a Seattle-area pizza chain, is considering moving its call center and some of its production facilities outside the city. That’s a lot of job loss, a lot of new people with a new wage of ZERO.

This is also nothing new. Companies have been moving out of cities, out of states, and right out of the country in order to streamline their costs for as long as I can remember. Should we all be paid a dollar a day, eat nothing but ramen, and live in a cage like a Chinaman because a business doesn't want to invest in their own community? If you want to outsource your labor, fine, go invest in some third-world hell hole, but don't let the door hit you in the ass. If I lived in Seattle, that pizza chain would never get another dollar of my business after such a move. Especially now if I was one of those workers they just laid off and didn't have the dollar to spend even if I wanted to thanks to their poor business savvy.

This pizza company is using the same bad business ideas as the small independent restaurant owner. Divestment is not good business. Whether you decide to pull the plug on the band or pull the pizza dough from out of town, this is just another threat that is actually bad business. Shutting down their call center and production means closing the door on all those workers as customers, with a rippling effect throughout the economy of the city that will only circle around in the long run to shrink their own sales rather than actually grow their business like true capitalists.

The author of that article goes on to proclaim:

Do our politicians really not understand that our standard of living is the direct result

of one thing . . . the vitality of our businesses?

And do business not understand that their vitality is based solely on consumers, rather than what they can "save" on the payroll account? This is a concept the author of this article does not seem to understand when he goes on to say:

Where do you think every paycheck every employee has ever received came from?

Yes, Kshama, they came from business, all of them. And where do you think these businesses came from? They came from regular people like you and I who took a chance, rolled the dice, worked hard and were able to provide the people with something of value. All of them, that is where every single business you deplore came from.

Talk about an inflated sense of self-worth. I see this too often with business owners. But as a matter of fact, no actually, every single business came from the consumers who decided that decided that entrepreneur had something of value to offer. The business owner does not print money. Gambling is not a good business model, and frankly a good business owner should not have to work hard at all if they have a good business model and a good product or service to offer. That is not to disparage the value of hard work in growing your business, but if you are relying on brute force to squeeze a few dollars out of the market, you might as well go pick up a gun and start poking it in people's backs. Which is essentially what many business owners are doing, by forcing taxpayers to feed and shelter their workers.

I have been a small business owner myself. And yes, I always looked for ways to do things cheaper, and more efficiently in order to maximize profits. But at the end of the day, it didn't matter how savvy I was with the books or how many hours I put in at the office, the viability of my business came down to consumers. No customers, no money. Which means you could be paying zero dollars per hour, and still wind up being forced to close up shop for good. If no one in that city has a job, if no one in that city can afford to go out for a bite to eat, if everyone is buying all of their food on their SNAP card because they are paid little or nothing, you no longer have a customer base. Time to close your doors, thanks to your own divestment and poor business choices.

What makes an economy hum? Two words. Market liquidity. This means that all the businesses in town are paying all of their workers well enough to actually participate in the economy. The more people you have participating, the more customers you have, more frequently, and with more money to spend at each visit. I pay my workers enough to buy the products I am paying them to sell, and pay them enough to afford the product you are selling too. You do the same, and the workers at your pizza shop are coming to visit my movie theater. Round and round it goes, and suddenly we see a thriving economy buzzing with consumer spending. Divestment, does just the opposite. Might as well throw sand down the engine block.

In debates on the topic, I often see people arguing that wage increases drive inflation. That higher wages will simply mean higher prices. This is actually completely untrue, and all historical data shows the exact opposite. Citing again the Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage article:

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16.

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.

At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011. Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour.

What do facts matter though to knee-jerk reactionaries, bad businesspeople, the politicized and the ignorant? The article we are examining cites a poll by the Seattle Times saying of businesses:

60 percent planned to pass on what they could to customers through higher prices.

If a business can charge more, they will use any excuse in the book to do it. Just like a business doesn't hire workers they don't actually need, they also don't sell you a better product at a lower cost out of some sense of charity or good will. The market value of a product is what it is. The consumer really could not care less about a business owner whining about their expenses, and in fact will be put off by it. You raise your prices beyond the market value of your product or service, you add a surcharge to your diners' checks, you might as well fly a banner out front that reads "Going out of business soon because I suck at it." So what that poll tells me, is that 60% of the businesses polled, do not have a viable business model. Either they were foolishly charging less and not making hay while the sun was shining so to speak, or they make their business decisions based on panic and a deluded sense of self-worth.

We touched on this point already once, but we will hit it again, with the article saying:

In Seattle, 42 percent of surveyed employers were “very likely” to reduce the number of employees per shift or overall staffing levels as a direct consequence of the law. Similarly, 44 percent reported that they were “very likely” to scale back on employees’ hours to help offset the increased cost of the law.

So again, as I said above, these business are penny wise but a pound foolish. Either they were paying for workers they did not need in the first place, or they will now be giving inferior service and driving their customers toward the majority of Seattle business who were not stupid enough to make either mistake.

Don't put off your poor business decisions onto the backs of your workers or the taxpayers.

At this point, let me say that I am not insensitive to the needs of small business. I believe that wage hikes should impact larger businesses first, with more than 100 employees, while allowing small business a little more time to adjust to the new market. Unfortunately, that is something we never see with minimum wage increases. It doesn't matter if you are a multi-national with hundreds of thousands of workers, or if you have a kiosk at the mall with 3 employees. All business is expected to adjust at the same time. This dynamic puts small business at a distinct disadvantage to larger companies who can much more easily absorb any new added business expense, whether it be labor, increases in utility costs, etc. Generally speaking, I would say that small business should be given an extra six months to adjust to and wage hike mandates. But short of that, this country has to get with the program of a living wage.

Today, half of all people on welfare have a job. That is pure insanity. Work has been a mandate for assistance since 1996. There is no reason in the world why a person who gets up and goes to work everyday should still be forced beg for a handout in order to put food on the table that night. It is bad for our country morally, and it is bad for our country economically. Feeding the profits of companies like Wal-Mart with foodstamps is bad business for everyone, except the Walton family who run Wal-Mart, and control more wealth than the bottom 40% of all Americans combined. By putting labor costs where it belongs, on the expense reports for the businesses which profit from that labor, we could cut welfare in half, right now, today.

American labor should be contributing to the vitality of our economy, not putting us further in debt.

- J. Marcellus VanWagner

A Modest Proposal...

…for preventing poor children from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.

It is a melancholy experience to those who walk through the streets of our great cities, or travel through small rural towns, to see the streets, roads, and doorways crowded with beggars and prostitutes. Especially those of the female sex with three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants, who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or sell themselves to the black market drug lords, or leave the country to go train with terrorists.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the nation a very great additional grievance, and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of society, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars, it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents who are as little able to support them without welfare, as those who demand our charity in the streets.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other thinkers, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. A child just dropped from the mother’s belly may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment, at most not above the value of two thousand dollars, which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her occupation of begging or from welfare, and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

Now, there are a about three hundred million souls in this country. Of those, there are about four point three million couples who breed each year. Now I subtract half of those couples who are able to maintain their own brood. Although, I admit that under the present distress of the nation the number is more likely even less than half, but the general figure being granted, there are two point one five million breeders in a given year. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture. They neither build houses, nor cultivate land. They can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Brooklyn, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the country so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before fourteen years old is no salable commodity. And even when they come to this age they will not yield wages enough to account either to the parents or the state, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing African of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled. And I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragu.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the two million, one hundred and fifty thousand children already computed, one hundred and fifty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine. And my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. Then now the remaining two million may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom. Always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords and executives, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in Summer, and a little before and after. The Census Bureau reports that August has more births than any other month, and of course there is the common knowledge that the poor people and inferior races are more prone to rutting during the cold weather months having nothing else better to do. This will have the collateral advantage of lessening the number of inferior peoples among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child to be about two thousand dollars per annum, rags included. And I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten thousand dollars for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants. The mother will have eight thousand dollars net profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty, as I must confess the times require, may flay the carcass. The skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable leather goods for wear by both ladies and fine gentlemen.

As to our city of New York, slaughterhouses may be appointed for this purpose in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting. Although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this country, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve. So great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service. These to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments. For as to the males, my African acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable, and that to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission, be a loss to the public. Because they soon would become breeders themselves. And besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice, although indeed very unjustly, as a little bordering upon cruelty. Which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed that this expedient was put into his head by a famous tribal native of another African nation, who came from thence to London above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality as a prime dainty. And that in his time the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty's prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in joints from the gibbet, fetching a wonderful price. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who, without one single penny to their fortunes, go about to present themselves as privileged, and demanding of things which they never will pay for, the country would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, maimed, or morally bankrupted, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, and in prisons and murdered, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition. They cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it. And thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of racial inferiors, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies. And who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the country to the Communists, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good Capitalists, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to a black President.

Secondly, the poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law, may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their things of value being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, whereas the maintenance of two million children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed, the nation's stock will be thereby increased per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the nation who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, the constant breeders, beside the gain of eight thousand dollars per annum, by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating: and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please. And what better season than summer to make great traditions of cooking fine meat, when gatherings and barbecues are so frequent?

Sixthly, this would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. We should see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow. Nor offer to beat or kick them, as is too frequent a practice, for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousands of carcasses in our exportation of beef, the propagation of swine's flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables. Which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well-grown, fat, yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a mayor's feast or any other public entertainment. But this and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal. Unless one is worried that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the nation. This I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual class of inferiors, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients. Of imposing fines on absentee landlords. Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture. Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury. Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women. Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance. Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Canada, and the inhabitants of Africa. Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken. Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing. Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our corporations, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging the rest of the world. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for millions of useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round forty million of creatures in human figure throughout this land, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt millions upon millions of dollars, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, tenement dwellers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect. I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children now by which I can propose to get a single penny.

The End


(Adapted from the original work of Doctor Jonathan Swift)