I've been silent for awhile now. I've wanted to write something but the flood of hype has been a veritable tsunami that has kept me from being able to narrow my focus enough to put together any cogent thoughts. As I pondered this, it dawned on me that this may well be the political class and the main stream media's plan. To keep things in so much turmoil that its near impossible to see the forest for the trees!
Let's take this past week.
My theory is that the Clintons and the MSM have known for some time that Wikileaks was holding some really damning evidence against her. So some lefty fellow traveler at Access Hollywood or what ever show it was that had the Trump video came to them with it months ago. A calculated decision was then made to hold this information until Wikileaks started to release their info. They would then release the Trump video, and with the complicity of the MSM, which Wikileaks has proven to be coordinating with the Clintons, they would gin up the social justice outrage so folks wouldn't notice the damning evidence coming out against Hillary.
If whoever had the Trump tape truly believed this was something that needed to be addressed, wouldn't they have brought this forth right after it was taped 11 years ago? I believe this just proves that Hollywood and the left saw Trumps comments as giving voice to the privilege that all famous (read that as famous liberal) people get to enjoy. Back then Donald was thought to be one of them, a famous star who would go to Clinton weddings, etc. so they didn't really have a reason to bring it up. But once he became a real threat to their anti sovereign America plans, he had to be stopped. So the question became, when can it best be deployed?
(Now in fairness, Wikileaks probably did some similar calculus with their information on the Clinton cabal. The difference as I see it is, I don't believe Assange is in cahoots with Trump or the republicans, but is motivated by a dislike of the Clintons and their RICO like behavior.)
They clearly decided to drop their bomb last Friday as Wikileaks began to release a series of devastating hacked emails showing that Hillary Clinton was guilty of malfeasance while Sec. State and complicity in acts that lead to the arming of ISIS to say nothing of the deaths in Benghazi. The leaks also show coordination of efforts between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the MSM aimed at duping the electorate.
But what do we hear on the radio and see on the news? Why it's the media generated outrage about some offensive language by Trump 11 years ago. This outrage is being spun up by the same folks who were telling us it was not important where Bill Clinton chose to put his cigar in the Oval Office, and it was unimportant anyway because it was just sex and it was between Monica and Bill and none of our business because it didn't affect how he did his job as POTUS. Yet we are to believe words (and maybe some actions, we don't know) in an equivalent vein make this person unable to perform the same job. (This is also requiring us to overlook some amazingly similar behavior by the liberal lions JFK and RFK that the MSM was also in on the coverup of.)
All the while the MSM are telling us that Trumps support is tanking (which I'm sure it has taken a hit) as they fail to report that DT draws a Florida crowd of 30,000 while at the same basic time HC struggles to draw 1,000 in the same state.
I'm starting to wonder if we aren't approaching another "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" moment. For the sovereignty of the US, I certainly hope so, or we are about to become the Socialist States of Soros.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy!
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
The Minimum Wage Hoax Part Deux
I’d like to congratulate the economically challenged crowd for making me look smart, which is no small task, i might add.
A short while ago I went on a rant about the ludicrousness of setting mandated minimum wages and how it has negative impacts on the low skilled job seeker. Well, today I read an article about the very ills I spoke of.
Here is a quote from the article:
"We're going to eliminate boring, repetitive, dangerous jobs, and we're going to free up people to do things that are higher value," said co-founder Alex Garden, a former Microsoft manager and president of mobile game maker Zynga Studios.
Now the article itself is written to show how this is such a good thing and how it is going to free up people for higher value activities. The problem being, if you are the low skill individual who’s only value to the enterprise is to evenly place pepperonis over the surface of the pizza, you and your associated cost to the company, have just been replaced by a one time cost of purchasing a robot.
The company will not have to pay for the robot’s health insurance (other than a maintenance contract that I’m certain is less than an employee’s health insurance). Nor will it have to staff sufficiently to account for “no shows” or provide maternity leave, vacation, uniform allowance, etc., etc.
The high cost of purchasing a robot became much more of a reasonable cost benefit to the company when the $15 an hour minimum wage crowd started gaining traction. Which I believe I predicted in the August 19th rant about “The Minimum Wage Hoax”.
I wonder if Bernie and Hillary will jump up and take credit for this unintended, but easily predictable, consequence?
No, I’d bet they will spin the yarn to talk about greedy business owners who are choosing machines over people so they don’t have to pay them a “living wage”. This of course being the incentive for the development of the robot that takes the job in the first place.
The advent of the robot is merely the logical extension of increasing the cost of doing business through government regulation. For the businesses that can’t move their manufacturing to a country where costs are lower, the answer to unwarranted cost increases caused by government mandates is mechanization.
Replace the low skilled individual who’s on going cost of employment has doubled or tripled with the one time cost of a machine. And if the business has more than one shift, this machine can replace 2 or 3 employees per day. If the business is a 7 day a week business, then even more employees are replaced and the cost of ownership has gone down even further. I doesn’t take a genius to see the cost benefit in this equation goes to the machines and the minimally skilled job seeker faces an even bleaker future.
So, once again, thank you “living wage” advocates for making me seem prescient.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
How The Left Sells Socialism
As I watch the world in general fall victim to weirdness at every turn I ask myself, 'what in the hell is going on?'
We see notable (not necessarily great) athletes refusing to stand and show respect for the flag because they say the country is suppressing people of color. Now they are doing this in a country where they are being paid millions of dollars to play a game they love to play, and would play in a vacant lot or a park for free if nobody paid them. This country has a President who is black as well as the last two Attorney Generals, the top law enforcement people in the nation. Many, many city mayors are black. Two sitting Supreme Court Justices are of color. I'm not seeing the country, and thus the flag, holding people of color down.
One could easily make the case that it is the minority communities these folks live in that are holding them back. I believe it was Charles Barkley who recently made this point. He called out the folks who deride black kids who work hard in school and do well. Telling these kids they aren't black enough and they are trying to be white if they try to learn and improve themselves.
I find it hard to hold much sympathy for folks who do not take advantage of opportunities placed before them and then cry because they don't have the things that others have. It isn't the system that holds them back, it's their circle they hang with.
Dr. Carson, Thomas Sowell, Ph. D., and Sheriff David Clarke are all men of color who took advantage of the opportunities that the nation offers to ALL of its citizens and rose to positions of power and influence. If they grew up in areas where the schools may not have had the best facilities or the best teachers, they still made the most of their opportunities, and look how the nation has rewarded their efforts.
They were not rewarded because of their color, just like Colin Kaepernick was not given a $100M contract because he was black. They were rewarded based on their proven abilities.
This country was developed as a meritocracy. That means you are rewarded on merit. What you do, not where you come from or who your parents were or weren't.
It is that meritocracy that allowed this country to develop and become the most wonderful country that history has ever recorded.
Have there been cases where this hasn't worked out perfectly? Of course there are. Certainly some individuals have started out a rung or two higher on the ladder than the rest of us, but merit will still be rewarded in the end. Our history is littered with people who were born to wealth but lost it all because they didn't continue to strive and develop. The same can be said for companies. When was the last time you saw a Studebaker or an AMC driving down the road?
So where do these ideas come from that cause folks to think that they are not being treated fairly and that they need to fight for "social justice"?
My hypothesis is that it comes from our educational system.
As my friend Mary Ruth says, this started many decades ago. Academics developed visions of utopian societies where everyone had everything they needed and then proceeded to dream up systems where by this could take place. Marks and Engles being two of the more influential in this category.
In their utopia, it was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In this system everybody produced and their product went into a central repository that all would draw upon to meet their needs. The problem being, this didn't account for human nature and the basic laws of behavioralism. People don't like to see their labor be taken without recompense and what is rewarded is repeated. Which is why these systems are always doomed to failure
This fact has never altered an academics views, and they have pushed these ideas, which are an easy sell to those who have less and want more, but are unwilling or unable to develop skills and abilities that would allow them to earn more in a meritocracy. It is these folks that the leftist academics have found as fertile ground from which they can develop their Social Justice Warriors. The Occupy crowd and the BLM folks who want to "redistribute" the wealth. Believing if they just had the wealth all would be fine, without the understanding of what it took to create the wealth. And yes I said create, it was not stolen from the poor, it was created. Low skilled individuals may have participated in the creation but they were paid for their efforts based on the market value of the skills they brought to the job. The higher the skill the higher the recompense.
It seems to me that it is only those who are unwilling to develop marketable skills or put in the requisite effort who are drawn to the social justice sales pitch. The person who goes to school and earns a degree in Graphic Novel Literature or Women's Studies will be easy pickings for SJW recruitment as they have NO marketable skills or knowledge, yet they feel the system OWES them because they fell victim to some professors sales pitch to study this worthless field of endeavor. In reality, the professor just needs to bilk them into studying this field to justify to the administration that they are needed on staff to meet the need to teach this crap. Which, by the way, seems to me to be a tacit recognition of the value of meritocracy. The leftist professor sells his value to the administration by saying look at all the people who want what I'm providing.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
We see notable (not necessarily great) athletes refusing to stand and show respect for the flag because they say the country is suppressing people of color. Now they are doing this in a country where they are being paid millions of dollars to play a game they love to play, and would play in a vacant lot or a park for free if nobody paid them. This country has a President who is black as well as the last two Attorney Generals, the top law enforcement people in the nation. Many, many city mayors are black. Two sitting Supreme Court Justices are of color. I'm not seeing the country, and thus the flag, holding people of color down.
One could easily make the case that it is the minority communities these folks live in that are holding them back. I believe it was Charles Barkley who recently made this point. He called out the folks who deride black kids who work hard in school and do well. Telling these kids they aren't black enough and they are trying to be white if they try to learn and improve themselves.
I find it hard to hold much sympathy for folks who do not take advantage of opportunities placed before them and then cry because they don't have the things that others have. It isn't the system that holds them back, it's their circle they hang with.
Dr. Carson, Thomas Sowell, Ph. D., and Sheriff David Clarke are all men of color who took advantage of the opportunities that the nation offers to ALL of its citizens and rose to positions of power and influence. If they grew up in areas where the schools may not have had the best facilities or the best teachers, they still made the most of their opportunities, and look how the nation has rewarded their efforts.
They were not rewarded because of their color, just like Colin Kaepernick was not given a $100M contract because he was black. They were rewarded based on their proven abilities.
This country was developed as a meritocracy. That means you are rewarded on merit. What you do, not where you come from or who your parents were or weren't.
It is that meritocracy that allowed this country to develop and become the most wonderful country that history has ever recorded.
Have there been cases where this hasn't worked out perfectly? Of course there are. Certainly some individuals have started out a rung or two higher on the ladder than the rest of us, but merit will still be rewarded in the end. Our history is littered with people who were born to wealth but lost it all because they didn't continue to strive and develop. The same can be said for companies. When was the last time you saw a Studebaker or an AMC driving down the road?
So where do these ideas come from that cause folks to think that they are not being treated fairly and that they need to fight for "social justice"?
My hypothesis is that it comes from our educational system.
As my friend Mary Ruth says, this started many decades ago. Academics developed visions of utopian societies where everyone had everything they needed and then proceeded to dream up systems where by this could take place. Marks and Engles being two of the more influential in this category.
In their utopia, it was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In this system everybody produced and their product went into a central repository that all would draw upon to meet their needs. The problem being, this didn't account for human nature and the basic laws of behavioralism. People don't like to see their labor be taken without recompense and what is rewarded is repeated. Which is why these systems are always doomed to failure
This fact has never altered an academics views, and they have pushed these ideas, which are an easy sell to those who have less and want more, but are unwilling or unable to develop skills and abilities that would allow them to earn more in a meritocracy. It is these folks that the leftist academics have found as fertile ground from which they can develop their Social Justice Warriors. The Occupy crowd and the BLM folks who want to "redistribute" the wealth. Believing if they just had the wealth all would be fine, without the understanding of what it took to create the wealth. And yes I said create, it was not stolen from the poor, it was created. Low skilled individuals may have participated in the creation but they were paid for their efforts based on the market value of the skills they brought to the job. The higher the skill the higher the recompense.
It seems to me that it is only those who are unwilling to develop marketable skills or put in the requisite effort who are drawn to the social justice sales pitch. The person who goes to school and earns a degree in Graphic Novel Literature or Women's Studies will be easy pickings for SJW recruitment as they have NO marketable skills or knowledge, yet they feel the system OWES them because they fell victim to some professors sales pitch to study this worthless field of endeavor. In reality, the professor just needs to bilk them into studying this field to justify to the administration that they are needed on staff to meet the need to teach this crap. Which, by the way, seems to me to be a tacit recognition of the value of meritocracy. The leftist professor sells his value to the administration by saying look at all the people who want what I'm providing.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Hillary Rodham (clinton), George Soros And The Global Agenda
Now I freely admit that I'm just a hick country boy who grew up on a farm and had to be bussed into town (population around 500, if you can call that a town) to go to school. But our school was a good school that taught us to think for ourselves and be responsible for our actions. And while I may have been born at night, it wasn't LAST night.
So it baffles me when I see people supporting a candidate who's single biggest contributor is a self confessed NAZI collaborator. A Jew who helped the NAZIs round up other Jews to be sent to concentration camps. After the war he amassed a multi billion dollar fortune through manipulating currencies and for the past several decades has used this fortune to push a socialist/globalist agenda. George Soros!
Through his Open Society Foundation he has funded many anti American groups that have lead to our current state of angst. He has funneled money to Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and The American Institute For Social Justice to name just a few. Each of these organizations goals are to radically alter America and how it operates. He has a history of putting his money where he gets the behaviors he's looking for, and that is the breakdown of societies as we know them and the development of a one world government.
So when George Soros gives $30M to the candidate who is known for her pay to play ethics, what do you suppose he is looking to get in return?
We know Hellery will do anything, no matter how dastardly the act, to gain personal wealth and power. Do you have even the slightest doubt that she shares Soros' desire to end nations and have a One World Government? That she will merrily sell America and all her freedoms down the river if it gets her personal power and wealth is of no doubt.
So then my question is for those who support her. At least those who are not Occupy or BLM members.
Do you really want to see this country destroyed in the name of globalization? Do you want some centralized authority made up of non Americans deciding what we can and cannot do?
Soros wants a world without borders ruled by a centralized authority. That's the whole premise of the Open Society Foundation. He is backing Hellery because he believes she is his best hope at moving toward his goal. And if you have any question about whether that is a bad idea, may I give you a few examples of how badly wrong this type of system can go: USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, need I go on?
So Hellery supporters, I implore you to stop and actually "think" about who you are supporting. Don't vote for her because she has a vagina. You certainly wouldn't do it if her name was Sarah! Use the brains you were given and do a little critical thinking before you pull that lever.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
So it baffles me when I see people supporting a candidate who's single biggest contributor is a self confessed NAZI collaborator. A Jew who helped the NAZIs round up other Jews to be sent to concentration camps. After the war he amassed a multi billion dollar fortune through manipulating currencies and for the past several decades has used this fortune to push a socialist/globalist agenda. George Soros!
Through his Open Society Foundation he has funded many anti American groups that have lead to our current state of angst. He has funneled money to Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and The American Institute For Social Justice to name just a few. Each of these organizations goals are to radically alter America and how it operates. He has a history of putting his money where he gets the behaviors he's looking for, and that is the breakdown of societies as we know them and the development of a one world government.
So when George Soros gives $30M to the candidate who is known for her pay to play ethics, what do you suppose he is looking to get in return?
We know Hellery will do anything, no matter how dastardly the act, to gain personal wealth and power. Do you have even the slightest doubt that she shares Soros' desire to end nations and have a One World Government? That she will merrily sell America and all her freedoms down the river if it gets her personal power and wealth is of no doubt.
So then my question is for those who support her. At least those who are not Occupy or BLM members.
Do you really want to see this country destroyed in the name of globalization? Do you want some centralized authority made up of non Americans deciding what we can and cannot do?
Soros wants a world without borders ruled by a centralized authority. That's the whole premise of the Open Society Foundation. He is backing Hellery because he believes she is his best hope at moving toward his goal. And if you have any question about whether that is a bad idea, may I give you a few examples of how badly wrong this type of system can go: USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, need I go on?
So Hellery supporters, I implore you to stop and actually "think" about who you are supporting. Don't vote for her because she has a vagina. You certainly wouldn't do it if her name was Sarah! Use the brains you were given and do a little critical thinking before you pull that lever.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Minimum Wage Depresses Employment And Increases Pressure On The Low Skilled Worker
In a supposedly free nation, where is the sense in a government mandated minimum wage?
Now understand, I don't employ anyone. I have NEVER had an employee, nor do I ever foresee having an employee. I am also retired, so I'm not earning a wage. So I don't really have a dog in this fight.
But to me, the concept of a minimum wage is ludicrous.
Logic says to me that some bureaucrat in Washington or your state's Capitol saying that no job will pay less than $X will only hurt the low skill wage earner in the end. Yes, I know it makes the bleeding hearts feel good to take someone else's money and spread it around so those "unfortunates" will look kindly upon them come election time. I believe, in the long run a minimum wage doesn't help the low skill individual, but rather it actually makes their lot worse.
I'm certainly not trained in economics, but I can look at the world dispassionately and without an eye to buying votes. It seems to me that setting a minimum wage distorts the entire economy.
For example, if I'm running a business, for me to continue running it, I must turn a profit, not just break even. A charity can break even because at the end of the day no one is trying to put food on their table. A business, on the other hand, must turn a profit or the owner starves. Even a "progressive" should be able to see where that sort of an arrangement is somewhat self limiting and certainly removes any incentive for hard work.
So with the agreed upon need for the owner of the enterprise to earn a profit, let's think through what a minimum wage actually does.
Let's say you, the business owner, have two jobs. One job requires skills that only 20 percent of the population posses and another job that 98 percent of the population posses the skills for. For you to entice the worker with the higher skill level to work for you and not your competitor down the street you must pay $20 an hour, while the other job virtually anyone could do, you can get someone to do for $5 an hour. So at the close of business each day, you must have earned $200 JUST to have paid your employees. That doesn't cover the cost of materials, overhead, or you, the owner's needed income to survive.
Now enters the well intended "progressive" who says now you must pay EVERYONE a minimum of $15 an hour. Well, that automatically raised your required daily profit from $200 to $280 just to cover wages. But it doesn't end there. No! The value of your $20 an hour employee just took a concomitant leap as well. Their relative skill value just went from $20 an hour to $60 per hour. In order to keep them satisfied and not jump to someone who will pay them this much, your minimum profit per day has now gone to $600. But that is complicated by the fact that now, your materials cost has also gone up because your suppliers must also pay their employees 300 percent more than before. So now, small business owner, what do you have to do to generate this profit in order to put food on your table? Increase your sales price or increase your volume of sales significantly, of course.
Just generally speaking,what happens with sales as prices go up? Why, it decreases. But to keep prices the same, you don't have the staff, so you must hire more people which requires you to sell even more product to pay for them.
Are you starting to see the problem her Mr/Ms Progressive?
Now let's look at it from the low skill wage earner's perspective. Mr/Ms low skill worker is told by their "progressive" benefactors that they are no longer earning $5 or $7.50 an hour but now all jobs will pay them at least $15 an hour! Huzah! Huzah! Happy days are here!
Accept they are not. For those who were working and earning $5.00 an hour, they must look at their fellow workers and think, if they truly understand what's about to happen, which 2 out of the 3 of us will probably be let go now that the cost of doing business has just increased dramatically?
For those lucky enough to retain there jobs, they will now face increased pressures to be more productive in order for the business to remain profitable and continue to employ them. But not only will they face on the job pressures, but EVERYTHING in their life is now facing the exact same pressures and most likely a corresponding increase in cost. Any gain they may have seen through the increase in earnings will be eaten up by the following increase in costs.....of EVERYTHING!
For those poor souls with limited skill set value and no current job, they are now facing a market where employers are being ever more cautious about if and when they bring on such an employee. They seek alternatives to accomplishing these low skill functions. If you doubt this, I suggest you look at how many migrant jobs were replaced through mechanization after Cezar Chavez organized the migrant workers in Southern California. Machines became a viable option to paying low skill workers to perform the tasks. A one time $100,000 purchase of a piece of equipment versus a continuing rising cost of low skill employees was an easy decision. You see it happening in the fast food industry right now with self serve kiosks to order your food.
Not only are the unemployed facing a more dire employment picture, but they have also been hit with an increase in their daily costs for virtually everything.
So looking at the chain of events that logically proceeds from raising the minimum wage is a net net negative for the low skilled wage earner. The "progressive" who is oh so concerned with "social justice" has in fact made life worse for those with few marketable skills. If they were truly concerned for these folks well being, they would encourage them to take advantage of the schooling and training opportunities available to all in this country. They wouldn't be fomenting social strife that leads to nothing but ill feelings where none should exist.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
Now understand, I don't employ anyone. I have NEVER had an employee, nor do I ever foresee having an employee. I am also retired, so I'm not earning a wage. So I don't really have a dog in this fight.
But to me, the concept of a minimum wage is ludicrous.
Logic says to me that some bureaucrat in Washington or your state's Capitol saying that no job will pay less than $X will only hurt the low skill wage earner in the end. Yes, I know it makes the bleeding hearts feel good to take someone else's money and spread it around so those "unfortunates" will look kindly upon them come election time. I believe, in the long run a minimum wage doesn't help the low skill individual, but rather it actually makes their lot worse.
I'm certainly not trained in economics, but I can look at the world dispassionately and without an eye to buying votes. It seems to me that setting a minimum wage distorts the entire economy.
For example, if I'm running a business, for me to continue running it, I must turn a profit, not just break even. A charity can break even because at the end of the day no one is trying to put food on their table. A business, on the other hand, must turn a profit or the owner starves. Even a "progressive" should be able to see where that sort of an arrangement is somewhat self limiting and certainly removes any incentive for hard work.
So with the agreed upon need for the owner of the enterprise to earn a profit, let's think through what a minimum wage actually does.
Let's say you, the business owner, have two jobs. One job requires skills that only 20 percent of the population posses and another job that 98 percent of the population posses the skills for. For you to entice the worker with the higher skill level to work for you and not your competitor down the street you must pay $20 an hour, while the other job virtually anyone could do, you can get someone to do for $5 an hour. So at the close of business each day, you must have earned $200 JUST to have paid your employees. That doesn't cover the cost of materials, overhead, or you, the owner's needed income to survive.
Now enters the well intended "progressive" who says now you must pay EVERYONE a minimum of $15 an hour. Well, that automatically raised your required daily profit from $200 to $280 just to cover wages. But it doesn't end there. No! The value of your $20 an hour employee just took a concomitant leap as well. Their relative skill value just went from $20 an hour to $60 per hour. In order to keep them satisfied and not jump to someone who will pay them this much, your minimum profit per day has now gone to $600. But that is complicated by the fact that now, your materials cost has also gone up because your suppliers must also pay their employees 300 percent more than before. So now, small business owner, what do you have to do to generate this profit in order to put food on your table? Increase your sales price or increase your volume of sales significantly, of course.
Just generally speaking,what happens with sales as prices go up? Why, it decreases. But to keep prices the same, you don't have the staff, so you must hire more people which requires you to sell even more product to pay for them.
Are you starting to see the problem her Mr/Ms Progressive?
Now let's look at it from the low skill wage earner's perspective. Mr/Ms low skill worker is told by their "progressive" benefactors that they are no longer earning $5 or $7.50 an hour but now all jobs will pay them at least $15 an hour! Huzah! Huzah! Happy days are here!
Accept they are not. For those who were working and earning $5.00 an hour, they must look at their fellow workers and think, if they truly understand what's about to happen, which 2 out of the 3 of us will probably be let go now that the cost of doing business has just increased dramatically?
For those lucky enough to retain there jobs, they will now face increased pressures to be more productive in order for the business to remain profitable and continue to employ them. But not only will they face on the job pressures, but EVERYTHING in their life is now facing the exact same pressures and most likely a corresponding increase in cost. Any gain they may have seen through the increase in earnings will be eaten up by the following increase in costs.....of EVERYTHING!
For those poor souls with limited skill set value and no current job, they are now facing a market where employers are being ever more cautious about if and when they bring on such an employee. They seek alternatives to accomplishing these low skill functions. If you doubt this, I suggest you look at how many migrant jobs were replaced through mechanization after Cezar Chavez organized the migrant workers in Southern California. Machines became a viable option to paying low skill workers to perform the tasks. A one time $100,000 purchase of a piece of equipment versus a continuing rising cost of low skill employees was an easy decision. You see it happening in the fast food industry right now with self serve kiosks to order your food.
Not only are the unemployed facing a more dire employment picture, but they have also been hit with an increase in their daily costs for virtually everything.
So looking at the chain of events that logically proceeds from raising the minimum wage is a net net negative for the low skilled wage earner. The "progressive" who is oh so concerned with "social justice" has in fact made life worse for those with few marketable skills. If they were truly concerned for these folks well being, they would encourage them to take advantage of the schooling and training opportunities available to all in this country. They wouldn't be fomenting social strife that leads to nothing but ill feelings where none should exist.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Questions For Hillary Supporters
If Hellery really believes that Obama's policies have been so successful and the economy is great, as she claims, why does she need to create lots of good high paying jobs?
If Hellery really has the answer to stopping businesses from going overseas why hasn't she shared it with Obama and we wouldn't have lost so many jobs these past 8 years.
If Hellery knows how to create good high paying jobs, why do we have to elect her before she starts to help America? Is she holding good jobs hostage?
Will Hellery let the country continue to suffer along without good jobs if she isn't elected or will she share this knowledge with the winner for the good of the country?
Considering Hellery's notoriously faulty memory, can we believe that she will remember how to create these jobs by the time she would get into office?
Since Hellery didn't review the emails herself but delegated it to her lawyers, I have to ask, were the lawyers have the proper security clearances to view emails sent to the US Sec. Of State?
If Hellery and Kane are really interested in a strong and safe United States, why do they meet with globalists like George Soros' son and take funds from organizations like the Open Boarders Foundation?
If we are to believe that Hellery's time as Secretary of State was successful and is thus a qualifier for her to become POTUS, how come our relationships around the world are so bad?
If the Obama administration and Hellery as Secretary of State have been so successful, why is there an ISIS?
How is it that so many people who know damaging information and appear to be ready to talk about the Clintons seem to die in curious fashions?
If Democratic policies are such good ideas, why is it everywhere they are instituted turns into a hell hole?
Why is it that only globalists or folks who ultimately want America to fail are against secure borders?
Why do Hellery, Obama and other globalists want us to take in large numbers of folks who don't believe in the founding concepts of our nation?
Just a few questions that have come to the old farm boy's mind.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Hard Left Yellow Journalism And Where You Are Led
My wife said to me, "I think Trump has gone to far this time." She was talking about the Khan kerfluffel.
I said, "What did he say, exactly?"
She said she didn't know specifically what he said but she read where he was disrespectful to Captain Khan and is Gold Star parents.
Well....... That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? That's the boat that the majority of Americans find themselves in. They haven't heard what was really said, only what the various "news" sources have told folks what they should think about this in particular, and so many other things generally.
Now from what I've been able to find, Trump honored Captain Khan. He said he was a hero. He even initially felt for the Khan's sacrifice. It was the personal attack that the father made against him that he responded to.
Now I must say, I don't think it was a wise move on Donald's part to respond in this case. We all know the majority of the media's feelings towards the right, so it was inevitable how they would report ANYTHING he said. But respond he did and the predictable response from the media followed, leaving the majority of Americans to think as my wife did.
This brings me to my main point this morning. The American press, at least the majority of it, is failing its responsibilities to the American people. They are supposed to be a fair reporter of the facts! Not a partisan for one side or the other.
Hell, it might be alright if they were partisan but evenly divided between the sides, but they are not. It's about 85% liberal and 15% conservative. So the majority of folks are being continuously bombarded with subliminally biased reporting. How could they not be affected, like my wife, in the way they think and feel about various topics. The simple choice to use positively or negatively charged adjectives can influence how folks think and feel about what they are told. Even if the bare facts are accurate, the media sways the way folks feel with their strategically placed colorful adjectives.
Then there is their choice of what to tell and what to leave out. Yes the Khans are the parents of a brave and patriotic son who died at the hands of 10th century level barbarian islamists. They are to be honored for their son's sacrifice!
What they have chosen NOT to tell you is that there is a long standing tie between the Khans and the Clintons and liberals. Mr. Khan is a lawyer who's business has a long relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation. Nor have they chosen to report that the family business pulled down their website advertising their work to handle immigration to the US from the Middle East if you have enough money.
Yes, it would appear that Mr. Khan's outrage at The Donald may be more financially motivated than the liberal press might like you to notice. Since The Donald would like to put a hold on immigration until it's possible to properly vet people from regions known for anti western terrorism, this would certainly put a crimp in the Khan family cash flow. But I'm willing to bet you have and will not hear that on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. Nor will they tell you about the Khan's doing business with the Clintons.
There is a long history of Yellow Journalism here in America. Our current folks are just doing it with more style and seem to be organized around one political ideology, rather than across the spectrum as was the case in the days of Hurst et.al.
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
I said, "What did he say, exactly?"
She said she didn't know specifically what he said but she read where he was disrespectful to Captain Khan and is Gold Star parents.
Well....... That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? That's the boat that the majority of Americans find themselves in. They haven't heard what was really said, only what the various "news" sources have told folks what they should think about this in particular, and so many other things generally.
Now from what I've been able to find, Trump honored Captain Khan. He said he was a hero. He even initially felt for the Khan's sacrifice. It was the personal attack that the father made against him that he responded to.
Now I must say, I don't think it was a wise move on Donald's part to respond in this case. We all know the majority of the media's feelings towards the right, so it was inevitable how they would report ANYTHING he said. But respond he did and the predictable response from the media followed, leaving the majority of Americans to think as my wife did.
This brings me to my main point this morning. The American press, at least the majority of it, is failing its responsibilities to the American people. They are supposed to be a fair reporter of the facts! Not a partisan for one side or the other.
Hell, it might be alright if they were partisan but evenly divided between the sides, but they are not. It's about 85% liberal and 15% conservative. So the majority of folks are being continuously bombarded with subliminally biased reporting. How could they not be affected, like my wife, in the way they think and feel about various topics. The simple choice to use positively or negatively charged adjectives can influence how folks think and feel about what they are told. Even if the bare facts are accurate, the media sways the way folks feel with their strategically placed colorful adjectives.
Then there is their choice of what to tell and what to leave out. Yes the Khans are the parents of a brave and patriotic son who died at the hands of 10th century level barbarian islamists. They are to be honored for their son's sacrifice!
What they have chosen NOT to tell you is that there is a long standing tie between the Khans and the Clintons and liberals. Mr. Khan is a lawyer who's business has a long relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation. Nor have they chosen to report that the family business pulled down their website advertising their work to handle immigration to the US from the Middle East if you have enough money.
Yes, it would appear that Mr. Khan's outrage at The Donald may be more financially motivated than the liberal press might like you to notice. Since The Donald would like to put a hold on immigration until it's possible to properly vet people from regions known for anti western terrorism, this would certainly put a crimp in the Khan family cash flow. But I'm willing to bet you have and will not hear that on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. Nor will they tell you about the Khan's doing business with the Clintons.
There is a long history of Yellow Journalism here in America. Our current folks are just doing it with more style and seem to be organized around one political ideology, rather than across the spectrum as was the case in the days of Hurst et.al.
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)