Aging Casino Waitresses turn to the Union to Protect their Jobs from Younger and Sexier Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

Sex sells.  Advertising is full of scantily clad women peddling some product.  Television executives push the envelope with racier content during the family hour.  And famous actresses often show their boobs in the movies for a bigger paycheck.  Because guys want to see famous actresses’ boobs.  Even Seth McFarlane sang a song about seeing these actresses’ boobs at the Oscars.  Something many of them were not amused at.  Yet they showed them.  Because sex sells.  Always has.  And always will.  Especially with attractive women.  Who can often increase their income by showing a little more flesh.  And do.  Until they age.  At which time they turn to the union to keep a job they got with their looks.  Such as waitressing in a casino (see Conn. casino cocktail waitresses fight shoe rules by Michael Melia, Associated Press, posted on Yahoo! News).

Cheryl Haase has been serving cocktails for more than two decades, and the 52-year-old waitress says she has a list of foot ailments to prove it.

The miles she has walked carrying trays of drinks through the Foxwoods Resort Casino in high heels have sent her over the years to chiropractors and podiatrists for injections to treat inflammation.

Now she and a union representing her fellow cocktail waitresses at the country’s largest casino are fighting for the servers to wear shoes of their own choosing. Many have worked at the casino since it opened in 1992, and some see proposed new requirements as a bid to push them out and make way for younger workers.

“Most of us girls have been here for 20 years, 15 years. This job has really done a number on our feet and they know it,” Haase said…

From Las Vegas to Atlantic City, footwear for cocktail waitresses has been a spiky issue as image-conscious casinos encourage dress codes to help attract customers. A coalition that formed more than a decade ago in Nevada challenged casinos with rallies against high heels. In New Jersey in the 1990s, female servers sued the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, which had waitresses it dubbed “Borgata Babes” wear high heels and cleavage-baring bustiers. The lawsuit was settled in 2008…

‘The higher the heel, the larger the tip…’

At Foxwoods, some cocktail waitresses sought out the union around 2009, partly because of their concerns that older workers were vulnerable…

Haase, who has 13-year-old triplets, said she makes only half of what she used to as the gaming slump has cut into her tip money, but she does not want to give up on a job where she enjoys seniority.

Prostituting yourself for tips is a young woman’s game.  Look, it’s no secret who’s spending money at casinos.  Old men with money who like looking at sexy waitresses.  Even your greasy diners will hire sexy waitresses to get old men who don’t cook to become regulars.  And these waitresses will flirt with these old coots, pinch their cheeks, call them sweetheart and show a lot of cleavage all day long.  Because these old coots will tip more when these sexy waitresses flirt with them.

It’s tough for a 52-year-old to wear spike heels and compete with younger waitresses.  But a woman who’s worked at a casino for 20 years no doubt took a job away from an older woman who could not wear sexy high heels or a bustier showing ample cleavage.  That was okay when they were getting a job when they were young and sexy.  But it’s wrong when the owner wants to do the same thing again.  Only with other women who are young and sexy.

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t use your sexuality to get a job and make big tips.  Then complain about that same owner wanting to replace you because you’re not as sexy as you once were.  And these old coots are buying a drink or two less because of it.  No.  There’s a reason these old coots are staying in the casino a little longer even when they are losing.  Because some sexy waitress is calling them sweetheart while showing a lot of leg and cleavage.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Flood Insurance Premiums rise following Katrina and Sandy beyond what Some can Afford

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

Few things are as enjoyable as a beachfront view.  What a way to live.  Seeing the sunrise over the ocean.  Breathing that sea air.  Walking out your door to the water’s edge.  How lucky those lucky few are who live on the ocean’s edge.  Of course, there are some drawbacks to living on the ocean’s edge (see After Sandy, a new threat: Soaring flood insurance by Katie Zezima and Meghan Barr, Associated Press, posted 6/10/2013 on Yahoo! News).

George Kasimos has almost finished repairing flood damage to his waterfront home, but his Superstorm Sandy nightmare is far from over.

Like thousands of others in the hardest-hit coastal stretches of New Jersey and New York, his life is in limbo as he waits to see if tough new coastal rebuilding rules make it just too expensive for him to stay.

That’s because the federal government’s newly released advisory flood maps have put his Toms River home in the most vulnerable area — the “velocity zone.” If that sticks, he’d have to jack his house up 14 feet on stilts at a cost of $150,000 or face up to $30,000 a year in flood insurance premiums…

Officials are urging people to elevate their houses now because they are eligible for federal financial aid. About $350 million of New York City’s and $600 million of New Jersey’s Sandy relief funding has been allocated for the repair of single- and two-family homes, which could help defray the cost…

Several months before Sandy hit, Congress quietly passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, a bill that authorized skyrocketing premium increases for people in flood-prone communities.

It was a desperate attempt to keep the program financially solvent after it was nearly bankrupted by an onslaught of claims from Hurricane Katrina, which forced the federal government to borrow about $17 billion from the Treasury.

Borrowing $17 billion from the Treasury?  That means borrowing $17 billion from the taxpayers.  And that’s the sad truth.  The people who don’t enjoy living on the ocean’s edge are the ones who end up paying for storm damage suffered by those living on the ocean’s edge.  People who shouldn’t be subsidizing someone’s dangerous home location.  Unless these people throw open their doors for all of us to come over and spend a few weeks on the beach with them.

Living on the ocean’s edge is both beautiful and dangerous.  Those who enjoy the beauty should pay for the privilege of enjoying that beauty.  Yes, it’s sad these people lost so much from Sandy.  But it was their choice to live there.  And they should pay all the costs required to live there.  Including all their insurance costs.  Like every other home owner must do that doesn’t have that gorgeous ocean view.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

China raises the Price of Cotton and Chases the Textile Industry out of China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

Communists think they are smarter than capitalists.  They think they can manage an economy better than market forces.  Despite the failure of the Soviet Union, China (under Mao), North Korea, Cuba, etc., there are many Western nations with activist governments.  Believing like the Chinese that smart bureaucrats can make the economy operate better than those market forces can.  But the problem is they can’t control all market forces.  So when they intervene there are always unintended consequences that usually make things worse after their intervention.  As this example in China shows (see China’s cotton procurement policy hurting textile industry by Staff Reporter posted 6/9/2013 on Want China Times).

China has jacked up the domestic price of cotton to 20,400 yuan (US$3,325) per tonne as of May 13, 4,500 yuan (US$730) higher than the international price, reports Shanghai’s First Financial Daily.

Industry insiders said that the current procurement policy does nothing to benefit cotton farmers and will have a serious effect on the domestic mid-stream textile industry, forcing many firms to move their operations overseas, the paper said…

The government has justified its cotton procurement at prices higher than international levels, by arguing that the policy can protect the interest of farmers and stabilize domestic cotton farm acreage and output, which assures the domestic supply…

The high cost has forced textile firms to abandon orders, with a growing number of firms relocating to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India. Downstream firms, in dyeing and printing, have also been affected.

China expanded their cotton production when international cotton prices rose.  Then international prices fell.  Leaving them with a surplus of cotton selling at a price that did not recover the costs of that expanded production.  So these wise bureaucrats decided to raise the price of cotton.  And restrict imports.  Problem solved.  They forced the domestic textile industry to buy the higher priced domestic cotton.  Which, of course, raised the price of the textiles they sold.  Above the prevailing international price.  Pricing them out of the international markets.  So this economic reality forced them to relocate to a country that did not force them to purchase cotton above market prices.  Allowing them to produce textiles and sell them at prices the international markets would pay.

This is the same reason why the U.S. doesn’t have a domestic textile industry anymore.  Only it wasn’t government forcing textile manufacturers to buy cotton at above market prices.  It was the unions forcing them to pay labor at above market prices that increased the price of their textiles.  And priced them out of the international markets.  Because there are always unintended consequences whenever we interfere with market forces.  Always.  And the end result is always worse after the intervention.  Always.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you’re Rich you’re doing well during the Obama Presidency

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

The rich continue to get richer in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And it’s a Democrat in the White House.  Who said he was the champion of the middle class.  But the facts sure don’t bear that out (see Tim Carney: Conservative reformers should fix the rigged game by Timothy P. Carney posted 6/4/2013 on The Examiner).

The game is rigged against the regular guy in America today. And it’s rigged in favor of big business, the politically connected, and the wealthy…

Corporate profits soared to a record $1.73 trillion annualized rate in the first quarter of 2013, more than triple what they were in 2001, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Banks made a record $40.1 billion in profits in the first quarter, 16 percent higher than a year before, according to FDIC data…

And how’s the regular guy doing?

New business formation continues to fall to record lows. In 1980, nearly half of all firms were less than five years old. The latest data from the Kaufmann Foundation puts that number at about one-third.

And the working man isn’t faring better. Unemployment, while improving, is still high. Maybe worse is the collapse of median household income — down more than 7 percent since 2008, and it is not noticeably climbing.

Wait a minute, did I miss something?  I thought President Obama won the 2012 election.  Not that rich guy with Wall Street friends.  Mitt Romney.  For this is exactly what President Obama warned us would happen if we elected Mitt Romney.  The rich would get richer.  And the poor would get poorer.  And here that is happening under the Obama presidency.  Guess Mitt Romney isn’t the only rich guy with friends on Wall Street.

Meanwhile, federal spending hit a record 26.9 percent of GDP in 2010. While it dropped a bit to 24.8 percent in 2012, that is still higher than any year between World War II and 2009 and 18 percent higher than the average year from the previous five decades.

So it’s no surprise that seven of the 10 richest counties in the United States are in the Washington, D.C., area. Revolving-door lobbyists and government contractors are living the high life in McLean, Georgetown, and Great Falls.

The game is rigged, and conservatives can point out that the chief game rigger is government. The tax code is convoluted, regulations are terrifying, big businesses that fail get bailed out while small entrepreneurs get crushed by bureaucracy…

Republicans ought to abolish corporate welfare, including subsidies for exports and green-energy projects. Break up the big banks. Get rid of corporate tax credits.

Politically, these policies checkmate Democrats because corporatism is at the heart of President Obama’s economic agenda. Subsidies for Boeing, Chrysler and General Electric are the building blocks of Obama’s “New Economic Patriotism.” Obamacare was built in collusion with drugmakers and the hospital lobby.

So big government policies help, surprise, surprise, big government.  Where we are but pawns in their game of ruthless power acquisition (as in the IRS harassing those Tea Party members).  And accumulation of wealth.  For it’s all about them.  Those in government.  And those connected to those in government.  Sure, they’ll throw a few alms out to the poor.  Some free birth control to young voters.  Not enough of anything to improve their lives.  But enough to keep them happy.  And voting Democrat.  While they laugh.  All the way to the bank.  And then back to their plush estates in McLean, Georgetown, and Great Falls.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the U.S. was on a Gold Standard there would NOT have been a Financial Crisis in 2007

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2013

Week in Review

Counterfeiting money is against the law.  We all know this.  But do we understand why?  Today’s money is just fiat money.  The Federal Reserve prints it and simply says it is money.  So why is it okay for them to print money but not for anyone else?  Because the amount of money in circulation matters.

The goods and services that make up our economy grow at a given rate.  You hear numbers like GDP of 2%, 3% or more.  In China they had GDP numbers in excess of 8%.  The goods and services in our economy are what have value.  Not the money.  It just temporarily holds the value of these goods and services as they change hands in the economy.  So the amount of money in circulation should be close to the value of goods and services in the economy.  Think of a balancing scale.  Where on the one side you have the value of all goods and services in the economy.  And on the other you have the amount of money in circulation.  If you increase the amount of money on the one side it doesn’t increase the amount of goods and services on the other side.  But it still must balance.  So as we increase the amount of money in circulation the value of each dollar must fall to keep the scale in balance.

Now when we put our money into the bank for our retirement we don’t want the value of those individual dollars grow less over time.  Because that would reduce the purchasing power of our money in the bank.  Making for an uncomfortable retirement.  This is why we want a stable dollar.  One that won’t depreciate away the value of our retirement savings, our investments or the homes we live in.  We’d prefer these to increase in value.  But we can stomach if they just hold their value.  For awhile, perhaps.  But we cannot tolerate it when they lose their value.  Because when they do years of our hard work just goes ‘poof’ and disappears.  Leaving us to work longer and harder to make up for these losses.  Perhaps delaying our retirements.  Perhaps having to work until the day we die.  So we want a stable currency.  Like the gold standard gave us (see Advance Look: What The New Gold Standard Will Look Like by Steve Forbes posted 5/8/2013 on Forbes).

The financial crisis that began in 2007 would never have happened had the Federal Reserve kept the value of the dollar stable. A housing bubble of the proportions that unfolded–not to mention bubbles in commodities and farmland–would not have been possible with a stable dollar. The Fed has also created a unique bubble this time: bonds. It hasn’t popped yet (nor has the farmland bubble), but it will.

The American dollar was linked to gold from the time of George Washington until the early 1970s. If the world’s people are to realize their full economic potential, relinking the dollar to gold is essential. Without it we will experience more debilitating financial disasters and economic stagnation.

What should a new gold standard look like? Representative Ted Poe (R-Tex.) has introduced an original and practical version. Unlike in days of old we don’t need piles of the yellow metal for a new standard to operate. Under Poe’s plan–an approach I have long favored–the dollar would be fixed to gold at a specific price. For argument’s sake let’s say the peg is $1,300. If the price of gold were to go above that, the Federal Reserve would sell bonds from its portfolio, thereby removing dollars from the economy to maintain the $1,300 level. Conversely, if the gold price were to drop below $1,300, the Fed would “print” new money by buying bonds, thereby injecting cash into the banking system.

Yes, the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession would not have happened if the Federal Reserve kept the dollar stable.  Instead, they kept printing and putting more money into circulation.  Why?  To keep interest rates low.  To encourage more and more people to buy a house.  Even people who weren’t planning to buy a house.  Even people who couldn’t afford to buy a house.  Until, that is, subprime lending took off.  Because of those low interest rates.  With all of these people added to the housing market who otherwise would not have been there (because of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies of printing money to keep interest rates artificially low) the demand for new houses exploded.  As people tried to buy these before others could house prices soared.  Creating a great housing bubble.  Houses worth far greater than they should have been.  And when the bubble burst those housing prices fell back to earth.  Often well below the value of the outstanding balance of the mortgage on the house.  Leaving people underwater in their mortgages.  And when the Great Recession took hold a lot of two-income families went to one-income.  And had a mortgage payment far greater than a single earner could afford to pay.

So that’s how that mess came about.  Because the Federal Reserve devalued the dollar to stimulate the housing market (and any other market of big-ticket items that required borrowed money).  If we re-link the dollar to gold things like this couldn’t happen anymore.  For if it would put a short leash on the Federal Reserve and their ability to print dollars.  How?  As they print more dollars the value of the dollar falls.  Causing the value of gold priced in dollars to rise.  So they would have to stop printing money to keep the value of gold priced in dollars from rising beyond the established gold price.  Or they would have to remove dollars from circulation to decreases the value of gold priced in dollars back down to the established price.  Thereby giving us a stable currency.  And stable housing prices.  For having a stable currency limits the size of bubbles the Federal Reserve can make.

But governments love to print money.  Because they love to spend money.  As well as manipulate it.  For example, depreciating the dollar makes our exports cheaper.  But those export sales help fewer people than the depreciated dollar harms.  But helping a large exporter may result in a large campaign contribution.  Which helps the politicians.  You see, a stable dollar helps everyone but the politicians and their friends.  For printing money helps Wall Street, K Street (where the lobbyists are in Washington DC) and Pennsylvania Avenue.  While hurting Main Street.  The very people the politicians work for.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,