FT207: “Raising the minimum wage only discourages upward mobility.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2014

Fundamental Truth

McDonald’s is one of the Few Places that will hire an Unskilled and Inexperienced Person

Teenagers want a lot of things.  A car.  A smartphone.  Nice clothes.  Popularity.  Fame.  But one thing you’ve never heard a teenager says is this.  “I love working at McDonald’s.  I wish I could work here forever.  If only they would raise the minimum wage so I could.”

A lot of teenagers work at McDonald’s.  Why?  Because it’s one of the few places that will hire an unskilled and inexperienced person.  Because a job at McDonald’s is an entry-level job for a teenager new to the workforce.  A place they can earn a paycheck without having the ability to do anything.  Where they are taught everything they need to know on the job.  While McDonald’s pays them to learn.

Some teens will work enthusiastically at McDonald’s.  Enjoying their first job.  And earning their first paycheck.  So they don’t have to depend on Mom and Dad to buy them what they want anymore.  While others hate these jobs.  And refer to them derisively as ‘hamburger flipper jobs’.  They don’t want them.  And those who do work there do so reluctantly as they are a lot like that teenager.  They are unskilled and inexperienced in doing anything else but an entry-level job.

There is a Direct Correlation between Paycheck Size and Skills & Experience

Some teens work while in high school.  Some go on to college and work at another McDonald’s on campus.  Or at some other entry-level job that requires no skills or experience.  So they can learn workplace skills.  Gain working experience.  And learn the responsibilities that come with having a job.  Others get bored or want more money.  And use their newly acquired skills and experience to get another job.  After graduating from high school.  Perhaps entering an apprentice program in the skilled trades.  Or becoming a line-cook somewhere.  Gaining more experience.  And earning more money.  To become an electrician.  Or go to culinary school and become a chef.  Even open his or her own business.

These people are moving up.  Which is why we call this upward mobility.  They go from an entry-level job to one requiring more skills and experience that pays better.  They may go to night school or college to gain skills that will help them get a job requiring greater skill and/or experience.  Which pays even more.  Allowing them to look to and plan for their future.  Acquiring education, skills and experience along the way that opens the door to bigger paychecks.  Which you need to raise a family.  Have a nice house.  A new car.  Nice vacations.  To save for your children’s college education.  And your retirement.

You can’t have many of these things, though, if you never leave that entry-level job.  If you stay in that entry-level job you’ll never be an engineer, a doctor, a pilot, a millwright, a pipefitter, an accountant, a hotelier, an architect, etc.  And you’ll never get the larger paycheck that comes with these professions.  For there is a direct correlation between paycheck size and skills & experience.  The more you have the more you’re worth.  It’s just that simple.  Which is why it is a good thing that entry-level jobs pay the lowest wages.  For it encourages upward mobility.  Mastering the skills at one level.  And then moving on to master new skills at a higher level.  For we want people to move on so there are pharmacists to fill our prescriptions.  Dentists to fix our cavities.  Engineers to build and maintain our cellular networks.  Aircraft mechanics to keep our planes safe.  Etc.  None of which we would have if no one left their entry-level job.

Staying in an Entry-Level Job for 5 Years could put you 5 Years behind your Earning Potential

The Democrats always want to raise the minimum wage.  To get votes by giving people more stuff.  In the case of a higher minimum wage it’s a bigger paycheck.  They’ll cite the single mother of 3 struggling while working 2 jobs to support her children.  And say it’s just not teenagers working these entry-level jobs.  These are single mothers and single fathers who are barely making it.  And we need to give them a living wage.  But paying people more for these entry-level jobs is the worst thing you can do for them.  For it removes the incentive to leave these jobs.  Jobs that these employees don’t love to begin with.

President Obama wants to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.  Others want to raise it higher.  Some would even like to make it $40,000 or $50,000 a year.  But imagine the affect of that on kids graduating high school who want a lot of things that Mom and Dad won’t buy for them.  If you can have a lot of money now instead of working hard to earn that same amount of money later what do you think these kids and young adults will do?  A lot of them will take that bigger paycheck now.  And maybe work there 3-5 years enjoying life.  Flipping those burgers.  While some of their former classmates from high school will have started a career.

Raising the minimum wage only discourages upward mobility.  Life is short.  Time passes fast.  Staying in an entry-level job for 5 years could put you 5 years behind your earning potential.  It could change where you live.  And what school your kids go to. Because that smaller paycheck will limit your options in life.  A higher minimum wage may sound nice.  But it would be the death knell of any hope or aspiration you ever had.  People stay in jobs they hate because they don’t like leaving their comfort zone.  If they have decent pay and benefits they will endure some of the worst jobs ever (bad boss, office politics, a coworker they can’t stand, dealing with unruly customers, etc.) because it is easier and less scary than finding a new job.  These people are never happy.  They never truly enjoy life.  And they just dread Mondays.  Raising the minimum wage will only condemn more people to this fate.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 30th, 2014

Politics 101

Democrats offered Enthusiastic Applause for Unsound Policy Proposals that have no Basis in Reality

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address was a little longer than an hour.  But if you didn’t look at a clock it felt a lot longer.  For it was the same tripe you hear all the time from this administration.  And the political left.  It was full of misleading statements.  Inaccurate facts and figures.  And some lies.  The usual stuff you expect from the liberal left.  But what was really disturbing was the enthusiastic applause for some really unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  Showing either how clueless these enthusiastic Democrats are about economics, business, national security, etc.  Or how amoral they are in their quest for power.  As they judge and implement policy not by how it will improve the lives of Americans.  But how it will improve their lives in government.

Some Big Reasons why Businesses export Jobs are Taxes, Regulations and Labor Costs

If there was ever an example of what people not to have in power this state of the union theater was it.  Following are excerpts from President Obama’s speech (see FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address posted 1/28/2014 on The Washington Post).  Comments and analysis follow each excerpt.

And here are the results of your efforts: the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market — (applause) — a manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s — (applause) — more oil produced — more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years — (applause) — our deficits cut by more than half; and for the first time — (applause) — for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.

The total number of people who left the civilian labor force since President Obama took office is 11,301,000 (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Which means the unemployment rate is meaningless.  The only reason why it’s falling is that the BLS doesn’t count unemployed people who gave up looking for jobs that just aren’t there.  Oil production on private land may be up.  While overall oil consumption is down because of the Great Recession that just won’t end.  Which is helping to keep gas prices down.  Unemployed people just don’t have the money to buy gas.  So they don’t.  Greatly reducing the demand for gas.  Thus reducing gas prices and oil imports.  George W. Bush’s last deficit was $498.37 billion.  President Obama’s first deficit was $1,539.22 billion.  And it was over $1 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012.  It fell to $680 billion in 2013 thanks to the sequester.  But the deficit is larger now than when President Obama assumed office.  The only reduction in the deficit is a reduction in the amount he increased it.

Now, as president, I’m committed to making Washington work better, and rebuilding the trust of the people who sent us here.

Really?  You’re committed to rebuilding the trust of the people?  Mr. “If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance.  Period.”  Otherwise known as the lie of the year.  You’re going to rebuild the trust of the people?  Good luck with that.  What with your pants on fire and all.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

Well, finally something Republicans can agree with the president about.  Yes, his economic policies have benefitted Wall Street.  While hurting Main Street.  Finally some bipartisan agreement.

So let’s make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad. Let’s flip that equation. Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs right here at home. (Cheers, applause.)

There are only a few reasons why businesses export jobs.  And the big three are taxes, regulations and labor costs.  The Obama administration wants to raise taxes.  They’ve increased regulatory costs.  And they support costly union labor.  So everything they stand for encourages businesses to export jobs.

But — but I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. (Applause.)

So how’s that approval for the Keystone XL pipeline coming along?  That thing you’ve been studying since 2010?  Which by the laws of arithmetic is approximately 4 years ago.  Is this slashing bureaucracy and streamlining the permitting process?  At this rate it would probably be quicker to elect a Republican president in 2016.  You know, someone who, when it comes to economic activity, walks it while the Democrats only talk it.

We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs. And my administration’s launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Youngstown, Ohio, where we’ve connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies.

Universities are in the grant business.  They want as many grants as they can get to help bring money into the university.  And to do so they will study anything the government wants them to.  No matter how wasteful it is.  While some of the biggest high-tech companies started in garages.  Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft.  To name a few.  Yes, there is a lot of university-driven research.  But the big innovation is more entrepreneurial.  Created by people thinking up new stuff no one thought of yet.  Which is the last thing you want government involved in.  That same government that can’t build a website using 1990s technology.

Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.” (Applause.)

You want to help entrepreneurs and small business?  Get rid of Obamacare.  And slash tax rates.  This will provide incentive.  And allow them to reinvest more of their earnings to grow their business.  Allowing them to create those jobs.

Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The “all the above” energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. (Applause.)

‘All of the above’ as long as it isn’t coal, oil or nuclear.  But if it’s solar power and wind power they are committed to giving more tax dollars to their friends and bundlers in the green energy industry.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we’re at it, I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

You can’t sustain production and jobs growth by strengthening protection of our air, water and pristine federal lands.  That’s just more regulatory costs.  And raising energy costs by not allowing any oil or natural gas production on those pristine federal lands.  Raising energy costs by restricting supply.  Which raises business costs.  In addition to those new regulatory costs.

Every four minutes another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced. Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it so we can invest more in fuels of the future that do. (Cheers, applause.)

That says it all.  Fossil fuels don’t need subsidies because their costs are affordable.  While solar (and wind power) are so costly that they are unaffordable.  Unless government heavily subsidizes them.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

There is no such thing as settled science.  Only science that has yet to be disproved.  Besides, once upon a time glaciers stretched down from the poles to near the equator.  And then receded back to where they are now.  All without any manmade carbon in the atmosphere to warm the planet.  As we were still simple hunter and gatherers then.  So if the glaciers moved more before there was manmade global warming they’ll move again regardless of what man is doing to warm the planet.

Finally, if we’re serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement — and fix our broken immigration system. (Cheers, applause.) Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted, and I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: When people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everybody. So let’s get immigration reform done this year. (Cheers, applause.) Let’s get it done. It’s time.

Funny how that argument doesn’t apply to birth control and abortion.  The reason we need to “fix our broken immigration system.”  For if we were having babies at the rate when government created the welfare state we could pay for that welfare state today.  But thanks to the Sixties, birth control, abortion and feminism women stopped having babies.  Which is fine if a woman doesn’t want to.  But the progressives designed the welfare state based on them being baby machines.  Creating a greater number of taxpayers with each generation.  So more people pay into the welfare state than collect from it.  The way it must be for a Ponzi scheme to work.

That’s why I’ve been asking CEOs to give more long-term unemployed workers a fair shot at new jobs, a new chance to support their families. And in fact, this week many will come to the White House to make that commitment real.

When you raise the cost of labor (union labor, Obamacare, etc.) businesses tend to look at automating production instead of hiring that costly labor.  They may not be able to do anything about the higher regulatory costs but they can do something about higher labor costs.  Use more machines than people.  If you want CEOs to create new jobs stop making labor so costly.  And you can start with getting rid of Obamacare.

Of course, it’s not enough to train today’s workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow’s workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education. (Applause.)…

Five years ago we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., are making big strides in preparing students with the skills for the new economy — problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, math.

Yes, more kids are going to college than ever before.  But they’re going there to have fun.  And to facilitate their fun many are getting easy, worthless degrees in the social sciences and humanities.  Costly degrees that universities sold them promising them future riches.  Enriching the university.  While impoverishing their graduates.  For a high-tech company has no use for these degrees.  Which is why a lot of these people end up in jobs they didn’t need that costly degree to do.  And our high-tech companies are using the visa program to get foreigners who have the skills they want.  Problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering and math.

It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test. But it is worth it — and it is working.

If you want kids to do better we need to champion marriage and family more.  And they should embrace religion a little more.  Instead of encouraging our young women to use birth control and abortion to avoid marriage and family.  And pulling every last vestige of religion from our lives.  Kids growing up in a household with a mother and a father who go to church do far better on average than kids growing up in a single-parent household and don’t go to church (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).

Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. (Applause.) Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year-old. And as a parent as well as a president, I repeat that request tonight.

Actually, research doesn’t show that.  Yet they keep saying that.  For it’s like that line in the musical Evita, “Get them while they’re young, Evita.  Get them while they’re young.”  The sooner they can take them away from their parents the sooner they can start turning them into Democrat voters.  Such as teaching them to blame their parents for the manmade global warming that is killing the polar bears as they have no ice to rest on while eating their baby seals.

You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.)

Actually, it’s closer to 91 cents (see The White House’s use of data on the gender wage gap by Glenn Kessler posted 6/5/2012 on The Washington Post).  And the small difference is not due to discrimination but personal choice.  When you look at aggregate wages women will make less than men.  Because more women are teachers (with 3 month off without pay) than men are.  Some women work fewer hours at work to spend more time with their children. While men tend to work more overtime.  Men also work the more dangerous and higher paying jobs.  And are more likely to belong to a union.  When you compare childless, single men and women with a college degree some women are actually earning more than men.  Figures don’t lie but liars figure.  And for the contortions the Obama administration did here The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker gave the president one Pinocchio.

Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs, but they’re not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. That’s what America’s all about. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. (Applause.)

In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs.

You’re not going to have a lot of upward mobility when you pay people more to remain in the jobs they hate.  All the talk about making college more affordable and bringing employers and community colleges together to help give people the skills they need to fill the jobs employers have is all for nothing if they just pay people more for doing an entry-level job.

Let’s do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today most workers don’t have a pension. A Social Security check often isn’t enough on its own. And while the stock market has doubled over the last five years, that doesn’t help folks who don’t have 401(k)s. That’s why tomorrow I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It’s a — it’s a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg.

Once upon a time people opened a savings account at their local bank and they saved to buy a house.  And they saved for their retirement.  That’s how people saved when they didn’t have a pension or a 401(k).  They can’t do that today because of the Federal Reserve destroying the banking industry by keeping interest rates at zero.  If the Fed stopped printing money and let investment capital come from our savings like they did before the Keynesians gave us the Federal Reserve people would be saving like we once did.  And we’d stop having Great Depressions, stagflation and Great Recessions.  Created by their prolonging the growth side of the business cycle.  Which raises prices higher than they normally would go.  Making the contraction side of the business cycle that much more painful.  As those prices have a much longer way to fall than they normally would.  Thanks to the Fed’s meddling with interest rates.

MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little or nothing for middle-class Americans, offer every American access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everybody in this chamber can.

You know why they want these MyRAs?  Because they can’t stand people saving money.  They love Social Security.  Because they can borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund.  Which is what they will do with these MyRAs.  They will take this money and spend it.  Filling the MyRA Trust Fund with a bunch of IOUs.  Just like they do with the Social Security Trust Fund.  And then provide a retirement benefit like Social Security.  That is too small to live on.  Whereas if we saved the money ourselves our retirement nest-egg will be much larger.  And it will provide for our retirement.  Unlike Social Security.

And since the most important investment many families make is their home, send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations. (Applause.)

It was Bill Clinton that set the stage for the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (see Bill Clinton created the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending posted 11/6/2011 on PITHOCRATES).  Using the heavy hand of government to get lenders to qualify the unqualified.  Then the Fed’s artificially low interest rates were the bait for the trap.  Enticing people to borrow huge sums of money because those interest rates were just too good to pass up.  Even if they weren’t planning to buy a house to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting Great Recession were government made.  If we want to prevent the taxpayers from footing the bill for another housing crisis we need to get the Keynesians out of government.

Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. (Applause.)

More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage — 9 million. (Applause.)

The Washington Post gave this lie three Pinocchios (see Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare by Glenn Kessler posted 1/16/2014 on The Washington Post).  For they’re counting some 3.9 million who would have signed up anyway for Medicaid regardless of the Affordable Care Act.  Also, the government was counting people who put a health care plan into their shopping cart as if they signed up for it.  Which many couldn’t.  As they haven’t programmed the back end of the health care website yet to actually accept payment or to pass that information on to the insurers.

And here’s another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer. (Cheers, applause.) No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. (Cheers, applause.) And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.

That’s right.  Women with reproductive systems that men don’t have won’t pay more for their health insurance than men pay for theirs.  How can they do that?  Simple.  They just are charging men more.  To cover the cost of a reproductive system they don’t have.

Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say “we are not afraid,” and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. (Applause.)

If you take away guns from law-abiding gun owners that won’t keep dangerous people with mental health issues that want to harm people out of our movie theaters, our shopping malls or schools like Sandy Hook.  For there are other ways to harm people.  Just look at the Boston Marathon bombers.  The people he’s talking about not only had mental health issues but they were also smart.  Many were even college students.  Who probably could think of other ways to hurt people.  And you just can’t take away everything they might use to harm people.  But you can place these people somewhere where they can’t harm anyone.

You see, in a world of complex threats, our security, our leadership depends on all elements of our power — including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than 50 countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles.

Since President Obama assumed office he did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran.  Which kept the hard-line Islamists in power there.  He gave Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood by telling Hosni Mubarak that he had to go.  Removing the stable anchor of the Middle East.  And moved Egypt closer to Iran.  (The Egyptian people eventually rose up to overthrow the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood).  He went to war in Libya and helped to overthrow Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.  Who at the time was a quasi ally in the War on Terror.  After the Iraq invasion frightened him into believing he may be next.  President Obama was thanked for his Libyan war by al Qaeda with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  He waited too long to act in the Syrian civil war.  Which only brought al Qaeda into the conflict.  He failed to attain a status of forces agreement in Iraq.  So he pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq which has only invited al Qaeda in.  And it looks like this will be repeated in Afghanistan.  He blamed George W. Bush’s wars as recruitment tools for al Qaeda.  While his extensive drone use is doing the same thing.  Especially in Yemen.  The hotbed of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  All that his diplomacy and leadership has done was to make the world a more dangerous place.

American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve — a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.

His diplomacy with Bashar al-Assad in Syria only gave his oppressive regime legitimacy in the civil war he was raging against his people.  Making it easier for Assad to kill Syrians with conventional arms while he gives up a token amount of his chemical weapons.  While also making Russia who brokered the deal the dominate player in the region.

And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program — and rolled back parts of that program — for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.

It’s not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we’re engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

All Iran is doing is pausing their program.  And chemically altering some of their enriched uranium to meet the requirements of this diplomatic deal.  But this chemical process is reversible.  And they will reverse it once they get what they want.  This deal makes the world no safer.  If anything it makes it more dangerous.  For it does not diminish the Iranian nuclear program in the least.  But gives them more time to work on it as they prop up their regime with much needed supplies thanks to a relaxation of the sanctions against them.

These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran’s support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we’re clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don’t rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. (Applause.)

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

The Soviet Union never attacked U.S. soil.  And there was a reason they didn’t.  They were rational.  And knew they would lose a great deal in a war with America.  Especially a nuclear one.  Which is why they never used their nuclear weapons.  But Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a shadowy group that is not a state?  With little to lose in using a nuclear weapon?  If it’s not a nuclear missile there will be no way in knowing where the nuclear bomb came from.  We can have our suspicions that Iran made it and gave it to someone.  But do we nuke Iran over that?  What if there are more nukes in the hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc.?  You could nuke Iran back to the Stone Age but it won’t stop those others being used.  The president insists this will not happen as Iran signed an agreement.  The only problem with that is the Iranians are liars.  And they call the United States the Great Satan.   These two facts suggest that replacing those sanctions with a promise not to build nuclear bombs was probably not a wise trade.

But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress: to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice and fairness and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen.

Use our collective shoulder to expand individual achievement?  The president believes in the former more than the latter.  He didn’t help the Iranians get free from tyranny when he had the chance.  And he turned the Egyptian people over to tyranny.  The Muslim Brotherhood.  Who were oppressing women and Christians.  Fairness and equality under the law?  Ask those Tea Party groups who were targeted by the IRS about fairness and equality under the law.  The Constitution?  That document of negative rights?  The left hates it.  And insists it’s a living document that can evolve over time to suit the needs of an expanding government.  So they can do exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent from happening.

The Left endorses Unsound Policy Proposals with no Basis in Reality to improve their Chances of Winning Elections

The country is more conservative than liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 by Jeffrey M. Jones posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup).  Which is why liberals want state-funded pre-K to start indoctrinating our children as soon as possible.  To get them away from their parents so they can begin the process of turning them into Democrat voters.  It’s why kids are getting worthless social science and humanities degrees.  To further indoctrinate them.  Because their views are minority views.  So they need to play loose with the facts.  And lie.  Which is easier to do with indoctrinated kids than educated adults.  You’ll even hear Democrats talk about lowering the voting age.  To get a few more years of voting out of these kids before they grow old and wise.  And begin voting conservative.  So they do what they can to dumb down education.  Lie.  Cheat.  And buy as many votes as they can by giving away free stuff.  And the thing they really want to give away is citizenship for illegal aliens.  Who they are sure will be forever grateful.  And show it by voting Democrat.

This explains the enthusiastic applause for unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  For the left is not interested in improving the lives of Americans.  They just want to improve their chances of winning elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Snow Blowers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 29th, 2014

Technology 101

If you try to Push or Lift too much Snow you can Wrench your Back, Give yourself a Hernia or Have a Heart Attack

It’s funny, isn’t it?  How much we love to see a white Christmas.  Nothing brings a bigger smile on our face than to see a white blanket out of our windows during the Christmas holiday.  It’s so pretty.  Pristine.  And pure.  Just like the true meaning of Christmas.  But once Christmas comes and goes and that white stuff is still out there our feelings change.  It’s no longer pretty, pristine and pure.  It’s just more of that white [deleted expletive] that we have to shovel.

If you have a detached garage you’re probably no fan of the snow.  Because with every snow fall you have hours of work ahead of you.  To shovel the front sidewalk so the city doesn’t fine you.  The sidewalk up to your mailbox for the mail carrier.  So he or she doesn’t slip and die on your property.  And then that long driveway.  From the approach in the street (so you don’t get stuck in the loose snow there) all of the way into your backyard and to that detached garage.  Over an hour by hand if the snow isn’t too deep.  Or you can let the snow stay there.  Melt a little during the day.  Freeze a little at night.  So you can slip on it and fall.  Breaking your hip.

Of course that snow shoveling would be quicker if you had a shovel as wide as the driveway.  But if we did we would never be able to lift the snow in it.  Because snow is heavy.  And if you try to push or lift too much of it you can wrench your back, give yourself a hernia or have a heart attack.  Which is why we use snow shovels much smaller than the width of the driveway.  It’ll take a lot more time to shovel the snow off it.  But our odds are greatly reduced for getting a wrenched back, hernia or heart attack.

The Two-Stage Snow Blower is not very Maneuverable but it can move through Deep Snow and throw it a Long Way

Snow is heavy.  And the wetter it is the heavier it is.  And the greater risks there are shoveling it.  Which is why God gave us the snow blower.  Or, rather, gave us Robert Carr Harris who gave us the snow blower in 1870.  Which has evolved into two basic machines today.  The single-stage snow blower.  And the 2-stage snow blower.  One of which is ideal for around the house.  The single-stage snow blower.  While the other is ideal for bigger jobs.  Where we have to move a lot more snow than what just falls around our house.  Though there are homeowners who use a 2-stage snow blower.  Even though a single-stage would be more appropriate.

A 2-stage snow blower can be a beast.  Taking up the footprint of a riding lawnmower.  It’s big.  And heavy.  Too heavy for most people to push through the snow.  Which is why these are typically self-propelled.  Requiring a bigger engine.  And a complicated gear box.  To divide the power between the ‘throwing’ function and the ‘propelling’ function.  The throwing function has two stages.  An auger in the front that turns slowly (requiring more gearing) to eat into the snow and pull it towards the center.  At the center is an impeller that turns much faster than the auger .  As the snow is slowly pushed into the fast-spinning impeller it throws the snow into and out of a directional discharge chute at a fast speed.  Throwing it a great distance.

It takes a fairly large engine to spin the auger, the impeller and the drive wheels.  And it takes a pretty complicated (and large and heavy) gear box to provide various rotational speeds for the various components.  As well as a large frame to hold these components, the drive wheels, controls, safety interlocks, oil and fuel.  Making the two-stage snow blower not that nimble or maneuverable.  Which isn’t a problem if you’re walking back and forth over a long driveway.  But it can be a big problem on a sidewalk with a turn or a curve in it.  For turning these beasts can take some muscle.  Muscle that we apply with our feet on a slippery surface.  Even after we’ve already cleared the deep snow off with the snow blower.  For the auger does not come into contract with the pavement.  Meaning it doesn’t clear away the snow down to the pavement.  But it can move through deep snow and throw it a long way.  Making it ideal for big jobs.

The Advantage of a 2-Cycle Engine is a High Power-to-Weight Ratio making it Ideal for a Single-Stage Snow Thrower

The single-stage snow blower is much lighter.  For it has only a fast-spinning auger.  It eats into the snow, pulls it towards the center and throws it out the discharge chute.   Without an impeller.  Throwing it a pretty fair distance.  And the auger actually comes into contract with the ground.  Which helps pull it forward.  And cleans down to the pavement.  With the only one spinning component there are no heavy gear boxes providing multiple speeds to different components.  Making the single-stage snow blower much lighter.  And easier to maneuver.  And it typically has a 2-cycle (or 2-stroke) engine.  Making it lighter still.

The typical engine on a 2-stage snow blower is a 4-cycle (or 4-stroke) engine.  Where the piston moves up or down 4 times to create power.  It moves down and draws in an air-fuel mixture through an intake valve.  It moves up and compresses the air-fuel mixture.  A spark plug ignites this and the hot expanding gases push the piston down on its power stroke.  And then the piston comes up and pushes the exhaust gases out of the cylinder through an exhaust valve.  Then repeats.  A 2-cycle engine has fewer moving parts.  And half the strokes.  As the air-fuel-oil mixture ignites the hot gases push the piston down.  As the top of the piston moves past exhaust ports the exhaust gases can exit the cylinder.  At the same time an air-fuel-oil mixture enters the cylinder through intake ports on the other side of the cylinder.  The piston moves up and compresses this, ignites and pushes the piston down.  Then repeats.

The advantage of a 2-cycle engine is a high power-to-weight ratio.  Allowing a smaller 2-cycle engine to do the work of a comparable 4-cycle engine.  Making them ideal for a single-stage snow blower.  The disadvantage of a 2-cycle engine is that the crank case is used to draw in the air-fuel mixture on the up-stroke of the piston.  And then the piston pushed the air-fuel mixture out of the crankcase and into the cylinder on the down-stroke of the piston.  Because the crankcase is used as part of the pathway for the air-fuel mixture it cannot hold oil.  Which is why we mix oil in the fuel.  Giving us an air-fuel-oil mixture that combusts in the cylinder.  The moving components get lubricated as this mixture travels through the engine.  Which is perhaps the biggest drawback of the single-stage snow blower.  Having to mix oil with gas.  It’s not difficult.  You just have to make sure you add the right amount of oil.  And not to use this gas-oil mixture in your 4-cycle lawnmower.  And even though we were never big fans of cutting the grass even that begins to look pretty sweet as the snow blows back in our face as we walk behind our snow blowers.  Thinking of but one thing.  Spring.  And thanks to these wonderful machines we may actually make it to spring healthy.  Without having suffered a wrenched back, hernia or a heart attack.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Worst Winters than the Current U.S. Winter

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 28th, 2014

History 101

The 1993 Storm of the Century killed some 318 People

If you live in the Northern Plains, the Midwest or the Northeast you’re probably thinking about one thing.  Spring.  Having had enough of snow and cold.  Alberta clippers.  Polar vortexes.  Nor’easters.  Enough.  Some people have already shoveled more snow in January than they did all of last winter.  Feeling that this winter was the worst winter ever.  But is it?  No.

The 1993 Storm of the Century is the only storm that I literally ran away from.  Or, rather, drove away from.  I was in New York State at the beginning of the snowfall heading to some New England ski resorts in March.  The forecast was not good for the drive ahead.  So we raced north.  To get above this monster that dumped some 4 feet of snow where we were and were about to drive through.  And skied at Mont-Tremblant north of Montréal for a day.  Then headed east.  On the drive from Montréal to Québec City for a day of skiing at Mont-Sainte-Anne there was drifting snow and whiteout conditions on the Quebec Autoroute 40 freeway.  It took about 8 hours to travel what normally took 4.  High winds buffeted the car.  And snow drifts crept in from the shoulder.  Covering icy roads.  The drive was stressful to say the least.  And we had skirted north of the worst of this storm.  Which reached as far south as Central America.  With hurricane storm surges, tornadoes and arctic temperatures killing some 318 people.

Before the 1993 Storm of the Century people in the Northeast called the Northeastern blizzard of 1978 the storm of the century.  Some still do.  This was an extra-tropical cyclone that blew up the east coast and crashed into an arctic cold front in February.  Hurricane-force winds, heavy snow and rain and a storm surge pounded the Northeast.  Snow fell for 33 hours straight.  Then turned to an icy-snow mix.  Putting a layer of ice over some 2 feet of snow.  And weighing down tree branches and power lines.  Which fell under the weight of this ice.  Adding power outages on top of everything else.  By the time it was over approximately 100 people were dead.  With close to $2 billion (in current dollars) in damages left in its wake.  Making the Northeastern blizzard of 1978 a close second to that other storm of the century.

The Great Blizzard of 1888 produced Snowfalls between 2 and 5 Feet

The Armistice Day Blizzard of 1940 was a 1,000 mile wide winter storm from Kansas to Michigan in November.  Temperatures plummeted and winds grew.  Then came rain then sleet then snow.  As a low pressure system from the south crashed into a cold arctic air mass creating blizzard conditions.  Over 2 feet of snow fell and the howling winds blew that snow into 20 foot snow drifts.  By the time this storm was over it killed approximately 154 people.  Including 66 sailors lost when three Great Lake freighters sank in the storm.  And duck hunters who got trapped unaware in the approaching storm.  Who were swamped by 5-foot waves washing over islands in the Mississippi River.  Then froze to death in single-digit temperatures and 50 mph winds.

A November witch in 1975 claimed the bulk ore carrier S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald and all of her crew.  But the November witch of 1913 was even worse.  The Great Lakes Storm of 1913 was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds.  Dry cold air moved down from Alberta, Canada, while warm moist warm air from the Gulf of Mexico moved up.  These two systems met over the Great Lakes and started to spin around each other.  Growing to hurricane-force winds.  Which created waves over 30 feet high.  Hammering coastal areas.  While dumping up to 2 feet of snow in its path.  The worst of the storm was on the lakes.  Claiming 12 ships.  And 258 souls.

The Great Blizzard of 1888 was another nor’easter hitting New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in March.  This blizzard produced snowfalls between 2 and 5 feet.  And its 45 mph winds produced snowdrifts in excess of 50 feet.  The storm paralyzed cities.  And trapped people in their houses for up to a week.  Even the firemen.  Causing fires to burn out of control.  Until they burned themselves out.  The snow soon began to melt.  Causing severe flooding.  By the time it was over the storm claimed more than 400 lives.

We warmed up from the Little Ice Age without Centuries of Carbon Emissions

Everyone knows of that terrible winter at Valley Forge (1777–1778).  Where the Continental Army persevered and left Valley Forge a stronger and more disciplined army.  Thanks to Baron Von Steuben.  But the Winter in Morristown in 1780 is largely forgotten to history.  Why?  Because that winter was worse.  And the men were shamefully neglected more.  The Revolutionary War was fought during the Little Ice Age.  A period of global cooling from about 1350 to about 1850.  Making for some fierce winters.  Like in 1780.  When it was so cold that coastal seawater froze.  Including New York Harbor.  People rode in horse drawn sleighs across the ice between Manhattan and New Jersey.  In Morristown, New Jersey, a winter storm hit the army so hard that it blew tents away and buried men in snow.  Heavy snowfalls made it impossible to supply the army.  Even if the impoverished Continental Congress could.  The starvation and exposure to the elements and their abandonment by the people they were fighting for caused something to happen in Morristown that didn’t happen at Valley Forge.  Mutiny.  Lucky for the nation a delivery of food diffused the mutiny.

The Great Snow of 1717 was a nor’easter that blew in on March 1.  Then another one on March 4th.  And yet another one on March 7th.  In all some 3-5 feet of snow fell.  With drifts as deep as 20 feet.  Burying one-story homes past their chimneys.  While people with 2-story homes entered and left their homes via the second floor.  Livestock died from starvation.  Froze to death.  Or were buried alive in the snow.  Even the deer in the area were nearly wiped out.

So, no, the current winter is not the worst winter ever.  And, no, the current brutal winter is not the result of global warming.  Just as mild winters are not the result of global warming.  For we’ve had both going back through time all the way back to the onset of the Industrial Revolution.  And before.  Even before smoke from burning coal filled the air.  And internal combustion engines filled our roads.  We warmed up from the Little Ice Age without centuries of carbon emissions.  Yet even with that warming we’ve still had storms of the century.  Alberta clippers.  Polar vortexes.  And nor’easters.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Abortion and Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published January 21st, 2013)

The Population Growth Rate fell during the Sixties and Seventies from 19% to 11% due to Birth Control and Abortion

Taxpayers are born.  Yes, immigration helped populate America.  But it was really the children of immigrants that made the country grow.  For a large population having babies will increase the population far more than immigration can.  Why?  Where do immigrants come from?  Babies.  Having babies is like compounding interest.  For babies grow up and have babies of their own.  So babies are good.  Especially for a government that wants to spend money.  Because the more babies we have the more taxpayers we will have.  So high-spending governments need a growing population growth rate.  To provide ever more taxpayers.  Who provide ever more tax revenue.  But sometimes the population growth rate doesn’t always increase.  Sometimes it even falls.  (See Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density: 1790 to 1990.  The population numbers are from the decennial census numbers.  The population growth rate is the percentage of population growth from one decade to the next.)

Although the population has always grown the population growth rate has not always grown.  In fact, the rate of growth has been falling over time.  Taking steep declines during war.  During the American Civil War the growth rate fell from 36% down to 23% by the time of the next census.  The census before and after World War I saw a decline from 21% to 15%.  The rate plummeted from 16% to 7% before and after the Great Depression.  With so many people out of work and struggling to survive the last thing families needed was another baby to feed.  The rate actually increased during World War II.  But that had more to do with people not having babies during the Great Depression for economic reasons.  After World War II the rate rose to 14%.  Which was still a point less than after World War I.

The following table shows the decrease in population due to war.  (Raw numbers are pulled from United States military casualties of war.)

Note that the most devastating of American wars was the American Civil War.  Where approximately 2% of the population died.  In terms of percentage loss of population the next costliest war was the Revolutionary War.  Then World War II.  Then World War I.  These wars saw millions of men in uniform (except for the Revolutionary War).  Away from their wives for years.  Which put a crimp in baby making.  And the large number of wounded and dead compounded that problem.  Resulting in large dips in the population growth rate during these wars.  Despite the large loss of life in numbers of America’s other wars those losses were all less than 0.10% of the population.  Making the impact on the population growth rate negligible.  One thing these numbers don’t explain, though, is the decline in the population growth rate after 1960.  During the Sixties and the Seventies the growth rate fell from 19% down to 11%.    But it wasn’t the Vietnam War that caused that decline.  So what did?  Birth control.  And abortion.

Couples having only 2 Children can’t Support an Expanding Welfare State but Couples having 3 Children Can

The U.S. approved the sale of the birth control pill in 1960.  Which corresponded with the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  People were having more sex.  While having fewer babies.  Then Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.  Since then there have been on average about 1.4 million abortions a year.  Dwarfing the 156,250 killed a year in America’s most devastating war.  The American Civil War.  Which has brought the population growth rate to its smallest numbers that weren’t due to war or depression.  Because of that compounding nature of babies (growing up to have babies of their own).  And because babies become taxpayers this has a big impact on future tax revenue.  We can see this by looking at how 100 abortions ripple through the population.

Let’s assume those 100 abortions happen in Year 1 (Y1).  Had these abortions not happened these babies would have grown up and entered the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+20).  And split off into pairs to have babies of their own.  (If each couple has one baby they have a total of 50 babies.  If each couple has two babies they have a total of 100 babies.  Etc.)  Who would grow up and enter the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+40).  And so on.  The above graph adds up all the people for each 20-year period produced by the Y1 babies (children, grandchildren, great grand children, etc.) divided by 100 (those original babies not aborted).

If the Y1 people only have one baby they and their descendants disappear from the world in about 2 centuries.  If they have 2 children the population never grows larger than 4 times the original Y1 people.  Two children to replace two parents.  It’s not until you get to three children that you see an increase in population.  As well as an increase in tax revenue.

Assume each of the people, or taxpayers, at 20-year intervals earn a median income of $50,000.  They pay an effective federal income tax rate of 18%.  In addition to 12.4% for Social Security taxes (both employer and employee).  And 2.9% for Medicare.  Added together they total 33.3%.  This tax rate on total income at each 20-year interval produces the tax revenue in the above graph.  Note the revenue graphs are the same shape as the population graphs.  Showing a direct correlation between tax revenue and the population growth rate.  The tax revenue provided by couples having only one child disappears within two centuries.  Revenue provided by couples having only two children peaks out at $6,660,000.  As couples only have enough children to replace themselves.  Maintaining a constant of 4 taxpayers (2 parents and 2 children) after 80 years.  Showing that couples having 2, 1 or 0 children cannot support an expanding welfare state.  But a couple having 3 children can.  As long as it’s not too big of a welfare state.

You just can’t have an Expanding Welfare State with a Falling Population Growth Rate

The more children a couple has the greater the tax revenue.  For the more children they have the more people enter the workforce and become taxpayers.  If 50 couples have 3 kids each (as do their descendants) they will add $30.4 million in federal tax revenue in one century.  If they have 4 kids they will add $99.9 million in revenue.  If they have 5 kids they will add $264 million.  And if they have 6 kids they will add $599.4 million.

In two centuries these numbers are even more profound.  Couples having 4 kids will provide $3.2 billion in federal tax revenue.  While couples having 5 kids will provide $25.8 billion.  And couples having 6 kids will provide $145.6 billion.  If, that is, 100 pregnancies weren’t aborted 2 centuries earlier.

In the long-term revenue would soar if people simply started having babies again.  For birth control and abortion have greatly reduced the number of babies we’re having.  Causing tax revenue to fall.  We can bring revenue back up by having more babies.  But after some 30 years this baby dearth has pushed us into the flat part of these graphs.  Requiring up to a century or more to make large population gains.  And large gains in tax revenue.   And without these gains in revenue we simply cannot afford an expanding welfare state.

It is rather ironic that two tenets of liberalism clash here.  Liberals believe in both a welfare state.  And free birth control and abortion on demand.  They believe in one thing that requires women to have a lot of babies.  And another that helps women to have as few babies as possible.  Which is another reason liberalism will ultimately fail.  Paradoxes like this.  For you just can’t have an expanding welfare state with a falling population growth rate.  If you try you get trillion dollar deficits.  And $16.4 trillion in accumulated debt.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Unlike Global Warming the Science of Evolution has Evolved

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Devout global warming alarmists say the science is done.  There is a scientific consensus.  Manmade global warming is real.  Case closed.  And if you deny that global warming exists you are going against settled science.  There is only one problem with this.  There is no such thing as consensus in science.  And science is never settled (see 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene by Tia Ghose posted 1/26/2014 on Yahoo! News).

An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed.

The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.

The findings, which were detailed today (Jan. 26) in the journal Nature, also hint that light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution, said study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain…

The finding implies that for most of their evolutionary history, Europeans were not what many people today would call ‘Caucasian’, said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

Instead, “what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change,” Barbujani said.

In the food-production theory, the cereal-rich diet of Neolithic farmers lacked vitamin D, so Europeans rapidly lost their dark-skin pigmentation only once they switched to agriculture, because it was only at that point that they had to synthesize vitamin D from the sun more readily.

This is science.  We had one theory.  And replaced it with another.  As we may do again.  Because science is never settled.  And there is no such thing as consensus.  Which is why global warming is not science.  It’s politics.  Because politicians say there is a consensus.  And that it’s settled.  But in science we don’t take a vote.  We hold one theory true.  And spend our time trying to prove that theory is wrong.  And when a theory withstands all of these efforts to disprove it that theory is a pretty strong theory.  But it doesn’t mean we stop trying to find a better one.  As proven here.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , ,

Sperm Donor must pay Child Support for Lesbian Couple’s Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage.  And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can.  There’s just the matter of getting a child.  As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child.  But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child.  Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption.  For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it.  Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together.  Like with this lesbian couple.  The partner to the mother of the baby left.  Without providing for that baby.  So the mother and baby became wards of the state.  Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support.  Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby.  To make sure the child goes to a good home.  With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm.  Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children.  To conceive and bring children into the world.  In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children.  To give them a last name.  A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits.  So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits.  Where a mother and a father can both raise their children.  Each teaching them what they uniquely can.  Giving them as complete a childhood as possible.  Tied forever to their children by blood.  This is what marriage is for.  Children.  All the employer benefits of marriage.  All the legal advantages of marriage.  All the tax advantages of marriage.  They’re all there for one reason.  To facilitate the raising of children.  So parents raise their children.  And not the state.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The McDonald’s Franchise Fee keeps People returning to McDonald’s

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Minimum wage workers are trying to raise the wage in fast-food restaurants.  Like McDonald’s.  They say it’s only fair as the company makes billions a year.  And can afford higher wages for their workers.  But most McDonald’s are independent franchises.  Operated by a small business owner on very thin margins.  For a large portion of their earnings go to the corporate office in franchise fees.  Which does all the work that allows a franchise owner to open for business and have a thriving business from day one.  Because of all they do with those franchise fees (see McDonald’s Says Its Restaurants Got Too Complicated by Julie Jargon posted 1/24/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).

McDonald’s executives say they have learned from their mistakes of the past year and are moving to correct them. The company rolled out numerous menu items in quick succession, creating a bottleneck in the kitchens. They also rolled out products that were too expensive for many consumers, including chicken wings that were priced far above competitors’ offerings, leaving the chain with approximately 10 million pounds of unsold wings, according to a person familiar with the matter…

The chain is revamping its kitchens to include expanded prep tables to give employees more space to assemble food. It also plans to add more employees at peak hours and during weekends.

Mr. Thompson said the marketing needs to reflect efforts to improve its menu. McDonald’s on Wednesday announced the appointment of Deborah Wahl, formerly chief marketing officer of home builder PulteGroup Inc., to be its new chief marketing officer for McDonald’s USA…

For 2014, McDonald’s is budgeting for $3 billion in capital expenditures, which will cover up to 1,600 new restaurant openings and the refurbishing of more than 1,000 existing locations.

A small business owner doesn’t have the time or resources to develop new menu items to attract more customers to their stores.  Pay for costly mistakes.  Or spend billions each year to build new stores and renovate existing ones.  So that wherever you are in the world when you walk into a McDonald’s you are home.  In familiar territory.  With the same delicious food you enjoyed back at home.  When you weren’t homesick in a strange world.  This is what corporate does with that franchise fee.  It makes the McDonald’s experience what it is.  Not the minimum wage workers.  They help.  As does the franchise owner.  But it’s those franchise fees pouring into corporate that get reinvested into McDonald’s that keeps us wanting to return for the comfiest of comfort foods.  The food of our childhood.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Abortion is Good in the United States but Bad in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Advanced economies with expansive welfare states are incurring large budget deficits and growing national debt.  Why?  Because of birth control.  And abortion.

These massive welfare states were implemented before the Sixties.  When people were having more babies than they are now.  Following World War II there was a baby boom.  Following the baby boom, though, there was a baby bust.  Fast forward to today and a lot of those baby boomers are leaving the workforce and collecting taxpayer-financed benefits in retirement.  While the smaller baby bust generation is paying the taxes for those benefits.  Resulting in less money going into the welfare state than is going out in benefits.  Giving those deficits.  And that growing national debt.

A declining birthrate is the death knell of a welfare state.  So if you want a healthy welfare state you need people to have more babies.  So each generation is bigger than the one before it.  So there is always more money going into the welfare state than is going out.  Allowing the state to pay for those generous benefits without going bankrupt.

So birth control and abortion can bankrupt advanced economies with generous welfare states.  But abortion can do something else (see One-Child Policy Is One Big Problem for China by Susan Scutti posted 1/23/2014 on Newsweek).

Late last year, China’s National People’s Congress eased the one-child policy. The government didn’t exactly admit it was a mistake; according to Chinese officials, the guidelines helped avert 400 million births and in so doing, accelerated modernization…

Enforcement of the one-child policy during the early 1980s was controversial not only in China but around the globe. Early stories emerging from the rural villages focused on coercive practices, including forced late-term abortions and involuntary sterilization, as well as the “neighborly” snitching on pregnant couples who dared to conceive a second child…

…In China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls.

Medical advancements and technology have played a key role in creating this surplus of boys. “The Chinese government contracted with GE to provide cart-mounted ultrasound that could be run on generators so that the most obscure village had access to fetal sex determination,” said Hudson. Given the ability to know the sex of their unborn children, many parents aborted female fetuses…

It appears that the outraged cries from within and without have been heard. The Chinese government has spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research into the implications of this radical skew in gender population numbers.

Having more men than women has led to a lot of single men who want to marry but can’t.  As there are not enough women to match up with men.  Which has caused a lot of these men to turn to prostitutes.  Something human traffickers are more than happy to supply them with.  Sending women there from neighboring countries to work in the sex industry.

The world is outraged over the number of aborted female fetuses in China.  Including the American left.  Yet they have no problem with abortion.  Aborting female fetuses is wrong.  But aborting male AND female fetuses is fine.  Apparently.  As abortion is sacred to those on the left.  Just mention that you want to revisit Roe v. Wade and see them go apoplectic.  For that is settled law.  And anyone who wants to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion is waging a war on women.  While in China abortion itself is the war on women.  So on the one hand abortion is the great liberator of women (outside of China).  While on the other hand it is the great exterminator of women (inside of China).  So it’s both good and bad.  When you use the imaginary logic of liberals, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Billionaires increasing Income Inequality is bad but Women Billionaires are Not

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

According to the left rich people in corporations are bad.  They’re evil incarnate.  That’s why they hated 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney so much.  He was a rich guy in the corporate world.  Who screw the people to enrich themselves.  Making rich people richer.  And poor people poorer.  Which is the new theme President Obama is using these days.  Income inequality.  Which just isn’t right.  Rich people having so much more than poor people.  Especially those billionaires in corporations.  They’re the worst.  Money-grubbing parasites.  These billionaires threaten human progress (see 85 people have as much money as half the world by Li Anne Wong, CNBC, posted 1/20/2014 on MSN Money).

The combined wealth of the world’s richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world’s population — or 3.5 billion of the poorest people — according to a new report from Oxfam.

In a report titled “Working for the Few” released Monday, the global aid and development organization detailed the extent of global economic inequality created by the rapidly increasing wealth of the richest, warning of the major risks it poses to “human progress.”

According to the report, 210 people have become billionaires in the past year, joining a select group of 1,426 individuals with a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion.

It added that the wealth of the richest one percent of people in the world now amounts to $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

Imagine that.  There are 1,426 of these money-grubbing parasites.  Who can only make the world a worse place.  According to the left.  For any one person having that much money is just wrong.  Unless, that is, she’s a woman (see Facebook’s Sandberg is now a billionaire by Chris Isidore posted 1/22/2014 on CNN Money).

A record high close for Facebook shares has made Sheryl Sandberg one of the youngest female billionaires ever, according to a ranking from Bloomberg.

Sandberg, who is the company’s chief operating officer, owns 12.3 million shares. That makes her stake worth about $720 million.

In addition, she owns 4.7 million options, which would net her $220.6 million at her exercise price.

She has also received stock awards which have not yet vested, the estimated value of which takes her over the $1 billion mark.

Female billionaires are still relatively rare. Bloomberg’s list of the 200 richest people worldwide shows only 17 who are women.

Forbes reported last year that there were 138 female billionaires worldwide, but that’s out of a total 1,426 billionaires worldwide.

And only 24 of the women billionaires on the Forbes list earned their wealth themselves; most inherited a significant portion of their fortune.

Not a bad word in this article about this billionaire.  For when a woman becomes a billionaire it is reason to celebrate.  For shattering yet another glass ceiling.  Not to lament that there is another good for nothing money-grubbing billionaire in the world today.  Who will only make that income inequality worse.  Funny how that works.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries