France discourages Job Creation with a Short Workweek, Confiscatory Tax Rates and Banning Emails after 6 PM

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

For socialism to work you need businesses to provide jobs.  Because without people working the government can’t have confiscatory tax rates to fund a massive socialist state.  You’ve got to have jobs.  Which confiscatory tax rates tend to discourage.  For business and rich investors don’t want to pay confiscatory tax rates.  François Hollande ran on a socialist platform in France.  Promising to raise taxes to bring down the deficit.  Which he did.  Raise taxes.  But it didn’t lower an unemployment rate stubbornly staying above 10%.

High taxes and a poor economy caused the socialists to lose elections.  So Hollande is putting together a tax-cutting package.  To reverse their electoral losses.  You’d think the socialists would have learned their lessons that the people want jobs.  And to have jobs you need a business-friendly environment.  Which something like this is not going to help (see France bans work e-mail after 6 p.m. by John Johnson, Newser, posted 4/11/2014 on USA Today).

France already has a 35-hour work week, and a new rule is designed to make sure that it doesn’t start shading toward 40 hours because of work-related e-mail.

The Guardian reports that the rule forbids workers from checking their phones or computers for work stuff after 6 p.m., and it forbids employers from pressuring them to do so.

The move apparently doesn’t affect all workers in France, but it does cover about 1 million workers in the tech industry — including French employees of Google and Facebook…

At Fox Business, a U.S. labor expert finds it hard to believe the IT industry can manage such a draconian shut-off time.

“There’s always something going wrong off the clock — when a computer goes down, it doesn’t go down between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

It’s yet another thing to discourage business.  Things happen after hours.  Can you imagine a business wanting to open themselves to that kind of liability?  Having someone in the company send out an email without checking the clock first?  Or someone working late into the evening to catch up on a project.  Sending out a bunch of emails so people could read them first thing in the morning.  If someone else is working late do they read this email?  Perhaps this person was waiting for this email and would like to address it that evening to reduce his or her workload the following day.  Would this worker have been pressured into reading the email knowing his or her boss would have appreciated the extra effort?

There’s a reason why General Motors (GM) went bankrupt.  Well, there are a few of them.  But one of them was costly workplace rules.  Such as only allowing an electrician to change a light bulb at a work station.  Even if the person at that workstation could have changed that bulb in a couple of minutes.  Instead of waiting an hour or so for skilled trades to come around to unscrew the burnt out lamp and screw in a new lamp.

These little workplace rules add up.  And though seemingly harmless when you look at them one at a time in the aggregate they increase the cost of business.  A lot.  Just ask GM.  Something businesses look at when they are considering the location of a new factory.  Whether to expand production at an existing factory.  Or whether to shut down a factory and move production out of the country to a more business-friendly environment.  Thus killing job creation.  Jobs the socialists need for people to have so they can pay confiscatory taxes on their earnings.

A business unfriendly environment will never lower the unemployment rate.  As the socialists in France have proven.  And left-leaning governments everywhere have proven.  Confiscatory tax rates do not attract businesses.  Or rich investors.  They discourage them.  And encourage them to take their money and invest it elsewhere.  And create jobs elsewhere.  In another country that is a little kinder to business.  And job creation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The High Cost of Employing People has some replacing People with Technology

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 8th, 2014

Week in Review

Self-serve checkouts at stores are reducing the number of cashiers in the economy.  As bar codes and credit cards make it easier to live in a world that isn’t served by people.  You can even pay with cash at these self-serve checkouts.  And people love them.  Why?  Shorter lines.  You can have 10 or more self-checkout lanes managed by one employee to fix problems and approve alcohol sales.  Whereas 10 checkout lanes with cashiers require 10 cashiers.  And these days full-time employees are expensive.  Especially in low-margin industries.  Like retail sales and grocery stores.

So stores don’t like to have a lot of checkout lanes with no lines with some cashiers getting paid for working part of the time.  They’d rather have 3 checkout lanes with long lines with 3 cashiers working all of the time.  Or one cashier overlooking 10 self-serve checkout lanes.  Because fewer people cost less.  Making it easier to survive in a world of thin margins.  And this concept may soon be coming to a restaurant near you (see Pizza Hut table lets you touch-screen your toppings by Amanda Kooser posted 3/4/2014 on cnet).

Touch-screen tables already exist. Pizza Hut restaurants already exist. Put the two together and you end up with a touch-screen table concept for ordering pizzas using your fingers…

The interactive table idea isn’t far-fetched at all. The technology to make it happen is already available. If this were to be rolled out, however, it would require a pretty hefty investment for the hardware, which would need to be rugged enough to stand up to countless greasy fingerprints, soda spills, and other abuse.

People love their gadgets.  There’re apps for everything these days.  To make our lives more efficient.  To speed things up in our lives.  In large part by removing those slow and time-consuming people.  This is the brave new world we live in.  A world where we even use that technology to communicate with each other.  Instead of meeting face-to-face.  It is clear we’re addicted to technology.  And losing our desire to interface with people.

Which is why it’s sad that costly government regulations (such as Obamacare) and higher taxes are squeezing margins so much for businesses that they prefer to invest in technology instead of hiring people.  Because with technology you don’t need to pay for unemployment insurance.  Workers’ compensation insurance.  Health insurance.  Mandated paid-leave.  Holidays.  Vacation days.  Drug testing.  Sexual harassment training.  Sexual harassment lawsuits.  A higher minimum wage.  Etc.  All of those things our liberal Democrats have burden our businesses with to make it better for employees.  But the costs are so great to comply with these regulations and taxes that businesses are now replacing employees with technology wherever they can.  Just so they can remain in business.

What’s next?  Restaurants where you sit down and select something from your touch-screen table?  And a pre-cooked dinner (appetizer, entrée and dessert) is warmed in an automated kitchen?  Only to be delivered to your table by an automated conveyance system?  Eliminating cooks, waitresses and even food-runners?  If you keep raising the cost of employing people this may be our brave new world in our not so distant future.  If you doubt this just think of the last time you went to the post office.  Did your banking face-to-face with a bank teller.  Dropped your film off to be developed into photographs.  Used a newspaper to find a movie to see.

Our love of technology, our impatience to wait for anything and the high cost of hiring people (especially low-skilled workers) has taken us far down the road to that people-less future.  You can’t stop the march of technology.  But you can stop making it so costly to hire people.  If we focused on this we wouldn’t have to worry about a people-less future.  Something we should think about the next time we enter a voting booth.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Economists are Narcissists who don’t know the First Thing about Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

There was a sketch on the Benny Hill Show that reminds me of Keynesian economists.  Benny was singing a song and they were showing the unrequited love around him.  They showed one woman who loved a man.  But that man loved another woman.  Who loved Benny.  And who did Benny love?  The camera remained on Benny.  Because that’s who he loved.

Keynesian economists are a lot like that.  They like to sound erudite.  They like to write things with impressive economic jargon in it.  The layman can’t understand a thing they say or write.  But that’s okay.  As they are writing to impress their peers.  People who are as narcissistic as they are.  And they tell each other how brilliant they are with all of their demand-side pontificating.  Pinching each other’s cheeks and saying, “Who’s a good economist?  You are.  You’re a good economist.  Yes you are.”  Even though they are always wrong.  Reminding me of another television show.  Hogan’s Heroes.  Where Colonel Hogan and Colonel Klink were disarming a bomb in the compound.  They’re down to two wires.  One disarms the bomb.  The other detonates it.  Colonel Hogan asks Colonel Klink which wire to cut.  He picks one.  And just as he’s about to cut it Colonel Hogan changes his mind and cuts the other wire.  Disarming the bomb.  Colonel Klink asks him if he knew which wire to cut why did he ask him.  And he replied that he wasn’t sure but he knew for sure that Colonel Klink would pick the wrong wire.

This is just like a Keynesian economist.  Ask them what to do to help the economy and you can be sure they’ll pick the wrong thing to do.  Because they love their demand-side economics with all their charts and graphs and equations.  For it feeds into their superiority complex.  As they can baffle people with their bull s***.  Well, the truth is that the economic data doesn’t support demand-side economics.  For all of the stimulus spending Keynesians have encouraged governments to do have never pulled an economy out of a recession.  It has only extended a recession.  And made it more painful.  For if you want to help the economy you have to work on the supply side.  Make it easier for people to be creative and bring things to market.  Things people will buy.  Even if they had no idea that they existed before seeing them in the market (see How Taco Bell’s Lead Innovator Created The Most Successful Menu Item Of All Time by Ashley Lutz posted 2/26/2014 on Business Insider).

The Doritos Locos Taco is one of the most successful fast food innovations of all time.

Taco Bell released the product in 2012 and sold more than a billion units in the first year. The fast food company had to hire an estimated 15,000 workers to keep up with demand…

The team went through more than 40 recipes, and Gomez told Business Insider he sometimes felt like the idea would never come to fruition.

“Execution was so difficult,” he said.

Gomez was eventually able to perfect the shell by using the same corn masa found in Doritos. He also discovered a process that would evenly distribute the seasoning on the shells. And the company found a way to contain the cheese dust in the production process.

Even after Gomez created the ultimate shell, he still had to design production facilities that would make millions of them.

But for Gomez, the years of effort was worth it.

“When we shared the idea with our consumers, they loved it,” Gomez said. “I was blown away with how immediately popular Doritos Locos Tacos became.”

The taco is the most popular menu item in the fast food chain’s 50-year history.

This wasn’t demand-driven.  As Keynesians believe everything is.  Get more money into the hands of consumers and they will demand things.  Thus increasing economic activity.  But not a single consumer was demanding the Doritos Locos Taco.  As there was no such thing to demand.  And giving them more money wasn’t going to bring it to market.  Only creative people with an idea and an indefatigable passion brought this to market.  Spending a lot of years and lots of money to bring to market something people weren’t demanding.  And might not even like.  But they did.  And it was a big success.  This is how you create economic activity.  On the supply side.  Cut tax rates and costly regulations.  Like Obamacare.  So other people are encouraged to be creative and use their indefatigable passion to bring other things to market.  Creating a whole lot more economic activity than just giving people a stimulus check and telling them to go out and create economic activity.  Because once that Keynesian stimulus is spent it cannot create any more economic activity.  Unlike all of the economic activity it takes to sell a billion or more Doritos Locos Tacos a year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Businesses and Jobs tend to move from Countries with High Regulatory Costs to ones with Low Regulatory Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

A business is an investment.  Business owners invest capital and labor to make money.  Just like people buy government bonds to make money.  Of course, investing in government bonds is safe but it doesn’t create any jobs.  So we prefer when investors invest in a business.  Because a business will create jobs.

So where would investors prefer to risk their money?   That depends on the expected return on investment.  Historically there was always more money to be made in a business.  But higher regulatory costs have reduced that return on investment.  Leading a lot of investors to turn to government bonds.  Or to move their businesses to another country.  One with a less costly regulatory environment (see The rich world needs to cut red tape to encourage business posted 2/22/2014 on The Economist).

Singapore has come out on top as the least burdensome for the past eight years (see chart 3), whereas many EU countries are bumping along near the bottom. Of the 148 countries surveyed in 2013, Spain was ranked 125th, France 130th, Portugal 132nd, Greece 144th and Italy 146th.

Americans who complain about the Obama administration’s unhelpfulness towards business will also note ruefully that over the past seven years their country has slipped from 23rd to 80th place…

Broadly speaking, in recent years emerging markets seem to have been cutting their red tape whereas the rich world has been strengthening its regulatory regime…

But not all labour laws are equally useful. In much of Europe the problem is that regulations designed to protect existing workers from unfair dismissal often make employers reluctant to take on new ones. One international executive recounts the tale of a French worker who had been with his employer for just three years but was entitled to five years’ compensation for dismissal. “We wouldn’t put anyone in France if we can possibly avoid it,” the executive said…

The danger is that, once European companies come to expand capacity again, they may do so outside the euro zone, where employment contracts are more flexible and wages and social costs are lower…

The EU not only has inflexible labour markets and high costs; it has slower growth prospects than most emerging markets. That will tempt many businesses to move elsewhere. “Western Europe is at a severe disadvantage because of the costs when you have to restructure your operations,” says Martin Sorrell, the boss of WPP. By contrast, Singapore has a low tax rate, a light regulatory regime and an enviable location at the heart of Asia. Sir Martin thinks some multinationals will eventually move their headquarters to the city-state.

The best way to protect workers is with a robust economy.  Not regulations.  If you lower the tax burden and regulatory costs the return on investment on businesses will soar past the return on investment from government bonds.  And investors would put their money into businesses to make more money.  This is how you help workers get better pay and benefits.  You create such economic activity that there are more jobs than people to fill them.  Forcing employers to offer higher wages and better benefits.  The way it was when the United States became the number one economy in the world.  Not the way it is currently in the EU.  Or the United States.  Where the Great Recession lingers on.  Thanks to an anti-business economic climate.  And the mother of all costly regulatory policies.  Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

There is Great Income Inequality on the Set of the Big Bang Theory

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

It is hard to explain economic fundamentals to the public.  To explain how free market capitalism made this country great.  And how supply and demand set prices.  How unskilled workers are in less demand than highly skilled workers.  So highly skilled people earn more money than unskilled workers.  Which is why doctors earn more money than those working in fast-food.  Because there always seems to be a shortage of doctors.  While there is no shortage of minimum wage jobs.  So doctors are worth more because they are in greater demand.

Those on the left want a living wage for everyone.  Regardless of their skill level.  Unions are trying to unionize fast-food workers and Wal-Mart employees.  So they can force these businesses to pay them more than the market price for their labor.  As determined by the laws of supply and demand.  Like they do everywhere else.  Computer programmers were in high demand during the dot-com bubble.  Raising the salary of computer programmers.  And people went to college to learn how to be computer programmers to get those high salaries.

But try to explain this to the layperson when the left demonizes Republicans.  Calls them greedy.  Saying they want to take food away from children and the poor.  And throw Grandma off the cliff.  That they’re in the pockets of the big, evil corporations.  And that unfettered capitalism is corrupt, unfair and just plain mean.  What makes it especially difficult to explain these economic fundamentals is that the left controls the public schools and our universities and colleges.  And the entertainment industry.  So they’re teaching our children to hate free market capitalism.  And Republicans.  While the entertainment industry mocks and ridicules anyone who tries to advance sound economic policies instead of expanding the welfare state.  Instead they preach egalitarianism.  Where everyone should get a living wage regardless of their skill level.  And where we treat people fairly and with dignity.  Transferring and distributing wealth fairly.  From those according to ability to those according to need.

It sounds nice.  Caring.  And kind.  Despite every country that has ever tried that became a horrible place to live.  For that’s what they did in the former Soviet Union.  The People’s Republic of China.  The former East Germany.  North Korea.  Cuba.  Nations that had to use a brutally oppressive police state to prevent their people from escaping the kind of egalitarianism the left is constantly trying to bring to the United States.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing in trying to teach economic fundamentals to lay people is that their heroes in the entertainment industry are always campaigning for the left.  They attend fundraisers for the left.  Help them win elections.  And they constantly mock and ridicule those on the right.  Despite indulging in some of the most unfettered free market capitalism themselves (see ‘Big Bang Theory’ Stars Seeking Hefty Pay Raises by Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter, posted 9/17/2013 on Yahoo! TV).

Sources tell THR that Emmy winner Parsons (Sheldon), Galecki (Leonard) and Cuoco (Penny) will negotiate together — as they did in 2010 — and are looking for a considerable bump in pay from their current deal. According to a TV Guide Magazine report, the trio currently earns $325,000 per episode and may seek up to $1 million an episode…

The new deals for Bialik and Rauch, who joined the series midway through its run and were promoted from recurring to regulars, will see their salary jump from $20,000-$30,000/episode to the $60,000 ballpark, with increases each year taking them to $100,000 per episode by the end of their new contracts.

One million an episode versus $100,000 an episode?  Wow.  Talk about your income disparity.  There is no egalitarianism on the set of the Big Bang Theory.  There’s no fairness.  And just think how much food this could have bought for the children.  And the poor.  If these people were corporate officers they would be hated and despised for their greed.  Especially when the median household income (the income that supports an entire family) has been languishing around $53,000.  And here are actors making more than that each episode they film.  Is that fair?  When others have so little?

Yes, it is unfair.  But is it wrong?  No.  This is free market capitalism.  This is the top-rated comedy on television.  It has great writing.  And great characters.  Which the writers created.  But if you watch an early episode and then a later one you will see how these actors have evolved these characters.  In the first episodes Penny was the pretty neighbor Leonard was smitten with.  But watch her now.  And all the things she doesn’t say.  Her body language and facial expressions.  The little nuances that have transformed Penny into a real life person we look forward to seeing every week.  Kaley Cuoco has made Penny into what she is today.  As Jim Parsons has made Sheldon into what he is.  And Johnny Galecki has made Leonard into what he is.  The rest of the cast is probably the best ever fielded on a sitcom.  But it is the interactions they have with these three that make this show the number one comedy on television.

So, no, we don’t begrudge them from getting these unfair contracts.  More power to them to get as much as they can get.  Sure, it’s unfair to the actors that came before them.  When things were very egalitarian.  Where the actors made far less than they do today.  Even if that show went on forever in syndication.  Like Gilligan’s Island.  Making a lot of money for the owners of that show.  But not the actors.  No, they didn’t get a dime from that syndication.  Worse, none of them made close to a million dollars an episode.  They didn’t get paid a lot.  But everyone made closer to what everyone else made.  Because back then actors were more equal.  Unlike today.  Where there is great income inequality between actors.

So there is nothing wrong with Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco making these huge sums of money.  Or anyone else in the entertainment community.  It would be nice, though, if this community wasn’t publically against the very thing that they benefit so handsomely from.  Free market capitalism.  Which has been very good to them.  As it is very good to everyone.  But yet the entertainment community generally endorses the left.  And attacks the right.  Which helps the left raise taxes and burden business with more costly regulations.  Things that hurt the economy.  And keeps the median household income from rising.  Harming the middle class.  But making no impact on these superrich.  This is the problem we have with the entertainment community.  They’re hogging all the free market capitalism for themselves.  While forcing us to live in the miserable social democracy they helped to create with their endorsement of the left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama goes out of his way to Raise the Price of Gasoline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 14th, 2013

Week in Review

Why is gasoline so expensive?  Because of President Obama.  He has shut down drilling wherever he can.  Reducing the American supply of oil (and increasing its cost) to refine into gasoline.  And he has been depreciating the dollar with his quantitative easing.  The Federal Reserve’s stimulus that is doing nothing to stimulate the economy.  But because oil is priced in U.S. dollars per barrel this devaluation of the dollar results in higher oil prices.  Because it takes more of a devalued dollar to pay for the same amount of oil those dollars once bought.  And then there’s this (see Valero Asks Obama Administration to Waive Ethanol Mandate by Mario Parker posted 9/10/2013 on Bloomberg).

Valero Energy Corp. (VLO), the world’s largest independent refining company, called on the Obama administration to waive the country’s biofuel target immediately, saying the cost to reach it has skyrocketed…

Refiners are required by law to use 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol in 2013. Renewable Identification Numbers are attached to each gallon of ethanol to track compliance. Once the additive is blended into gasoline, refiners can retain the certificate to show compliance or trade it to another party. RINs prices have risen more than eight-fold so far this year.

RINs have increased because of falling gasoline demand and higher biofuel consumption targets, Klesse said in the letter.

Gasoline demand will drop 0.5 percent next year, according to a forecast today from the Energy Information Administration, the Energy Department’s statistical arm. The Renewable Fuels Standard, set in 2007, calls for 14.4 billion gallons of ethanol to be used in 2014, up 4.3 percent from this year. The target increased 4.5 percent this year from 13.2 billion in 2012…

Ethanol is typically blended in a formula of as much as 10 percent in gasoline. While the EPA has approved blends of 15 percent, refiners haven’t adopted the higher concentration, citing engine damage concerns.

They only blend ethanol with gas so the percentage of ethanol in the gas doesn’t exceed 10-15%.  Because putting more into the gas could damage the engine.  So for every 10 gallons of gasoline they only need one gallon of ethanol.  For if they bought more than one gallon per every 10 gallons of gas they would have more ethanol than they could use.  With a fixed amount of ethanol required (14.4 billion gallons) instead of a percentage these refineries have a problem.  Because they need to buy 600,000 gallons more of ethanol in 2014 (a 4.3% increase over 2013) while gasoline demand will fall 0.5% in 2014.  Because of President Obama’s horrible economy.  Which means they will be blending less ethanol with gasoline in 2014.  Despite having to buy 600,000 gallons more.

They can’t use this extra ethanol.  And they sure don’t want to buy it just so they can store it someplace.  So instead they want to buy these Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs).  That certifies a gallon of ethanol has been blended with gasoline as required.  Even if it has not.  Which becomes a pretty handy thing to have (these RINs).  As you can avoid buying ethanol that you can’t use to meet the new higher requirement.  For people are buying less gas because of President Obama’s horrible economy.

These government regulations are greatly distorting the free market.  Increasing the costs of the refineries.  Who pass it on to the consumer in higher gas prices.  Which hurts Americans because they have to put more of their paycheck into their gas tank instead of using it on food or clothing for their children.  Pulling more money out of the economy.  Which helps to make President Obama’s economy so bad.  So why doesn’t he lower the number of gallons required when the number exceeds the amount the refineries need to blend with gasoline?  Because he doesn’t care about the cost of gasoline.  The higher the better for him as fewer people will be driving.  Which will create a greater demand for mass transportation.  Which will create more union jobs filled by people who will vote Democrat.  Also, the higher the price of gasoline the greater the tax revenue the governments collect at the state and federal level.  Which is what’s really important to governments.  Not food and clothing for children.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama increases Joblessness and Poverty with his Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

The political left is ruining the country.  Every time they get into power they leave a swath of destruction in their wake.  And we hear the same things over and over again.  The plans these people have to fix the things they’ve destroyed.  We heard Jimmy Carter.  And now we’re hearing the same things from President Obama.  But they’re just empty words.  For if things get worse while you’re in office it’s you.  Not everything else (see Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work by Hope Yen, Associated Press, posted 7/28/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration’s emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to “rebuild ladders of opportunity” and reverse income inequality.

Renew his emphasis on the economy?  To renew something you had to have done something first.  The president is in his 5th year in office.  And all he’s done is implement policies that has discouraged job creation.  Obamacare is causing employers to freeze hiring and push some employees to part time.  Obamacare, then, has increased joblessness.  And forcing people into lower-paying part-time jobs has increased poverty.

Shutting down the oil business in the Gulf of Mexico destroyed good-paying jobs in the oil business.  Refusing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline has prevented the creating of good-paying construction jobs.  And the additional good-paying jobs in the oil business that would have processed this new oil coming to American refineries and out into the distribution network.

The president’s war on coal is shuttering coal mines.  And destroying good-paying jobs in the mining industry.  And moving away from cost-efficient coal-fired power plants has increased the cost of electric power for businesses and households.  Something else to put pressure on hiring.  Leading to more joblessness.  And poverty.

Things have gotten worse during the Obama presidency because of his anti-business policies.  When you have anti-business policies you don’t create an environment for job creation.  Which is the source of all of our problems.  People can’t get a good-paying full-time job because President Obama is destroying them.  And if that wasn’t bad enough, liberal Democrat policies make a bad situation worse.

Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.

“It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama’s election, while struggling whites do not…

For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

The political left won’t tell kids to stop having so much sex.  In fact, they’re facilitating it.  By giving free condoms to high school kids.   Making abortion available on demand.  And even providing the morning-after pill to any girl regardless of age without a prescription or parental notification.  Because kids are going to have sex no matter what we say.  A message heard loud and clear by our kids.  Who are having a lot of sex.  Hooking up to satisfy their needs.  Then going on their way.  Seeing no need to get married.  Especially the guys.  Who never had it better.

The enlightened attitude of the political left has made it a veritable smorgasbord out there.  Objectifying women like never before.  Where men look at women as sexual flavors.  And wonder what they feel like tonight.  This is the hookup.  And it isn’t conducive to making long-lasting relationships.  These guys don’t even want to talk to these women.  They want to take care of their business.  And leave.  Returning to their male friends.  Where they can enjoy the things they really like once their sexual needs are satisfied.

This is why marriage rates are declining.  Because with the left’s objectification of women what’s the point of marrying them?  This is the world a girl finds herself in after getting pregnant.  And doesn’t want to get an abortion.  She is on her own.  And there is no faster way to poverty than being a young, single mother.  If she doesn’t graduate from high school or can’t go on to college because she has to raise a baby what chance does she have?  While others are getting an education she is working a job that doesn’t require an education.  When her high school classmates are graduating from college she is still working that same job.  Because she missed out on getting the college education that could have given her a career with a high-paying job.  Instead working a job that requires no advanced education.  The kind that doesn’t pay well.  Because they’re often entry-level.  The kind high school kids work.  And those in college.  Who then quit these jobs to begin the career they went to college for.  But what a single mother can’t do.  Because without that education she doesn’t have that option.

The obvious solution to this problem is for these girls to wait for marriage before having a baby.  When a parent can stay at home with the baby while the other is building a career that lifts them out of the poverty level.  If the left would stop objectifying women people will stop hooking up and get married instead.  To build a career.  And a family.  Instead of just giving in to their base impulses and enjoying the moment.  And living a life of abject poverty.  For like the old saying goes, good things come to those who wait.  And if you wait until marriage before having children life will be so much better than life as a single mother.  As the data shows.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Government Officials want Businesses to do their Social Duty after making it so Difficult for them to Earn a Profit

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

You know a country is intervening too much into the private sector economy when they start saying things like this (see Hiring UK workers ‘more important’ than profit, Matthew Hancock indicates by Peter Dominiczak posted 7/26/2013 on The Telegraph).

Mr Hancock, the business and skills minister, has said that companies have a “social duty” to employ young British workers rather than better-qualified immigrants.

He said that employers should be prepared to invest in training British staff rather than simply looking for “pure profit”.

“During the last boom there was a lot of recruitment from abroad and, in fact, youth unemployment went up, even during the boom.

“This is about a change of culture. I’m arguing that it is companies’ social responsibility, it is their social duty, to look at employing locally first.

“That may mean that they have to do more training. It may mean more training in hard skills, in specific skills. Or it may mean training in the wherewithal, the character you need in order to hold down a job.

Of course, the question that gets begged to ask is this.  Why do the immigrants have better training in hard skills, have better training in specific skills and have the character to hold down a job?  Why is it that the British youth is not as employable as these immigrants?  Is it the British educational system?  What exactly are these other countries doing better than Britain that their people are better qualified for these jobs?  Or is it that these immigrants are just older and more responsible and desperate for work?  As there is no generous welfare state in their country to support them in their unemployment?  Has the government created an environment where businesses have to turn to better-qualified immigrants?

If Mr. Hancock thinks business should hire people based on social duty instead of what’s best for the bottom line then why doesn’t he show these businesses how it’s done.  Let him create a business that hires based on social duty instead of profit.  Of course, without profit it will require Mr. Hancock to use more and more of his personal funds to finance business operations.  Such as paying to train those unqualified workers.  But I’m guessing he won’t do that.  Because he’s a government official.  And will only risk the taxpayers’ money.  Force businesses to take greater risk with their money (by operating at a lower profit level due to higher taxes and regulatory costs).  But he won’t risk his money.  No.  Anything but that.  But he’s perfectly okay with everyone else risking theirs.

Perhaps this is the reason why these immigrants are better qualified for these jobs.  People in government managing the private sector economy who don’t know the first thing about business.  But think they do.  And have no idea of just how ignorant they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

President Obama directing Federal Regulators to increase our Electric Bills

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 29th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass a carbon tax (aka, cap and trade) into law to increase the cost of electric power.  So he is going to use his regulatory powers to increase the cost of electric power (see Obama directs EPA to end dumping of carbon from power plants by Steve Holland posted 6/25/2013 on Reuters).

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he is directing federal regulators to develop a plan to end the “limitless dumping of carbon pollution” from U.S. power plants.

Translation?  President Obama is directing federal regulators to increase the cost of your electric bill.

Carbon dumping?  They make it sound like these power plants are driving down country roads in the dead of night and pouring carbon out of barrels over the pristine wilderness.  But it’s just the smoke coming out of smokestacks.  Most of which is scrubbed clean these days.  Thanks to previous costly regulations.  What’s next?  Breathing tests to calculate how much carbon we dump each year?  So they can tax our breathing, too?  Because we exhale a greenhouse gas?  Of course, with Obamacare that won’t be so hard to do.  As the government will have their fingers in our medical records.

Beware buying your electric car.  That is, if you think it will be less costly than paying for very expensive gasoline.  First of all, one of the reasons why gasoline is so expensive is because of the taxes the government tacks on to the price per gallon.  Which is supposed to maintain our roads.  Of course that’s hard to see these days with our crumbling infrastructure.  They are collecting a ton of money.  But where it goes is another question.

Now that we have moved into more fuel efficient cars and electric cars and hybrids what is our thanks?  They want to put a black box in our car to track the miles we drive.  So they can tax us per mile.  Because we’re not buying enough gasoline to maintain the roads.  Or so they say.  So even though we’re saving money by buying less gas we’ll probably end up paying more to drive in the long run when they start taxing us per mile.  Giving electric car owners no advantage for sweating bullets wondering if they have enough charge to get home.  For they’ll be paying as if they are driving a big gas-guzzling car that gives them no range anxiety.  But all they’ll get is the range anxiety.  And it now will get worse.

Never buy gas again.  That’s what they told us.  And we shouted, “Hurrah!”  And, “Take that you greedy oil companies.”  While those who bought electric cars thought they would plug in anywhere for free.  But electric power isn’t free.  It costs.  You will see it in your electric bill as you plug in overnight.  You will see it when you have to swipe a card to use a charging station away from home.  And thanks to President Obama’s directing federal regulators to increase the cost of producing electric power you will see how costly driving an electric car can be.  Even when it buys no expensive gasoline from those greedy oil companies.

The tough fuel economy standards?  The hybrids?  The electric cars?  None of them were about us saving money.  It was about making us do things we didn’t want to do.  And now that we have what is our reward?  Higher electric bills.  And a lower standard of living.  As more of our paychecks will go to pay for the government’s intrusion into our private lives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Language Police descend upon a Spoon in a Montreal Yogurt Shop

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

If you think there is hostility between liberals and conservatives in the United States try this.  Go to Ontario, Canada, and greet someone by saying, “Bonjour personne anglophone.  Permettez-moi de parler lentement alors même que vous mon obtus ami peut comprendre ma langue supérieure.  (Which, according to Bing, translates to “Hello English-speaking person.  Let me speak slowly so even you my dim-witted friend may understand my superior language.”)

Do NOT do this.  Because if you do you may really offend someone and cause an international incident.  For the English-speaking Canadians are not exactly thrilled with French-speaking Canadians and their French language agenda.  Who even have language police enforcing a French-only language law in Quebec (see Quebec language cops object to yogurt shop’s spoons by Giuseppe Valiante, QMI Agency, posted 6/21/2013 on the Toronto Sun).

David Lipper said he had no idea his two Menchies Frozen Yogurt franchises in the Montreal area were carrying potential contraband.

Lipper said he “was so paranoid to ensure everything in the store was in French” that he missed a pivotal item: the yogurt spoons.

Lipper said an inspector told him he violated the province’s language laws and the oversight will cost his head office at least $30,000…

The “cow” spoon is engraved with the words “sweet moosic!” The language inspector who visited Lipper’s yogurt shop a few days ago didn’t appreciate the play on words.

So why are the English-speaking Canadians so upset with the French-speaking Canadians?  Because of things like this.  While every other province outside of Quebec has to be bilingual.  All of their businesses, their courts, their stores and even their road signs have to be in both English and French.  Which costs a pretty penny.  Yet in Quebec there is no English allowed.  Despite Canada being officially bilingual.

So don’t go up to an English-speaking Canadian and say something rude to them in French.  For it is almost certain that they will fail to see the humor in it.

For the record the French were first to Canada.  The lower town of Quebec City dates back to 1603.  So they had a lot of history there before the British defeated them in the Seven Years’ War and made French Canada British.  So you can understand their desire to keep the French language, customs and institutions alive in the heart of what was once New France.  But on the other hand they have imposed bilingualism on the rest of Canada.  Where the vast majority of these people trace their history back to the British.  So it is a touchy subject.  And will forever remain one.  Just be polite and respectful to whomever you talk to in Canada and you can’t go wrong.  For they are a kind people.  And will treat you like family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries