Week in Review
Why did the Europeans become the dominant people in the world? Why did their colonies become some of the richest and most affluent nations? Because when the Europeans entered those ships to cross the oceans they were farmers. Having given up their hunter and gatherer past long ago (see DNA analysis solves the mystery of how Europeans came to be farmers by Steve Connor posted 4/24/2014 on The Independent).
It was the biggest cultural shift in European prehistory but the Stone Age transition from a lifestyle based on hunting animals and gathering wild berries to one built on farming and livestock was largely a mystery – until now.
A detailed analysis of the DNA extracted from the bones of 11 prehistoric Scandinavians who lived thousands of years ago around the Baltic Sea has shown that the transition from hunting to farming was more of a one-way takeover than previously supposed.
The genetic makeup of the people who lived through this cultural revolution has revealed that the incoming migrant farmers from southern Europe subsumed the indigenous hunter gatherers of the north, rather than the other way round, scientists said.
Farming people are more advanced than hunters and gatherers. Because it takes knowledge and organization to master their environment and not live at its mercy. Which is what hunters and gatherers must do. As they travel across great expanses looking for food. Food they can only eat if nature provides it. And they can find it. Whereas farmers can grow food and raise livestock. On small farms. And they can grow a surplus. To carry them through winters. And bad growing seasons. While hunters and gatherers can only go hungry. And die.
So farming societies are more advanced than hunter and gatherer societies. Their knowledge and organization created food surpluses. And economic activity. Which created wealth. This is why the Europeans went on to dominant the hunter and gatherers they met in the Americas, Australia, etc. And why the transition from hunting to farming was a one-way takeover. For advanced people have the knowledge, organization and wealth to dominant less advanced people who must live at the mercy of their environment.
Tags: advanced people, Europeans, farmers, food, food surplus, hunter and gatherer, knowledge, mercy of their environment, organization, tools, wealth
Week in Review
If you’ve heard the left talk about the urgent need to raise the minimum wage you would think half the nation is languishing under pauper’s wages. While rich business owners are lighting their cigars with twenty dollar bills. As they rest their feet on the back of a minimum wage worker. But it’s not quite that bad (see The Cost of the Minimum Wage: $20 for a Burger posted 4/24/2014 on E21).
McDonald’s high turnover rate shows that most of its workers are using the job as a stepping stone to other careers or as a transition position between jobs. One in every eight U.S. workers has been a member of McDonald’s 750,000 person workforce. Economics21 director Diana Furchtgott-Roth entered the workforce scooping ice cream at Baskin Robbins at about $3 an hour. She never intended to have a career in ice cream…
Ninety-seven percent of American workers make more than minimum wage, not out of the kindness of employers’ hearts but because this is the only way that employers can retain employees. Low-skill workers need jobs, wages, and work experience too, and if the minimum wage rises, these people will be priced out of a job.
So only about 3% of all workers at any one time make the minimum wage. And the 3% from 10 years ago are most likely included in the 97% of workers today. Because minimum wage jobs are entry-level jobs. And what makes them so valuable is their low pay. For these workers gain some skills and work experience. And then get the hell out and join the 97%. And go on to do great things. Even become CEOs and directors. Which they never would have done had they stayed at those minimum wage jobs. Which they might have had if the minimum wage was a more comfortable living wage.
Tags: experience, jobs, low pay, McDonald's, minimum wage, minimum wage jobs, workers
(Originally published March 20th, 2013)
A Fire Engine can move Water Faster and Farther with an Internal Combustion Engine than with a Steam Engine
Some of our earliest firefighters were bucket brigades. Where people would form lines between a fire and a water source. Someone would dip a bucket into the water source. And then pass it to the next person in line. Who would then pass it to the next person in line. And so on until the bucket reached the person at the other end of the line. Who then poured the water on the fire. Then the empty buckets would work their way the other way back towards the water source. Buckets of water moved from the source of water to the fire. While empty buckets moved from the fire to the water source.
This was state of the art firefighting at the time. As long as there were enough people to form a line from the water source to the fire. The people didn’t tire out before the fire did. And the fire wasn’t so large that buckets of water couldn’t put it out. But soon we developed the hand-operated pump on our first fire engines. And the fire hose. Then we just had to run a fire hose from the water source to the fire engine. And a fire hose from the fire engine to the fire. People could take turns hand pumping, producing a steady stream of water. That someone could direct onto a fire. These new firefighting crews could put out large fires in shorter times. Fire companies appeared in cities with trained firefighters. Providing safer cities. A great improvement over the bucket brigade. But not as good as what came next.
Men pulled the early fire engines. Then horses replaced men. But the big advancement was in the fire pump. When steam power replaced hand power. Allowing greater flows of water at higher pressures. Allowing firefighters to attack a fire from a safer distance. But steam had some drawbacks. It took time to boil water into steam. Steam engines needed boiler operators to carefully operate the boiler so it didn’t explode. And being an external combustion engine there were a lot of moving parts in the open. That could be dangerous to the firefighters. And being exposed to the elements they needed constant oiling. The internal combustion engine didn’t suffer any of these drawbacks. The modern fire engine is safer. Easier to operate. More efficient. And can move more water faster and farther.
A Jockey Pump in a Sprinkler System maintains the Water Pressure when there’s no Fire
But even the modern fire engine has one drawback. We park them at firehouses. While all our fires are not at firehouses. So they have to drive to the fire. Which they can do pretty quickly. But that’s still time a fire can grow. Causing more damage. Become stronger. And more difficult to put out. Which is why we brought fire-fighting water into buildings. To use on a fire even before the fire department arrives on the scene. Buildings today have fire sprinkler systems. Pipes filled with water covering every square inch of a building. That will release their water through the various sprinkler heads attached to these pipes.
The sprinkler head is a marvel of low-tech. It is basically a threaded fitting that screws into the water-filled pipe. The sprinkler head has a hole in it. A glass bulb with a liquid inside of it holds a plug in the hole. Preventing the flow of water. If there is a fire under this head the heat will cause the liquid in the glass bulb to expand. Eventually shattering the glass bulb. The water pressure inside the pipe will blow out the plug. Allowing the water to flow out of the pipe. As it does it hits a deflector, producing a spray pattern that will evenly cover the area underneath the head. Only areas where there is a fire will break these glass bulbs. So only the sprinklers over fires will discharge their water. Preventing water damage in areas where there is no fire.
Some buildings can operate off of city water pressure. But larger buildings, especially multistory buildings, need help to maintain the water pressure in the system. These buildings have fire pumps. A large pump that can maintain the pressure in the sprinkler lines even if all the sprinkler heads are discharging water. And a smaller jockey pump. Which maintains the pressure in the system when there is no fire. If the pressure drops below a lower limit the jockey pump comes on. When the pressure rises above a higher limit the jockey pump shuts down. If there is a fire in the building the fire pump will run until it melts down. Putting water on the fire as long as it can.
A Dry-Pipe Fire Sprinkler System in an Unheated Area is often attached to a Wet-Pipe System in a Heated Area
If water would greatly damage an area (such as a hardwood basketball court) they may add a valve on the pipe feeding the sprinkler piping over the floor. Keeping the water out of the pipes over the expensive hardwood floor. Smoke detectors in the ceiling will open the valve when they detect a fire. Letting water flow into the sprinkler lines over the floor. And out of any sprinkler head over a fire hot enough to have broken the glass bulb to release the plug.
Water damage is a real concern. For it may be a better alternative to fire damage. But water damage in absence of any fire can be costly. Something many have seen working on a new building in a northern climate. During the first freeze. If there was missed insulation on an exterior wall. Under-designed heating in an exterior glass-enclosed stairwell. Or both in a glass-enclosed vestibule that juts outside of a heated building. As temperatures fall cold air migrates around these sprinkler lines. Freezing the water inside. Causing them to burst. And when they do it releases the water pressure behind these frozen sections. Flooding these areas with water. Causing a lot of damage. Not to mention the damage to the fire sprinkler system.
Some unheated areas need a sprinkler system. But these pipes can’t be a wet-pipe system. Because if there was water in the pipes it would freeze. Breaking the pipes. So we use a dry-pipe system in unheated areas. Which is often attached a wet-pipe system. Such as a dry-pipe system in an exterior canopy attached to a heated building. There is a valve between the interior wet-pipe system and the exterior dry-pipe system. An air compressor will put air under pressure in the dry-pipe system. This air pressure will hold the valve close to the wet-pipe system. If there is a fire underneath the canopy the glass bulb in a sprinkler head will expand and break. Releasing the air from the dry-pipe system. Allowing the water pressure in the wet-pipe system to open the valve. Flooding the dry-pipe system. And flowing out of the sprinkler head over the fire.
Tags: air pressure, bucket brigade, dry-pipe, dry-pipe system, fire, fire damage, fire engine, fire hose, fire pump, firefighters, firehouse, jockey pump, sprinkler head, sprinkler system, water, water damage, water pressure, wet-pipe, wet-pipe system
Week in Review
In 1954 almost 35% of all workers belonged to a union. Since then that number has fallen to about 11.3%. As the high cost of union contracts chased manufacturing out of the country. Today the majority of workers belonging to a union work in the public sector. Where they enter contract negotiations with the taxpayers to secure better pay and benefits than most taxpayers have. Of course during these negotiations the taxpayers have no say. As politicians and unions hammer out these contracts. Unlike trade unions. Where the people paying the workers actually have a say.
This is another reason why national health care is the Holy Grail for the left. They want to unionize all those health care workers. Pay them more. And deduct union dues from their pay to fund their political activities. Leaving less money for patient health care. But they’re okay with that. But they’re not okay with a pharmaceutical company charging a lot of money for life-saving drugs. Which, also, leaves less money for patient health care (see Breast cancer drug turned down for NHS use due to high cost by Sarah Boseley posted 4/22/2014 on the guardian).
A Herceptin-style drug that can offer some women with advanced breast cancer nearly six months of extra life has been turned down for use in the NHS because of its high cost.
In draft guidance now open to consultation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) blames the manufacturers, Roche, who are asking for more than £90,000 per patient, which is far more than any comparable treatment…
“We apply as much flexibility as we can in approving new treatments, but the reality is that given its price and what it offers to patients, it will displace more health benefit which the NHS could achieve in other ways, than it will offer to patients with breast cancer.”
Paying health care providers more will not improve the quality of health care. Unless health workers are doing a half-assed job now. Which I don’t believe they are. But Roche is helping people with death sentences live another six months or so. That’s a pretty remarkable thing. If the NHS can’t afford this wonder drug perhaps they should use their own. Of course they can’t. Why? Because they don’t have one. For they didn’t pour hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this drug and the all those drugs that failed.
Developing a miracle drug is costly. Money the pharmaceuticals pay up front. Because their employees don’t work for free. Which is why these drugs cost so much. That high price pays for all of the costs that went into this drug. For all of the drugs that failed. And provides a return for investors. Who give these pharmaceutical companies hundreds of millions of dollars up front just in the hope they may develop a miracle drug. Which is the only way we should invest in these miracle drugs. Because these investors will only take a chance on a good thing. Unlike government. Which has a history of backing the wrong investment time after time. And pouring good money after bad.
It’s a tough choice to make. Take health care benefits away from other patients to pay for a miracle drug for those dying from cancer. Or let people die 6 months or so sooner. One thing for sure, though, unionizing our health care workers won’t give either of these patients more health care benefits. It will only leave less money for everything else. Leading to rationing. And longer wait times. Because less money will pay for fewer things. Making those other things scarcer. Forcing people to wait longer and pay more for treatment.
Tags: cancer drug, health care benefits, health care providers, health care workers, life saving drugs, miracle drug, National health care, NHS, patient, patient health care, pharmaceutical, rationing, Roche, taxpayers, union, union dues, wait times, workers
Week in Review
It turns out that the majority of electric car owners share something in common. They’re rich (see Electric-Car Buyers Younger And Richer Than Hybrid Owners by Jim Gorzelany posted 4/22/2014 on Forbes).
Based on calendar-year 2013 sales, the study found that 55 percent of electric vehicle buyers are between 36 and 55 years old and have an average household income of $175,000 or more. By comparison, 45 percent of those driving hybrid-powered models off the lot are 56 years old or older (compared to just 26 percent of new EV owners), with only 12 percent having an annual income of $175,000 or higher.
So electric cars are toys for rich people. Why? Because working-class people can’t afford to throw money away.
This would more or less reinforce the popular wisdom that hybrids, which typically cost only nominally more than comparable conventionally powered models, appeal more to family minded penny-pinchers than do the pricier EVs, which pack more in the way of high-tech luster and are often purchased as rolling status symbols (they also require a certain infrastructure – i.e. a garage with an updated electrical system for charging – and because of their limited range are usually the second or third car in a family’s fleet)…
… buyers of both EVs and hybrids tend to reside in more affluent zipcodes than typical consumers, with most green-car buyers clustered in hip cities along the west coast.
A gasoline-powered car is utilitarian. It’ll get you to and from work. Day or night. Rain or shine. Hot or cold. If you need heat, headlights, windshield wipers and an extra hour to get home because of slow rush-hour traffic the gasoline-powered car gives you these things. Unlike an electric car. Because all of these things drain the battery. Making getting home in night, rain and cold a risky proposition. Especially if you get stuck in rush-hour traffic. Which is why electric cars are “usually the second or third car in a family’s fleet.” And who can afford having 2-3 cars in a family? People earning more than $175,000 a year. People who take their electric car out for nice, short afternoon drives. Then get into old reliable (gasoline-powered car 1 and/or 2 in the family’s fleet) when they really need to get somewhere.
But even having two other cars can’t do anything about the weather. For rich people in Minnesota are probably not driving their electric car to work in a February blizzard. Which is why the most popular places to own and drive an electric car are on the west coast. Where it rarely is winter. So the rich may take the electric car out of the stable for a pleasant afternoon drive. But working class people who have to deal with night, rain and cold on a daily basis will be driving to work as they always have. In their gasoline-powered car. For after a hard day’s work there is nothing better than going home. Which is why they drive gasoline-powered cars. Because they will always get you home.
Tags: battery, electric car, gasoline, gasoline-powered cars, get you home, second car, toys for rich
Week in Review
This past Easter we saw a pot celebration in Denver. Gathering in a central Denver park to smoke marijuana in public. Even though doing so is still against the law. Despite Colorado having decriminalized recreational marijuana. Not exactly the image Colorado may have wanted. But they may not mind a little pot tourism. Especially to buy from their licensed pot shops. Where pot smokers will pay a hefty tax on their legal marijuana purchases. Eliminating the illegal drug trade. And burying the treasury in new tax revenue (see Will Home Grown Marijuana Go the Way of Moonshine? by Caitlin Dickson posted 2/1/2014 on The Daily Beast).
I’d been in the Mile High City a total of 20 minutes before my local friend shattered the image I’d built in my head of a post-Jan. 1 Denver. She is a pot smoker. Why was she not one of the thousands of people I’d seen on TV, waiting in lines that poured out the doors of Denver’s retail marijuana shops? If not on New Year’s Day (that’s not really her style), then at least once in the weeks following the stores’ legal opening?
“I just get my weed from my friend Dave,” she said. “Most of my friends do…”
Maintaining a home grow is as expensive, if not more expensive, as setting one up. Dave says his monthly electricity bill jumps to roughly $600 in the summer, when he has to turn up the air conditioning to keep his plants from wilting, on top of the high cost of constantly running one high-voltage light for every six of his 36 plants (12 more than his red card permits). But the money Dave has put into building his basement greenhouse is nothing compared to the green his plants brings in. The 26-year-old—who now runs the grow by himself—says he makes between $40,000 and $60,000 per year selling his weed. It’s more than enough to live on for only about five to 10 hours worth of work per week.
To clarify, Dave’s livelihood is not legal…
Dave’s risk has yielded extremely lucrative rewards, and doesn’t show signs of slowing down, as his clientele of peers would unsurprisingly prefer to pay $20 to $30 for an eighth of an ounce than the $60 to $80 retail stores are charging. In fact, the dispensaries’ high prices (Colorado charges a 10 percent excess tax on all retail marijuana sales, on top of which Denver tacks a special 3.5 percent pot tax in addition to the general city and state retail taxes of 7.5 percent) are enough to motivate any thrifty green thumb try their hand at growing.
So decriminalizing marijuana does not get rid of the drug black market. In fact, it has made the black market more lucrative. As taxes raise the price of legally sold pot it makes black market pot much more attractive to recreational users. In fact, the higher the taxes the better it will be for the black market drug dealers. Just like cigarette smuggling into cities with high cigarette taxes is a very lucrative black market business. As high taxes are a black marketeer’s best friend.
So decriminalizing marijuana won’t be everything they thought it would be. For the higher cost of legal pot may attract another black marketeer. From south of the border. Mexico. So Colorado may get some more tax revenue. But they’re going to have to spend a lot of it on battling the same things they were battling when marijuana was still illegal. With one other problem. A state full of recreational pot smokers smoking a lot of pot. And these recreational pot smokers will cause a lot of brain damage that will cost Colorado dearly in health care costs in the years to come.
Tags: black market, black marketeer, decriminalizing marijuana, illegal drug trade, marijuana, pot shops, pot smokers, recreational marijuana, recreational pot smokers
Week in Review
The Democrats say manmade global warming is real. That the science is settled. And anyone who denies this is a fool. So the danger of manmade global warming is real and time is of the essence. To save the planet. Destroy the economy. And our way of life (see Examiner Editorial: Governments resolved to stop global warming even if it doesn’t exist posted 4/21/2014 on the Washington Examiner).
PJ Media’s Tom Harris recently noted that global warming advocates ought to heed that warning. Harris’ observation followed release of the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC cried that fossil fuel energy use around the world must be reduced by as much as 70 percent by 2050 to avoid the apocalyptic “death, injury and disrupted livelihoods” caused by man-made atmospheric warming.
“This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87 percent of world primary energy consumption,” Harris said. It will also require quadrupling the amount of energy generated from renewable and nuclear sources, plus widespread adoption of carbon capture and storage technology that doesn’t even exist yet.
So, to fight global warming will require the kind of spending it took to win World War II. The cost of energy would soar and leave people with little left to spend on their families. Crippling our economy. While leaving us with far less reliable electric power. Making brownouts and blackouts commonplace. Changing our lives greatly. And what will we get in return? Not a whole heck of a lot.
But the IPCC is crying wolf, according to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a voluntary international assembly of scientists and scholars brought together by the Heartland Institute, an American think tank. The NIPCC’s goal is to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming” independent of the political and economic interests that inevitably drive the analyses of governmental entities like the UN’s IPCC.
The NIPCC’s bottom line is that atmospheric warming comes and goes over time, with average temperatures actually declining over the past 17 years. As a result and contrary to those crying wolf on global warming, the earth’s ice cover “is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.” In fact, warmer temperatures and increased carbon content in the atmosphere can be beneficial to human beings, animals and plant life, “causing a great greening of the Earth,” according to the N-GIPCC.
Yes, warm is better. After all, no one bitched when global warming caused the glaciers to recede and end the ice ages. Because where the glaciers receded life took to that once frozen wasteland. And when the glaciers from the greatest ice age (ending about 635 million years ago) receded after nearly covering the planet in ice man wasn’t even using fire yet. In fact, the greater apes man evolved from didn’t arrive until about 15 million years ago. After the great glaciers receded back from the equator. So when the planet warmed and pushed back those glaciers it sure wasn’t man doing it. Which means if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in manmade global warming. Because the planet warms and cools. And has been doing so far longer than man has been around.
Tim Wirth, the former congressman and present vice chairman of the U.N. Foundation, said “even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” No matter that jobs, growth and comfort will be lost. Keep that in mind next time President Obama claims Americans must spend billions of tax dollars on “green” energy because global warming is “real.”
So these great costs are necessary even if they are wrong and manmade global warming is not settled science. Because crippling our economy and causing power brownouts and blackouts are a good thing. Why? One reason. It empowers government. To further intrude in how we live our lives. Which is the only thing battling manmade global warming does.
Tags: blackouts, brownouts, climate change, glaciers, Global Warming, ICE, ice age, IPCC, manmade global warming, theory of global warming, warming
Week in Review
Flying used to be reserved for the very rich. But after deregulation ticket prices fell. Allowing most anyone to afford flying. Flying isn’t cheap, though. Especially with high fuel costs. Which has created a bunch of low-cost airlines to keep the price of flying as low as possible. Something people like when buying their tickets. Even if they end up complaining about the flight (see Spirit Airlines: nation’s highest complaint rate and highest profit margin by Hugo Martin posted 4/20/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).
It may be no surprise that the U.S.-based airline that has drawn the most complaints per passenger over the last five years is Spirit Airlines.
After all, the Florida-based carrier is known for super-tight seating and dozens of fees, including charges for soft drinks and carry-on bags.
But the executives at the ultra-low-cost carrier are probably not sweating the study results because another report released last week said that Spirit also had the highest profit margin of any U.S. carrier in 2013.
Most people want to get where they’re going and really don’t mind the getting there. If they’re paying, at least. If the company is picking up the tab, sure, business class all the way. But most others are traveling somewhere. And when they get ‘there’ they want to have as much money left over after getting ‘there’ to make their time ‘there’ as good as possible. So they will put up with being cramped. Go thirsty. And pack light. They may not enjoy this. But that’s okay. As long as they can enjoy their time when they get wherever they’re going.
And this is why Spirit Airlines is so profitable. For as bad as people may find the flying portion of their travels they like having more money in their pockets when they get there. So people willingly fill those cramped seats. Because this airline is offering them exactly what they want. How do we know this? Because they are filling those cramped seats enough to make Spirit Airlines very profitable. Which they couldn’t do if people weren’t filling those cramped seats. So passengers may be saying they don’t like flying Spirit Airlines but their dollars say otherwise.
Tags: complaints, cramped seats, flying, low-cost airlines, profitable, Spirit Airlines
Week in Review
The Democrats have little good economic news during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. To create more economic activity they argue to raise the minimum wage. And to provide a pathway to citizenship for those illegally in the country. But will these help the employment picture? Well, we don’t have them now and employment is doing very well in parts of the country (see Tight Job Market in U.S. Cities Prompts Higher Pay by Steve Matthews posted 4/16/2014 on Bloomberg).
To hire 10 to 15 project coordinators this year, Sabre Commercial Inc. has boosted pay 10 percent and added a 401(k) retirement plan.
“It is an employee’s market,” said John Cyrier, co-founder and president of the 48-employee Austin, Texas-based builder. “We are definitely seeing a labor shortage in Austin and central Texas. I see it only getting worse.”
Companies across the U.S. from Texas to Virginia and Nebraska are struggling to fill positions with metropolitan jobless rates below the 5.2 percent to 5.6 percent level the Federal Reserve regards as full employment nationally. Competition for workers is prompting businesses to raise wages, increase hours for current employees, add benefits and recruit from other regions…
In New Orleans, where unemployment is 4.2 percent, “we are getting killed on overtime,” said Ti Martin, co-owner of Commander’s Palace, SoBou and Café Adelaide, which employ a total of more than 350 people. “We are doubling up and working extra hours,” and managers are filing in as cooks. The restaurants have a dozen or more openings, mainly for experienced chefs and servers, she said…
In Omaha, with a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, the Greater Omaha Chamber is coordinating a program that will increase the number of internships to more than 300 this year from 135 in 2012 at employers including Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., Union Pacific Corp. (UNP) and ConAgra Foods Inc. (CAG) Exposing young people to the city has been an “excellent recruitment tool,” said Sarah A. Johnson, director of talent and workforce initiatives for the chamber…
The labor shortage is expected to worsen in some regions. In Houston and the surrounding area, construction for the oil, gas and petrochemical industries on the Gulf Coast will require about 36,000 more workers in 2016 than in 2013, according to Industrial Info Resources Inc., a Houston-area based research company.
Even with hot labor markets in some cities, twenty-nine metro areas still have unemployment rates of at least the October 2009 post-recession peak of 10 percent, including Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Fresno, California.
Virginia is doing well in the Washington area thanks to lobbyists and those getting fat on the largess of government. Nebraska is doing well because of some big national companies there. Which attract people there even though their taxes are a little on the high side. But the balance of good economic activity is in low-tax states. Such as Texas. Which has no state income tax. And the energy business is keeping the Gulf States doing well. Thanks to the energy boom in North Dakota. Which has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate.
So it is clear what is driving the economy. Energy. And low taxes. Put these together and you have low unemployment. Which is why Atlantic City and Fresno still have unemployment rates of at least 10%. Because these are in Democrat states. Which have high tax rates (California and New Jersey are the two of the highest taxed states in the nation). And prefer green energy over oil and gas.
A higher minimum wage won’t reduce unemployment. For California and New Jersey have some of the highest minimum wages in the nation. So a higher minimum wage is not helping their economies. But energy and low taxes will. As proven by the healthy economies in areas with them. And bad economies in areas without them.
Tags: Democrat, energy, high-tax, low-tax, minimum wage, North Dakota, pathway to citizenship, unemployment rate
Week in Review
Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage. Because they want to be like traditional couples. A man and a woman entering wedded bliss. With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it. Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.
Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents. Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman. And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.
So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be. And some argue that tax money should pay to help them. As well as rewrite our laws. But how far should this go? How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?
I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.
Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too? As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives. For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts. As men tend to look at women with larger breasts. Because men are pigs. Yet these women want these pigs to look at them. And suffer pain when they don’t.
One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue. As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants. But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them. Which runs contrary to feminism. Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually. Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being. Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism. And the left.
Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling. As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man. While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.
Tags: birth control, breast implants, free birth control, marriage, same-sex marriage