Labor Unions have fought for, and won, a $15 minimum wage for everyone in many California… everyone except their own members!
“When Los Angeles City Council members voted two years ago to give hotel workers a raise, Bill Martinez was the type of worker they said they wanted to help.
“Martinez, a 53-year-old bellhop, has hauled tourists’ luggage across the flagstone plaza of the Sheraton Universal in Studio City for two decades. He said he was excited after the council’s vote to raise the minimum hourly wage at large hotels to $15.37, which he expected to boost his paycheck by 71%.
“He soon found out he wouldn’t be getting a raise after all. Under an obscure provision of the city’s wage hike, unionized hotels were granted an exemption allowing them to pay their employees less. The result is that Martinez, who pays $56.50 every month for membership in the hotel workers union Unite Here, now makes less than those doing the same job in non-union workplaces.”
But are labor unions supposed to work for their members?
“As the Times article admits, this is rather counterintuitive. The raison d’etre of unions is supposedly to arrange better conditions, compensation and benefits for their members, so why they would agree to that deal doesn’t jump out at you. But the reality is that not all of the hotels are unionized. The ones who run open shops fall under the new arrangement and have to pay their workers significantly higher wages. So how do they get out of this sudden spike in labor costs which could put them at a disadvantage with their competitors? (Cue the Jeopardy music…)
“They can just unionize their work force.
“It’s really a genius maneuver if you think about it. Getting a raise for some of the workers in the city who already belong to your union doesn’t really translate into that much more money in dues because they only collect a small percentage of the increase. But if you can suddenly enlist the workers at a whole raft of new businesses into your organization you get a piece of all their paychecks. It’s the perfect plan, really.”
Dear labor union members, Johnny Rotten put it best:
The Supreme Court has ruled that in order to uphold the “principle” of “one person, one vote“, the states may give some voters lopsided influence and power over other voters in order to insure that each district has the same number of war bodies.
Justice Ginsberg made some curious comments in the majority ruling…
Of note, she defends the appropriation of Representatives as an invariable guide to how the state’s must redistrict, ignoring that not only did the Constituton demand (and forever protect) the unequal distribution of Senator based on population, but that many Southern states, such as Virginia, allocated districts based on total population despite the Constitutional distribution of House of Representative seats being based on the total number of freeman and 3/5 of “all others”. That Congressional allocation between the states does not, nor can it, imply mandatory patterns of allocation within the state, seems to nonetheless be a rather obsessive point by Ginsberg.
The irony is that Ginsberg states “this Court’s pastdecisions reinforce the conclusion that States and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations” requires that voters have an unequal voice in order to have districts contain the same number of warm bodies.
The liberal and sane Pat Condell comments on the pro-rape/anti-Western Feminism who seek to destroy any semblance of civilization in the so-oh-honorable quest for destroying the only civilization that has actually shown any tolerance for the insanity that is Feminism.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Bow down to your digital overlords
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Funny how those who most loudly cry “democracy” are the quickest to embrace authoritarian totalitarianism of our “betters“:
“Increasingly the call is not so much for a benevolent and charismatic dictator, but for an impaneled committee of experts to rule over our lives. Former Obama budget adviser Peter Orszag and Thomas Friedman argue openly that power should shift from naturally contentious elected bodies—subject to pressure from the lower orders—to credentialed ‘experts’ operating in Washington, Brussels, or the United Nations.
“The new progressive mindset was laid out recently in an article in The Atlantic that openly called for the creation of a “technocracy” to determine energy, economic, and land-use policies. According to this article, mechanisms like the market or even technological change are simply not up to the challenge. Instead the entire world needs to be put on a “war footing” that forces compliance with the technocracy’s edicts. This includes a drive to impose energy austerity on an already fading middle class, limiting mundane pleasures like cheap air travel, cars, freeways, suburbs, and single-family housing.”
The past, of course, is prologue:
“There are some alarming parallels between these developments and the last days of the Roman Republic. There, too, developed a similar tendency toward vicious partisanship and a growing concentration of wealth in a few hands. In Rome’s case, the old middle classes and yeoman farmers were gradually replaced by patricians with access to slave labor; in our society, cheap foreign labor has been perceived as doing much the same for our oligarchs. Much as in Rome, our republican virtues are also fading. Instead, society seems to require a sure hand, particularly if the central authorities decide to transform society in ways that the vast majority might not like (for example, essentially banning suburban development or gas-powered cars). It may take a strict nanny state, to paraphrase Mary Poppins, to make the bitter medicine go down.”
“I was thinking about this as I have been watching the slow motion train wreck that has been twitter in the last few weeks. There is something going on, what it is ain’t exactly clear – but this much is; it is not trending in the direction of individual liberty.
“I’m old enough that I remember when the internet was supposed to be this great open space for rough and tumble discussion. Regulars on the Front Porch here know that those who have a fetish for the jack-boot have always tried to silence those who differed in thoughts than their blinkered views – but they always seemed to lose out to the default towards freedom. Not any more. Freedom is waning.
“If you don’t like something, don’t read it. If you don’t want to hear something, block it, unfollow it, generally get on with your life. Sticks and stones may break my bones and all that.
“Well, no. In 2016, the bullies and fascists are on the march. Like rust, they never sleep.
“…
“That is why the recent changes at twitter, where they have brought on a strange mix of Star Chamber and French Terror committee, has left me a bit flummoxed. In a blink of an eye, what was once a libertarian bastion has become almost Stalinist”
Unsurprisingly, those #Occupy whiners seem to have no problem with real plutocrats who want to treat them as iPad buying serfs.
“When Steve Jobs died in October 2011, crowds of mourners gathered outside of Apple stores, leaving impromptu memorials to the fallen businessman. Many in Occupy Wall Street, then in full bloom, stopped to mourn the .001 percenter worth $7 billion, who didn’t believe in charity and whose company had more cash in hand than the U.S. Treasury while doing everything in its power to avoid paying taxes.
“A new, and potentially dominant, ruling class is rising. Today’s tech moguls don’t employ many Americans, they don’t pay very much in taxes or tend to share much of their wealth, and they live in a separate world that few of us could ever hope to enter. But while spending millions bending the political process to pad their bottom lines, they’ve remained far more popular than past plutocrats, with 72 percent of Americans expressing positive feelings for the industry, compared to 30 percent for banking and 20 percent for oil and gas.
“…
“Tech oligarchs control portions of their companies that would turn oilmen or auto executives green with envy. The largest single stockholder at Exxon, CEO and chairman Rex Tillerson, controls .04 percent of its stock. No direct shareholder owns as much as 1 percent of GM or Ford Motors. In contrast, Mark Zuckerberg’s 29.3 percent stake in Facebook is worth $9.8 billion. Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt control roughly two thirds of the voting stock in Google. Brin and Page are worth over $20 billion each. Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle and the third richest man in America, owns just under 23 percent of his company, worth $41 billion. Bill Gates, who’s semi-retired from Microsoft, is worth a cool $66 billion and still controls 7 percent of his firm.
“…
“And now, these 1 percenters—who invested heavily in Obama—are looking to help shape the “public good” in Washington and, as with Fwd.us, what they’re selling as good for us all is what aligns with their interests.
“…
“The oligarchs believe their control of the information network itself gives them a potential influence greater than more conventional lobbies. The prospectus for Fwd.us—headed up by one of Zuckerberg’s old Harvard roommates—suggests tech should become ‘one of the most powerful political forces,’ noting ‘we control massive distribution channels, both as companies and individuals.'”
Apparently there is a bunch of Left Wing lunatics who unironically post in a magazine called “Jacobin”. Apparently in this magazine, they allow grad students who rant idiotically how the Constitution is for suxxors!
The idjit ain’t deserving of a full Fisking, but a choice belittlement is indeed in order.
“The patrician editors of the New York Times had given this matter some thought, and on Constitution Day, 1921, they provided one plausible explanation: ‘If it is true, as there is much evidence to prove, that Americans are showing themselves the most conservative nation in a turbulent world, the largest cause of it lies in our Federal Constitution.’ The Constitution, the editors explained, ‘makes the American people secure in their individual rights as citizens when these are imperiled by passing gusts of sentiment.’
“These dubious ‘gusts of sentiment,’ in the lingo of American constitution-speak, are precisely what other societies call ‘the democratic will.'”
Ah, the “democratice will”, AKA “Volonté Générale”, which was invented out of nothing by the actual Jacobins’ spiritual pimpdaddy Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Rather than rely on the idiocy of ignorant scam artists like Rousseau, the Founding Fathers applied the collected wisdom of the ages and put forth a binding document that was based on checks and balances, and served to limit the power of anyone to impose their will, be it a king or a temporary electoral mob.
Apparently, requiring people use restrooms consistent with their biological sex is so beyond the pale, that PayPal is canceling an expansion of their operations in North Carolina after North Carolina prohibited localities from allowing men to use women’s restrooms or women to use men’s restrooms.
So, what could North Carolina do to get PayPal invest in their state? Kill Gay people.
PayPal approved.
Paypal has no problem working in countries like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, who executes people for being Gay. They have no problem with Turkey, where trans-women are routinely assaulted while in police custody; India where just kissing someone of the same sex could send you to prison; or Malaysia where transgender people are imprisoned and literally treated like a second class citizen. And if PayPal has such a high moral standard that they will refuse to work in localities that have morally offensive policies, that must mean that PayPal thinks that executing people that are Gay is morally acceptable!
An article over at reason.com claimed that science is a good substitute for God.
“Religious believers tend to be happier than non-religious folk, according to a long line of psychological research. Scientists have suggested several possible explanations for this phenomenon, including the ideas that religion offers a greater sense of control, provides a purpose for life, and reduces uncertainty.
” So if religious belief makes people more satisfied with their lives, why is secularism growing in many countries? A new study offers one possible answer: A belief in scientific and technological progress can also serve as a source of life satisfaction. Indeed, it may even offer more lifetime happiness than religion does.
“The study appeared in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, and the research team that conducted it was led by Olga Stavrova, a psychologist at the University of Cologne. The researchers first did a deep analysis of how the belief in scientific and technological progress affects the life satisfaction of a representative sample of nearly 1,500 Dutch citizens. They then compared life satisfaction measures with belief in sci-tech progress across 72 countries. In both cases, they found ‘a strong belief in scientific–technological progress was associated with an enhanced sense of personal control, which in turn contributed to higher life satisfaction.'”
This, of course, ignores the very basic fact that science and faith are not the same thing. If you have faith in technology or “science” than you do not grok science.
Science has nothing to do with faith or belief but in doubt and the means one goes about whether ones theory is consistent with reality. The late Richard Feynman put it best:
The problem with using science as a substitute for God or any other religious faith, is that religious faith will invade the realm of science. One ceased to be a investigator of how the universe works, and more akin to Thomas Aquinas’ views wherein the Bible was declared perfect, and if the science contradicted it, the science is wrong.
We can see this happening today, especially in the “social sciences”, wherein ideas about “critical theory,” “intersectionalism,” and such have the status of gospel, with the “scientific” journals being nothing more than canticles of a secular faith. Rather than liberate the mind, treating science as a substitute for The Devine, allows religious notions and feeling to invade willy-nilly all other aspects of life. As the veritable Ace of Ace of Spades HQ said:
“The Left’s disbelief in God does not free them from superstition — rather, it frees the superstition to infect all other modes of their thought.”
