“The Week of The Whining Womin” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:
“The logic is as simple as it is foolproof. An “air-tight free-market argument,” according to WND: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs don’t ditch men en masse for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.”
The logic is not, however, female proof.
It’s been the week of the weaker sex: filled with baseless whining. The Week of the Womin culminated with Facebook billionaire Sheryl Sandberg grumbling to Fox News millionaire Megyn Kelly: “I think it’s good that the president took some steps on equal pay, but it’s not enough.”
About women’s work Sandberg holds humdrum feminist views. She learned the hard way, having dared, at first, to share the aggregate reality she had encountered in the workplace: Men were wont to be as driven as demons. Women needed to be driven. For that observation, the Pussy Riot Sisterhood threatened to sandbag Sandberg. Facebook’s chief operating officer quickly corrected course. Ms. Sandberg started mouthing the only acceptable meme: Saddle “society” and the “patriarchy” for any and all female failures and preferences.
As her politically pleasing, mainstream opinion currently has it, society and the patriarchy have conditioned women to be nurturing and to apologize for any male-like, go-getter ambitions they harbor. While men will attribute their success to their own core skills; women “attribute their success to luck and help from other people,” carps Sandberg. The girls are too nice. They don’t take credit for their greatness. They don’t raise their hand enough. They don’t “Lean In”—the trite title of Sandberg’s serialized book. Yes, there’s a follow up for advanced nudniks. …
Read the complete column. “The Week of The Whining Womin” is now on WND.
If you thought it was impossible, government under the Big O is becoming even more of a make-work program for useless mini-tyrants than it was under the last lout. Zero intends on giving those working for government and for its army of contractors the tools to sue the taxpayer for equal pay should discrepancies in pay—based on the preexisting conditions of genitalia type and the concentration of melanin in skin—be found.
Moreover, federal contractors will be prohibited from “retaliating against workers who discuss their salaries.” As you can imagine, comparing pay slips will result in the leveling of the paying field. These oinksters will sue the contractors, who are, in turn, paid by us, taxpayers.
These moves promise to make the already God-awful government consume ever more of our resources and deliver even less than it has done so far.
Obama will also sign a presidential memorandum instructing Labor Secretary Tom Perez to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report salary summary data to the government, including sex and race breakdowns. The hope, according to the White House, is that this will encourage other employers to submit data voluntarily, enabling more targeted government enforcement.
Other than lite libertarian Virginia Postrel, who uses the word “dynamism”?
Ms. Postrel is an establishment-endorsed libertarian. A filament of the Postrel faith, expressed in her first book, “The Future and its Enemies,” is that all change is good, always. All that glitters is gold was the essence of Ms. Postrel’s second manifesto, “The Substance of Style.”
In any event, the answer to the question posed above is: George Will and a bunch of libertarian losers.
Will was lecturing radio host Laura Ingraham about the “economic dynamism” with which millions of low- or no skill illegal immigrants slated for amnesty will infuse the American workforce. (Not according to Harvard economist George Borjas.)
During this libertarian love-in at the border, the dynamism concept was deployed to libel those who’re not as hip about the proven miseries of diversity:
“They hate ‘dynamism'” was the phrase used 19 minutes into this broadcast.
Far and away more damning than the use of the cant phrase dynamism is the absence of intellectual oscillation among the participants. This anarchist “debate” reminds one of Dorothy Parker’s immortal words about Jack Kerouac and his buddies: “When they speak at all it is to tell each other how great they are.”
He knows very little about his professed field of expertise, the US Constitution. And he knows absolutely nothing about the workings of the free market. These credentials are more than enough to allow the busybody, know-nothing, know-it-all president, Barack Obama, to advise Walmart, Apple, and 300 other amazingly successful enterprises on how to establish what he calls “best practices.”
Barack’s latest Brownian Motion, of course, is code for his real goal: to “prohibit discrimination based on unemployment in companies with more than 15 workers.”
If he can’t get Congress to go along, well, then, with his pen and phone (read executive action), the president will free thee from want. (Here, loud, maniacal laughter is in order: “NHAHAHAHAHAHA!”)
And here is more about the moron’s hiring ideas (which include importing millions of new, low- or no-skill Democratic voters).
As a more realistic index of unemployment, we’ve always reported the U-6 unemployment index, which includes the unemployed and people who would like to work but who have not looked for a job recently, as well as those involuntarily working part-time. But at 13.1 percent, the U-6 is overly optimistic. The “actual unemployment rate is 37.2 percent.”
Via Washington Examiner:
David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.
Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn’t being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.
Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!
“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
“Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
UPDATE: Here are 40,000 new reasons for more unemployment. These lousy laws will also make you an outlaw, if violated.
Minimum-wage legislation fixes the price of labor above its productivity, making it less likely that the young and the unskilled will be hired. Those who claim to represent the interests of unemployed youngsters—whose labor-participation rate has been in decline—and other unskilled laborers don’t much care that such legislation circumvents voluntary exchanges in the marketplace. Because government has fixed the price of labor, economic actors are prevented from engaging in mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange.
Still less is the hike justified because it impoverishes. Government can set wages above market value (productivity), but it cannot compel business to hire (and lose money), the outcome of which is unemployment among the young and the poor.
USA Today reports that “13 states are raising pay for minimum-wage workers at the start of 2014.” Another site more savvy than the Seattle Times—almost any website on the WWW qualifies—pegs the additional labor costs to the City of Seattle of “a $15 minimum wage” at “nearly $700,000.
Get rid of the minimum wage altogether says Prof. Walter Block, and jail those who pass it for the crime of “pulverizing the poor.”