Category Archives: Labor

UPDATED (4/12): Trump’s Invisible, Poor White Army Is Waiting On The Ropes

Donald Trump, Labor, Race, Racism, Republicans

“Trump’s Invisible, Poor White Army” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Donald Trump’s mortal enemies in mainstream politics and media have shifted strategy. In the ramp-up to the Iowa, February 1, Caucasus, the culprits have been pushing presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio onto a defiant Republican base. The Cartel has taken to discussing Trump as a nightmare from which they’ll soon awaken. Candidate Trump’s energetic, politically pertinent speeches, and near daily rallies—packed to the rafters with supporters—are covered by media only to condemn this or the other colorful altercation. Ted Cruz, we‘re being lectured, is poised to topple Trump in Iowa.

But what do you know? On the eve of January 12, as if in recoil to the concentrated toxicity of Barack Obama’s last State of Disunion address, featuring the divisive Nikki Haley in the GOP’s corner, Trump punched through the lattice of lies. The media-political-complex was caught trousers down again. National polls have Trump at 36 percent, Reuters at 39 percent. A CBS/NYT poll placed him 17 points ahead of Ted Cruz, his closest rival. In Iowa, Trump leads Cruz 28 to 26 percent.

The central conceit that currently defines media’s self-serving surmises is that the Trump Revolution is confined to the Right and is thus self-limiting. While the Right is always more courageous in bucking sclerotic authority, the Trump Revolution isn’t exclusively Republican or rightist.

I get the distinct impression that this Revolution encompasses Left and Right; Democrats, Republicans and Independents. As The Atlantic magazine cautioned, the polls are underestimating Trump’s support. The slow kids of media have yet to discover the methodological flaws inherent in survey methodology. Subjects are more likely to reply truthfully in anonymous, online surveys than in face-to-face or telephonic questionnaires. As if to confirm that Trumpites are coming out of the closet, a January 13, YouGov.com poll, courtesy of the Washington Examiner, catapulted Mr. Trump to near 50 percent.

Something else has made the special-needs media boil with bile: It’s the role of America’s much-maligned, white majority—65 percent and rapidly declining—in Trump’s meteoric ascent. Trump’s supporters are disenfranchised whites, left, right and center (or in an ideological no-man’s land). The silent majority that dare not speak its name—other than to flagellate for collective sins and perceived privilege—is still the largest demographic bloc in the US.

Working class whites, in particular, have been led down a political cul-de-sac.

Omitted at last year’s November 10, Fox Business, presidential debate were two loudly whispered secrets. The one was Marco Rubio’s expensing the Republican Party for personal spending. The other: Terrifying data that a large segment of white America was … dying. …

… Read the rest. “Trump’s Invisible, Poor White Army” is the current column, now on WND.

UPDATE (4/12):


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

TSA’s Employment Set Asides For Potential Terrorists

Crime, Homeland Security, Labor, Terrorism, The State

Only the U.S. Transportation Security Administration employs more un-vetted Muslims than the French, I wrote in this week’s column, “In the West, the Inmates Run the Asylum.” Logically, I knew the general sentiment was correct, thus there were no qualms about using hyperbole in this context. It turns out I was 100 percent correct. For the French, the total number of bad apples is about 57; for the US it’s 73. It takes one Jihadi to bring down a plane.

Via The American Spectator:

According to a report released this week, the TSA had 73 “aviation workers” on its payroll who also happened to be on the terror watchlist, something the TSA, in its extensive screening process, failed to discover.

A recent U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) report found that 73 aviation workers, employed by airlines and vendors, had alleged links to terrorism.

The report, published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General on June 4, blamed bureaucratic mistakes. Though the TSA says it frequently cross-checks applications and employee lists with the DHS’s “Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist,” both are incomplete. …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Pols Help Purge Your White Geek Sons From American High-Tech

Education, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Left-Liberalism, Racism, Technology

Presumably not even a self-loathing left-liberal, consumed with a homo-erotic longing for the people of the Third World, would wish to purge his flesh-and-blood from America’s great high-tech companies. A vote for Republicans and Democrats will guarantee that home-grown white high-tech talent is JOBLESS.

Other than Donald Trump, all the G-d-awful presidential candidates continue to carp about the need to import more Indians and Asians (the so-called best in the world) to do the high-tech work their sons and daughters, presumably, can’t do. Trump has also repeated this canard, on occasion (“we need good people, but they have to come in legally,” or something like that).

Indeed, even Mr. Trump has shown no awareness of the following fact and its implications (gleaned while writing an intro to one of the chapters in a new volume for publication):

“Strangely enough, the demographic breakdown of ethnicities in tech roles doesn’t mirror graduating computer science students. 60 percent of recent bachelor computer science grads were white and only 18 percent Asian. By comparison, for eBay, Yahoo, and LinkedIn, Asian employees actually outnumber the white employees by a sizable margin.” (“Eight charts that put tech companies’ diversity stats into perspective.”)

Can that kind of enormous ratio discrepancy, in a majority white country, be explained away by allusions to:

* differences in aptitude and productivity between whites and Asians.
* the fact that white kids are often freighted by hippie parents, who’ll urge the family’s computer-science graduate to pursue his passion in … Hollywood.
* data suggesting Americans with graduate degrees are … dumber than cohort across the developed world.

I suspect the Treason Class and its immigration policies are at work.

Trump is a quick study. He’ll pick up on the fact that DC pols are purging America’s white, geek sons from American high-tech. But inoculate himself Trump must against the professional political handlers.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Ron Unz On ‘Intelligence Squared’

Conservatism, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, Labor

An internet search, following a viewing of the latest “Intelligence Squared Debate” on BBC News, revealed that the illustrious Ron Unz, publisher of America’s smartest webzine, The Unz Review, had appeared on the forum. Well, of course. Ron was selected to debate against the proposition, “Let Anyone Take A Job Anywhere.” (For the proposition is young Professor Bryan Caplan, who is also well-known in libertarian circles. But what on earth is Margaret Hoover doing on “The Intelligence Council”? That chick is as dumb as they come. )

In “We Are The World,” I wrote that “An interminable supply of … workers creates its own economic realities, chief of which is a shift to labor-intense, rather than innovation-oriented, forms of production. A never-ending supply of cheap and unskilled workers actually retards the productivity and progress of a modern economy by preventing mechanization and delaying important breakthroughs, thus reducing competitiveness. More important, the purely economic argument about the price at which American workers will perform menial work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—a nation. Render asunder the idea of a nation, make borders obsolete—and the world is your labor market. …”

From the transcripts:

INTRO:
Ron, you have one of those very, very disparate resumes that intelligence Squared loves. You’re a physicist by training. But then you were a founder and chairman of Wall Street Analytics, which is a financial services software company. Then you ran for governor of California. Then you were a publisher of the American Conservative.
You’ve been described, quote, unquote, as a “nerdy guy who lives and breathes policy and politics.” And I hope you know that in the intelligence Squared universe that makes you a sex symbol. …

RON UNZ:
… Let’s think a little bit about what this means. Now, you know, I’m laboring under a disadvantage in this debate because not only am I not a trained economist, I’ve never even taken a class in economics. I’ve never even opened an economics textbook. I personally don’t claim to really understand most economics. I’m not convinced everybody else understands economics that well either. But one part of economics that is very well established, a very simple issue, is the law of supply and demand. Think of what production means. The two main factors in production are labor and capital. Together, those factors produce everything we have in our society. owing an unlimited number of additional workers from everywhere in the world to come here and take jobs would massively, massively increase the supply of labor. The result would be tremendously disadvantaging labor at the expense of capital. In effect, order workers, ordinary citizens, people basically who work for a living would be tremendously economically disadvantaged by the fact that they would be competing against a billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, an unlimited supply of additional foreign workers who
would take the job for whatever wage they could.

It’s true, certainly, there would be a huge increase in economic production, productivity, GNP. But almost all of it, and possibly even more than all of it would be captured by capital, captured by the wealthy people on that side of the equation. In other words, what we’re talking about is something that would be very beneficial for the top 1
percent, .1 percent, 2 percent, 5 percent, the wealthiest segment of American society. They would benefit, no doubt about it. Everybody else would suffer. I think that’s very clear, because when you’re talking about basically a hundred million or 150 million American workers, suddenly competing in an open labor market with a billion or 2 billion or 3 billion impoverished people from everywhere else in the world, they certainly would suffer.

Now, let’s think of what really has happened in American society over the last 20, 30, 40 years. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, over 20 years ago, pointed out that for two decades there had been no increase in average wage income in the United States. The standard of living of ordinary American workers had been stagnant for two decades. He said that 20 years ago. It’s now been 40 years. The income of the average American has been stagnant or declining for 40 years now, which is a shocking statistic that most people are not aware of. Clearly, there have been advances in technology so that in many ways people have a much better life than they did before with iPhones, with Google, with things like that. But in terms of real income, people are basically the same or poorer than they were decades ago.

And as Moynihan pointed out in the ’90s, that’s the longest period of economic stagnation that has happened in North America since European settlement began hundreds of years ago. Now, is it entirely coincidence that 40 years of economic stagnation for ordinary American workers is the same 40 years that has seen one of the highest rates of foreign immigration to the United States in our history? I think it’s more
than a coincidence. The point is, if you have a huge influx of willing workers from abroad, able to take any job they could because they come from poor countries, you’re going to drive down the wages of ordinary American workers who are competing with them. Allowing anyone to take a job anywhere in effect would convert America’s minimum wage into its maximum wage. And if you see the complaints right now over the 1 percent, over the wealthy elite who have tremendously benefited in the last few decades, while ordinary people, ordinary people in New York City or other places around the country have suffered, that would be tremendously exacerbated if you brought in tens or even hundreds of millions of impoverished workers from other countries to take their places.

Now, the point is, when you’re talking about the result of economic stagnation in the United States that has now gone on for 40 years for ordinary workers, the end result at some point may be severe political backlash. And that sort of thing is inevitable. The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That’s no longer true today. And it’s no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.

It’s true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And
their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one
reason for many of the problems we’ve had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don’t understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don’t rise for 40 years. And I think, unfortunately, that’s probably true today.

One other aspect of the American political dynamic has been that there’s an increasing centralization of politics in the hands of wealth; in other words, the people who fund the campaigns, the organizations that fund the campaigns. And when you have the wealthy people benefiting tremendously from a proposal like this, and everybody else suffering. But when the wealthy people fund the politicians,they fund the think tanks, they fund the universities, they fund the journals; it’s not too
surprising that some of these ideas become very common in such circles even if the end result would be disastrous for the United States. The bottom line is that letting anyone take a job anywhere might sound good in theory but it would destroy the United States and destroy the lives of ordinary workers. Thank you very much. …

… incomes have declined. And it’s simply due to job competition. Now, getting back, though, to the point that there was a lot of discussion about, regarding the Internet, I think it’s absolutely true that it’s impossible to prevent jobs from migrating over the Internet, technologically. You can’t stop that type of economic competition from
overseas workers. I think it’s also true that the wages and benefits of the sort of workers in America who are electrical engineers or software developers has been negatively impacted by foreign job competition over the Internet. I think it’s absolutely true. But those workers are among the best paid in the United States. So, the negative impact on them has been relatively mild in terms of society. In other words, electrical
engineers right now are very well paid.

But if not for the Internet, if not for Indian job competition, they would even be much better paid. But they’re not the people I think
we have to worry about. We have to worry about the ordinary workers in the United States, the working class, which is, like, 60, 70, 80 percent of society. They are the ones whose jobs cannot be sent over the Internet. And to exacerbate that problem by having physical job competition as well as Internet job competition would, I think, make things much, much worse for that group

[SNIP]

These themes are discussed on IlanaMercer.com, Search under “Outsourcing” and “Labor,” or for these titles:

* Why Aren’t The H-1B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 “Extraordinary Ability” Visa? 11/18/2008
*U.S. Jobs: Reach for the Stars or a Hammer 5/11/2004 *OUTSOURCING AMERICAN LIVES: A LIBERTARIAN ALTERNATIVE 12/26/2003
* EXPORTING’ HIGH-TECH JOBS II: THE TIPPING POINT 12/19/2003
*’EXPORTING’ HIGH-TECH JOBS: PART I 12/12/2003
* DISPLACING AMERICANS 7/2/2003
* DOWNSIZING JOBS, OUTSOURCING LIVES (Part 2) 6/4/2003
* DOWNSIZING JOBS, OUTSOURCING LIVES (Part 1)

UPDATE (9/20): IN SOME PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, especially the enormous companies whose structure begins to resemble that of government, one needs to halve the IQ first, and take courses in “emotional intelligence” to get along and climb the proverbial ladder. Yes, that’s what industry does to Natural Leaders.

“When we grow up, we want to be like government” seems to be the motto of the massive high-tech companies.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint