Category Archives: jobs

Infrastructure, Investigations, and Agendas

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that he’ll do infrastructure negotiations and legislation after the Progressive-Democrats end their investigations of his administration, not before. Pointing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) bad faith approach (my term, not Trump’s) to any such negotiations, he said that

he had watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…accuse him of a “coverup” in remarks to reporters shortly before their scheduled infrastructure meeting at the White House.

Never mind that Trump has completely cooperated with the Mueller investigation throughout the 2+ years of that effort, and that Mueller found that there was no collusion between Trump’s administration or his campaign and the Russian effort to interfere in our elections.  Never mind that Mueller also found no obstruction (in the expanded portion of his authorized investigation), only embarrassing instances of loud venting of his frustration.

When Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) arrived for that meeting following their press op, a meeting at which Republican leadership also was present, Trump advised them

I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. But you know what, you can’t do it under these circumstances.

Indeed. The Progressive-Democrats are so intent on their several inquisitions that they have no time for serious matters, no energy left for serving their employing constituencies.

Which brings me to a strange remark by the WSJ piece’s authors.

The president’s declaration raises questions about how he would pass any of his legislative agenda in the remaining year and a half of his first term.

There are no questions here.  The Progressive-Democratic caucus in the House has been intent on blocking his agenda since they took office last January.  The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the Senate has been intent on using their filibuster powers to try to block all of Trump’s agenda, with considerable success (and a couple of notable failures) on legislative matters, since Trump’s term began two and a half years ago.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

A Foolish Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has one.  She’s

proposing that large employers pay women on an equal basis with their male counterparts or face government fines, seeking a sweeping shift in the way the nation addresses pay inequity.

She wants to impose a 1% tax on “large” companies’ profit for every 1% disparity in pay.  The size of the disparity is an open question, though.  The favorite number of the Progressive-Democrats is that women are paid in the neighborhood of 70-75 cents for each dollar a man is paid for the same work; although the number Harris bandied was 80 cents.  That would make the Harris Payroll Tax run 20% or 25%-30% of profit.  The more valid, empirically derived number, though, puts that disparity between 0 and 7 cents less for the woman than the man, with a heavy lean toward the 7.  This more accurate number actually presumes to correct for time in the workforce, experience level on the job in question, and so on.

Beyond that, the Harris Payroll Tax is just plain bad finance.  Companies—small as well as large—pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wage they pay, and those same companies tie perks like health coverage, paid time off, bonuses, etc to the wage they pay.  An increase in wage would carry with it those added payroll costs.

It’d be cheaper for the companies to pay the Harris Payroll Tax than it would to raise the wage paid the woman.

Further, Harris would

put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination.

Because, typical of today’s Progressive-Democrats, we’re all guilty until proven innocent.  Especially when it’s difficult even to define the crime.

Favorable Jobs Report, Therefor Cut Interest Rates?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the latest push, this time by Vice President Mike Pence.  He’s as wrong, though, as President Donald Trump, for all that he’s more genteel in his push.

There’s no inflation happening here. The economy is roaring. This is exactly the time not only to not raise interest rates, but we ought to consider cutting them[.]

Pence made this remark on the heels of Labor’s employment report announcing strong job growth, rising wages, and 3.6% unemployment.

No.  Interest rates where they are aren’t hindering our economy; on the contrary, they’re still a tad low.  Our economy is flourishing for a number of reasons, one of which is that interest rates are approaching more natural levels, not being held at below free market rates.  “Natural” here is defined in terms of the Federal Reserve’s legislated mandate—to maintain stable prices and low unemployment—and the Fed’s long-held optimal stable pricing goal of 2% inflation.

Cutting rates on the basis of a favorable jobs report (and one not entirely favorable: the labor force participation rate fell for the second straight month, and that rate is a factor in calculating the headline unemployment rate) would be a mistake.  Instead, the Fed should move its benchmark rates to levels consistent with its 2% inflation goal and then sit down, be quiet, and accept that the economy and employment rates will be noisy around that level (or any other level).

Animal spirits, after all, are hormonal, but within surprisingly broad ranges, they keep correcting back.

Banning Workers’ Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what two Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates want to do.  Here’s Kamala Harris, who’s doubling as a California Senator:

The barriers to organized labor being able to organize and strike are something that have grown over a period of time[.] … It has to be about, for example, banning right-to-work laws[.]

Here’s Social Democrat Bernie Sanders, doubling as an Independent Senator from Vermont while, once again, masquerading himself as a Progressive-Democratic Party member for this campaign, calling for:

a federal ban on so-called right-to-work laws in a Monday [1 Apr] speech.
Speaking to the International Association of Machinists at the union’s conference in Las Vegas, Sanders said as president he would push legislation in Congress to prohibit the laws.

And

…the trade union movement must be in the middle of all of those discussions.

Aside from blatant attacks on all workers’ 1st Amendment right of freedom of assembly, these are obvious and petty attempts at pandering for the votes of blue collar workers.

The attempts also are dishonest in their cynically deliberate distortions of the situation.  Right to work laws guarantee workers’ right to work without paying dues to unions to which they do not belong and their right to work without being forced against their will to join unions.

Those right-to-work laws do not bar workers from joining unions; on the contrary, they explicitly allow them to—that 1st Amendment bit, again.  Instead, the laws simply enable workers to support their families without having to join a union as a precondition for doing so.

Oh, and it’s all about the Benjamins, too.  Unions fund the political campaigns—and other expenses—of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.  Those forced dues that freed workers no longer have to pay were a significant fraction of the funds used to pay those politicians; and those politicians are desperate to recover the money.