When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Accused of intolerance and ideological censorship, the members of the Leftist media have decided on their response: it’s not censorship or intolerance so long as we allow more Left-leaning people onto our editorial pages. That’s the argument being made simultaneously by the Democrats at New York magazine and Crooked Media.
First, New York magazine. Eric Levitz of that publication writes that we no longer need a plethora of conservative voices in the public square — the presence of Donald Trump has annihilated any such necessity. “The Liberal Media Can Have Ideological Diversity Without Conservatives,” Levitz preaches. Why?
Magazines like The Atlantic, and op-ed pages like the New York Times’, have long aimed to host a dialogue that represents the major intellectual currents on both sides of aisle — while upholding fundamental principles of civility, good faith, and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings (regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender). There was a tension in that mission statement before Trump: For decades, many of the American right’s most influential voices had rejected those supposedly shared values, and many of the conservative movement’s animating ideas were manifestly arational and racist. But before the triumph of the birther king — when the Republican Party’s standard-bearers still spoke in a language broadly similar to David Brooks’s — it was possible to frame the latter as a faithful translator of Red America’s thoughts and feelings.
But after Trump, Brooks had proved useless, as had all those conservatives who opposed Trump but couldn’t stop him. Thus, they should be counted out of the political debate. Instead, right-wingers should be banned outright — anyone who backed Trump ought to be counted out thanks to their obvious deplorability, and anyone who didn’t ought to be counted out thanks to their uselessness.How convenient for the Left.
Instead, Levitz argues, arguments should be created between the Left and the even harder Left:
The far left has ideas that can be argued civilly, in good faith, without violating core liberal values. And those ideas are more responsive to the problems of our era than those of the NeverTrumpers.
So get rid of Kevin Williamson, and hire Jill Stein. The time has come!
Now, it's fine to hire Jill Stein. But to proclaim that Kevin Williamson must go to make room for Stein is quite a contention.
Meanwhile, over at Crooked Media, Brian Beutler (formerly of The New Republic) says something similar: it’s time to stop looking for conservative columnists. Beutler declares that all conservatives reflect a “wellspring of right-wing contempt for modern culture, and for sources of neutral authority (science, law, journalism) that get in the way of conservative objectives.” The same, obviously, could be said of the Left that ignores biology when convenient (see Caitlyn Jenner and abortion), law when convenient (see the IRS scandal), and journalism when convenient (they just stopped performing it for eight years). But Beutler concludes that it’s conservatives who must be barred from the halls of discussion:
There is no Goldilocks conservative up for hire and there never will be … writers steeped in conservative-movement politics are poor fits at institutions that embrace the professional standards of mainstream journalism.
Even Bret Stephens must go.
And then those on the Left wonder why so many Americans see them as intolerant scolds dedicated to preventing honest discussion? Probably because they’re intolerant scolds dedicated to preventing honest discussion. There are those on the Right who engage in discussion with those with whom they disagree with on a regular basis. That’s a good thing. That’s what keeps the dialogue going. But the mainstream liberal press is pushing directly toward censorious Leftism. And that means the end of decent conversation, and with it, the future of a reason-based republic.
I probably haven't been saying all these words though:
GULLIBLE VOTERS DON’T UNDERSTAND THE TRADE OFF BETWEEN BENEFITS AND WAGES
by Kevin Ryan
Many voters still fall for it when politicians promise to mandate new work benefits. The reality is that legally mandated benefits lead to cash wages being lower than they otherwise would be, thus offering no net increase to a worker's compensation. They also reduce the employee's ability to choose how to sp...end their own earnings. And economists from every ideology, including liberal, conservative, and everywhere in between, agree.
1. The overall compensation paid to an employee consists of cash wages plus benefits. Any law that forces employers to increase one usually results in the company decreasing the other by the same amount. An increase in minimum wage, for example, is often offset by a reduction in benefits. And an increase in legally mandated benefits leads companies to reduce wages, though often not immediately, but instead by reducing future raises. Thus the overall compensation earned by the employee stays the same.
2. Also on the downside, by legally forcing employees to accept a benefit, the government is eliminating their power to chose. Sure, it might be nice to have four weeks of vacation legally mandated, but don't forget your cash wages will in all likelihood be reduced by the equivalent of four weeks pay. Given the choice, quite a few workers would rather have some or all of that cash instead of vacation.
Which isn't to say there aren't some advantages to mandated employer benefits. But for every worker who likes the new mandate, there are others who would rather take higher cash wages. The bottom line is that legally mandated benefits provide the illusion of adding value to a worker's compensation.
For those who still aren't convinced, listen to the words of economists.
"Most labor economists believe that in the long run, much or all of the burden of employer costs for fringe benefits falls on workers", from Effects of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Costs, by the Social Security Administration.
"Economists tend to agree that, based upon both the theory and the best empirical evidence, workers bear a large portion of health insurance costs through reduced wages", from Who Pays For Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance? by Linda J. Blumberg.
"There is a growing body of literature suggesting that the costs of mandated benefits and payroll taxes can be shifted to wages", from Payroll Taxation, Employer Mandates, and the Labor Market, by Jonathan Gruber. Yes, the same Jonathan Gruber who helped create Obamacare.
Is Hillary Clinton wearing a back brace? Eagle-eyed Twitter users spot 'weird protrusion' coming from her back after she stepped out in New York's warm weather bundled up in a coat and long scarf
Hillary Clinton has been spotted out of late wearing a supposed back brace
Eagle-eyed social media users noticed a strange protrusion come from her back when she was photographed out in New York last week
Clinton was wearing a long jacket and colorful scarf that covered her neck and draped down her back despite it being 80 degrees outside
Twitter users were quick to point out her upright posture and bundled up attire
Clinton also opted for a similar style during an event in New Zealand on Monday
Except of all the benefits the author listed only 6, or less than half, are actually legally mandated. He sounds like a disillusioned government worker.
These job benefits only started after WWII when the President told business owners they can't pay people more than the next business (see: Executive Order 9328), so there was no incentive for a potential employee to come work for one company over the other and FDR preferred East berlin over West.
Companies started offering benefits as an incentive to potential employees to go work for them. The gov't ruled these incentives were not a violation of the EO, and the IRS even went as far and said they weren't taxable.
The government has since mandated many of those benefits, and people are still fighting to get more today. This is pretty much the epitome of gov't in the US; solving problems the gov't created to solve a problem. The entire premise of the article is that voters, today, are still voting to get more mandated benefits. Even if the chart doesn't represent all that are mandated, it shows you many of the benefits in play -- and at the same time people are demanding higher cash wages at the same time.
The pie must get bigger in order to increase both wages and benefits, yet businesses really don't have that much money to play with, especially small ones:
I probably haven't been saying all these words though:
Is there ANY evidence that if we had zero benefits, our pay would increase? sure seems like corporate would appreciate the major cash bonus and feel wildly UN-compelled to share it.
I always see these articles saying there is a shortage of construction trade workers, but everywhere I go I see hundreds of them unemployed. There is definitely no shortage of these workers, there’s just a shortage of people willing to work for sub-par poverty wages. That’s why these Mike Rowe types want to flood the labor market. Don’t believe any of that **** if you read it.
Hi Chad
You appear to be a man of certainty. You favor words like “always,” “definitely,” and “everywhere.” That's fine by me. I’m curious though - have you actually been “everywhere?” Or do you only frequent places populated with unemployed construction workers who refuse to work because the pay is too low? Also, if you don’t mind me asking, what possible reason do you think I might have for wanting to “flood the labor market?”
It’s true - I often post about opportunities in the skilled trades, but unlike your claims, mine are easy to verify. According to the BLS, 6.3 million jobs are currently available – the vast majority of which do NOT require a four-year degree. Many of those jobs exist in construction. I’m not making this up, Chad. It’s right there in black and white. So too, is the amount of college debt currently on the books – 1.5 trillion dollars. A rather tidy sum, considering half of those who borrow money for tuition don’t even graduate.
Obviously, I’m aware that some people refuse to work because they believe the pay is too low. People like that exist in every industry, and the construction trades are no different. But that doesn’t mean that low wages are the reason 6.3 million jobs are currently vacant. The fact is, starting salaries in the skilled trades rival or exceed those of many more popular careers. Check out this video. https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/videos/1266293870047420/
Are companies responsible for attracting and training the workers they rely upon? Absolutely. I've never argued otherwise. Nor have I suggested that "free college" or "free training" is the answer. (Until professors and instructors waive their salaries, someone will always pay for education.) I'm simply saying that work force development in the skilled trades has become a MAJOR challenge, thanks to a litany of inaccurate perceptions. These stigmas and stereotypes are widely-held, deeply rooted, and perpetuated every day by misinformed individuals such as yourself. You’re like the blind man, Chad, who touches the tusk of an elephant and then goes around telling the world that all elephants are made of solid ivory. Its people like you - along with millions of well-intended parents and guidance counsellors - who keep these myths and misperceptions alive.
Clearly, you and I disagree. Yes - my personal experiences have informed my opinion, just as yours have. But unlike you, I’ve touched the whole elephant. I've been to every state multiple times, spoken directly to hundreds of employers, and put my money where my mouth is. And my conclusion is this – while the work is often demanding, and the conditions sometimes inhospitable, the opportunities in the skilled trades have never been better. I know hundreds of people who began by mastering a trade, and went on to prosper. I can name them, Chad. In fact, that’s exactly what I’ve been doing for the last ten years. My foundation has assisted over a thousand people with work ethic scholarships. Those people are my proof, and I’m proud to share their stories here. Simply scroll down and you can read another one.
Obviously, my desire to share stories of success doesn’t make me right, any more than your desire to share stories of failure makes you wrong. But it does give me permission to ask – respectfully and in all seriousness - what is it you hope to accomplish by telling people that opportunity is dead? In other words, what is YOUR agenda?
Mike
PS. We’re accepting applications for another round of work ethic scholarships. While this particular pile of free money is probably not for you, I’m happy to say that others are have benefitted greatly from applying. All are welcome to do so here. Deadline is Monday, June 4th. mikeroweWORKS.org/scholarship
Is there ANY evidence that if we had zero benefits, our pay would increase? sure seems like corporate would appreciate the major cash bonus and feel wildly UN-compelled to share it.
I usually try to get employed by the company the pays me the least. YMMV.
Is there ANY evidence that if we had zero benefits, our pay would increase? sure seems like corporate would appreciate the major cash bonus and feel wildly UN-compelled to share it.
Maybe i am totally missing something.
What you're missing is the Capitalist system. If you don't pay your employees a competitive wage, they walk to a job with higher pay and benefits. Happens all the time.
Additionally, If your wages are sub-par, you get sub-par employees. Now maybe that's your business model, but most employers find out (soon enough) that poor employees = poor productivity.
Additionally, If your wages are sub-par, you get sub-par employees. Now maybe that's your business model, but most employers find out (soon enough) that poor employees = poor productivity.
Ah, now I understand why the folks at McDonalds want $15 an hour- they're assuming that their productivity will increase and they will become more valuable to their employer.
...A lot of their friends and loved ones said, ‘Don’t do it. Don’t speak out against him. And in some cases, that was because they feared the risk of reprisals. They feared him threatening people — using his office and power to say he could wiretap people or he could come after people.
But also in some cases, Alisyn, those friends warned them off of talking because they thought that he had the power to do too much good for the Democratic Party.
A national popular vote just got one step closer to reality
By Christopher Ingraham May 8 at 6:00 AM
Lawmakers in Connecticut have approved legislation that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing electoral reformers closer to their goal of sidestepping the Electoral College to elect presidents by a nationwide popular vote.
Under the compact, states pledge to allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. It would not go into effect until it's adopted by states representing at least 270 electoral votes, a majority.
Connecticut's seven electoral votes join the 165 electoral votes of 10 other states plus the District of Columbia, putting the compact fewer than 100 electoral votes away from becoming reality. The last state to join the compact was New York, in 2014.
So far only blue states typically won by Democrats have joined the compact — California, New York and Illinois being the largest among them. But the compact's organizers point out that legislative chambers in a number of red and purple states have also approved legislation adding those states.
Under the Constitution, states are given wide leeway in allocating their electoral college votes. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact simply requires states to allocate their votes according to the nationwide, rather than the statewide, popular vote. It allows for what amounts to a nationwide popular vote without eliminating the electoral college. It's a way of having one's electoral cake and eating it, too.
The issue has gained new urgency in recent years. In two out of the past five presidential elections, candidates have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Reformers have pointed out the fundamental capriciousness of the state-level winner-take-all electoral system -- in 2016, for instance, a tiny number of changes to state borders would have resulted in a completely different electoral outcome. A 2016 NPR analysis found that it's possible to win the electoral college with just 23 percent of the popular vote.
Legislators in swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Virginia have expressed little interest in joining the compact, for the obvious reason that those states receive a hugely disproportionate share of political attention, including events and advertising dollars, in presidential election years. Some Republicans are likewise skeptical, given that the beneficiaries of the two most recent popular-electoral vote splits have been Republican candidates, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
But polls show that most Americans would prefer to elect their presidents directly through a nationwide popular vote. And that proposal has at least one major Republican backer, at least in theory: President Trump, who recently told “Fox & Friends” that “I would rather have the popular vote because it's, to me, it's much easier to win the popular vote.”
05-08-2018, 07:59 AM
0
