Kerry Takes Aim at Trump Over Climate Change

While in New Zealand, John Kerry said: "We will wait to see how the next administration addresses this, but I believe we're on the right track and this is a track that the American people are committed to." He then added: "The majority of the American people believe that climate change is in fact happening and want to see us address it."

Days later he said this about Trump: "No one has the right to make decisions that affect billions of people based solely on ideology or without proper input."  Additionally, ABC reported that "Kerry said the impacts of global warming are now evident across the world with record-breaking droughts, rising sea levels, unusual storms and millions of people displaced by weather events."
This is factually incorrect.  The American people, in poll after poll, do not rank climate change as a priority.  For example, here's the latest results from Polling Report.com on where America ranks the importance of climate change:

• CBS News/New York Times Poll. Oct. 28-Nov. 1, 2016.  Just 2% said the "environment" was a priority. Don't know if "environment" actually means climate change
• ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 5-8, 2016. No mention of climate change as a priority.
• NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). May 15-19, 2016.  Just 8% mentioned climate change.
• CBS News Poll. April 8-12, 2016.  No mention of climate change.
• ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 16-19, 2015.  ABC didn't ask any of the respondents about climate change being a priority.
• Quinnipiac University. July 23-28, 2015. Only 6% gave a nod to climate change as an issue we should be focusing in on.

I could go on and on but the results would always be minimal.  Kerry should never use the words the "majority of American people" when talking about climate change.  It is a lie.  And, because it is a lie, I could easily say that Kerry is the one making decisions based "solely on ideology and without proper input" from the American people. 

But, the biggest problem I have with Kerry and other climate change alarmists is that they attempt to cement support for their movement based on "impacts" that can't be proven or are factually incorrect.  Hurricane impact on the U.S. has been unusually quiet.  Tornado activity has been below normal for the last five years.  NASA tells us the rising sea levels have slowed. Another study shows that sea levels in Manhattan have not risen in 20 years.  And, Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data has shown a dramatic fall in temperatures over the last 8 months.  This despite the claim that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.  This unexpected cooling has led to the conclusion by one Russian scientist that a "New Little Ice Age has Started".

As usual, by calling climate change a "hoax",  Trump may just be more in line with public opinion than Kerry or any of the other climate alarmists.

References:

Kerry tells Trump that Americans want climate action: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-tells-trump-americans-want-climate-action-004745308.html


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a stirring appeal Wednesday to all countries — including his own — to press ahead with the fight against climate change, saying a failure to do so would be a "betrayal of devastating consequences." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/kerry-overwhelming-majority-us-back-paris-climate-deal-43574549

PollingReport.com: Problems and Priorities: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

NOAA: U.S. has gone 11 years without a major hurricane strike: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/noaa-u-s-has-gone-11-years-without-a-major-hurricane-strike/

NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ – Below average for 5th year in a row: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/12/noaa-tornado-data-2016-one-of-the-quietest-years-since-records-began-in-1954-below-average-for-5th-year-in-a-row/

NASA, University Study Shows Rising Seas Slowed by Increasing Water on Land: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-university-study-shows-rising-seas-slowed-by-increasing-water-on-land

No Sea Level Rise At Lower Manhattan For 20 Years: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/10/no-sea-level-rise-at-lower-manhattan-for-20-years/

Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/

Russian Scientist: ‘The New Little Ice Age Has Started’: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/28/russian-scientist-the-new-little-ice-age-has-started/

pb

 

What Raising The Minimum Wage Will Cost You

We are a country of about 317 million people. Of that, approximately 70 million are under the age of 18 and are presumed to be living with their parents and off their parent's incomes.  So, essentially, there are roughly 250 million people who should be receiving some form of income. That's how many would be affected by higher prices that would be passed on by raising the minimum wage by $2.85 an hour to the proposed $10.10/hour.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), raising the minimum wage for the 1.6 million workers who earn that wage would actually result in a total of 16.5 million workers seeing their incomes increase. The reason for this is that when you increase the bottom salary level by an extraordinary 41% (as this increase would do), all the salaries above that level will have to be adjusted upwards in order to maintain equity in any typical company's pay scale ladder.  The head of Obama's National Economic Council, Gene Sperling, predicts an even higher number with as many as 28 million seeing their incomes increased.

Now, if we use the 34.2 hours that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average American works each week, and we assume the CBO's 16.5 million number that a $2.85 per hour increase results in, an annualized cost of  almost $85 billion will be passed on to us in higher prices.  Divide that by the 250 million people who pay the bills and that's a per person cost of $350 year; or, $700 per family.  If you use the Sperling's 28 million, you're talking about almost $600 a year per individual or $1200 per family.  Obviously, Obama and the Democrats don't seem to think you'll miss all that cash. 

Like it or not, after the minimum wage is increased, 250 million of us will be $350 to $600 poorer each year; and, on an ongoing basis.  For many, that extra cost may have just wiped out any raise they may have received. Especially hurt are the unemployed; the poor; people on fixed incomes; and, those 2 million workers who aren't even paid a minimum wage.

What does that say about Obama's pet topic de jour: Income Inequality?   The simple fact is that when prices are pushed up by wage inflation, the majority of Americans will only get poorer.  It has just the opposite effect of  minimizing poverty.  Job creation and low unemployment are the real means by which poverty is reduced.  When there are too few workers competing for far too many jobs, employers are necessarily forced to pay higher wages in order to fill openings and keep good people. That's how it has worked for years.

We currently have the highest minimum wage in decades and, at the same time, median incomes are down almost 8% with still high unemployment and we have a record number of Americans -- 46.5 million -- who are in poverty.  And, let's not forget, the recession ended nearly 5 years ago. I personally believe that the reason this has been one of the worst recoveries in our history is because or economy is still trying to recover from increases in the minimum wage that took place during the heart of this last recession.  I also believe that our slow growing economy will be even worsened further by another massive increase in the minimum wage.  It is just folly to believe that forced wage increases won't have serious economic consequences.

References:

Raising the minimum wage would help 16.5 million workers but could cost 1/2 million jobs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/minimum-wage-hike-could-kill-500000-jobs-but-help-alleviate-poverty-cbo-reports/2014/02/18/d171c130-98de-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_story.html

Increasing the nation's minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would help between 24 million and 28 million people: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/obama-frames-minimum-wage-fight-in-global-terms/

Characteristics of a Minimum Wage Worker: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

Average Weekly Work Hours: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

How Will Hurricane Sandy Impact The Economy?

Over the last week, I've heard a number of media types declare that there's a silver lining to hurricane Sandy; and, that is jobs.  Jobs to repair and jobs to rebuild.  But, this declaration simply ignores how many jobs will have been killed by this storm.

If you look at the Jersey shorelines, the boardwalks have been obliterated.  These "walks" were accesses to dozens of businesses with hundreds of workers.  Now, those buildings will be idled for months; maybe even years for some.  Other businesses, more inland, suffered severe flooding and may not be able to reopen until the water damage is corrected and inventories replaced.  All told, more jobs will probably be lost to the hurricane than will be created.  Then, too, any jobs that are created won't be lasting.  Once the construction work is over; the workers will go back to being unemployed.

The fact is that Sandy is "currently" estimated to have done about $20 billion in damage; and, certainly, some portion of that amount of money will be used to create jobs.  But, on the other hand, it is estimated that the economy will lose as much as $30 billion in business activity.  That, simplistically, could mean that for every 2 jobs created, 3 may be lost. 

In terms of the overall impact, the above cost totaling $50 billion isn't much when you consider that we have a $15 trillion economy.  In fact, the total impact of this disaster is less than 3-tenths of one percent. But, in an economy that is already weakening, the additive effect of this storm might be more much more significant than what the numbers are telling us.