Will the True Wage Report Please Stand Up

The Labor Department, in releasing the weekly unemployment claims number, also released wage data for March.  As Reuters news is reporting:

Private sector wages and salaries were up 2.8 percent in the 12 months through March, the biggest gain since the third quarter of 2008, after rising 2.2 percent in the 12 months through December.

The only problem with this 2.8% increase is that it isn't consistent with the Employment Situation Report for March from another government agency: the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.  That report, in Table B (page 5), says that average weekly private-sector wages only rose 2.1% from $839.73 in March 2014 to $857.67 in March 2015; just barely above the core annual inflation rate of 1.8%.  

Does the Obama Administration think people are too dumb to compare two separate reports for their accuracy and consistency?  Is this a politically motivated report to counter GOP Presidential candidates and their increasing focus on the poor wage growth under Obama? 

References:

U.S. jobless claims at 15-year low; consumer spending rises: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN0NL1JT20150430

THE  EMPLOYMENT  SITUATION  — M ARCH  2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

In rounding out the Labor Department’s report, core inflation advanced 1.8% on a year-over-year basis after gaining 1.7% in the 12 months ending February and 1.6% through January:  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/us-inflation-in-march-rises-0-2-annual-rate-declines/10001692/

Restoring the American Dream: Economy & Jobs | GOP: https://www.gop.com/platform/restoring-the-american-dream/

Our Broken Educational System Is Feeding Our Prison System

In a recent speech at Columbia University, Hillary Clinton addressed the Baltimore rioting by saying that there is something "profoundly wrong" with our justice system.  Then she gave a litany of likelihoods that face black males.  Things like higher rates of incarceration and longer sentencing and that statistics on black incarceration and employment, are an embarrassment to this country. What she doesn't seem to understand is that our justice system exists as a result of crime; not the other way around.  So, the objective in improving crime statistics -- especially for blacks -- is to go after the root cause and not apply a band aid after the fact.

According to the President's own Education Department, 70% of prison inmates in this country can't  read at a basic level.  So, obviously, much of all criminal behavior can be traced back to functional illiteracy.   When blacks make up 40% of the prison population, also understand that nearly 1-in-4 (24%) are functionally illiterate.  So, then, what is the solution to race and the justice system?  Better policing and lighter sentencing?  Or a better educational system?

Also, high black illiteracy rates also lead to higher unemployment rates, lower wages, and higher rates of poverty.   More importantly, high rates of poverty and unemployment are also linked to higher rates of crime.  Thus, if black unemployment and poverty is high, higher crime rates will also follow.  In Baltimore, for example, the black unemployment rate for ages 20 to 24 was 37%. 

The bottom line is that, if we want to lessen the frequency by which blacks have to interact with the police and, in doing so, lessen the possibility that they will die at their hands, we need to improve black education and black attitudes towards being educated.

One of the most disturbing statistics from the Department of Education is that almost 1-in-5 (19%) of all high school graduates can't read.  So, then, how is one who can't read able to test and graduate from high school?  The only way something like that can happen is if we have a lot of teachers who are willing to push students out of the doors of their high school without an education.  Until that changes, black crime and overall crime will remain high in this country.

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned...her trashing of the justice system is simply telling blacks what they want to believe and not the truth.  

References:

Hillary Clinton: 'There Is Something Profoundly Wrong' In Our Criminal Justice System: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-baltimore_n_7170668.html

Hillary Clinton: It's time to confront 'hard truths' about race and justice: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-justice-race-baltimore-reaction-117466.html

Illiteracy Statistics: http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census: State-by-State Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html

How Baltimore’s Young Black Men Are Boxed In:  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-baltimores-young-black-men-are-boxed-in/

Poverty and Crime: Breaking a Vicious Cycle of Discrimination: http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage and the Liberal Spin

On April 1st, Seattle, Washington's $15 Minimum wage law technically went into effect.  Already, the liberals have attacked Republicans who had claimed that raising it that high would cost jobs and shutter businesses. The argument is that none of that has happened.   In fact, on April 10th, the far left think tank, "Think Progress", wrote an online article titled: "Seattle Restaurant Data Demolishes Conservative Argument Against $15 Minimum Wage."

The problem with the "Think Progress" article is that it leads people to believe that a $15 minimum wage completely went into effect April 1st.  It didn't.

If you are a small business of less than 500 employees, you have seven years to gradually raise it to $15.  That's about an 81 cent per hour raise per year from the previous $9.32 in Washington state.  All other businesses have just three years to increase it, and since most small business like restaurants and retail operations employ minimum wage workers, overall impact will be minimal; at least this year.

There's another reason that Seattle can handle the $15 minimum wage over time without a lot of impact on jobs. Seattle is wealthy.  The average per capita income is $43,237 (in 2013).  That's much higher then our nation as a whole at just $28,155 (again, in 2013). Because of its wealth, and the city's ability to keep people working, the unemployment rate was just 3.9% in December of 2014.

So, I guess from the 'Think Progress" article, we're supposed to conclude that raising the national minimum wage to $15 won't do any harm.  That reminds me of that old adage: "But, will it play in Peoria."  In Peoria, Illinois the average per capita salary is only $28,438 (in 2013); or, about $13.67 an hour (based on a 40-hour work week).  In terms of the unemployment rate, Peoria is already hurting at  6.9% as of December 2014.  Compared to Seattle's poverty rate of 13.6%, Peoria sits at 17.2%; meaning that 1-in-6 wouldn't see their salaries increased anyway.

Let's not have a national minimum wage of $15.  If Seattle, with its high standard of living, does it...then, fine.  But not every community can afford the price hikes that will result from it.

References:

Seattle approves $15 minimum wage: http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/02/news/economy/seattle-minimum-wage/

Seattle Restaurant Data Demolishes Conservative Argument Against $15 Minimum Wage: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/10/3645268/new-evidence-buries-lie-about-seattle-minimum-wage/

We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

USA Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Seattle Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/5363000.html

Seattle Unemployment Rate: https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+unemployment+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Peoria Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17143.html

Peoria Unemployment Rate: https://www.google.com/search?q=peoria+unemployment+rate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Will it Play in Peoria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_it_play_in_Peoria%3F

Why Now For The 'Clinton Cash' Book?

Whether accurate or not, the new book titled 'Clinton Cash' paints the picture of a family involved a lot of potentially shady and perhaps(?) quid-pro-quo deals while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  Deals involving wealthy foreigners, foreign companies, and countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation.  Supporters of  Bill and Hillary are quick to point out that the book was written by former Bush speechwriter Peter Schweizer as the reason to believe its just another "political hit" job by a biased GOP writer. Thus, we are not supposed to trust even a single word that appears in that book.

But, the possibility that it may be a "political hit" job leads us to a very interesting question:  Why now?  We are months away from the nomination and more than a year away from the November 2016 Presidential election.   Why not hold the book until just before the election where it could do some real political damage to Hillary?  That, of course, assumes she will be the Democrat nominee.

I personally think that the book's current release has the sole intended purpose of  hurting Hillary so much that she won't receive the nomination.  I believe that there are some in the Republican party who believe she is unbeatable because of her being a woman and that many Americans feel it is time for the first woman President.  Also, many believe she should have beaten Obama in 2008.  Thus, this book is a defensive move to insure someone else jumps into the race and wins the nomination.  Just my opinion.

References:

New Book, 'Clinton Cash,' Questions Foreign Donations to Clinton Foundation: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html



 

Unions Can Now Have Access To Your Personal Info

As of April 14, the Obama-slanted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) put new rules into effect that are designed to favor the labor unions and disadvantage employers.

Under these new rules, employers will have an extremely short time to argue their cases against unionization because voting must occur within 14 to 21 days after being notified that a vote must be taken. Prior to this, the average time was 38 days with some contested voting lasting up to 56 days. Thus, a large company with multiple locations and multiple shifts (such as Walmart) will be logistically disadvantaged in arguing its case against unionization.  And, that's intentional.  The whole purpose of this "quickie election rule" is to insure that employees don't get all the facts before they decide.

But, it doesn't just stop there.  Under the new rules, if your company is targeted by a union, you must turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, company and private email addresses, company locations and work hours of all employees.  Previously, it was only required for unions to have access to names and addresses of a company's employees.  So now, while businesses will have less time to argue their case, unions will have months to barrage potential members with information by mail, email, telephone calls, or in person meetings at your home, or anywhere outside your work location.  At the same time, employers are restricted from countering the union campaigning prior to the period after the union notifies the employer of a vote.  A fact that many legal eagles find unconstitutional because it restricts an employer's freedom of speech.

The biggest problem with the above ruling is that it is a complete invasion of privacy.  In the wake of the NSA scandal where private emails and conversations were being listened into by the federal government, a lot of people are not going to tolerate this.  Unions contacting people in multiple ways might find out that this will backfire when it comes to votes.  I know that I would consider it harassment if I already had no interest in being a member of a union and they kept contacting me.

Also, unions are big "get-out-the-vote" volunteers for the Democrat party.  In the past, having a list of just names and addresses was too labor intensive.  They were better off going door-to-door, neighborhood by neighborhood.  Now, they have all the contact information they need  for campaigning.  I also doubt that there are any protections that prevent the unions from handing over that extremely valuable information to their favored political party.

Lastly, the NLRB rules (similar to other attempts by Obama to legislate by mandate) may not stand up to a legal review.  Several business groups have already filed federal lawsuits to block these new rules.

References:

NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?: http://laborunionreport.com/2012/01/26/nlrb-chair-wants-to-force-companies-to-turn-over-employee-telephone-numbers-e-mail-addresses/

NLRB Allows Employees to Use Employer Email Systems for Organizing Purposes, and Issues New Speedy Union Election Rule:  https://www.ropesgray.com/news-and-insights/Insights/2015/January/NLRB-Allows-Employees-to-Use-Employer-Email-Systems-for-Organizing-Purposes.aspx

 NLRB “Quickie Election” Rule Accelerates the Union Organizing Process: http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-process/

Business Groups File Lawsuit to Block NLRB’s Union-Organizing Rule: https://www.google.com/search?q=Business+Groups+File+Lawsuit+to+Block+NLRB%E2%80%99s+Union-Organizing+Rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

McDonald's Struggles To Survive

I am of the belief that raising the minimum wage during the Great Recession made it both deeper and wider than it had to be.  The reason for that is simple.  If you, as a business owner, are forced to raise wages when you are already losing money in the midst of a recession, your only choice is to lay people off; or, worst case, close your doors.  During the recession years of 2007 to 2009, the minimum wage was raised 40%.  Over that time,  more than 200,000 small businesses -- the type that hire many minimum wage workers -- ceased to exist.  It is anyone's guess as to what percentage of those places had to close because of the higher salaries, but, for sure some -- maybe many -- had to.

Now, in 2015, fast food giant McDonald's is struggling.  Hundreds of their under-performing stores have already been closed; with hundreds more slated to shut down later this year.  As each one closes, an average of 61 workers will lose their jobs.  Yet, many of those McD's employees seem to think their wages should be doubled to at least $15 an hour as this picture from the New York Post clearly shows.

Maybe they should rethink that.  In my opinion, having a job is a lot better than not having one at all. Especially in an economy that still has 17 million workers still unemployed based on the U6 alternative measure of employment.

References:

McDonald's to Shutter Hundreds of Stores As it Bleeds Money: http://www.eater.com/2015/4/22/8467915/mcdonalds-shutter-hundreds-locations-china-us-report

April 15th: Fast-food workers picket, demanding wage hikes: http://nypost.com/2015/04/15/fast-food-workers-picket-for-wage-of-at-least-15-hourly/

Economy lost more than 200,000 small businesses in recession, Census shows: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/economy-lost-more-than-200000-small-businesses-in-recession-census-shows/

McDonald's Statistics from Michigan: http://www.mcmichigan.com/2661/30770/default-page/

Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Report for March 2015: Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Hillary Wants To Topple the Wealthiest One Percent

Apparently, Hillary Clinton plans to fix income inequality in America by making the rich poorer and  literally toppling the top one percent.  This way, I suppose, it will make the poor "look" a little richer. Forget about the fact that most of the nation's wealthy got that way by creating companies that, in turn, create jobs.

If she does topple the rich, how are we going to pay for all those liberal federal programs that benefit the poor?  The top one percent already pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% of all wage earners combined.  All this so that the bottom 43% can pay no taxes and the poor can survive on programs like food stamps and Medicaid.  But, Hillary still thinks the rich are unfairly treated when it comes to taxes. 

Of course, this comes from the mouth of a woman whose combined wealth with her husband is estimated to be between $100 and $200 million dollars. 

Maybe she needs to topple herself.


References:

Hillary Clinton Calls For 'Toppling' The 1 Percent: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-hillary-clinton-called-for-toppling-the-1-2015-4

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax: https://www.google.com/search?q=Top+20%25+of+Earners+Pay+84%25+of+Income+Tax&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

43% Of Americans Don't Pay Federal Income Taxes: http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9

The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent

How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary ‘filthy rich’: http://nypost.com/2015/04/20/book-claims-foreign-cash-made-bill-and-hillary-filthy-rich/