I was recently reading this article over at good.is. The author is comparing young people across the world to young people in America, in the fact that they are stricken with higher unemployment. I'm not sure if this is just a typo, or an attempt to paint things as worse than they are, but the author claims, in reference to the U.S.:
"For the first time since the 1960s, when women entering the workforce led to a big increase in youth employment, a majority of young people are out of work."
Then they go on to say that young people in the U.S., ages 16-24, the unemployment rate is 18%. Now, I'm sure the author of this article has some college, but he/she was either terrible at math (18% is no where near a majority), trying to spin things to make them look worse, or just a bad editor.
They also assert that republicans played politics with Obamas jobs bill (which was killed by republicans, but in the democratically controlled senate). Even if they did, it's nothing compared to the 18+ jobs bills that the republican controlled house has sent to the senate, which are now collecting dust in the name of playing politics.
Back to the point. In the world of work, youth are the most inexperienced and least educated. Many of them don't have a work ethic due to television and lax parenting, but a job can fix some of that. A minimum wage furthers the hardship on youth, and it should come as no surprise that as minimum wage rose higher, so did youth unemployment.
When a business has the freedom to pay their employees as they see fit taken away (i.e. minimum wage), they have only a few options. They can either raise the cost of their product or service, which drives demand down in most all minimum wage markets. Or they can hire someone with more experience and education in hopes of having the extra experience/education allow this person to be more productive and actually earn the extra money that the business is forced to pay.
Effectively, minimum wage prices out the young and inexperienced/un(der)educated. Yet, young people are the biggest supporters of minimum wage and minimum wage increases. The folks down at OWS were even calling for an $18/hour minimum wage. (Isn't it ironic how obsessed with the economy they are, but how little they understand its workings?)
Minimum wage is hogwash, and should be abolished.
Side note: what happens when you offer occupiers GREAT JOBS (insurance benefits, good salary, 401k, etc...)!?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Judge rules against occupiers
photo credit: NY Post/Matthew McDermottUPDATE:
The judge has ruled that the occupiers can NOT stay over night in the park!
Judges and Occupiers
This should be labeled liberal judges, lawyers, and occupiers, but it's not. They believe they are above the law. when the law stands in their way, they don't try to have it changed, they "interpret" it in a new ridiculous manner.
The Judges and lawyers:
The best example off the top of my head is "separation of church and state". Judges and lawyers have used this term for years, to defend the atheists and christian haters. (which ironically, the atheists are pushing for representation among military chaplains. Which would put them subject to their own devices.)
The only part of the constitution that mentions religion is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Now, tell me where it says seperation of church and state...? NOWHERE! They misquote the constitution to please their agenda. This is the most grotesque misinterpretation, it literally disgusts me. We are requiring courthouses to remove the ten commandments, cities to remove crosses from water towers, pulling funding from battered womens shelters that encourage bible study! All of what the judges and lawyers are doing is unconstitutional!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Did congress make a law requiring the posting of the ten commandments in courthouses? Did they make a law requiring crosses be put upon water towers? Did they make a law requiring the funding of christian womens shelters? NOOOOO!!!!
Yes I know they get the phrase from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, but even there they take it GROSSLY out of context. They use this to remove personal freedom of decoration in public buildings, however when jefferson was PRESIDENT he attended his church meetings in the house of representatives!
Jeffersons actions make it abundantly clear what he meant by "a wall of seperation between church and state." This is a one way wall (because god is not subject to the walls of men), a wall that the state could not, and should not ever attempt to control religious beliefs of its people. However, since the government is by the people, their beliefs would inherently be adapted by the republic. God would shine through into the state, but the state would not impose on any mans free will to worship or not worship god.
The Occupiers:
Freedom of speech or expression and right to assembly have been called upon frequently by the occupiers, when asked to defend their occupation. Are they defending the constitution? Or twisting it for their gain?
The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
By shutting down these encampments have the protestors lost their right to voice their opinion? Nope. Have they been afforded the right to peaceably assemble? Yes. Have they remained peaceful? No. Therefore they are no longer protected by the first amendment.
They don't have the right to assemble, they have the right to peaceably assemble. The heinous crimes committed within these encampments and their inability to drive away the crime makes this movement illegal. there have been rapes, assaults of citizens, assaults of police officers, sexual assaults, harassment of passers by, etc... this is not a peaceful assembly.
The occupiers, lawyers, and judges are twisting the words to fit their agendas. They don't even have the decency to try for an amendment because they cannot stand failure.
A full copy of the constitution can be found here.
The Judges and lawyers:
The best example off the top of my head is "separation of church and state". Judges and lawyers have used this term for years, to defend the atheists and christian haters. (which ironically, the atheists are pushing for representation among military chaplains. Which would put them subject to their own devices.)
The only part of the constitution that mentions religion is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Now, tell me where it says seperation of church and state...? NOWHERE! They misquote the constitution to please their agenda. This is the most grotesque misinterpretation, it literally disgusts me. We are requiring courthouses to remove the ten commandments, cities to remove crosses from water towers, pulling funding from battered womens shelters that encourage bible study! All of what the judges and lawyers are doing is unconstitutional!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Did congress make a law requiring the posting of the ten commandments in courthouses? Did they make a law requiring crosses be put upon water towers? Did they make a law requiring the funding of christian womens shelters? NOOOOO!!!!
Yes I know they get the phrase from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, but even there they take it GROSSLY out of context. They use this to remove personal freedom of decoration in public buildings, however when jefferson was PRESIDENT he attended his church meetings in the house of representatives!
Jeffersons actions make it abundantly clear what he meant by "a wall of seperation between church and state." This is a one way wall (because god is not subject to the walls of men), a wall that the state could not, and should not ever attempt to control religious beliefs of its people. However, since the government is by the people, their beliefs would inherently be adapted by the republic. God would shine through into the state, but the state would not impose on any mans free will to worship or not worship god.
The Occupiers:
Freedom of speech or expression and right to assembly have been called upon frequently by the occupiers, when asked to defend their occupation. Are they defending the constitution? Or twisting it for their gain?
The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
By shutting down these encampments have the protestors lost their right to voice their opinion? Nope. Have they been afforded the right to peaceably assemble? Yes. Have they remained peaceful? No. Therefore they are no longer protected by the first amendment.
They don't have the right to assemble, they have the right to peaceably assemble. The heinous crimes committed within these encampments and their inability to drive away the crime makes this movement illegal. there have been rapes, assaults of citizens, assaults of police officers, sexual assaults, harassment of passers by, etc... this is not a peaceful assembly.
The occupiers, lawyers, and judges are twisting the words to fit their agendas. They don't even have the decency to try for an amendment because they cannot stand failure.
A full copy of the constitution can be found here.
Cleaning up ...but stopped by a crazy judge
The filth is getting cleared out of Zucotti park! Hooray!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html
Some may try to argue that this steps on the right of free speech and freedom of assembly, but they’re as stupid as the people down there protesting. What is the purpose of free speech? To allow all ideas to be discussed in the public square. Did OWS get their ideas out there? They sure think so. Chris Johnson (protestor) said that the protest “has opened up a dialogue that hasn’t existed since I’ve been alive.” Which proves they believe their right to free speech has been satisfied. Now, the reason there hasn’t been a dialogue like this during mikes lifetime is because it’s been played out in the history books, and up until now people were educated enough to understand that. Mikes generation, on the other hand, has been spoon fed liberal lies about how the world works and why. So he (and those like him) believe this is a good dialogue, and so long as they are willing to allow it to be a dialogue, not a one sided scream fest, then it will serve its purpose to educate these foolish people.
What is the purpose of freedom of assembly? To allow people to come together and show unity for or against a cause. Were the occupiers allowed to assemble? YES! So these yells of a “police state” are unfounded, as their rights have not been trampled.
They have been breaking the law (camping in a no camping area) but the government and the people were tolerant and allowed them to share their displeasure. However, the protestors have been anything but tolerant. They have stolen from each other, raped each other, assaulted police officers for upholding the laws, and commenced in hate speech that hasn’t been seen in a protest this big in quite some time.
The article then goes on to say:
“The protest spawned others and attracted celebrities and well-known performers. It became a tourist attraction, inspired more than $500,000 in donations and gained the support of labor unions and elected officials while creating division within City Hall and the Police Department.”
Which is a lie, it didn’t spawn others, they were all planned from the get go. It didn’t “gain” the support of labor unions, it was planned and executed by them. As you can see here
I don’t believe this will be the end of this movement, in fact, I believe this may very well be part of the plan. In the spring, the protestors will return and they will become much more violent and hateful, they will call it the “American Spring” and they will pull out all of the stops. It will be a full on push for revolution, more than likely in a violent manner.
Update:
It appears a judge has taken matters into his own hands, playing the mayor. A judge has ordered them to stop the new rules (which are just old rules, being enforced). But it remains unclear what the effects of the ruling will be.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Freedom and Equality
I'm sure many prior to Milton Freidman used these words, however he is my original exposure to the phrase so he is getting the credit. Milton said this of freedom and equality:
"A country that strives for equality over freedom will end up with neither freedom nor equality. A country that strives for freedom above all, will have a great wealth of both freedom and equality."
This is a bold claim, however it rings very true to me. To understand why this is a truth we have to examine both principles.
Equality:
Equality is defined as: "The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities." Seems simple enough 1=1.
So why is it so hard to have both? Because we are human beings. We are by nature NOT equal. The only universal equality from one person to the next is our worth in the eyes of our creator, at the starting line your soul is worth the same to him as every other soul.
At conception we are all equal, but that ends shortly after. As our cells divide, the programming in our DNA decides how to grow this new life form. Some will grow to be 7ft others will grow to be 4ft. Some will have minds capable of solving complex problems while others will have a difficult time performing simple tasks. Some will be able to throw a ball 50 yards with pinpoint accuracy while others will be born not able to throw a ball. Some will be born with attractive features, while others will be born as ugly as can be. And there will be everything in between. This doesn't change our worth in gods eyes, however in the world this drastically changes our worth. Is it fair? No. But unless one wishes for our race to become only as strong or smart as our weakest link, we cannot hold back the gifted to level the playing field.
What some advocate is "equal opportunity". This is folley. In order to give every one an equal opportunity you must smash the rights of others. Take school for example. There are countless after school programs for the challenged. This in and of its self is not fair or equal, this is offering those that are challenged more time to be educated than those that are gifted. So, what most schools do is offer a program for the gifted, which causes them to get further ahead. So what has this accomplished? Nothing. The gap hasn't closed, in fact, it has probably widened since the rate of learning for the gifted is much higher than the rate of learning for the challenged.
Some take equal opportunity into race and gender in the world of careers. They believe that a work place should be required to hire people purely based on their sex or skin color, of course with some qualification. But this steps on the freedom of the employer to hire who is best for the job. Guess who suffers because of it? The consumer. So in the name of equality, someone more qualified and better for the job will be passed by. in mathmatical terms it would look like this 0.9=1 where 1 is the skills required for the job and 0.9 is what the employer had to go with to satisfy his "equal opportunity" clause.
Title IX, Gender Equality:
(The goal of title nine is to allow equal participation for both genders within the education system. For there to be a male athletics scholarship there has to be a female athletics scholarship.) The problem is that men and women are different. It's no secret that men are more physical than women, so naturally there will be more males to participate in sports than there will be to participate in female sports. So when the pool of females who want to and are able to participate in sports there are many males left who are not given the opportunity. The freedoms of the schools has been trampled and the opportunities of the men have been stymied. This is going without mentioning the fact that mens sports pay for the scholarship of the men because they draw the crowd to pay for the scholarship, where womens sports do not.
In each program that strives for equality, not only is freedom lost, but equality is lost as well.
Freedom:
Freedom is defined as: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." This definition goes hand in hand with what the founding fathers of our great American nation tried to guarantee us.
If we strive for freedom, inherently equality will follow.
If the employer from the above scenario was able to hire freely, that is to hire a 1 to fill a position that required a 1, the consumer would benefit. And what would happen to the 0.9? The 0.9 would have to find a job that only required a 0.9, in which the consumer would benefit because now instead of having to hire a 0.75 for a job that required a 0.9. OR the 0.9 would have to complete the education or training necessary to make them a 1. If the employer chooses to hire a white person who is a 0.9 over a black person who is a 1, they do so to their own and their consumers detriment. And the business that does not discriminate will be able to provide the best product or service at a better price, which will drive business away from the racism.
both freedom and equality are preserved.
Another example is sports. The three biggest sports in america are Basketball, Football, and Golf (in no particular order). Basketball and football are dominated by non-white folks. Golf is dominated by white folks. Do the fans complain? No. Why? Because it provides the most competitive experience in the relative fields. Does a white person have less opportunity to become a football player? no. in fact they have more opportunity because as the sport grows more investors will build teams, drawing from the current pool of athletes, providing more opportunity for them in the future.
Now imagine if the NFL required the same number of white people on a football team as they have black people? The competition and skill level would drop dramatically, so we as viewers would become less interested, which would drive their paychecks down, which in turn would make for a smaller pool of athletes to choose from, which in turn would force the skill level down, which in turn viewers would become less interested. And the cycle would so continue.
In freedom, both freedom and equality grow.
"A country that strives for equality over freedom will end up with neither freedom nor equality. A country that strives for freedom above all, will have a great wealth of both freedom and equality."
This is a bold claim, however it rings very true to me. To understand why this is a truth we have to examine both principles.
Equality:
Equality is defined as: "The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities." Seems simple enough 1=1.
So why is it so hard to have both? Because we are human beings. We are by nature NOT equal. The only universal equality from one person to the next is our worth in the eyes of our creator, at the starting line your soul is worth the same to him as every other soul.
At conception we are all equal, but that ends shortly after. As our cells divide, the programming in our DNA decides how to grow this new life form. Some will grow to be 7ft others will grow to be 4ft. Some will have minds capable of solving complex problems while others will have a difficult time performing simple tasks. Some will be able to throw a ball 50 yards with pinpoint accuracy while others will be born not able to throw a ball. Some will be born with attractive features, while others will be born as ugly as can be. And there will be everything in between. This doesn't change our worth in gods eyes, however in the world this drastically changes our worth. Is it fair? No. But unless one wishes for our race to become only as strong or smart as our weakest link, we cannot hold back the gifted to level the playing field.
What some advocate is "equal opportunity". This is folley. In order to give every one an equal opportunity you must smash the rights of others. Take school for example. There are countless after school programs for the challenged. This in and of its self is not fair or equal, this is offering those that are challenged more time to be educated than those that are gifted. So, what most schools do is offer a program for the gifted, which causes them to get further ahead. So what has this accomplished? Nothing. The gap hasn't closed, in fact, it has probably widened since the rate of learning for the gifted is much higher than the rate of learning for the challenged.
Some take equal opportunity into race and gender in the world of careers. They believe that a work place should be required to hire people purely based on their sex or skin color, of course with some qualification. But this steps on the freedom of the employer to hire who is best for the job. Guess who suffers because of it? The consumer. So in the name of equality, someone more qualified and better for the job will be passed by. in mathmatical terms it would look like this 0.9=1 where 1 is the skills required for the job and 0.9 is what the employer had to go with to satisfy his "equal opportunity" clause.
Title IX, Gender Equality:
(The goal of title nine is to allow equal participation for both genders within the education system. For there to be a male athletics scholarship there has to be a female athletics scholarship.) The problem is that men and women are different. It's no secret that men are more physical than women, so naturally there will be more males to participate in sports than there will be to participate in female sports. So when the pool of females who want to and are able to participate in sports there are many males left who are not given the opportunity. The freedoms of the schools has been trampled and the opportunities of the men have been stymied. This is going without mentioning the fact that mens sports pay for the scholarship of the men because they draw the crowd to pay for the scholarship, where womens sports do not.
In each program that strives for equality, not only is freedom lost, but equality is lost as well.
Freedom:
Freedom is defined as: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." This definition goes hand in hand with what the founding fathers of our great American nation tried to guarantee us.
If we strive for freedom, inherently equality will follow.
If the employer from the above scenario was able to hire freely, that is to hire a 1 to fill a position that required a 1, the consumer would benefit. And what would happen to the 0.9? The 0.9 would have to find a job that only required a 0.9, in which the consumer would benefit because now instead of having to hire a 0.75 for a job that required a 0.9. OR the 0.9 would have to complete the education or training necessary to make them a 1. If the employer chooses to hire a white person who is a 0.9 over a black person who is a 1, they do so to their own and their consumers detriment. And the business that does not discriminate will be able to provide the best product or service at a better price, which will drive business away from the racism.
both freedom and equality are preserved.
Another example is sports. The three biggest sports in america are Basketball, Football, and Golf (in no particular order). Basketball and football are dominated by non-white folks. Golf is dominated by white folks. Do the fans complain? No. Why? Because it provides the most competitive experience in the relative fields. Does a white person have less opportunity to become a football player? no. in fact they have more opportunity because as the sport grows more investors will build teams, drawing from the current pool of athletes, providing more opportunity for them in the future.
Now imagine if the NFL required the same number of white people on a football team as they have black people? The competition and skill level would drop dramatically, so we as viewers would become less interested, which would drive their paychecks down, which in turn would make for a smaller pool of athletes to choose from, which in turn would force the skill level down, which in turn viewers would become less interested. And the cycle would so continue.
In freedom, both freedom and equality grow.
Lazy America
Obama has decided that we as Americans are lazy. We don’t really want to bring business to America.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-lazy-business-20111112,0,7516042.story
Well Mr. President, that is simply untrue… for the most part. But he manages to hit one solid truth:
“But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,’’ the president said. “We’ve kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.”
I don’t think he meant to say the important part which is, “we aren’t out there hungry”. He nailed it. Nothing motivates more than not knowing where the next meal is going to come from. Luckily, people don’t have to worry about that anymore as I pointed out in my previous post. There is no motivating survival instinct that kicks in anymore, because you will be taken care of. While that makes your heart all warm and fuzzy, knowing that people won’t starve to death, it should alarm you. What happens when we all become as lazy as the bottom feeders? Who will feed us? The world doesn’t work on freebies, someone has to be around to produce them.
Couple this growing population of the lazy with the following:
In October, the president told donors in San Francisco that Americans “have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country.”
First let me say “NO!” this is not true. We haven’t lost our imagination or willingness, or even our ambition. We have lost our right to do great things. The green energy scam that plagues the world is the driving force behind the assault on this right. If we wanted to build another Hoover dam today, there would be a bazillion (yes, bazillion) green group, tree hugging, hippies standing in our way. Not only that, but the courts have sided with these anti-progress progressives. So it wouldn’t be allowed. This is not to say that the ambition, imagination, or willingness wasn’t there, rather that our right to exercise said ambition, imagination, and willingness has been taken away.
So combine these two things, our right to work hard and build/do great things been taken away by the bureaucratic government and environment, plus the instinctual motivations to work hard being suppressed by the fact that they aren’t required and what do we get? A growingly dependent generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)