Gender-gap pay issues are a myth

Gender-gap pay issues are a myth

 “Did you know women are still paid less than men? Let’s start with the pay gap. It’s no secret that women still earn less than men — I wrote recently how even millennial women, while narrowing the divide, continue to earn less than their male counterparts. Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”

    President Barack Obama

     

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”  — President Ronald Reagan

 

Once again we see the president “romancing the voters” to energize his base with another spurious myth in his State of the Union message replayed by Bill O’Reilly Feb. 27 on “The Factor.”

 

If all your information comes from politicians, you may believe that women who work “full time” are unfairly paid less compared to men. However, do you still believe it’s unfair when knowing the comparison is between women who work a 35-hour week and men who work 41 hours or more? (The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines “full-time” as 35 hours).

 

Also, 69 percent of men work 50 or more weeks a year versus 59 percent of women. Is it fair to compare apples and oranges, i.e., only weekly pay and not compare hours, not compare hourly wages and not compare weeks per year?

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women with a college degree in Leisure Studies earn less than men with engineering degrees, or ironworkers who build high-rise buildings, bridges and dams?

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women who leave work early to meet their children home from school earn less than men who work a full eight hours or more? Twice as many women by choice work part time as men, 14.9 percent versus 7.3 percent.

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women in their 20s beginning their work careers earn less than men over 50 in their peak earning years and that some difference in pay is not so much due to a “glass ceiling ” as due to years of continuous experience and education? Some 60 percent more men than women work over age 65.

 

It takes hard pick-and-shovel work to sort out the truth when those with a political agenda compare work weeks rather than hourly wages, and who disregard benefits between women and men. Also, if you only skim the news, you may believe it’s unfair that single-woman households comprised of high school dropouts earn less than households with married couples.

 

A “household” as defined by the census can be one person or several people employed or not. Such distinctions are rarely disclosed when “gender gap” is the sensational headline being reported. The bottom line is how can politicians fabricate a “war on women” without romancing the voters?

 

Ask yourself, could it be that the so-called growing gap in “household” incomes is due not to discrimination but a change in household makeup? Until fairly recently, doctors and attorneys married non-working housewives (before “housewives” became a pejorative word).

 

With the increase in two-income households — doctors married to doctors, attorneys or other high-income professionals — the gap cannot help but increase. One way household incomes could be equalized, of course, would be for the government to pass a law that smart spouses must marry dumb people, or Ph.D.’s must marry dropouts in order to equalize household incomes and close the gender gap.

 

Yet the media typically lump all the factors above together then claim women face a “glass ceiling” that results in substantially lower take-home pay than their male counterparts — even though paying less for the same work has been flat-out illegal since 1964 under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

The most recent study published in October 2011 by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, based on Department of Labor Statistics, reports the “gender gap” drops to 3.6 percent when comparing education, continuous years on the job, additional sick leave by women, identical job requirements and most important, hours worked per week.

 

Over the years, we’ve been expected to believe that employers would rather pay men up to 41 percent higher wages for doing identical jobs as qualified women and sacrifice profits. Not likely! The 3.6% is well within the margin of error.

 

Back in 1994, the New York Times, citing the census, reported that black college-educated women with five years on the job earned more than black men or white women and only 5.5% less than white men. The latest Bureau of Labor data still show college-educated African-American women earning more than white women.

 

Women today dominate many fields — 100 percent of medical secretaries, 96.1 percent of administrative assistants, but still less than 1 percent of the highest-paying jobs of miners, welders, iron workers, loggers, roofers, bricklayers, sewer cleaners, off-shore drilling riggers and high-rise window washers. All these jobs are lumped together in calculating the gap. A remarkable aside: Men account for 82 percent of occupational deaths — 12 times more than women — which itself holds some interesting implications for comparing jobs between men and women.

 

While it’s true that only one woman in 301,000 GE employees has a chance of becoming CEO of General Electric, it’s also true that only one man in 301,000 has a chance of becoming CEO. A college degree alone doesn’t make one qualified.

 

Why are so many people uninformed, myth-informed on so many issues? Former Los Angeles Times reporter Rick Paddock told me, “The truth — newspapers don’t print the truth, they print what people say.”

 

If they print two sides of an issue as Sally Fields said in the movie “Absence of Malice,” one side may be “not true — but accurate” and therefore, much, if not most, of the information upon which we base our opinions may be not true. All that we read today is true, partially true or not true. Only by examining all sides can we decide for ourselves what’s true and what’s not.

 

Paul Watson, Green Peace founder: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Would Stopping Global Warming increase world hunger?

 

President Obama declared in his State of the Union address that “climate change is a fact.”  John Kerry, in February said, “In a sense climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”  Global Warming Kerry inferred is akin to terrorism, and epidemics, as both men get caught in their own web of contradictions — anti-industrialization and eliminating world hunger.*

Global warming could be a boon to farmers.  A recent studyfound that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.  The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change found that while many studies focus on the costs of rising carbon emissions, few studies focused on whether or not more carbon in the atmosphere could be beneficial to society.*

Everyone knows the earth has been warming since the last ice age long before man stumbled upon the industrial revolution and began increasing carbon emissions.  In fact, there was a time when the North Pole was covered in a forest of giant redwood-like trees known as Metasequoias and recently camel fossils have been discovered in the Arctic Circle.*

 

In 2003 with Glaciers retreating and record snow melts in the Alps human and animal artifacts have been exposed dating back to distinct periods encompassing the 15th century, 250 A.D. and 150 B.C. Each verified through analysis using 95% accurate Carbon-14 dating. Archeologists are trying to determine through which Alpine valley Hannibal trekked with 37 Elephants to attack Rome in 218 B.C. (Elephants don’t do ice-covered mountains).*

 

In 2012 with the North Pole’s dwindling ice cap a 500 year-old village appeared from under the permafrost.* 

 

When times were warmer and wetter, the Sahara Desert was a forest, including grasslands.  The remains of ancient fishing villages and fish fossils have been discovered in large depressions in the desert floor.  National Geographic reported that scientists have unearthed the remains of an “ancient crocodile that was as long as a city bus.”  Obviously, before the desert was a desert.  Geologists have detected the source of water in a Sahara oasis is from remnants of ancient underground lakes.* 

 

Then off and on again came cooling

Last month (February 1, 2014) was the 200th anniversary of the last time people ice-skated and an elephant walked across London’s Thames River, a period during the “Little Ice Age.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpg/220px-The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpgDetail  
Paintings of the era depict a frozen Thames River February 1, 1814

View image on Twitter
Photo 2/20/2014 shows a frozen Delaware River as George Washington may have walked across

In 1776, some of George Washington’s troops might have walked across the Delaware River to attack the British and the Hessians. (It is speculated that the Delaware River really was frozen over because of the Little Ice Age occurring at the time).  Washington outsmarted the British by crossing the river on Christmas Day with 5,400 troops and canon because the British were still waiting for it to freeze solid before crossing.

 

I point these things out to illustrate how stupid today’s Global Warming Cassandras appear in claiming Climate Change is something new and caused by driving gas guzzlers.  This in the face of NASA reports that ice caps on Earth and Mars are melting at the same time (No SUVs that we know of on Mars). With their hysterical exaggerations, Global Warmaholics won’t acknowledge climate change is occurring on other planets, attributed by many scientists to the sun’s solar cycle. SEE: http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/

 

Many politicians today rely on the widely discredited papers by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) — written by politicians and bureaucrats after they interpret thousands of pages of documentation submitted by scientists. Can you imagine the difficulty in summarizing 2,000 pages of various opinions in a 31-page document, claiming to be objective, and then declaring the issue of Global Warming settled — not unanimously — but by consensus?  Especially considering the billions of research dollars at stake.  First, whenever someone claims an issue is settled or derived by consensus you immediately know it is not science.  For example, you never read Newtonian Gravity, the earth revolves around the sun or the moon causes tides have been derived by consensus.  They are facts determined through the long established rational steps of The Scientific Method.

 

There is nothing simple, nothing innocent, ingenuous, decisive, above board, or conclusive about climate change.  It used to be said, “Government taxes everything but the air we breathe.” No longer! Through Climate Change and the selling of Carbon Credits, the United Nations leadership believes it has found a way to tax us for our carbon footprint including the air we breathe.

 

While Global Warming acolytes think they have found a way to redistribute wealth from capitalistic economies to socialist economies. Most of the 189 nations that signed the Kyoto Treaty expect to receive billions of dollars from trading carbon credits to economically successful countries that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?  Get it?  You can pollute all you want as long as you pay a “tax” to a government, nation or the United Nations.

Interestingly, the U.S. Dept. of Energy noted, “People exhale carbon dioxide—the average adult’s breath contains about 35,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2 (100 times higher than outdoor air).” Imagine how much is in a classroom with 40 children. Should we worry?

 

 

What’s it all about?  Follow the money.  Investors Business Daily editorialized (10/23/13) “The world reportedly “invested” $1 billion a day last year to fight global warming. What a waste.” So much more could be accomplished with that money to mitigate real problems. No doubt, the people getting the money disagree. Dr. James Hansen, the father of Global Warming awareness, while a NASA climatologist, failed to report $1.6 million in outside cash income plus expenses and other ethical lapses for which he was reprimanded by NASA’s Chief legal Counsel. *

 

Forbes reports that Al Gore has received over $100 million from marketing Global Warming. Over $300 billion in carbon credits have been sold as of 2010 due to the Scam.  Follow the money!*

 

What the other side says about Global Warming:

 

Former French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto climate treaty   is about “how we redistribute the world’s wealth.”

 

John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential…”

 

Ottomar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC meeting chairman: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader: “Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.”

Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist“So yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing…”

 

Paul Watson, Green Peace founder: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

 

Emma Brindal, Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

 

Jeffry Sachs, Columbia University: “Free market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change.”

 

Paul Erhlich, Stanford University: Giving society a cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

 

Club of Rome: “The earth has cancer and the cancer is man.”

David Frame, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing [climate] models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

David Suzuki, celebrity scientist: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”

*http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/19/study-global-warming-could-yield-11-6-trillion-in-increased-crop-production/

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21673940

 

http://archive.archaeology.org/0701/abstracts/hannibal.html 

http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

 

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/09/09/ancient-eskimo-village-uncovered-thanks-depleting-arctic-ice-caps

http://smithsonianscience.org/2010/12/ancient-megalake-discovered-beneath-sahara-desert/

 

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/01/04/richer-than-romney-al-gore-scores-on-sale-of-current-tv/

 

Fred Schnaubelt

Permission granted to copy or forward with or without attribution

 

Speaking Schedule Romancing The Voters (20-minutes + Q&A)

2013: Women VIPs, Cajon Valley RWF, Joe Messina Radio, NBC-TV, Intermountain RWF,

2014: Navajo Canyon RWF 1/14/14, Fallbrook RWF 3/14/14, Santa Clarita RWF  3/18/14, Seacoast (Del Mar)RWF 3/26/14 ,

You can see info and 2 free chapters at http://www.romancingthevoters.com.

Comprised of high school dropouts earn less than households

Talking Points for Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party about Myth-information

 

Did You Know Women Are Still Paid Less Than Men? –President Obama

“Let’s start with the pay gap. It’s no secret that women still earn less than men—I wrote recently how even millennial women, while narrowing the divide, continue to earn less than their male counterparts. Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”  Barack Obamahttp://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/29/president-obamas-2014-state-union-address

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant;
it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
  -Ronald Reagan

Once again we see the President “Romancing the Voters” to energize his base with another spurious “Myth” in his State of the Union message replayed by Bill O’Reilly on The Factor, Thursday, February 27, 2014.

If all your information comes from politicians, you may believe that women who work “full time” are unfairly paid less compared to men.  However, do you still believe it’s unfair when knowing the comparison is between women who work a 35 hours week and men who work 41 hours or more? (The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines “full-time” as 35 hours http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf  ).   Also, 69% of men work 50+ weeks a year vs. 59% of women.  Is it fair to compare apples and oranges, i.e., only weekly pay and not hours, hourly wages or weeks per year?

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women with a degree in Leisure Studies earn less than men with engineering degrees, or ironworkers who build high-rise buildings, bridges and dams?

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women who leave work early to meet their children home from school earn less than men who work a full 8 hours or more?  Twice as many women by choice work part time as men, 14.9% vs. 7.3%.

 

Do you think it’s unfair that women in their twenties beginning their work careers earn less than men over 50 in their peak earning years and that some difference in pay is not so much due to a “Glass Ceiling ” as due to years of continuous experience?  Sixty percent more men than women work over age 65.

 

It takes hard pick and shovel work to sort out the truth when those with a political agenda compare workweeks rather than hourly wages and benefits between women and men.  Also, if you only skim the news you may believe it’s unfair that single-woman “households,” comprised of high school dropouts earn less than households with married couples.  A “household” as defined by the Census can be one or several people employed or not.   Such distinctions are rarely disclosed when “Gender Gap” is the sensational headline being reported.  The bottom line is how can politicians fabricate a “War on Women” without romancing the voters?

 

Ask yourself, could it be that the so-called growing gap in “household” incomes is due not to discrimination but a change in household makeup.  Until fairly recently, doctors and attorneys married non-working housewives (before “housewives” became a pejorative word).  With the increase in two-income households, e.g., doctors married to doctors, attorneys or other high-income professionals, the gap cannot help increase.  One way household incomes could be equalized, of course, would be for the government to pass a law that smart spouses must marry dumb people, or PhD’s must marry dropouts in order to equalize household incomes and close the gender Gap.

 

Yet the media typically lump all the factors above together then claim women face a “Glass Ceiling” that results in substantially lower take home pay than their male counterparts.  Even though paying less for the same work has been flat out illegal since 1964 under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

The most recent study published in October 2011 by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis based on Department of Labor Statistics, reports the “Gender Gap” drops to 3.6% when comparing education, continuous years on the job, additional sick leave by women, identical job requirements and most important — hours worked per week.  Over the years, we’ve been expected to believe that employers would rather pay men up to 41% higher wages for doing identical jobs as qualified women and sacrifice profits.  Not likely! The 3.6% is well within the margin of error.

 

Back in 1994, the New York Times citing the Census reported that Black college educated women with five years on the job earned more than Black men or white women and only 5.5% less than white men.  http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/31/us/black-women-graduates-outpace-male-counterparts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm  The latest Bureau of Labor data still show African-American women earning more than White women.

 

Women today dominate many fields – 100% of medical secretaries, 96.1% of administrative assistants, but still less than 1% of the highest paying jobs of miners, welders, iron workers, loggers,  roofers, bricklayers, sewer cleaners, off-shore drilling riggers, and high-rise window washers.  All these jobs are lumped together in calculating the Gap. A remarkable aside: men account for 82% of occupational deaths (12 times more than women) which itself holds some interesting implications for comparing jobs between men and women.

 

While true only one woman in 301,000 GE employees has a chance of becoming CEO of General Electric, it’s also true only one man in 301,000 has a chance of becoming CEO.  A college degree alone doesn’t make one qualified.

 

Why are so many people uninformed, myth-informed on so many issues?  L.A. Times star reporter Rick Paddock told me, “The truth — newspapers don’t print the truth — they print what people say.” If they print two sides of an issue as Sally Fields said in Absence of Malice one side may be “not true — but accurate” and therefore much if not most of the information upon which we base our opinions may be not true. All that we read today is true, partially-true or not true.  Only by examining all sides can we decide for ourselves what’s true and what’s not.

 

Sources

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160  Federal Reserve October 2011 Gender Gap 3.6%
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html#ixzz1d3UYywCq  Equal Pay Act 1964

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/31/us/black-women-graduates-outpace-male-counterparts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0006.pdf   Men account for 82% of occupational deaths

http://www.catalyst.org/publication/381/women-in-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations-in-us-and-canada

 

 

Permission granted to copy or forward with or without attribution

 

Speaking Schedule Romancing The Voters (20-minutes + Q&A)

2013: Women VIPs, Cajon Valley RWF, Joe Messina Radio, NBC-TV, Intermountain RWF,

2014: Navajo Canyon RWF 1/14/14, Santa Clarita RWF  3/18/14, Seacoast (Del Mar)RWF 3/26/14 , Fallbrook RWF 4/11/14,

You can see info and 2 free chapters at http://www.romancingthevoters.com. 

Oceanside, California future Precinct workers

The current state of our Education system. Astounding!

 

Oceanside, California future Precinct workers:  Karl Marx for President

 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/O0azojPPRhw?feature=player_embedded

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Talking Points for Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party

 

A Parable & Outlaw Marriage for State of the Union Speech by President Obama January 28, 2014 COMMENT

 

Better to have no job than a low paying job in this symbolic gesture to raise the minimum “learning”  wage for federal workers/contractors.  Less than 1/2% of federal workers receive the minimum wage according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In California, only 1.4% of all wage earners receive the minimum “learning” wage and 2.4% of full-time workers nationally — and rarely for more than one-year.  But, it sounds good like a politician should! This appeal to the uninformed is really a sop to highly paid union members, who get a wage increase whenever the minimum wage rises in exchange for their votes. (Since 1979 each time the minimum wage was increased, unemployment increased.http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.pdf   http://data.bls.gov/timeseri es/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

 

 

The Income inequality Parable

The President is obsessed with Income inequality.  Why? After all, the President and his wife on their public tax return make more in a month than the average American makes in a year ($54,717 per month vs. $53,406 per year). Their friend Oprah Winfrey made 3,000 times more in 2012 — no re-distribution mentioned here. President Obama could explain the inequality gap through the “Parable of the Talents:” A man going on a long journey trusts his servants with his wealth to invest. One he gives 5 bags of gold, another 2 bags of gold and a third 1 bag of gold according to their ability. When he returned the first had doubled his 5 bags to 10, the second servant doubled his 2 bags to 4, but the third scaredy-cat buried his in the ground and returned only what he had received. The master gave the first two servants more responsibilities commensurate with their proven abilities. The third he replied is a wicked, lazy servant, and amidst much weeping and gnashing of teeth, took the bag of gold and gave it that servant who doubled his gold to 10 bags. Those who are capable and competent are given more —- from those who have been given much, much is expected. One moral of the story in Mathews 25:14:30 is the rich are not so much owners of great wealth but great managers (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs) who create wealth by investing in ways that enable others to become more productive per hour worked and richer. Hence: The rich get richer and the poor get richer.

 

Outlaw Marriage

One way to stop the income gap from increasing is to prohibit doctors from marrying other doctors. Doctors used marry non-employed housewives (when housewives was not a pejorative term).  Then they began marrying doctors, attorneys or other high-income college-educated professionals. To reduce income inequality between households, doctors must be prohibited from marrying other doctors, etc…. smart people must be forced to marry dumb or lazy people. According to the government, households can be comprised of one, or more members living together.  Hence, many high-income households have 2 or more members working while some low-income households have no member working. With inflation the gap in income inequality will always grow.  To be fair, according to some people, we simply cannot let people who work take home more money than people who don’t work. See: http://www.romancingthevoters.com  27,619 people have commented have you?

Permission granted to forward or quote with or without attribution (except quotes from other writers).

Fred’s Speaking Schedule, Romancing The Voters

2013: Women VIPs, Cajon Valley RWF, Joe Messina Radio, NBC-TV, Intermountain RWF,

2014: Navajo Canyon RWF 1/14/14, Fallbrook RWF 3/14/14, Santa Clarita RWF  3/18/14, Seacoast-Del Mar RWF 3/26/14

You can read 2 free chapters at http://www.romancingthevoters.com.

 

Equal academic validity that capitalism has failed

 

Speaking Schedule Romancing The Voters 2013: Women VIPs, Cajon Valley RWF, Joe Messina Radio, NBC-TV, Intermountain RWF, 2014: Navajo Canyon RWF 1/14/14, Santa Clarita RWF 2/18/14

Short dialogue for Republicans/Tea Party – Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism

http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/193048_5_.jpg

Rolling Stone Magazine January 6, 2014

If you’re a Millennial who loves bread lines, prison camps, forced famines, and abject human misery, then you’ll love the latest offering from Rolling Stone. Over the weekend, Jesse Myerson, a twenty-something former Occupy organizer, finally stumbled upon a foolproof recipe for success for today’s struggling Millennials. The recipe? Communism. Sorry, There’s No Secret for Communism to Work | RealClearPolitics  

Dialogue – Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism

    • Ariel  Holy capitalism Batman. This guy is the Joker.

Richard  There is a major theoretical and implementation difference between Karl Marx ideas and Joseph Stalin’s actions. You cannot really equate the two.

Chris  Marxism has failed in every case.

Richard  Give an example of the implementation of Marx (as opposed to Lenin, Stalin, or Mao) .

Chris Pol Pot, Mugabe, Lukashenko, Mengistu and dozens of others. To say they were not proper Marxists which supposedly vindicates Marx, is like defending astrology because of errors in reading the stars.

    • Richard to Chris you can also say with equal academic validity that capitalism has failed in every instance; hence the reliance on government to regulate unrestrained greed. All general economic theories fail, capitalism and communism included.

Ariel  Then which is better… a capitalism variant or a Maxian one? And why?

Fred Schnaubelt While there has never been pure, perfect or ideal communism — there has never been pure, perfect or ideal capitalism. Liberals prefer to measure today’s capitalism however, against “ideal capitalism” and somehow overlook the incomprehensible 62 million killed by Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and millions killed under Hitler’s National Socialism (NAZI) and Mao Zedong’s Communism (LEAP FORWARD) and Pol Pot’s Communism (Cambodian Genocide) trying to make communism work, no matter how many liberals and university professors try to defend Marxism. (These deaths, 169 million since 1900, do not include those killed in wars per Death by Government by Prof. R. J. Rummel)

Richard  The NAZI s were fascists…. not communists. Genocidal regimes are not communist as there are plenty of genocidal capitalist economies… these factors do not correlate.

Fred Schnaubelt Richard, you may be right, however the NAZI’s considered themselves Socialists which is why NAZI stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” All Germans think NAZI stands for socialism. Pol Pot considered himself a communist, as did Mao Zedong. The Soviet Dictionary defines Socialism, Communism and Planning as synonyms.  Mussolini considered his Italian government Fascist, as did 16 other European countries at the time as the wave of the future. Austrian Economists, F.A. Hayek and von Mises described Communism, Socialism, and Fascism ascommon forms of “authoritarianism.” All three are left-wing doctrines imposed by governments.

Communists believe in the abolition of private property, Fascists let you own property but the government dictates how you use it. Many liberals pretend that Fascism is a right-wing economic counter to left-wing socialism/communism.Democratic Socialism is luke-warm socialism, the so-called Third-Way, which is socialism without the mass murder and Gulags. One thing that is certain, there are no “capitalist genocide economies” except in the imagination of university professors on the wrong side of history.

Capitalism is simply the system of social cooperation and division of labor based on voluntary exchanges where the factors of production are privately owned and controlled by private citizens, the capitalists, and the landowners. Because it is voluntary it is the only moral economic system ever devised. Consumers determine what is to be produced and in what quantity and quality by buying or abstaining from buying. Capitalism is an economic democracy where every penny spent is a vote. If it doesn’t meet this criteria it isn’t Capitalism. Capitalism has created more wealth for more people, and lifted more people out of poverty in the last 200 years than everything else in the last 2,000 years. Thank God for Capitalism, which makes rich men poor and poor men rich! How rich are you compared the rest of the world?  Find out at: http://www.globalrichlist.com

1.       When you need to be quickly conversant on issues you don’t have time to research and be more politically powerful see:RomancingTheVoters.com 2 Free Chapters or: Romancing The Voters: by  Fred Schnaubelt: 9781490317823: Amazon 

“The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” - Ronald Reagan

Mess they have made of Health Care and the economy

Republican Talking Points- Democrats’ Minimum Wage War on Poor

 

In their War Against Jobs, President Obama and the Democrats are raising the Minimum Wage knowing it will cost beginners their jobs. Why?   Using Orwellian Doublespeak Democrats hope it will be a winning campaign issue and divert attention from the mess they have made of health care and the economy.

MinWageSoc

 http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MinWageSoc.jpg


President’s Obama’s Executive Order increasing the minimum wage for federal employee affects 16,000 workers (under 1% of hourly workers) which may include presently unpaid Congressional Interns. It doesn’t take a federal law to pay them more.  The Senate version, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will eliminate up to one-million jobs, but help 16 million other workers, 29% of whom earn over 3 times the poverty threshold. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

 

Democrats are counting on a misinformed and ignorant electorate, the 25% who don’t know the earth revolves around the sun,  the 29% who don’t know the name of the Vice-President, and the 999 of a 1,000 who can’t name the First Amendment’s 5 freedoms. In California only 1.4% of wage earners receive the minimum “learning” wage (less than 1% of full time workers) and only 1.7% of full time workers nationwide.  Also, most people don’t know the majority of minimum wage earners receive a pay increase within one year of starting a new job. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm Table 3

 

So why the all-out effort to raise the minimum wage? Because nearly every hourly worker ratcheted “above” the minimum wage (about 72 million workers) expects to get a pay increase whenever it goes up.  Organized labor’s union voters and campaign contributors are the Democrats’ target audience.  Those earning the minimum wage today are the sacrificial lambs — those seeking a first time “learning” wage job (27% are unemployed today) and minorities (50% unemployed), the people who suffer the most from “good intentions.”  The very rare fraction of married adults with children who earn the minimum wage after one-year are entitled to EITC (up to $6,044) to bring them above the poverty level.  The whole minimum wage issue is a political sham for the sole purpose of generating votes and campaign contributions.

An analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks political spending, of groups and individuals who wrote checks of more than $10,000 to super PACs and other political committees found big labor outspent big business by a margin of more than 2-to-1 during 2013.  Why do you suppose that is?

Teen unemployment

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S5F7lAkspKI/AAAAAAAAM8I/ttVwkCJjzQM/s400/minwage2.jpg
Source: Carpe Diem

Most of the times since 1974 when  minimum wage went up unemployment went up. As the cost of paying  minimum wage increases are eroded by inflation, low-income employment tends to rise again. There are many conflicting studies on the effect of minimum wage raises so you have to look to your personal experience to get to the truth. What do you imagine would happen to “learning” wage jobs if the minimum wage was set at $35 an hour as some labor unions are demanding? Their members, of course, getting $35 an hour now would receive $68 an hour.  Get It! Based on your own spending, do you generally buy more or less of something when the price goes up, e.g., food, clothing, shoes, homes, rent, etc.? Is  spending different when it comes to beginner wages?  Why do you think millions of jobs for elevators operators, movie theatre ushers, gas station attendants, newspaper boys, teenager lawn cutters, babysitters, doormen, etc.  have disappeared?  Formerly, millions of low-paying beginner jobs, but nonetheless, honest starter jobs.

 

From Chapter 8, Romancing The Voters.

http://www.romancingthevoters.com.

The Seen and Unseen of elections

This concerns this week’s election (applicable nationwide) in San Diego. You can Skip the San Diego part and go to Part 2.

The Seen and Unseen of elections

“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” (Joseph Stalin)
In America, “Voters no longer choose representatives; instead the representatives choose their voters.” (Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia University
)

Kevin Faulconer has reclaimed the mantle of Mayor of San Diego for Republicans.    The Democrat loss has been attributed to Faulconer cheating expectations, disgraced Mayor Bob Filner, David Alvarez’s age, his inexperience, President Obama endorsing Alvarez, the failed minimum wage issue, Democrat attacks ads on businessmen who create jobs, low voter turnout, and Filner’s and Alvarez’s Progressive agenda unmasked http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members The Socialist Congressional wing of http://www.dsausa.org/

Since 1971, Democrats have only been elected to the top office twice (Maureen O’Connor and Bob Filner). Since both Faulconer and Alvarez are likeable impressive individuals, my own assessment is the two major causes for Democrats losing were out of town labor union money (reminding voters of recent cities going bankrupt) and failure to get enough supporters to the polls (2% to 29% in precincts South of Interstate 8). Getting supporters to the polls supersedes all the above.

It’s truly amazing how a few votes determine city policies that impact your life, your work and your standard of living,
and the enormous difference between eligible voters, registered voters, and those who actually cast votes.

Kevin Faulconer, for instancewon the City “Primary” for Mayor with 16% of the VEP (Voter Eligible Population)

In 2012, Mayor Bob Filner won his “Primary” with 11.5% of VEP, and riding on President Obama’s coattails in his “General” election won with 36%.

The ever-popular Mayor Jerry Sanders easily won his last Election with only 18% of the VEP (aka REGISTERED VOTE)

David Alvarez won a City Council Primary in 2010 with 6% of the VEP (3,343 votes). He then won his General Election as stepping-stone to running for Mayor. Amazing, it took only 3,343 votes to get on the political merry-go-round. Enough to get President’s Obama’s endorsement for Mayor.

Businessmen who often want special privileges supported Kevin Faulconer (40% of his money).
To be more successful they typically hire more workers, and often pay a “learning” minimum wage.  In California, only 1.4% of wage earners receive the minimum wage and most for less than a year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The Average Wage in San Diego is $27.47 an hour. The union promoted minimum wage issue failed to get traction.

Labor Unions, which always want special privileges, supported David Alvarez (80% of his money).
To be more successful they typically must prevent non-union workers from being hired and competing for unionized jobs.  Union members automatically and including most wage earners (the 98.6%) above the minimum wage are the main beneficiaries of minimum wage increases (when the city, state or federal governments increase it). Where government workers are concerned, the taxpayers pay for the increases directly and as incorporated in pensions. (Since 1979 each time the minimum wage has been increased, unemployment increased). http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.pdf    Minimum wage increases:1990,1996,2007,2008,2009 Table 10-3

state

Number of workers (in thousands)

% of workers paid hourly rates

Total paid hourly rates

At or below minimum wage

At or below minimum wage

Total

At minimum wage

Below minimum wage

Total

At minimum wage

Below minimum wage

U.S. Total

75,276

3,550

1,566

1,984

4.7

2.1

2.6

California

8,805

127

45

82

1.4

0.5

0.9

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm

The only way for workers in general to earn more is “to become more productive” through profits, savings, and investments in machines, equipment and technology which enables more output per hour worked.

That said both political parties vie with each other over who will do the most for us — with our own money.

What is unseen in elections
Kevin Faulconer was voted San Diego Mayor by an “unseen” 20.5% (137,296 votes) of VEP.*
He did receive the “seen” 54.5% from those who cast votes, which under the rules, is all that counts.

For perspective, the nearly $5.2 million spent by Alvarez and $4.2 million spent by Faulconer only comes to $7.89 and $6.29 per registered voter (purportedly, less than spent on potato chips in San Diego and a bit more than a 30-second ad on the Super bowl).

PART 2
A question: Should any politician’s vision who received less than 50% of the VEP be imposed upon us? Keep in mind that no U.S. President has been elected by more than 36% of the VEP in 100 years.

The point to be debated is what is the legitimate extent of so-called majority rule in a democracy where candidates rarely win with a majority of the VEP or even the more generous category, “registered” voters.

Should federal, state, or local politicians, by “majority” vote determine our church, whom we marry, where we work, media reports, what we say subject to IRS approval, determine a TEA party’s right to petition the government, a minimum wage, approve a Wal-Mart or Jack-in-the-Box; exercise eminent domain, prohibit guns and smoking in our cars/homes, mandate low-flow toilets, light bulbs, health-care; subsidize sports teams, vote housing shortages and as a result subsidize public housing  with taxes from  a greater number of people who did not vote for them?

Additionally, should elected officials be limited to approving Police/Fire Department/water/sewer, court, street and park, budgets, etc.?

We confuse Democracy, an appropriate method for determining who should be in charge of administering legitimate government functions — with what is the proper role of government in a free society.  Bruno Leoni, Italian jurist and political scientist noted, “When a bare majority prevails in an electorate of 100, 51 have the weight of 100 and 49 the weight of zero.”  Economist Murray Rothbard noted: “The government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people…  “[Government] is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

Don’t misunderstand; government is not a necessary evil, as often heard. It is indispensable for protecting the people from predators, foreign and domestic, protecting private property, and invoking a common system of justice.  Since there have always been bullies, government is absolutely necessary for a free society to work, but government should act as an umpire in enforcing the rules and should not be playing the game using its monopoly on force and violence.  Ludwig von Mises notes that under a free market democratic system every penny spent give the right to a vote.  The consumers are sovereign. Consumers determine what is to be produced in what quantity and quality by buying or abstaining from buying.  The most effective way to Speak Truth to Power.

The question again:  Should any politician’s vision who received less than 50% of the VEP be imposed upon us? What’s your opinion?

* VEP (Voter Eligible Population), not to be confused with VAP (Voter Age Population).  VEP is a proxy for the broader Registered Voter rolls, which often include those dead, or moved, and non-citizens. http://elections.gmu.edu/FAQ.html

Fred Schnaubelt, Author of Romancing The Voters, is president of Citizens for Private Property Rights, a commercial real estate broker for 45 years and was a San Diego City Councilman from 1977-81.

Alveda King has “long argued” that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

Republican Reflections on why Martin Luther King was a Republican.

 

Not widely appreciated Reverend Martin Luther King, more than any other person, was responsible for the conversion of by the Democrat Party and its adoption of more fully Christian values after its nearly 200 years of racism, slavery, separation, and segregation.

 

MLK knew the history of the Democrat Party and its terrorist arm the Ku Klux Klan which had lynched Blacks up until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  No wonder he was a Republican, 3,445 Blacks had been lynched (by Democrats) since 1882, according to the Tuskegee Institute. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

 

Democrats dispute MLK was a Republican and like the Memory Hole in the book NINETEEN-EIGHTY-FOUR,  they keep erasing and rewriting history. I report, but you decide.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

 

Alveda King  an American Christian ministerconservativepro-life activist, and author, is a niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and daughter of civil rights activist Rev. A. D. William King, Sr. and his wife Naomi Barber King.  Alveda King has “long argued” that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

 

http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter%2018June2012.pdf
http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

Condoleezza Rice pointed out at Vanderbilt University that growing up in the South Democrats refused to register her father to vote, but Republicans did.

Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Right Act, however,  it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signing it into law. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17550                   

To help you decide for yourself if MLK was a Republican consider the likelihood considering during the 1960′s many Democrats, including Senators Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and Sam Erwin fought indefatigably to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which passed only because more Republicans voted for it than Democrats).  Democrat Senator Richard Russell addressed the Senate stating, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races…” With 18 Democrat Senators, he organized the longest filibuster (56 days) in U.S. Senate history.

While Democrats would prefer it suppressed, it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy working for his brother the President, who approved secret wire taps and hidden microphones under Dr. Martin Luther King’s bed. The tapes were sent to King’s wife. Given the historical record of Republicans and Democrats then is it any wonder that Dr. King, like his life-long- Republican father, would be a Republican.

Today, after exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, former Democrat Rev. Wayne Perryman in UNFOUNDED LOYALTY says “the average African-American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African-Americans face today. The Congressional record shows that all legislation (since 1964) has had strong bi-partisan support.”  Perryman filed a class action suit against the Democrat Party for nearly 200 years of oppression. Perryman writes, “History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African-Americans was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party, from the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960′s. Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks and every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt Blacks.”  Knowing this why do so many people still choose to join the Democrat Party?

See more in attachment, Chapter 14, from http://www.RomancingTheVoters.com

Permission granted to forward or quote with or without attribution (except quotes from other writers).

Romancing The Voters Speaking Schedule:

We Simply Cannot Let People Who Work Take Home More Money

A Parable & Outlaw Marriage for State of the Union Speech by President Obama T

Better to have no job than a low paying job in this symbolic gesture to raise the minimum “learning”  wage for federal workers/contractors.  Less than 1/2% of federal workers receive the minimum wage according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In California, only 1.4% of all wage earners receive the minimum “learning” wage and 2.4% of full-time workers nationally — and rarely for more than one-year.  But, it sounds good like a politician should! This appeal to the uninformed is really a sop to highly paid union members, who get a wage increase whenever the minimum wage rises in exchange for their votes. (Since 1979 each time the minimum wage was increased, unemployment increased.http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.pdf   http://data.bls.gov/timeseri es/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

 

 

The Income inequality Parable

The President is obsessed with Income inequality.  Why? After all, the President and his wife on their public tax return make more in a month than the average American makes in a year ($54,717 per month vs. $53,406 per year). Their friend Oprah Winfrey made 3,000 times more in 2012 — no re-distribution mentioned here. President Obama could explain the inequality gap through the “Parable of the Talents:” A man going on a long journey trusts his servants with his wealth to invest. One he gives 5 bags of gold, another 2 bags of gold and a third 1 bag of gold according to their ability. When he returned the first had doubled his 5 bags to 10, the second servant doubled his 2 bags to 4, but the third scaredy-cat buried his in the ground and returned only what he had received. The master gave the first two servants more responsibilities commensurate with their proven abilities. The third he replied is a wicked, lazy servant, and amidst much weeping and gnashing of teeth, took the bag of gold and gave it that servant who doubled his gold to 10 bags. Those who are capable and competent are given more —- from those who have been given much, much is expected. One moral of the story in Mathews 25:14:30 is the rich are not so much owners of great wealth but great managers (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs) who create wealth by investing in ways that enable others to become more productive per hour worked and richer. Hence: The rich get richer and the poor get richer.

 

Outlaw Marriage

One way to stop the income gap from increasing is to prohibit doctors from marrying other doctors. Doctors used marry non-employed housewives (when housewives was not a pejorative term).  Then they began marrying doctors, attorneys or other high-income college-educated professionals. To reduce income inequality between households, doctors must be prohibited from marrying other doctors, etc…. smart people must be forced to marry dumb or lazy people. According to the government, households can be comprised of one, or more members living together.  Hence, many high-income households have 2 or more members working while some low-income households have no member working. With inflation the gap in income inequality will always grow.  To be fair, according to some people, we simply cannot let people who work take home more money than people who don’t work. See: http://www.romancingthevoters.com  27,619 people have commented have you?

Permission granted to forward or quote with or without attribution (except quotes from other writers).

Fred’s Speaking Schedule, Romancing The Voters