American Elephants


If You Want More Jobs, Stop Destroying Them. Incentives Matter. by The Elephant's Child

ObamaCare is not a popular subject, and as people actually begin to interact with it, it’s going to be a lot less popular. Democrats are desperate to make their stand for the mid-term elections about something entirely different. They have decided on the culture wars.

Today it is “Equal Pay for Women” which everyone thought was dead as a doornail after it became illegal to pay a woman differently than a man for the same job— way back in 1963— when the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed. President Obama is out there again today trying to claim that women are paid only 77¢ for the same job for which a man was paid $1.

Since that is against the law, it’s hardly surprising that the only place it still happens is in the increasingly lawless White House, where female aides are indeed paid less than male aides.

whitehouse

Obama brags about the Lily Ledbetter Act which he claims was to make equal pay for women a reality, but it actually only eliminated the time limit for filing discrimination claims — and was more correctly referred to as a law to benefit trial lawyers (who donate to Obama).

Nevertheless you constantly hear the 77¢ claim. Why? It is a statistical anomaly. When you look at male and female careers, men are apt to do the dangerous or high risk jobs. They have traditionally been in logging, mining, high-rise construction, linemen, explosive experts —jobs that pay way more because of the risk involved. Women are more apt to be secretaries, teachers, social workers. Women frequently drop out of the job market to raise children, for a few years or for longer periods.Women just assume more responsibility for child-rearing than men. The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act recognized that fact.

The 77¢ number comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure refers to the annual earnings of full-time, year-round workers. It doesn’t compare comparable men and women, and does not reflect that full-time men work 8%-10% more hours per week than full-time women.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) is based on the faulty idea that “It’s Not Fair” in the interest of capturing more votes from women. The bill forces employers to raise women’s pay by sharply reducing their ability to defend what they believe is a justified differential in pay based on merit.  The PFA limits the use of work experience or education to discriminate by requiring employers to demonstrate that they are job-related ‘necessities.’ The bill authorizes grants to supporters of the bill like the AAUW for training women in negotiation skills. Men are excluded. It will increase the cost of employing women, and so reduce job opportunities. It will also provide a bonanza for lawyers.

If you make it more costly to hire someone, employers will hire fewer someones. The current theme in the media is the continuing dearth of jobs, the Great Recession with few jobs, why aren’t there more jobs? No one seems to point out that Obama is passing more and more laws and more regulations that eliminate jobs. Whether the Affordable Care Act, the continuing drive to shut down coal-fired power plants and destroy the entire coal industry in the name of climate change, or the simple refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline — Obama talks jobs, but his ideas are that only government really creates jobs. Then we’re back at “crumbling roads and bridges,” job-training programs, and improving education. Same old talk.

It drags on. Businesses I patronized regularly close. Supposedly the job situation here is fine, but health clubs are closing and the biggest ones are increasing their advertising. If you pay attention to new advertisers, you can tell what businesses are hurting.



The Uncomfortable Facts of Demographics by The Elephant's Child

de·mog·ra·phy n. The study of the characteristics of human populations,as size, growth, density, distribution, and vital statistics.

The perpetually discontented are sure that if they can just get enough new low-information voters through reforming immigration laws so the borders are more open and friendly, then they will be able to perpetually win all elections. But there are other trends in the world, one of the more notable is demographic, and is changing the world as we know it.

Our president has declared that his objective is to fundamentally transform America. What liberals really mean is they want a different society, made up of different people. They want people who are more like them, who do not disagree and argue, and who truly appreciate their enlightened government and how much they are improving things, or will improve them as soon as they get their next regulations in place and their next laws passed.

child-free-time
From Moonbattery:

The article aggressively advocates childlessness. This fits smoothly with the liberal campaigns to promote abortion and to normalize homosexuality (if only in the weakest of minds). Not having children also allegedly protects the planet from imaginary threats that the liberal press has sacrificed much of its credibility to convince us are real. Plus it saves money!

The Nazis were impatient. They wanted the groups they considered undesirable to disappear immediately. Liberals learned from the failure of their fellow progressives. They are willing to wait a few generations for Americans to fade into nonexistence.

North America will still be populated, even if the liberal ruling class has its way. That’s where the push to erase our borders completely through amnesty comes in. After America is gone, its place will be taken by a gloriously diverse Third World hellhole consisting of peasants and their oligarchical collectivist rulers. The future will look like a cross between Zimbabwe, Guatemala, and the Soviet Union. Or at least, that’s a politically correct statist’s dream.

No one who wants to disarm you means you well. The same goes for anyone who does not want you to reproduce. The liberal ruling class that excretes publications like Time is the sworn enemy of every American, including those who consider themselves part of it.

Interesting juxtaposition.

They used to make movies about large happy families: (Consult Netflix). You might enjoy Meet Me In St. Louis, (1949), Life With Father ((1947), Cheaper By the Dozen (1950), Bells On Their Toes (1952), Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), The Seven Little Foys (1955), Spencer’s Mountain (1963), The Sound of Music (1965), Yours, Mine and Ours (1968), The Brady Bunch Movie (1995).

What’s the last movie about big families you have seen besides the Weasley family in the Harry Potter series?  What’s the last movie you have seen about happy families?  How many big families do you know?  Big defined as more than three.  Just something to think about.



Here’s Who We Were in 1790, According to the Census. by The Elephant's Child

In the census of 1790, only 60 percent of the white population of over three million remained English in ancestry. (1,800,000)

700 thousand were of African descent.

Tens of thousands were native Indians;

All the peoples of Europe were present in the country.

  • 9 percent German,
  • 8 percent were Scots
  • 6 percent were Scots-Irish
  • 4 percent were Irish
  • Over 3 percent Dutch
  • the remainder: French, Swedes, Spanish, and people of unknown ethnicity

From Gordon S. Wood: Empire of Liberty

 




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,429 other followers

%d bloggers like this: