This is as bad as the diving in soccer:
This is as bad as the diving in soccer:
Low information voters (and their enablers) continually grouse about income inequality. For example, this article from Detroit’s more liberal paper tries to make the case that occupations such as nurses and ‘government employees’ should receive higher wages.
The remainder of occupations fall somewhere in between the lowest and highest earners. While the rest of these jobs are paid higher than minimum wage, many occupations deserve higher pay when you compare each worker’s salary to the pay received by the boss. Certain occupations, however, stand out as especially deserving of a higher paycheck. These are occupations that involve a high level of education, training, skills, or tenacity. The abilities and responsibilities of these workers are not at all reflected in their paychecks.
Low information voters will casually glance at this article and nod in agreement. The problem is both the low information voter, and the article’s author, miss the point.
The point is an individual’s compensation in a given occupation is based on the amount of revenue he or she generates for their employer (or themselves, if self employed). It doesn’t matter how much education, training, skills, or tenacity a person has. The amount of money you generate for your employer determines your wages, just as if you are self employed. It’s the free market at work.
For example you could attain a Master’s Degree in Puppetry, spend years training at the art, be a skilled puppeteer and work extremely hard at the craft. However, at the end of the day, your compensation as a freelancer (or working for whoever hires a puppeteer) will be based solely how much money people are willing to pay to watch your performance and nothing more.
Another argument populist politicians and their liberal activist supporters use to justify wage increases is that “income inequality” is rampant today and higher taxes are required on high wage earners so it can be redistributed it to lower earners. Just as a Socialist Democrat / Liberal makes a terrible economists, they also are terrible historians. Take a look at this list of the 30 wealthiest Americans of all time (adjusted for inflation).
#30: James C. Flood – Net Worth $34 Billion
#29: Peter AB Widener – Net Worth $35 Billion
#28: Collis Potter Huntington – Net Worth $36 Billion
#27: George Pullman – Net Worth $37 Billion
#26: Henry C. Frick – Net Worth $39.3 Billion
#25: Oliver H Payne – Net Worth $40.4 Billion
#24: JP Morgan – Net Worth $41.5 Billion
#23: Henry Huttleston Rogers – Net Worth $42.6 Billion
#22: Edward Henry Harriman – Net Worth $42.7 Billion
#21: John I Blair – Net Worth $47 Billion
#20: Russell Sage – Net Worth $47 Billion
#19: Moses Taylor – Net Worth $48.1 Billion
#18: William Weightman – Net Worth $48.1 Billion
#17: James G. Fair – Net Worth $49.2 Billion
#16: Andrew W. Mellon – Net Worth $50.5 Billion
#15: Richard B. Mellon – Net Worth $50.5 Billion
#14: Henry Ford – Net Worth $54 Billion
#13: Warren Buffett – Net Worth $64 Billion
#12: Sam Walton – Net Worth $65 Billion
#11: Marshall Field – Net Worth $66 Billion
#10: Stephen Van Rensselaer – Net Worth $68 Billion
#9: Jay Gould – Net Worth $71 Billion
#8: Friedrich Weyerhauser – Net Worth $80 Billion
#7: A.T. Stewart – Net Wort $90 Billion
#6: Stephen Girard – Net Worth $105 Billion
#5: John Jacob Astor – Net Worth $121 Billion
#4: Bill Gates – Net Worth $136 Billion
#3: Cornelius Vanderbilt – Net Worth $185 Billion
#2: Andrew Carnegie – Net Worth $310 Billion
#1: John D. Rockefeller – Net Worth $340 Billion
Note that combining the fortunes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the duo only finish a distant third on the list.
Rockefeller was worth a staggering 1.53% of the total United States economy while Bill Gates, at the peak of the dot-com bubble, was worth 0.58% of the U.S. GNP. Looking at this list (with only two of the all-time wealthiest individuals alive today) it’s hard to believe that income inequality is worse today than it was at the turn of the last century.
Circling back to today, ignoring the left’s incessant drumbeat of “income inequality” and focusing on reality, due to economic growth today’s average Americans live like millionaires of the 1950′s.
Of course, all the drivel about “income inequality” is simply a ruse by leftist to vote into office even more hard-core leftists politicians into office and redistribute more income. If liberal activists were serious about workers earning more money, they would push getting the government off everyone’s back by cutting taxes (50% of workers income is consumed by taxation) effectively giving everyone a healthy net raise.
You know that won’t happen.
This is one kick-butt ride:
Remember when Dear Leader promised that he would “restore America’s standing in the world?”
Well, that didn’t happen…
Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski thinks the Polish-American alliance is “worthless” and “bullshit,” according to tapes of a private conversation released by Polish magazine Wprost.
“The Polish-American alliance is not worth anything. It’s even damaging, because it creates a false sense of security in Poland. It’s complete bullshit,” Sikorski says. “We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think that everything is great, because we gave the Americans a blowjob. Suckers. Total suckers.”
The way Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski is speaking, you would think he was a jilted Obama voter.
Apparently the World Cup soccer tournament is in full swing and, like clockwork, non-soccer fans everywhere are subjected to our quadrennial dose of soccer snobbery.
While the snobbery is expected from oh-so-well heeled and very liberal sportswriters, it is particularly galling when it comes from the likes of conservatives such as Breitbart’s Mike Flynn:
Every athlete has a clearly defined and limited “position.” Teams run pre-set “plays” which are memorized by players and dictated by coaches on the sidelines. In football, coaches determine every play and the athletes just execute the plays. Individual players can execute these plays brilliantly, but they rarely have the opportunity to seize the initiative and execute a new pattern based on situations on the field.
Obviously, this guy has never played a down of organized football in his life. Sure, coaches sends in plays from the sideline, however players make numerous adjustments to the “pre-set play” prior to the snap. Offensive linemen make a series of “tackle calls” to co-ordinate how the blocking scheme is executed based on how the defensive players are aligned. If a passing play is called, running backs will either stay and block or release for a pass based on the defensive scheme presented. Receivers adjust pass routs based on where defensive backs are positioned and so-on. On the defensive side of the ball, the game is played much the same way.
In reality, a so-called “set” football play is more like a computer program executed by the teams “if the defensive tackle lines up in my gap then…” If Flynn had played the game, he might understand this.
The oft-repeated observation that football is “American” or “red-blooded” because of all the tackling reminds me of a short guy driving a Hummer. Have these people heard of rugby? France, of all places, after all, is a powerhouse of a sport which is American football without the pads.
If sports writers can square that knot, then perhaps I’ll listen to their criticisms about soccer.
Every time I hear the rugby thing it drives me crazy. Having played both football (a lot) and rugby (once or twice) the games are very different and I will square that knot for Mr. Flynn.
No doubt, rugby is a tough game. However if pro rugby players are so much tougher than say, an NFL player (since they don’t wear pads), why aren’t there more rugby players in the NFL pulling down multi-million dollar contracts? The NFL is hyper competitive. If a team feels they could gain the slightest edge by paying a pro rugby player a huge NFL contract, you know they would. An NFL team would pick up someone like rugby player Hayden Smith:
Smith was looking at the possibility of playing in the NFL and had a workout with the New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins and the New Orleans Saints.
The New York Jets signed Smith on April 3, 2012. He was waived on August 31, 2012. A day later, he was signed to the Jets’ practice squad. On October 27, 2012, He was promoted to the active roster from the practice squad. He caught his first and only NFL pass on December 23,2012.  He was released on August 26, 2013.
I guess all that toughness, playing without pads, didn’t pay off for Smith. I fairness, most rugby players in the NFL are punters since kicking in rugby (Australian rules) requires a lot of skill that translates well to the NFL.
As far as personal preference, the sport I tend to enjoy most as a spectator is hockey.
Now that is a rough game.
Anyhow, getting back to the quadrennial dose of soccer snobbery. I expect lib’s to continually try to coerce everyone into the soccer collective through constant haranguing. It’s what liberals do. I just don’t expect the haranguing from the conservative side. It’s not our style.
A few months ago, I made a day trip to the Rock and Roll hall of fame and I spent more time at the (surprisingly extensive) Les Paul display then anywhere else. Not only was the man a technological genius, he was a fantastic musician and great entertainer.
Here’s Les Paul with Chet Atkins.
And this beer commercial
“What’s your name?”… “It’s on your guitar.”
You know how they say the Environmental movement is the new home for displaced communists. This Op-Ed posted at the National Journal confirms that old saw:
In college classes, climate change is taught as a textbook example of where democracy fails. And there are a whole host of reasons to think America will fail on climate change: We’ve waited too long; the consequences aren’t as tangible as in other areas of policy; we’re bad at sacrificing in the short term to achieve in the long term.
President Obama, who on Monday rolled out landmark regulations for coal-fired power plants, has found a way around that age-old political problem posed by climate change and democracies, in part by acting a little bit more like a dictator. This is something he’s been skewered for on the right, with Rush Limbaugh accusing the White House of focusing on global warming just because “it offers the president opportunities to be dictatorial.”
Limbaugh is onto something, but he has it precisely backward: The decision to use executive authority is the means, not the ends. It also makes a lot of sense when it comes to global warming given Congress’s failure to pass the Waxman-Markey energy bill in 2009, and, for decades before that, to pass any sort of comprehensive climate legislation whatsoever.
By ‘climate change’ what environmentalists mean is global warming and, if we’re talking decades, it was less than four decades ago, the scientific community was hyping global cooling and an impending ice age. Remember this?
Returning to the original point, leftists are resorting to the ‘dictatorial’ rout to consolidate more power within the Federal Government because most Americans aren’t buying the global warming hype. Furthermore, why does every so-called solution to ‘global warming’ involve heavy handed government regulation, punitive taxes and wealth redistribution through the U.N.?
Global warming will increase the variability of weather and most likely result in more extreme weather events. The Munich Re NatCatSERVICE data on loss relevant natural disasters already show such a trend for the last 30 years. The Germanwatch Climate Risk Index, which ranks the countries according to their extreme weather risks, shows that all countries in the top ten of this index are developing countries, led by Bangladesh, Myanmar and Honduras. 95% of fatalities from natural disasters in the last 25 years occurred in developing countries.
Furthermore, indices characterizing the expected range of future changes of climate like the Climate Change Index (Baettig et al., 2007) clearly show that in many developing countries these changes will be most pronounced. Taking into consideration that already today the climate conditions in many of these countries are on the edge of allowing a sustainable livelihood to the people, only small changes can put this at risk.
Developing countries do not have a history of large emissions of green house gases and thus have not contributed significantly to the causes of climate change. So it is in the responsibility of the industrialized countries, which have caused the problem, to support the people in the developing countries to mitigate climate risks and help them to adapt to the changes.
Scientific consensus doesn’t equal scientific proof and furthermore, isn’t it the job of scientists to be skeptical,
Looking at the above chart (click for a larger version), the 1970′s scientist might have been on to something after all. I wonder if they had consensus?
It’s a fair question since Obama and company continue to change the story…
It seems like a different era when Dear Leader promised the most open and transparent government.
Hope and change…