Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union and the death of the middle class. Or mandatory union dues do not limit free speech and here is why.

Destroying organized labor, in the form of labor unions, has always been one of the  ultimate goals of rich Americans and the radical right-wingers that dominate today's Republican party.   To achieve this goal, they have moved almost all manufacturing overseas (when practical) and are in the process of off -shoring as many service jobs as possible, and, of course, with each passing year new technologies are designed to take away more and more jobs.

Pesky labor unions are still around for many state's civil service employees because those jobs are harder to offshore.  But the wealthy right-wingers have been slowly working on taking away the collective bargaining rights of workers.  The ironically named "right-to-work" legislation passed in several states takes away the ability for unions to charge dues and some states to not allow civil service employees to unionize at all (which in my opinion should also be unconstitutional.)  It should be called "right-to-work for low wages and in poor conditions"

The Friedrichs vs. California Teachers' Union case which was heard before the United States Supreme Court in January would take away all unions' rights to charge mandatory dues to all employees regardless of whether or not they want to participate in the union.  This would weaken any remaining unions in the United States.  Fortunately before the decision could be written up, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia died,  This leaves the case in limbo, and I am not certain if a decision will ever be official.  The lower court had ruled in favor of the Teacher's Union which would maintain unions for now, if the Justices hold the ruling to only the surviving members of the Supreme Court.  However if this attack fails, I am sure there are other lawsuits either in progress or ready to launch trying to do the same thing.

The argument against the California Teachers' Union's right to charge dues to all members, states that mandatory dues take away the right to free speech.  I would agree with that however, unionized employers are now few and far between, therefore workers have a right not to choose to work for a unionized business or organization or not.  Their free speech is protected by them not working for a unionized school district.  I am sure there are union free school districts in California as well as non-union private schools,  Ms. Friedrichs  could have utilized her free speech by choosing to work for one of those districts or schools.  I think free speech should only come into question if all employers in the United States had unions and the worker had no choice as to whether or not to work for a unionized employer.

As the right-wingers constantly push their agenda through, you have progressives like Elizabeth Warren trying to get legislation passed that will force employers to give worker sufficient notice about shift changes and working overtime.  She sponsored the "Schedules that Work Act" which basically regulates how employers can change schedules.  This is something that unions would normally do, but since unions are being eliminated you know have to have laws modify labor practices nationwide.

If the unions are completely wiped-out the American middle-class will eventually be wiped-out as well.  I do not know who Rachel Friedrichs is but if you Google her, you get a picture of someone who has wry smile on her face, a look that says, "I am getting a big payday for doing this, and you stupid unionized workers are all going all be out of jobs or working for minimum wage very soon, heh, heh, heh,"  I am not sure if this was the intention, but that's what the photo looks like to me.

Whether you worked for a unionized employer or not, it is important to support labor unions, if we want to continue to have a middle class, but if the wealthy right-wingers get their way labor unions will quickly become a thing of the past.

Staples closing stores: That was easy!

Bloomberg News Service reported that Staples plans to close 225 stores!  That was easy! But it will be hard on all of those people who will loose their jobs.


Bloomberg reported that fifty-percent of Staples' business now comes from the Internet.  Closing stores is major cost cutting move that will save them $500,000 they reported. 


The major loss of retail jobs is the scariest thing about e-commerce.


And you've got nut-jobs like Jeff Bezos looking to automate all aspects of his online retailing giant Amazon, which includes delivery drones.  Which leads to the question, "When no one has job, whose going to be able to buy all that crap from Amazon or any other retailer?"

One might argue that perhaps that in towns that loose their "Staples" stores, that the mom-and-pop stationary store might make a comeback, but what is more likely to happen is that the Wal-marts and the Targets in the area will just increase their stationary offerings. 


It is stories like these that give me the feeling that another major economic collapse is coming.  Perhaps President Obama should get one of those "Easy Buttons" to make our economic problems go away.

Layoffs and more layoffs and the latest job reports.

Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics had good news when it came to the month of May's unemployment claims and job creation, all I have heard in the news lately are stories about layoffs. 

IBM is allegedly sacking at least 3,000 employees worldwide.  There was big hoopla over a Manhattan law firm, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, laying off 60 attorneys and 110 support staff, something that was unprecedented in its 82 year history.   The construction vehicle and equipment company, Caterpillar, has laid off about 800 works starting last month.  And many banks and other businesses are allegedly laying off workers in spite of record profits.  Also not to mention all of the layoffs that have and will result from congresses budget sequester.

These layoffs will have ripple effects as all of these people loose their spending power and can no longer pump their dollars into the economy.  Businesses that once served them will stop getting a regular money in and they will eventually be forced to close their doors.  Layoffs like the ones reported above are likely to have a strong ripple effect on other jobs and the economy as a whole.

On a side note, I think that companies are starting to realize that they can work much more efficiently with today's computer and networking technology and there is no point in keeping around workers that they don't have to keep around.

To me it looks like we are getting ready for recession round-two and I think it is going to be a scarier bout than the first one. 

This is where the government should step in and create more jobs, but the Ayn Rand disciple Republicans will have none of that,  as they make sure the government sequester takes away even more jobs.

Another scary bit of news I have heard that it is getting harder and harder for Harvard Law School graduates to find jobs.  A Harvard Law degree was an almost certain path to employment years ago,  I have heard that as much as 30 percent of their graduates cannot find jobs.

I am not sure why so many people want to go into law and not study medicine.  Law must be an easier way to earn money, but now that lawyers seem to be tripping over each other you would think that at least some people would want to choose medicine for a guaranteed well paying job and career.  One thing that scares me about the glut of lawyers is that they have to find ways to drum-up business which will mean a future of a lot of unnecessary lawsuits.

I hope all of these layoffs stop at some point, but I get the feeling that this is only the beginning.

Bloomberg publishes internal memos leaked from Walmart...something is fishy....

Ok, I don't believe this.  Bloomberg news leaked internal memos allegedly from Walmart saying that February sales are the worst ever and they are trying to pin it on the payroll tax hike.  This sounds like phony journalism to me.

I went to Target today (as I do try to avoid Walmart like the plague, but it is not always possible).  I bought a couple of things, but I was prepared to buy more stuff, but it looks like a lot of their supply of certain things, especially toys hasn't been replenished since December.

How can consumers buy anything if there is nothing on the shelves?  Walmart's issue may be not meeting demand with enough supply or they have run out of supply particularly for the items that people want to buy.  Retailers anticipate slower sales and do not bother to restock too many items and sales slow down because shelves are empty not because there is a lack of people able or willing to spend money.

There is also a possibility that Walmart executives want to short-sell their stock, so they leak a couple of memos and a month or two later they will buy their stock back shortly before they announce that they had record profits in the first quarter of 2013.

Whatever the case may be, I don't like it.  It looks like the wealthy are trying to use the media to get Americans to join the GOP in their anti-tax rantings.  I do not think the payroll tax would have that big of an impact on spending so quickly.  I think mega-companies like Walmart are just promoting their anti-tax, anti-government and anti-middle class agenda. 

Social Security a simple solution.

With the recent grumblings of the Congressional GOP to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits left and right and the restoration of our Social Security deduction in our paychecks, I came across a fact that I was totally unaware of. 

The payroll tax that funds Social Security only comes out of the first $113,000 of income.  People earning more than $113,000 annually do not have to pay anything additional for Social Security.  All the government would have to do would be to extend the tax to apply to all income levels including those well beyond $113,000 and we wouldn't have to talk about cuts or Social Security running out of money after all the Baby Boomers retire. Unbelievable!

The wealthiest Americans have shown once again that they do not care about the common good.  For them common is bad and only rich is good.  They do not want to pick-up the bill for Social Security or anything else for that matter.  They would rather see the elderly poor and homeless. 

The fact there is not politician one getting behind extending the Social Security tax to all income levels is very disturbing to me.  It shows that both the Democrats and Republicans are merely puppets of the wealthy.

Already I have seen corporate controlled media blaming recent reportedly sluggish retail sales on the restoration of the Social Security payroll tax.  They are quick to point the finger at higher taxes causing problems, but always manage to fail to show how higher taxes particularly on the wealthy would create solutions.  Taxing the wealthy to pay for Social Security to would be a great solution to a looming problem.

The so called "fiscal cliff deal" and the connection between higher taxes on the rich and lower unemployment.

Well, they made a deal, but I am not sure of all of the ramifications.  I think it would have been better to go off the "fiscal cliff' instead of taking the miserable deal that President Obama agreed on.

Taxes will increase on people making over $400,000 and everyone will have to pay social security tax on the first $113,000 they earn every year. 

I heard a lot of rich people belly-aching that increase taxes on them will prevent them from creating jobs (perhaps in China, as we all know they are not creating any here). 

This is in spite of the fact that traditionally as taxes go up on the wealthy unemployment goes down.  While economists have not been able to find a logical correlation for this it still has happened historically.  I have a theory,  I think when the wealthy start getting extra-taxes dumped on them, they create jobs in order to have the tax burden shifted off of them and back on to the middle-class and poor. 

If my theory is correct and the increased taxes on people making over $400,000 a year is sustained, I think we could see unemployment drop within the next year or two.

I think things would have been even better if they had raised taxes on people making over $250,000 per year as originally proposed.  Unless you live in California or the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic United States, $250,000 per year is a lot of money.  In any other place in the United States you would really be considered rich, because your cost of living is so low.

We will see how things will go with this deal, but frankly, I'm not very optimistic. 

Keep on striking! Walmart workers...

I am so glad to see that Walmart workers are finally taking some nationwide action against their employer. 

The attitude of most employers in America today has become like this:  "Well, you are very lucky to have a job right now, so many people are out of work, so you won't mind if I defecate on your head.  Please bow your head to the ground, while I pull down my pants."

Walmart is notorious for treating its employees in such a fashion and underpaying them.  Walmart's everyday values come at a great price to its workers.  I try to avoid shopping there. I prefer shopping at Target which has a slightly better reputation.  Sometimes you really don't have a choice because your wages are stagnant, and discount stores are usually very convenient and have the best prices, what can you do?

I got a kick out this Jibjab animated video called "Big Box Mart" which sums the situation at Walmart and how the powers-that-be are purposely driving the United States into the ground.  And it does a great job of explaining our current predicament in under three minutes to the tune of "Oh, Suzanna."

Please check it out here:  

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart

It is time that Walmart workers unionize at fight for better wages and working conditions.  And if this eliminates Walmart's competitive edge in the market that's too bad.  Maybe it will make it easier for smaller retailers to compete.  Markets do best when there is competition, right?

My baby boomer retirement conspiracy theory...

Could it be possible that Republicans want Barack Obama to win?  Could it be that the wealthy powers-that-be know that the American economy is not salvageable in the immediate future and they want to see a Democrat in the White House for at least another four years to prove to Americans that the Democrats are incompetent and they cannot run this country?

I have a theory involving the dreaded baby boomers and the upcoming massive retirement that we are going to see probably coming around 2017 or sooner.  At least by 2017 there will be so many of them retired that there is bound to be some impact on the economy. 

I myself believe (and I bet the top 1% of earners believe this as well) that the economy will continue to flounder for quite some time.  There is no point in getting a Republican in the White House because then the blame will be put back on the Republicans for the perpetually sagging economy.

Now if the Republicans win the 2016 election, and at least the employment situation recovers thanks to the retiring boomers, they will look like they have solved the employment crisis and due to their diligence and good economic policy. America is making a comeback thanks to them.  Of course all the time it will really be the retiring baby boomers we will have to thank and not the Republicans. 

However, the baby bommer retirement may not be enough to open up the job market.  Automation has been and will continue to eliminate jobs probably more quickly than off-shoring will.  I already see that a lot companies are not replacing retirees because there are now more efficient ways of doing buisness mainly thanks to computers, the Internet, and the Information Technology revolution. 

I have also conisdered the possibility that the ecomomy is being deliberately screwed with in order to keep employment costs down.  The goal of the wealthy always seems to be to increase the labor supply to make labor costs go down. 

There is no way to tell if any of my theories are correct until we get to 2017, but whatever the outcome is it will be interesting to see what kind of impact the baby boomer retirement will have.

Mitt Romney is "all about jobs" all about sending them overseas that is....

Regardless of whether or not you believe Mitt Romney when he says that he was not responsible for sending thousands of jobs overseas when he was allegedly running (or not running) Bain Capital, you still have to ask what his plan is for creating jobs when he is elected President, and will these be well paying head-of-household jobs, or menial minimum wage job?

What will his strategy or, "statergery" as George W. Bush was known to call it, for creating new jobs.

Are lots and lots of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and big business the answer?  I don't think so.  If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy who says they are going to spend it? Why not just invest in gold, stocks and bonds and forget about creating jobs?  If you give more tax cuts to big business they will only invest countries like mainland China where the labor costs are low, China should probably have plenty of jobs in the future thanks to people like Romney.

Will it be through austerity measures? You know the Republicans are into shrinking government.  Therefore the massive downsizing of government and the laying off of thousands upon thousands of government workers would create more jobs?  How does that work?

Would keeping interest rates low so his Wall Street buddies can continue to play high-stakes casino with our economy be the answer?  Another burst bubble and companies folding like Lehman Brothers would create more jobs for sure.

Will cutting back on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid  be the answer?  By forcing baby boomers to stay in the workforce longer to retain a decent standard of living and benefits,  the job market will remain closed to young workers looking for their first job.

Would ending Obamacare create jobs?  With not everyone having to have insurance, insurance companies would not have to hire all those extra people to cope with the new higher demand for insurance coverage.

Mitt shouldn't focus on defending his reputation, it is just not worth it.  What he should focus on is showing the American people his great plan for creating jobs, which he won't because he has no plan or intention of creating jobs, at least not in this country.  The media should really stick it to him, and demand to know his plan for turning around the American economy, because I don't think he really has any.

An alternate retort Romney could have come up with would be to say, "Hey look President Obama, if you think off-shoring is a bad thing, you had four years to get Congress to pass legislation to stop off-shoring and you did nothing."  Of course the problem with that is Romney has no interest in stopping off-shoring when elected President and apparently neither will President Obama. 

Neither of these candidates want to help this country.  The American voter's choices are really between the devil and the deep blue sea.
 

Obama supports Cartoon Network's anti-bullying campaign.

I saw President Obama on Cartoon Network the other day introducing a special for children on bullying. I guess he wanted to introduce the show because he must be a victim of bullying as well. During his entire presidency he as been bullied by the GOP, special interests, corporate America, and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).

He must have been a victim of bullying, this is why he cannot break the GOP hold on government that says supply-side economics is a good thing, that not raising taxes on the wealthy is a good thing, that having a huge trade deficit is a good thing, and off-shoring all of our jobs is a good thing.

Yes, Obama must be the victim of bullying, because it is the only explanation of why someone who ran on a campaign of change, didn't manage to change one darn thing from the mess that was created by George W. Bush from the previous eight years.

Will I vote for Obama? Of course. What choice do we have? But it's like the wealthy people and special interests are Jersey Shore musclemen kicking sand in our faces, while the only person we have to defend us is the 98 pound AV geek.

Offshoring of American jobs: What the US government needs to do, but won't.



Taken from Wikimedia Commons

 The massive off-shoring of jobs from the United States has only been around for less than ten years but we already have national unemployment rate of over eight percent.  If the United States government continues to take no action, having a totally liassez faire attitude towards business and economics, unemployment will continue to rise inexorably. 

The United States government needs to take action now, by making a law that forces American companies or companies that do business in the United States to pay off-shored workers at least the current federally mandated minimum wage.  They also need to add high taxes to overseas telecommunication in order to make off shoring less attractive and give American workers a chance to compete for jobs.

This kind of action will be labeled protectionism, which the right-wing yahoos have tried to label as a taboo, worse than incest or bestiality.  But it is not a taboo.  We don't try to protect what we have?  The rich don't try to protect what they have by off-shoring their money and refusing to pay taxes? You don't try to protect what you have by having locks on your doors?

Protectionism is not a bad thing.  We need to put the brakes on off-shoring and free trade.  We need balanced trade and jobs paying livable wages for anyone who wants to work.  We will not get this by letting the wealthy live tax-free or letting business do anything they want without regard to the law.  We will not get this by allowing federal debt to exceed our GDP.   We desperately need to stop big business and special interests running this country into the ground by taking away jobs from Americans.

We can only do this if American politicians start developing a conscience and start serving the American people and not serving big business and special interests who want to send your jobs overseas and see the American middle class completely disappear.

Another big problem for retailers: Flash robs

I just saw a report on television about the "flash rob" that went down at "The Mall of America" in Minnesota. A flash rob is when a large group of people get together at a set time using social media like Facebook or Twitter and plan a robbery. The retailers and law enforcement are overwhelmed by the number people and cannot effectively deal with the situation.

Events like this will add to burden that owners of brick-and-mortar stores have to face, and ultimately lead to them not being economically competitive and shutting down.

Again here, the Internet is to blame for the changing economy, an economy that cannot support enough jobs for the people who want and need them. So far law enforcement has yet to come up with an effective method in dealing with them. If they ever do, I bet it will be really expensive, and there will be no way to pay for it with constant right-wing movement to eliminate government and government jobs.

Also, if the kids in this latest "flash rob" had jobs they wouldn't have had to participate in this phenomenon. My guess is that the kids who participated in this came from poor homes, and the Internet is now being used to have the poor turn on the middle class in their most sacred of haunts, the shopping mall. And this all happens while the wealthy watch from a safe distance.

To recap, as the middle class dies, the malls will close, and the poor masses will be left to riot on the streets. And we will have the Internet to thank for it all.

Job stimulus bill fails while a job crushing bill passes.

Although it is impossible for me to post here on a regular basis, I am compelled to write about the failure of the job stimulus bill that was recently voted on and rejected by the Senate and the free trade act with South Korea that sailed right through congress.

With all of the media coverage about the failed job stimulus bill and the Wall Street occupation, the media somehow forgot to cover the free trade agreement with South Korea that was just approved by congress. No one was on TV debating this issue, how disgusting.

Let me tell you something about South Korea, with this free trade agreement the United States will be importing tons of stuff from Korea, but the Koreans will probably import next to nothing of American goods. The Korean government will tell its people to only buy Korean made goods and don't touch American made products. In his book, "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and The Secret History of Capitalism" Korean-born economist Ha-Joon Chang illustrates how South Korea pumped up its economy by forcing its people to buy only Korean made products and nothing else. They did before and they most certainly will do it again. They couldn't care less about the collapse of the United States economy. They will flood our markets with tons of cheaper Korean made goods and they will not want to buy any American products in return.

I will be surprised if the Koreans will buy even one American car. But you are going be kissing even more manufacturing jobs good-bye, if there are any left in the United States to say good-bye to. And then this is only the beginning. South Korea is the starter county for free trade with all of Asia which will pretty much spell the economic end of the middle class as we know it. You think unemployment is bad now, just wait...

And while all of this is going on President Obama couldn't get much needed jobs stimulus bill passed because it increases taxes on the wealthy. Shame on the two democrats that voted against this bill. I hope they loose their Senate seats, of course the monsters who replace them will not be any better.

I just saw another article from npr that said that the Senate doesn't want to pass this bill because over 50 percent of them are millionaires themselves, and I believe that close to 100 percent of them have nothing approaching a conscience.

Congresses actions are just throwing gasoline on the economic collapse fire. This is why we so desperately need clean elections. Elections that are state run, where candidates cannot take money from outside sources for their campaigns. Everything is paid for by the state and everyone is given an equal shot to be elected.

Regardless of what your social studies teacher told you, the United States is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy, and these recent congressional actions prove it.

What would Apple do? Run a totally protectionist country that's what!

Earlier this month The Wall Street Journal ran an article about how Apple, the corporate computer giant, has more money that the US government and an opinion piece suggesting how Apple would run the United States government since they seem to be doing such a great job in running a profitable company.

First of all it upset me that there is a company, and probably lots of other US companies, that have more money at their disposal than the US government. Can't they pay for all of the wars in the Middle East and leave the US Government out of this?

The opinion piece upset me because the author cited all the things that he thought Apple would do to run a successful country, but he forgot some important aspects of the Apple business model.

Apple's brand is the cutting edge, because they operate in a country that made the cutting edge possible through a high standard of living. Living in the United States has had the same appeal as Apple products, because this is such a great place to live, everyone wants to immigrate here, just like everyone wants to buy Apple products because they can perform like no other products. They are always the first to market with innovative ideas, and the United States has traditionally been the first choice of many citizens of other countries looking to escape their less than desirable living conditions. Therefore, the United States has the cutting edge thing down pat, especially when it comes to quality of life.

The other thing that Apple does so well, which was completely overlooked by the WSJ author was that Apple's business model is totally protectionist. You have to buy all your apps, music, videos, and other content for Apple devices directly through their iTunes store. Apple hardware and software comes directly from Apple. There is no other competition. You buy from the iTunes store and nowhere else. There is no opportunity for free market competition. They set the price they want, they make the profits they want. That is what has made Apple so successful. That, the cutting edge thing, and nothing else.

If anyone dare suggest protectionism for the United States economy, they will be at the very least verbally drawn and quartered by politicians , the media and the wealthy lobbyists that control them. How can you isolate the United States in the new global economy? It would be such a step backward. It would be a step backward for wealthy people who want to bring labor costs down to nothing, and the American standard of living to unimaginable lows.

But this doesn't make any sense, don't you want to protect what you have? The wealthy want to protect what they earned by not paying any taxes. I wish this country could protect what it has through tariffs and limited trade, but Washington will not do this because it has its hands tied by big business and big money.

We must adopt the Apple model of protectionism if this country is to survive, and escape this bottomless pit of recession. Only this will save us.