skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I read on Fox News online how
Megyn Kelly “blew up” the governor of Texas by showing that
transgender males using female bathrooms has not led to any
more crime in schools where it has been introduced.
But the primary issue is not crime — privacy is the giant
day-to-day issue — even if there were never any crime involved
at all. A transgender woman with male parts still intact who
is sexually attracted to women is feels no different to women
than any other male. Think the former Bruce Jenner — who
reportedly is still interested in women. There is a case in a
high school in Palatine, Illinois where the girls are up in
arms — not about crime — but about a transgender boy using the
locker room where they get undressed.
I know transgender is a trying condition. 19 times the suicide
rate according to a New York Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how-changeable-is-gender.html?_r=0
And I understand they feel degraded being forced to use
bathrooms other than the sex they perceive themselves to be —
I understand. Which gives me a desperate idea to resolve the
issue. Leave women’s bathrooms women’s bathrooms. Re-model all
male bathrooms into gender neutral — hopefully relieving the
subjective feeling.
I said this is desperate. Anything is better — infinitely
better — than allowing any physical male (including cab
drivers in a hurry) to use the female facilities just by
claiming (true or not!) gender dysphoria. In a San Francisco
school district 1% claim gender dysphoria. Children have no
reason to make up crazy stories. That’s a lot of outwardly
male-appearing males to use the facilities (and then come the
cab drivers in a hurry and the men’s is out of order).
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bathrooms-at-Miraloma-Elementary-in-S-F-go-6481544.php
This setup would not last for long I predict. Men at the local
stadium would probably be irked by women using the (busy so
presumably safe) men’s room rather than waiting on long lines
(when you got to go you got to go. Men are much more
intolerant of intrusion (even if they have infinitely less to
lose). Remember mister “Don’t touch my junk!” Experimenting
with the men will give a realistic idea of the kind of gross
privacy intrusion you are really facing with gender neutral
restrooms in public as opposed to a controlled school
environments.
In the comments to one Yahoo News report is the story of a NYC
public rec center where the high school swim team girls are
afraid to use the locker room and shower since a very
man-appearing man was spotted coming out in towel. Now all 18
of them crowd into the single spigot family shower. A crucial
part of the works is that nobody may question in any way
anybody who uses the neutral facility — open city. That’s the
reality. Better it be experienced first by men — then we will
see what happens.
Meantime the letter of the law at the airport is that once you
enter the security zone you may not leave even if on opposite
gender TSA agents are there to frisk you.
http://ontodayspagelinks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tsa-opposite-gender-screening-mandatory.html
If you want to play gender-doesn’t-matter then take a look at
police forces across the country who mostly all train their
males that there is nothing illegal about them frisking
females all over — even if policy (supposedly not law) suggest
limits — and what-do-you-think-of-that? A women checked for
guns — which you can do without touching anywhere with fingers
— is not going to do the Houdini and slip the cuffs, then do
an Incredible Hulk and tear the partition aside, take a sharp
object out of her bra and scratch the police officer in the
front seat.
They love to quote Terry v. Ohio. Terry could not have
addressed the felony sex abuse limits because no female was
involved and courts may only decide what is brought before
them — part of checks and balances. The only sex abuse
prohibition that differentiates by intent is flashing not
groping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-dcSUDPE8&feature=related
So we can come at the gender issue from the left as well as
the right. Personally, I have thought for ten years since I
found out that male on female frisking was the craziest thing
I ever heard of in this country in my whole life. Now with
gender neutral bathrooms (and showers and locker rooms as I
read in the comments to the Yahoo News comments — too bad I
didn’t think to save it while it was at 400 comments; now up
to 4000, almost all vehemently and at length opposed) I know
what number two is.
See also:
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2012/08/taking-male-leo-hands-of-females-late.html
All 7 million are going to die --
unlike 3 million Hep C victims -- depending ...
"HF (Heart Failure) is a terrible disease , but
unfortunately is very common. It is currently poorly treated, and is
one of few diseases that increase in mortality YoY. More than 7
million HF patients exist in the US, with more than 800,000 new HF
cases every year. The number of HF patients is expected to exceed 10
million by 2030. The HF increase in prevalence is driven by the
epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure.
Additionally, 7-10% of the aging population above 65 years old
suffer from HF."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3811136-sunshine-heart-speculative-biotech-play-substantial-short-term-gains
Sunshine Heart (NASDAQ:SSH) said it had halted enrolment in the pivotal US
trial of its heart failure device C-Pulse to focus on a “more
optimal” clinical strategy that ought to get it to market more
quickly. It will need some luck."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3955556-aint-sunshine-second-halt-heart-pump-trial-sends-shares-crashing?auth_param=17tckm:1bdjpnl:34a1048b457a7b86e6bc68c3e1fb4fa5&dr=1
"The device, developed by Sunshine Heart Inc., is an extra-aortic
counterpulsation system. It consists of a cuff that is placed around
the patient's aorta - the largest artery in the body - and is
outside of the patient's bloodstream. The cuff is attached to a
small balloon that inflates and deflates in sync with the patient's
heartbeat. This pumps blood through the aorta and around the body"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/283566.php
"After the 20 were treated with the C-Pulse device, most of them were
able to come down a point or two in heart failure class. In other words,
some heart patients went from being Class III heart failure patients to
Class II or Class I, some from Class IV to Class I and some stayed in
their class and the disease didn’t progressively worsen, Rosa said."
http://www.mddionline.com/article/device-has-actually-cured-some-patients-congestive-heart-failure
Seems we cannot cure the 7 million for the opposite reason we cannot
cure the 3 million. Unlike the $300 billion that Gilead wants for a
Sovaldi cure for all, Sunshine has no been able so far raise the
$20-30 million for the trials for C-Pulse technology which cured(!)
5 of 20 patients in the first trial, ending 2012 and improved or
kept steady the rest. All very sick people.
C-Pulse money problem is reportedly that investors are afraid any
patent to the technology may be too easy to bypass by other
manufacturers.
A thought just starting to germinate in my mind: you know how in Chicago our political parties used to pay citizens $10-20 to vote. First, I thought of getting out the African-American vote — and I’m thinking 99% — by pointing out that if they all voted they would benefit thousands of dollars a year in government paybacks.
I started out thinking African-American because they are so classically left out of so much government concern whether it’s second-class schools, unconscionable medical care (I went to Stroger emergency once before I got Medicare — practically in the heart of downtown here — so-called “fast track” was 10 hours, for chest pain, difficulty breathing and obstetrics; everyone else waited 24 hours, maybe should sign in and come back tomorrow), lead in the water, intrusive policing, etc., etc.
Then I thought of 99% African-American voting as donating one hour of time to a movement every two years — to get the politicians coming on their knees to find out what people want. Seems like an irresistible appeal, doesn’t it? Donate one hour of your time, change your whole world for yourself and your family.
50% voting is getting them nothing (well the Post Office delivers). !00% would raise such a “scary” political organization specter that it could have the effect of 150%.
Then of course other minorities or whomever would follow suit. One way to take the country back from the oligarchs. Just starting to germinate.
PS. Mmm; still thinking. Imagine if we paid say $100 to vote to the last hold-outs -- or if we Go Funded that. Have to leave cash incentive for last so we don't look untoward (smacks of the bad old days) -- by the end it would just look like more of the fun.
Transgender bathrooms -- has anyone ever heard of AC/DC
(bisexual)?
Transgender is a tragic condition — actually having the wrong
sex body to go with your brain. 19 times the suicide rate
according to a New York Times story. “Although transsexualism
(defined as those who want to change or do change their body) is
very rare — a recent meta-analysis estimated the prevalence at
about 5 per 100,000 … ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how-changeable-is-gender.html?_r=0
San Francisco school adopting gender-neutral bathrooms
By Jill Tucker Updated 7:11 am, Thursday, September 3, 2015
“The boys’ bathrooms and girls’ bathrooms will become just
bathrooms at the first San Francisco school to go
gender-neutral.”
“In schools across the country, though, bathrooms have become a
battleground for transgender rights. On Monday, more than 100
high school students walked out of class in a small Missouri
town to protest the use of the girls’ restrooms and locker room
by a transgender teen.”
“So far, bathrooms in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms at
Miraloma, as well as a centralized bathroom, are gender-neutral.
The school will phase in the other restrooms used by older
children over the next few years, including outside bathrooms
with multiple stalls.”
“The school district’s responsibility is to create a safe
environment for all students so they can learn and thrive, said
Kevin Gogan, the district’s director of safety and wellness.
That, he said, means accepting and accommodating the 1 percent
of all middle and high school students who identify as
transgender — who add up to more than 300 students.” [my
emphasis]
“First grade twins Ari Braverman (left), and Ella Braverman
(right), both 6 years old, show first grade gender neutral
bathrooms at Miraloma Elementary school in San Francisco,
Calif., on Wednesday, September 2, 2015.” [caption for multi
stall bathroom -- Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle (pic since
changed)]
"The boys’ bathrooms and girls’ bathrooms will become just
bathrooms at the first San Francisco school to go gender-neutral
[for everybody -- that's what the story seems to say!?]."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bathrooms-at-Miraloma-Elementary-in-S-F-go-6481544.php
* * * * * *
Anybody ever hear about AC/DC as in switch-hitter, as in
bisexual? Bruce made a lot of kids before he became Caitlyn
(nothing funny here — see above). Really want to allow males who
may or may not be sexually attracted to females into the womens’
bathrooms.
“A transgender woman says she was raped in a unisex bathroom at
the Stonewall Inn — and police are searching for the suspect who
they say regularly frequents the landmark gay bar.”
http://nypost.com/2016/03/28/transgender-woman-says-she-was-raped-in-stonewall-inn-bathroom/
One in 20,000 may be transgender (actually wrong body to go with
brain) — a lot more than that identify with the opposite body
gender. A lot more than one in 20,000 are willing to fake
transgender for whatever nefarious or silly motive — maybe just
some college frat boys drunk and mischievous.
What sex is attractive to a physical male with a female brain
anyway (not to mention the 1% with gender dysphoria)? I have no
idea.
I read a story the other day (can’t remember where) of a young
guy (male brain — female body) who is now taking male hormones
to grow a beard and muscle and hangs out with other guys in
bars, etc. Who does he want to have sex with?
Who does a physical male with a female brain want to have sex
with — depending on whether heterosexual or homosexual. This is
where I totally lose track.
I had a gay teenage boy living with me in the Bronx back in the
late 70s. I quickly picked up that he approached every older
woman with a salute — careful not to brush her toes (“lest she
lash out at him for no reason” — as I like to put this). Me, he
wasn’t too afraid of — not bad to, but sort of like you are less
afraid of your mother than you father (if you are hetero).
One of his little buddies, 16 years old, would come at me
disrespectfully — I would back him off — he would be visibly
intimidated — next time he would be right back at me; never
caught on what he was up against in a male — I was just Hillary,
a noisy girl.
You can’t be sexually dangerous to the dangerous sex — you can’t
be sexually endangered except by the dangerous sex. Depending on
who you think is the dangerous sex.
But, how does this understanding of homosexuality — and
heterosexuality — translate into which sex a (truly rare) truly
transgender person is attracted to? ??? Anybody care to clear
this up for me?
Those of the apparently not so rare gender dysphoric (see above)
are guaranteed to be all over the place.
The only good thing I can say for the not so rare dysphoric use
is that it would have come in handy when I was a taxi driver
(NYC, Chi, SF): if the mens' room was dirty or out of order I
could have just tried the lady's room figuring they were used to
seeing men dressed as men in there -- if not used to it -- and
when you have to go you have to go.
Bottom line: Transgender Bathroom use is not mostly about crime -- it is immediately and urgently about privacy. A transgender woman whose male parts are intact who is sexually attracted to women is no different in the next stall than any other
male. Think Bruce Jenner -- who is reportedly still interested in
women. There is a case in a local high school here in Illinois
(Palatine) where the girls are up in arms about a boy in their locker room, even behind curtains -- no thought about crime.
LAST MINUTE EXTREME SOLUTION (desperate to keep men out of the ladies')? RETAIN WOMEN'S BATHROOMS BUT CHANGE MEN'S TO GENDER-NEUTRAL. I WONT LIKE IT IF LADIES US IT -- BUT IF IT'S THE ONLY WAY. HOPEFULLY, MOST TRANSGENDER WOMEN WILL NOT FEEL DEGRADED BY BEING FORCED TO USE THE BATHROOM OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. (It's all in the packaging?)
PS. If you go by the SF school, 1% of males who look and dress like males are going to claim gender dysphoria -- genuinely. Young children are not going to fake this for phony reasons. Possibly another 1% of similarly dressed males may use the ladies room for dumb to nefarious reasons: perversion, mugging, pranking or just cab drivers in a hurry. Ergo, one out of 50 males may wish to use the ladies room. (I often do the eighth-grade math side of things.)
ADDENDUM
https://www.yahoo.com/style/target-boycott-reached-boiling-point-140049014.html
This article restored my faith that my world may not be about to be
blown apart -- w/o warning, w/o democratic discussion. Or rather by
the 4,000 mostly, or should I say almost universally vehement, windy opposing comments -- just like the last two Yahoo News articles I read on the issue.
To wit: "As a grandfather this BS attacks my lady, my 3 grown up
daughters, my 6yr old granddaughter, my 4yr old, & 8 month old
grandsons & you piece of sht libs just don't care about daddy's
little girls & you seem to think there is nothing us daddy's can
do about it, because Obama says so & makes it law & sht all
over their privacy & culture they grew up with. You will be
getting a very serious education very soon, if this bull sht does
not stop!"
Wish I had saved the New York comment I read last night when there
were only 400 comments. Pictured 18 teen age girls at a rec center
who are afraid to use the girls shower and all crowd up in the
family shower with one spigot. Seems a big part of this ideology is
that no questions may be asked, no documentation, no physical exam
may be imposed on anybody using any locker room or shower.
Just in time for an election that may decide whether democracy may
any longer endure -- just in time to scare everyone (every class)
away from the Democratic party.
If only Obama had the same energy for the last seven years to make
everyone aware:
the minimum wage is now $4 an hour below 1969 -- double the average
income later;
Republican governors fighting Medicaid expansion are fighting
against recovering their own states' tax federal money from DC --
while those people are going to show up somewhere (ER, clinic),
probably sicker and more expensive to treat, and their bill is going
to be sicked on private premiums or other gov sources -- paying
twice;
the a de-labor-unionized economy is inherently pathological, the
core cause of just about every other social and economic ill that
faces us -- that Americans are being denied "freedom of
contract"(along with any significant political arm) -- that making
union busting a felony is even more critical to our national health
than sending people to federal prison for a couple of years for
taking a movie in the movies.
But for allowing virtually any man in the ladies he is a ball of
fire.
Economists Mette Foged and Giovanni Peri have issued a paper reporting that sprinkling some uneducated immigrants around (more or less randomly) in Denmark actually raised the wages of uneducated natives. The positive outcome seems down to some immigrants having skills that complemented rather than completely replaced natives', to some natives moving up to better paying office jobs and to some uneducated natives (re?)entering the workforce (possibly for newly improved wages?).
Not very helpful over here.
The Danish labor market is unionized -- with centralized bargaining even -- while the American is on the very opposite end of spectrum. American born taxi drivers (me for 28 years) used to earn $800-900/wk up to a couple of decades ago -- now probably more like $400-500/wk for 60 grueling hours -- American born wont work for such. Ditto for fast food -- at $10/wk, Chicago's labor still all Mexican and Indian.
100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 Chicago gang-age minority males are in street gangs, I presume because they wont slave for $400/wk. Fed min was $440 half of today's per capita income ago (1968).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=1968&year2=2016
Sociological point: both our "gangs" would work for half of today's taxi or low skill wages if only it were 100 years ago and if only we understood that was the best the economy could share with us -- and we'd be happy. Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is that it makes you know you have squeezed all there is to squeeze out of the consumer/economy.
With collective bargaining disappeared from the US and with immigrants sociologically willing to work-for-less, a "market clearance" gap opens into which our de-unionized natives fall -- out of sight of the data by definition because they not looking for work.
* * * * * *
The Social Security Trust Fund should -- as in is supposed to -- run down/run out -- why else did we save it up all that "cash" if not to pay it back out to the generation who "saved" it? Before it runs out -- quick! -- we ought start a new Trust Fund for the following generation -- and we need to do it in time for the new FICA money used to buy the new Trust Fund II (that's "two") bonds can be used to cash out the old Trust Fund I bonds -- continuing to "guarantee" the next generation of Social Security retirees will get theirs (or whatever phony purpose Trust Fund I is supposed to fulfill). :-)
* * * * * *
Reading Sandwichman today I realized that the "Prisoner's Dilemma" can be used to explain why the ability of un-organized labor to "just go down the road" to offer their services does not constitute effective bargaining power in the labor market.
If a minimum wage hike
is priced
right it may
bring in more
dollars
overall to
employees for
fewer hours of
work -- but
the hours of
employment
picture
doesn't end
there. Those
extra dollars
will be
diverted from
purchases that
would have
been made by
higher wage
folks to
buying
decisions now
made by lower
wage earners.
If lower wage
people make
exactly the
same buying
decisions as
the higher,
then, the
overall effect
will be fewer
min wage
employees
making higher
end
purchases.
In practice,
consumers tend
to aim their
purchases
somewhere more
towards
vendors who
pay the same
wage
spectrum.
Poor people
buy other poor
people's
second-hand
cars -- used
car lot too
pricey.
Middle wage
people buy off
the used car
lot. Higher
wages put you
in the
showroom.
1/11/14,
NYT article
"The Vicious
Circle of
Income
Inequality" by
Professor
Robert H.
Frank of
Cornell: " ..
higher incomes
of top earners
have been
shifting
consumer
demand in
favor of goods
whose value
stems from the
talents of
other top
earners. ...
as the rich
get richer,
the talented
people they
patronize get
richer, too.
Their
spending, in
turn,
increases the
incomes of
other elite
practitioners,
and so on."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/business/the-vicious-circle-of-income-inequality.html?src=me&f_r=0.
Upshot, a higher minimum wage – if priced right –
should predict
a few more
customers at
Mickey D’s
(likely that’s
what Card and
Krueger found
in their
seminal 1992
study) and
fewer jobs at Olive
Garden (studying
fast food with
“giant” 33%
labor costs no
less). There
may be job
loss alright;
but everybody
is probably
looking in the
wrong place.
* * * * * *
The idea that more progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MD?) could individually make union busting a felony -- make prohibitions against coercion in the labor market actually enforceable -- doesn't seem to be getting much traction -- though it is so simple and so vital. There's no legal bar to states adding to federal labor protections that I know of -- California's labor laws for instance are stricter than Uncle Sam's.
Maybe it's more a matter of the culture. We are just so used to looking upon the firing of organizers and joiners as civil matters -- un-enforced by laughable-at remedies -- rather than as criminal matters that we just can't shake off the habit.
Try to manipulate or coerce markets for goods or services (try to take a movie in the movies and tell them you were only kidding -- see you in a couple of years, for real) and it is big jail time. But in the most important market of all -- that decides the personal lives and political influence of the broad majority of Americans -- coercion of employees is just our (not any other modern economy's or culture's) way of life.
Union racketeering does less harm to pocketbooks (maybe no political damage at all) than eliminating unions altogether. But, racketeers are identifiable bad guys, leg breaking hoods. Union busters happen to be the pillars of the community -- really are -- who organize and operate our economy. That image may help sneak them by our usual sense of outrage. Time to get past outmoded habitudes (no sic) and flawed culture and to get logical about the economic and politically ruinous truth of union busting.
* * * * * *
Last little tasty: why would we build a Social Security retirement
Trust Fund (TF) if we did not intend to deplete it at some point? Possible real usefulness: to cover any temporary shortfall in FICA revenue while Congress gets around to upping FICA or cutting benefits. From that standpoint, today’s TF is equipped for about a 20 year long “emergency.”
Would it make sense to maintain today’s giant TF at today’s level forever – “slush fund”? – if income and outgo varied back and forth year to year but basically balanced out? Even less sense to keep inflating the TF? That would just define a permanent mechanism for converting FICA revenue – supposedly being saved for the future – into cash for current expenses that would otherwise be funded with income tax.
No fear. By the time the TF is running out it will be paying 25% of SS retirement – with income tax – or as much as $250 billion (quarter of a trillion!) a year. Just lower the income tax by the same amount we hike the FICA tax. Without further ado: by then per capita income should be up 20-30% (along with whatever free gifts of technology). What me worry?
ADDENDUM
I wonder what is the multiplier effect of investing political capital in increasing union density?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
” They worry that Mr. Sanders, as president, would exhaust his political capital
on what they call a fool’s errand, at the expense of other initiatives
on education, infrastructure, climate change, worker benefits — and the
Affordable Care Act itself. "
” if Mr. Sanders were elected and fought for a single-payer plan, it ‘would rapidly destroy his administration by using up every ounce of political capital he’s got.’ ”
My comment over at Economists View:
The
answer is to build up an unbeatable mountain of political capita by
rebuilding union density. How? Starting in progressive states with
Democratic legislative majorities — make union busting a felony.
There
are all sorts of restrictions on union bargaining methods — e.g., no
secondary picket lines — that are enforceable. None of the restrictions
on illegal union busting are the slightest bit enforceable.
Make
unions attractive by example — let people in red states see how
positively they work — make people in red states jealous. Change the
culture — get more union states. Then — on only then — we can get
everything we want.
Social
welfare spending hasn't reduced poverty much? No surprise. Example: EITC, $60 billion -- sound like
a lot? Equals 1/3 of one percent of GDP in an economy where
45% of the workers are earning less than what the minimum
wage could very practicably be: $15 an hour.
BTW, that minimum wage would shift 5% of income from the 55%
who now take 90% of overall income to the 45% (or should we
say shift 5% of income from the 54% who now take 70%?).
What are needed are non-skilled jobs that pay between $600
and $800 a week -- the same jobs that exist now but don't
pay enough to keep 100,000 Chicago gang age males (out of
approx 200,000) out of street gangs. My old job doesn't pay
even near $800 any more: taxi driving (NYC, Chi, SF). Fast
food work in Chi is owned by Mexican and Indian immigrants
because American born wont work for so little (even $10 an
hour minimum in Chi -- of course the min was $11 in 1968
when per capita income was half today's).
The money is there -- to pay people to work. If it isn't
there we can forever forget about reducing poverty.
Collective bargaining moves closer to the definition of "perfect competition"
-- for whatever that's worth.
Jimmy Hoffa would say that labor owned half the means of
production -- the labor half -- and that short of a law
requiring labor, ownership and the (ultimate) consumer to
get together to set all product prices (an impractical way
to sell candy bars), that collective bargaining is the
only way to keep labor in the price setting game.
I know the dictionary definition of "perfect
competition." I don't know if economists (or some
economists and not others) think that any deviation from
such results in lower efficiency. Seems to me that unblanced market
power just rearranges distribution of the "lump of
product." No matter.
What I want to load on the balance in favor of labor
union practicality is that, by definition, unions bring the market
closer to perfect competition -- by balancing the monopoly
power of labor -- one seller (ask any conservative if a
labor union is a monopoly) -- against the monopsony power of
ownership -- one buyer.
Ownership could counter that there are many "one buyers"
in today's labor market. Which surely moves the market closer to perfect
competition than the extreme of one big buyer hiring all labor:
which might allow ownership to pay computer programmers the same as burger flippers. What
multiple monopsonists do create (what we do have in the
US today) is a subsistence-plus market wherein labor's price
is set by subsistence (if that much) plus how ever much
more labor is worth compared to other labor -- working up a skill increment ladder -- rather than paying labor by however much the ultimate consumer might have been willing to shell out.
If another definition of perfect competion/efficiency might be the balancing of market satisfactions/dissatisfactions all around -- as is
achieved when labor/owner/(ultimate) buyer get together to
make a deal -- then collective bargaining is the only
known way to achieve that kind of balance.
US labor market monopsony hits the lower skill labor market three-ways hard:
the customary race-to-the-bottom price problem, aggravated
by the infinite supply of interchangeable employees, which
employees have to sell today or "throw away" (maybe miss meals).
A subsistence-plus labor market ultimately distorts output in favor of which employees may be manhandled the most/least. Collective bargaining more structures an economy to produce in accordance with pure consumer preference.
My Southern Bronx strategy to down a Bloomberg candidacy -- one picture is worth a thousand words (two even better):
My art-deco high school -- opened 1941
Bronx County Court House -- opened 1939 -- a ten minute walk from Cardinal Hayes
Both remain in pristine condition, today.
*******************************************
In 1977, in response to the national crime wave, the city was forced to open a new $120 million (2016 dollars) courthouse down the hill from the 1939 courthouse to catch the overflow.
In 2004, long after the crime wave had receded 75%, Mayor Bloomberg opened a new $500 million courthouse across the street from the old-new one and down the block from the old-old one.
Bloomberg perpetrated the same financial folly in Brooklyn in the same year to the tune of $750 million. Don't have personal knowledge of Brooklyn courthouse(s) that already stood but I never spotted any dilapidated structures passing through Brooklyn civic center (just the other side of the Brooklyn Bridge).
Before posting the old-new and new-new courthouse pictures I should throw in my eighth-grade math take on Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk circus. Stops went up 7X under Bloomberg, after crime had subsided 4X = 28 times as many stops per reported crimes. Thought this: if it is a thousand to one that a cop has justification to stop any one kid on the way to school, it must be a million to one against two together, a billion, etc. etc. -- but it would be the same four, five school kids together over and over again.
The old-new and old-old Bronx courthouses are probably being put to some use by now -- don't know; haven't been in the Bronx for a long time
Cautionary Note on use of Data - by Shaefer and Wilson
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/551caca4e4b0a26ceeee87c5/t/5702ae13b6aa607cbb96f406/1459793428392/Shaefer-Wilson-Employment-Losses-Seattle.pdf
Seems the anti-min wage fellow was using two different data sources for the same chart -- typical anti-min slovenliness.
What is not noted out loud in the study is that the job loss was only 10,000 out of 410,000. Why do pro-mins (slovenly too? :-]) never take note that may be seen as a positive trade off - the trade off being that the other 400,000 got paid a lot more money.
The 10,000 may mostly represent the difference between the number of those who quit voluntarily because they no longer needed two (or more) jobs minus the lesser number who (re?)entered the workforce in response to a higher wage incentive ...
... that is, assuming the figures were valid in the first place.
Somebody really ought to do a survey on what proportion actually get laid off as opposed to other inputs to the minimum wage raise employment number.