Subscribe via RSS Feed

Donald Trump, Who Profits from Outsourcing

[ 35 ] May 24, 2016 |

150827102252-donald-trump-july-10-2015-super-169

Sure, Donald Trump is lying about his opposition to outsourcing and about his caring whether Americans have manufacturing jobs, but if you are Cornel West, at least he’s doing so authentically!

Donald Trump has been tough on American companies that have moved jobs to other countries. That hasn’t stopped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee from investing in them.

Trump has denounced units of United Technologies Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Mondelez International Inc. on the campaign trail — and has received income of as much as $75,000 from bonds issued by all three since January 2015, according to his latest financial disclosure form released Tuesday. He also has invested in Apple Inc.’s stock and bonds even though in February he called for a boycott of the company for refusing to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist in San Bernardino, California.

I mean, sure, we can talk about how bad these companies are. It’s so much easier for me to do that when a piece of their profits are going into my Swiss bank accounts!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

The Northrup Grumman B-21 Ultimatum

[ 51 ] May 24, 2016 |
Artist Rendering B21 Bomber Air Force Official.jpg

By U.S. Air Force Graphic – This Image was released by the United States Air Force. Public Domain.

 

Jennifer Hlad just happened on a heck of an idea for naming the Air Force’s new bomber:Screenshot 2016-05-24 10.21.58
I like it; kind of scary, but has a strategic feel to it that coincides with the basic purpose of the aircraft.

Jobs for Those Who Lack College Degrees

[ 178 ] May 24, 2016 |

-1x-1

As I have stated many times here, the United States has to create dignified work for people who can’t or haven’t earned a college degree. It’s simply terrible policy to blithely claim that education will solve our problems because it completely ignores the fact that some people are simply not cut out for a college education. And that needs to be OK. Those people need jobs too. It used to be that you could not have a college degree and get a factory job that wouldn’t be too exciting but would pay you decently and had a good chance of being around a long time. But now we have committed to moving factories overseas and automating what is left in the U.S. This has created huge corporate profits but has left a whole generation of non-college educated young people without hope for the future.

The outlook for many high school graduates is more challenging, as Vynny Brown can attest. Now 20, he graduated two years ago from Waller High School in Texas, and has been working for nearly a year at Pappasito’s Cantina in Houston, part of a chain of Tex-Mex restaurants. He earns $7.25 an hour filling takeout orders or $2.13 an hour plus tips as a server, which rarely adds up to more than the minimum, he said. He would like to apply to be a manager, but those jobs require some college experience.

“That is something I don’t have,” said Mr. Brown, who says he cannot afford to go to college now. “It’s the biggest struggle I’ve had.”

Most young workers have the same problem as Mr. Brown. Only 10 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds have a college or advanced degree, according to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, although many more of them will eventually graduate.

And for young high school graduates, the unemployment rate is disturbingly high: 17.8 percent. Add in those who are underemployed, either because they would like a full-time job but can only find part-time work, or they are so discouraged that they’ve given up actively searching, and the share jumps to more than 33 percent.

Younger workers have always had a tougher time finding a job than their older, more experienced counterparts. Even so, the economic recovery has progressed more slowly for young high school graduates than for those coming out of college.

“It’s improved since the recession, but it’s still pretty poor,” said Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, who noted the average hourly wage for high school graduates had declined since 2000 despite increases in the minimum wage in some places.

Ms. Gould is part of a growing chorus of economists, employers and educators who argue more effort needs to be put into improving job prospects for people without college degrees.

“Without question we have failed to pay attention to and invest in opportunities for young people who are not on a path to go to four years of college,” said Chauncy Lennon, the head of work force initiatives at JPMorgan Chase, which has started a $75 million program to design and deliver career-focused education in high schools and community colleges.

The elephant in the room in all these discussions is the end of manufacturing jobs. Policymakers, including the current president, simply have not devoted any meaningful resources to even think through these issues while at the same time intensely pressing for free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership to send even more American jobs overseas. One could theoretically have those free trade agreements and then robust economic programs for the working class, but of course that is not going to happen. These agreements send profits to the wealthy and leave the working class behind with nothing more than lessons to pull themselves up by their boostraps and go to college for programs which they may not be suited for and for which they take out tens of thousands of dollars in debt. This is not a series of policies that lead to long-term social and political stability.

Is Big Oil Finally Getting Smart on Renewables?

[ 16 ] May 24, 2016 |

solar-panels

I have long been flabbergasted that more corporate in the fossil fuel industry didn’t realize there was tons of money to be made in renewables and that grabbing hold of those resources early on would mean lots of profits in the long run. Now that the price of renewables is dropping rapidly, maybe some fossil fuel companies are finally going to get smart.

So has the fossil fuel industry finally woken up to the dangers posed to their futures by a move to a low-carbon world, or is this all “greenwash” – relatively insignificant investments designed to shake off critics?

Or does it just make good business sense for Big Oil to do this at a time when oil prices are low, renewable projects look like steady long-term investments, and green businesses can be snapped up on the cheap?

Some of the moves certainly have serious amounts of cash behind them. Total of France, for instance, announced two weeks ago that it planned to spend nearly €1bn on buying 100-year-old battery manufacturer Saft. Chairman and chief executive Patrick Pouyanné said the deal would “allow us to complement our portfolio with electricity storage solutions, a key component of the future growth of renewable energy”.

There’s other good news presented in this piece as well. But of course there’s a lot of reason to be skeptical:

Even Exxon Mobil, often dismissed by climate change activists as the most conservative oil company of them all, has recently unveiled plans to investigate CCS more fully in a new partnership with a fuel cell company.

But some of the sums being invested are quite small: the Shell New Energies, for example, has a capital expenditure budget of just under 0.5% of its total. And oil companies do have form for shouting loudly about moving into renewables only to beat a hasty retreat.

BP in particular was pilloried for promising to go “beyond petroleum” – then running down its alternative energy division. Shell used to have a very big solar business, but this was scaled down several years ago.

Environmentalists are increasing the pressure on oil companies by accusing them of trying to slow the march to low-carbon energy, if not of being the climate-change deniers some were of old.

There are even claims that Big Oil has been deliberately infiltrating renewable energy lobby groups so that it can push its agenda of keeping gas, in particular, as a “transition fuel” of the future – something the companies deny.

So we will see. Someone is eventually going to make a whole lot of money in this industry. Whether it’s the current players in fossil fuels remains to be seen.

Ban Devices in Classrooms

[ 145 ] May 24, 2016 |

Computers and Lecture

I routinely ban laptops in the classroom because the majority of the students aren’t going to pay attention to the lecture if they have the option to upload photos to Snapchat. I know this to be true, as if I have to attend a boring and pointless campus meeting, I am probably going to be on Twitter or reading the Times or something so that I don’t have to pay attention. But in the classroom, that option then undermines learning.

Now there is an answer, thanks to a big, new experiment from economists at West Point, who randomly banned computers from some sections of a popular economics course this past year at the military academy. One-third of the sections could use laptops or tablets to take notes during lecture; one-third could use tablets, but only to look at class materials; and one-third were prohibited from using any technology.

Unsurprisingly, the students who were allowed to use laptops — and 80 percent of them did — scored worse on the final exam. What’s interesting is that the smartest students seemed to be harmed the most.

Among students with high ACT scores, those in the laptop-friendly sections performed significantly worse than their counterparts in the no-technology sections. In contrast, there wasn’t much of a difference between students with low ACT scores — those who were allowed to use laptops did just as well as those who couldn’t. (The same pattern held true when researchers looked at students with high and low GPAs.)

These results are a bit strange. We might have expected the smartest students to have used their laptops prudently. Instead, they became technology’s biggest victims. Perhaps hubris played a role. The smarter students may have overestimated their ability to multitask. Or the top students might have had the most to gain by paying attention in class.

Of course this is just one study and I don’t really know why the smartest students would flop the most. Perhaps an overconfidence in their own abilities. But there’s no question that playing on devices in class means students aren’t learning as much. The phone issue is much harder to police, but what can you do.

Replication Crisis in Psychology: Part Five

[ 8 ] May 24, 2016 |

Parts one, two, three, and four.

On the question: How should a lab regard its own “failures”?

In a paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Baumeister offers another sort of explanation for why experiments might fail (not open access — sorry!):

Patience and diligence may be rewarded, but competence may matter less than in the past. Getting a significant result with n = 10 often required having an intuitive flair for how to set up the most conducive situation and produce a highly impactful procedure. Flair, intuition, and related skills matter much less with n = 50.

In fact, one effect of the replication crisis can even be seen as rewarding incompetence. These days, many journals make a point of publishing replication studies, especially failures to replicate. The intent is no doubt a valuable corrective, so as to expose conclusions that were published but have not held up.

But in that process, we have created a career niche for bad experimenters. This is an underappreciated fact about the current push for publishing failed replications. I submit that some experimenters are incompetent. In the past their careers would have stalled and failed. But today, a broadly incompetent experimenter can amass a series of impressive publications simply by failing to replicate other work and thereby publishing a series of papers that will achieve little beyond undermining our field’s ability to claim that it has accomplished anything.

Having mentored several dozen budding researchers as graduate students and postdocs, I have seen ample evidence that people’s ability to achieve success in social psychology varies. My laboratory has been working on self-regulation and ego depletion for a couple decades. Most of my advisees have been able to produce such effects, though not always on the first try. A few of them have not been able to replicate the basic effect after several tries. These failures are not evenly distributed across the group. Rather, some people simply seem to lack whatever skills and talents are needed. Their failures do not mean that the theory is wrong.

Read more…

Don’t Forget the Drug-Running At Mena!

[ 83 ] May 24, 2016 |

151221122025-trump-shrug-super-alt-11

Some more real authenticity from Donald Trump:

In one recent interview, Trump said another topic of potential concern is the suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster, which remains the focus of intense and far-fetched conspiracy theories on the Internet.

“It’s the one thing with her, whether it’s Whitewater or whether it’s Vince Foster or whether it’s Benghazi. It’s always a mess with Hillary,” Trump said in the interview.

Well, all three of these things involve equally scandalous behavior by Hillary Clinton, you have to give him that.

Oh Brother

[ 223 ] May 23, 2016 |

Trump_the_art_of_the_dealAbove: a book Donald Trump may or may not have read

Um:

Leaving aside the worthlessness of “authenticity” as a criterion of value, Donald Trump? Nothing says “authenticity” like a rich blowhard with a bad toupee and an almost aggressive indifference to the truth (not to mention his previously expressed views.)

This wouldn’t be worth mentioning except that Sanders made the, ah, interesting choice to make West one of his choices for the platform committee. I guess if he wants to use this the committee a vehicle for trolling that’s his privilege, but it strikes me that someone who not only believes that Barack Obama has been a terrible president but considers it obvious that everyone on the left side of the American political spectrum thinks Barack Obama has been a terrible president is not going to be a very effective negotiator with a group of powerful party regulars.

Erik Visits an American Grave, Part 32

[ 11 ] May 23, 2016 |

This is the grave of Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg.

2015-07-28 14.49.54

Muhlenberg, a son of the founder of the Lutheran Church in America, was a Pennsylvania minister and supporter of the American Revolution. He served in the Continental Congress in 1779 and 1780 and then in the Pennsylvania House from 1780-83. A big supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Muhlenberg was elected to Congress for the first four terms of the body’s existence. During that period, he is most famous for being the first Speaker of the House, serving from 1789-91 and again from 1793-95. The list of other people to hold that post is highly varied, including Henry Clay, James Blaine, James Polk, the detestable Robert M.T. Hunter, Schuyler Colfax, and Sam Rayburn. Recent holders of the position have included Nancy Pelosi, the Crying Man, a child rapist, a defender of Belgian colonialism in the Congo, and the bought man of Charles Keating. Today, the position is held by The Last Serious Man in Washington.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg is buried in Woodward Hill Cemetery, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

When “Public Interest” Means “Oppressing Workers”

[ 100 ] May 23, 2016 |

Nader_ToldYouSo_sidebar

Scott referred to this in his post yesterday, but PIRG’s statement opposing the new overtime rule is outrageous and entirely appropriate given its founding, history, and mode of operation. The argument itself is pure Lochner (public interest indeed!)

Doubling the minimum salary to $47,476 is especially unrealistic for non-profit, cause-oriented organizations. Organizations like ours rely on small donations from individuals to pay the bills. We can’t expect those individuals to double the amount they donate. Rather, to cover higher staffing costs forced upon us under the rule, we will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work – all while the well-funded special interests that we’re up against will simply spend more.

The logic of the rule, as applied to non-profit, cause-oriented organizations, makes no sense. A person of means – in service of a cause to which they feel deeply committed – can volunteer to work for our organization for free for as many hours as they wish, but a person of lesser means – who is no less committed to the work we do – cannot agree to work for our organization for less than $47,476 without having their work hours strictly limited in order to keep our costs affordable. This raises First Amendment concerns.

Yes, paying people overtime is a violation of their First Amendment rights! If this theoretical and entirely non-existent individual who wants to work for low wages specifically for PIRG and finds themselves limited to a mere 40 hours a week of this work, there are clearly no other outlets for their speech! Of course, this is complete garbage. Said individual could always donate the extra pay she made back to the organization, for instance.

PIRG is an utter disaster of an organization. It identifies an always available source of labor–young people, usually college or immediate post-college students, who don’t have a good job lined up and want to do some good. That’s actually a good thing–I wish other left-leaning organizations could find a way to take idealistic people and put them to work doing some good. But all PIRG uses them for is door-to-door fundraising. PIRG has no interest in building organizing skills in these people, no interest in long-term movement building, no interest in helping these people advance to long-term investment in either the organization or larger progressive causes. You can work there for years and advance no further than supervising other fundraisers. All it does it burn out those idealistic people.

I suspect most of us here have known people who worked for PIRG and many of you have probably considered it yourself or even done it. I considered it at one point, but the idea of going door to door asking for money is incredibly distasteful to me. But the working conditions are awful and the pay is low. The complaints listed by former workers here are almost always the same and would be recognizable for people 25 years ago. PIRG is basically a scam to fund a lobbying organization on the work of self-sacrificing true believers. In other words, it shares a lot in common with a religious cult.

None of this should be surprising because Ralph Nader, founder of PIRG, has always hated unions in his own shop.

As it turns out, Nader as a nonprofit entrepreneur has had his own experience with union organizing — from the employer’s side. In one case, unhappy workers at Public Citizen were persuaded to drop their drive to hold a vote on affiliating with the United Auto Workers, and an in-house union was created that over the years won important benefits and worker protections for employees. But in another case, labor-management relations weren’t so smooth.

Amid a dispute with the staff of one of his flagship publications in 1984 over its editorial content and a bid by staff members to form a union, Nader responded with the same kind of tactics that he has elsewhere condemned: He fired the staff, changed the locks at the office, unsuccessfully tried to have one employee arrested, and hired permanent replacements.

When the fired workers appealed the action to federal authorities, Nader filed a countersuit. Applying a legal tactic that employers commonly use to resist union-organizing efforts, Nader claimed that the fired workers were trying to appropriate his business. Nader spurned efforts by other progressives to mediate the fight, and he refused an offer to settle the litigation by simply signing a declaration that his workers thenceforth would have the right to organize.

But that’s not what Nader said at the time. In a June 1984 article in The Washington Post, Nader said his employees and others at nonprofit organizations don’t have a need to organize. “I don’t think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit ’cause’ organizations any more than … within a monastery or within a union” itself, he said. “People shouldn’t be in public-interest groups unless they believe in it and are ready to work for it.” Early on in his career, Nader said, “I worked weekend after weekend after weekend… Now people come here and say they want to fight polluters and unresponsive agencies, but not after 5 o’clock and not on weekends.”

Many employers, especially those who build small companies from the ground up, feel the same way about their businesses. But U.S. labor law is clear — two or more employees can file a letter with National Labor Relations Board noting their intention to try to form a union, and, in theory, they are immediately protected from firing and other retaliatory actions while the case is pending. In practice, however, years of litigation await workers who pursue these cases, even when management doesn’t pursue a countersuit.

In 1984, Tim Shorrock was exactly the kind of crusading journalist that Nader often attracted to his publications. At 33, he was just beginning a career as a reporter that would see him write about foreign affairs, human rights, labor issues, and progressive causes for The Nation and other publications. (Shorrock and I worked for the same publication in the mid-1990s, which is when I first heard his story about working for Nader. I hadn’t spoken with him for several years before contacting him for this article.) Shorrock considered the top editing job at Multinational Monitor a great opportunity. With a staff of two others — Kathleen Selvaggio and Rose-Marie Audette — Shorrock did everything from writing the stories to supervising the printing.

A son of missionaries, Shorrock had grown up in South Korea and Japan and retained an interest in America’s role in South Korea, which had yet to emerge from decades of U.S.-sponsored dictatorship. This interest led him to what proved to be a big story — the news that federal authorities were investigating whether giant contractor Bechtel had paid bribes to South Korean officials while then-Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger were top Bechtel officials. Shorrock says that Nader, who often read the magazine’s copy in advance, was unreachable when the magazine’s deadline came. Since Nader had also been absent at some deadlines in the past, Shorrock printed the story. Newspapers and television quickly pounced on the news, which portrayed exactly the kind of corporate malfeasance that Nader was targeting, and the attention raised the profile of Multinational Monitor. This was the kind of publicity that was supposed to attract fundraising for Nader’s anti-corporate cause.

But Nader wasn’t pleased. He was furious. Shorrock said that, at first, Nader seemed to be overreacting to what Shorrock saw as a misunderstanding about the final editing on a story that other news stories later validated. But then, Shorrock said, Nader started complaining that the story unfairly maligned Weinberger, who had been general counsel of Bechtel during the period when investigators were looking into South Korean bribes. In 1985, a U.S. News & World Report story on odd friendships in Washington mentioned Weinberger and Nader. The story said that Nader had recommended to Weinberger a former protege who later ended up as Weinberger’s deputy at Defense. Richard says today that Nader was a fearless opponent of the Reagan administration and elsewhere criticized Weinberger along with other Reagan appointees. Richard says that Shorrock willfully defied Nader’s instructions to hold the story. Richard produced an August 14, 1984, letter to subscribers that said that management had offered to bargain collectively with workers.

Threatening Ralph’s friendship with Cap Weinberger sounds like a good reason to crush unions to me.

In conclusion:

The Utopian Paradise of Rochester

[ 63 ] May 23, 2016 |

gillette-01

The scheme of the founder of the Gillette razor company to turn Rochester area into a futuristic socialist utopia is fascinating:

Architecture

The primary goal when designing the architecture for Metropolis was to make each public space as beautiful as possible. When building a city of such large undertaking Gillette estimated that world renowned architects would fight for the chance to build a structure that would house an entire nation. Architects would each submit their designs to a bureau of architecture then the plans would be voted on based on their beauty and uniqueness as well as there practicality and longevity. Of all the thirty to forty thousand buildings in the city, no two need be alike in artistic treatment.

“Each and every building of “Metropolis” would be a complete and distinct world of art in itself. Every color and every shade of color would be found in their ceramic treatment. In some instances, there would be a gradual dissolving from a dark shade of color at the base to an almost white at the top of the buildings. In others, the general dissolving of one tint into another would give an effect that would combine all the prismatic tints of the rainbow. In others, a single delicate tint would be the predominating feature. Here, one would look as though chiseled from a block of emerald, another from jet, another from turquoise, and another from amethyst.”

Imagine a city sprawled over three counties with massive buildings each with their own unique world renowned architecture. This would become a world wonder in itself, and encourage people to move and live in the city. Coupled with effective infrastructure and an open public space, city living not only becomes a preferable option it became the only logical residence.

While covering our city in multi colored tiles or jade and emerald is a little far fetched the basic principle of his idea remains the same, city building should be unique and beautiful, adding to the city’s environment instead of subtracting from it.

Who Loses in Globalization?

[ 50 ] May 23, 2016 |

ct-mondelez-meeting-protest-photos-20160518

Above: More beneficiaries of free trade

There are some winners in globalization and a lot of losers. Among the winners are capitalist elites in nearly all nations. Among the losers are the working and middle classes in globally wealthy companies seeing their tenuous hold on a dignified life with hope for the future crushed under an onslaught of capital mobility. Take Mondelez, which makes Oreos and is closing a Chicago factory to move it to Mexico.

Wearing a blue Oreo cookie shirt, Michael Smith stepped to the microphone and addressed the person responsible for cutting his job. Smith, 59, worked at the longtime bakery for about 4-1/2 years before being laid off in March.

“We implore you to please reverse course on the Mexico decision that disenfranchises so many of us here in Chicago,” Smith said to Rosenfeld.

Rosenfeld responded: “We take these decisions very seriously. We fully understand the impact it has on the individual and their families. We made this decision over a year ago. We did move approximately 600 jobs to Mexico to run upgraded equipment that runs much faster than the lines we have here. … Chicago will continue to be a cornerstone of our manufacturing assets in this country. … But we did make a decision that was predicated on our ability to make quality products at an affordable price for our consumers.”

Several of the comments and questions aimed at Rosenfeld highlighted her compensation, which she defended as being largely performance based, juxtaposed against a decision to not make the $130 million investment necessary to upgrade the Chicago plant and keep jobs there. Mondelez executives also have said moving the lines to Mexico — instead of upgrading the Chicago plant — saves the company about $46 million a year.

Rosenfeld received a total compensation of $19.7 million in 2015, a decrease of 6.5 percent from $21 million in 2014, according to recent proxy filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Brandon Rees, deputy director for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, was at the meeting to support a shareholder proposal for recyclable packaging, which failed. In his remarks, Rees also lumped in Mondelez’s decision to “offshore jobs to Mexico” as an example of the company being “penny wise and pound foolish.”

The AFL-CIO has joined the baker’s union in a boycott of Mexico-made Mondelez products.

Rees held up pictures of his daughters and asked Rosenfeld what he should tell them to explain why Mondelez would willingly cut much-needed jobs from Chicago.

“My suggestion to you is to explain to them that business decisions are often difficult and good companies take into account a variety of factors to make those decisions. And when they make difficult decisions, if they treat those who are affected with dignity, respect and fairness, then that’s what you can hope for from a quality company,” Rosenfeld said.

I’m sure those workers’ daughters will totally think of Mondelez as a quality company treating their parents with dignity, respect, and fairness. After all, the company’s CEO only makes $19 million a year. How much can you ask her to sacrifice?

Page 3 of 2,29212345...102030...Last »