blueollie

Male sexual harassment: counter intuitive for me

I asked a question on Facebook about a hypothetical case: if someone had, say, a syndicated show and told a potential guest “if you reject my advances, you won’t be a guest on my show”, is this against the law? I asked because while I think that this is vulgar and immoral, I don’t know enough about the law to judge if it is illegal. After all, no one has an inherent right to be booked on a show. This question was based on a public accusation made against Sean Hannity.

The discussion got a bit sidetracked and one of my friends mentioned male sexual harassment. And the article had this photo:

Now, I am not a female so I don’t know how females might react to a photo of a male doing this to a female; my guess is that the reaction would be very negative (anger, etc.)

Ok, MY reaction to the above photo? My initial gut reaction was….”damn..wish that was me..I’d be returning the favor…nice skirt butt!” But that is an initial reaction to a hypothetical situation and it is part fantasy..not a part of my day to day life. And I am a senior faculty member.

So while I “get” that sexually harassing a male is not acceptable either, my “gut” response to something like the photo isn’t what I’d imagine a female’s response to the reverse situation. The emotions are different.

As far as my professional life (as an adult), I now realize that I had witnessed sexual harassment but did not realize what it was at the time.

Example: I was friends with some of the enlisted clerks at a Navy recruiting station. One of them told me that when a more senior male walked past her, he “goosed” her. I was taken by surprise. Note: her boss (a warrant officer) had told her to leave ME alone as she sometimes hovered over me when i was at the computer. Sometimes she would go past me and make it a point to walk between me and the computer screen. I really didn’t mind; though I was a young officer, I still thought of her as a friend and it didn’t bother me at all. Then again, I outranked her.

Another time, I saw a young officer grab a young enlisted man by the butt..the way that frat boys sometimes do with each other. The enlisted man told him to stop; he said “you know that you love it”. He was clearly annoyed. But this officer continued to get great fitness reports (and he WAS very professionally competent).

I didn’t know what to do; I was never reacted quickly to anything that I am not trained for.

Workout notes: easy 5 mile run; glorious day for it.

April 25, 2017 Posted by | running, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Democrats: always a tough sell…

I’ve spent some time on twitter discussing the 2016 election, and the fine line between critiquing the Clinton campaign (which, IMHO, was terrible) and Hillary Clinton herself (yes, I STILL think that she would be a good president) and going over the various factors that worked against her (sexism of some, Russian collusion, Comey’s ill timed letter, and yes, Trump’s campaign skill, which, IMHO, was underrated).

I might post a link to that long twitter conversation because it started with hostility and ended with understanding; I found myself actually liking the people I was talking to. That is always a good thing.

And so that was true…Obama understood the showmanship side of campaigning AND had the knowledge and deportment to be a good president. Trump has only the showmanship to get elected.

But think about what a tough sell the Democrats have. Read the Facebook feed of liberals sometime. What do you see:

1. People advocating for the poor
2. People advocating for those with criminal records (as my IL-House representative is…and she too has a criminal record)
3. People advocating for someone with this disability or that challenge

On the other hand, Republican politicians usually preach “success” and “achievement”. They deride liberals as those who want to take from the successful and give to the losers and slackers.

Now riddle me this: which “club” would YOU rather belong to? And when someone speaks, who would you take more seriously: someone who is chronically on welfare or someone who has some professional success?

Now, yes, there are those with Nobel prizes in subjects (science, economics, medicine) who are liberal and one doesn’t get more successful than that. And many of my liberal friends hold advanced degrees and/or professional credentials. So we have some success on our side too. But the politicians never say “vote Democrat to become more like someone with an advanced degree”; it is almost “vote Democrat to help out some single mom or someone making minimum wage”. Advocating for those on the lower runs of society will always be a very tough sell, IMHO. And at the national level, we are going to need a Bill Clinton /Barack Obama caliber politician to pull it off.

April 20, 2017 Posted by | Democrats, politics/social, social/political | | 2 Comments

Introspection: good medicine, though not everyone agrees…

A book called Shattered has caused a mini-sensation in some Democratic circles:

Donald J. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in November came as a shock to the world. Polls, news reports and everything the Clinton campaign was hearing in the final days pointed to her becoming the first female president in American history.

In their compelling new book, “Shattered,” the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write that Clinton’s loss suddenly made sense of all the reporting they had been doing for a year and a half — reporting that had turned up all sorts of “foreboding signs” that often seemed at odds, in real time, with indications that Clinton was the favorite to win. Although the Clinton campaign was widely covered, and many autopsies have been conducted in the last several months, the blow-by-blow details in “Shattered” — and the observations made here by campaign and Democratic Party insiders — are nothing less than devastating, sure to dismay not just her supporters but also everyone who cares about the outcome and momentous consequences of the election.

Now this has been tough to talk about in public. IF you dare bring this up and your list of “social media” friends includes followers of liberal/Democratic politics, you’ll get the following:

1. Some will tell you how unelectable HRC was from the get-go and how we should have rallied around BERNIE (no, I am not making this up)
2. Some will bring up the very real factors of Russian collusion (a fact) and the Comey letter (another fact) and mention sexism/misogyny and say that was IT, period.

Many are simply not open to the fact that, even given that a woman is going to have a tougher time of it than a man, and given the Comey letter and Russian collusion, the Clinton campaign WAS a disaster; they neglected areas were Obama campaigned hard. Evidently, HRC and company learned nothing from the 2008 primary. If one remembers: the 2008 primary was essentially tied after Super Tuesday. But the Obama campaign had set up field offices in the next 10 states; HRC did not and she got creamed and fell hopelessly behind in the delegate race. When she recovered, it became even from there on out (more or less) but she was in too deep of a hole to catch up.

So, Clinton campaign incompetence is all too easy to believe.

And one wonders: where was OUR Cambridge Analytics “get out the vote” operation?

I liken it to a football team that goes on the road, gets a few bad calls and loses a close game. Sure, the bad calls matter, but so do the unforced fumbles and missed field goals. It is several things, and the race should have never been close enough to lose to begin with.

And yes, the loser of the election (with perhaps the exception of Walter Mondale, who had zero chance against Reagan) gets raked over the coals. That comes with the territory.

Sure, Hillary Clinton has had an outstanding career; she not only won a major party nomination, but was a Senator and a Secretary of State. That is awesome. She is a success. But she is NOT a natural politician (as she admitted) and her final two campaigns still stunk.

And this leads to the concept of introspection: I’ve found that, at least on a personal level, I benefit from looking at my failures and asking myself: “what could I have done better”? “what will I do differently next time?”

No, this is NOT the same thing as “self loathing”; after all, beating myself up for not being as smart as Stephen Hawking or being a professional athlete is useless (not that I don’t do it anyway, from time to time). But what I am talking about is my critiquing myself when I fall short of MY potential.

And, frankly, I am surprised at how many do NOT see this as a valuable thing to do. So many times, I see people blaming everyone else but themselves (other people, society for not appreciating them, etc.). I’ve never seen that turn out well, but people do it all of the time.

Workout notes yesterday, weights and a 2 mile walk.
Weights: rotator cuff, pull ups (5 sets of 10, easy), bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185, 4 x 185 (no spotter), incline: 10 x 135, military (dumbbell): 20 x 50 seated, supported, 10 x 45, 10 x 40, rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110, abs: 2 sets of 10 yoga leg lifts, 12 twist crunches, head stand , goblet squats (sets of 5) warm up, 45, 45, 55, 55, 60, 65.

today: easy 5 mile run after dropping Barbara off.

Better get to grading: I want to watch baseball tonight!

April 18, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | , | Leave a comment

Beggars can’t be choosers: perpetual takers are rarely respected

I should make it clear what I am talking about: yes, there are physically disabled people that are widely respected; perhaps Stephen Hawking is one of the best known examples of that. They require quite a bit of care from others, but have produced to much of value that they are widely admired. In the world of columnists, Charles Krauthammer (who I almost always disagree with) is similar.

And, of course, there are elderly people who have retired after long, fruitful careers. They have laurels to rest on and, in many cases, quite a bit of wisdom to offer the rest of us.

And the other thing I am talking about: I am NOT making some philosophical statement about “inherent value of a human being”; I am talking about how people are going to be received by others, on the whole.

It has been my observation that those who are always on the public dole or those who perpetually mooch off of friends and family members are not going to be respected. Their opinions are not going to be asked for and people will not seek out their companionship. When they offer their opinions, “I think…” will be met with versions of “no one cares what you think..”, perhaps couched in polite language.

It is a bit like this in action.

That is why I think that “bottom up” movements such as the drive to raise the minimum wage or more health care for the poor are doomed to fail unless others who do not need these programs can be convinced that it is in their best interests to get aboard such programs; perhaps that is why I am such a fan of Paul Krugman.

April 16, 2017 Posted by | economy, social/political | | Leave a comment

Zakaria is right: avoid “Trump derangement syndrome”

It is a sign of the times that I feel the need to state this: yes, I feel that Trump is grossly unqualified to be President of the United States on many levels: experience, deportment, attitude, maturity, humility, intellectual honesty, knowledge, etc. I completely agree with this assessment on Trump’s breathtaking ignorance.

And I am disgusted that so many (if not a plurality) voted for him. Yes, some of his voters are reasonably well off; many have done difficult to do things (run a successful business, be medical doctors, lawyers, military officers, etc.) But as far as this group: I feel that many of these people, while smart, spend most of their intellectual energy at their job and become intellectually lazy outside their job. I wonder if they would hire or promote someone who did not bother to learn the details of the job that they are doing it…and came in thinking that they could just “wing it”, as Trump appears to be doing.

But, I think that too many of Trump’s critics have gone too far. From Fareed Zakaria:

I didn’t really believe that there was such a thing as Trump Derangement Syndrome — hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment. It’s not that I didn’t notice the harsh, unyielding language against him — I’ve said a few tough things myself — but that throughout the campaign, Trump seemed to do things that justified it. Once elected, instead of calming down and acting presidential, he continued the stream of petty attacks, exaggerations and lies. His administration seemed marked by chaos and incompetence.

And then came the strike against Syria. On that issue, Trump appears to have listened carefully to his senior national security professionals, reversed his earlier positions, chosen a calibrated response and acted swiftly. I supported the strike and pointed out — in print and on air — that Trump was finally being presidential because the action “seems to reflect a belated recognition from Trump that he cannot simply put America first — that the president of the United States must act on behalf of broader interests and ideals.” On the whole, though, I was critical of Trump’s larger Syria policy, describing it as “incoherent.” My Post column was titled, “One missile strike is not a strategy.”

From the response on the left, you would have thought I had just endorsed Trump for pope. Otherwise thoughtful columnists described my views as “nonsense” and a sign that the media has “bent over backward” to support Trump. (Really?) One journalist declared on television, “If that guy could have sex with this cruise missile attack, I think he would do it.” A gaggle of former Obama speechwriters discussed how my comments were perhaps “the stupidest” of any given on the subject.

And I agree with him here, sort of. When I first learned of the Trump missile attack, I thought “this sure feels familiar; I could see most any President in my lifetime (except perhaps Jimmy Carter) doing something that at least appeared to be similar, at least superficially. Yes, Trump’s lack of deportment took away the benefit of the doubt that I gave to other Presidents (including Republicans). And I still wonder exactly what we did…it appears that the airfield was still operational, etc.

And oh my, when the generals (perhaps without seeking Trump’s approval) used that 21,000 lb. blast bomb which, to me, was a mere “weapons choice”. Comparing it to a small nuclear device was absurd.

And I’ll say this, just in case. IF Trump decides to seek a universal health care option (say, Medicaid for all) or IF Trump decides to embark on a genuine, conventionally financed infrastructure repair plan (unlikely to be an honest plan, IMHO, but IF), I’d want my members of Congress to work on a deal.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d be very surprised if it happens. Very surprised. But IF…

And let’s talk about that election. Yes, there was collusion with Russia and Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, though no hacking of the actual voting machines. And the Comey letter hurt; Clinton would have probably pulled it out without it.

But that isn’t ALL. First, the Clinton campaign was a disaster; they neglected key states. She is not good “from the podium” (she admitted to not being the natural politician that her husband is). She has a Gore like “Velcro” persona; EVERYTHING sticks to her, whether fair or not. So, IMHO, she screwed up.

And, in the interest of accuracy, fairness and planning: give The Devil his Due. Trump is an excellent con man and his get out the vote operation, armed by sophisticated data mining, was excellent. They knew who to target and how to target them.

But sadly, giving Trump even this much credit is taboo in some circles.

I like to think of it this way: suppose there is a football game where a team wins on a series of very bad calls by the officials. BUT, along the way, the losing team missed easy field goals and fumbled the ball away multiple times AND the other team came in very, very prepared. ALL of those factors (bad officiating, bad play by the losing team, superb play by the winning team) can ALL be true at the same time.

And I believe that an honest assessment on what Trump did *right* in the campaign is a necessary part of winning the next campaign.

April 16, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, republicans, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

One problem with being utterly cocksure…

This article about Mitch McConnell is quite good. Yeah, he is a shrewd politician:

ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis, author of a McConnell biography, “The Cynic,” reports former Republican senator Robert Bennett’s account of what McConnell told fellow Republicans after Obama’s election: “Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that.’ ”

And that’s what he did. By 2013, for example, 79 of Obama’s nominees had been blocked by filibusters, compared with 68 in the entire previous history of the Republic.

After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was confirmed last year, it took McConnell less than an hour to say that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. He called keeping Obama’s nominee off the court “one of my proudest moments.”

He is also a loathsome scumbag and embodies much of what is wrong with our political system. He is about “power for us first and foremost”..presumably because he is so sure that what HE thinks is, well, must be what is best for the country. And in a country where one of our legislative bodies, in theory, can be controlled by the will of a small percentage of the population, that can be terrible.

I much prefer the pragmatists that see “country over party”. He is NOT one of those.

Workout notes: weights then 2 miles of running on the treadmill:

weights: rotator cuff
pullups (5 sets of 10: not that bad)
dumbbell bench press: 10 x 70, 9 x 80 (ran out of gas)
inline bench press: 2 sets of 10 x 135
military press (dumbbell, standing) 10 x 50, 10 x 45, 10 x 45
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110
Hammer Machine incline: 2 sets of 10 x 140
abs: 2 sets of 12 crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, 10 moving bridges

Run: “every 2”: 5.2-5.4 first 10, 6.7-7.1 second 10. 10:56/8:40 and made it to 2.04 miles

I noted, with amusement, the young man who handled way more than he was capable by…only going 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down. Not sure if that was intentional (only working prior to the sticking point?)

April 13, 2017 Posted by | republicans, republicans politics, running, social/political, weight training | | Leave a comment

Sticky place for Democrats

This isn’t yet another postmortem on the stinging Democratic defeat in 2016. But this is more about “how do we go forward”?

Yes, there is a lot of protest about Trump, but where does this protest come from? My guess: not from Trump voters. 🙂

So, one goes to the rust belt to talk things over with Democrats in power there. And they say the same thing: what national Democrats appear to care about is not what the local people care about:

But worst of all, they said, the party hadn’t learned from what they saw as the biggest message from November’s election: Democrats have fallen completely out of touch with America’s blue-collar voters.

“It doesn’t matter how much we scream and holler about jobs and the economy at the local level. Our national leaders still don’t get it,” said David Betras, the county’s party chair. “While Trump is talking about trade and jobs, they’re still obsessing about which bathrooms people should be allowed to go into.”

Others around the restaurant table nodded.

Since the election, Democrats have been swallowed up in an unending cycle of outrage and issues that have little to do with the nation’s working class, they said, such as women’s marches, fighting Trump’s refugee ban and advocating for transgender bathroom rights. […]

He warned Clinton that she had lost all credibility with working-class voters by waffling on trade and offering tepid solutions. He urged in his memo that she talk about infrastructure instead.

“The workers we’re talking about don’t want to run computers, they want to run back hoes, dig ditches, sling concrete block,” he wrote. “They’re not embarrassed about the fact that they get their hands dirty. . . . They love it and they want to be respected and honored for it.”

He sent his memo to Clinton’s top campaign adviser in Ohio and other senior party officials. But Betras never heard back.

Months later, he said he thinks his party leaders still haven’t gotten the message.

Yes, we get it. Making sure that “Loretta” can use the bathroom that, well “she” wants to use is not what is on most people’s minds..nor are women in pussy hats.

But wait…don’t Democrats push for…Medicaid expansion and minimum wage hikes, stuff that helps out those at the bottom of the economic ladder? Well:

Manly dignity is a big deal for most men. So is breadwinner status: Many still measure masculinity by the size of a paycheck. White working-class men’s wages hit the skids in the 1970s and took another body blow during the Great Recession. Look, I wish manliness worked differently. But most men, like most women, seek to fulfill the ideals they’ve grown up with. For many blue-collar men, all they’re asking for is basic human dignity (male varietal). Trump promises to deliver it.

The Democrats’ solution? Last week the New York Times published an article advising men with high-school educations to take pink-collar jobs. Talk about insensitivity. Elite men, you will notice, are not flooding into traditionally feminine work. To recommend that for WWC men just fuels class anger. […]

The terminology here can be confusing. When progressives talk about the working class, typically they mean the poor. But the poor, in the bottom 30% of American families, are very different from Americans who are literally in the middle: the middle 50% of families whose median income was $64,000 in 2008. That is the true “middle class,” and they call themselves either “middle class” or “working class.”

“The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend just wrote me. A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.

Understand Working-Class Resentment of the Poor
Remember when President Obama sold Obamacare by pointing out that it delivered health care to 20 million people? Just another program that taxed the middle class to help the poor, said the WWC, and in some cases that’s proved true: The poor got health insurance while some Americans just a notch richer saw their premiums rise.

And those who are genuinely poor: THEY DON’T WANT TO REMAIN POOR…they don’t want a minimum wage job. They want the jobs that Trump promised.

And here is the dilemma: those jobs are not coming back. Neither are those towns. Automation is not going away, and that is what is killing many jobs.

Example: now-a-days it takes a grand total of 30-35 man hours to produce a complete car:

When Harbour adds up all the man-hours it takes to build a car or truck, including stamping, assembly, engine and transmission manufacture, Hyundai was seventh of seven majors, at 35.1 hours per vehicle in North America. Ford Motor Company was sixth, at 33.88 hours, a 3.7-percent improvement over last year, Nissan was fifth, at an estimated 32.96 hours, or 8.8 percent more time than the previous year, and GM was fourth, at 32.29 hours, a 0.2-percent improvement. Honda was third, at 31.33 hours, a 2.3-percent improvement.

In 1932, it was 92 man-hours.

We simply do not need as many workers to do the same tasks.

So…what to do? The awful truth is that many of those who have lost those good blue collar jobs will either have to retrain for the jobs of today (IF they are capable of doing so) or…be poor.

Trump’s solution was to lie to them and it…just barely…worked.

What will our solution be?

April 6, 2017 Posted by | 2016, Democrats, economy, social/political | | Leave a comment

Woman in a man’s world talk

This was the speaker:

Brigadier General Tate-Nadeau is the first female general in te Illinois Army National Guard. She served a tour in Iraq as the Chief of Operations, Plans, and Public Information at Camp Lincoln and completed a three-year tour in Ramia, Istrael as liaison officer to the Israeli Home Front Command. She retired from the military in March 2017. Since active service, General Tate-Nadeau worked for FEMA and is now the executive director of the Emergency Management and Communications Office in Chicago. Sponsored by the Psychology Department, Women’s and Gender Studies Program, and ICAC.

She spoke for about 45 minutes and took questions along the way. Here are some highlights..some are very interesting.

As far as the pros and cons: she regrets missing key moments with her kids and felt that, when talking to her Army peers, she had to “hide her feminine side” at times. But she was proud of her career, said that her husband and kids were very supportive.

One “pro” of the military: pay was by rank (and by job/duty); no difference between females and males.

She was sensitive to being seen as “the best female”..she wanted to compete to the best period. She also thought that, at times, senior officers took it easier on women (and other minorities) which harmed them later in their careers; they never learned how to meet the tougher expectations that would be expected of those in higher ranks. She was sensitive to the thought that she was promoted as a token, or had “slept her way to the top.”

In terms of combat positions and other jobs: she felt that females had to meet 100 percent of the qualifications, but the qualifications had to be relevant to the job.

An important observation she felt that changes to the culture had to come from within the culture itself. So she had to prove herself and conform to the current culture; that meant drawing some lines and never been seen as being ‘too female”. Once accepted, she could influence the culture. But those “on the outside” really aren’t taken seriously.

Learning to do small things such as develop a “physical posture of confidence” mattered.

In interactions with others: living apart from males meant that she sometimes missed informal or quickly called meetings, so she learned to be the one that called them. She also felt that she had to outwork her colleagues.

Regards to VP Pence’s remarks of not eating alone with a female She was aware that her reputation could be damaged by innuendo. So she never socialized “one on one” with males; she had a rule of 3 when it came to things like meals. She admitted that this sort of thing may have hurt her career; for example generals have aides who stay closely with them. In such a job, one learns much about how a senior officer operates and thinks; the logistics of quarters, not being able to be alone, etc. made it difficult to impossible for a male general to have a female aide.

As far as having it all She admitted that it was “impossible to have it all”. If you do one thing really, really well, you’ll do other things at most “average”.

It was a nice event and I am glad that I went.

April 6, 2017 Posted by | social/political, Uncategorized | , | 3 Comments

Why your CEO approves of Trump

Yes, Trump’s approval ratings are in the high 30’s to mid 40’s; Gallup at 38.

It has dropped some.

But if you talk to many CEOs: well, Trump is doing great! Why? In their world, government regulations and overreach is keeping them from being as profitable as they think that they could be. So, fewer regulations, fewer worries about pollution controls (who cares about a bunch of stupid frogs and snails?)…and lower that tax rate!

Oh, you have things like this: Caterpillar might be in serious trouble for violating tax laws AND economic sanctions. But you see, Caterpillar has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders and if that means setting up some shady shell corporation in Switzerland to avoid those high US taxes, so be it. And if that corporation does business with a country that we have economic sanctions against, well….it is not against the letter of the law, unless…some of those US labeled parts gets mixed in with that Swiss batch…ooops! If we just got the government off of the backs of US corporations!!!

So Trump is doing great! Oh those safety net programs? Well, think of those that you actually know (not read about); those who grew up with you. Many of those who ended up on those safety net programs…really did make a bunch of dreadfully bad life decisions. So what are you going to do…continue to enable them?

Anyhow, they are just fine with Trump; they much prefer him to Obama. Oh…yeah, Trump might not know what he is doing and he might well tank the economy, start a war, etc. But that is long term; the in thing is to think short term.

This is what really matters at the moment:

April 4, 2017 Posted by | republicans, social/political | | Leave a comment

Politics: a candidate I would support would help those that I do not like

I’ve linked to these articles before. One is about Trump supporters remaining loyal to Trump..while being horrified by cuts to programs that they depend on. And I am ashamed to say that one of my deep down reactions was…”hmmm, maybe I should support Trump for reelection since he is sticking it to these bastards”.

But of course, that is terribly shortsighted; after all, people that I do not like spend money that helps the economy overall, and the evidence tells me that demand side economics works. So it is in my long term interest to vote for someone who will benefit people that I do not like.

But my gut reaction to vote to punish is a strong one, and one that others feel as well.

And this is why I think of this notion of “let’s turn to Bernie Sanders” is bullshit. Raising the minimum wage won’t help most right away; besides who wants to spend their life at a minimum wage job anyway? Who wants to be stuck on Medicaid? And, even worse, who wants to face up to the fact that, for at least an uncomfortably large minority of us, that is as good as it is ever going to get?

Now before you scold me, yes, the minimum wage should probably be higher; it hasn’t kept pace with inflation. I believe that there is an optimum minimum wage, and that optimum is probably higher than it is now. But my point is that these issues will NOT create some social tsunami that will lead Democrats back to power. That will NOT happen unless things get a whole lot worse, as in Depression Era worse. We are talking about 25 percent unemployment followed by a world war.

But, if we can elect a candidate who can explain how a “bottom up” economy and “demand side” economics works; that putting more money in at the bottom will make it easier for businesses to have more customers…MAYBE we can peel off just enough support to tip those swing states back.

April 3, 2017 Posted by | economics, economy, political/social, politics/social, social/political | | Leave a comment