Posts Tagged ‘unions’

How Unions Created Globalism

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

Over at the Claremont Review of Books, a sensible analysis of the origins of globalism:

That goal is to flee high Western wages. Almost all “global value chains” were set up to acquire the same good—a waiver from accumulated obligations to Western workers. In the work of Thomas Friedman and other boosters you find value chains described as kaleidoscopic, complex, operating in a dozen different countries. Those are rare. There is less to “global value chains” than meets the eye. Most of them, Baldwin shows, are actually regional value chains. As noted, they exist on the periphery of the United States, Europe, or Japan. In this, offshoring resembles the elaborate international transactions that Florentine bankers under the Medicis engaged in for the sole purpose of avoiding church strictures on moneylending. Their purpose is not to seek value in the earth’s far corners but to get across the border to where the customs, expectations, and regulations that arose in the industrial age regarding compensation of the workforce don’t apply.

…Global value chains are extraordinarily delicate. They are vulnerable to shocks. Terrorists have discovered this. In order to work, free-trade systems must be frictionless and immune to interruption, forever.

This means a program of intellectual property protection, zero tariffs, and cross-border traffic in everything, including migrants.

If you are wondering why your nation has been assimilated into a global village of large corporations and compliant governments who act mostly through NGOs, this is why: costs of labor rose, thanks to unions, and so American and European industry began departing those shores in the 1980s, when union action almost destroyed the automobile industry.

Unions drive up costs not only by collective bargaining, but by threatening shutdowns, as were common in the 1980s. This means the company cannot derive any income from its products while its debt keeps getting more expensive, and threatens the company.

Unions today are mostly neutered because of two factors: (1) the government adopted regulations that covered most of their complaints, and (2) offshoring and outsourcing so broke their power that it became recognized that if a strike were threatened, the company would simply close the plant and ship production overseas.

For example, look at some of the data on how unions drive companies to offshore:

The model shows that, when there is imperfect competition on the product market, firms that face strong unions should outsource more of their production of final goods because such offshoring causes a decrease of their quasi-rent and disciplines workers. However, offshoring does not necessarily decrease wages. Then, estimation results show that, indeed, offshoring decreases the size of quasi-rents. A regression discontinuity approach shows that bargaining institutions affect outsourcing. Employment is also shown to decrease when offshoring increases.

How epic was the effect? Quite:

It’s unclear how many jobs were offshored between 1979 and 2001, but data shows there were 398,887 private manufacturing establishments of all sizes in the United States during the first quarter of 2001, and by the end of 2010, the number had declined to 342,647 — a loss of 56,190 factories.

Unions wreck not just profits, but productivity and work quality. They leave behind obligations that no one can pay, and a workforce which is bloated, spoiled, selfish, and vindictive.

This is why companies outsourced and got away from unions. Regulations, which at some level make sense, took on a political dimension and began to involve more than health and safety, raising costs further. More companies went away then as well.

Like socialism, unions are a form of a collective, insisting that people be rewarded before performance instead of after performance. This means that bad is rewarded along with good, and counteracts the necessary principle of competition. Individuals join in collectives in order to advance their own interests at the expense of the larger group, dooming themselves to eventual replacement.

The same principle drives immigration. When domestic workers get too expensive, firms look for workers with a lower cost curve and externalize their costs to government social programs. As long as the West pursues its policy of collectivism, it will always lose productivity and gain outsiders who, realizing they are not vested, then agitate for power.

Trump Exits The Paris Agreement On Climate Change

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

The usual nutcases and droolers are neurosing wildly over Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate accord:

Citing a litany of statistics disputed by environmentalists, Trump argued Thursday that the pact would hurt domestic manufacturing and other industries and would put the United States at a “permanent disadvantage” with China, India and other rising powers. Staying in the accord, he said, would cost the United States as many as 2.7 million jobs by 2025 and as much as $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product.

…“The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris agreement,” Trump said. “They went wild. They were so happy. For the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.”

Remember how Europeans cheered when America elected Obama, and were complimenting us on how “progressive” we were? When your competition encourages you to do something, it is usually a bad idea, and Europe is still irked by American power and the necessity of European dependence on it if they do not want to be speaking Russian or Chinese.

Perhaps we should consider the words of George Washington in his “Farewell Address” to the nation:

If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Washington warned us against what are now referred to as “entangling alliances,” or treaties which bind us to action when other nations encounter certain situations. The classic example would be a treaty to go to war against any nation that attacks an ally; however, agreements to follow climate standards specified by foreign scientists and governments would also qualify.

In this sense, a nationalist sense, every nation must find its own path and through that independence, will determine its own future. That becomes difficult when we consider that human impact on the environment concerns resources that are shared worldwide. Then again, when a superpower acts, others will follow, without a treaty being required.

The world is denial of the cause of its environmental problems; “climate change” is a Leftist invention designed to disguise the real problem, which is population growth which is almost exclusively occurring in the third world. The Leftist “solution” is to transfer wealth from the first world to the third, which will then cause a further population boom.

A more sensible policy would be to end immigration, deport those foreign to the founding group in all nations, and then stop giving aid and economic trade to the third world. Let us take care of our own needs, and then world population will not explode on a boom created by Western economies, Western medicine, Western political stability and Western goodwill.

When we take care of ourselves first, each nation realizes that it must solve its own problems, and then has to ask itself what type of life fits its people. For many in the world, subsistence farming and tribal warlord social order provides the best sustainable option. With the withdrawal of Western companies, these societies could define their own future.

It also makes sense to ask why the West is so active in the third world. The simple answer is that unions raised the costs of our labor to insane levels, and they were protected by government, so our manufacturers relocated their production offshore. There, they do not face affirmative action lawsuits, strikes and shutdowns, endless regulations and the high cost of hiring flaky underclasses.

As with most first world problems, our error consists of projecting ourselves outward instead of solving our problems within. Unions have always been parasites, but it is taboo to say this, although as union power falls — but not dues and ties to organized crime and the Democrat party — that taboo is eroding at the edges. Trump is withdrawing the US from where it is causing problems worldwide.

Caution About The Dual Seth Rich Narratives

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

Controversy over the murder of Seth Conrad Rich demonstrates more than anything else that we cannot trust our media or government to give us answers.

The uncontroversial facts are that he was shot twice in the back, had scrapes on his knees and hands, and had the band of his watch torn. The government and media say he was killed during an attempted robbery; Rod Wheeler and Fox News claim he was killed for leaking information to Wikileaks.

While we are distracted with those smoke and mirrors, let us look at the hidden story of Seth Rich:

There is tangible evidence on the laptop of a former DNC staffer that confirms he was talking to WikiLeaks prior to his murder, a private investigator suggested Monday.

…“The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” Wheeler told the station. “They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”

Remember that Leftists specialize in brain spam, or generating a flood of information which baffles you until you are made inert by “analysis paralysis.” The Seth Rich conspiracy controversy most likely exists to obscure a simple fact: we would like to know what was on his laptop and phone, and somehow this information has vanished.

If, for example, he had even more damaging secrets than the emails that were leaked, it would be useful to misdirect public suspicion in such a way that this never got mentioned.

The herd will fight over whether the Clintons shot him or he was robbed, and the real issue will be buried.

In the meantime, we have to wonder what a real hit would look like. In my view, Rich would have been found at home with a needle in his arm and three pounds of heroin in his underwear drawer. Even better, a heap of psychiatric meds. That way, any information that came from him would be viewed with suspicion.

An even better way would be if he were found drunk behind the wheel of his car, crashed into a tree, or if he were simply run over by a speeding drunk late one night. Part of the war is the public relations battle, and the Left excels at this.

Instead, we have a somewhat sloppy robbery and physical evidence consistent with him resisting the robbery, then getting shoved to the ground and shot by assailants who presumably vanished into the night, perhaps after having been startled by a passing car or light turning on nearby.

People are right to fear the Clintons. There are too many deaths around them for all of those incidents to be coincidence. But in the most compelling cases, the deceased were found dead by suicide, alcoholism or drug abuse. This both discredits the individual and gives a plausible story that they were the cause of their own deaths.

We know that the Left has a long history of linking arms with unions and organized crime. All unions seem to have links to organized crime, and the Left is if nothing else vastly funded by unions and has used union personnel in its public demonstrations and dirty tricks department.

Would a union hit look like this? Maybe, if they were simply weekenders. That is more plausible than an organized crime hit, which would have most likely been either a quick shooting with two to the heart and one to the head, or a complex setup involving some way of implicating Rich in his own demise.

The real issue is that laptop. The case of the shooting may never be solved, but the trail of the secrets grows cold while the two sides bicker over this, keeping the sideshow running while shadowy figures move decisively in the darkness.

Living In A Post-Capitalist Market Economy

Friday, May 12th, 2017

Back in relatively more innocent times, business responded to its consumer base, who were unified by culture and regulated by an informal caste system which made the most productive into the most discerning and valued customers.

As this got democratized, however, business became more responsive to government through the rise of unions and regulations. Now, government defines the opportunities, and so business responds to the ideological initiatives of government.

Consider union-driven, government-supported resistance to Walmart:

When he was mayor, Michael Bloomberg supported Walmart’s efforts to open a store in New York, but the company faced unremitting resistance from unions and elected officials, and it gave up the fight once de Blasio moved into Gracie Mansion. “I have been adamant that I don’t think Walmart—the company, the stores—belong in New York City,” de Blasio said.

Walmart’s benefits are obvious to shoppers and to economists like Jason Furman, who served in the Clinton administration and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama. In a paper, “Walmart: A Progressive Success Story,” Furman cited estimates that Walmart, by driving down prices, saved the typical American family more than $2,300 annually. That was about the same amount that a family on food stamps then received from the federal government.

How could any progressive with a conscience oppose an organization that confers such benefits? How could de Blasio and the city council effectively take money out of the pockets of the poorest families in New York? Because—though they would deny it—they care a lot more about pleasing powerful labor interests, especially the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), which helped lead the long fight to keep Walmart out of the five boroughs.

The grim reality is that centralization is highly effective. Economies of scale dictate that a product purchased in lots of one million will be much cheaper than those purchased by the dozen. Walmart centralized its purchasing and distribution, and so can make good profit on products that are far cheaper than those of its competitors.

But the unions opposed it, mainly because Walmart fights unions, since it sees no point in paying money to parasitic institutions whose function is better handled by the market and legal liability for abuses, which is actually what curbed abusive workplaces in America’s past. However, unions are popular because they create the appearance of being for the little guy and against the big guys, which is the core of the Leftist egalitarian narrative.

As many remember, the Left always fights against any system which wants performance before reward, and replaces it with systems where reward comes independent of performance. This is the nature of socialism and social welfare states like we have in the USA.

Government also likes the idea of reward independent of performance because this creates voters who are dependent on government, and obliterates those troublesome things like culture and heritage that stand in the way of absolute government power. For government, ideology is a means-to-an-end of having permanent control.

When government gets involved, businesses become ideological agents as well because this is the way they play nice with government, unions and the zombie voters created by Leftist ideology.

Capitalism is far from ideal. It can easily be subverted if the buying public act like idiots, which people in groups tend to do, regardless of their actual IQs. But it works better than everything else.

However, in the hands of ideologues, it becomes a weapon for advancing Leftist ideology, which transitions the West into the type of Soviet ideology totality which has caused empires before us to fail as well.

Unions Were Always Nonsense, But Now We See The Damage

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

In addition to the public unions in Dallas running out of money, private unions are also collapsing because their business model never made sense:

Chmil is one of roughly 4,000 retired Teamsters across New York State suffering a fate that could soon hit millions of working-class Americans — the loss of their union pensions.

Teamsters Local 707’s pension fund is the first to officially bottom out financially — which happened this month.

…“This is a quiet crisis, but it’s very real. There are currently 200 other plans on track for insolvency — that’s going to affect anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million people,” said Nyhan.

…“Municipal and state plans are the next to go down — that’s a pension tsunami that’s coming,” he said. “In many states, those defined benefit plans are seriously underfunded — and at the end of the day, math trumps the statutes.”

Math trumps the statutes. In other words, voting so that something will be so is different from making it so that it can be so. Voters have never understood cause and effect, and confuse them with one another, so they assume that what a plan says it will do is what it will do. Until of course the math trumps the statute and everyone ends up broke.

As usual in democracy, what wins is what people will vote for, even if it is total illusion. In the media, what wins is what people wish to believe was true and therefore will buy media products affirming that vision. In consumerism, the promise of the product wins, even if the planned obsolescence kicks in and it falls apart after a few months.

People are unlikely to protest these problems because they are rationalizing animals, which means that whatever comes their way they explain as good by reversing the thought process from cause/effect reasoning to circular, effect-based reasoning. And so time after time the voters approve of insane, illogical and obviously unworkable plans.

The politicians then abscond with the money and fame, knowing that it will be decades before the bomb that they have set goes off. The same is true of unions themselves. Workers demand more from an industry than they are worth, and use threats of strikes and laws to enforce it. The response by industry is to outsource or automate, because they cannot compete at union rates.

Now, for the first time, the average American worker is realizing that unions can lie and therefore, these promises may not ever materialize — but the union leaders will get paid on time, of course, and they have private retirement plans.

As the Right explained back in the day, unions are a scam. They take from the business and give some to the worker, but keep most for themselves. This is why they are always associated with organized crime. Then, they drive away the business and only the union leaders get paid. This makes it hard to feel much sympathy for these people whose pensions have “suddenly” bottomed out.

All Things Are Self-Serving

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

If traditional society has an essence, it is a focus on context and pattern instead of objects themselves, because it recognizes that any thing out of place in the hierarchy and order of nature will become an all-consuming force. For example, beer is delicious, heartening and enjoyable but when pursued to excess, becomes a replacement for life much like ideology, money, power and individualism.

This applies to institutions, governments, organizations, power itself and even abstract concepts. Capitalism, for example, is the only working economic system we have found, but if left to its own devices, it produces the scenario we see in American stores: refrigerators, cheaply made in China, which have a lifespan of four to seven years and a failure rate of 10% within three months.

Once upon a time, less than a generation ago, refrigerators lasted for up to forty years. They were built solidly with few features and produced domestically. A person could expect to own two of these in a lifetime and, when parts wore out, to replace them, because the designs did not vary substantially over time.

What went wrong? We might argue that the new way is more efficient: cheaper refrigerators, newer features, and a wider variety. But underneath that glitz, the refrigerators are not cheaper, especially not in lifetime ownership, since you need to buy ten of them to equal the ownership duration of the past. Capitalism is rewarding itself by, once it has a captive audience, extracting wealth from them.

Naturally other factors are present. Is it capitalism to blame because an industry has overgrown itself and consumer, responding to new features and price, ignored the better options so that those companies then went extinct? Or, as argued here before, perhaps we should blame unions, which raised the price of labor so much that it was offshored and then, when those countries learned to manufacture refrigerators on their own, replaced entirely with imports.

Another factor is the need to keep people employed. A company, beset by regulations and a highly mobile labor force, has to hire more people and so grows constantly like a bloated beast. At that point, it must squeeze more money out of the product, so turns to “planned obsolescence.” But it is hard to argue that planned obsolescence will not be conceived of by a firm, and once it succeeds, others will follow suit to keep their own profits comparable.

This shows us a principle of existence: all things are self-serving, and if not kept in check by some form of power above them — aristocrats, culture, legal liability or media — each thing expands to take everything that it can and passes those costs on through externalization to the collective. Everyone suffers when refrigerators are constantly dying without a technological need for this to be so.

As a salesman said, “They make them cheaply in China. Sure, they’re crap — but everyone makes out like bandits on this side. We sell insurance and make a good profit. The firms keep the name here, and buy them from overseas, and that means jobs for everyone in the office, even if not in the factor. It’s just you the consumer who suffers.”

We can see this profile in other industries as well, such as the lügenpresse:

Far from the British press being the champions of free speech, as the popular buffoon Jeremy Clarkson has suggested, they are instrumental in shutting it down.

The press has an interest in suppressing free speech because free speech competes with the press. If the media offers our only perspectives on the world, then they have a monopoly on news information and will profit greatly. If others, such as citizen journalists like Millennial Woes, are able to draw large audiences, then those are a business threat.

All across the West a great cash-in has been occurring since the 1990s. Without the Soviets to compete with, we turned on ourselves, and every industry became greedy in order to comply with the parasites (unions, governments, lawsuits) and to extract as much as it could from the captive audience in the middle class. Eventually, it killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and now a backlash has begun.

In the future, our thought will not focus on deconstruction, or isolating ideas like capitalism as solutions in themselves, but on context, or how to balance different self-interested forces under the command of some purpose and principles which benefit our civilization as an organic whole. This is the only way to arrest the ongoing parasitism and restore a healthy, joyful life so we are strong enough to want to survive.

How To Create Toxic Elites

Saturday, December 31st, 2016

Our elites are toxic, and our proles made it so.

The dominant story throughout human history is that people specialize in illusions, and when they get together in groups, they create an echo chamber which reinforces those illusions, and then they force those on others.

Then “intellectuals” get famous for inventing alternate stories about how it was not human group stupidity arising from our individual selfishness that did us in, but something else… something external to whatever group we perceive ourselves as part of.

Hence the mania, these days, to blame any group of elites: the Left blames the Rich™ and the Whites,™ and the Right blames the Globalist Elites.™ (And everyone seems to blame The Jews,™ which is causing many Jews to identify as right-wing in order to point out that Jewish Leftists are just as crazy as regular Leftists, but non-Leftist Jews are not part of that craziness and wish to avoid mass graves in the coming physical removal of Leftists — smart of them).

This is how intellectuals distract: they invent a positive story about our shiny future, identify a scapegoat that threatens it, and then push us toward an ineffectual but emotionally satisfying method of achieving that future, usually some variant on the universal sensations that make a room buzz: we are all one, peace on earth, love/accept/tolerate everyone, we are all equal, trust Jesus, etc.

All of those solutions amount to exactly the same thing: accept everyone, ignore goals, and do nothing. This is why they are popular: they are social tokens that signal happiness and success, but require absolutely nothing from the people involved except making the right noises and participating in a few symbolic activities.

In fact, the universal path to human social success is the same as the path to civilization doom: conjure up social pacifism by telling everyone that they are OK, and distracting from the real problem to focus on appearance, so that no one has to change themselves to adapt to reality, making them feel like they have finally escaped from the burden of Darwinism and common sense.

Once you get equality in place, however, you can no longer recognize that some people are born to rule by the fact that they have greater ability in this area. Your best neurosurgeon, computer programmer or car mechanic does not necessarily make a good leader, just like the guy sweeping the floor at the coffee shop probably makes a bad neurosurgeon (and most likely is already a bad programmer).

The reason you recognize right to rule by birth is that it keeps people from having to clobber each other to get ahead, and also, gives everyone who is comfortable with a reg’lar job a chance to succeed unless they are outrageously incompetent. When each person starts at zero, we will all be ranked by how far we get, and so life will become constant struggle to “get ahead” which involves holding others back.

Our modern time exploded into stupidity, cruelty and avarice when we abandoned the caste system. It seemed unfair to the proles, you see, and they are always their own worst enemy because what they choose inevitably empowers those who are cruel at the expense of those who are not. If you feel you are living on planet nitwit and most of your species are idiots, this is the reason why: the herd makes bad decisions.

If you want to know why so many psychotic laws and decisions were made, look to this competition. It enforces xenophilia, for example, because if you get ahead and want others not to, the best way to keep them down is to destroy them with cheap imported labor. With competition, no one can enjoy what they already have; every other person in society is most likely trying to seize it away from them. That is why people act to smash down the others while trying to climb up themselves.

Blame can be cast ultimately at the feet of poorer Caucasians in the cities. Our media likes to blame rural poor Caucasians, which as you know if you have been paying attention so far, is a scapegoat/distraction pair. They are doing this because they want to excuse the poor whites in cities who for years eagerly approved of big government, unions, diversity and other parasitic programs out of a desire to screw the rich. It backfired, because this just gave those in power a way to raise costs on the urban white poor and therefore, deactivate them as any kind of political force — they are too busy working and being driven neurotic by the insanity of the city to do anything. Proles self-defeat again.

Toxic elites spring up in these kinds of situations. They are chosen by nitwits through democracy, which means that appearance is more important than reality and whatever happens after the vote is forgotten; they must keep their position, so they give to the thronging masses what that herd demands, which turns out to be exactly what will destroy it. And so, with everyone miserable, the toxic elites have both lots of problems to claim to solve, and many methods of keeping the round-headed in their place.

A sensible society ends this competition caused by equality, and instead segregates its natural elites and gets them out of the job market by giving them wealth and power. At that point, they have nothing to prove, but are put into a role from which they cannot escape in exchange, and so become the smarter people who organize their local societies, to the benefit of all.

Unnecessary Work Blights Modernity

Saturday, November 5th, 2016


A friend of mine once observed that most of his cell phone bandwidth was caused by automatic downloads of updates to applications he never used. He cannot get rid of them because they are part of the default installation, and so removing them leads to them re-installing themselves.

Why, one might ask, do we have constant updates to just about everything? The suits have an answer: for security, or better performance. And yet, these applications are rarely used, and with each update, they grow bigger and lose focus on whatever it was they did originally.

The companies force us to have them. The applications force updates. And then, the cycle begins again. At each iteration, the phone works more slowly and has less space because of the increasing bloat.

This process resembles most of the work in the West now, which is unnecessary, pro-forma “make-work” created by the management structure.

A company decides it needs an application. Its business managers make the right deals to get it included with an operating system. Then, a manager is appointed to develop the application. She hires programmers, and because the higher-ups have imposed unrealistic requirements and limited the budget, cuts corners.

The resulting application is bad, but that is good. Otherwise, the manager could not get more money approved. More money comes in, but she must demonstrate it is necessary, so she hires more people. Now these people need reasons to stay employed, so she begins introducing feature creep.

At first, the changes are to improve obvious non-functional parts of the app. However, the really big fixes have to wait, because those are hard and could go wrong. Instead, the team focuses on window-dressing and adding unnecessary function to cover the buzzwords of the day. This is why all apps connect to the dying Twitter platform.

The incentive is on the manager to invent nonsense “needs” that will keep her team employed, and break the app so that future updates are needed. They add Twitter function, but now email does not work. They fix email, but now Twitter does not work. On and on, to keep the project alive long enough.

Long enough for… what? For the manager to declare victory and get hired elsewhere. The project now passes to a new manager. In the eyes of upper management, the app is a success, so his job is to do essentially nothing. This means that he can add new features, as long as they are not used, because that way, he cannot be wrong.

The higherups look down and approve.

Five years later, the app — say, a weather update or address book — is the size of an operating system in the late 1990s. Huge parts of it either do not work or work so badly that no one uses them, which means that no error reports come in and these parts are on that basis judged to be a success.

At this point, The Peter Principle kicks in. Any manager who is good enough to fix this app will cause conflict by pointing out that it has major problems, needs an overhaul, and by implication, that past shining progress reports were nonsense and bloviation.

Management cannot have that. Instead, they appoint people who are easy to control, so that higher management jobs are not at risk. This means that the person overseeing the app now is incompetent, or of such limited options that he will never rise above this point. His goal then is to never touch the important stuff, and focus on the unimportant.

At every level of our society this process repeats. The idea of “accountability,” which is the notion of responsibility reduced to appearance to others who do not understand the process, ensures that any action with risk will result in a firing, but the usual incompetence and mental laziness will make a thriving career.

If you wonder why every aspect of our society seems to be simultaneously glitching, this is why: people are risk-averse due to accountability, and simultaneously motivated to address trends and buzzwords, which means that the essential task of any product is just about forgotten.

People tolerate it until another option becomes available because complaining is like screaming at a wall. The complaint form does not have the right options, or it goes to fifteenth-tier technical support, which can only make a note in the complainer’s personal file which no one else ever sees.

On top of this, our society has piled burdens. Regulations consist mostly of paperwork requirements, so the team spends most of its time on that. Fear of lawsuits means that rigorous processes exist for every change to anything, so most changes are never attempted because they are both risky and mind-numbingly tedious.

Add to this unions whose goal is to ensure collective reward, which means that the incompetents get rewarded and cannot be fired, right along with the competent ones. This drives the competent away because they cannot exercise their skill, which is fixing things, because fixing things endangers management and unions.

Then we throw in affirmative action. A company can be sued for not hiring a woman or minority, so when the choice involves one of those, they always hire. This pads the rolls with people who, it is discovered after they are hired, have only one competence, which is being from a protected group. They now cannot be fired.

Further, women in the workforce tend to focus on details at the expense of the whole. They will ensure that every single aspect of the non-working function to the non-working app is precisely as demanded, and spend all of their time on that, while ignoring the basic fact of its dysfunction.

In the meantime, workers are bored out of their minds because their tasks are incremental. Management and regulations love this because it separates everything out into little boxes which can then be managed directly, instead of through a chain of command or organically, like by seeing what works and keeping only that.

This fosters a Soviet-style bureaucracy onto the free market. Our fear of job instability leads to something worse, which is useless jobs, which are then more unstable because when the time comes to cut, who cares if the app gets lost — they can farm it out to India for the useless updates, save money and duck unions, lawsuits and regulators.

The workers, like panicked monkeys hearing a leopard cry in the night, demand more unions and regulations. Management approves because these make business more expensive for the little guy, which makes blatant incompetence less likely to get displaced.

It all goes on like this, a sick circus of people wasting their irreplaceable time with useless activity, until the economy collapses. Then everyone gets fired, things get reshuffled, and they can start the process all over again.

“Service Economy” Means Third World Economy

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016


The Leftist notion of money is demand-side: if enough people are willing to borrow money, that makes it valuable, and therefore it must be worth something. What they fail to understand is that easy money becomes reduced in value. Such is the case of the “service economy.”

In addition to burdensome regulations and expensive legal bureaucracy like that created by affirmative action, Leftist governance has given us constant immigration, high costs incurred by unions, and a workforce swollen to twice its normal size by the addition of women. This has reduced the value of the worker and sent manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Left seems consummately unaware of the effects of its actions. For example, unions thought they were winning, but instead like inept parasites, they killed the goose that laid the golden egg much as Leftists have bankrupted the West by marginalizing its founding genetic stock who were capable of the great things that made the West great in the past.

Between the rising cost of labor and the increasing cost of doing business, the good jobs have gone to very few. This year it is the Silicon Valley geeks who seem to be getting paid a shedload of money to write bad code, but not for long. A few people get those law, medical, architecture and business degrees, and everyone else lumps it at entry-level positions.

Where once we were making products for our own consumption, we now make very little and usually have the making done abroad with the money at home going to a smaller cadre of administrators and specialists. This has created a slow-growing, “anti-materialist” economy in which equality is occurring through lack of better options:

Productivity in the services tends to grow much more slowly than productivity in making stuff. If the Fed targets inflation at 2%, then a slowdown in measured RGDP growth (whether accurate or not) will lead to lower NGDP growth, and therefore lower nominal interest rates. Thus the zero bound problem in monetary policy is partly due to the fact that young people prefer eating out and surfing the web, to the kind of auto-centered lifestyle once described by Bruce Springsteen or the Beach Boys.

As with every other Leftist policy, liberal economics result in equal impoverishment except for the new elite who comfortably do not much of anything important but get paid quite a bit. This manifests itself in the typical incompetence of our leaders and experts who seem unable to even coherently address obvious problems. The situation is unstable and cannot endure.

Unions Are Parasitic By The Nature Of Collective Bargaining

Saturday, August 6th, 2016

Yet another view to how parasites have burned down a once-prosperous nation:

American Airlines (NASDAQ:AAL) and the TWU-IAM Association announced in a joint statement that they have reached an agreement in a deal that affects 30,000 unionized ground workers, effective immediately. American Airlines currently estimates the pay hike will increase pre-tax costs by $75 million in the third fiscal quarter and $120 million in the fourth fiscal quarter.

The deal covers 12 organized groups of workers in maintenance, fleet service, and other related jobs. The terms of the deal include: raises ranging from 15% to 36% for maintenance and other related employees, 24% for fleet service employees, 31% for tower planners, and 55% for weight and balance planners. Union officials claim the pay raises will net an average of a 22% increase for the unionized employees.

Executives at American Airlines said that employees in the organized groups will hold the highest hourly wages when compared with others working for rival carriers in the industry.

We are conditioned to think this is acceptable, but it is not. Collective bargaining is a strike against quality and ensures that better workers will not be rewarded. With a union action, the worst worker is rewarded as much as the best, which reduces incentives to improve and creates a disincentive to the better workers. The best can no longer pull ahead of the pack because the worst have been brought up to their level.

In the meantime, the costs are passed along to the consumers, who apparently are oblivious to both quality and cost and blithely wave it aside. When the elections come around, they have either forgotten outrages like this, or are thinking of their own unions and their hope of being “guaranteed” more money without having to do anything for it.

Economies work like decentralized calculators. For healthy results, ensure that economic Darwinism is present: reward the best, and give nothing or pink slips to the rest. For bad results, ensure that the people you should fire and the people you should promote get exactly the same reward.

Unions are like pacifism, communism and lynch mobs based on the principle of “equality” which is the opposite of quality, health, sanity, reality and every other good thing.

Recommended Reading