Connect with us

Opinion

Europe On The Pacific?

The exodus of work from the land of the Woke has a historic parallel: The old Soviet Union.

A J Rice

Published

on

Spain has a 32 hour work week. We can do better. 

One of the many strange things “practiced” during the pandemic was not working. The government ordered people not to. Businesses were closed – not by their owners. Many never opened again. Workers were arbitrarily declared to be “non-essential” by government bureaucrats and politicians, who considered themselves very essential. 

The problem, though, was that people who weren’t working, weren’t earning. This meant they weren’t paying – rent, mortgage, etc. Solution for the future? 

Pay people not to work.

Many of them still aren’t – because it pays more not to. 

At one point, the weekly take-home pay for staying home was as high as $1,000 – quite stimulating for workers who weren’t earning as much as that when they were working. 

Now California wants to make this “emergency measure” permanent – by paying people to work a four-day week rather than the usual five. 

AB2932 would “change the definition of a workweek from the current 40 hours to 32 hours for companies with more than 500 employees and require overtime pay for making workers work longer than four full days a week.”

Ten guesses as to who ends up paying for that. 

First, of course, the employers. They will have to hire more part-time workers to fill the gap left by those not working and raise prices to cover their losses, i.e., the money they’re having to pay the additional workers. And to make up for the money that would have been earned making things or providing services which aren’t being made or provided one less day per week.

Scarcity always drives up costs, whether it’s goods or labor. But like the doubling of gas prices, this is a man-made variety of artificially created scarcity. One imposed – if it becomes law – by the California legislature. 

Ironically, the costs will be born by those who supposedly benefit – i.e., those paid not to work, as so many have been during the pandemic. They have more time on their hands, certainly. But their money won’t buy as much because it’s worth less. 

This is inflation – now officially conceded to be at least 8.5 percent and actually considerably higher than that, if measured by the previous method of measuring it used back in the ‘70s – when it was well into the double digits. But that was back in the days when one could generally trust in the truthfulness of government statistics. 

“Inflation” is better stated as devaluation. And the usual way money is devalued is by printing – and issuing – more of it. The increased money supply then chases fewer goods and services, as these (unlike freshly printed dollars) cannot be summoned into existence by the stroke of a politician’s pen. 

When money buys less, everything costs more – from gas to rent to food. But at least people won’t be working as much to pay for it all.

Some see this as an incremental prelude or test run for universal basic income (UBI). Lure people with the idea of free money to make them dependent upon government money. When you haven’t earned your living, your living depends upon the sufferance of those who dole it out. Who have the power to not dole it out, if you aren’t obedient.

Yet another cost.

California Democrat Assemblywoman  Cristina Garcia, who co-introduced AB2932, says that the proposed less-work (for more pay) fatwa will “make it easier for women to rejoin the workforce after taking a hiatus to raise children.”

What’s more likely to take a hiatus are the jobs, period – as employers decide to leave California for states where it’s still legal for employees to put in a five-day workweek and people aren’t expected to get paid for not working one day out of each week.

Elon Musk’s Tesla operation has already done just that – though for prior reasons that made getting a day’s work done in California all-but-impossible. He built a plant in next-door Nevada as a way to get back to work when California outlawed working, period – for the “nonessential” – during the pandemic.

Podcaster Joe Rogan moved his business to Texas – to get away from the oppressive taxation that punished him for working.

The exodus of work from the land of the Woke has a historic parallel. The old Soviet Union. where it was cynically said: 

They pretend to pay us – and we pretend to work.

Nicholas Bloom, a professor at Stanford University, told the San Francisco Chronicle that if the state legislature goes through with this business, ” . . .business will reduce employment through hiring freezes and layoffs and slash pay by cancelling the next five years of pay increases.”

Because someone’s got to pay for all this not-working. 

Democrats think they can buy more votes this way but in the end, it will leave everyone paying more – for everything. 


A.J. Rice is author of the book, The Woking Dead: How Society’s Vogue Virus Destroys Our Culture. He serves as CEO of Publius PR, a premier communications firm in Washington D.C. 

Opinion

Pence v. Trump 2024? Former Veep Leaves the Door Open

WHOA!

Published

on

There has been an incredible amount of speculation as to whether or not Donald Trump will be again running for President in 2024, and there are a number of factors still at play that could create seismic shifts in the race to come.

For instance, if Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence were to decide to run against him in 2024’s primary…

Mike Pence is not ruling out the possibility of going head-to-head with his old boss Donald Trump in a 2024 Republican presidential primary, a new report suggested on Monday.

‘We’ll go where we’re called,’ Pence told the New York Times when asked about the possible head-to-head.

‘That’s the way Karen and I have always approached these things.’

Trump was not thrilled with the idea.

Meanwhile Trump, despite not formally declaring a 2024 bid yet, has eyes on the competition – including Pence.

In a statement to DailyMail.com, his spokesman slammed his old deputy as ‘desperate’ and mocked him for trying to ‘chase’ his ‘lost relevance’ amid the former running mates’ latest divide over backing separate candidates in the Peach State’s gubernatorial election.

Former President Trump is said to be waiting until after the 2022 midterms to make an official announcement regarding 2024, but there have been plenty of hints regarding his potential campaign – the latest of which came from former First Lady Melania Trump.

 

There has been an incredible amount of speculation as to whether or not Donald Trump will be again running for President in 2024, and there are a number of factors still at play that could create seismic shifts in the race to come. For instance, if Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence were to decide to run against him in 2024’s primary… Mike Pence is not ruling out the possibility of going head-to-head with his old boss Donald Trump in a 2024 Republican presidential primary, a new report suggested on Monday. ‘We’ll go where we’re called,’ Pence told the New York Times when asked about the possible head-to-head. ‘That’s the way Karen and I have always approached these things.’ Trump was not thrilled with the idea. Meanwhile Trump, despite not formally declaring a 2024 bid yet, has eyes on the competition – including Pence. In a statement to DailyMail.com, his spokesman slammed his old deputy as ‘desperate’ and mocked him for trying to ‘chase’ his ‘lost relevance’ amid the former running mates’ latest divide over backing separate candidates in the Peach State’s gubernatorial election. Former President Trump is said to be waiting until after the 2022 midterms to make an official announcement regarding 2024, but there have been plenty of hints regarding his potential campaign – the latest of which came from former First Lady Melania Trump.  

Continue Reading

Opinion

Verdict Reached in First Russian War Crimes Trial

This is just the first of many, certainly.

Published

on

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a brutal one, and increasingly so as the Kremlin’s soldiers find themselves in more and more trouble of their own making.

As the war grows ever more impossible for Russia to win, the troops sent into Ukraine have been committing a series of worsening atrocities.  It’s terrorism at the least, (and very likely a full-fledge genocide), and it belies just how poorly things are going for Russia.

Now, in the first war crimes trial of the conflict, a verdict has been reached.

In the first of what could be a multitude of war crimes trials held by Ukraine, Russian Sgt. Vadim Shishimarin, 21, was sentenced for the killing of a 62-year-old man who was shot in the head in a village in the northeastern Sumy region in the opening days of the war.

Shishimarin, a member of a tank unit, had claimed he was following orders, and he apologized to the man’s widow in court.

His Ukraine-appointed defense attorney, Victor Ovsyanikov, argued his client had been unprepared for the “violent military confrontation” and mass casualties that Russian troops encountered when they invaded. He said he would appeal.

There was no doubt about the court’s legitimacy, either.

Ukrainian civil liberties advocate Volodymyr Yavorskyy said it was “an extremely harsh sentence for one murder during the war.” But Aarif Abraham, a British-based human rights lawyer, said the trial was conducted “with what appears to be full and fair due process,” including access to an attorney.

Given the sheer amount of heinous deeds the world has witnessed in Ukraine, there is no doubt that more war crimes trials will be coming.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a brutal one, and increasingly so as the Kremlin’s soldiers find themselves in more and more trouble of their own making. As the war grows ever more impossible for Russia to win, the troops sent into Ukraine have been committing a series of worsening atrocities.  It’s terrorism at the least, (and very likely a full-fledge genocide), and it belies just how poorly things are going for Russia. Now, in the first war crimes trial of the conflict, a verdict has been reached. In the first of what could be a multitude of war crimes trials held by Ukraine, Russian Sgt. Vadim Shishimarin, 21, was sentenced for the killing of a 62-year-old man who was shot in the head in a village in the northeastern Sumy region in the opening days of the war. Shishimarin, a member of a tank unit, had claimed he was following orders, and he apologized to the man’s widow in court. His Ukraine-appointed defense attorney, Victor Ovsyanikov, argued his client had been unprepared for the “violent military confrontation” and mass casualties that Russian troops encountered when they invaded. He said he would appeal. There was no doubt about the court’s legitimacy, either. Ukrainian civil liberties advocate Volodymyr Yavorskyy said it was “an extremely harsh sentence for one murder during the war.” But Aarif Abraham, a British-based human rights lawyer, said the trial was conducted “with what appears to be full and fair due process,” including access to an attorney. Given the sheer amount of heinous deeds the world has witnessed in Ukraine, there is no doubt that more war crimes trials will be coming.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week