Surprise: After Target Raised Their Minimum Wage, They Reduced Employee Hours

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 10:30 am

Seriously, did anyone see this coming?

(The Blaze) Target announced two years ago that it would raise the companywide minimum wage to $15 per hour by the end of 2020, winning plaudits from progressives and advocates for an increased minimum wage.

Now, with just one year before Target is scheduled to hit the magic $15 mark ($13 is the current minimum wage), it turns out that raising the minimum wage has impacted many Target employees in the exact way that opponents of mandatory minimum wage increases predict.

CNN Business spoke to numerous current and former Target employees who revealed their hours at the retail giant have been cut since Target announced its push to increase the store’s minimum wage, which for many employees means they lose their health insurance benefits. Target offers health benefits to employees who work more than 30 hours per week.

One employee, Heather, told CNN that when her hourly pay rate increased, management cut her total work hours.

“I got that dollar raise but I’m getting $200 less in my paycheck,” she said. “I have no idea how I’m going to pay rent or buy food.”

Other employees, Caren and Michael, told CNN their hours were cut substantially. Caren said she lost her health insurance — forcing her to quit her job — while Michael has had to pick up a side job just to make ends meet.

There are two choices when raising wages in a situation like this: cut hours or increase prices. Start raising prices and people go elsewhere.

One of the reason hours are being cut is the development of retail automation, namely in the form of the self-checkout line.

“They really cut those hours back from them with the introduction of self-checkout,” a former store director told CNN.

Automation has no salary. It has a cost, but, over time, that cost is less than that of multiple employees. And, as the article points out, Target is hiring a lot more people, mostly part time, since they do not get benefits, which is a big cost savings for Target.

There’s a price to be paid for being Woke. Target was happy to be all Woke when they raised the wage. See, there’s a third choice when companies do this: take it on the chin in terms of profit. Most aren’t willing to do that, though.

Read: Surprise: After Target Raised Their Minimum Wage, They Reduced Employee Hours »

Posted in Economy | 31 Comments | Trackback URL

Democracy May Be An Obstacle To Climate Action Or Something

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 8:19 am

We’ve already established that a chunk of the Cult of Climastrology is against actual democracy, and would prefer an authoritarian style government. This is just another nail in the coffin (via Watts Up With That?)

Both conservatives and liberals can agree on action on climate change

We tend to assume that democracies, over the long arc of history, work towards progress and justice. But with an issue like climate change, we’re running out of time.

It may come as a surprise, but at the moment, democracy may be an obstacle to the rapid action we need on climate change.

Democratic governments naturally swing back and forth between conservative and liberal control. But environmental issues are increasingly associated with liberal values exclusively in countries like Canada and the United States.

The transition from a liberal government to a conservative one often leads to a relapse of environmental policies, including program cuts, delays and even outright rejections or silencing of the science underlying climate change.

Now, in all fairness, the writer, Christian Elliott, a PhD Student and Researcher, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, attempts to find a way to make sure that climate action continues regardless of which party is in charge, be it the U.S., Canada, or other countries with democracy roots.

Environmentalism is often cast by conservatives as a “regulatory science,” a project of big government. Yet any cursory scan of prominent policy ideas about climate run the gamut of the philosophical spectrum, from initiatives that rely on market innovation and dynamism to complex regulatory regimes, taxes and public sector transformations.

First, ‘climate change’ is not the environment. Second, if one is going to site something like that, it’d be nice if the readers could see it for themselves. That link is behind a firewall. Third, in later paragraphs, Elliot blames this all on meanies like fossil fuel companies and think tanks. Perhaps he should read all the polls about people not wanting to pay for ‘climate change’ out of their own pockets.

We have real world examples of this approach at play. Though by name the “Green New Deal” is associated with large-scale American public investment and thus “big government,” it’s also sensitive to the plight of citizens that might otherwise embody a conservative anti-environment sentiment.

That’s gaslighting. The entire thing is all about massive government intervention in our lives.

In the face of close federal elections, environmentalists may double down on their partisanship. But in the long term, environmental advocates should be thinking strategically about how to engage and build coalitions with voters on the other side of the spectrum, and how to combat and undermine negative stereotypes and frameworks generated by those who benefit from keeping conservatives out of the movement.

Right, right. Try engaging a Warmist on Twitter or other social media. They’ll block you. Or in comments sections. Many media outlets have outright banned Skeptics from commenting, and they will not allow their material on their sites. TV stations will often refuse to allow Skeptics to debate. There’s little attempt to bring us over to their side. Warmists talk a big game, but, they cannot debate their position, they cannot offer rock solid evidence that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by the actions of Mankind via greenhouse gases, they say the debate is over, and they want democracy voided in order to get their way.

Read: Democracy May Be An Obstacle To Climate Action Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Have A DUI? Gun Grabbers Want You Denied A Firearm

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 8:00 am

Remember, gun grabbers aren’t actually grabbing guns, they just want common sense gun reform, and they definitely never move goal posts

Drivers With DUIs Shouldn’t Be Armed

(BTW, the original headline, which shows at Google News and you can see in the permalink, is Gun Control Laws Should End Sales To Drivers With DUI Convictions)

The combination of guns and alcohol is especially dangerous, and far too little has been done to address it. Federal law doesn’t restrict access to guns by people with a history of alcohol abuse, and fewer than half of U.S. states impose prohibitions of this kind. The risks to public safety are increasingly clear, and the issue demands more careful attention than lawmakers have allowed up to now.

There’s a close parallel. Over a span of years, evidence accumulated to show that domestic abusers are significantly more likely to kill somebody using a gun. The data showed that millions of American women have been threatened with a gun or shot by a domestic partner. Gradually a consensus formed to support denying firearms to convicted abusers. Federal and state laws were adopted to that end.

To be sure, they’re less effective than one would wish. The U.S. Senate’s failure to enact comprehensive background checks makes it much too easy for prohibited people to get a gun. On average, from 2006 to 2014, at least 760 Americans were shot dead each year by a spouse, former spouse or dating partner. Even so, federal and state laws designed to keep guns away from abusers make a difference.

Said comprehensive background checks wouldn’t make a difference, because people purchasing legally acquired firearms from another person in a private transaction without a background check is rare. It’s often a failure of government to report the information to the background check system which would deny a person.

Today, the links between alcohol abuse and firearm violence are also well established. “The research consistently shows that alcohol abuse is associated with violence toward self and others,” stated a comprehensive 2013 report by a consortium of leading researchers. Millions of firearm owners are binge drinkers — and among American men, deaths from alcohol-related firearm violence are on par with those from alcohol-related motor-vehicle accidents, according to a 2015 study.

Who would have guessed? Drunken gunplay is as lethal as drunken driving.

And both are illegal. Yet, these same people aren’t attempting to ban alcohol and motor vehicles, right?

Drunken-driving offenses help to identify only a subset of problem drinkers. However, like gun owners with convictions for domestic abuse, gun owners with DUI convictions are a discrete and dangerous group. For lawmakers eager to make progress against gun violence, they’re too good a target to ignore.

So, you were out with your significant other, had a few drinks, thought you were fine, got pulled over and blew a .09, just over the limit. You are then convicted of DUI. You are an upstanding citizen otherwise, work hard, do not even drink that often. And because of this you are denied your firearm. If you already have one, will the government demand you turn it in permanently? That seems implied.

The very interesting thing is that these gun grabbers are also supporters of illegal immigration, and keep telling us that illegals convicted of DUI are not bad people, that it’s a minor thing, and that the illegals should be shielded from ICE as to not be deported. That illegals with DUIs should never be deported, because it’s not a felony, nor a violent crime. Yet, they want to take away Citizens’s firearms for DUIs.

Read: Have A DUI? Gun Grabbers Want You Denied A Firearm »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 3:09 pm

This is how it begins. The Left is out in the streets, marching for something. They keep pushing the boundaries, till the violence ensues

Extinction Rebellion co-founder arrested after smashing ministry window

A founder of the Extinction Rebellion pressure group was arrested Tuesday after climbing the building housing Britain’s transport ministry in central London.

Gail Bradbrook climbed the building with a sign that read “HS2 is our climate emergency” above the revolving doors. HS2 is a high-speed rail line that will connect London with other UK cities.

Bradbrook, invoking the example women’s suffrage activist Emmeline Pankhurst, then tried to smash a window with a hammer and screwdriver. She was later brought down by a police climber.

Another activist tried to lock herself to the transport ministry but was arrested.

And now that the co-founder has done it, how many others will do the same?

‘Hypocrisy’ of Extinction Rebellion founder’s 11,000-mile trip to Costa Rica as she boasted of taking a luxury long-haul holiday on social media

The founder of the eco-activist group Extinction Rebellion boasted of a luxury long-haul holiday on social media just three years ago.

Gail Bradbrook racked up 11,000 air miles when she flew to Costa Rica in 2016 to stay at the £2,500 luxury New Life Iboga resort.

But Dr Bradbrook’s Central American trip had a carbon footprint of 2.6 tonnes – a quarter of the amount that the average Briton emits in a whole year.

She posted on Facebook that her holiday was ‘filled with nature and the warm sea’ and sightings of exotic wildlife including iguanas and monkeys that ‘smash mangoes on the roofs’.

Paul Scully, the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, told The Sun: ‘This is blind hypocrisy from a group that’s spent days blighting people’s travel plans.’

It’s always about forcing Other People to live the life, never themselves.

Read: Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a beach which alternates between hot and cold due to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on the police officer running against Jew hater Ilhan Omar.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 10:27 am

It would probably be more helpful to prove using the Scientific Method, using actual evidence and facts and such, but, hey, this isn’t about science

‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters

A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.

If it’s such a crisis, why is the Guardian still using fossil fuels to gather news? Why are they not telling us that their operations, including their Internet server, are powered solely by renewables?

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

I’m still waiting for that overwhelming scientific evidence. The trope of “CO2 has gone up while warming has occurred” is not proof.

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.

Yes, they do, but, how much of the warming has been caused by those released by Mankind? That is one of the arguments. Since a goodly chunk of that release from Mankind comes from agriculture, what would the Crisismongers have us do? Starve?

In order to keep below 1.5C of warming, the aspiration of the world’s nations, we need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach zero by mid century. It is also likely we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by the large-scale restoration of nature. It is a huge task, but we hope that tracking the daily rise of CO2 will help to maintain focus on it.

Well, good luck with that.

Read: UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrat Debate Fails To Mention ‘Climate Change’ Yet Again

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 8:36 am

Now, Democrats keep telling us that ‘climate change’ is the most important issue of the century. That we are doomed if we don’t Do Something. They run apocalyptic story after story at media sites like the NY Times and CNN. Straight articles and opinions. Democrats make Pronouncements. Yet

CNN and the New York Times skip climate change in the fourth Democratic debate

Moderators of the three previous Democratic primary debates caught a lot of flak from environmental advocates for not spending enough time on climate change. On Tuesday night, moderators of the fourth debate paved the way for a new era of climate politics by featuring warming front and center. Just kidding. In actuality not a single question about the biggest threat facing residents of the United States, and the world, was asked of the 12 candidates who qualified for the debate.

That’s despite the fact that CNN, one of the night’s two host media organizations, recently held a climate change-themed town hall during which moderators grilled candidates on all angles of the issue. The New York Times, the other host, has a team of journalists specifically assigned to climate stories. (CNN even ran a Times ad touting its climate coverage during one of the debate’s commercial breaks). And yet, somehow, CNN and the Times were unable to muster even a yes/no question about a crisis that is projected to claim millions of lives and alter the world as we know it.

Instead, the candidates were asked about hot topics in recent news cycles, like about whether President Trump should be impeached and the commander-in-chief’s recent decision to pull troops out of Syria — as well as topics that have come up previously, like gun control, a wealth tax, and the minutiae of single-payer health care versus Medicare for all versus “Medicare for all who want it.” That’s all well and good: It’s certainly important that voters hear from the candidates on those issues. But at the 11th hour, when it seemed the moderators might finally ask the candidates a question about climate change, they delivered a disappointment of epic proportions.

And, at the end, when they still had a chance, the candidates were asked about…..the minor kerfuffle of Ellen Degeneres sitting with George W Bush at a football game.

Julian Castro also yammered on Twitter about climate change being an existential threat. He’s polling at 1% nationally. Steyer is at 1.6. Inslee, who made his whole campaign about ‘climate change’, isn’t polling, because he dropped out months ago. At the end of the day, as I’ve written many times, people may Care about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, in practice, most aren’t interested in Doing Something. They certainly aren’t interested in spending their own money or having their lives changed.

Climate change may poll high with Democrats, but, not with the general public.

BTW

Despite being the leading issue among all American voters, according to Harvard/Harris polling, CNN anchors and a New York Times reporter ignored the immigration issue that motivated millions of voters in the 2016 presidential election.

Instead, debate moderators focused largely on impeachment, gun control, health care, and abortion.

Of course they did.

Read: Bummer: Democrat Debate Fails To Mention ‘Climate Change’ Yet Again »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Democratic Debate: Beto Says To Hand In Guns Or They’ll Be Consequences

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 8:20 am

This should work out well for Beto, right? And you can bet this kind of stuff will come up in commercials for whomever gets the nomination, positioned as “this guy is in your party”

(Breitbart) O’Rourke reiterated his plan to use a government-mandated buyback to confiscate privately-owned AR-15s and AK-47s. In so doing, he claimed that each AR-15 and AK-47 in private hands is a “potential instrument of terror.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper then asked O’Rourke how he plans to get people to hand over their rifles.

O’Rourke responded by explaining that he expects complains with the mandatory buybacks. He said, “I expect my fellow Americans to follow the law. The same way we enforce any provision, any law that we have right now, we don’t go door to door to do anything to enforce the law. I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun owners, non-gun owners alike, to follow the law.”

Why would non-gun owners comply? They don’t have guns. What’s that? He expects non-gun owners to snitch on those they know have the guns? Huh.

Cooper then followed up by asking what O’Rourke plans to do if Americans do not comply.

O’Rourke said, “If someone does not turn an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public and brandishes it, in an attempt to intimidate…then that weapon will be taken from them. If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement.”

https://twitter.com/TrumpStudents/status/1184284563977191424

Unfortunately, Anderson did not follow up with what those consequences would be. Anyhow, how does this play with the American electorate? Might it turn off many gun owning Democrats from voting D for president? They might not vote Trump, but they won’t vote D. And many may just say “hang it all” and not bother voting at all. But, hey, what comes next? Might a President Beto go the New Zealand route?

New Zealand PM Ardern steps up fight against extremist online content

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced more funding and support on Monday to target violent extremist content online, just months after an alleged white supremacist live-streamed a massacre at two mosques in Christchurch. (snip)

Ardern said the government was investing NZ$17 million ($15.8 million) over four years to boost New Zealand’s ability to find, stop and stamp out terrorist and violent extremist content online quickly. (snip)

The new department’s powers include investigating and prosecuting those committing offences through both proactive detection and working with international and domestic partners, it added.

“Our online world must be a force for good where we can exchange ideas, share technology, and maintain civil liberties while protecting New Zealanders from objectionable content,” Ardern said in the statement.

Who establishes what’s Wrongthink? Who controls that? I know I’ve been accused of being a Nazi, a Fascist, of posting objectionable content. This site has been banned in China, and banned in India. I read websites of the other side all the time. THey are constantly calling to shut down the sites of anyone who doesn’t agree with them, to get them banned from social media. How does it maintain civili liberties when the government is going to force bannings? Will that be Beto’s next step?

Read: Democratic Debate: Beto Says To Hand In Guns Or They’ll Be Consequences »

Posted in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Some Cities Are Banning Drive-Thrus Because Of Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach October 15, 2019 – 4:57 pm

It’s for your own good, you know. Government knows better

Moving to curb carbon emissions, cities put brakes on drive-thrus

Drive-thru windows at fast-food restaurants, banks and other businesses have long represented the convenience for which American businesses are renowned. But the ease of idling in a vehicle while waiting for your order is now associated with another development: climate change.

As a result, some communities across the U.S. are banning drive-thrus, citing the additional carbon emissions that are released. Minneapolis this summer banned construction of new drive-thrus, while officials in Long Beach, California, have imposed a six-month ban on new drive-thrus while they study the issue. Similar ordinances restricting or prohibiting fast-food windows have also been adopted in communities including Creve Coeur, Missouri; Fair Haven, New Jersey; and Orchard Park, New York.

Minneapolis cited air pollution from idling vehicles as a major factor for the ban on drive-thrus, along with litter, noise and the potential of vehicles blocking sidewalks, which can increase the risk of a pedestrian accident. The order is part of the city’s long-term plan, called Minneapolis 2040, which includes a goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

Every city mentioned, excluding Fair Haven, NJ, has an airport. Mostly small ones, except for Minneapolis. Orchard Park is the actual home of the Buffalo Bills stadium. What of all the idling vehicles there? Will they be banned? This is just a bunch of climanuts being climanutty.

Read: Some Cities Are Banning Drive-Thrus Because Of Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 15, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Refuge, with a post on Trump’s Syrian maneuver working, as Erdogan asks for negotiations with Kurds.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove