Category: Left Wing Idiocy

Obama Reverses

One of the disappointments of the budget showdown a few years ago was the collapse of the Grand Bargain — the potential of putting Social Security on “chained CPI” in exchange for tax hikes. It would have potentially sliced trillions of dollars from future Social Security obligations.

Well, Obama has now changed course and embraced one of the dumbest ideas yet to emerge from the Democratic mind: expanding Social Security.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday called for an increase in Social Security benefits for the elderly as he hit the road with a speech that previewed his role as campaigner-in-chief for Democrats ahead of the November election.

The president’s comments mark a reversal after he sought a bipartisan deal five years ago that would have cut Social Security and moves the Democratic party toward a unified stance on the nation’s cornerstone retirement program.

“It is time we finally made Social Security more generous and increase the benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned,” Obama said in Elkhart, Indiana, during a speech in which he spoke against Republican economic policies.

Obama has no specific proposal in mind for a benefits increase, said a White House official who asked for anonymity. Obama didn’t say in his speech how much he wants to raise benefit levels or offer a timetable.

With the shift, the president joins likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who embraced the idea of expanding Social Security earlier this year, and her challenger, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a longtime champion of expanding the program. Obama’s remarks nudge the party toward a more liberal agenda and represent a nod to Sanders and his supporters.

Social Security is already losing money. There’s a “trust fund” but that trust fund consists entirely of IOU’s — the money will have to come out of general revenues. Even with the fiction of the trust fund, the program has $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 70 years.

As always, they want to pay for this by raising the cap on Social Security taxes. We’ve discussed this before: this would produce an enormous marginal tax rate for the wealthy — 50% for the Feds alone. And raising the earnings cap doesn’t solve the problem. The reason Social Security taxes are capped is because benefits are. If you tax Bill Gates on all his income, you have to raise his benefits too. Without statutory change, you’ve made Social Security’s finances worse, not better.

And all of this to benefit the wealthiest demographic in America. The 65-74 year age group has the most net wealth in the United States. The 75+ age group has the second highest. This isn’t a conspiracy: wealth builds over a lifetime and usually peaks at retirement. Social Security was intended to prevent seniors from living in poverty, not to be their primary source of retirement income. But seniors vote like hell and the Democrats are nothing if not panderers.

The good news is that this is going nowhere. Democrats are on board but the Republicans can easily block it. And their courage will likely falter when Americans realize the tax hikes and program changes necessary to make this “work”. But it’s a sign of just how far Left this party has moved: Barack Obama has discovered that he’s too conservative for the base.

Katie Couric is Full of It

Katie Couric has new documentary out called “Under the Gun”. Ostensibly a look at gun violence, it would appear to be very heavy on the pro-gun control side, with gun control supporters massively outnumbering gun control opponents among the interviews. And from what I’ve been reading, it looks like she’s trying to fill the rather sizable in deceptive left-wing propaganda left by Michael Moore.

The worst mistakes here rise to the level of factual error, and they undermine the film as a whole. There is no law, for example, “making it illegal to sue gun manufacturers”; rather, the law lays out the specific circumstances in which such lawsuits are allowed. These include cases stemming from illegal sales and design defects. The law was enacted amidst a wave of lawsuits against companies whose legally sold guns had eventually been used in crimes.

Further, despite what was claimed in an al-Qaeda video featured here without correction, one cannot “go to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.” Fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down, are heavily regulated. Gun owners have been harping on the media’s failure to grasp this automatic/semiautomatic distinction for decades.

And even when the film gets its facts right, it often makes little attempt to explore both sides of an issue. While everyday gun owners and activists make numerous appearances—some flattering and some definitely not—pro-gun experts are sorely lacking. Gun-control advocates are well-represented by folks like Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mark Follman of Mother Jones. Viewers are left believing that there are no similarly well-informed researchers and journalists on the right.

She also repeats a bunch of candards such as the false claim that a mass shooting has never been stopped by a legal gun owner.

But the Free Beacon recently discovered that she goes even beyond that:

A conservative news site posted what it said was audio proof that filmmakers behind a documentary about the gun control debate deliberately edited video to portray gun-rights activists as unable to answer questions about background checks.

The audio, posted by The Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday, seemed to differ from the video shown in the documentary, “Under the Gun,” in which a group of activists appear to fall silent during an interview with the news anchor Katie Couric.

“If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Ms. Couric asks. The next shot in the film is of the activists looking on with blank stares instead of answering the question.

In the audio clip of the interview posted by The Free Beacon, Ms. Couric prefaces her question with a remark — “I know how you all are going to answer this but I’m asking anyway” — before she asks about background checks.

“One, if you’re not in jail you should still have your basic rights,” someone answers about one second later.

You can click through to get the entire audio. The gun owners don’t hesitate at all. They answer her questions immediately and directly, showing an understanding of the issues that Couric lacks and an appreciation of the subtleties. The difference between that and the video couldn’t be more blatant.

Couric and her producers are defending this as an “editing choice”. They say they just wanted people to think about the issue. I find this excuse to be garbage. You can make the audience think about a question without portraying your political opponents as bumbling idiots. And it’s not like the Left is unfamiliar with this complaint. The Planned Parenthood and ACORN videos came under fire for this kind of deceptive editing. But, apparently, all’s fair when it comes to riding our society of the dread evil firearm.

Kudos to the interviewees in this video. Not only did they effectively answer questions from a hostile interviewer, they had the wisdom to record the interview to make sure they were not misquoted. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And the gun grabbers are really out to get us.

Transparency!

While the DNC controlled media has done its damned best to help the crooks in charge look decent, occasionally the truth slips out:

John Crane, 60, who spent 25 years in government before he was fired as an assistant Defense Department inspector general in 2013, went public with a series of accusations that key officials in the watchdog’s office retaliated against whistleblowers, destroyed permanent records and altered audits under political pressure.

He has filed those charges with the Office of Special Counsel, which so far has referred one to the Justice Department for detailed investigation, though others may soon follow.

Crane’s name and case appear in a new book, Bravehearts: Whistle-Blowing in the Age of Snowden (Hot Books, 2016), by Mark Hertsgaard, excerpted in the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

In an interview with Government Executive on Sunday, Crane challenged the criticism by many top U.S. officials who say Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee who worked as a National Security Agency contractor, could have taken his complaint through official channels. In 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, leaked classified documents exposing U.S. surveillance programs and ultimately took refuge in Russia.

“Edward Snowden and his decision not to go through the whistleblower process indicate a larger failure within DoD IG,” Crane said. “Snowden did not go through the IG because he saw what had happened to Thomas Drake,” he added.

This reality has permeated this administration across the board: anyone that pointed out how fucked up things had gotten was hammered for doing so. From the VA whistle blowers to those that spoke out about the crap the Obama controlled agencies were doing either in operation “Fast & Furious” or at the IRS, where they targeted enemies of the administration for political reasons, the Obama admin has set new records in punishing those that dared point out that things were real bad for us all.

I remember the BDS infected fuckwads making me defend Boosh when they levied these idiotic accusations against him, and yet today, when we really have a tyrannical government punishing dissent, these fuckers – like the anti-war pinkos – are nowhere to be found.

These people think George Orwell’s 1984 is an instruction manual

If you have not read 1984, you should, but here is a synopsis about what at that time was seen as a work of fiction that reflected a world gone mad. Basically Orwell created a dystopian world run by “Big Brother”, an entity that pretends to run this upside down world for the betterment of all people, but really is only out for the elite few (basically every collectivist system in history), where amongst other things the “Ministry of Truth” twists language to suit whatever the agenda du jour of the masters is. Stories change, often and blatantly, without regard for the obvious contradictions and abuse, so the masters can get what they want from the sheep.

Queue in the latest instance of our own Obama Administration’s “Ministry of Truth”, and man have we had a few doozies from these people, where they now are relabeling criminals and criminal activity. I admit that when I saw this piece for the first time I double checked to make sure it was not a belated April first joke or some publication from whatever site finally replaced the now DNC controlled Onion as the latest site for sarcastic, ironic, and moronic news. It tuns out that it is for real. Sure, the claim is that this relabeling is to give people a second chance, but me, I see it as another chess move in the much greater game where the left wants to specifically use the power of government restore voting right to criminals, whom would predominantly vote for them.

Whatever your feelings about criminality in this country, you have to admit that we have a problem with our leadership at this time. On the one hand they are criminalizing all sorts of albeit stupid but not criminal behaviors the left dislikes, and yet here we have the administration going out of its way to destigmatize real criminals and crime. Personally I, if I for a second believed that we could get a system where if drugs were decriminalized the government wouldn’t make people like me pay for the cost of the nanny state safety net that they would create, would decriminalize drug use. But rape and robbery, armed or otherwise, are serious crimes I feel far stronger about. I don’t mind people making personal choices about associating or interacting with people convicted of these sorts of crimes, but I have serious reservations about government pushing people into that, and doing so at such an Orwellian level, just so they can eventually tell us they will give these people the ability to vote (for them) again.

NYT caught shilling for Shillary

In case you didn’t get to see it, the NYT ran a hit-piece on Trump titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private“, where they used quotes from women to basically paint the picture that Trump was a cad. Unfortunately for the scumbags at the NYT that feel obligated to shill for democrats, and for Hillary Clinton in particular, one of the people they “misquoted” (that is me being sarcastic, because I have no doubt they lied on purpose) decided to fight back.

I guess the idiots at the NYT felt that they could lie with impunity and that since nobody in the DNC controlled media would give these people they were lying about a forum to call them out. By the time the truth comes out, it is too late because people made the wrong choices already. Let me point out that this is a tactic used to not just elect, but reelect Obama by the DNC controlled media, and thus considered very effective by these propagandists. I guess they got unlucky that one of the people they chose to lie about not only had the avenue to get the truth out, but chose to do so. Maybe people in the LSM that want to make a name for themselves should find some of these other women quoted, and see if their story checks out. My guess is that the lot of it was fabricated by the scumbags at the NYT.

Let me be clear that I wouldn’t mind real investigation into people running for high office’s personal behavior, if I for a second believed that the media actually meant to just inform the public. But the problem is that whenever you get one of the SJW hit pieces it tends to be replete with falsehoods and always targets non-democrats to push an ideology that basically is evil. If the shitheads in the LSM had vetted Obama with the same expediency and faked rigor they felt was necessary to undermine candidates like Palin, Romney, and now Trump (see a pattern there yet?), and applied the same rigor to any democrat, I think we would never see another democrat winning any election. You might think Trump is a blowhard and likely to make a mediocre president like I do, but then again, I am willing to bet money that he can’t sink to the level of Obama, and for that matter the stupidity of Sanders or the criminal behavior of any of the Clintons.

BTW, I have some advice for the NYT and rest of the DNC controlled media about finding men that treat women like sex objects and shit: if you want to do a serious hit piece, one based on truth and that targets a real scumbag that abuses women, write about Bill Clinton. No need to make up any facts there to show how much of a lowlife that dude is. But nobody at the NYT, or in the LSM for that matter, seems interested in actually writing objective pieces about members of the DNC, where we have real despicable and law breaking activity going on constantly, precisely because they feel they are protected by the media.

Pro-collectivist media can’t avoid making exuses

It came as no surprise to me that after a decade plus of favorable pro-collectivist media coverage of shit-holes that took hard left turns we found out Venezuela was following in the footsteps of illustrious collectivist success stories like Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. What is less known is that the other South American country that had also taken a hard left turn and was touted as a great success story, Brazil, is also heading in the same direction now that blatant corruption and mismanagement practices have come to the world’s attention.

As is always the case with progressive governments, the pretense that the shit they do is to help the less fortunate is just that: pretense. What they are really doing is creating a system that will allow the political aristocracy and those few lucky enough to be connected to them, to rob the people blind. The new masters tend to be worse than the old ones, and while they can temporarily hide the rot, eventually economic and human nature reality asserts itself. Big and powerful government, especially one that has successfully disarmed the masses and then pretends their wealth transfer schemes are to help the less fortunate, sooner than later results in abused people. Yeah, I know that this piece specifically was written about the Arab world, but the article does speak of other corruption failures in general. The problem with people that advocate for collectivism is the fact that they seem to miss that corruption is the norm, and having little or none of it, is actually an outlier. And the bigger an autocratic government that abrogates the duty of creating economic justice becomes, both in terms of actual size and the amount of money it now forces through its hands, the more corruption you will get.

For example, take China, which is still run by an authoritarian government that decided not to stick to the letter of marxist dogma. While the Wiki article tries its best to show how fucked up China is because of this corruption, it, because of the bias of the Wiki organization in general, does a lot to apologize and conceal that the problem there is the authoritarian and collectivist system that creates the framework that allows this corruption. When your government is all powerful and has its hands in everything, you can bet it will result in abuse and corruption by the very elite put in charge. Pick your country, check out how authoritative and big their government is, then look at how much wealth redistribution power said government has, and you will find corruption.

But back to what I wanted to point out: AP writing an article that tries hard to not tie the corruption now evident to the ideology or failures in Brazil. From the article:

Brazil’s Senate voted on Thursday to put leftist President Dilma Rousseff on trial in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal that will now confront her successor, Vice President Michel Temer.

With Rousseff to be suspended during the Senate trial for allegedly breaking budget rules, the centrist Temer will take the helm of a country that again finds itself mired in political and economic volatility after a recent decade of prosperity.

The 55-22 vote ends more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party, which rose from Brazil’s labor movement and helped pull millions of people out of poverty before seeing many of its leaders tainted by corruption investigations.

My interpretation of this nonsense is that it almost sounds like AP is trying hard to tell readers we should give the corrupt officials a pass because they meant well. After all, they helped the poor people! I constantly see MSM stories saying how well off people in Brazil have it because of the wealth redistribution schemes of the leftists, but when I look the stuff that sticks with me is the rampant crime, the fact that economic promises are not materializing, and how despite the claims that the poor are better off, I see very few things that really show that to be the case. Especially when you look at the future. That’s not just me however, as this verya rticle points out:

In addition to the gaping deficit, equal to more than 10 percent of its annual economic output, Brazil is suffering from rising unemployment, plummeting investment and a projected economic contraction of more than 3 percent this year.

Basically the Brazilian success story was to borrow and print money, over spend, and put polities in practice that drastically hamper economic growth and result in rampant unemployment. Shit they are even looking at an economic contraction. Does this not sound kind of like the Obama economic plan to spend us out of a recession and even into prosperity? Don’t worry though, because the PA tells us people are on top of the crisis;

“Only major reforms can keep Brazil from moving from crisis to crisis,” says Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, an economist and author in São Paulo who has written extensively about the country’s socioeconomic problems.

While I am not very familiar with this individual, the fact that he is the one AP chose to quote tells me this guy is very likely to be the Brazilian Paul Krugman, whose usual retort when confronted with the failures of Keynesian wealth transfer schemes, advises that the the problem was not the fact that borrowing/printing more money/spending money you don’t have can’t buy your prosperity, but that government didn’t borrow/print/spend enough money. This shit doesn’t work. It never has, and never will, but the collectivist driven media still wants you to have faith in this crap. This AP article sure goes a long way to try and avoid making the point that these leftist SJW wealth redistribution policies failed Brazil despite the temporary bump they produced obvious.

Another tidbit from the article that I found interesting was the following:

Brazilian markets have for weeks rallied as investors welcomed the likely dismissal of a president they believe crippled the economy, but were largely unchanged on Wednesday.

Note that the AP avoids saying why investors felt Rousseff crippled the economy. One could come away thinking the only problem was the endemic corruption, but the fact is that this was just one of the symptoms of the real problem: the Keynesian economic practices leftists resort to in times of trouble to hide the problems caused by their wealth transfer schemes. Brazil is on the same path as Venezuela right now, only it might be slower to reach the end state because they didn’t choose to have a dictator hold all the power like the Venezuelan’s did. This shit don’t work people.

Orwell Goes To College

Good God:

What happens when members of a university community allege that they were victims of a “bias” incident? A team of administrators intervene—no matter how petty the complaint.

An annual report on the activities of University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team provides a frightening yet fascinating glimpse into the practices of these organizations, which are common on college campuses. Students, faculty, and staff who feel threatened, harassed, intimidated, triggered, microaggressed, offended, ignored, under-valued, or objectified because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability status, mental health, religion, political affiliation, or size are encouraged to contact the BRT.

The team is composed of seven administrators, which include Oregon’s “multicultural inclusion support specialist,” LGBT director, and “Native American Retention Specialist.” The BRT’s goal is to eradicate bias on campus, making Oregon a safer place. Bias is defined as “any physical, spoken, or written act” that targets another person, even unintentionally. The team’s posters propose examples of bias incidents: statements like “Thanks, sweetie,” and “I don’t see color,” apparently qualify. (The former is patronizing, the latter is simply wrongthink, I guess.)

The Reason piece includes several examples of reports filed by Oregeon’s secret police.

A student reported a culturally appropriative themed party.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race

Location: Student Programs

Response: A BRT Advocate reached out to the reporter. A BRT Case Manager met with the president of the student program to discuss the incident.

An anonymous student reported that a newspaper gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race, Political Affi liation

Location: Online

Response: A BRT Case Manager held an educational conversation with the newspaper reporter and editor.

There’s a lot more at the link. I defy anyone to read it and not be reminded of the East German Stasi. Change but a bit of verbiage and this could be reports on “counter-revolutionary thinking” or “bourgeois sympathies”. No incident is considered too minor. Anonymous reporting is encouraged. Third party reporting — that is where the “victim” doesn’t think anything bad happened but somebody else does — is encouraged. And students or faculty who are guilty of wrongthink don’t get a hearing or anything. An administrator has a “conversation” with them where they are told how wrong they are. Anyone who has been on a college campus can tell you just how intimidating such interventions can be.

How bad is this getting? We’re getting students kicked off campus for raping students who say they weren’t raped. It’s gotten so bad that President Obama, speaking at Howard, gave what I must admit was a very good defense of free speech.

So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths. Because as my grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance. Let them talk. Let them talk. If you don’t, you just make them a victim, and then they can avoid accountability.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. (Laughter.) I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is.

Yeah, that’s how bad things have gotten. The President who at least partially responsible for this mess (having coerced colleges into things like “preponderance of evidence” standards for sexual assault investigations) is now saying we’ve gone too far.

Look, I’m not saying we should let people run around college campuses spewing racist … no, wait, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I would rather have Nazis marching outside my office every day than have our campuses become fascist police states complete with secret reports, re-education and suppression of incorrect views. We’re inuring a generation of students to the idea that they are always being watched, always subject to discipline for ideas and speech, never to step outside the lines or challenge orthodoxy. What kind of adults are these students going to grow up into?

Why is everyone acting as if this was not expected?

Blazing headline: “WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY RESULTS

As I expected, Shillary lost. What I didn’t expect was all the hand wrining.

This was West Virginia. A state that has an economy with a heavy reliance on the coal industry. The other Clinton, stealing a page from Obama’s playbook, talked about how she would destroy the coal industry to appease the usual collectivist Gaia worshipers. Why would anyone think that the majority of democrats in that state would vote against their own interests, and cast a vote for Shillary? I certainly don’t know if she is unraveling or not, but I am loving the freak show.

This win was all but a given for the Bern-minator, and while it is a boon for those of us that enjoy the left eating itself up, there is a far juicier story, one of real criminal activity, to investigate.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking. The DNC mouth pieces will never actually investigate anything unless they can use it to help democrats and hurt everyone else, so we are not going to see any justice here it looks like. Ain’t the fundamentally transformed America Obama promised us great?

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…