Perfect Example Of Why Job Losses From Minimum-Wage-Hikes Are Being Underestimated, ‘Bigly’

There is a perfect example of why job losses from minimum wage hikes are being underestimated in a big way. Over the past several months, people have highlighted a number of economic studies that analyze the potential negative impact, in terms of job losses, that may be expected as a result of the minimum wage hike that are happening across the country.

Key Takeaways:

  • 2.6 million jobs will be lost around the country over the next several years as states phase-in minimum wage hikes that have already been passed.
  • A 10 percent increase in the real minimum wage is associated with a 0.3 to 0.5 percentage-point decline in the net job growth rate.
  • Minimum wage hikes trigger pay increases across the pay scale, not just for the employees earning minimum wage.

“Over the past several months, we’ve highlighted a number of economic studies analyzing the potential negative impact, in terms of job losses, that may be expected to result from the state-mandated minimum wage hikes that are currently being implemented around the country.”

The Echo Chamber Of Elite Economists: Often Wrong, Never In Doubt

The Echo Chamber of Elite Economists are often wrong, but never in doubt. In 2017, the whole landscape of the economy changed with the arrival of the new president. This new group is more different than the last one by a long shot. The election of Donald Trump marked a change as markets became optimistic about the future. This is the same kind of optimism that was around in 2008.

Key Takeaways:

  • Since the U.S. economic recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, institutional economists have continually over-estimated expectations for growth, inflation, consumer spending and capital expenditures.
  • After Donald Trump’s victory, U.S. markets began to anticipate, for the first time since the financial crisis, an escape hatch out of financial repression and regulatory oppression.
  • Although a new political regime is in store and it brings hope for a new path forward, the echo chamber reinforcing bad policy, fiscal and monetary, seems likely to persist.

“Within hours of Donald Trump’s victory, U.S. markets began to anticipate, for the first time since the financial crisis, an escape hatch out of financial repression and regulatory oppression.”

Dear America: Better Read The Fine Print On Your Credit Card Statement

Everyone is probably familiar with those disclosures on your credit card statement. That will usually say you have 27 years to pay off a debt, if you make the minimum payment. People might not be aware of it, but our credit debt as a nation comes with a disclosure. The minimum payment option is bad because you accrue a lot of interest that way.

Key Takeaways:

  • America’s “credit card”–our national debt–clearly, any credit line expanding this fast will bankrupt the borrower, regardless of their income.
  • According to the Grandfather national debt chart with the USDebtClock data, the annual interest bill is $3 trillion.
  • About 80% of the population are net payers of interest while the other 20% are net receivers of interest.

“Governments cannot reduce their debt or deficits and central banks cannot taper.”

Conservative Students “Violently Threatened” At Lutheran College

Conservative students were violently threatened at Lutheran College. A lot of people do not like the President and they threaten people who do not see the world the same way they do. It can be scary to oppose the herd, especially when the heard gives threats out. A lot of people feel threatened by speaking up about what they believe.

Key Takeaways:

  • Conservative Students “Violently Threatened” At Lutheran College
  • Four in five students at the Lutheran liberal arts school, St. Olaf College, had voted for the 2016 Clinton-Kaine ticket. The Trump-Pence ticket drew 1 in 10 and the Johnson-Weld ticket 1 in 20.
  • A conservative student at St. Olaf warns his peers to refrain from acting like “some oppressed minority group” because “it engages in the same identity politics that already make it so hard to have constructive conversations about challenging issues.”

“One political science student said her professor “started every class with basically just ridiculing Trump for about 20 minutes,” and she now plans to transfer to another school next year. A different student claims to keep quiet in response to his professor’s anti-Trump animus so as to prevent any harm to his grade.

Goldman Building “Robo-Adviser” For Its ‘Poor’ Clients (A.K.A. Those With Only $1 Million To Invest)

Today may just be your lucky day. But don’t think for one second that you’re going to get the same access to Goldman’s proprietary “market color” as GSAM’s wealthier private clients, or even be able to speak with one of Goldman’s massively overpaid advisers for that matter. No, for all you peons who make up the “mass affluent market,” Goldman will gladly take your money but if you want advice you’ll have to go through their brand new “Robo-Adviser.” As Reuters points out today, in an effort to diversify risk away from the super wealthy, Goldman.

Key Takeaways:

  • If you always wanted to invest with Goldman Sachs but only had $1 million of liquid investable assets, now you can.
  • You will not get the same access as the wealthier private clients. If you want advice you’ll have to go through their brand new “Robo-Adviser.”
  • Other llarge firms such as Charles Schwab Corp (SCHW.N) and Vanguard have launched similar services.

“For all you ‘poor’ people (and you know who we’re talking about…all you people with only around $1 million of liquid investable assets) out there who always wanted to invest their money with Goldman Sachs but didn’t have the $50 million net worth required to become a private wealth client, today may just be your lucky day.”

As a conservative or liberal, what is the fairest way you can explain the views of the other side?

The Welfare state, when run by Liberals, grants every deserving person benefits but with some undeserving people receiving benefits as well. If run by conservatives, no one undeserving of benefits receives them, but some deserving individuals don’t receive benefits. The results can be explained in a scientific manner which can help each side of the political spectrum understand where the other side is coming from and perhaps understand each other.

Key Takeaways:

  • A test that is 100% sensitive will detect what you’re looking for 100% of the time if the intended target is present.
  • The problem is that highly sensitive tests are often associated with a high number of false positives.
  • What you want are stringent requirements to make sure that every single person that receives benefits from the government is deserving of that help.

“A test that is 100% sensitive will detect what you’re looking for 100% of the time if the intended target is present. This is usually what you want in screening tests.”

How Job Insecurity Impacts Personal Identity

Job insecurity may not just cause economic stress to individuals. It also may cause an identity crisis that can negatively impact someone for years. A study featured in this article demonstrates this with a survey of 400 participants tracked throughout 2014. Subconsciously, being employed is a valuable social identity, and when that is threatened a person’s well-being diminishes. Read on for more details.

Key Takeaways:

  • “What do you do?” is usually one of the very first questions that comes up in a conversation between two strangers. For many of us, a job is more than just a paycheck, it plays a big role in determining how we see ourselves. Losing a job can feel like losing a part of who we are.
  • Findings from a new study suggest that the threat of job instability doesn’t just cause economic stress, it can also have a major impact on how we view ourselves and our sense of personal identity.
  • When the loss of a job becomes more salient, people may start to become increasingly aware of being identified as part of an alternative, stigmatized out-group: the unemployed.

““People who perceived their job as more insecure were also more likely to feel less ‘belonging’ to the employed working society; they defined themselves less as employed people,” the researchers conclude.”

Well, Son of a Biscuit: Swearing Correlated with Honesty

Trustworthiness decidedly corresponded with all foulness measures, the analysts compose, implying that members lied less on the Lie scale on the off chance that they recorded a higher number of oftentimes utilized and loved to revile words or self-announced higher obscenity use in their regular daily existences, notwithstanding when controlling for age and sexual orientation. Foulness and genuineness were observed to be fundamentally and decidedly connected, demonstrating that the individuals who utilized greater irreverence were more legit in their Facebook notices, the Feldman and associates compose.

Key Takeaways:

  • Managing expectations about swearing and profanity in the workplace can be particularly contentious: There have been several workplace lawsuits brought by employees who lost their %&#*-ing jobs because of profane language at work.
  • A new study conducted by an international team of researchers from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Hong Kong has found evidence that a little swearing may not be so bad for business after all.
  • While we might associate profanity with negative character traits, like dishonesty or aggression, lead author Gilad Feldman (Maastricht University) and colleagues found that, in reality, people who swear like sailors may actually be more honest.

“While we might associate profanity with negative character traits, like dishonesty or aggression, lead author Gilad Feldman (Maastricht University) and colleagues found that, in reality, people who swear like sailors may actually be more honest.”

Higher-Ranking People Have More Difficulty Spotting Unethical Behavior

At the point when untrustworthy practices happen in an association, high-positioning people at the highest point of the chain of command are required to quit wrongdoing and divert the association to a more fair way this is, to take part in principled difference. Curiously, high-positioning people were more averse to see their gathering’s conduct as unscrupulous with respect to lower-positioning gathering individuals. Thus, albeit high-positioning people are better empowered mentally and politically to take part in principled difference, they may neglect to do as such in light of the fact that they see no issue with their association’s untrustworthy practices in any case.

Key Takeaways:

  • In most organizations, leaders are expected to monitor – and stop – unethical practices taking place under their watch. But history is full of examples of high-ranking leaders who turned a blind eye to illegal or unethical behavior.
  • In a new study, psychological scientists found evidence that obtaining a higher rank within an organization may prompt people to overlook unethical behavior.
  • But Kennedy and Anderson hypothesized that occupying a high-ranking role within an organization might cause people to identify more strongly with their organization and thus “they fail to see unethical practices as being wrong in the first place.”

““Consequently, although high-ranking individuals are better enabled psychologically and politically to engage in principled dissent, they may fail to do so because they see no problem with their organization’s unethical practices in the first place,” the researchers conclude.”

Turning the “Motherhood Penalty” into a “Breadwinner Bonus”

Two reviews underpin the thought that the parenthood reward might be better comprehended as a provider reward that can apply to moms and additionally fathers, while the guardian punishment remained gendered, happening for moms however not fathers. A breadwinning mother was offered a higher compensation and will probably be offered administration preparing than moms named as parental figures or with unspecified family parts. A breadwinning mother earned compensation and initiative preparing offers keeping pace with a breadwinning father, supporting a provider reward. Fathers unequivocally named as parental figures got proportional compensation and initiative offers as fathers marked as providers.

Key Takeaways:

  • Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made news when he announced that he would take a relatively lengthy two-month paternity leave after the birth of his daughter.
  • An extensive body of research has documented that parenthood leads to different career outcomes for mothers and fathers. One example of this is the so-called motherhood penalty which is shown to occur to female employees.
  • In both studies, when family roles were not specified, gendered assumptions about breadwinning and caregiving influenced workplace incentives, benefiting fathers over mothers,” Bear and Glick conclude.

“Thus, employers may assume that parenthood will reduce a woman’s dedication to her career while increasing a man’s commitment; the expectation is that mothers will need to leave work on time to pick up the kids, while fathers will double-down at work in order to provide for their families.”

California, Nestle, And Decentralization

Nestle will move from Glendale to Virginia. This was announced recently. There will be about 1200 jobs going with it. California has lost over 1000 businesses since the year 2008. The tax rates are just one of the reasons why people have left. One official said it was no big deal that Nestle left. California has a lot of regulation and businesses cannot gain a lot there.

Key Takeaways:

  • The once Golden State has lost some 1690 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people
  • California’s ruling elite seemingly remains utterly clueless as to why this is happening and/or doesn’t seem to care.
  • before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made.

“Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs.”

Which Country Punishes Productive People The Most?

Some people may actually wonder which country punishes productive people the most. Personal income taxes were what was monitored here. There is also a payroll tax to think about in this area. If you the workers are not making an additional benefit, then the payroll tax will be very destructive.

Key Takeaways:

  • Authored by Alexander Fritz Englund and Jacob Lundberg, it looks at the total marginal tax rate on each nation’s most productive taxpayers.
  • The most accurate measure of government greed is revealed when you add everything together
  • Shed a tear for entrepreneurs in Sweden, Belgium, and Portugal.

“A payroll tax (sometimes called a “social insurance” levy) will be just as destructive as a regular income tax if workers aren’t “earning” some sort of additional benefit.”

[Desmos Design] Why We’re Suspicious of Immediate Feedback

If feedback is immediate you will wonder if it came from a real person or from a bot. Computerized Bots are everywhere online now. It’s also hard to know if the person providing the feedback gave it any real thought or if they just wrote whatever they thought was wanted at the time.

Key Takeaways:

  • The ability to give rapid feedback to students in some instances give computers a great advantage over humans.
  • we side with Silicon Valley’s preference for immediate feedback.
  • I couldn’t use trial and error. I had to visualize and estimate and then make decisions.

“One of our design principles at Desmos is to “delay feedback for reflection, especially during concept development activities.”

Email Notifications

Checking email during your workday can poorly affect your time and performance as well as adding stress to your day. You need to realize that not all emails need to be seen right away. Luckily, there is an app available that can prioritize emails notifying you when immediate emails need to be seen and not notifying you constantly of emails that can wait.

Key Takeaways:

  • A little ping may seem innocuous, but there is cumulating evidence that the cost of an interruption is higher than we realize, and of course given the sheer number of interruptions, their combined effect can very quickly become substantial.
  • With that initial starting point – the idea that very few emails need to be seen right away – we set out to build a tool to allow people create rules for receiving emails.
  • a very simple mechanism can have an impact, creating a significant amount of benefit for people.

“In terms of time cost, researches have shown that any switching between tasks results in a loss of time. In other words, “multi-tasking” is a misnomer – we aren’t actually doing two tasks at once.”