Bernie Sanders lives on old slogans...does he not remember the high Misery Index of '79? How's that egalitarianism in Venezuela working out for the socialists

Ben Shapiro takes Bernie Sanders to school with lesson in economics and reality

Chris Enloe  Apr 2, 2017 6:57 pm

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gets taken to school by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro on Twitter. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) 

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro took Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to school on Twitter over the weekend after the self-described democratic-socialist senator tweeted about “income inequality.”

“38 years ago, the top 0.1% owned about 7% of our nation’s wealth. Today, that same 0.1% owns 22% of the wealth,” Sanders tweeted Saturday afternoon.

But facts may stand in the way of Sanders’ tweet. According to Shapiro, every American is more wealthy than they were 38 years ago, or in 1979. In addition, Shapiro noted that the upper middle class has grown since then.

“In 1979, life expectancy was 7 years shorter, and upper middle class was 12% of US (today 30%). We’re all richer,” Shapiro tweeted back at Sanders.

But Shapiro wasn’t done. When one Twitter user disagreed with Shapiro and said America isn’t richer and that median income has declined over the last four decades, Shapiro hit back strong.

“Except for how we have cellphones, computers, air conditioning, larger living spaces on average, you’re right,” he wrote.

Indeed, according to economic data, the median income in the 1970’s was less than it is today when adjusted for inflation.

But Shapiro’s followers also noticed something important: that liberals aren’t necessarily angry over growing incomes, but they believe that some making more than others is just “unfair.”

Someone do Sanders a favor and get him some note-taking materials.

This is the manifestation of Hillary's anti American worker actions...Tata donates American workers get to train foreign replacements.

The Democrats run on evils of income inequality but it is by their crony capitalism that Americans slide further down the income ladder

EXCLUSIVE — American Worker Forced to Train Foreign Replacement Reveals How Hillary Clinton Betrayed Him

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, American tech worker Mike Emmons detailed the untold story of his personal experience with the office of then-Senator Hillary Clinton and revealed how she abandoned American workers in favor of fulfilling the desires of corporate donors and foreign special interests.

A Hillary Clinton administration “would not be government of, or for, the people, but would, instead, be government against the people,” Emmons warned.

Emmons, who was one of the nation’s first whistleblowers to expose the displacement of American workers by foreign nationals brought in on guest worker visas, is one of thousands of American workers to have lost his job as a result of the cheap labor practices of the India-based outsourcing firm, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)–a Clinton Foundation donor whose anti-American worker business model has been “enabled” and endorsed by Hillary Clinton.

Emmons said that his interactions with Clinton in 2003 opened his eyes to the cynical and corrupt pay-for-play tactics of a career politician, guided and consumed by her desire for self-advancement and personal enrichment.

As Emmons watched Clinton’s office rebuff his “desperate” pleas for help–choosing, instead, to stand with a foreign corporation at the direct expense of the American workers she was elected to represent–that was the moment, “my naïveté was over,” Emmons said. “That was when I realized exactly what this was: I realized it’s the government against the people.”

“As naïve as I was then, I now know that politicians like Hillary are not out to do what’s right for the people of America; they’re out to do what’s right for the people who donate money to them,” Emmons said.

“Hillary Clinton does not care about American working families. I don’t believe she cares for any American,” Emmons added. “Even with all the issues regarding Trump’s personal life, his stance on American workers is a thousand-fold better than Clinton’s. … Without a doubt, Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate that made me feel heard–that paid attention to working people.”

“Working Americans are the ones that should really care [about this election],” Emmons said. “If you’re a working American, Trump is the only person who is going to work for us.”

The story of citizens like Mike Emmons and his colleagues has become an all-too-familiar one: American tech workers are gathered together for a meeting with their executives—in this case, by Siemens in Lake Mary, Florida, in 2002. The unsuspecting workers are then informed that, despite their stellar performance record and years of service to the company, they’re all being fired and replaced by predominantly foreign-born Indian workers. However, before they are to be officially let go, they’ll be forced to train their foreign replacements. If they refuse, the American workers will not receive their severance. Companies like Siemens, Disney, Southern California Edison, Xerox, Northeast Utilities, and countless others are able to do this through forming contracts with India-based outsourcing firms like Tata that import thousands of foreign workers into the country on L-1 and H-1B visas and use them to supplant American workers who had been working there previously.

By all accounts from the workers who have dared to risk their future in the tech industry by speaking out, the experience of training their foreign replacement is nothing short of traumatic.

One American worker, who wrote an op-ed for Breitbart News on the condition of anonymity, said he felt “betrayed.” He spoke of the alienation he felt as he endured the “humiliat[ing]” and “disgraceful” experience of having no choice but “to watch a foreign worker completely take over my job.”

“Workers tell me that they feel physically sick as they’re forced to train their replacements,” said attorney Sara Blackwell, who runs an organization that represents high-skilled American workers replaced by low-wage foreign workers. “They go home and vomit; they cry every single night; they go into counseling; they’re admitted to hospitals; there are divorces; we’ve seen two suicides as a result of these cheap labor practices.”

This business model, Blackwell said, “has single-handedly destroyed American families by the thousands.”

Emmons had a front row seat to the devastation.

Although Emmons, as a contractor, was not formally displaced and was eventually able to land on his feet, he watched as some of his friends–unable to find new employment–were forced into early retirement. Others, far too young to retire, were forced to abandon their trade and leave the tech industry altogether–even though that meant letting years of specialized schooling and experience in the high-skilled sector go to waste. For many of those workers, their last opportunity to use the specialized skills they had spent decades cultivating was when they had to “transfer” that career’s worth of knowledge to their lesser-skilled foreign replacements, who would work for a fraction of the cost.

Emmons recalled one coworker, who after twenty years in the IT industry, was forced to go into landscaping to make ends meet.

“The more I learned, the more upset I got,” Emmons said. “As a contractor, Siemens never trained me. They didn’t pay me to train myself. I learned it all myself. And it upset me that I’m having to give away my hard-earned knowledge–an education and training, which I had paid for out of my own pocket so I could then train my replacements who were much less qualified.”

Emmons’ job was to be filled by–not one, but–three foreign workers, each of whom made a fraction of Emmons’ salary and each of whom he had to train to “learn a different facet of [his] job.” While Emmons made roughly $90,000 a year, he said the foreign workers’ contract salary ultimately came out to roughly $1,000 a month.

“It was the most demoralizing time of my life,” Emmons said, who was concerned about how losing his job would affect his ability to care for his young daughter, who had been born with a serious medical disability. “All I could think about is: how am I going to keep her insurance? It was about $930 a month at the time, which was almost the equivalent of [the foreign workers’] salary.”

Emmons knew he couldn’t sit by and watch. Instead, he launched what has been described as “a ferocious one-man campaign against the practice of offshore outsourcing and supplanting American workers with foreigners on temporary work visas.”

While still at Siemens, Emmons copied Tata’s 800 documents on the Siemens shared drive and set up an encrypted tunnel between Siemens’ server and his home server, so that he could communicate important information to the news media and expose what Tata was doing to American workers. Emmons’ tireless efforts to bring attention to what was happening resulted in a local Orlando WKMG CBS exposé and Emmy-nominated series, titled, Where Did the Jobs Go?

Around that time, Emmons also reached out to the office of then-Senator Clinton seeking representation.

“I sent her office reports, CDs, data. We had spoken over telephone and in written correspondence. We had emails going back and forth. I told her specifically about what Tata had done and how we had to train our replacements,” Emmons said.

“We Americans, just the normal Americans that work for a living need the help of Senator Clinton,” Emmons wrote in a 2003 letter to Clinton congressional staffer, Erin Ashwell, an exclusive copy of which Breitbart News has obtained. “She needs to realize what this company and many [Tata]-like companies from India are doing. They are just taking jobs from Americans. … We desperately need help,” Emmons wrote.

Emmons told Clinton’s office of his fears about how he would be unable to provide for his seven-year-old handicapped daughter, whose disability required expensive medical care. “What are we supposed to do?” Emmons wrote in his letter to Clinton’s staffer. “As a parent of a handicapped child, Hanna, born with spina ­bifida L4-5, all I wanted to do was pay my $930/month medical insurance premiums. Hanna is 7 years old and has had 8 surgeries.”

“Please help stop these American Worker Replacement Programs,” Emmons begged.

Ultimately, however, “Hillary didn’t care,” Emmons said. “Hillary only cares about Hillary.”

Emmons said Clinton not only ignored his repeated pleas, but she joined forces with Tata to help open a data systems office in Upstate New York.

“About a month after I spoke to her office, Hillary went to Buffalo to get her pockets lined by Tata at their grand opening,” Emmons explained.

Indeed, as the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, Clinton’s deal with Tata “signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.”

Making matters worse in Emmons’ view, a press release issued by Tata announcing the opening revealed that the deal was, in fact, “the brainchild of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

In public, Clinton became a vocal champion of the Indian corporation, repeatedly defending the company’s anti-American worker business model.

Howard University Professor Ron Hira observed that during the ten-year period FY2005-2014, Tata imported an incredible 27,193 H-1B guest workers and likely more than 10,000 L-1 workers. That is tens of thousands of “jobs that American workers should have been hired for or in many cases were already doing … and got replaced” by lower-wage foreign labor, Hira told Breitbart News.

Interestingly, Tata has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons also have financial ties to the India-based consulting firm responsible for the replacement of scores of American workers at Disney in Orlando, Florida.

Yet Clinton’s questionable financial and political ties to powerful Indian outsourcing corporations have received little media attention this election cycle. Emmons said he firmly believes that is because “the mainstream media is totally in bed to get Clinton into office. The media are afraid of what Trump might do because he’s not one of them,” Emmons explained.

Indeed, in 2007, Clinton’s extensive ties to Indian donors, who support the outsourcing of American jobs and the insourcing of foreign labor to replace American workers, were thrust into national media spotlight following a hard-hitting memo issued by then-Senator Barack Obama’s campaign.

“It’s all about the money,” the Obama campaign wrote about Clinton’s ties to India.

In the memo, the Obama campaign labeled his opponent, “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)”–implying that Clinton represents foreign nations and foreign citizens, rather than her own American constituents. The dig was a reference to a joke Clinton had previously made in which she told a group of Indian Americans that she saw herself as the elected representative of foreign citizens in the Indian region of Punjab. “I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York,” Clinton said.

“Hillary doesn’t care about America,” Emmons told Breitbart. “She doesn’t even really want us to be America. … She wants a one-world government. That’s all I can say. I can’t comprehend why she takes all this money from foreign governments, or why she’d joke that she’s ‘the Senator of Punjab.’”

The Clintons have repeatedly articulated their support for globalist policies, including “open borders”–which Bernie Sanders has described as a radical position supported by wealthy donors that “says essentially there is no United States” by “doing away with the concept of a nation state.” Sanders warned that open borders would allow wealthy corporations to “bring in all kinds of people [who] work for $2 or $3 an hour” and “would make everybody in America poorer.”

A recent WikiLeaks release revealed that in a private speech to foreign bankers, Hillary Clinton said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

As the Los Angeles Times observed in 2007, the Clintons’ praise for “open borders” frequently comes when they are speaking before foreign audiences and wealthy donors. The Los Angeles Times noted that, in particular, the Clintons have often sought to “telegraph” their support for open borders and a globalized world to “wo[o] wealthy Indian American” donors who have “close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas.”

Emmons explained that in contrast to Clinton’s allegiances to foreign nations and donors, Donald Trump will represent the interests of America and her citizens. “This election is all about jobs, the economy, eradicating ISIS, the borders, and most importantly, loving America. … Donald Trump will be on our team–the American team,” Emmons said. “When he becomes president, he’s going to do what’s best for Americans.”

Tone deafness is one of her traits.

Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality

Pay inequality at the Clinton "crime family" Foundation

Pay Gap Alert: Clinton Foundation Male Execs Earn 38% More Than Women

Male executives at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation earn 38 percent more than women executives, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of the foundation’s latest IRS tax filings.

The foundation’s 2013 IRS form 990 reveals that nearly three times as many men as women occupy the executive suites at the Little Rock, Arkansas-based foundation.

On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite.

Special: Dr. Oz Shocked After Barb Walters Reveals Her Anti-Wrinkle Secret

The numbers were in stark contrast to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign-oriented “Equal Pay Day” speech, which she delivered in Silicon Valley Tuesday. She charged that equal pay for women was “long overdue.”

“I feel like [equal pay] is something that’s long overdue,” she told an event organized by Glassdoor, which compares salaries and working conditions at corporations.

“It is way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job,” she told the audience.

Special: Hawking Says Smart Pill is Proven to Double IQ

Pay equity at The Clinton Foundation, however, doesn’t quite meet those standards.

The foundation’s highest paid executive is Frederick Post, director of “sponsor and marketing,” who has built the foundation’s assets to $247 million. He received $484,000 in annual compensation.

The highest paid woman is CEO Virginia Ehrlich. Her pay is only $201,000, less than half that of Post’s.

The second-highest paid male is long-time Clinton associate Bruce Lindsay, who received $395,000 in annual compensation.

All eight male foundation execs earn $200,000 or more. Only one woman earned $200,000, while Stephanie Streett, its executive director, received a paltry $169,000.

Altogether, eight executives are men in the executive suites compared to three women, according to the foundation’s filing.

Clinton did not refer to her own foundation’s pay disparities at the event.

A Clinton Foundation spokesman has not responded to a DCNF request for comment.

Understanding income inequality...

February 27, 2016
Wealth and Income Inequality Is Not as Bad as You Think

By Raymond L. Richman


Sen. Bernie Sanders says, “There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.” He writes: “The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time.” The trouble is that none of it is true except the fact that it is a political issue because leftists like Sanders make it so. The propaganda is based on calculations of the inequality o wealth which do not tell the whole story. They exclude the value of pensions, annuities, and social security. They also exclude th value of government wealth -- national, state, and city parks, and other land and buildings, including schools, libraries, stadiums, vehicles, streets and roads, and public transit facilities which are owned by everyone equally.
Wealth used in the measure of inequality includes the value of the assets owned by a household such as stocks, bonds, and real estate, including the net value of homes. Income used in measures of equality is defined as the return one receives in the form of wages and salaries, rents, interest, profits, and returns from past savings and investments, including dividends, annuities, pensions, and social security benefits. The income measured is income before income taxes. Income after income tax as we shall note is considerably more equal than income before tax. Moreover, not all income is consumed. Consumption is a measure of what households take out of the economy, whereas income before income tax and wealth are measures of what the household has contributed to the economy. Obviously income after tax and consumption are much more equal that the distribution of household wealth.
One of the myths propagated by the left is that the inequality of wealth and income are constantly rising. In fact, both rise and fal over the decades they have been studied. Profs. Emmanuel Saez (UC Berkeley) and Gabriel Zucman (LSE) studied wealth inequality and produced the graph below which shows that the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent was 25% in 1916, then it fell to 15% in 1923, rose to 25% in 1929, then began a downward trend reaching 7 percent in 1978 and rose to 22 percent in 2013. It continued to rise until 2015. The degree of inequality depends largely on the level of prices of corporate stock and real estate.
Likewise the distribution of income is not as unequal as the propaganda would have you believe. Studies of inequality of income define income as wages salaries, rents, interest, profits of unincorporated enterprises, and capital gains. They often, perhaps usually, exclude pension and annuity payments and social security income over $32,000. Prof. Saez, cited above, calculated the distribution of income before tax. The percent of income received by the top 1% on income earners in 1920 was about 15%; it rose to approximately 24% in 1928, then fell to less than 10% in 1970, rose to about 23% in 2005 and was at about 22% in 2014. This was before tax. The current income tax rate on incomes over $615,000 is 39.6 percent. Laura Saunders, in the Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2015, in an article entitled “Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax And the bottom 20% get paid by Uncle Sam”, cites a finding by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that in 2014, the top 1 percent of income earners whose incomes exceeded $615,000 paid 45.7 percent of total income taxes paid. Politicians do not mention the inequality of income very much because it is so much less than the inequality of wealth, especially after tax. Household consumption equals income after tax minus savings. Since those with high incomes save more than those with low incomes, who often spend more than their incomes a fact called dissaving, consumption is distributed more equally than income and vastly more equal than the distribution of wealth. Since those at the lowest income levels receive welfare, food stamps, and some public housing, politicians want to avoid talking about the distribution of consumption.
As we pointed out, the estimates of household wealth do not include the value of social security benefits. The Social Security administration reported that in 2015, over 59 million Americans received about $870 billion in Social Security benefits. Capitalizing those benefits by 7%, the average yield on corporate investments historically, which ranges from about 4% in depressions and recessions to 10% in boom years, those benefits are valued at roughly $12 trillion. And each citizen owns the assets of the federal government which owns more than 700 million acres of land whose value of the land itself at only $100 per acre is $70 billion. The mineral rights are worth at least $100 billion. The assets of the state governments must be worth another $5 trillion at least. Since the published measures of wealth equality include only household wealth, they grossly overstate the inequality of wealth. If we were to include the value of social security and government assets in household wealth, inequality of wealth would be substantially less than published estimates indicate.

And here are some other things to keep in mind. The rich cannot take their wealth with them when they die. The balance upon their deaths is subject to the federal estate tax and state estate and inheritance taxes. The current estate tax has an exemption of $5.45 million and a tax rate of 40% on the excess. The state with the highest maximum estate tax rate is Washington (20 percent) followed by eleven states which have a maximum rate of 16 percent. The estate and inheritance taxes do much to reduce great inequalities of wealth, which no politician mentions.

Here are a few instances of the myths of inequality propagated by the left. The French economist and Marxist Thomas Piketty in a recent book attempts to prove that “a market economy based on private property, if left to itself, contains powerful forces” that result in increasingly, unequal distribution of income and wealth which is “potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based”. Although many economists agree with his conclusion that income or wealth inequality has been increasing, the foregoing evidence shows that they are clearly wrong. Robert Reich, currently a professor of public policy at UC at Berkeley, states that 95% of the economic gains since 2009 went to the top 1% of the wealthiest. He must be criticizing the policies of President Obama, who was in power all that time. Fortune magazine, in an article entitled “America is the richest, and most unequal, country”, by Erik Sherman, reported that the U.S., with $63.5 trillion in total private wealth, has the largest wealth inequality gap of 55 countries studied. It failed to report that the average American had the highest standard of living in the world and that those nations with the least inequality had the lowest standards of living! Prof. John Maynard Keynes in 1920 wrote that you cannot have economic growth without inequality. How right he was!
The inequality of wealth and income is not a serious moral or economic problem at all. It is only a political problem. Democratic and leftist propaganda is widely believed. 

How does this square with the left's meme about America having the greatest income inequality?

Beijing overtakes NYC as 'Billionaire Capital of the World'

BEIJING (AP) — Move over, New York City: Beijing is the new "Billionaire Capital of the World."

The Chinese capital has overtaken the Big Apple as home to the most billionaires — 100 to 95 — according to Hurun, a Shanghai firm that publishes a monthly magazine and releases yearly rankings and research about the world's richest people and their spending habits.

The study, which comes months after reports suggested China now has more billionaires than the United States, highlights how China's elite are continuing to accrue vast wealth despite a wobbling stock market and cooling economy.

Different tabulations of wealth, such as the Hurun Report and the Forbes list, have historically produced somewhat different results depending on their methodology.

Rupert Hoogewerf, the founder of Hurun, attributed China's explosive wealth creation to Chinese market regulators allowing a flood of new initial public offerings after holding back new IPOs for several years.

Hoogewerf said his wealth calculations were made using stock prices as of Jan. 15, which means they took into account the Chinese market's 40 percent tumble over the past half year.

Had the calculations been made at the market's peak last summer, the number of Chinese billionaires would have been nearly 150, Hoogewerf said.

Beijing took the title from New York after minting 32 new billionaires last year, while New York gained four. Moscow came in third place, with 66 billionaires, while Hong Kong and Shanghai came in fourth and fifth with 64 and 50, respectively, Hurun said.

China's richest man, real estate tycoon Wang Jianlin, came in 21st place globally behind Wal-Mart scions, the Swedish family that owns Ikea and Brazilian investor Jorge Paulo Lemann. Other Chinese billionaires in the global top 100 included Alibaba founder Jack Ma, beverage magnate Zong Qinghou, and the tech bosses at phone maker Xiaomi, social media firm Tencent and Baidu, the search engine.

Hoogewerf said China had a particularly high proportion of self-made billionaires compared to the United States.

"What we showed today is that at the super-wealth creation level, the Chinese are now leading," Hoogewerf said. "People will look at China the same way that people looked at Stanford or Silicon Valley in the 1990s."

The real goal here has more to do with government control of private enterprise then equal pay. The decision of what is equal is subjective and so it becomes a tool of the government to reward and punish.

Another Bogus Effort To Bridge The Phony Gender Pay Gap 

With Lilly Ledbetter looking on, President Barack Obama signs executive actions aimed at closing a compensation gender gap that supposedly favors men at the White House on April 8, 2014. The signing was timed to mark Equal Pay Day. (AP)

• 1/29/2016 6:16 PM EST

Politics: Using executive orders, President Obama has placed an intrusive new requirement on private employers to provide data about employee wages, gender and ethnicity to “help” enforcers of pay equity and spy on business. This is not about equality, it’s about making big government even bigger.

“Women are not getting the fair shot that we believe every single American deserves,” the president declared, a statement so cynical, an Emory University professor quoted by NBC speculated that it was a likely bid to boost Hillary Clinton’s flailing campaign for president. “What kind of example does paying women less set for our sons and daughters?” Obama asked. His office made a big deal about his signing the new rule on the anniversary of the first law he signed as president, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This new rule — it’s not a law — will create a massive legal fishing expedition against businesses with more than 100 people, a de facto subpoena for such firms with the presumption of guilt to find “violations” based on highly questionable data about the gender pay gap. It’s also another federal invasion of the privacy of  63 million American workers, whose salary data will now be out there, with or without their consent.

“This step,” the White House press release said, “will help focus public enforcement of our equal pay laws,” as if that were needed, given the size and scope of Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The White House also said that the rule’s purpose was to “provide better insight into discriminatory pay practices across industries and occupations.”

There’s just one problem: It’s all based on junk data.

The prevailing myth, perpetrated by even the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, which issued a brief on the matter Friday, is that women earn only 79 cents on the dollar to men, the result of woman-hating discrimination. Exhibit A of this claim is found not in the private sector but in the White House itself. It pays its female employees 13% less than their male counterparts. One staffer, Anita Dunn, called it “a genuinely hostile workplace for women.”

But studies repeatedly show that the discrimination mantra is a myth. Manhattan Institute scholar Diana Furchtgott-Roth has done considerable research on the matter, finding that the conventional wisdom about women getting less pay for equal work, being discouraged from taking higher-paying jobs and being subject to a “glass ceiling” on advancement are all false.

The studies, she has noted, lump men and women working different numbers of hours above the 35-hour full-time mark, create vastly distorted results. They also lump together dirty, dangerous, physically demanding and disagreeable jobs dominated by men with more conventional lines of work, ignoring the compensation required for the higher stress and physical risk.

Meanwhile, they ignore that many female workers prefer to work part-time and take leaves of absence to fulfill family duties. Those are free choices, and they can contribute to differing levels of pay for comparable work. “It’s not the ‘glass ceiling’ that keeps women out of the corner office, it’s a choice of how much time and effort to put into one’s career,” wrote Furchtgott-Roth in a 2012 essay for MarketWatch.

She notes that in some areas, women’s pay exceeds that of men — particularly for those who work 30-34 hours a week, as well as those who enter fields with low female representation, commanding higher salaries based on the laws of supply and demand. In fact, accounting for all of these variables, Furchtgott-Roth finds that there is virtually no difference in the pay scales of men and women doing equal work.

Which is why Obama’s executive orders are likely to change nothing in pay equity. All they are going to do is politicize the process, vastly expanding the powers of the federal government to fish up new data to obtain the result they want. It’s nothing but another power grab.

The clinton's $3 billion haul identified by donor.

Hillary and Bill's excellent $3 BILLION adventure.

A Washington Post investigation reveals how Bill and Hillary Clinton have methodically cultivated donors over 40 years, from Little Rock to Washington and then across the globe. Their fundraising methods have created a new blueprint for politicians and their donors.

By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy

Published on Nov. 19, 2015

CLOSE 

SHARE THIS

41 years. $3 billion. Inside the Clinton donor network.

By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy

HOW WE DID IT

This project is an effort to identify every known donor who contributed to support Bill and Hillary Clinton over their four decades in public life.

Read about our methodology.

Liberals' income inequality concerns built on false premise. The left salivates at the thought of being the decider of who earns what.

Liberals' income inequality concerns built on false premise

By Patricia L. Dickson

I received an email a while back from a college student asking for my comments on the issue of income inequality for a research paper he was doing. My response to him was in the form of a few questions.
How can everyone earn equal income? Where is it written that everyone can or should earn equal income? How does one arrive at his or her income to begin with? Are we to expect someone with only a high school education and little work experience to earn the same income as someone with at least a four-year degree? Are we to expect a social worker to earn the same income as a chemist, engineer, or medical doctor?
I informed him that an individual’s income is a combination of his or her level of education and experience. I concluded the email with the following comments:
The entire income inequality movement is just rhetoric to inflame hearts and divide people. No logical person really believes that the income disparity between the rich (mostly educated) and the poor (uneducated) can ever be equal. If so, please explain to me how it could be possible.
After listening to Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’s comments during the first Democrat debate, I have since given this issue more thought. I now realize that the issue of income inequality is based on a false premise. A premise is a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument – since the premise (proposition or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.
The false premise behind income inequality complaints is that income is distributed instead of earned. If it is a fact that income is distributed instead of earned, I would like to pose a few questions. Who is responsible for distributing it? Who decides the amount of income to distribute? What factors are used to arrive at the income amount? If income is supposed to be distributed equally, does it matter the number of hours employees work? What about the different skill levels required for certain jobs? If a population is supposed to earn equal income, why have institutions of higher learning?
This by no means is an exhaustive list of questions for this premise. I would like for liberals (Clinton and Sanders) to provide some specifics to how they plan to fix the alleged income inequality problem in America. When liberals speak about income inequality and the wealth gap, we notice that they replace the word “earn” with “distribute.” If they were to use the word “earn,” it might trigger the words “work” and “merit” to enter the conversation. Liberals believe that for someone to merit his or her income based on hard work is just not fair. If we examine any liberal stance on any issue, whether it is gun control or abortion, we will find that it is built on a false premise.

Christian Commentary (http://patriciascornerblog.com), or contact the author at patdickson@earthlink.net. Follow me on twitter@Patrici15767099.