Supreme Court Strikes Down Goodness

The United States Supreme Court of Appeals has decided that America is now fully equal for all the races, and we need not provide any support (or presumably regulation) on that issue. This ruling is most likely going to result the way the erasure of voting rights protections has gone — racist states will immediately take advantage and show racism is still quite real and damaging.

https://jabberwocking.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-for-good/

To be sure, if we are to eliminate assistance to minority groups, who face damaging racist behaviors, then we must ensure that all government-created racism in schools is also eliminated. It means we have to back that up ruling with enforced equal funding for all students around the country. That would be a statement that we are no longer racist, but I doubt it's what the racists on the Supreme Court intend.

America faces some dark days ahead, and the forces of Evil are enjoying every minute of this.

The Left in America must respond forcefully. Individuals must be called to take a side in this war. Many individuals benefit from policies the Liberals put into law and then forget. They may think they aren't part of that movement, but when the Right strike down laws, they need to be reawakened to their position in this struggle.

Constitutional changes happen slowly, so we will suffer from this Court for a long time. The people who enabled this or stood by and watched it happen will suffer for their laisser faire attitude.

When the Tax System Works for the Rich

The story in this article is infuriating, perhaps surprising to some people, and an indicator of how our political system is severely harmed by big money.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-ways-rich-save-big-023512497.html

When the tax code is written by the money people, it will benefit ONLY the rich and this article indicates several ways it happens -- and most people don't have any reason to become familiar with these techniques/loopholes. But we need to know. When some people pay most of the taxes (as a percentage of their incomes), it's not fair, people lose faith in their government, people become confused and angry, and even our adversaries can laugh at us with cause.

We need to fix these when they come to light, but when do they come to light? This article is the first I've read since ProPublica or Vox did an investigation of the issue. It's not every day. Too many other things take our attention and time. Perhaps now, with one of the biggest tax cheats in history being charged with federal crimes in the news every day (Donald Trump), we can see how the tax system is used and abused.

The Rich, They Are Different

One of the big problems with our system of federal government taxation is that the super-rich do NOT take a big salary. They use trickery to avoid taxes. It's legal, but the laws should change to make sure all their "compensation" is taxed.

Watch this short video to hear a nice simple explanation. It's a "short" on YouTube.

https://youtube.com/shorts/f3-EKY7CBds?feature=share

For someone making $50,000 a year and paying taxes, this is unbelievable and unacceptable.

Warning to Washington: Don't give CA Investment Banks to Wall St.

If Washington lets Wall St. banks take over CA investment banking, they
will control the ups and downs of CA and a lot of the well-being of the
Democratic Party. The octopus will have its tentacles into too many
parts of the U.S. economy and politicians will be trapped. Already most
investment goes to a small part of the country and it divides America
into "fly over country" and power centers. We need greater diversity in
America and a fuller coverage of the map for investment and ideas.

Diversify is a word used to divide the interests and sources of debt or
incomes. It reduces your overall risks. Letting Wall St. banks take over
too much of the US economy would be the worst outcome of the SVB collapse.

It's Time to Raise the Minimum Wage

Worker productivity is up! I borrowed a couple of graphs from Kevin Drum's blog to show it and to use that as strong evidence the federal minimum wage should be increased.

My source:  https://jabberwocking.com/chart-of-the-day-productivity-was-up-in-final-quarter-of-2022/

Can corporations afford to pay better wages? It would appear so.

My source:  https://jabberwocking.com/war-profiteering-how-about-pandemic-profiteering/

How much should wages go up for minimum wage earners? It seems $13.00 / hour is pretty common (from chatter on reddit.com) and the current minimum wage is at $7.25, so maybe $10.00 would be good.

Since 2010 it appears wages have gone up about 12% while the minimum wage (last set in 2006) is still $7.25 / hour. Raising that wage rate 12% would be $8.12, but it hasn't been raised since about 2006 and productivity has gone up rather a lot since then.

What's the longer-term trend?

Labor productivity has gone up dramatically from 1973 - about 2008 and slowed a bit. Hourly compensation began rising at a slower rate around 1998. This indicates that if the common wage is around $13.00 / hour and hourly compensation hasn't kept up with labor productivity increases then the hourly rate should perhaps be more like $15.00 / hour. But, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 and a large increase from $7.25 to $11.00 (for example) is nearly a 50% increase and that may be too sudden and too much. Many would even argue that from $7.25 up to $10.00 is too much, but the minimum wage has increased several times at a 50% increase and $7.25 x 1.50 is $10.86. (nearly $11 / hour). So, any increase would be appropriate from up to $11.00 / hour. I suggest $10.00.

Time for a Minimum Wage Increase !

Now is a good time to raise the minimum wage because workers at the
lowest end of the wage scale have no leverage and need increased pay to
help them face the recent price inflation. It's really that simple.
Corporate profits are strong, so there's no reason companies can't
afford this and worker pay isn't quite where it was before the pandemic.

How much of a raise is needed? Ideally probably $1.50 / hour, but to be
more politically palatable, $1.00 / hour is probably sufficient.
Economists may scream and pull their hair out, but that would just be an
added bonus. Watching them try to explain why this would mean and end to
the Universe is always amusing.

Culpability in the Modern World

I just watched the C-SPAN presentation of the SCOTUS oral arguments for
the case involving Twitter and how they handled accounts (perhaps)
associated with ISIS members. I was horrified to discover that the legal
counsels who argued there were incapable of defining what is legal and
what is not or why this or that behavior should be legal or illegal. As
one of them said, the current law is based on ancient tort law
(originally related to personal injury) which has existed a very long
time. Yet today, they are confused and kept saying, "It depends". I'm
still stunned to consider the ramifications of that.

Imagine several different possibilities: a person directly commits an
act which is violation of the law or a person gives a gun to someone who
uses it to murder or someone gives money to a person who buys a gun and
gives it to a person who commits an armed robbery with it or a person
who offers bookkeeping services to someone who is married to a
professional burglar making money by selling stolen goods. There is
direct action where culpability is pretty well established by the action
and the intent and knowledge that it is a violation of the law. There is
then a wide range of possibilities at some distance (in space, time, or
other ways) from the criminal act. Where in that distance do we say
someone is to some degree culpable for the criminal act to which they
(somehow) contributed?

Twitter, or as the Justices hypothesized the Ma Bell phone company
(Alito hypothetical) or a pager system (Thomas hypothetical) or a fence
or a bank or an Internet platform, are at various arms length distances
from a crime. They may know of the crime. They may know of some
organization to which their customer is involved (drug gang, terrorist
organization, mafia, etc.). They may give direct assistance for a crime
such as an explosive, a gun. They may give assistance related to the
crime, such as information about security guard schedules, a building
plan, etc. They may only provide the kinds of service they give to the
general public: internet access, banking, communications, taxi service,
trucking rentals, etc. How close to the crime does their assistance have
to be to be considered substantial aid and abetting? These form a matrix
which boggles the mind.

A key question I don't believe they discussed fully was the necessity
the question of who is to police the "bad guys". Is it only the military
or police or is it the grocer who sells food to the local career burglar
or the taxi driver who transports known gang members around town? Maybe
it's everyone's job to label people as "criminal" or "known member of a
criminal enterprise".

In short, where do we draw the lines. I kept hearing lawyers saying,
"maybe", "it depends", "considering all the factors", "it's complicated"
and I began to wonder if these people have a clue about the law and how
we are to have Civilization with such murky understanding.

Because the SCOTUS Justices as a group are a bit smarter, they may come
up with a ruling which settles these issues, but I am not comforted by
the oral arguments. They may open the door to legalizing many kinds of
activities or of turning all of society into police but with no real
official powers or limits. Right now as I see it we have a coin's toss
chance of losing either way.