On poor craftsmen & offensive comedians blaming audiences

“College Students Don’t Want to Hire Racist or Homophobic Comedians. Why Is That a Problem, Exactly?” | Bitch Media:

Screening out comedians who make rape jokes and gay jokes seems like a good thing to me—and likely to millions of college students. Like all writers who make this case, Flanagan seems unwilling to accept that the goals students seek might be worth the boundaries they set. Personally, I find it easy to believe that a comedy act free of sexism, racism, and anti-queer jokes would be an improvement over the status quo.

 
Agreed. I find it frustrating that certain comedians are getting away with blaming audiences for not finding their offensive “jokes” funny instead of acknowledging that this means they need better/different material. I sort of think that if you’re a standup, and your stuff isn’t getting laughs and positive reactions, for whatever reason, you probably need to do one of 3 things:
– Find different material
– Find a different audience that likes your current material
– Quit and do something else with your life

Those choices could be applied to both genuinely terrible comics and genuinely brilliant but under-appreciated comics who haven’t found their niche yet. Ideally the good ones find their audiences and the terrible ones get a life.

Unfortunately, that isn’t getting across to the type of standup comics who whine about “PC” audiences supposedly blocking or censoring their jokes. That whining is, in my opinion, also a weird double-standard only being applied to very specific content that isn’t funny, as opposed to all content that isn’t funny. What if audience taste changed some other way, rather than becoming airquote “more PC”? Wouldn’t you just adapt?

I mean, many standups used to just make dull observational humor about airplane food. Most audiences lost interest. Comics adapted. But audience taste is now shifting such that many audiences don’t want you making sexist jokes, racist jokes, homophobic jokes, rape jokes, etc. so that’s now “PC” interference? Adapt your material. Be funny.

If audiences are no longer interested in your material for whatever reason (irrelevant, offensive, whatever) that’s on you, not them. “My material is funny. You just don’t get it.” Ok, well, either it’s not or you’re at the wrong audience or you should quit. Not our problem. The anti-“PC” whiner stand-ups and their defenders seem to believe an audience that pays to enjoy comedy should essentially be subjected to material, regardless of quality. Except they only seem to believe that when the content in question conforms to their worldviews and ideologies.

The origin story of minimum wage laws, part 2

Part 2: Why did some industrialized nations wait so long to get a minimum wage? When did the UK, Germany, and France get minimum wage laws? Why do some industrialized nations still not have legal minimum wages? || This original research was produced for The Globalist Research Center and Arsenal For Democracy.

Why did some industrialized nations wait so long to get a minimum wage?

From a historical perspective, minimum wage laws were implemented first in countries where trade union movements were not strong. Countries such as the UK that traditionally had strong labor unions have tended to be late adopters on minimum wage laws.

In those countries, powerful unions were able to bargain collectively with employers to set wage floors, without needing legislative minimums.

The early gold standard guideline for government participation in wage setting was the International Labor Organization’s Convention No. 26 from 1928 – although many industrialized countries never adopted it.

The convention said that governments should create regulatory systems to set wages, unless “collective agreement” could ensure fair effective wages. This distinction acknowledged that, by 1928, there was already a major split in approaches to creating effective wage floors: leaving it to labor organizers versus using statutes and regulators.

When did the UK, Germany, and France get minimum wage laws?

Much like pioneers New Zealander and Australia, the United Kingdom did adopt “Trade Boards” as early as 1909 to try to oversee and arbitrate bargaining between labor and management. However, its coverage was far less comprehensive than Australian and New Zealand counterparts and cannot be considered a true minimum wage system. Instead, UK workers counted on labor unions to negotiate their wages for most of the 20th century.

The Labour Party introduced the UK’s first statutory minimum wage less than two decades ago, in 1998, when it took over the government following 18 years of a Conservative government that had focused on weakening British unions. The country’s current hourly minimum wage for workers aged 21 and up is £6.50 (i.e. about $8.40 in purchasing power parity terms), or about 45% of median UK wages.

Despite opposition to minimum wages in some quarters, The Economist magazine noted recently that studies consistently show that there is little impact on hiring decisions when the minimum wage level is set below 50% of median pay. Above that level, some economists believe low-level jobs would be shed or automated, but this is also not definitively proven either.

In fact, not all countries with minimum wages above that supposed 50% threshold — a list which includes at least 13 industrialized economies, according to the OECD — seem to have those hypothesized problems. True, some of them do, but that may indicate other economic factors at work.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, only adopted a minimum wage law after the 2013 federal elections. Previously, wages had generally been set by collective bargaining between workers’ unions and companies.

As a result of the postwar occupation in the western sectors, Germany also uses the “codetermination” system of corporate management, which puts unions on the company boards directly. This too encourages amicable negotiations in wage setting, to ensure the company’s long-term health, which benefits the workers and owners alike.

The new minimum wage amounts to €8.50 per hour ($10.20 in PPP-adjusted terms), or more than 45% of median German pay.

However, in some areas of Germany, the local median is much lower. There, the minimum wage affords significantly more purchasing power. In eastern Germany, the minimum is about 60% of median wages.

In France, where unions have long had a more antagonistic relationship with management, a minimum wage law was adopted much earlier – in 1950. It is now €9.61 per hour (about $10.90 in PPP-adjusted terms), or more than 60% of median French pay.

N.B. Purchasing-power currency conversions are from 2012 local currency to 2012 international dollars rounded from UN data.

Why do some industrialized nations still not have legal minimum wages?

Because of their generous social welfare systems, one might assume that the Nordic countries were early adopters of minimum wage laws. In fact, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland all lack a minimum wage, even today.

Instead, wages in these countries are virtually all set by collective bargaining in every sector – conducted between workers’ unions, corporations, and the state. (This is known as tripartism.) Non-union workers generally receive the same pay negotiated by the unions.

A prevailing minimum or average lower-end wage can usually be estimated, but there is no law. In U.S. dollar terms, Denmark’s approximate lowest wage level is higher than almost every minimum wage in the world. Mid-level wages are even higher. Even McDonald’s workers in Denmark reportedly make the equivalent of $20/hour.

 
Missed part one? New Zealand, Australia, Massachusetts, the New Deal, and China: How governments took an active role initially, and how they balance economic variability now.

Election 2015: Canada’s political Americanization continues

President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, February 2009. (White House photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, February 2009. (White House photo by Pete Souza)

“The Closing of the Canadian Mind” – New York Times op-ed:

The prime minister’s base of support is Alberta, a western province financially dependent on the oil industry, and he has been dedicated to protecting petrochemical companies from having their feelings hurt by any inconvenient research.
[…]
His active promotion of ignorance extends into the functions of government itself. Most shockingly, he ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Catholic Council of Bishops. In the age of information, he has stripped Canada of its capacity to gather information about itself.
[…]
He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions.

 
CBC Canada’s Federal election 2015 Poll Tracker, as of August 17, 2015:

There will be 338 seats in the next House of Commons. A party needs to win 170 seats to form a majority government. Each federal electoral riding corresponds to one seat. The Poll Tracker estimates the most likely number of seats each party could win if an election were held today, based on current polling levels.

The Conservative Party leads with 125 seats and is 45 seats from winning a majority government.

Social democrat New Democratic Party at 118, centrist Liberals at 92. (So, 210 if combined in coalition, which is not a certainty.)


Recently from AFD on this topic:

“Canada’s government re-election platform: Be Very Afraid”
“Passive-aggressive Canadian flag ‘battles'”
“Canada gov’t upset that they might have to consult native peoples on things”

Turkey will remain without elected government into October

Turkey will remain without an elected government until at least some time in October, now that a new round of elections have been called, following a failure to form a coalition after the June elections.

“Turkey PM formally gives up on coalition as polls loom” | AFP:

Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Tuesday informed President Recep Tayyip Erdogan he had failed to form a coalition government, paving the way for new general elections just months after June polls.
[…]
According to the constitution, the AKP will be able to continue as a minority government until elections if a majority in parliament votes in favour of holding the early polls.

If however Erdogan uses his right to call the election himself, a so-called “election government” will be formed until the polls, consisting of members from all four parties represented in parliament.

 
Will fresh elections make much of a difference in the parliamentary outcome?

“Turkey’s Erdogan gambles on new election bid” | Al Jazeera America:

Despite the carnage, however, a resumption of fighting with the Kurds could prove electorally useful for Erdogan. Tol called the bombing campaign against the PKK in aftermath of the June election defeat as “very related to Erdogan’s political ambitions.” A number of Turkish polls have shown the AKP gaining ground since then.

To regain a majority in parliament, Erdogan has tried to appeal to nationalists who were previously wary of his outreach to the Kurds, and weaken the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) […]

But while Erdogan’s political fortunes seem to have shifted since the surprising June defeat, his new strategy is nonetheless risky.
[…]
“To go the polls at a time when people are being killed every single day can have a downside,” Sinan Ulgen, chairman of EDAM, an Istanbul-based think tank, told the Associated Press. “The arithmetic in Parliament won’t necessarily change.”

 
On that last note, see my June 10, 2015 estimates “New Turkey elections might be AKP’s worst option”. While I came in at the time for some fairly thoughtful but strong pushback on that rough assessment, via Twitter, I still think the math isn’t really going to shift all that dramatically in a way that favors the AKP, if it moves at all on balance.

True, little changes could tip the balance by getting 18 more seats (and thus a majority) to the AKP or by pushing the Kurdish-dominated HDP back under the 10% national threshold to qualify. But at the moment I still have my doubts.

Rand Paul tries to pay for an election he’s in

Freemarketland: The Rand Paul camp continues to innovate the process of buying elections.

rand-paul-2016

To circumvent state election laws that keep him from running for both U.S. Senate and the presidential nomination on the same primary ballot, Rand Paul claims he’s paying to move his own state’s presidential nominating contest (now a caucus) up to the Saturday after Super Tuesday:

[…] the Kentucky senator said he gave $250,000 to his state’s Republican Party for the explicit purpose of funding its presidential caucus in March. He promised to pony up another $200,000 in the fall, enough to cover the entire cost of the nominating event. Put another way: Paul is paying the party to hold an election in which he is running.

 
Hey, that’s only six times more than it costs to pay an Iowa state senator to switch his endorsement from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul!

Previously from the Rand Paul camp

AFD: Iowa state senator admits Rand Paul aide bribed him on behalf of Ron Paul
Washington Post: “It’s actually legal to buy a political endorsement. You just can’t cover it up.”

Aug 19, 2015 – Ep. 139: Interview with Amb. Nicholas Burns

Posted by Bill on behalf of the team.

AFD-logo-470

Topics: Guest expert Ambassador Nicholas Burns on the Iran nuclear deal. And: Discussion of the Republican debate and Planned Parenthood. Hosts: Bill, Kelley, Nate. Produced: August 14th and 16th, 2015.

Discussion Points:

– The details and benefits of the Iran deal from Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former lead U.S. negotiator
– Nate, Kelley, and Bill discuss the first Republican debate and the Trump phenomenon
– Kelley explains the latest opposition to Planned Parenthood

Episode 139 (56 min):
AFD 139

Guest Bio: Nicholas Burns

Ambassador Burns is the Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of Diplomacy and International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He is Director of the Future of Diplomacy Project and Faculty Chair for the Programs on the Middle East and on India and South Asia. The Diplomacy Project focuses Harvard’s students, fellows and faculty on the importance of diplomacy in the 21st century global environment. He is also a member of Secretary of State John Kerry’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board, Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, and Senior Counselor at the Cohen Group.

As a career Foreign Service Officer, he was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2005 to 2008; the State Department’s third-ranking official when he led negotiations on the U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement; and was the lead U.S. negotiator on Iran’s nuclear program. He has also served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Greece and State Department Spokesman.

Related Links for Segments 2 and 3

CBS News: Trump on Iraq and Jeb Bush
Business Insider: “Jeb Bush: ‘Taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal'”
AFD: “The surge is a lie. A really dangerous lie.”
AFD: “When The Party’s Over: The 1820s in US Politics”
Washington Post: “Ben Carson’s tortured defense of his fetal tissue research”
Washington Post: “How Planned Parenthood actually uses its federal funding”

Subscribe

RSS Feed: Arsenal for Democracy Feedburner
iTunes Store Link: “Arsenal for Democracy by Bill Humphrey”

And don’t forget to check out The Digitized Ramblings of an 8-Bit Animal, the video blog of our announcer, Justin.