Day: March 2, 2017

Guns N’ Roses – Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door – Rock In Rio 1991


Warren Buffet: Climate Not Impacting the Insurance Business

Watts Up With That?


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Warren Buffet has repeated his inconvenient message from last year, that climate has not affected his insurance business – though he is concerned about future climate change.

Warren Buffett says global warming is not impacting the way Berkshire writes insurance

Tom DiChristopher
Monday, 27 Feb 2017 | 3:34 PM ET

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett on Monday said he has not yet seen sufficient evidence that climate change is affecting weather events to a degree that would make him change the way his conglomerate’s insurance businesses write policies.

Events such as Hurricane Sandy have raised concerns that global warming is increasing the intensity and frequency of so-called superstorms.

“I have not seen anything yet that would cause me to change the way we look at evaluating quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes by atmosphere. Now, that may happen some day,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Research shows…

View original post 198 more words

Nick Cohen on the flaws of the “cultural appropriation” warriors

Why Evolution Is True

I keep saying that Nick Cohen is an Anglophonic treasure. In terms of his straightforwardness and adherence to classical rather than Regressive Leftism, he’s the closest thing we have to the late Christopher Hitchens. And everyone should read his two books You Can’t Read this Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom and What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way.

In his column at Standpoint this week, Cohen has finally written about the Cultural Appropriation Wars, using as his springboard the fracas involving Lionel Shriver, a white woman who gave a talk at the Brisbane Writer’s Festival defending a writer’s prerogative to write about the lives of marginalized and oppressed people—indeed, about anybody. In response, the black Australian Muslim writer Yassmin Abdel-Maglied, mortally offended at what was not that provocative a talk, stalked out of Shriver’s talk in tears, and wrote a petulant screed in the Guardian about the dangers of culturally appropriating minority…

View original post 695 more words

Charles Waldegrave concedes @TaxpayersUnion critique of @LivingWageNZ

The godfather of the NZ living wage, Charles Waldegrave, conceded that different people are hired after a living wage policy is adopted. That is precisely my critique of the living wage in my recent report for the Taxpayers’ Union.

I summarised that report at public hearings on the living wage at the Hutt City Council last night where the living wage movement also made submissions.

My critique is that higher calibre people will crowd out minimum wage workers from vacancies for which they were previously hired because they are paid the living wage of $20.20 per hour rather than the minimum wage of $15.75 per hour. Employers expect better recruits if they pay more.

The living wage movement and the Taxpayers’ Union are in complete agreement on the minimum wage being crowded out of living wage vacancies in the future by high-calibre applicants attracted by the $20.20 pay. My submission to the Hutt City Council last night is below:

Remarks to the Hutt City Council Finance Committee

The Achilles heel of a living wage at councils is they still must hire on merit. Employees at the time of the living wage rise to $20.20 per hour gain, but their replacements will come from jobs on a similar pay rate to merit short-listing.

Ratepayers pay above-market wages forever for a one-time poverty reduction for existing council employees. A living wage will not lift recruits from poverty because they will be earning a similar pay in their last job to merit shortlisting.

The practical upshot of a living wage is a council is raising its hiring standards. The lower-paid breadwinners currently hired for council jobs are shut out by a living wage policy. Seventeen out of 33 Wellington City parking wardens were not rehired when their service was brought in house as living wage jobs.

The experience with large minimum wage increases in service jobs in American malls and restaurants is employers respond to the wage increase by being choosier in their hiring. Employers expect recruits to be more experienced and arrive with the necessary skills rather than be trained on the-job.

Living wage advocates happily concede that the quality of recruitment pools improves after a living wage policy is adopted. They call this professionalisation of entry-level jobs. They do not ask what happens to the workers who are no longer shortlisted for living wage jobs. They should.

A living wage is linked to the sum of money needed to raise a family. Yet 40% of a living wage increase for workers with families will be lost to income tax and reductions in Working for Families.

The cruel reality is low income families are worse off, not better off, after the introduction of a living wage. Their breadwinners are no longer shortlisted for council jobs because of the raised hiring standard. While advocates have the best of intentions, they hurt the very families they earnestly want to help.

Jim Rose
Research Fellow
Taxpayers Union

1 March 2017