VIX Hits 14-Month Low As Stocks Rally On Lowest Volume Of The Year

Another day, another melt-up on the lowest volume of the year and VIX collapse. The Dow and the Nasdaq almost made it back to unchanged for the year; The Dow almost made it back to unchanged for May; but as the S&P surged towards its record highs once again, "most shorted" stocks led the way with a massive squeeze (almost 4% in the last 2 days). VIX broke back below 12 once again trading at its lowest in 14 months. Equity markets decoupled notably once again from bonds. Treasury yields rose once again at the long-end (30Y +8bps on the week, 5Y -1bps) but the steepening trend stalled today. The USD rose today (+0.2% on the week) led JPY weakness. USDJPY was in charge of stocks with a correlation over 90% once again. Commodities all closed higher with WTI testing $104 again. HP's 'early' release of earnings appeared to take the shine off things into the close as VIX gapped higher back above 12 to close…

 

This is the lowest NYSE volume in at least a decade – even for this holiday time of year…

 

Spot the down-day in the volume chart…

 

"Most Shorted" stocks have surged almost 4% in the last few days – almost tripling the broad market as hedge funds have yet another bad week…

 

Squeeze-a vu…all over again…

 

As the Momo stocks have exploded higher since last Thursday's lows…

 

Which is what supported the Russell and Nasdaq in their epic ramp of the last few days…

 

A close-up of today…

 

VIX was run even lower – to its lowest intraday since March 2013… (still room to go for the 9.39 all-time intraday lows on 12/15/06)

 

But look at the illiquidity in VIX… and a very ugly close once the HP reesults hit…

 

USDJPY was in charge of stocks…

 

Once again – stocks decoupled from bonds… that hasn't worked out so well recently for stocks…

 

Commodities rose on the day – despite a higher USD

 

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

Bonus Chart: The spread between Q1 GDP and Q2 GDP expectations is now over 4percentage points as Q2 jumped this week to +3.5% consensus…

 

Bonus Bonus Chart: Looks like the Fed's transmission mechanism to housing has finally broken…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1okNWox Tyler Durden

Why Are Boomers Cashing Out In Droves? Because “Everyone Understands The Market Went Crazy Last Year”

“This issue of participation in the labor force is a highly contentious one,” notes RDG’s Jon Ryding and has been extensively discussed here as some people leave the labor pool and retire after giving up on the job search (do people really want to work past age 65 given the choice? Are that many people doing what they love?) But, as Bloomberg reports, there is a growing segment of boomers who are paying for retirement with the proceeds of rallying stocks. For the select few, last year’s 30% surge in the S&P500 capped a bull market now in its sixth year (with ‘wealth’ trickling down to 401(k)s), but as one wealth manager warned “everyone understands that the market went crazy last year,” and while 8 million people aged 65 and older are working, a 72% jump from a decade ago; there are a lucky few who are cashing out with the view that “if I need to, I can go back to work, but right now I’m going to enjoy life.”

 

As Bloomberg reports, most economists agree that boomers will drive declines in the labor force for years to come. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the aggregate participation rate will be 62.5 percent in 2020, 1.8 percentage points below the level in 2010.
 
But as UBS’ Drew Matus notes, wealth effects and retirement aren’t just coincidence…

“You’ve seen a drop in the participation rate for people over 55, and you look at it in the context of a rebound in wealth, and it all makes sense,” he said.

 

Do people really want to work past age 65 given the choice? Are that many people doing what they love? Let’s put it this way: I’ve got an 8-year-old son, and he doesn’t exactly say, ‘When I grow up, I want to be an economist.’”

And the result is an increasingly bifurcated boomer population

Some people leave the labor pool and retire after giving up on the job search. Others pay for it with the proceeds of rallying stocks. Joblessness and labor participation levels reaching pre-recession lows are stoking debate among Federal Reserve policy makers and politicians about what’s behind the swings in data underlying the most important economic barometer, employment.

 

“This is not some abstract discussion about sociology or demography, it’s really a discussion about interest rates. The stakes are huge.”

And a pumped up stock market has enabled some to exit…

What’s not in dispute: the sheer size of the aging baby-boomer generation and that an unprecedented demographic shift distorts statistics. It means, for instance, that retirees can play a significant role in the shrinking labor force even as people are staying on the job longer than ever. About 8 million people aged 65 and older are working, a 72 percent jump from a decade ago.

 

It is the sharp rise of departing retirees from the workforce in the past two years that suggests more is at play, according to an analysis by Shigeru Fujita, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. While demographic trends have headed this way since about 2000, retirees became a more prominent block of the drop in the participation rate in 2010, and then grew to account for 80 percent of the decline since early 2012, he found.

 

Last year’s 30-percent surge in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index capped a bull market now in its sixth year, while the benchmark gauge reached a record high this month. Wealth has trickled into 401(k) accounts and home valuations, tempting those who may have delayed retirement during the financial crisis, said financial adviser Jay Barish.

However, this is limited to a lucky few…

Stock market gains haven’t helped everyone. Those who want a job but have given up looking reached 783,000 in April, almost triple a low in 2007. That figure has remained stable since the beginning of 2012, ruling it out as a key factor behind the drop in participation rate, Fujita said.

 

Further complicating matters: Stock holdings are concentrated among the top 20 percent of the wealthiest boomers, who have 96 percent of all the equities owned by the group

The bottom line… if stocks rise – don’t expect boomers to stick around…

“Everyone understands that the market went crazy last year,” said Barish, who advises 155 clients as a partner at Murphy Matza Wealth Management in Raleigh, North Carolina. “If they’re not in love with their career, the natural question is, ‘Can I go?’”

Read more here…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1n64xNa Tyler Durden

At The New York Times, a Sudden Appreciation for Media Censorship with Greenwald

Being free to publish what the government approves is a type of free press, right?Michael Kinsley, an editor
known for his work at The New Republic, the Los
Angeles Times
, Crossfire, and for helping found
Slate, was handed the
high-profile task of penning the New York Times
review
 of Glenn Greenwald’s book about the Edward
Snowden affair, No Place to Hide.

Kinsley does not appear to be a fan of Greenwald’s somewhat
grandiose personality and sense of self-importance, and there’s
certainly room to judge him for such flaws. But those traits are
also fairly common in prominent media figures. Kinsley points out
that for all of Greenwald’s complaining about the media kowtowing
to government requests to withhold information from Edward
Snowden’s documents, Greenwald certainly hasn’t been prevented from
providing this information and the public hasn’t been denied the
chance to hear about it.

But then Kinsley turns around and justifies all of Greenwald’s
fears, arguing that some sort of authority figure should have some
sort of control or oversight over what sort of leaks the press
should be allowed to publish. In some analysis that is getting a
bit of
attention
(and not of the positive kind), Kinsley writes:

The question is who decides. It seems clear, at least to me,
that the private companies that own newspapers, and their
employees, should not have the final say over the release of
government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no
legal consequences. In a democracy (which, pace Greenwald,
we still are), that decision must ultimately be made by the
government. No doubt the government will usually be overprotective
of its secrets, and so the process of decision-making—whatever it
turns out to be—should openly tilt in favor of publication with
minimal delay. But ultimately you can’t square this circle. Someone
gets to decide, and that someone cannot be Glenn Greenwald.

In a democracy, the decision on whether to release secret
information showing illegal or corrupt behavior by the government
should ultimately be made by the government? What does
that even mean? Several paragraphs before, Kinsley acknowledged
that Snowden’s leaks were a valid exposure of bad behavior by the
National Security Agency (NSA). He even calls the NSA’s actions
“lawbreaking.”

And it wasn’t actually Glenn Greenwald who decided.
The first person to decide that the information should be published
was Edward Snowden, and the United States government is trying to
put him in prison for providing information Kinsley himself thinks
should have been made public. Snowden chose Greenwald to receive
the information.

Kinsley seems to think there’s a piece missing in the checks and
balances of revealing government misbehavior. He concludes his
review:

As the news media struggles to expose government secrets and the
government struggles to keep them secret, there is no invisible
hand to assure that the right balance is struck. So what do we do
about leaks of government information? Lock up the perpetrators or
give them the Pulitzer Prize? (The Pulitzer people chose the second
option.) This is not a straightforward or easy question. But I
can’t see how we can have a policy that authorizes newspapers and
reporters to chase down and publish any national security leaks
they can find. This isn’t Easter and these are not eggs.

My response: The free press and freedom from government prior
restraint is the check and balance here. We don’t have a
“policy” that authorizes the media to publish leaks. We have a
constitutional right to do so, and it horrifies me to
see an editor who thinks that the First Amendment is some sort of
government “policy” and not a carefully worded restriction of
government authority. Greenwald is the balance.The
existence of a media able to publish whatever information it can
get its ink-stained hands on is intended to discourage a secretive
government.

If the government doesn’t want people leaking what it’s doing,
the solution is actually pretty simple: Don’t be the kind of
government that secretly does the kind of things that horrify your
own citizens to the point that they’re willing to risk prison and
flee to horrible countries to expose to the public what the
government is doing. To believe that the lesson from the Snowden
affair is more government authority over the media—even after
agreeing that Snowden’s fears were legitimate—is simply
embarrassing.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/TyYWVk
via IFTTT

NYPD Mulls Using Microphone-Equipped Drones

Do you ever get that creepy feeling like you’re
being watched in public? That your conversations are being bugged
and transmitted to the shadowy headquarters of an organization just
looking for ways it can catch you? Well, good news: The New York
City Police Department (NYPD) is thinking about justifying your
paranoia.

At a city council meeting on Tuesday the boys in blue discussed
the possibility of buying some drones. The New York
Daily News
reports
:

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said the unmanned machines
equipped with cameras and tiny microphones could help spy on crime
hotspots—like housing projects, where shootings are up about 32%
this year.

“Myself, I’m supportive of the concept of drones, not only for
police but for public safety in general,” Bratton said Tuesday.
“It’s something that we actively keep looking at and stay aware
of.”

Bratton, speaking in front of the City Council’s Public Safety
Committee, said the drones could also help the FDNY more quickly
determine the extent of a fire.

John Miller, the NYPD’s head of intelligence, said cops have
been studying flying drones. They’re looking at “what’s on the
market, what’s available.”

The NYPD doesn’t have plans in motion yet, but there’s good
reason to be concerned about adding another piece of technology to
any police department’s arsenal. Other surveillance enablers, like
GPS trackers, have been used around the country to trample on
people’s
reasonable expectations of privacy
and, in the case of license
plate readers, have put
innocent lives at risk
 when has equipment
malfunctioned. 

Regarding drones in particular, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation has warned that
“privacy law has not kept up with the rapid pace of drone
technology, and police may believe they can use drones to spy on
citizens with no warrant or legal process whatsoever.” The American
Civil Liberties Union adds that
agencies should be restricted from indefinitely holding data
gathered by drones.

Even if you buy into the awful argument that you’ve got nothing
to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide, is the NYPD really an
organization that should be trusted with constantly recording
people’s movements and conversations? The department known for

infiltrating
political dissident groups,
smashing kids through storefront windows
,
drunkenly shooting people
, and even
flouting international law
?

Watch Reason TV’s coverage of
police drones
and the privacy concerns they raise:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/ReBNFr
via IFTTT

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal Is About Giving the FCC More Power

The key thing to understand
about the Federal Communications Commission’s new net neutrality
proposal is that it’s not strictly about net neutrality or fast
lanes or any of the other regulatory buzzwords you hear. Instead,
it’s primarily about giving the FCC more power and more authority
to regulate what sorts of business practices are acceptable for
broadband Internet providers.

The FCC, of course, is framing the rules as a kind of
light-touch approach that will give the agency discretion to
intervene only when really necessary, but what it really comes down
to is that the agency wants to be the gatekeeper in terms of
Internet provider innovation, and doesn’t want strict rules to
constrain its authority.  


This National Journal piece
makes the point pretty
well:

The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with a
net-neutrality proposal, but no one knows exactly what business
practices it would ban. And for the FCC, that’s all part of the
strategy.

The commission wants a vague standard to allow Internet
companies to experiment with new business models, while giving the
agency authority to step in when it sees abuses.

A senior FCC official argued that “putting rigid rules in place”
would not let the Internet “evolve in a natural way.” 

But the official added that “the government has to be in a
position to oversee the Internet and intervene if it needs to.”

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has repeatedly extolled the virtues of
enforcing net-neutrality rules on a “case-by-case basis.”

Under his proposal, Internet service providers would be required
to handle traffic in a “commercially reasonable” way. The
commission has done little to explain what “commercially
reasonable” means.

Why would the FCC go out of its way to provide more detail about
what “commercially reasonable” means? It means whatever the FCC
decides it means someday down the road when the agency feels like
doing something, whatever that something may be. The agency of
course likes to emphasize that these sorts of vague guidelines give
the agency flexibility to avoid doing bad things, but that’s really
just another way of saying that the FCC doesn’t know what the rules
should be—it just knows that it should be in charge. 

A pretty good rule of thumb when it comes to federal authorities
is that they tend to leave, or create, as much wiggle room for
themselves as possible in any given circumstance. It’s why you’ll
rarely see the administration draw up a legal memo saying that the
president does not have the power to do something, and why agencies
tend to prefer vague rules that give them a lot of interpretive
leeway. They want to do what they want to do, and they don’t want
to create guidelines or precedents or rules that might get in the
way. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1oX3NMy
via IFTTT

Fed Complacency Watch

It would appear the mantra of “don’t fight the Fed” is one that only applies when they are saying “buy stocks.” Yesterday’s minutes exposed some concerns: “the low level of expected volatility implied by some financial market prices might also signal an increase in risk appetite” and thus complacency and Fed’s Fisher open “concern at almost no volatility in markets.” So while J-Yell and her buddies see no bubbles… we thought the following chart, which is ‘the sum of all volatilities’ across FX, equity, and interest rate markets, might help…

 

 

Chart: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1maspOC Tyler Durden

“Our Industry Is Absolutely Crazy”: The Subprime Wolf Of Wall Street In 125% Interest Clothing

The last time we wrote about the number 125% it was in the context of the return of that old Subprime 1.0 staple home loans that cover more than the purchase price of the home (because one must always have some leftover cash for improvements), i.e. 125% loan-to-value mortgages. Today 125% comes back and again it is in the context of subprime, only this time it is about the second coming of the credit bubble when, as Bloomberg writes, a certain group of distinguished individuals is now offering loans to troubled Americans at the whopping annual interest rate of 125%.

Which group of distinguished individuals? The same group that helped make The Wolf of Wall Street into a cult classic: the people who were trained by that born again scammer par excellence Jordan Belfort.

From an office near New York’s Times Square, people trained by a veteran of Jordan Belfort’s boiler room call truckers, contractors and florists across the country pitching loans with annual interest rates as high as 125 percent, according to more than two dozen former employees and clients. When borrowers can’t pay, Naidus’s World Business Lenders LLC seizes their vehicles and assets, sometimes sending them into bankruptcy.

If the phrase predatory lending comes to mind it is because this is precisely what it is:

This is the new predatory lending,” said Mark Pinsky, president of Opportunity Finance Network, a group of lenders that help the poor. “And the predators, just as they did in the mortgage market, have gotten increasingly aggressive.”

 

Subprime business lending — the industry prefers to be called “alternative” — has swelled to more than $3 billion a year, estimates Marc Glazer, who has researched his competitors as head of Business Financial Services Inc., a lender in Coral Springs, Florida. That’s twice the volume of small loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.

Naturally, since these are the kinds of loans that ordinary Americans who don’t have defaults and a horrible credit rating would never touch, the probability of repayment is virtually nil. Which means that the probability of default on the new subprime loans is assured, and as such all that is happening is yet another case of credit money assisted wealth transfer: from the very poor to the very aggressive, and increasingly wealthy. In other words, what the Fed has done for Wall Street, subprime 2.0 is doing for its far shadier, and criminal some would say, subsector.

The name of the company that makes the loans is almost too cheese to fit into its own ironic meme:

Naidus, 48, chief executive officer of World Business Lenders, declined to be interviewed. Marcia Horowitz, a spokeswoman at public relations firm Rubenstein Associates Inc., said the company explains loan terms in plain English and takes steps to ensure that borrowers understand.

 

“World Business Lenders’ sales and marketing techniques, as well as the interest rates it charges and the default rates it experiences, are generally consistent with those throughout the industry,” Andy Occhino, general counsel for the company, wrote in a May 21 letter. “In serving the underserved small-business community along Main Street USA, World Business Lenders complies with all applicable laws and endeavors to ensure a positive experience for its customers.”

To be sure World Business Leaders (or WBL in short) are just that, and much more – you see they are pure humanitarians by nature:

Horowitz, the spokeswoman for World Business Lenders, said the company works with borrowers to avoid defaults.

 

“If the default cannot be cured, World Business Lenders enforces its rights under the loan documents, including the recovery of the pledged collateral,” she said.

The good news is that at least someone has collateral, unlike all those countries in Europe where the loan itself is the collateral repledged back with the central bank (several times).

Sadly, the only reason why WBL exists is simple: they supply a product that is in great demand…

“While I am not real thrilled about some of the prices being charged, in some cases businesses need to get something done in a hurry and it makes sense,” said William Dennis, who directs the research foundation at the National Federation of Independent Business. “It may not be the world’s best choice, but at least it’s your choice.”

 

Brokers are popping up around the country to originate loans on behalf of lenders including OnDeck and World Business Lenders. The companies pay fees to the brokers of about $6,000 for finding people willing to take a $50,000 loan, according to current and former brokers, most of whom asked not to be identified to preserve their job prospects.

… a demand that would not exist if the economy was truly, as some of the more humorous economists out there allege, recovering.

As for what the insiders think of their business model, it is the same as what the outsides would have to say:

“Our industry is absolutely crazy,” said Steven Delgado, who left World Business Lenders last year to become an independent loan broker. “There’s lots of people who’ve been banned from brokerage. There’s no license you need to file for. It’s pretty much unregulated.”

 

David Glass, 39, was still on probation for insider trading when he co-founded Yellowstone Capital LLC, a New York-based brokerage and lender that originated $200 million in loans last year, including for OnDeck.

 

He said he learned to sell in the 1990s at Sterling Foster & Co., a Long Island firm where he got his friend a job interview that inspired “Boiler Room,” a movie that portrayed a college dropout’s foray into high-pressure stock sales. Glass said he coached actor Vin Diesel on cold-calling for the film. “A natural,” Glass said.

How will all of this end?

World Business Lenders put up job listings seeking former brokers, and they came. A February orientation schedule provided by a former employee shows that training is run by Bryan Herman, who got his start under Stratton Oakmont Inc.’s Belfort, the con man portrayed in “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Herman later ran his own boiler room in the 1990s and avoided jail by informing on other brokers when he was charged with fraud in 1998, court records show. Another salesman was released from prison in 2010 after serving about a year for penny-stock fraud

 

Herman has paid for his crimes, according to his lawyer, Marty Kaplan.

 

“It’s really like saying Bill Clinton smoked dope in college,” Kaplan said. “Who cares?”

Indeed: who cares. Certainly not the Fed, for whose erudite members this too will be a perfectly normal occurrence and hardly a signal that something is horribly wrong with its centrally-planned, Frankenstein economy.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lXnAGB Tyler Durden

Deadliest Ukraine Fighting In Weeks Caught On Tape

At least 13 Ukrainian soldiers (and reportedly at least 20 pro-Russian supporters) were killed today as WSJ reports fighting flared across breakaway regions in the east just days before a presidential election the rebels have vowed to block. Markets have forgotten that the US-Europe-Russia-China-Ukraine tensions continue and the major event risk this weekend but the last 24 hours have seen several attacks with the highest number of casualties since the conflict began 2 months ago. Separatists near Luhansk blew up a bridge over the Siverskiy Donets river near Novodruzhesk in several hours of fighting, Interfax reported, citing witnesses. The worst fighting appeared to take place near Volnovakha, on the road from the regional capital, Donetsk, to Mariupol, where there hadn’t been heavy separatist fighting before.. and the dismal episode was caught on tape.

 

 

As EuroNews reports,

At least eleven Ukrainian troops were killed and about 30 others were wounded on Thursday when pro-Russian insurgents attacked a military checkpoint, the deadliest raid in weeks of fighting in eastern Ukraine.

 

Journalists saw 11 bodies scattered around the checkpoint on the edge of the village of Blahodatne, about 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of the city of Donetsk.

 

Witnesses said that more than 30 Ukrainian troops were wounded when the insurgents attacked the checkpoint, and some of them were in grave condition.

 

The attack came three days before the country’s presidential vote.

 

Three charred Ukrainian armored infantry vehicles, their turrets blown away by powerful explosions, and several burned trucks stood at the site of the combat area. A military helicopter landed on the site, carrying officials who inspected the scene.

 

The Ukrainian Defence Ministry confirmed the attack, but wouldn’t comment on casualties. There was no report of casualties on the insurgent side.

 

The Volnovakha hospital was closed to the media, as Ukrainian soldiers rushed in and out, and guarded the entrances.

 

In the town of Horlivka, a rebel commander claimed responsibility for the raid and produced an array of weapons they said they had seized.

 

Scores have been killed in fighting between pro-Russian insurgents, who have seized government buildings and engaged in clashes with government troops in eastern Ukraine.

 

Thursday’s carnage cast a shadow over Ukraine’s presidential vote on Sunday, which insurgents in the east have pledged to derail.

The Responses… (via WSJ)

Ukraine

Under heavy fire from mortars, grenade-launchers and heavy machine-guns, our boys died for Ukraine,” Mr. Turchynov told a group of religious leaders in the capital Kiev.

“Today a major operation was prepared on all fronts and it was repulsed,” Mr. Parubiy told a briefing in Kiev, according to the Interfax news agency.

Russia

In Moscow, officials said the instability in the region cast further doubt on the elections.

 

We will follow how the preparations for these elections go and make our conclusions based on their results,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said. “We can’t express anything other than indignation about the atmosphere in which the preparations for these elections are being conducted.”

The US

The Pentagon also announced that a U.S. guided missile cruiser will enter the Black Sea on Friday for training with U.S. allies.

NATO

“It’s too early to know where they’re moving to or how many of them are moving,” Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander said after a meeting in Brussels of military officers from NATO’s 28 members. “But what we do know is that the force that remains on the border is very large, and it’s very capable, and it remains in a very coercive posture.”




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/Reu762 Tyler Durden

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert: Just Talking About Immigration Reform Leads to Child Sex Slavery

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has an
interesting reason for opposing immigration reform:
He believes it leads to child sex trafficking
. Gohmert relayed
these beliefs to his fellow legislators in a speech on the House
floor Monday. 

When legal status and amnesty is talked about here in
Washington, it becomes a magnet and draws people in. And for all of
the children that are drawn in illegally, you know that some get
sucked into sex slavery. Human trafficking becomes even bigger
business.

What? Even if political chatter about amnesty does lead to an
uptick in immigration, I’m not sure the promise of getting on the
U.S. government’s official radar is a big win for international sex
traffickers. These aren’t the folks being lured by a pathway to
citizenship.

If Gohmert means that undocumented immigrant children might be
more likely to get drawn or forced into the sex trade—well, that’s
not unreasonable. But a big part of the reason for that would seem
to stem from their undocumented status. 

Anyway, Gohmert continued: 

Because of the talk of amnesty in this town and because we do
not have a secured border, then this administration, and this
Congress also, is complicit in helping lure people into sex
trafficking.

Note that he doesn’t say immigration itself will lead to
increased child sex slavery—merely talking about
immigration reform is enough to embolden the evildoers,
apparently. 

Gohmert has previously garnered attention for lamenting
that “Vietnam
was winnable
, but people in Washington decided we should not
win it.”

[h/t Maggie
McNeil
]

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1vNskW8
via IFTTT

What NYT’s Firing of Jill Abramson Tells Us About Sexism in America

SexismThe New York Times’ firing of its first
female executive editor Jill Abramson, who led her paper to eight
Pulitzer victories in three short years, elicited howls of protests
from her sister scribes. And with good reason. After changing his
story several times, the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, finally
explained that the real reason Abramson — who had the gothic
“T” of the Times tattooed on her back — got the boot was
her “abrasive” and “high handed” management style which, as far as
they are concerned, is sexism.

 And they have a point. These same qualities, after all,
would get men a big, fat raise.

I note in The Week:

[M]uch of the agenda of American feminists — wage gap, not
enough female CEOs, tax payer-covered birth pills, and, the
emerging cause celeb, the absence of paid
menstrual leave
— strikes me as special pleading masquerading
as gender justice. (What’s next? All expenses paid bikini waxes?)
But sexism — holding women to different behavioral standards than
men — is a genuine issue in America, especially in workplaces.

For weird and complicated reasons, it’s an even worse problem
here than it is in my native country, India, the land of
sex-selective abortions, dowry deaths, and arranged marriages.

Go
here
to read the whole thing.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/ReoxRm
via IFTTT