May 2016 – Page 169

“Capitalism Has A Crisis” – Deutsche Sees No Light At The End Of The Tunnel “Until There Is A Recession”

In recent months unexpected calls have emerged from unexpected sources questioning whether capitalism is even working any more in a world in which corporate profits refuse to drop leading to paltry wage gains and thus, lack of the all-important wage inflation. Most recently it was none other than Goldman who wrote in February that “we are always wary of guiding for mean reversion. But, if we are wrong and high margins manage to endure for the next few years (particularly when global demand growth is below trend), there are broader questions to be asked about the efficacy of capitalism.”

Maybe Goldman should ask the Fed about its thoughts on mean reverting “capitalism” in a world in which creative destruction is no longer possible.

Over the weekend, it was Deutsche Bank’s rather outspoken credit strategist Dominic Konstam who, in a post-script to a note in which he ominously warned that
the “worst kind of recession” may have already started (based on Friday’s nonfarm payrolls report), goes on to conclude that the crisis facing the “developed” world is a far deeper one than just that of profits and demographics. It is a crisis of capitalism itself.

This is what he said.

The reason that inflation is the historical exception rather than the rule is because of the over-supply issue. Say’s Law says that supply creates its own demand, but only until it doesn’t! This truism created Keynes’ theory to work off deficient demand. It also includes the logic of negative rates to reduce the attractiveness of profits into cash that is superior to “goods” that will lose their value if hoarded, i.e. profits not being reinvested in the business.

Capitalism can be successful for long periods when it can identify new sources of demand that run in tandem with the production possibilities frontier. Demographics and globalization have heretofore been key: a billion Chinese consumers need cars; a baby boomer generation became consumers in the ‘90s. However, now the developed world is old and getting older. China has grown too quickly and needs its own time out.

Capitalism has a crisis. If only this was a Fed problem or better yet a negative demand shock that could be easily reversed. As it is, it looks more like a line in the sand for profits. Productivity has been too weak for too long. Things will need to get worse before policy can become radically better. That may involve piling more debt from government onto existing debt, coupled with “helicopter money” elements to reduce some of the burden for existing debtors. It could involve a direct transfer away from profits and savers to workers and spenders via negative rates and wealth taxes that banks collect either way.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. But we have yet got to the right tunnel and probably won’t until the US falls into a recession.

This is a bull flattener and with Europe and Japan where they are, raises the probability of more deeply negative rates – including in the US. A few more labor market prints will decide. The Fed will be lucky to raise rates again this year.

Then again it is not capitalism, but crony capitalism that has a crisis: after all, how can one call a world in which both China and the US actively bail out not only money losing companies but the very capital markets every time there is even a modest deviation from centrally-planned trendlines, capitalism?

Even so, if Konstam is right, the Fed – which has staked not only its credibility but its very existence on keeping the US stock market propped up and artificially inflated – has a big problem.

via http://ift.tt/1UNbapv Tyler Durden

Warren Buffett: “It’s a huge advantage NOT to have a lot of money. . .”

Warren Buffet has famously said many times that the vast majority of investors shouldn’t bother picking stocks.

Instead, he’s advised everyone from Lebron James to his own children to simply buy an S&P index fund and hold it ‘for the next 50 years.’

He’s probably right; most people probably should just buy an S&P index fund. But not because it’s a superior investment.

It’s because most people simply aren’t educated about business, finance, and investing.

Proper financial education isn’t taught in public schools, so for a lot of folks, investing is an alien concept.

Learning about investment means seeking an independent education. A real education. And it’s amazing what a real education can do.

Whereas the average person is relegated to an insipid index fund, an educated investor can generate phenomenal wealth and prosperity.

Buffett himself is a great example of this.

Real education is a major part of being a Sovereign Man– achieving greater freedom and prosperity by learning more about both the problems AND the solutions.

After all, the greatest investment you can make is the investment you make in yourself. And that means education.

One of the people I’ve been fortunate to learn from is Tim Price– a London-based investor and fund manager whose Buffett-like approach to investing is exemplary.

Below is a recent note from Tim Price in which he explains this ethos, and educates readers on the tremendous advantage we all have as small investors.

_____

From Tim Price, Director of Investment at PFP Wealth Management in London:

The shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway have just celebrated their latest ‘Woodstock for capitalists’ in the form of the company’s annual general meeting.

One of the more interesting takeaways from the event is that, according to Warren Buffett (the company’s chairman), Berkshire Hathaway is now far too big to produce substantial returns.

Buffett spent decades buying wonderful businesses that were profit machines, yet required very little capital investment.

He’s routinely discussed the company’s acquisition of See’s Candies in 1972 as an example.

Berkshire purchased See’s for $25 million at a time when See’s profits were less than $5 million annually.

In recent years See’s profits have been north of $80 million. Yet Buffett hardly had to invest a dime in additional capital to grow See’s profits.

That’s a great business for Buffett– one that isn’t ‘capital intensive’.

Today, though, Berkshire is buying businesses that require tremendous amounts of capital– railroads and pipelines.

When asked about this, Buffett explained that Berkshire is now effectively too big to invest in those great, low-capital businesses.

In other words, Berkshire Hathaway has too much money to manage. They HAVE to make capital intensive investments simply because they have so much capital to place.

Buffett has made this observation before, that size can be a barrier to high investment returns.

In an interview with BusinessWeek in 1999, Buffett almost bragged saying:

“The highest rates of return I’ve ever achieved were in the 1950s. I killed the Dow. You ought to see the numbers. But I was investing peanuts then. It’s a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that.”

But Berkshire Hathaway today is a $350 billion company, and elephants don’t gallop.

Buffett’s success as a capital allocator over a period of more than fifty years has clearly paid off for his longstanding shareholders.

But perhaps his most impressive achievement has been the transparency with which he’s discussed how he did it, primarily through his annual shareholder letters.

Buffett educates anyone who’s willing to learn about his value investing approach, encouraging everyone to ignore irrational markets and buy high quality assets as inexpensively as they can.

This brings up the question of size once again.

Value investing almost by definition is limited in terms of asset size and subsequent investment capacity.

If you have $350,000 to invest, you have the pick of the finest publicly-available value investments on the planet, no matter how small the market.

If you have $350 billion, you’re relegated to expensive railroads and government bonds.

That’s why the most disciplined value investors make a conscious decision to cap the size of their funds in order to concentrate on maximizing investment returns.

Simply put– smaller investors have a considerable advantage… if you know where to look.

So where is the most compelling value opportunity today?

First, you need a market or sector that has been out of favor for years.

If all the talking heads on business TV networks are screaming BUY BUY BUY, or touting the new ‘hot’ sector, that’s the place you want to avoid.

Next, look for a market that has been largely shunned by both domestic and foreign investors. Buy what other investors hate, especially when that emotion is based on ‘feeling’ rather than concrete data.

Once you’ve located the right market or sector, then seek attractive, bottom-up valuations, i.e. low price/earnings and price/book ratios.

One example is the resource sector.

As commodities prices have fallen dramatically, the market capitalizations of many small mining companies (including several profitable ones) have been pushed below their net cash levels.

Most of these companies have market valuations of $100 million or less.

For individual investors, it’s easy to buy shares. But institutions like Goldman Sachs or Berkshire Hathaway that have tens of billions to invest are simply too large to get in on these deals.

Japan is another great example.

Mikahil Gorbechev was still running the Soviet Union the last time Japan had a major financial boom. Investors hate Japan.

And yet, company valuations in Japan are incredibly attractive, especially the ‘mid-cap’ companies that are similarly too small for most institutional mega-investors.

As Greg Fisher, manager of the Halley Asian Prosperity Fund, points out, Japanese stocks have two key catalysts to growth:

First, many Japanese companies know their market valuations are “ridiculous” and are acting on that through stock buybacks and rising dividends.

Second, the dividends paid by Japanese companies are becoming increasingly attractive in an environment of negative interest rates.

In Japan, owning a stock yielding 5% is preferable to paying negative interest to the bank.

Both of these should have the effect of pushing up share prices considerably.

There are many more examples around the world: Vietnam, Russia, agricultural property in certain markets, etc.

The larger point is to ignore the mind-numbing conventional investment wisdom and expand your universe.

There are substantial opportunities in the world for educated value investors. And right now, we as individual investors have a tremendous advantage.

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/2784Ttr
via IFTTT

Meet Sadiq Khan – The First Muslim Mayor Of London

Submitted by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith accused Khan of giving "platform, oxygen and cover" to Islamic extremists. He also accused Khan of "hiding behind Britain's Muslims" by branding as "Islamophobes" those who shed light on his past.
"The questions are genuine, they are serious. They are about his willingness to share platforms with people who want to 'drown every Israeli Jew in the sea.' It's about his having employed someone who believed the Lee Rigby murder was fabricated. It's about his career before being an MP, coaching people in how to sue the police." — Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith.
In 2008, Khan gave a speech at the Global Peace and Unity Conference, an event organized by the Islam Channel, which has been censored repeatedly by British media regulators for extremism. Members of the audience were filmed flying the black flag of jihad while Khan was speaking.
"I regret giving the impression I subscribed to their views and I've been quite clear I find their views abhorrent." — Sadiq Khan.
"A Muslim man with way too many extremist links to be entirely coincidental is now the Mayor of London. I suppose this is hardly a shock, though. The native English are a demographic minority (and a rapidly dwindling one) in London, whilst Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh are a rapidly expanding demographic." — British politician Paul Weston.

Labour Party politician Sadiq Khan has been sworn in as mayor of London. He is the first Muslim to lead a major European capital.

Khan, 45, is the London-born son of Pakistani immigrants. His father was a bus driver and he grew up with seven siblings in a government-subsidized apartment. He studied law, became a university professor and served as chairman of the civil liberties pressure group Liberty. He was elected to Parliament in 2005. Khan's supporters say he is the epitome the Muslim immigrant success story.

Khan – who won 57% of the ballot, or 1.3 million votes, a number which happens to be roughly equal to Muslim population of London — has promised to be "the British Muslim who takes the fight to the extremists." Others are not so sure. During the election campaign, Khan faced a steady stream of allegations about his past dealings with Muslim extremists and anti-Semites.

Khan's opponent, Conservative Party politician Zac Goldsmith, drew attention to Khan's past career as a human rights lawyer that included repeated public appearances alongside radical Muslims.

Goldsmith accused Khan of giving "platform, oxygen and cover" to Islamic extremists. He also accused Khan of "hiding behind Britain's Muslims" by branding as "Islamophobes" those who shed light on his past.

In an interview with the London Evening Standard, Goldsmith said:

"To be clear, I have never suggested he [Khan] is an extremist but without a shadow of doubt he has given platform, oxygen and cover to people who are extremists.

"I think he is playing with fire. The questions are genuine, they are serious. They are about his willingness to share platforms with people who want to 'drown every Israeli Jew in the sea.'

"It's about his having employed someone who believed the Lee Rigby murder was fabricated. It's about his career before being an MP, coaching people in how to sue the police.

"It just goes on and on and on. To pretend those are not legitimate questions, to pretend that by asking those questions newspapers, Londoners or my campaign are engaging in Islamophobia is unbelievably irresponsible.

"It is just obscene that somebody who wants to be the mayor of the world's greatest city, to be in charge of our police and security, should behave not only with such bad judgment but in a way that is totally shameless."

Goldsmith also drew attention to Khan's ties with Suliman Gani, a Muslim cleric in Tooting, the constituency in South London where Khan is an MP. "To share a platform nine times with Suliman Gani, one of the most repellent figures in this country, you don't do it by accident," Goldsmith said.

Goldsmith was referring to a Sunday Times exposé, which revealed that between 2004 and 2013, Khan had spoken alongside Gani on at least nine occasions, "even though Gani has called women 'subservient' to men and condemned homosexuality, gay marriage, and even organ transplants."

Gani — who has ties to the extremist Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and has rallied in support of Shaker Aamer, an al-Qaeda terrorist who was detained at Guantanamo Bay — is also linked to the London-based Tayyibun Institute, which the British government says "tolerates or promotes non-violent extremism."

According to the Times, on the night of the Paris attacks in November 2015, Gani appeared at an "Islamic question time" event in Bedford, where speakers reportedly told British Muslims to "struggle" for an "Islamic state."

Khan and Gani first shared a platform in August 2004 at an event organized by Stop Political Terror, a group supported by Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American imam who was killed in 2011 by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen. According to the Times, Khan spoke at least four times at events organized by Stop Political Terror, which has since merged with CAGE, a group that called the Islamic State butcher Jihadi John a "beautiful young man."

In an interview with the Times, Davis Lewin, deputy director of the Henry Jackson Society, an anti-extremism think tank, said:

"Gani has campaigned on behalf of convicted terrorists, appeared at events designed to undermine government counter-radicalization strategies, including sharing platforms with a pro-terrorist organization such as CAGE, and is said to hold repugnant views about women and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans community.

"Given that the UK, and London in particular, is a major target for Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks, it is intolerable to see any politician, much less one seeking such a vitally important office as mayor of London, associate with an individual such as this.

"Mr Khan's reportedly repeatedly sharing a platform with this man, whose views are widely available, is deeply alarming."

Khan also spent years campaigning to prevent Babar Ahmad from being extradited to the United States on charges of providing material support to terrorism. Ahmad, who admitted his guilt, later said that his support for the Taliban was "naïve."

In 2002, Khan represented the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Khan tried to reverse a decision by the Home Office, which had banned Farrakhan from entering the UK due to fears that his anti-Semitic views would stir up racial hatred. Farrakhan has called Jews "bloodsuckers" and referred to Judaism as "a gutter religion."

At the time, Khan said: "Mr. Farrakhan is not anti-Semitic and does not preach a message of racial hatred and antagonism." Khan added:

"Farrakhan is preaching a message of self-discipline, self-reliance, atonement and responsibility. He's trying to address the issues and problems we have in the UK, black on black crime and problems in the black community. It's outrageous and astonishing that the British Government is trying to exclude this man."

Khan now says: "Even the worst people deserve a legal defense."

In 2004, Khan was the chief legal advisor to the Muslim Council of Britain, a group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Khan defended Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born Islamist who has been banned from entering the UK. Al-Qaradawi has expressed support for Hamas suicide bombings against Israel: "It's not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of Allah." According to Khan, however, "Quotes attributed to this man may or may not be true."

Also in 2004, Khan shared a platform with a half-dozen Islamic extremists in London at a political meeting where women were told to use a separate entrance. One of the speakers was Azzam Tamimi, who has said he wants Israel destroyed and replaced with an Islamic state. Another speaker was Daud Abdullah, who has led boycotts of Holocaust Memorial Day. Yet another speaker was Ibrahim Hewitt, a Muslim hardliner who believes that adulterers should be "stoned to death."

In 2006, Khan attended a mass rally in Trafalgar Square to protest the publication of cartoons of Mohammed by Western newspapers. One of those present at the rally was Tamimi, who told Sky News: "The publication of these cartoons will cause the world to tremble. Fire will be throughout the world if they don't stop." Khan defended Tamimi: "Speakers can get carried away but they are just flowery words."

In 2008, Khan gave a speech at the Global Peace and Unity Conference, an event organized by the Islam Channel, which has been censured repeatedly by British media regulators for extremism. Members of the audience were filmed flying the black flag of jihad while Khan was speaking.

Also in 2008, Khan wrote that Turkey should be allowed to join the European Union in order to prove that the bloc is not a "Christian Club" that discriminates against Muslims:

"Muslims across Europe will see the question for Turkish admission to the EU as a clear test of European inclusion. If the door is slammed shut it will be understood by 20 million Muslim citizens of the EU that the basis of the decision to treat Turkey differently to new members like Bulgaria or Romania has been made on the basis that Europe is a 'Christian Club.'

"Some will see this as a clear indication that Muslims can never be a part of the story of Europe or the West. That will undermine everybody working to say that of course one can be British, European and Muslim, or French, European and Muslim."

In 2009, when Khan was the Minister for Community Cohesion in charge of government efforts to eradicate extremism, he gave an interview to the Iran-backed Press TV. He described moderate Muslims as "Uncle Toms," a racial slur used against blacks to imply that they are too eager to please whites.

In the same interview, Khan expressed support for boycotts of Israeli products: "You know, there's nothing wrong, and I encourage people to protest, to demonstrate, to complain, to write into newspapers and TV, to, if you want to boycott certain goods, boycott certain goods — all lawful means open in a democratic society."

In 2012, Khan addressed and praised the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), an umbrella group founded by activists from the Muslim Brotherhood. The British government has criticized FOSIS for promoting Islamic extremism.

In 2014, Khan expressed support for Baroness Warsi, who resigned from Prime Minister David Cameron's cabinet because she felt that Cameron was insufficiently critical of Israel. In an essay for the Guardian, (which has now been removed from the Guardian's website) Khan wrote:

"Warsi must be listened to when she says, 'our response to [Gaza] is becoming a basis for radicalization that could have consequences for us for years to come' […] The government's failure to criticise Israel's incursion is not just a moral failure — it goes directly against Britain's interests in the world and risks making our citizens less safe as a result."

Commentator Anthony Posner wrote:

"Although Khan has assured Londoners that he would not use the mayoral office as 'a pulpit to pronounce on foreign affairs,' one wonders if he would really be able to remain neutral if London was once again dealing with large anti-Israel demos. On the basis of his response to Warsi's resignation, it seems unlikely that he would show restraint."

In March 2016, Khan was pressured to fire a top aide, Shueb Salar, after the Daily Mail revealed that Salar was sending misogynistic messages on social media: "Along with homophobic and sexist comments, Salar jokes about rape and murder, claims Bengali people 'smell' and said he thought the slaying of soldier Lee Rigby by extremists in 2013 may have been fabricated."

In May, a close ally of Khan, Labour politician Muhammed Butt, apologized for sharing a Facebook post which compared Israel with Islamic State.

In an election debate aired by the BBC on April 18, Khan said he had "never hidden" the fact that he had represented "some pretty unsavory characters." When asked if he regretted sharing a platform with extremists, he said: "I regret giving the impression I subscribed to their views and I've been quite clear I find their views abhorrent."

Former Labour Party manager Rob Marchant said he was worried about Khan's links to extremists, but that he should be given the benefit of the doubt:

"While this dabbling with Islamist politics may well have been more to do with a streak of ruthless populism in Khan in building political support, than a genuine meeting of minds with the Islamists, it does cast some doubt upon both his judgement and his values."

By contrast, British politician Paul Weston, who has long cautioned about the Islamization of Britain, warned that Khan's rise is a harbinger of things to come:

"The previously unthinkable has become the present reality. A Muslim man with way too many extremist links to be entirely coincidental is now the Mayor of London. I suppose this is hardly a shock, though. The native English are a demographic minority (and a rapidly dwindling one) in London, whilst Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh are a rapidly expanding demographic…

"In a couple more decades Britain may well have its first Muslim Prime Minister, and I think we can safely assume he will be of the same ideological stock as Sadiq Khan…. Reality cannot argue with demographics, so the realistic future for Britain is Islamic."

via http://ift.tt/1ObMLbD Tyler Durden

Why Shouldn’t Private Employers Get to Make Hiring Decisions Based on Their Beliefs?

A number of Catholics, from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik to an order of nuns called The Little Sisters of the Poor, are actively embroiled in a legal battle over whether or not faith-based organizations can be forced to violate their deeply held convictions. I happen to agree with the petitioners that the government ought not be in the business of telling people how to exercise their religious beliefs.

But opponents have a point when they note that the American legal regime as it currently stands provides protections to faith-based individuals that aren’t always available to other groups. Religion, like race, and unlike sexual orientation, is considered a protected class at the federal level. As a result, a Catholic worker can sue her employer for alleged discrimination on the basis of her faith.

Exactly that is happening right now in Nevada, where a woman named Grecia Echevarria-Hernandez has initiated legal proceedings against the Real Alkalized Water company, where she says she was fired for refusing to participate in Scientology “betterment” courses.

“Echevarria-Hernandez alleges her treatment violated Nevada law and constituted discrimination, retaliation and an unlawful employment practice under the federal Civil Rights Act, which applies to any business with 15 or more employees,” the AP reports. “She’s seeking compensation for past and future lost income and benefits, unspecified damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.”

But just because the employer’s behavior in this case (probably) violated the law doesn’t mean this lawsuit is a good thing. Why shouldn’t a private business owner be able to only hire members of his or her religion, or to require as a condition of voluntary employment that workers learn about a certain faith?

One might object that Americans shouldn’t be forced against their will to be trained in a religion they don’t agree with. You might also complain that the kind of guy who uses a position of power to pressure his underlings into studying a particular religion is abusing his authority. But there’s no law against being a jerk—and no one is forced to work at a place that’s run by that flavor of jerk, either, just as no one is forced to attend a religious school where, say, church attendance or theology classes are required.

Last year a Massachusetts Catholic school was slapped down by the courts for rescinding a job offer to a man after learning that he’s in a same-sex marriage. That such a thing could happen to an explicitly religious educational institution was rightly decried by people far and wide.

As Reason‘s Scott Shackford wrote at the time, “The ruling is obviously going to be a concern to supporters of religious freedom of association, because it puts the government in the position of deciding for which hires religious institutions can allow its faith to help dictate its actual operations. Why should a judge be telling a Catholic school what positions should matter in terms of expressing its faith?”

But this is what inevitably happens when you start down the path of ascribing a special status to certain groups, and saying people may not choose whether or not (or under what conditions) to do business with their members. Before long, the same sort of law that allows a Catholic woman to sue her former employer for trying to indoctrinate her into Scientology is being used to prevent a Catholic private school from opting not to employ someone who engages in a lifestyle the Church has deemed immoral for 2,000 years.

Inherent to freedom of association is the freedom to make choices about whom to associate with that some people—perhaps the large majority of people, even—will find repulsive. That my choice is unpopular doesn’t change the fact that forcibly preventing me from making it nearly always infringes on my rights.

Some people may think that preventing discrimination is so valuable a goal as to be worth the cost paid in restrictions on individual liberty. I think those people underestimate the dangers to a free society that precedent sets.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2781VoB
via IFTTT

The Short Squeeze Is Over (For Now)

The “most shorted” stocks have fallen for 6 of the last 7 days, dropping almost 6% – the biggest in 3 months – as the S&P 500 fell just 1%.

Year-to-date, ‘shorts’ are outperforming with “most shorted” down 3.3% compared to the broad market’s unchanged return.

As Credit Suisse noted, short squeeze pain appears to be abating… 3 data points illustrating shorts re-establishing themselves:

Our short basket in energy today underperforming by 60 bps… materials short basket underperforming by ~100 bps
Prime service data —Losses associated with the covering of crowded energy shorts appears to be slowing as measured by the recent Outperformance of the top 100 shorts driven by Energy shorts, a first in 2016 –Connors Prime Services
Futures desk — EU equity shorts, after being squeezed for several weeks, re-established themselves in a big way last week as we fell back through 3000… US equity shorts also increased as macro figures disappointed –Glanville

via http://ift.tt/24GRRRz Tyler Durden

Bartenders Can’t Refuse to Serve Pregnant Women in New York City

The New York City Human Rights Commission (NYCHRC) has issued a memo to local bartenders, servers, and food-business owners: refusing to serve alcohol or certain foods, such as raw fish, to pregnant women violates the city’s human rights law. “Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions,” the commission says.

The guidance was part of a wide-ranging NYCHRC document explaining how the city’s anti-discrimination statutes apply to pregnant women. “Pregnancy discrimination,” it explains, is seen as a form of gender-based discrimination for purposes of public accommodations, housing, and employment in New York City. “Any policy that singles out pregnant individuals is unlawful disparate treatment under the [New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)] unless the covered entity can demonstrate a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the distinction,” the guidance states.

Illegal actions include “those that categorically exclude pregnant workers or workers who are capable of becoming pregnant from specific job categories or positions, deny entrance to pregnant individuals to certain public accommodations, or refuse to serve certain food or drinks to pregnant individuals or individuals perceived to be pregnant.” Examples of violations include “a restaurant policy that prohibits staff from serving pregnant individuals raw fish or alcohol,” “a blanket exclusion of pregnant individuals from hospital inpatient drug detoxification programs,” or “an employer requir[ing] pregnant employees to take unpaid leave at a certain month in their pregnancy.”

The guidance also spells out illegal behavior “rooted in stereotypes or assumptions regarding pregnancy,” which includes an employer choosing “not to assign a pregnant employee to a new project after learning they are pregnant because he is concerned that the worker will be distracted by the pregnancy” or “a bouncer [denying] a pregnant individual entrance to a bar based on the belief that pregnant individuals should not be going to bars and/or drinking alcohol.”

And those aren’t even likely to be the most controversial bits. Other elements of the guidance include:

Employers must allow “modest and/or temporary accommodations” to pregnant employees, including “minor changes in work schedules; adjustments to uniform requirements or dress codes; additional water or snack breaks; allowing an individual to eat at their work station; extra bathroom breaks or additional breaks to rest; and physical modifications to a work station, including the addition of a fan or a seat.”
Absent “undue hardship, an employer must provide a clean, sanitary, and private space, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from public intrusion from coworkers,” for women who have recently been pregnant to “to express milk,” in addition to “a refrigerator to store breast milk.” If an employee would rather pump breast milk at their desk or usual work station, they “shall be permitted to do this so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer, regardless of whether a coworker, client, or customer expresses discomfort.”
Employees who have recently miscarried or aborted a pregnancy “are entitled to reasonable accommodations from their employers,” including “a period of unpaid leave to recover or a more flexible schedule for a period of time to account for additional appointments related to the procedure or experience.” The employer is permitted to request medical documentation.

With all of the above, the commission claims to be merely clarifying what’s required under existing law (most specifically, New York City’s 2013 “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act”), not expanding the city’s anti-discrimination protections.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Yi217a
via IFTTT

Trump Picks Chris Christie To Lead White House Transition Team

One week after Donald Trump made the surprising announcement that he hired former Goldman Sachs partner and Soros employee, Steve Mnuchin as his national finance chairman as he begins to roll out his presidential fundraising operation (Mnuchin has said he hopes to raise as much as $1 billion), Trump announced moments ago that he has picked Chris Christie to lead his transition team, which would prepare the political neophyte turned presumptive GOP nominee for the White House if he wins in the general election.

Quoted by The Hill, Trump said that “Governor Christie is an extremely knowledgeable and loyal person with the tools and resources to put together an unparalleled Transition Team, one that will be prepared to take over the White House when we win in November.” Trump added that he is grateful to Governor Christie for his contributions to this movement.

The campaign’s statement also notes that Trump “has begun shifting towards a general election strategy and implementing an infrastructure capable of securing a victory.” A big part of that plan has been bringing on long-time operatives and those familiar with the intricacies of a general election race.

The campaign said it expects to have the transition team running in an “official capacity” in November. With six months until the general election and eight until the next president’s inauguration, President Obama took his first step toward the eventual transition last week with an executive order creating the White House Transition Coordinating Council.

Christie was an early supporter of Trump, jumping on board in the heat of primary season after his own failed bid. The New Jersey governor has also been working to help repair Trump’s image with the GOP, telling reporters Thursday that he’d meet with House Speaker Paul Ryan to help ease his concerns after the top Republican said he would not yet endorse Trump. Christie is also seen as a potential Trump cabinet or vice presidential pick if he wins the White House.

via http://ift.tt/277Vnq2 Tyler Durden

You Don’t Have an Obligation to Vote: New at Reason

You have the right to vote—and the right not to vote. There’s no obligation, A. Barton Hinkle writes:

Given the current campaign trajectory, voters will almost certainly face a November choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many already wonder how they can possibly cast a vote in good conscience for either of those two. If you count yourself among that unhappy lot, here’s good news: You don’t have to. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sitting out the election if you feel like it. (You can vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, too, but a previous column covered that option.)

Americans are force-fed the opposite message every election season—usually by self-interested partisans trying to run up the score for their own teams, but sometimes by mind-numbingly conformist editorial writers of the sort who also write earnest reminders about wearing your seat belt. (From time to time there are even proposals to make voting mandatory.)

But once you start dissecting the please-vote platitudes, it quickly becomes evident that you should feel no guilt about skipping the polls.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1T13uvh
via IFTTT

Facebook Workers Admit They “Routinely” Suppressed Conservative News

"We as a company are neutral – we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."

That is a quote from a Facebook spokesperson given in response to a leaked internal poll which asked what responsiblity Facebook had in preventing Donald Trump from becoming the next president.

In light of the fact that a former employee is now admitting Facebook routinely suppresses conservative news stories from its trending news section, we're curious if that same response will be used.

An individual who worked on the project told Gizmodo that Facebook prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the trending news section. Additionally, several former Facebook "news curators" as they are known internally, told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially "inject" stories into the news flow, even though they weren't popular enough to be included.

As Gizmodo reports, Facebook's "news" team is just a group of young journalists educated at Ivy League or other private East Coast universities injecting their liberal views into a news stream that 167 million in the U.S. alone are reading at any given moment.

"Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending" said a former curator who was one of very few conservatives on staff. "I'd come on shift and I'd discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn't be trending, because either the curator didn't recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz." added the individual.

A list of stories that were deep-sixed was provided to Gizmodo, which included stories such as Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, anything from the Drudge Report, Former Nave Seal Chris Kyle, and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news" the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed, saying "it was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is. Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn't as biased."

Examples of that would be anything from outlets such as Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax, would have to be excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, BBC, and CNN were covering the story.

Although there is no evidence that management directed such actions, managers did instruct curators to put stories into the feed that management felt were important, even if they weren't being covered enough to be picked up by the trending algorithms.

"We were told that if we saw something, a news story was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic. If it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject it even if it wasn't naturally trending. We would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook" said the former curators.

Facebook not only manipulated the trending news flow, but also pretended it was covering 'hard news'.

"People stopped caring about Syria, and if it wasn't trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad. Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter. They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics." said a former curator.

So, as it turns out, Facebook is just another liberal leaning organization with a news platform that is manipulated to show what it deems important to convey to its users. As yet another conspiracy theory turns to conspiracy fact, this will be a difficult for Facebook to unwind – even if Zuckerberg wears his coolest hoodie while trying to do so.

via http://ift.tt/1s7JSPI Tyler Durden

Former Facebook Curators Reveal How Conservative News is Censored

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.26.04 AM

“Oh yeah, I’ve been meaning to ask you why you’re getting off Facebook,” is the guilty and reluctant question I’m hearing a lot these days. Like we kinda know Facebook is bad, but don’t really want to know.

I’ve been a big Facebook supporter – one of the first users in my social group who championed what a great way it was to stay in touch, way back in 2006. I got my mum and brothers on it, and around 20 other people. I’ve even taught Facebook marketing in one of the UK’s biggest tech education projects, Digital Business Academy. I’m a techie and a marketer — so I can see the implications — and until now, they hadn’t worried me. I’ve been pretty dismissive towards people who hesitate with privacy concerns.

With this latest privacy change on January 30th, I’m scared.

– From last year’s piece: A Very Disturbing and Powerful Post – “Get Your Loved Ones Off Facebook”

Facebook is a private company and has every right to do as it pleases with its platform, even if that means pushing a political agenda via its “news” feed. That said, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been explicit with his intention to dominate news dissemination to his users. For example, we learned the following in last year’s post, Facebook Reveals its Master Plan – Control All News Flow:

In recent months, Facebook has been quietly holding talks with at least half a dozen media companies about hosting their content inside Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site.

The new proposal by Facebook carries another risk for publishers: the loss of valuable consumer data. When readers click on an article, an array of tracking tools allow the host site to collect valuable information on who they are, how often they visit and what else they have done on the web.

And if Facebook pushes beyond the experimental stage and makes content hosted on the site commonplace, those who do not participate in the program could lose substantial traffic — a factor that has played into the thinking of some publishers. Their articles might load more slowly than their competitors’, and over time readers might avoid those sites.

One of the ways Facebook has been pursuing its news push is through its trending tool. The idea is that a neutral algorithm determines what readers are interested in and talking about at a grassroots level, then place position those stories appropriately within the trending feed. That’s how you’d hope it work, but the reality appears to be far different.

From Gizmodo:

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1ZxmZza
via IFTTT