The Deplorables: Today's news for September 13th

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”--Hillary Clinton

The problem with Hillary's statement from last week is she labels a group of people with the adjective "deplorable". From Dictionary.com:

1. causing or being a subject for grief or regret; lamentable...
2. causing or being a subject for censure, reproach, or disapproval; wretched; very bad...

A person's beliefs can be labeled as "deplorable", but to label an entire person as deplorable requires enough hatred that the person making that judgement almost deserves the label more than the so-called deplorable person. Admittedly, Clinton is referring to people who believe in hating or disdaining different groups of people. So this makes it right, doesn't it?

If she is calling them deplorable for their hatred, this raises the problem of using a word loaded with plenty of negative connotations. One could say she is fighting fire with fire...or fighting hatred with hatred. But isn't hatred what makes racism, sexism, etc., all evil? Does this make it ok to hate the haters?

I bring this up because of the following news story:  

CNN:

Pence declines to call David Duke 'deplorable,' disavows support

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence blasted Hillary Clinton Monday for her comment referring to "half" of Donald Trump's supporters as belonging to a "basket of deplorables." 

But Pence declined to categorize Trump backer -- and white nationalist -- David Duke as "deplorable." 

"I'm not in the name-calling business," Pence told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while at the same time repeating Trump's disavowal of Duke's support. 

"We don't want his support and we don't want the support of the people who think like him," he said.

This is a perfectly correct response. I even give Pence extra credit for adding they didn't want David Duke's support. "Oh no, we don't want your vote" sounds a bit insincere coming from a politician, but he can get credit for the pleasant sounding lie, although this one ranks with telling your wife her butt doesn't look fat in that dress.

On the other hand...

Clinton jumped on Pence's response, tweeting: "If you won't say the KKK is deplorable, you have no business running the country."

If you won’t say the KKK is deplorable, you have no business running the country. https://t.co/mFut8Qrz9A

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 12, 2016

Frankly, I would say exactly the opposite: If someone can easily pick out one constituency to hate, how can they hope to honorably lead a country filled with so many people of such disparate beliefs and opinions? Using hatred to form a ruling coalition is the stuff of authoritarian dictators, not democratic presidents.

Chicago Tribune:

Chicago passes another grim milestone: More than 3,000 shot this year

With the weekend toll of eight killed and 35 wounded, Chicago surpassed another dreaded milestone in a year that has seen the worst violence in two decades. As of early Monday, at least 3,028 people had been shot, more than the 2,980 for all of 2015, according to data collected by the Tribune. Last week, Chicago topped 500 homicides after tallying 481 all of last year, according to the Tribune data.

This is what you get with tough gun laws. Enjoy your Democrats, Chicago. You may want to stock up on kevlar though.

Over on the "left" coast:

Associated Press:

In historic move, California expands overtime to farmworkers

Farmworkers in the nation's largest agricultural state will be entitled to the same overtime pay as most other hourly workers under a law that California Gov. Jerry Brown said Monday that he had signed. 

The new law, which will be phased in beginning in 2019, is the first of its kind in the nation to end the 80-year-old practice of applying separate labor rules to agricultural laborers. 

California employers currently must pay time-and-a half to farmworkers after 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week — longer than the overtime pay for other workers who get it after eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. 

AB1066 will gradually lower the number of hours that irrigators, ranch hands and people who tend crops must work before accruing additional compensation. It will take full effect in 2022 for most businesses and in 2025 for farms with 25 or fewer employees. 

I brought this article up to make a libertarian confession: I am actually in favor of overtime laws. In fact, I think they should apply for salaried workers too, or the salary exemption should be raised to a much higher level. Salaried employees should be at or near the top of the corporate ladder, not middle management.

With the exception of workaholics, most people lose work efficiency when they work longer hours. I used to get a kick seeing the salaried employees working 60 hour weeks, and then spend 20 of those hours in non-work conversations of otherwise goofing off. The truth is, they were simply putting up appearances of working long hours. They were networking, not working. Great for the ambitious worker, but worthless for the employer.

Overtime laws are good for the employer too, although few employers will admit it. Most of them aren't introspective enough to recognize how they as individuals got ahead, so they think that long hours produce results (this is true if you're the company's founder, but most people aren't). They will produce results when they are used sparingly, but requiring them all the time gets the employer little or no return for their money. People are like horses: If you run them too hard for too long, they will collapse on you, or even just stop running.

I do have an idea for an overtime exemption: Instead of time-and-a-half, have OT pay regular hours plus voting stock shares equal in value to half of the hourly wage for each full OT hour worked. This allows the employee to invest in their own company with both their hours worked and the effort in those hours worked. This also saves the employer from having to pay any extra for OT hours, yet still get the best effort from their employees working long hours. (Granted, this only works for stock companies, so other employers would be relegated to paying time-and-a-half. And stock companies could still pay time-and-a-half if they choose. This is just a suggestion for employers, not for legislators.)

So how does a libertarian like me justify overtime laws? Simply put, during periods that favor employers (i.e. more labor supply than demand), employers can and will abuse their employees. This is one of the factors that led to labor unions forming over a century ago. If we have a choice between labor unions protecting workers, or the government, the government is the best choice since it leads to fewer work disruptions. In addition, labor unions are an expensive protection for workers, pulling more from lower paid workers than taxes.

In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, "Remember that time is money." If the law doesn't recognize this factor for workers, then employers will happily abuse their employees' time for the sake of their own money. Why hire two workers for 80 hours when you can run one worker for the full 80 hours at the same price?