Medicare-for-All Lesson Lurking in Your Cable Bill

If you think dealing with your local cable provider is hell, Medicare-for-All will be worse.

You call yourself a Democratic Socialist. You assure the American people that if we can only put Medicare-for-All in place, and get rid of the predatory private health insurance industry, our health-care costs will drop substantially, and the quality of care will be far better.

You are advocating creation of a health-care monopoly. It would be the biggest monopoly in the United States. Do you really believe your dream monopoly will be responsive to your individual needs? When you have a problem, will you be able to call customer assistance, and speak to somebody with willingness, power and incentive to deal with your complaint?

If you do, you've never dealt with your local internet, phone and cable provider, particularly one that has a virtual monopoly in your area.

What do you do if you are unhappy with your service? Let just imagine that you are reasonably happy paying for one of its packages. Then, one day, out of the blue, your rate is raised by 13 percent. When did your employer last give you a 13% pay raise?

When you call to see what can be done, after a modest wait, you get to speak to a "customer representative." You tell her you feel the new rate is unreasonable. She says it really isn't a new rate; they're just taking away a portion of your "customer loyalty discount."

You point out that it is still costing you $20 more per month. She says there is nothing she can do for you, but since you have been a customer for more than 30 years (you were charged $19.99 per month back in 1988), she'll refer you to a "customer loyalty representative."

After another modest wait, that representative finally picks up her phone. You repeat that you are unhappy about the price increase. She repeats that it really isn't a price increase; it's a loyalty discount decrease.

You point out that "loyalty" here seems to be a "one-way street." Your "reward" for being a "loyal customer" is being diminished. She advises that your "loyalty discount" will again decrease next month.

You ask, "What happens if I drop my phone service to save money?" She replies, "If you change your service, you can get a new subscriber promotional discount, but it will only be good for one year. After that your rate will go up $20."

It seems bizarre to you that a new customer will pay less than a loyal customer and that your rate will continue to go up until all your loyalty discount goes bye-bye.

You try again, "What about getting rid of channels you will never use in a thousand years?" She replies, "You probably lose channels that you do watch." 

You ask to speak to a supervisor. She insists a supervisor "will tell you exactly what I am telling you." You insist. She tells you all their lines are busy. You still insist. She tells you, "A supervisor's line just came open; I'll transfer you."

That line rings and rings. Eventually you get voice mail. You dutifully leave your name and number and briefly summarize the nature of your call. No one ever calls back.

Now imagine what happens when Medicare-for-All denies a drug or treatment for your 85-year-old parent. You call Medicare-for-All. And guess what's going to happen when "Bernie" answers? No, not that Bernie. This one is my cable company representative's brother.

When you create a monopoly, you destroy all competition. 

When I have called my health insurance provider, I have always been treated with respect. I have sensed its representatives want to be helpful. They know that a dissatisfied customer can go to another health insurance provider.

But with your cable provider, it's their way or the highway. And with Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-All, you probably will not even have the choice of opting out and going without insurance.

There'll be no highway.

Posted: QCOline.com   September 9th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

How about Some Reparations for Irish Americans?

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, interviewed on CNN, says that she wants a "reparations council made up of 30 to 50 people who are descendants of American slaves."

She also proposes that $200 billion to $500 billion be dispersed over a period of 20 years. Her council would decide how the money is disbursed, with the stipulation that the funds would be used for "economic and education renewal" -- whatever that is. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker have also indicated support for the concept of reparations.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a cosponsor of legislation in Congress to study and develop a reparations proposals. Sen. Bernie Sanders is a co-sponsor for the Senate version of the bill. Sen. Kamala Harris says she supports reparations.

Beto O'Rourke is "open to considering some form of reparations." Warren has gone one step further, saying that reparations for Native Americans should be a part of the reparation conversation as well.


As a former Democrat and a strong believer in "equal protection," I support and thoroughly endorse reparations for both groups -- so long as the aforementioned Democratic candidates are willing to modify their otherwise inane proposals to include reparations to the descendants of oppressed Irishmen.

That, of course, would include me, since my grandfather came from the "Old Sod." I think our government should hand out big bushel baskets of $100 bills to every person of Irish descent in America.

Furthermore, I think the government of Great Britain should also kick in. Because history is no longer seriously taught in our schools, few Americans realize the sad plight of the 19th century Irish small farmer, both before and after he came to America.

From 1846 through the mid-1850s, the Irish potato crop suffered a devastating blight. This fungus was transported to Ireland from the Eastern United States.

In 1846, three-quarters of the Irish potato crop had failed. Three million rural Irish were left to starve -- even though Ireland at this time grew abundant wheat, beef cattle and other livestock.

Throughout the famine, the British continued the export of Irish foodstuffs, notwithstanding the starvation of the Irish people. To exacerbate the situation, Irish farmers, unable to pay their rents owing to the crop failure, were evicted by their English landlords.


To escape starvation, Irish peasant emigrated to America. Coming from rural backgrounds, most lacked the necessary skills required by industrializing America. They had to take unskilled jobs, paving the streets and digging the canals, while the women were forced into menial jobs as maids and laundresses.

And there was prejudice against the Irish. America was largely Protestant. The Irish were Catholics. Many Americans believed the Irish owed their allegiance to the Pope.

Additionally, the Irish immigrants threatened to take jobs from American citizens. Fearing that they would also take political power, there was a backlash, which produced the Know-Nothing Party, whose very reason for being was anti-immigration xenophobia.

"Help Wanted" signs were modified to add, "No Irish need apply!" Then came the Civil War. As Irishmen disembarked, they were met by Union military recruiters who offered them $300 to join the Union Army. And they did.

Irish regiments were formed: the New York 63rd, 69th, and 88th and the 116th Pennsylvania. Soon they were grouped into the Irish Brigade. Over 150,000 Irish, who had never owned a slave, fought for the Union cause.

At Antietam (1862), about 60 percent of 63rd and 69th New York regiments fell; almost 600 men were killed in battle. A few months later, at Fredericksburg, 545 of the brigade’s 1,200 men were killed or wounded. Then, in July 1863, at Gettysburg, 320 of the Irish Brigade's remaining 530 were killed.

Irish losses in the Civil War and in WWI each totaled about 35,000. Irish men were "welcomed" into America to serve as cannon fodder. Unlike the immigrants crossing our southern border today, the 19th century Irish got no food stamps, no free housing and no free medical care.

And of course, once you provide people of Irish descent with reparations, don't forget the Jewish people.

I can distinctly remember as a boy the prejudice in America against people of the Jewish faith. There weren't welcomed in many of the best country clubs. A few blocks from our home, they had to build their own Jewish country club.

So, do I really believe in reparations? No. But if you are going to give them to one group, equal protection should require they be given to any group that America was not fair to at any time. But, of course, when you provide free housing, food stamps, education and medical care to any group for any prolonged period, isn't that a sort of pre-reparation?


Posted: QCOline.com   September 12th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats are Hypocrites on President Trump's Immigration Policy

Is President Donald Trump really a racist or a white supremacist for saying he is for an "orderly admission of aliens across our southern border, but that we must keep drug dealers, and criminals out?"

Every 2020 Democrat presidential candidate claims Trump is. Do you agree? Before you answer, here is what three prominent Americans said about illegal immigration a few years ago.

Prominent American No. 1:

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.


"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

Prominent American No. 2:


"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."

And, "Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. We don't know how many of these kids didn't make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking, or killed because they fell off a train. We have no way of tracking them."


Prominent American No. 3: 

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers'" we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.


Were these three racists? White supremacists? How do their positions meaningfully differ from Trump's current position? Were they speaking reasonably? Truthfully? If so, why does every Democratic candidate today stand in anal opposition to these statements made by the nation's most prominent Democrats just a few years ago?


Did these three care less about suffering children than the present crop of Democratic candidates? Or did these Americans not perceive that if the country were flooded with illegal immigrants, eventually these immigrants would probably vote Democratic and in all likelihood vote to insure irreversible Democratic control of all branches of the U.S. government?


Oh! By the way, the first prominent American quoted was President Bill Clinton from his 1995 State of the Union Address. The second person quoted was President Barack Obama. The first statement (2005) was made while he was a U.S. senator; the second (2014) while he was president. The third quote is from Sen. Chuck Schumer (2009).


Not yet convinced hypocrisy's afoot? I just received another video from a former colleague showing what four more prominent Democrats told the American people a few years ago:

Sen. Harry Reid: "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you enter our country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. Citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides."

Sen. Diane Feinstein: "I think we can enforce our borders.  To have a situation where 40% of the babies born on Medicaid in California today are born of illegal immigrants, creates a very real problem."

Hillary Clinton: "Look, I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think you have to control your borders."

Bernie Sanders: "I believe we have very serious immigration problems in this country. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are virtually non-existent. Our border is very porous.”

Posted: QCOline.com   September 5th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

What Happens When There Are No More Police?

A new attitude is becoming mainstream in leftist America. It is an anti-police, anti-ICE and anti-law-enforcement attitude. It is producing fell consequences.


The FBI states that in 2018, 55 police officers died as the result of felonious acts. Firearms were used to murder 51 of those officers. In 2019, through July 8, 24 officers have been shot to death.

Do you recall the Black Lives Matter video where the "protesters" chanted, "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry 'em like Bacon?" Or a second one, where New York "protestors" chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." (See https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Manhattan-Dead-Cops-Video-Millions-March-Protest-285805731.html.)

Now there's a new game in New York. When the police arrive to answer a call for assistance, crowds gather and douse them with buckets of water (https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-police-pelted-objects-drenched-water-video-reprehensible).


On July 1, Dante DeBlasio, the 21-year-old son of New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio, penned an op-ed which appeared in USA Today. He recounted his visit to San Francisco at age 18:

"I ... found myself walking through a neighborhood called the Tenderloin. All the storefront windows had bars on them, there was a man on one street yelling at passersby, trying to goad them into a fight, and homeless people were openly doing hard drugs on the sidewalk. But honestly, I wasn’t that scared. I was from Brooklyn, and I truly believed that I knew how to carry myself well enough not to be messed with. And due to the sheer force of my confidence, nobody messed with me (it also probably doesn’t hurt to be 6’3”)."

He eventually arrived at his friend's home. "In fact, the only time I felt fear during that entire night was at the very end of the walk ... at the keypad outside my family friend’s apartment building. My hosts had texted me the code ... but there were no instructions, so I was just standing there with my suitcase and ... pressing different buttons.

"I had been standing there for about 10 minutes when a police cruiser slowly rolled down the empty block. I figured it must be heading somewhere else but, no, it pulled over right in front of me. For years, I had been aware of the fear I caused as a young black man -- I had seen people cross the street to avoid me, I had been followed around stores -- yet I could still hardly believe someone thought that I was trying to break into a home. But ... somebody had called the police on me."

Dante is a mixed-race person. His wariness of the police is understandable. By the time he was in eighth grade, he had been instructed by his father and cousins to be extra-polite and deliberate when addressing police officers; not funny or casual. He also had been cautioned to avoid sudden movements, back-talking, or reaching for anything without first telling the officer what he was about to do. He was warned that small mistakes could result in his being arrested or even shot.

These were commonsense instructions. My dad told me essentially the same thing. But while being wary or respectful when confronted by a policeman is acting with commonsense, dousing officers, chanting that you want dead cops, assaulting officers or murdering them are all acts animated by hatred.


Drive the police out of your neighborhood; then what? Who will intervene to stop wife beating or the armed robbery at the 7-Eleven? Or keep the drug dealers and gang-bangers from selling cocaine at your front door? Or stop street gangs from shooting it out outside your home?

Read again Dante's description of the Tenderloin District. Do you want to live in a town with all home and business windows barred? Where thugs on the street goad passersby to fight? Where the homeless are openly doing hard drugs on every corner?

Is living in a Tenderloin District as described by Dante preferable to treating police officers with civility? What if officers refuse to come when you really need them?

Nine people were murdered in Dayton in the 32 seconds before the police killed the killer. How many more would have died had there been no police?

And now six officers were shot in Philadelphia, while the crowd taunted, and yelled at officers who were facing gunfire, according to CBS3 reporter Alexandria Hoff who was at the scene. (https://www.newsweek.com/philadelphia-shooting-crowd-taunted-police-report-1454473).


Posted: QCOline.com   August 22, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Is Trump a "Racist?" Ask Media, any Democrat.

How would you like to be called a racist? Every day. Hundreds of times a day.

The Mueller coup having failed, Democrats have a new strategy: call President Donald Trump a racist.

On July 16, a Mike Brest/Washington Examiner article appeared captioned "CNN, MSNBC combine to call Trump or his tweets 'racist' more than 1,000 times since Sunday, July 14, 2019."

Why? Because in a three-tweet thread Sunday morning, the president told Democrat/Socialist Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ihan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley to go back to their countries of origin to help them if they are unhappy with the United States.

Over two days, CNN called the president a racist 636 times; MSNBC, 471 times. But would Democrats reaction have been any different if the president had said "as American citizens, these congresswomen have an absolute right to emigrate to any country they believe to be is better?" Would he not still have been labeled racist.


Today anybody the left disagrees with is labeled a racist, including, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Joe Biden, Thomas Jefferson, and anybody who voted for Trump.


Then, when Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings took a verbal punch at the Border Patrol and it facilities, the president launched a three-tweet counter-punch on July 27:

-- "Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA."

-- "As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cummings District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place."

-- "Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going?"

Not unexpectedly, the president was quickly labeled a racist by Cummings, Al Sharpton, Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders and every other Democrat on the planet. But is Baltimore really a rat-infested, mess?

Watch: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/rat-runs-through-baltimore-tv-reporters-live-report.


Is it a dangerous mess? Baltimore has the highest crime rate among America's 30 largest cities, the second highest violent crime rate, and the highest murder rate with more than 50 homicides per 100,000 people. These facts are not being denied by the Democrats. So, can the president fairly call Baltimore "dangerous?"

And while the New York Times calls Trump a racist every chance it gets, consider what it has previously said. In May, the New York Times Magazine described the "Tragedy of Baltimore," decrying the 2015 post-Freddie Gray riots as “nothing less than a failure of order and governance the likes of which few American cities have seen in years.”

Has Cummings ever said Baltimore was "dangerous," or "infested?" Yup, in 1999: "This morning, I left my community of Baltimore -- a drug-infested area where ... the drugs ... have already taken the lives of so many children. The same children that I watched 14 or 15 years ago as they grew up, now walking around like zombies."

Why is it racist to say Baltimore is "rat and rodent infested" but not racist to say is is "drug infested?"


Sanders was also quick to label Trump a racist for his Baltimore tweets. But read what Sanders said about Baltimore in 2015: "The fact is that American is the wealthiest country in the history of the world, but anyone who took the walk that we took ... would think you were in a third world country. ... Half of the people don't have jobs. ... hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable. ... kids are unable to go to schools that are decent."

So why is it racist to say Baltimore is a mismanaged, dangerous rat-infest city, but not racist to say Baltimore is a drug-infested city that looks like a third world country, where kids look like zombies, half the people are unemployed, hundreds of buildings are uninhabitable, and the schools aren't decent?


Could there be a double standard afoot? Why hasn't CNN called Elijah or Bernie a racist 636 times over two days?

You wonder why the president tweets? If you were accused of racism, would you take it? Are CNN and MSNBC going to defend him? If he plays the piñata, won't the allegations be taken as true by half the country?

Posted: QCOline.com   August 15, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

How to Destroy America's Great Cities

What's the best way to destroy a great city?


A retired colleague recently sent me a May 28, 2018 internet article published by CWBChicago, captioned "Downtown: Overworked cops battling Mag Mile (Magnificent Mile) fights, mayhem through weekend."


Along with the article, my colleague advised that he was "unable to offer a workable solution that would be consistent with due process or any other measure allowed under our law." He asked for my solution.


My first question was, what is CWBChicago?


The CWBChicago states that it is an organization "created in 2013 by five residents of Wrigleyville and Boystown, fed up with the inaccurate information provided at local Community Policing (CAPS) meetings. ... robberies in our neighborhood had been soaring. Yet city representatives at CAPS meetings continually claimed that crime was going down."


That article details some 64 police calls over the May 28, 2018 Memorial Day weekend: e.g., Saturday: 8:39 p.m. -- 70 or 80 teens coming off the Chicago Red Line. “Tell Water Tower to close their doors; otherwise, they gotta let ‘em in;” 8:42 p.m. -- Fights behind the historic Water Tower. Crowd: 200 people, per dispatcher; 8:44 p.m., -- “Water Tower is closed. There’s one door open so people can exit.”


That same article contains internet links to four videos showing graphic mob violence perpetrated by youthful gangs along and about the Magnificent Mile or Michigan Avenue, from the Chicago River to Oak Street. It is Chicago’s premier commercial district and home to upscale shops, luxe fashion outlets, fine restaurants, posh hotels, as well as the historic Chicago Water Tower, Tribune Tower, the Wrigley Building and John Hancock Center.


So what is my solution? Frankly, I haven't got one. At least not one consistent with our traditional notions of due process, and the Eighth Amendment prohibitions of "cruel and unusual punishment."


Our judicial system is simply not equipped to deal with mob violence. If you arrest the 200 people engaged in the fight behind Water Tower, and each demands a jury trial, the system grinds to a halt.

Each defendant will claim indigence, and 200 lawyers will have to be appointed. And each attorney will file a blizzard of motions to defend his client. Each attorney will have to interview all named witnesses, and confer with his client.


Assuming each attorney spends just 50 hours defending his client and is paid $50 per hour for his services, the county will receive bills totaling $500,000 for attorneys fees. If the attorneys are paid $100 per hour, double that.


If convicted, probation will do virtually nothing to deter future violence. Imprisonment will at least deter the criminal from engaging in mob violence during the period of his imprisonment, but at an annual cost of about $38,000 to the taxpayers.


"Boot camp" costs about half as much. But the National Institute of Justice says that while the camps generally produce some positive behavioral changes, "these changes did not translate into reduced recidivism." 

My friend says he once thought that putting them in the army might be a solution. "From my experience in Vietnam (as a line officer), I came to the rapid conclusion based on experience that placing these little (expletive deleted) in the military is about the worst conceivable idea ever placed in my pea-sized brain," he said, adding, "Individuals who are screw-offs in the civilian world are even bigger screw-offs in the military where they have access to even more powerful weapons than they carried in the real world. In combat, having even one of these jerks in your unit provided a risk that their action or failure to act would get someone wounded or killed."


So short of providing every street cop with a cat-o'-nine tails, and authorizing him to mete out clearly unconstitutional summary justice on the spot, I have no workable solution.


When you couple this gang violence, with the decriminalization of shoplifting of loot valued at less than $950 (e.g. California), toleration of tent cities for the homeless such as those in the heart of Los Angeles, and when you provide free drugs and needles to addicts, you have the perfect recipe for the destruction of taxpaying business districts in America's great cities.


And you can easily accelerate the destruction by instructing your police to stand down while Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and street gangs destroy business districts and terrorize shoppers, store owners and employees, without police intervention.


Simply put, who in their right mind wants to shop where he has to navigate makeshift tents, strewn garbage, discarded needles, and shoplifters, all the while avoiding violent street gangs and Antifa violence?

Posted: QCOline.com   August 8, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Sweatshop Labor, New Face of International Slavery

                   "Multinational corporations ... should not be paying workers starvation wages." 

                                                                     Bernie Sanders, June 14, 2018, "Not Me. Us"

In the 1990s, Nike was accused by human rights and labor activists of "building its corporate wealth upon the backs of Asian sweatshop laborers" because it used cheap Asian labor to produce its shoes and other sporting goods.

Eight years later, company founder Phil Knight promised to eliminate the use of sweatshop labor. It appears that promise has not been kept.


In March of 2017 the International Labor Rights Forum charged that Nike had “turned its back” on labor agreements, effectively preventing independent monitors from reviewing conditions in many of its overseas factories.

Other groups say Nike has continued to employ predatory labor practices against women in many of its Asian factories. They argue female workers, who account for 85% of all workers in Nike's Vietnam shoe factories, are paid less than a dollar an hour for a 48-hour work week.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., states, “Nike is a symbol of everything wrong with the corporate economy. ... They take advantage of our laws. They send jobs overseas for sweatshop wages, partner with repressive regimes, and aggressively avoid paying any U.S. taxes.”


In May of 2014, Matthew Kish wrote in the Portland Business Journal that "a new report from Nike about its efforts to become a 'top corporate citizen,' does not include information about the wages paid to its roughly 1 million contract factory workers. ... The company released its 'corporate responsibility report' this month, but it did not include a table showing the average wages at the 785 contract factories that make Nike products."

In its report, Nike admits that wages for its factory workers remain one of three priorities. Twenty-one years after Nike's Knight promised to clean up the sweatshop problems, employee wages, worker representation and excessive overtime remain unfixed to the advantage of Nike corporate profits.

The most recent data on what Nike pays its Asian factory workers comes from 2001. In Bangladesh, it paid roughly $36.01 per month. In Vietnam, $73.94. In India, $75.79.

A person who works a 48-hour work week, works about 208 hours per month. In India, that would be about 37¢ per hour.

The wages that Nike currently pays appear to be a closely guarded corporate secret. In September 2018, Newsweek wrote, "The amount factory workers earn making Nike products varies depending on the facility and the country. Nike did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment and clarification about how much it pays workers on average."

Would that suggest that Nike doesn't want the American public to know how much it's paying laborers?

Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."

According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.

"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."

If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.

Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers,  $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.

In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."

Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:

1.  It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.

2.  It pays pennies to hire its work force.

3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.

It could not do better using slave labor? On this issue, Sanders is right.

Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."

According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.

"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."

If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.

Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers, $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.

In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."

Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Working a 48 hour week?

Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:

1. It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.

2. It pays pennies to hire its work force.

3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.


Nike could not do better profit-wise using slave labor. On this issue, Sen. Sanders is right.


Posted: QCOline.com   July 18, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea