Not Racist

If you voted for Trump but are offended about getting lumped in with racists and sexists and bigots, there are some really easy ways to distance yourself:

• Be just as vocal about your opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc as you were about Hillary’s emails.

• Denounce the appointment of racists and bigots to Trump’s cabinet just as fervently as you denounce people burning the American flag.

• Get just as fired up, if Trump’s administration attempts to pass laws oppressing minorities or LGBTQ, as you would if someone tried to take away your own right to bear arms.

And if you find this is too difficult, or you’re worried about your friends getting the wrong idea and thinking you’re some kind of Social Justice Warrior or something, I’ve got some bad news for you, friend:

You actually are a racist.

The Party’s Over

I’m angrier at the Democrats than the Republicans. You should be, too.

A lot of Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking has taken place over the last 48 hours, but nearly all of it—at least within the leftward-leaning circles I associate with—is simply a repetition of concerns expressed months ago, now phrased in the past tense. It’s possible this political cycle only seemed worse than any in the past because the glowing rectangles in our pockets give us constant access to every scrap of information as it happens, but the magnitude of failures and missteps required to obtain the outcome we arrived at is staggering.

Somehow, Donald Trump—an accused rapist and professional money-loser who plays a businessman on reality TV, who seemingly tried at every opportunity to throw his own campaign—managed to pull off a win against one of the most qualified and connected politicians in America, in a contest so clearly one-sided in terms of professionalism, knowledge, and experience that it seemed almost everyone assumed her victory an inevitability. Those SNL parodies from the last couple months have instantly become forever unwatchable for their embarrassing cockiness.

In a campaign clearly characterized by critical failures—as evidenced by the staggeringly low voter turnout despite the fact that her opponent has admitted on tape to routinely committing sexual assault while at the same time broadly and offensively characterizing Mexican immigrants as potential rapists—arguably the greatest misstep was the focus on Hillary and Trump as entities, as personalities. Rather than identifying with the American people, Hillary’s campaign pushed as hard as it could to get people to identify with her—often embarrassingly—and to recognize Trump as the cruel and inept businessman he has repeatedly proven himself to be.

They can hardly bear the full blame, given the way politicians have become celebrities of a sort over the last couple decades, with identity politics turning candidates into meme-parroting, focus-grouped dorks latching onto dumb fads and forming symbiotic partnerships with popular entertainers in a transparent effort to simulate universal likability. The end result of this is an overly-processed, scientifically-calculated, edgeless simulacra of a personality that sits firmly in the Uncanny Valley from the perspective of everyone who observes it. Efforts to become likable paradoxically almost always make one less so, and that’s especially true when you’re trying to appeal to 350 million people. Your corners become so rounded, so child-proofed and idiot-proofed that artificial attempts at seeming “edgy” or “ironic” or “out of the box” are jarring in their pretense, like grafting a real human nose onto a Mr. Potato Head, or those renderings people make of what cartoon characters would look like if they were real. Like the song goes, “everybody hates a tourist.”

Regardless of the history and motivations of Icon Politics, the primary focus of Hillary’s campaign was on the candidates themselves, the central thrusts being largely:

• Trump is a monster. Do you really want to give him nuclear access?
• We’re long overdue for a woman President, and Hillary is a qualified politician.

While both of these sentiments are absolutely true, and both are misogynistic travesties, they’re not universally inspiring. Especially when the former was usually wielded to scold anyone who dared even mention voting for a third-party candidate, and the latter was usually leveraged to shut down criticism of any variety as “sexist”, especially during the Democratic primaries. Many Bernie Sanders supporters were routinely accused of misogyny by mid-influence liberal hacks for expressing unisex, one-size-fits-all concerns over Hillary’s Wall Street ties and support of Israel.

[Aside: Jill Stein did not cost Hillary the election, and Gary Johnson’s impact on Trump won Hillary a few states, not that that necessarily made a difference. Keep an eye on all the people shaming third-party voters over upcoming years, to see if they’ll push for voting reforms that fix our first-past-the-post system where a third-party vote is considered a dangerous betrayal. SPOILER ALERT: They won’t.]

Hillary’s campaign seemed to fixate on the narrative of Hillary As The First Woman President, which is a truly very inspiring concept—especially in a country long dominated by patriarchal garbage—but one dampened somewhat by the hubristic undertone that it was her destiny, and made almost unbearable at times by endless moronic thinkpieces comparing her to fictional heroines. [Cue supercut of screenshots of the 1,879,435,229 essays and tweets referring to her as “Khaleesi”.] Political fandom of any variety is gross—these people are not your friends—but there’s something especially unsettling about people excitedly writing “YASS, SLAY QUEEN!!!” regarding a candidate who seemingly supports the violent annexation of Palestine, who if elected would likely be responsible for our ongoing drone strikes, which occasionally kill civilians.

Beyond that, despite Bernie’s grassroots popularity and the passion that his campaign inspired in many (especially young) voters, somehow the Clinton campaign thought the best strategy was to move toward the center in an effort to appeal to conservatives—a demographic that has unreasonably and adamantly hated her for decades, many for no other reason than that she’s a woman. Meanwhile, no one from the Hillary camp ever attempted any sort of reconciliation with—let alone apology to—those further to the left, after an especially dismissive primary campaign wherein Sanders supporters—many of them women and people of color—were dismissed as sexist “Bernie Bros” over genuine concerns with her policies and positions, especially in terms of the Middle East. Instead, the attitude seemed to be, “well of COURSE you’re going to vote for her—haha what other option do you really have? AND DON’T YOU DARE SAY JILL STEIN.”

The sad core truth of this election—the focal point Democrats seem to have missed—was that it wasn’t about policy, it was about acknowledging the anger and dissatisfaction of the American people, regardless of its validity. Trump’s appeal wasn’t necessarily Trump himself or even many of the things he offered—in fact, a number of the people who voted for him are now backpedaling trying to distance themselves from his most heinous promises. Rather, it was the fact that someone was finally going “Yeah, I know! I’m pissed off too! Enough is enough!” By identifying with Americans, Trump was able to get them in turn to identify with him. Hillary’s campaign, on the other hand, and Democrats in general, seemed to dismiss Trump supporters out of hand as racists and sexists and bigots.

That’s not to say they aren’t, of course—a number of them are truly the absolute worst humanity has to offer, while most others are possessed by Resource Anxieties that magnify unpleasant instinctive tribal mentalities. Unfortunately, the worst of any species’ behaviors tend to be the best for survival, and when there is a situation of scarcity—or even perceived scarcity—those behaviors manifest. The economy has been unkind to the working class, largely because the wealthy have siphoned nearly all the growth out of the economy for decades while exporting jobs overseas to people willing to work for wages even less livable than American minimum wage, and this artificial scarcity has led people to become increasingly hostile toward anyone unlike their perceived “tribe”. That doesn’t, of course, excuse their racism, but it puts it in an important context.

The tragedy is that due to the sexism that sadly permeates American society and humanity at large, Hillary’s hands were largely tied: she wasn’t “allowed” to be angry, because angry women are perceived as shrill or unpleasant. It’s wrong and disgusting that society behaves this way, and it needs to change, but in an election where mirroring the public’s anger was arguably the most crucial and winning strategy, being unable to do that was a massive limitation. Considering that truth, she needed to try harder in battleground states—like, for instance, maybe visiting Wisconsin even one time at all over the course of this seemingly endless hell parade of an election, apparently just assuming she’d get it just like she’d get votes from Sanders supporters—and make a case that was about voters’ perceived struggles and disenfranchisement and not just The Story of Hillary And Her Many Qualifications.

Hillary’s campaign tried to court the right while also refusing to attempt to identify with them or understand their concerns. Despite rabid anti-intellectualism and an epidemic of ignorance on the right, acknowledging their worry and their anger and treating them like human beings whose fears are still real in their presence if not necessarily their validity would have likely made a huge difference. Instead, dismissing them simply fostered resentment, especially when the liberal echo chamber focused so heavily on the racism and misogyny and bigotry.

It’s easy in retrospect to look at the results and claim Bernie would have won. It’s especially easy to do so because it’s undeniably true: Bernie would have served as the perfect antithesis to Trump in that he similarly mirrored Americans’ anger and dissatisfaction with the establishment, speaking his mind against very powerful entities without calculated polish, the crucial difference being that he actually offered functional solutions rooted in a firm understanding of economics and humanity. And yet, despite being a more universally appealing candidate without the baggage and vitriol chained to the Clinton name—largely by people who are still mad that her husband lied about a blowjob once during an unrelated real estate hearing—the DNC worked hard to sink him, apparently even colluding with liberal journalists to do so, apparently hoping that afterwards, guilting and shaming leftists and “going high when they go low” with childlike Hufflepuff naivety would make up the difference.

The depressing conclusion to this already heartbreaking election is that establishment Democrats will likely learn nothing from this. Chances are, the Republican-dominated government will make a humiliating mess of itself over the next couple years—if it can even manage to move on anything, with all the obstruction and protests and lawsuits that are bound to result—and the 2018 midterms will be a bloodbath. Already on the introspection-eschewing path, some Democrats are already suggesting Chelsea is the next Democratic Hope, because why bother with deductive reasoning when cognitive dissonance will allow you to continue to make the same mistakes? It’s almost like a strange collective extension of Munchausen Syndrome, only instead of making oneself sick for sympathy, we make the worst possible decisions so that we can write shocked thinkpieces.

The only silver lining right now is the possibility that Trump may not be as bad as he seemed, and has merely been playing the crowds, but that doesn’t seem likely. Perhaps the more important takeaway this time around, though, is to remember that Democrats are actually much worse than we thought.

American Symbolic

Let’s say you live in a small town somewhere, and let’s say that this town is mostly populated by black people. White people like yourself account for maybe 15% of the population. Back when the town was originally founded, it was more like 5%.

Let’s say you’ve heard stories from your parents and grandparents about how, decades ago, some of the black people that were living in the town at the time would do horrible things to the white people. They would rape them, torture them, keep them in cages, and visit all manner of atrocity against them. Let’s say that nobody would do anything about it, that it was all perfectly legal because white people weren’t considered real people.

That would be terrible, right?

Now, let’s say that while they were doing these brutal, horrible things, they had little statues they would carry around with them. That was their symbol, that was what they would rally themselves around. Imagine something like Michelangelo’s David. There was no anti-white symbolism to the statue, it was just a statue, but it was their statue.

But that was all generations ago. There was a big rebellion, a huge fight, and finally the state government stepped in and said, “hey, you can’t treat the white people like this.” And so your grandparents and great-grandparents, they were all set free from the cages, and there were laws enacted to make sure that white people were treated like human beings.

Of course, the black people in your town at the time didn’t like being told what to do, so even though the law stated that they were no longer legally allowed to do these things, they would gather around their statues late at night, put on some masks to hide who they were, maybe follow a white person home from work, and do terrible things to them when nobody could stop them. And because the police were all black, too, they would look the other way.

Over time, things got a little better. But only because white people (and blacks who sympathized with whites) fought tirelessly for slow progress. Today, there’s still some tension, but at least white people aren’t getting regularly ganged up on and hanged from trees.

Now, let’s say that in this town where you live, maybe half a century ago someone put up a statue, one of the ones the black people used to gather around. A big one, right in the town square. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, it’s just a statue, carved out of marble. In fact, it almost looks a little like Michelangelo’s David, and that’s a beautiful work of art.

So why would anyone want to take that statue down?

American Heroes

Minimum wage worker: Hey, it’d be nice if I could make enough in a year at a full-time job to pay for all the things I need to survive, and maybe a little extra. Can we make that happen? My family is starving.
Conservatives: What a fuckin’ LAZY, ENTITLED, WHINY BABY! I had a minimum wage job thirty years ago, and I NEVER complained! How DARE these people ask for more money! What’s wrong with them? Some people just don’t want to work!
Executive with a $20,000,000/year salary: Uhh, if I can’t make unmitigated amounts of money, then I’m just not going to work anymore. What incentive do I have to keep working if I can’t make limitless money?
Conservatives: That man is a hero. :’)

Slippery Slopes

“Regulation stifles businesses,” he said, losing his footing on the edge of a steep cliffside. He quickly grabbed at a sapling poking out of the ground. “I think the Market can and should police itself! We don’t need government nanny-state rules telling people what they can and can’t do! What about freedom?”

The sapling’s roots soon gave way under the significant weight, sending the man careening backward, arms twirling, one hand still gripped reflexively around the dislodged young tree. “Also, I think we should privatize as many government services as we can!” he wailed. “Businesses can do the job more efficiently!”

As he watched his feet fly by overhead, he shouted, “businesses should be allowed to deny anyone service for any reason! If a bakery makes wedding cakes, they should be allowed to deny cakes for gay weddings or black weddings without suffering any consequences! There should be no anti-discrimination laws!”

After several tumbles end-over-end, his hands managed to grasp some shrubbery, halting his descent right at the edge of a cliff. He caught his breath and said, “we should get rid of income and business taxes and then cut social programs. Let private businesses take care of it!”

The rocks beneath his feet gave way and the cliffside collapsed. He tumbled for almost two minutes before his mangled body finally lurched to a halt.

A group of hikers found him ten minutes later and were relieved he was still breathing. One called 911 and waited on hold for over five minutes before finally being transferred to an operator in Bangkok. After listening to some brief sales pitches for nearby hospitals, they relayed the situation and were told that paramedics were en route.

Unfortunately, the ambulance that arrived was from a for-pay private firm that, as a policy, required payment up front. His wallet had fallen out of his pocket halfway up the mountain. The hiker dialed 911 again and this time requested paramedics who would accept deferred payment. It was nearly half an hour before they arrived. There was a hospital fifteen minutes away, but it did not take the man’s insurance, so they drove another fifteen minutes to a hospital that did. They were able to repair most of his injuries, but the damage to his spine rendered him paraplegic from the waist down, and a slow cranial bleed had gone on long enough to result in permanent brain damage.

Out of a job, he lost his house to the bank over his tremendous healthcare loans. Hungry and desperate, he turned to shoplifting in order to survive. Many workers overlooked his theft out of pity for his condition, but he was eventually arrested. Though his crimes were petty and nonviolent in nature, the prosecutor and judge—both of whom owned shares in all the local for-profit prisons—concluded that his wheelchair constituted a weapon, and he was sentenced to twenty years.

Two years later, he died in his cell from a trivial infection that spread to the rest of his body due to cutbacks in the prisoner health program. With his last words, he cursed government regulation for stifling the free-market utopia that would have saved his life.

The Ultimate April Fools’ Prank

Nothing can top this ultimate prank. It’s a long-term strategy that involves TWO April Fools’ Days, but your coworkers will find the payoff hilarious.

1) Get a harness and a rope.
2) Show up early to work, before anyone else arrives.
3) Tie the rope into a noose and hang it (loosely!) over a beam, knotted in such a way that if you pulled hard enough on it, the knot would just slip out. (Be careful! You don’t want to actually hurt yourself.)
4) Put on the harness and secure it to the ceiling, right next to the rope. You should be suspended at least a foot off the ground.
5) Put the rope around your neck. It should appear taut, but make sure you’re not getting strangled.
6) When the first person comes into your office, pretend that you’re dead. Hang as limply as possible.
7) After a moment, let them in on the joke before you cause any permanent psychological damage. Persuade them to keep quiet so you can prank others.
8) Repeat for any additional coworkers.
9) The following year, hang yourself for real in the exact same spot.

In Response to Mike Rowe

Hey, Mike.

I’ve always liked you, and have appreciated the things you’ve written. You’re humble despite your tremendous success, and unlike quite a number of others, you’re thoughtful and seem to examine many if not all of the facets involved in whatever subject you’re discussing. In your recent post about the minimum wage, though, I feel there are some facets—and guts—that you might be missing.

Whenever anyone older than, say, forty talks about the state of the economy, there’s always a detectable hint of “kids these days…” as if younger people want more for less and don’t know the real value of hard work. I’ll grant you that technological advancements have indeed adjusted our collective expectations for what a “hard day of work” looks like, versus handwritten bookkeeping or hand-drilling explosives into the walls of mines. But are expectations for a better quality of life involving less arduous jobs really that out of line? And why can’t we all benefit from technological advancements? (I’ll get to the more startling ramifications of this in a minute.)

More accurately put, though, what’s really going on is that we have enough information at this point to analyze the data and historical trends and say with certainty, “yeah, this isn’t going to work anymore.” The math just doesn’t add up. In the past, even twenty years ago, things were more geographically constrained and perspectives were narrower. But in a time where I can tweet a video of my dog being startled awake by his own fart to someone on the other side of the planet, we have access to a more comprehensive set of data than we did in the past. And we can get it with a few taps of our fingertips.

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is actually worth less today than it was throughout most of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. (In around 1968, it hit its peak value at about $10.50 in 2012 dollars.) Meanwhile, over that same period of time, average executive salaries have gone from roughly 40 times as much as the average employee to roughly 380 times as much as the average employee and in one particular case 830 times as much as the average employee. There is no maximum wage law, and those already at the top have taken great advantage of that, at everyone else’s expense. Despite promises from numerous conservatives over the years, success at the top hasn’t translated into success at the bottom. The “Trickle-Down Effect” is and always has been wishful thinking to justify exploitation of the economic system and all the workers therein. (e.g. “I have no responsibility to NOT gobble up as much as I possibly can, because if I do, then everybody else will benefit even more.”)

Let me ask you a question: When you bought your ticket from that automated machine, how much did it cost? As of this writing, an adult ticket at the AMC 25 here in New York City is $14.99. Now, you claim you only ever saw one actual employee, the manager. There was nobody in ticketing, no usher checking stubs, no cashier at concessions. They were all machines. (Though, this sounds a little absurd—was there even security? Who’s patrolling to prevent theater hopping?) So let’s just estimate for the sake of argument that each of those positions would have employed two people—two in the box office, two ushers, two at concessions, meaning that theater has gone from seven workers down to just one. How much do you think that remaining worker makes? Do you think he makes significantly more than a manager overseeing human employees, considering he’s the only one there? I can almost guarantee you the answer is no. And I can also almost guarantee you that ticket prices haven’t dropped as a result of cutting out expensive human labor for cheaper machines. So where is that money going? Who benefits? And what incentive do they have to keep around human labor regardless of the minimum wage?

See, you started out talking about the disappearance of entry level jobs, and how if it hadn’t been for that crappy, minimum-wage position scraping gum and soda-soaked popcorn off the floor, you never would have been able to work your way up to projectionist. (Where, by the way, you made $10/hour in 1979—that’s $32.61/hour, adjusted for inflation. A lot of people today don’t make that much after years at their jobs.) And yet, at that theater where you saw Boyhood, even that projectionist job was gone. The only person left was management (and probably some behind-the-scenes technical people on hand in case anything broke down). That runs counter to your point about how increasing the minimum wage is going to make entry-level jobs disappear. The truth is, technology is going to make all jobs disappear.

Mechanization is inevitable—not just for these positions but increasingly many others as technology becomes smarter and faster and more humanoid. And, critically, cheaper. In other words, I think you’ve gotten the causality a bit tangled, here: people aren’t being replaced by machines because the minimum wage is increasing (which it isn’t, really, when you account for inflation), people are getting replaced by machines because the cost of technology is decreasing. And there’s no way we can race to the bottom faster than that. In light of all this, it’s really odd to me that you seem to be blaming the workers for wanting to be paid better, considering there exists no reality at all where people can do these jobs better and less expensively than machines. Even at FoxConn, where workers are already paid significantly less than U.S. workers, human labor is being replaced by machines. How can we possibly compete with that? And what good does it do an economy to pay workers so little that they can barely even afford to survive, let alone buy all the stuff that’s being made? Even if these jobs are only supposed to be temporary stepping stones on the way to greener pastures, people shouldn’t have to starve until they happen to luck into a promotion or a better position. You can’t pay for groceries with the knowledge that tucking in your shirt makes you appear more presentable. Not to mention that the poor economy has resulted in a situation where people are finding themselves stuck in minimum wage jobs longer because better jobs aren’t available. Even lateral movement is difficult when machines are snatching up all those unskilled or low-skilled or even moderately-skilled jobs.

There’s an exchange between Walter Reuther, former head of the auto workers union, and an automotive executive who is often mistakenly claimed to be Henry Ford. The executive asks Reuther how he’s going to get all these new robots to pay his union dues. In reply, Reuther asks how the executive is going to get them to buy cars. There is indeed something troubling about a human workforce being increasingly replaced by machines, but the biggest threat to our economy isn’t entry-level jobs going away, it’s our stubborn refusal to acknowledge that most human labor could eventually be replaced.

If we are to avoid an economic catastrophe, we will have to disabuse ourselves soon of the notion that a person has to be employed at a job in order to obtain tokens to exchange for continued survival. Mechanization of labor is an inevitability, and more and more jobs are going to disappear, lost to cheaper robots that can do things more precisely and more quickly than even the most skilled human ever could. The human workload requirement is dropping, and will continue to drop. Decades ago, it started with manufacturing. Today, as evidenced by your trip to the cinema, service jobs are starting to go away. Even that manager you saw will soon be replaced by a centralized computer that remotely oversees operations across thousands of theaters. And there’s no going back, because why would we? Even if a projectionist offered to work for 50 cents a day, eventually the machine that’s replacing him will be cheaper to run than that. And in the meantime, that projectionist isn’t making enough to eat, let alone pay rent, let alone buy the latest iPhone.

And that’s where it all breaks down: Think of all the things you purchase in a given year. Now imagine you were only making $12,000, which, alarmingly, is considered the poverty level in the United States for a single individual. Or even $15,000, which is the amount you would make in a year at a minimum-wage job. Or $21,000, which is how much you would make if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10/hour. That means nearly everything you would have purchased beyond the bare minimum is now no longer being bought by you. Which means there’s that much of a revenue loss for all of those businesses that make or provide those things. Which means a greater likelihood that the employees of those businesses will lose their jobs. There is nothing to be gained from having a massive portion of the workforce unable to buy more than simply what is necessary for survival. If you follow the flow, it clearly stagnates the economy.

One should always be suspicious whenever someone points to the disempowered and disenfranchised as the source of society’s ills, rather than those who clearly have the ability to influence and exploit and manipulate the entire system. Do you honestly think that it’s the person making $15,000 a year who wants $20,000 a year who’s causing all these problems? Or is it the person making $100,000,000 a year in a position that used to yield $500,000 a year who is complaining that he has to pay even a dollar in taxes? Or the 696 banking executives who sold bad investments and jeopardized our entire economy who still somehow each took home a $1,000,000-dollar bonus at the end of the year? (For the record, a single one of those bonuses would cover the minimum wage increase for 200 people alone.)

Hard work does not always translate into success. In fact, easy work done by machines is increasingly translating into tremendous success for very few, leaving the rest of us out to dry. Please reconsider chiding the poor for pointing out that they can’t work more cheaply than a machine without starving to death. You’ve always been very reasonable in the past, and I hope you will continue to be.

J Crowley

(Mike Rowe’s original post can be found here, but I’m quoting it below as well, for context.)

Hi Mike,

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 and hour. A lot of people think it should be raised to $10.10. Seattle now pays $15 an hour, and the The Freedom Socialist Party is demanding a $20 living wage for every working person. What do you think about the minimum wage? How much do you think a Big Mac will cost if McDonald’s had to pay all their employees $20 an hour?

Darrell Paul

Hi Darrell

Back in 1979, I was working as an usher for United Artists at a multiplex in Baltimore. The minimum wage was $2.90, and I earned every penny.

When I wasn’t tearing tickets in half and stopping kids from theater hopping, I was cleaning out the bathrooms, emptying the trash, and scrapping dubious substances off the theater floor with a putty knife. I wore a silly outfit and smiled unnaturally, usually for the entirety of my shift. I worked 18 hours my first week, mostly after school, and earned $62.20. Before taxes. But I was also learning the importance of “soft skills.” I learned to show up on time and tuck my shirt in. I embraced the many virtues of proper hygiene. Most of all, I learned how to take shit from the public, and suck up to my boss.

After three months, I got a raise, and wound up behind the concession stand. Once it was determined I wasn’t a thief, I was promoted to cashier. Three months later, I got another raise. Eventually, they taught me how to operate a projector, which was the job I wanted in the first place.

The films would arrive from Hollywood in giant boxes, thin and square, like the top of a card table, but heavy. I’d open each one with care, and place each spool on a separate platter. Then, I’d thread them into the giant projector, looping the leader through 22 separate gates, careful to touch only the sides. Raging Bull, Airplane, The Shining, Caddyshack, The Elephant Man – I saw them all from the shadowy comfort of the projection booth, and collected $10 an hour for my trouble. Eventually, I was offered an assistant manager position, which I declined. I wasn’t management material then, anymore than I am now. But I had a plan. I was going to be in the movies. Or, God forbid, on television.

I thought about all this last month when I saw “Boyhood” at a theater in San Francisco. I bought the tickets from a machine that took my credit card and spit out a piece of paper with a bar code on it. I walked inside, and fed the paper into another machine, which beeped twice, welcomed me in a mechanical voice, and lowered a steel bar that let me into the lobby. No usher, no cashier. I found the concession stand and bought a bushel of popcorn from another machine, and a gallon of Diet Coke that I poured myself. On the way out, I saw an actual employee, who turned out to be the manager. I asked him how much a projectionist was making these days, and he just laughed.

“There’s no such position,” he said. I just put the film in the slot myself and press a button. Easy breezy.”

To answer your question Darrell, I’m worried. From the business owners I’ve talked to, it seems clear that companies are responding to rising labor costs by embracing automation faster than ever. That’s eliminating thousands of low-paying, unskilled, entry level positions. What will that mean for those people trying to get started in the workforce? My job as an usher was the first rung on a long ladder of work that lead me to where I am today. But what if that rung wasn’t there? If the minimum wage in 1979 had been suddenly raised from $2.90 to $10 an hour, thousands of people would have applied for the same job. What chance would I have had, being seventeen years old with pimples and a big adams apple?

One night, thirty-six years ago, during the midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I sat in the projection booth and read a short story by Ray Bradbury called “A Sound of Thunder.” It was about a guy who traveled back in time to look at dinosaurs, but against strict orders, ventured off the observation platform and accidentally stepped on a butterfly. When he returned to the present, everything in the world had changed. “The Butterfly Effect” is now an expression that describes a single event that leads to a series of unanticipated outcomes, resulting in a profoundly unintended consequence. (Ironically, it’s also a movie with Ashton Kutcher, which I had to pay to see 30 years later.)

Anyway, I’m not an economist or a sociologist, but I’m pretty sure a $20 minimum wage would affect a lot more than the cost of a Big Mac. Beyond the elimination of many entry-level jobs, consider the effect on the skills gap. According to the BLS, they’re about three million available positions that companies are trying to fill right now. Very few of those jobs require a four-year degree, but nearly all require specific training. And all pay more than the current minimum wage. If we want a skilled workforce, (and believe me, we do,) should we really be demanding $20 an hour for unskilled labor?

Last year, I narrated a commercial about US manufacturing, paid for by Walmart. It started a shitstorm, and cost me many thousands virtual friends. Among the aggrieved, was a labor organization called Jobs With Justice. They wanted me to know just how unfairly Walmart was treating it’s employees. So they had their members send my foundation over 8,000 form letters, asking me to meet with unhappy Walmart workers, and join them in their fight against “bad jobs.”

While I’m sympathetic to employees who want to be paid fairly, I prefer to help on an individual basis. I’m also skeptical that a modest pay increase will make an unskilled worker less reliant upon an employer whom they affirmatively resent. I explained this to Jobs With Justice in an open letter, and invited anyone who felt mistreated to explore the many training opportunities and scholarships available through mikeroweWORKS. I further explained that I couldn’t couldn’t join them in their fight against “bad jobs,” because frankly, I don’t believe there is such a thing. My exact words were, “Some jobs pay better, some jobs smell better, and some jobs have no business being treated like careers. But work is never the enemy, regardless of the wage. Because somewhere between the job and the paycheck, there’s still a thing called opportunity, and that’s what people need to pursue.”

People are always surprised to learn that many of the subjects on Dirty Jobs were millionaires – entrepreneurs who crawled through a river of crap, prospered, and created jobs for others along the way. Men and women who started with nothing and built a going concern out of the dirt. I was talking last week with my old friend Richard, who owns a small but prosperous construction company in California. Richard still hangs drywall and sheetrock with his aging crew because he can’t find enough young people who want to learn the construction trades. Today, he’ll pay $40 an hour for a reliable welder, but more often than not, he can’t find one. Whenever I talk to Richard, and consider the number of millennials within 50 square miles of his office stocking shelves or slinging hash for the minimum wage, I can only shake my head.

Point is Darrell, if you fix the wage of a worker, or freeze the price of a thing, you’re probably gonna step on a few butterflies. Doesn’t matter how well-intended the policy – the true cost a $20 minimum wage has less to do with the price of a Big Mac, and more to do with a sound of thunder. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.


PS I looked into the Freedom Socialist Party and their demand for a universal, $20 an hour living wage. Interesting. You’re right – they’re serious. But not long after they announced their position, they made the interesting decision to advertise for a web designer….at $13 an hour. Make of that what you will… ( )

A Voice for Men Founder Paul Elam: One Man’s Brave Struggle

Paul Elam, Men’s Rights Activist and founder of A Voice for Men, released a personal statement to his readers this morning in an online video. “I have spent my entire life refusing to allow women to control my body,” boasted Elam. “If I want to have daily bouts of violent, sudden diarrhea, that’s my business.”

Elam’s declaration comes in the wake of a BuzzFeed report on his life, detailing the core principles of the Men’s Rights movement:

Men’s rights activists often cite the first time they realized it’s a woman’s world. They call these “red pill” moments, after the scene in The Matrix when the main character is faced with the decision to swallow a red pill and recognize the true nature of the world or take a blue pill and continue living a lie. For Elam, that revelation came at age 13, when his mother tried to force him to take his diarrhea medicine.

By Elam’s account, he has proudly refused to treat what his doctors have described as “devastating bowel issues” for nearly half a century.

Long-Neglected Blog Begins Posting Stupid Garbage

In a transparent effort to regain relevance after years of sporadic updates, long-neglected blog Enter the Jabberwock resumed posting again today with short, image-heavy, inane horseshit. Readers’ reactions would likely have been mixed if anyone still paid any attention to the site after all this time. Enter the Jabberwock was created in 2002 by Josh Crowley, who has since largely moved on to other projects nobody really cares about either.