Determining a custody arrangement

Determining a Custody Arrangement

Divorces that involve children can be incredibly difficult to work through. It is important to determine a custody arrangement that works best for the children. There are many items to consider when you are deciding on the details of the arrangement.

Consider Location
If you and your child’s parent live in the same town, then your child may be able to spend alternate weeks with each parent. Your children could stay with you for one week and spend the following week with their other parent. Some states have implemented this arrangement as their preferred arrangement because children have an equal amount of time with each parent. If this is not feasible, then a more traditional arrangement may be preferred. Children can live with one parent and visit the other parent every other weekend.

Consider Specific Needs
Children who are not able to handle change well may need extra attention to make sure that they do not struggle with this transition. Try to reduce the amount of other changes that occur. If a child would benefit from staying in the same school, then consider delaying a move as long as possible. Slowly phasing in changes can give children more time to adapt to their new situation. Communicate with children as much as possible to determine what their needs are. Make sure that children feel comfortable discussing their feelings about the changes that are occurring in the family.

Remain Peaceful
Try to reach an agreement with your child’s parent that you will not engage in conflict in front of your child. If you and your child’s parent can work together to consistently provide discipline and structure, then parenting your child will be much easier. You and your child’s parent should discuss confrontational topics without your child being present. Try to refrain from speaking negatively in front of your child. These situations can cause children to become emotional.

Custody situations can be complicated. Utilizing the services of a lake county family attorney can help you navigate through these challenges. It is important to make sure that your outcome is suitable for you and your children.

President Trump’s ‘deplorable’ foreign policy worked!

But, but, but, how can this be? I mean, to accept this story as true is to accept, inter alia, that President Trump’s tactics have worked, and that just can’t be the case. From The Pirate’s Cove:

Doom Averted: North Korea Backs Down On Firing Missiles At Guam

By William Teach August 15, 2017 – 7:16 am

Remember the apocalyptic (non-secular, of course) talking points from most left wing news outlets, pundits, Congress critters, etc, about how Trump’s tough talking was taking us to nuclear war? Some others in the Trump admin, such as James “Mad Dog” Mattis had tough words, too. Guess what?

Kim Jong Un Backs Down In Nuclear Showdown With Trump

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un decided Tuesday not to fire ballistic missiles at Guam, reserving the right to change his mind if “the Yankees persist in their extremely dangerous reckless actions,” according to North Korean state media.

Kim appears to be attempting to de-escalate tensions to prevent conflict between the U.S. and North Korea. After the U.N. Security Council approved tougher sanctions against North Korea for its intercontinental ballistic missile tests, the North warned Wednesday that it was considering launching a salvo of ballistic missiles into waters around Guam in a show of force demonstrating an ability to surround the island with “enveloping fire.” That same day, President Donald Trump stressed that North Korean threats will be met with “fire and fury like nothing the world has ever seen.” For a week, the two sides hurled threats and warnings at each other repeatedly, leading some observers to conclude that the two sides were close to nuclear war.

But, Kim blinked.

Kim, according to North Korean state media, told the North Korean strategic rocket force that he “would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees,” giving the U.S. time to reassess the situation. “He said that he wants to advise the U.S. to take into full account gains and losses with clear head whether the prevailing situation is more unfavorable for any party.”

In other words, beyond the bluster and faux-criticism of Trump, his admin, and America, Kim backed down. He has surely realized that his bluster is a losing cause. It will only gain more sanctions, and Team Trump aren’t falling for his bluster, which is usually a means to gain material things from America and the West. It’s the pattern for North Korea, regardless of the leader. Threats, bluster, and the West gives them things.

Not this time. Not with a president who stayed strong.

There’s a bit more at Mr Teach’s original.

I have previously expressed my doubts concerning the torrent of leaks concerning North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities, noting the similarities to the ‘information’ concerning Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ prior to the 2003 invasion.  However, it was more than just the President’s remarks concerning “fire and fury,” but the entire tone of the Administration which led to Kim Jung-un backing down.  Rather than an Administration which was willing to pay for a toning down of harsh rhetoric, as Presidents Clinton and Obama have done,1 rather than a President who thought he could buy Peace in Our Time, Mr Trump not only totally rejected any conciliatory talk, but presented an image that he would not only fight back but was preparing to fight.

Donald Trump isn’t exactly a conservative’s dream, but he is one thing that every Republican wanted: he’s a fighter. When faced with the only fat kid in North Korea, he did what conservatives always wanted, he fought back instead of knuckling under. That, alone, makes him a better President than a lot we’ve seen in the recent past.

  1. Had Hillary Clinton won the election (shudder!), she’d probably be sending Supreme Leader Kim a ‘reset’ button and a few billion dollars.

Politically incorrect denunciations

Apparently President Trump’s denunciation of the clashes in Charlottesville just weren’t good enough. From Powerline:

What Is Wrong With President Trump’s Statements On Charlottesville?

Posted on August 13, 2017 by John Hinderaker

As Scott has noted, President Trump has come under fire for not singling out white supremacists for condemnation following the violent clashes in Charlottesville. Trump has made several statements about those events, both orally and on Twitter. He condemned “in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” He added: “It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump. Not Barack Obama. It’s been going on for a long, long time.”

His tweets have mostly been calls for unity:

Today the White House released an additional statement that specifically addressed white supremacist groups:

The president said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry and hatred and of course that includes white Supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.

Trump’s various statements have failed to satisfy just about everybody, including many Republicans–Scott, for one. Trump’s position may or may not be politically wise, but I am sympathetic to it. What his critics want him to do is denounce white supremacist groups to the exclusion of anyone else. The problem with his statements, in the eyes of critics, is they are too even-handed. Trump’s denunciation includes both the white supremacists in Charlottesville and the fascist “antifas” who counter-protested, as well as other hate groups.

This seems entirely appropriate to me, as the Charlottesville violence resulted in large part from the fact that the “antifas” showed up, spoiling for a fight. The videos I have seen suggest that the “antifas” were at least as responsible for the violent clashes as the white supremacists. Both deserve to be repudiated, and fascists who riot and try to shut down other people’s speech are just as reprehensible as racists.

So why are the critics so eager to force the president to single out the white supremacists? Because they want to tie him to the “alt-right.” They want an implicit admission from President Trump that the nuts who marched in Charlottesville and the man who drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters had something to do with him. The Associated Press says:

Trump’s critics pointed to the president’s racially tinged rhetoric as exploiting the nation’s festering racial tension.

What “racially tinged rhetoric” is that? The AP doesn’t say. It quotes one such critic, the Mayor of Charlottesville, who explicitly ties the president to the white supremacists:

I’m not going to make any bones about it. I place the blame for a lot of what you’re seeing in America today right at the doorstep of the White House and the people around the president.

This is, I think, an outrageous slander, and I am sure the president agrees.

There’s more at Mr Hinderaker’s original.

I’ll quote William Teach’s blog tagline for The Pirate’s Cove: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” It doesn’t matter what you think about the ‘alt-right’ or the skinheads or the Klan: the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees their freedom of speech and freedom to assemble peaceably to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The rally in Charlottesville turned violent only because the ‘antifa’ counterprotesters showed up looking for a fight. If they had staged their counterdemonstration two blocks away, or this coming Saturday instead of last, there’d have been no clash, there’d have been no violence. As it is, not only did they get people hurt and killed, they provided greater exposure for the groups they were protesting.

The credentialed media, mostly controlled by the left, are doing their damnedest to tie the alt-right demonstration to President Trump, as though he was somehow responsible for it, to try to weaken him politically. The media are attempting to portray the alt-right and the white supremacists as so far beyond the pale that they are worse than the fascist left — which have appropriated the name ‘antifa,’ as in antifascist, when they are fascist themselves — and I refuse to go along quietly with that. The fascist left are just as bad as the Klan as far as I am concerned.

The ‘alt-right’, the skinheads, the neo-Nazis all have the same freedom of expression rights as anyone else . . . and so do the fascist left. Their rights end when they trample upon the rights of others, but advocacy of their opinions tramples on no one’s rights. I do not have to support the alt-right, and in fact do not support them, to support their freedom of speech.

From the Urban Dictionary:


To accuse someone of some form of “ism” (sexism, racism etc.) and to proclaim that their denial, or any attempt they make to defend themselves, is proof that they are guilty. A favorite tactic of the social justice warrior.

“Your refusal to admit that you are a misogynist proves you’re a misogynist.”

Hey, that’s kafkatrapping!”

The left are very good at one thing: they are good at framing the terms of the debate, and kafkatrapping is one way to do it.

Well, I refuse to accept that: if I do not make some public denunciation of something, it means simply that I haven’t made any statement on the subject. If I have never denounced the alt-right before, it does not mean that I somehow support them. I am not required to address every subject, and do not do so. The left will attempt to define their opponents based on the left’s framework, and that has to be resisted. President Trump is resisting that, and the left are fighting back the only way they know how: through dishonesty.

The need for an attorney for a Workers Compensation Claim

If you were recently injured at a construction site where you work, you are probably dealing with medical and financial issues. A solution to end the chaos while your try to heal is to hire a workers comp attorney Portland Oregon who can help you win your case.

Why You May Need an Attorney for Your Workers Compensation Claim

Typically, a workers compensation claim is pretty straight forward. There are situations, however, when an employer questions the nature of an injury. The process of paying for medical bills and missed wages can also slow down if you do not have someone representing your interests.

Not only can an attorney ensure prompt processing, but he or she can also work to make sure there are no costly mistakes that lead to a delay or denial of your claim. You should contact an attorney within two weeks after a workplace injury. This helps to ensure you meet all deadlines so payment for your treatments and lost wages are processed as soon as possible.

You may also need an attorney to negotiate a settlement offer. Be careful not to sign anything before speaking with an attorney to ensure the settlement is in your best interest.

Some Questions to Ask During the Initial Consultation

Most attorneys offer a free consultation to discuss the merits of your case. Before attending this initial meeting, gather as much detailed information about the accident, your injuries and all financial losses as a result of the accident at work.

Include paperwork related to your employment, pictures of your injuries and/or the accident scene and any medical records you have to-date. Such information will help the attorney decide if he or she can represent you.

Additionally, be prepared to ask a few questions that will help you decide if the attorney is capable of providing the legal representation that you need.

Someone who is experienced in construction accidents and safety can give you an advantage.
Example questions include:

  • How long have you represented construction accident cases?
  • What is a typical settlement range for cases similar to mine?
  • What is the fee structure and expected out-of-pocket expenses for full representation?

If you are not physically able to go to the law firm, most attorneys will come to your home or somewhere closer for you.

How an Attorney Can Help

An attorney who has experience with workplace injuries at construction sites provides guidance and a wealth of knowledge with workers comp laws in Oregon. You want someone who will help you recover the losses from your injuries and avoid the hassle of dealing with an insurance company.

The use of turnstiles to enhance building security

There are many ways to keep a building safe and businesses can use all of them: barred entry, security cameras, motion sensors, on-site security guards, and other traditional and high tech solutions. However, many of these methods struggle with being secure, visually appealing, and people-friendly at the same time. A turnstile can manage all of these things.

They offer increased security by barring off areas and keeping track of who and how many people are passing through. This prevents unauthorized entries and can record who entered in case of theft, assault, or vandalism on the property. Depending on programming, they can bar entry when the occupancy is too high. They can also stop people from exiting certain areas in case of a lockdown and prevent others from getting in when the building is deemed unsafe. Security guards can be left out entirely or instead used as a backup for waist-high, low-security gates.

Systems Integration
They can be customized so that they work with the building’s computer systems. So, the names and positions of employees can be linked to their security card. The people with the correct clearance come in and their name and time of entry is logged into the computers. This can be used to record when an employee arrives at work. If there’s mistake or a forced entry, an alarm going off at the point of entry can be linked to a security station so that another layer of protection is already on alert.

Accessibility and Visual Appeal
Plain doors are limited in design while these high tech gates can be adapted for indoors, outdoors, handicapped access, and different levels of security needs. In public and family-friendly spaces, multiple waist-high options can securely let in a crowd. For higher security needs, full-height options are available. Another visually appealing option is optical gates. Whatever the need, it’s a likely a turnstile will fill that need and work with your desired atmosphere.

While there are many security options out there, very few offer the versatility of turnstiles. Fortunately, they can be integrated into an existing security setup, assisting normal guards, accommodating cameras and sensors, and overall making things easier and safer.

Shirking responsibility Real leaders don't blame other people for their failures

The President of the United States tweeted:

Really? I seem to recall that candidate Donald Trump ran on promises that:

Those were pretty grandiose promises, promises which had not been met under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. If Mr Trump had any real idea about how he was going to keep these promises, he never put those plans on paper. Once he became President, he never had that “beautiful picture” he promised in any form that he bothered to submit to Congress for approval.

While searching for a Make America Great Again image, I came across this ad for a MAGA ladies’ thong, and just had to use it. Available in black, red or white, you can click on the image and buy it for the lady in your life.

I have reluctantly said that the only significant departure from the form of the Affordable Care Act that maintained the principle that the federal government would guarantee health care coverage for everybody would be some form of single-payer. Given the Republicans’ promise to “repeal and replace” the ACA with something that covers everybody, single-payer is the only option, given that repeal only — which would be my preference, but is not something which I regard as politically possible — would very specifically not cover everybody. Anything which utilized the existing private insurance system, the way the ACA does, would not only have to retain the individual mandate that Republicans hate so much, but make it much more strongly enforced, in such a way that no one could choose not to obey it.1

Donald John Trump is the President of the United States, a job for which he asked, a job for which he promised us great leadership; he would #MakeAmericaGreatAgain. And now? He’s blaming Mitch McConnell for his failures, he’s blaming other people for not having the plan he promised he would have for us.

President Trump, you promised you’d be a great leader for our country, so lead, damn it! Real leaders don’t blame other people for their failures.

  1. I’m trying to picture here how it would be enforced on the thugs in Chicago and Philadelphia, and so far, I’ve got nothing.

Well, now we know why he switched parties!

From The Wall Street Journal:

West Virginia Gov. Justice Asks Trump for $4.5 Billion to Save Eastern Coal

Miners in western states says proposal goes against free market principles

By Dan Molinski | Updated August 9, 2017 4:57 p.m. ET

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice is asking President Donald Trump to extend his support for the coal industry by providing some $4.5 billion a year in federal funding for Eastern coal, a proposal miners in Western states say goes against free-market principles.

The governor, who days ago switched parties to Republican from Democrat, said in an telephone interview Wednesday that Mr. Trump’s elimination of burdensome regulations have been very helpful in starting to get the U.S. coal industry back on its feet. But he said Appalachian region coal mines specifically—and the thousands of jobs they provide—remain at risk because of rising competition from natural gas and less-labor-intensive coal mines in Western states such as Wyoming, the nation’s leading coal producer.

If the Eastern coalfields were to disappear altogether, he said, then any disruption to the power grid in the East because of terrorism or other reasons could lead to tragedy because there would no longer be a nearby, abundant and easily-accessible energy source.

“The survivability of the Eastern coalfields is very, very iffy,” he said. “And if you lose the Eastern coalfields, you are putting the country at risk beyond belief.” He insisted his funding proposal isn’t for a subsidy, but rather a “homeland security incentive.”

Mr. Justice said he made the proposal directly to President Trump in the Oval Office recently. It calls for federal funding to pay Eastern power plants $15 for each ton of thermal coal they buy from the Central or Northern Appalachian region, which includes states such as parts of West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This, for example, would allow a utility to pay something like $50 a ton to a mining company, but in actuality only be paying $35, he said. At 300 million tons a year, that could cost the U.S. $4.5 billion annually, he added.

“In the scope of things, that would be a drop in the bucket to protect ourselves,” Mr. Justice said. “And looking at the other side, you would put thousands and thousands and thousands of people to work, and the net-net of that is that the $4.5 billion would get eroded tremendously, so that it may end up costing almost nothing.”

Mr. Justice’s family owns businesses in the region, but he said they mostly produce metallurgical coal for steel-making rather than thermal coal, so his proposal wouldn’t directly benefit him. “I am not in play trying to pat myself on the butt,” he said.

There’s more at the original. Did he switch parties in the hope that President Trump would look upon this more favorably?

Governor Justice’s proposal is interesting, but perhaps I’d have more respect for it if he’d pay his damned back taxes!

The Governor’s argument reminds me of those used by President Obama to justify the automobile industry bailout. I didn’t approve of that,1 and I won’t change my principles just to support the coal industry.

It’s simple: the eastern mining companies must become efficient enough to compete with western coal. If they can’t, then they should fail.

  1. I only buy Ford vehicles, because Ford was the only American automobile company not to take the bailout.

My BS detector is ringing

The Washington Post tells us that American intelligence agencies have determined that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has an arsenal of between 30 and 60 nuclear weapons, and that they have successfully miniaturized one sufficiently to be loaded into the re-entry vehicle of an intercontinental ballistic missile. And from CNN:

North Korea threatens strike on Guam

By Zachary Cohen, CNN | Updated 9:43 PM ET, Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Washington (CNN)North Korea’s military is “examining the operational plan” to strike areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic missiles, state-run news agency KCNA said early Wednesday local time.

The threat comes just hours after US President Donald Trump warned Pyongyang that if they continued to threaten the US, they would “face fire and fury like the world has never seen.

The North Korean threat elucidated in its state media is a reaction to the flight of US B-1B bombers over the Korean peninsula. The bombers flew out of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

While the statement in KCNA came out following Trump’s threat, it would have taken several hours to draft and translate, and refers directly to the US flights.

“In the morning of August 8 the air pirates of Guam again appeared in the sky above South Korea to stage a mad-cap drill simulating an actual war,” the statement reads.

The bombers flew out of Guam on Monday as part of the US Air Force’s “continuous bomber presence,” according to the spokesman. The bombers were joined by Japanese and South Korean aircraft during their mission.

More at the original.

First, a huge complaint about the Washington Post story. The Post noted that intelligence officials believe that North Korea has successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead, and that the DPRK has between 30 and 60 warheads, but those warheads have been being built since the late 1990s; if North Korea only recently was able to miniaturize a warhead, then the vast majority of those 30 to 60 warheads are not small enough to be fitted onto a ballistic missile. That’s an important point.

But this is where my bovine feces detector is sounding: North Korea is one of the poorest countries on earth, with almost population-wide malnutrition. It’s primary industries are mining and metallurgy.

However, the building of nuclear warheads and long-range ballistic missiles is a very complex undertaking, requiring high precision equipment and very skilled technicians. These things are not mass produced, but individually assembled, to exacting tolerances, and I have to ask: is the DPRK capable of building more than a few of these things a year? It’s difficult to read on one hand that the people are subsisting on grass and acorns, and on the other that they have developed a large, long-range ballistic missile nuclear delivery system. Something just does not compute.

How, I have to ask, did American intelligence determine that the DPRK had developed a nuclear weapon small enough to mount on a ballistic missile? That’s not something which could likely have been determined by satellite reconnaissance; that’s something you’d figure out from human intelligence or the interception of communications. Given that Kim Jong-un likes to threaten and show off, it isn’t difficult to imagine the DPRK deliberately transmitting phony communications, to make the West think it is more powerful than it really is.

Sadly, this reminds me too much of 2001-2002, when the younger President Bush was making the case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That, after all, was what American intelligence was telling him, yet, when we invaded and got there, surprise, no WMD were found.1 When it comes to information of this sort, the CIA has made mistakes before.

And now, our intelligence agencies are telling The Washington Post all about North Korea’s nuclear threat. Yeah, I’m having a problem with that!

  1. Valerie Plame, the exposed CIA agent, had absolutely no reason to love President Bush, yet in her book Fair Game, she revealed that her department in the CIA, the one which analyzed the evidence concerning Iraqi weapons, was as surprised as anyone that no WMD were used or recovered.

The resignations at the Environmental Protection Agency The left are leaving; this is a good thing.

From The Wall Street Journal:

EPA Resignation Facts

The rest of the story behind those loud civil-servant protests.

By The Editorial Board | August 7, 2017 6:57 p.m. ET

The media and federal unions are making a cause celebre out of federal scientists who have resigned and then denounced Trump Administration policies on the way out. We’re all for shrinking the government workforce, but the political melodrama could use a few leavening facts.

The latest splash is from Elizabeth Southerland, until recently the director of science and technology in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water. Ms. Southerland ended a 30-year EPA career last week with an internal memo decrying Donald Trump’s “draconian” budget cuts, and his “industry deregulation.” She said her “civic duty” required that she warn that “our children and grandchildren” face “increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.”

This follows the much-publicized April departure of Michael Cox, who quit the EPA in Washington state after 25 years, complaining in a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt about “indefensible budget cuts” and efforts to “dismantle EPA and its staff as quickly as possible.”

Both EPA employees are of retirement age, and they are right to bow out if they can’t in good faith work for Mr. Pruitt. Their letters nonetheless reveal an entrenched and liberal federal bureaucracy. Though career civil servants who are supposed to serve political appointees of any party, they have clearly become progressive ideological partisans.

So, their resignations in protest are really just retirements, punctuated with a parting shot at the duly-elected President and Senate-confirmed Administrator.

Their exits also explain why so much of the EPA workforce is misrepresenting or missing the point of Mr. Pruitt’s policy changes. Ms. Southerland raps the Administrator’s call to rebalance power between the feds and states, as she claims the EPA “has always followed a cooperative federalism approach.”

Really? During the combined presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal air-quality implementation plans on states. Barack Obama’s EPA imposed 56.

It seems that the left love it when federal supremacy imposes itself on the states, yet somehow, they seem to disagree when federal supremacy tries to impose itself on the states when it comes to enforcing immigration laws.

The Obama EPA also stripped states of their statutory development authority, whether with its pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s Pebble Mine, or its Waters of the United States rule that gave the feds de facto sway over tens of millions of acres of private land. EPA employees embraced these new powers, but they violate the Constitution and hurt the environment.

There’s more at the link, and I’ve already quoted more than I’d like. The article continues to note that while President Trump has proposed a 30% budget cut for the EPA, the Congress is unlikely to cut the appropriation by anywhere close to that amount. That would be a disappointment, and if Congress does appropriate that much more than the President’s request, he should require his Administrator to simply not spend that much money; sequester the funds instead.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the President of teh United States, and he gets to set policy. The left are trying their utmost to undermine his policies, and we should not allow that to happen.

As long as we allow able-bodied people to survive without working, we will never solve our economic and entitlements problems 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

Gotta give credit to my tweep!

And the article:

Rise of the machines

By Chico Harlan1 | @chicoharlan | August 5 at 6:00 PM

The workers of the first shift had just finished their morning cigarettes and settled into place when one last car pulled into the factory parking lot, driving past an American flag and a “now hiring” sign. Out came two men, who opened up the trunk, and then out came four cardboard boxes labeled “fragile.”

“We’ve got the robots,” one of the men said.

They watched as a forklift hoisted the boxes into the air and followed the forklift into a building where a row of old mechanical presses shook the concrete floor. The forklift honked and carried the boxes past workers in steel-toed boots and earplugs. It rounded a bend and arrived at the other corner of the building, at the end of an assembly line.

The line was intended for 12 workers, but two were no-shows. One had just been jailed for drug possession and violating probation. Three other spots were empty because the company hadn’t found anybody to do the work. That left six people on the line jumping from spot to spot, snapping parts into place and building metal containers by hand, too busy to look up as the forklift now came to a stop beside them.

In factory after American factory, the surrender of the industrial age to the age of automation continues at a record pace. The transformation is decades along, its primary reasons well-established: a search for cost-cutting and efficiency.

But as one factory in Wisconsin is showing, the forces driving automation can evolve — for reasons having to do with the condition of the American workforce. The robots were coming in not to replace humans, and not just as a way to modernize, but also because reliable humans had become so hard to find. It was part of a labor shortage spreading across America, one that economists said is stemming from so many things at once. A low unemployment rate. The retirement of baby boomers. A younger generation that doesn’t want factory jobs. And, more and more, a workforce in declining health: because of alcohol, because of despair and depression, because of a spike in the use of opioids and other drugs.

There’s a lot more at the link; Mr Harlan’s article runs about 3,900 words. But think about what was noted, that American workers are becoming a problem because:

  • The younger generation doesn’t want factory jobs; and
  • Too many potential workers would rather take drugs.

When President Trump campaigned on restoring manufacturing jobs to American workers, he assumed that American workers would actually take the manufacturing jobs he hoped to help get created.2 Mr Harlan’s story tells us that, at least in this factory in Wisconsin, American workers don’t seem too terribly interested in the jobs that already exist.

Further down in the article:

Inside the factory, there have been no major issues with quality control, plant managers say, only with filling its job openings. In the front office, the general manager had nudged up wages for second- and third-shift workers, and was wondering if he’d have to do it again in the next few months. Over in human resources, an administrator was saying that finding people was like trying to “climb Everest” — even after the company had loosened policies on hiring people with criminal records. Even the new hires who were coaxed through the door often didn’t last long, with the warning signs beginning when they filed in for orientation in a second-floor office that overlooked the factory floor.

“How’s everybody doing?” said Matt Bader, as four just-hired workers walked in on a day when Robot 1 was being installed. “All good?”

“Maybe,” one person said.

Bader, who worked for a staffing agency that helped Tenere fill some of its positions, scanned the room. There was somebody in torn jeans. Somebody who drove a school bus and needed summer work only. Somebody without a car who had hitched a ride.

Bader told them that once they started at Tenere they had to follow a few important rules, including one saying they couldn’t drink alcohol or use illegal substances at work. “Apparently, we need to tell people that,” Bader said, not mentioning that just a few days before he had driven two employees to a medical center for drug tests after managers suspected they’d shown up high.

One worker stifled a yawn. Another asked about getting personal calls during the shift. Another raised his hand.

“Yes?” Bader asked.

“Do you have any coffee?” the worker said.

“I don’t,” Bader said.

After an hour the workers were heading back to their cars, one saying that everything “sounds okay,” another saying the “pay sucks.” Bader guessed that two of the four “wouldn’t last a week,” because often, he said, he knew within minutes who would last. People who said they couldn’t work Saturdays. People who couldn’t work early mornings. This was the mystery for him: So many people showing up, saying they were worried about rent or bills or supporting children, and yet they couldn’t hold down a job that could help them.

“I am so sick of hearing that,” Bader said. “And then they wonder why things are getting automated.”

Why, I have to ask, can people who are “worried about rent or bills or supporting children” even think about not trying hard to keep a job for which they’ve already been hired, just because it might involve bad hours or weekend work?

And the answer is simple: welfare! In our compassion for the poor, we have made it possible to survive — though not in very nice conditions — without working for a living.

St Paul wrote, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

How simple is that? St Paul certainly exempted those who could not work, for whatever reasons, but those who could were expected to do so. Today? We give them food stamps Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and tend to wink at work requirements. We provide rental assistance and Section 8 housing and a whole plethora of welfare benefits, because we are so good-hearted and noble that we just don’t want people to suffer.

Except, of course, those people who do work for a living, and who see part of the fruits of their labor seized to take care of those who will not work. President Trump will never be able to achieve what he wants as long as people can survive while willfully indolent.

  1. Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post’s financial team.
  2. No matter what any President claims, no President creates any private sector jobs; the most they can do is help create conditions which help or hinder private enterprise in creating jobs.