Category Archives: Business

Posted on by

No one is above the law, and that includes our immigration laws We need to go after the people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

Thanks to my good friend and occasional blog pinch-hitter William Teach, I found this wonderful story:

Immigration arrests left NC restaurants short-staffed and job sites idle, owners say

By: Ahmed Jallow | Friday, February 20, 2026 | 5:30 PM EST

For two weeks last November, kitchens at David “Woody” Lockwood’s restaurants ran short of dishwashers, prep cooks and servers as workers stayed home, afraid to leave their houses during a federal immigration crackdown that resulted in more than 400 arrests across North Carolina.

“We had a lot of people, mostly in the kitchen, that didn’t feel safe coming to work,” said Lockwood, a co-owner of Trophy Brewing and The Bend. That meant managers working extra shifts, longer waits for customers and paying employees who were not on the job to help them get by.

“We decided, at least for those two weeks, to pay those people for the hours they missed, which is not a sustainable thing,” Lockwood said.

So, Mr Lockwood now knows exactly who among his employees is here and was working illegally. Perhaps he didn’t look at their I-9 documents closely, or perhaps he ignored legal requirements on hiring illegals, but now he knows who was working there illegally, and has absolutely no f(ornicating) excuses: he needs to discharge them all immediately, and inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, exactly who they were. If he does not disclose this information to ICE, he needs to be arrested for knowingly harboring illegals, along with the penalties for not insuring that those he hired were legally eligible to work in the United States.

It is possible that a few of his Hispanic-looking employees were in the country and working legally, and should now have their documents in hand to prove that if ICE comes calling, but the odds are that most were not legal.

It’s simple: if the illegals cannot find work in the United States, they’ll go home on their own.

Business owners and educators said the effects of the crackdown extended well beyond those taken into custody, disrupting construction and hospitality – two of the state’s largest industries – and keeping some students home from school.

Mikki Paradis, chief executive of PDI Drywall, said construction sites fell silent for more than a week during the November operations.

“There was not a single person working on those jobs,” said Paradis, who has relied on Hispanic workers throughout her 21-year career. She said these labor shortages would slow housing construction and drive up costs.

Translation: Miss Paradis has been knowingly hiring illegals, and ICE needs to visit her offices and start pulling the company’s I-9 files. If it can be proved that she knowingly hired illegals, she’s in a heap of trouble. Under the Handbook for Employers M-274, Section 11.8, it is specified that:

Unlawful Employment Criminal Penalties
Engaging in a Pattern or Practice of Knowingly Hiring or Continuing to Employ Unauthorized Aliens

If you or your business are convicted of having engaged in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens (or continuing to employ aliens knowing they are or have become unauthorized to work in the United States) after Nov. 6, 1986, you may face fines and/or six months imprisonment.

Six months behind bars ought to teach Miss Paradis and Mr Lockwood the error of their ways, and scare the poop out of the other employers of illegals, scare them enough that they get rid of the illegals right away. If the illegals then self-deport, it just makes everything easier for ICE and law enforcement.

Will it cost Mr Lockwood and Miss Paradis their businesses? Perhaps it will, but if they were knowingly employing illegals, they deserve it. That, too, will get other employers to straighten up and fly right.

No one is above the law our Democratic friends told us when they were trying to get Donald Trump thrown in jail. Well, if no one is above the law, then no one is above our immigration laws as well.

Posted on by

A half-hearted defense of Jeff Bezos

I have frequently said that I appreciated billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for buying The Washington Post from the Graham family in 2013. The family didn’t really want to sell the newspaper, but the Post was losing money every year, and they just couldn’t afford to keep it going. We don’t know when the Grahams would have had to declare bankruptcy, but it couldn’t have been much longer.

Mr Bezos, for his part, mostly kept his hands off the newspaper. But losses continued to mount, reportedly $100 million in 2023, $77 million in 2024, and $100 million again in 2025. The owner could afford to keep things going the way they were, but finally decided that enough is enough.

Naturally Twitter — I still refuse to call it 𝕏 — was full of sob stories about the poor, poor laid off journalists, and I have sympathy for them as well: I hate to see anyone who hasn’t broken the law lose his job. But then I saw this from WUSA CBS Channel 9:

The situation we are in right now is entirely up to the abysmal mismanagement by The Washington Post leaders,” said Sarah Kaplan, a climate reporter with The Washington Post.

Kaplan says she takes issue with the positioning that the publication is losing subscribers because of the quality of work of her colleagues. She says the layoffs are going to have a profound impact on the already empty newsrooms. “I don’t know how I go back to work and do my job without all the people who were laid off yesterday,” she added.

To judge from the way she phrased it, Miss Kaplan is one of those who was not laid off. But this brought to mind another story, from my good friend and occasional blog pinch-hitter, William Teach:

From that Climate Colored Goggles link in the first tweet

The Washington Post produced some of America’s finest climate journalism over the last decade, aggressively covering President Trump’s regulatory rollbacks and winning a Pulitzer Prize for a series about Earth’s fastest-warming places. Alongside the New York Times and the Associated Press, I don’t think any U.S. news outlet published a greater volume of urgent, high-quality climate and clean energy coverage.

Everything changed on Wednesday morning.

The Post sent layoff notices to at least 14 climate journalists, newsroom sources told me, part of a massive round of cost-cutting that will see more than 300 journalists lose their jobs — about 30% of all employees at the Jeff Bezos-owned company.

The climate team layoffs include eight writer/reporters, an editor and several video, data and graphics journalists, I’m told. I’m not publishing their names, since many of them haven’t discussed their situations publicly. But to see the invaluable work they and their colleagues have been doing, check out the Post’s climate page here.

But, what are they really producing? How many articles? Anything of consequence? I rarely use the WP for my climate posts, and I rarely see any other Skeptics using their articles. Sounds like they are cutting a lot of bloat and dead weight. The WP is a business meant to make money, but are losing a ton because the product is bad.

If Phil Kerpen’s chart is correct, between 2020 and 2022, the Post’s global warming climate change reportorial staff increased six-fold in size. The department was cut back to 19 by 2025, so I suppose Miss Kaplan had plenty of friends, and is understandably distraught that 14 of them are now unemployed.

From Miss Kaplan’s biography:

Sarah Kaplan is a climate reporter covering humanity’s response to a warming world. Her job has taken her to a research camp atop the Greenland ice sheet, a shrinking glacier in the Peruvian Andes, Indian Ocean islands threatened by sea level rise and disaster-struck communities across the United States. She was part of the team of Post journalists recognized as a finalist for the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for coverage of Hurricane Helene’s human and environmental toll. She previously reported on Earth science and the universe at The Post.

Greenland, the Peruvian Andes, islands in the Indian Ocean? That sounds like a lot of money spent by a company which has lost $277 million over the last three years. Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr Bezos hasn’t really seen much of a return on the newspaper’s spending on this.

Then I saw this thanks to the tweet shown at the left by Streiff from RedState.

Just seventeen bylines — I assume that’s how Streiff researched it — in three months does not exactly seem like top productivity to me. If you were looking to cut costs, wouldn’t the least productive employees be the ones you’d lay off first?

There was my good friend Heather Long, who got out when the getting was good thanks to getting other job offers, who was sent several times to the cover the hoitiest and the toitiest at the World Economic Forum in the ski resort town of Davos in Switzerland. That’s the kind of thing you’d expect the newspaper to cover, but it was still an expensive trip to an expensive event. Perhaps the new Post will rely on Associated Press coverage?

But, as I said, this would be a half-hearted defense of Mr Bezos. Where, I have to ask, were the editors and managers who should have been seeing the less productive employees all along, the bosses who should have known, after the long series of business losses, that the fat needed to be trimmed, that economy and efficiency measures needed to be taken? That such wasn’t happening all along is directly on Mr Bezos, and the people he put in place to do that very thing.

Then there was the idiocy of canceling the endorsement of Kamala Harris Emhoff in 2024. Upon resuming editorial endorsements of Presidential candidates in 1976, the newspaper had always endorsed the Democratic candidate if they endorsed anyone at all, and the endorsement editorial was (supposedly) already written when Mr Bezos spiked it. Yes, Mrs Emhoff was as big a doofus as Mike Dukakis, the last Democratic presidential nominee the newspaper didn’t endorse — no endorsement was made in 1988 — but in the #TrumpDerangementSyndrome atmosphere in Washington and among the newspaper’s subscribers, it should have been allowed to go ahead, because it would have made exactly no difference in the outcome of the election, and the Post would not have lost a quarter million subscribers over the endorsement being spiked. Had Mr Bezos taken that decision in May, using as he did a return to the tradition of the newspaper not making any such endorsements, it would have been accepted, or after the election, in which it could have been easily accepted.

Then came the announcement of a change in editorial positions, to a more libertarian philosophy, and another 75,000 digital subscribers said, “See ya!” The change could have been made without the announcement, and without running off 75,000 subscribers.

At my old digital subscription rate of $129.00 per year, losing 325,000 subscribers means a loss of $41,925,000 in revenue. That’s a fairly substantial part of the reported $100 million loss for 2025.

So the newspaper is now offering new digital subscribers a first year for $40, which renews at $140 a year subsequently. I even made the “subscribe” button active for readers. But the newspaper would have lost a lot less money if Jeff Bezos hadn’t run off a bunch of current subscribers.

Posted on by

The losses at The Washington Post It looks like the people who took the earlier buyouts were the smart ones

As someone who has a great fondness for newspapers — I delivered them when I was a teenager, and, being mostly deaf now, I have to read the news, not watch it on television — I was greatly pleased when billionaire Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post from the Graham family, which could no longer afford to keep it running, saving the newspaper from disaster. We previously noted that while Mr Bezos has a currently guesstimated net worth of $248.5 billion, a mere single-digit billionaire like Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns The Los Angeles Times, and his paltry $8.1 billion had to cut costs as his newspaper was hemorrhaging money.

It seems, however, that while Mr Bezos can afford the money losses at the Post, he appears to have decided that he needs to reduce the blood loss.

Washington Post says one-third of its staff across all departments is being laid off

Staff members in the newsroom were told they would be getting emails with one of two subject lines, announcing that the person’s role has or hasn’t been eliminated.

Wednesday, February 4, 2026 | 9:57 AM EST | Updated: 10:19 AM EST

The Washington Post is laying off one-third of its staff in the newsroom and other departments, a brutal blow at one of journalism’s most legendary brands.

The troubled Post began implementing large-scale cutbacks on Wednesday, including eliminating its sports department and shrinking the number of journalists it stations overseas. The changes were announced by executive editor Matt Murray in a Zoom meeting with staff.

The staff reduction is a significant psychic blow at the Post, known in history books for its Watergate revelations and most recently for aggressive coverage of President Donald Trump’s cutbacks to the federal workforce, and for journalism in general.

Staff members in the newsroom were told they would be getting emails with one of two subject lines, announcing that the person’s role has or hasn’t been eliminated. A Post representative confirmed that one-third of the staff would be cut, without saying how many total employees the newspaper has.

I guess that my good friend Heather Long got out at the Post just in time, because she now works as the Chief Economist for Navy Federal Credit Union!

Sadly, this is not something unexpected: the Post had already been making cuts, and trying to meet Mr Bezos’ requirement that the newspaper try to break even. However, it was Mr Bezos’ decision not to allow the newspaper to endorse Kamala Harris Emhoff which cost the newspaper around a quarter million paying subscribers. Since the newspaper had obviously been supporting the then-Vice President in every way other than the spiked endorsement, I fail to see how letting the endorsement be made would have changed the election, but spiking it certainly cost the Post money.

Mr Bezos defended his decision in the pages of the newspaper, saying “We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate,” but if the Post reported on its own layoffs, I did not see it on the newspaper’s website front page or in a search for layoffs.

Perhaps the newspaper should have read its own masthead tagline, because if “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” added as a protest to President Trump during his first term, is keeping the readership in darkness about the newspaper’s layoffs really that great an idea?

It would take someone with Mr Bezos’ money, as Dr Soon-Shiong’s worried have demonstrated, to buy the newspaper from him. I once suggested that he simply give the Post to his ex, Mackenzie Scott, net worth $30.8 billion, because she likes giving away her money, and, for newspaper owners today, giving away their money really is what they have to do.

Posted on by

Ford CEO Jim Farley whines that government isn’t forcing people to buy electric vehicles

I’m starting to worry that I’m poaching too much on William Teach’s themes, with two previous articles in a week about plug in electric vehicles, but I spotted the following story this morning in the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Ford CEO Jim Farley shares ‘shocking’ lesson he learned from Tesla

By Tony Owusu, TheStreet | Thursday, November 12, 2025 | 9:38 AM EST

Earlier this year, Ford CEO Jim Farley had a humbling experience in Asia.

The Detroit automaker has sunk billions into Model e, its electric vehicle division, for decades, with little to show for it.

In June, he told author Walter Isaacson during a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he made as many as seven trips to China over the past year.

“It’s the most humbling thing I have ever seen. Seventy percent of all EVs in the world, electric vehicles, are made in China,” Farley said. “They have far superior in-vehicle technology. Huawei and Xiaomi are in every car. You get in, you don’t have to pair your phone. Automatically, your whole digital life is mirrored in the car.”

Uhhh, maybe some of us would not see that as a great feature. A lot of people — I am not one of them — have their financial records on their phones, and pay some things with their too-smart phones. Perhaps some people wouldn’t want their cars to automatically “pair” with their phones, especially if it gives the car, and who knows how many other people, access to their lives and finances. With an estimated net worth of $72.9 million, perhaps Mr Farley is excited by every new gadget out there, and isn’t too terribly worried if someone pays for their Door Dash through Mr Farley’s accounts, but some of us poorer people do have to keep an eye on things.

The story continues to note how the CEO was impressed by superior technology and engineering, saying that Ford has to step up to compete, but then comes the money lines:

While Farley didn’t speak much about the builds of Ford’s Chinese rivals, he did praise the government for promoting the EV industry in a way the U.S. does not.

Farley said that “EVs are exploding in China” because the government there has put its “foot on the economic scale.”

In a Communist command economy, the government can put its “foot on the economic scale.” In a (mostly) free market in the United States, while there was some, thankfully expired, foot pushing in the form of government tax credits for buying electric vehicles and some states mandating that a certain percentage of new cars be EVs by 2030 to 2035, Americans exercising their free choices have not been so compliant. Toyota listened to what consumers wanted, and has focused on hybrids instead.

Perhaps it’s time that Mr Farley dumped his prejudices in favor of electric vehicles, and took a cold, hard look at what a free people taking free choices actually want.

Posted on by

Amazing what can happen when manufacturers listen to what consumers want Electric cars nope; hybrids yup!

This site noted, just five days ago, that Ford Motor Company was considering doing away with its all-electric F-150 Lightning line of trucks, because the buyer demand for the vehicles just wasn’t there. Now there’s this, from The Wall Street Journal:

Toyota Doubles Down on Hybrids in the U.S. With $14-Billion Battery Push

New North Carolina plant is aimed at selling more hybrid cars and trucks to Americans

By Christopher Otts | Wednesday, November 12, 2025 | 1:28 PM EST

LIBERTY, N.C.—Toyota, a longtime hybrid car and truck promoter, is making one of the industry’s biggest bets on green transportation and opening a $14 billion battery plant here.

For years, Toyota held out against electric vehicles while rivals retrofitted factories and launched models in preparation for an all-electric future. Now that the EV market in the U.S. is vanishing as tax credits expire and sales disappoint, Toyota is doubling down on its hybrid strategy.

The Japanese automaker’s gamble: that American consumers—many of whom won’t touch an EV—will buy increasing numbers of hybrids, which often get up to 50% better mileage than a standard gas-powered car.

Toyota also said it would invest up to $10 billion in U.S. manufacturing over the next five years in addition to the North Carolina site, where it made the largest investment in a U.S. battery-production site.

The batteries that Toyota has begun making at the sprawling plant, located between the cities of Greensboro and Raleigh, are going into hybrids assembled in Kentucky and Alabama. The complex is designed to make batteries for EVs and hybrids, including those that plug in and travel short distances on just electricity before switching to gas.

Our family are familiar with hybrids, as our older daughter had a 2017 Toyota Prius Hybrid, and now drives a 2024 Prius Hybrid. It’s a good, solid vehicle, and she put a ton of miles on her first hybrid, as her civilian job took her on frequent trips throughout the eastern half of the country. She put nearly 200,000 miles on it, before trading it in.

The reason she traded it in was, of course, the battery. It was beginning to fail, and Toyota wanted $8000 to change it. That has always been the problem with the hybrids, and it’s something Toyota, and other hybrid manufacturers, need to address. I’d bet 25€ that all Toyota did was spend less than $2000 to swap out the battery to sell it used.

“For the longest time, folks were criticizing Toyota that they were so slow to the game in the battery-electric business,” said Charlie Chesbrough, senior economist at Cox Automotive. But the strategy worked, he said. “They really did focus on the traditional hybrids, and they are dominating that whole product segment.”

In other words, Toyota’s leadership were smart enough not to listen to Joe Biden and the Democrats, who were pushing a technology and infrastructure that was simply not ready.

Toyota did listen, however, to consumers, to new automobile buyers, and the company’s actions reflect the free market, and the choices people take in a free country.

Posted on by

Ford might trash the entire F-150 Lightning electric vehicle model line

It seems that the electric vehicle mandates of the Biden Administration were not greeted with approval by the public, and the public are not choosing to buy the silly things without Federal government bribery. From The Wall Street Journal:

Ford Considers Scrapping Electric Version of F-150 Truck

Once hyped as a ‘smartphone that can tow,’ production of the money-losing EV pickup may be shut down for good

2022 F-150 charging in a lot nicer garage than I have. It shows you just how much money you have to have to buy one of the fool things. Photo from a Ford sales site. Click to enlarge.


By Sharon Terlep | Thursday, November 6, 2025 | 4:06 PM EST

Ford Motor executives are in active discussions about scrapping the electric version of its F-150 pickup, according to people familiar with the matter, which would make the money-losing truck America’s first major EV casualty.

The Lightning, once described by Ford as a modern Model T for its importance to the company, fell far short of expectations as American truck buyers skipped the electric version of the top-selling truck. Ford has racked up $13 billion in EV losses since 2023.

Overall EV sales, already falling short of expectations, are expected to plummet in the absence of government support. And big, electric pickups and SUVs are the most vulnerable.

If you are blocked by the Journal’s paywall, you can read more about it in The Detroit News.

“The demand is just not there” for F-150 Lightning and other full-size trucks, said Adam Kraushaar, owner of Lester Glenn Auto Group in New Jersey. He sells Ford, GMC, Chevy and other brands. “We don’t order a lot of them because we don’t sell them.”

No final decision has yet been made, according to people familiar with the discussions, but such a move by Ford could be the beginning of the end for big EV trucks.

Using the back of my truck as a workbench. Would I ever do this with a $70,000+ truck?

The decision has been taken, taken already, but not by Ford executives; the decision was taken by the men who buy trucks!

I actually could do OK with an F-150 Lightning. I’m retired, and live and work on a small farm. My average mileage has greatly decreased since retirement, and I have a full shop, with 200 amp separate electric service, in which I could easily mount a vehicle charger. I ought to be the ideal customer, but I would never, ever buy that overpriced piece of [insert vulgar slang for feces here].

I already own an F-150, a 2010, which does just fine. It’s kind of beat up looking, because it’s actually a work truck, and it has some obvious rust thanks to Pennsylvania winters and road salt. Why would I throw away my money on a shiny, new truck at which I would be appalled to throw wood or brush or lumber in the back? The Lightning would be fine for people who haul nothing but groceries and beer, but for men who buy trucks because they use trucks for work, nope, sorry, wrong answer.

Ram truck-maker Stellantis earlier this year called off plans to make an electric version of its full-size pickup. General Motors executives have discussed discontinuing some electric trucks, according to people familiar with the matter. Sales of Tesla’s angular, stainless steel Cybertruck pickup tanked this year. And EV truck-maker Rivian has been cutting jobs to conserve cash.

Here’s the real kicker:

Ford already paused production of its F-150 Lightning—the bestselling electric pickup in the U.S.—last month amid an aluminum shortage. The company is weighing whether to keep that plant idle as it shifts to smaller, more affordable EVs, the people say. The company said it would restart production “at the right time.”

In October, the first month since the end of the federal EV tax credit, Ford’s overall EV sales in the U.S. fell 24% from a year earlier. Ford dealers sold 66,000 gas-powered F-Series pickups, up a tick from a year earlier, and just 1,500 Lightnings, the fewest of any model.

Translation: even the people who did buy them were influenced by the bribes offered by the federal government. Every American taxpayer was being charged a little bit to provide some welfare for the well-to-do, the only people who could afford to buy brand new F-150s.

We’ve seen this before. In April of 2010, when I bought my current vehicle, the Feds were offering the so-called “cash for clunkers” program. The 2000 F-150 I traded in, at, if I remember correctly, 189,000 miles, qualified for the first part, but the new F-150 didn’t for the second. Yeah, I was able to afford to buy a new vehicle, but the new vehicle I needed got less than necessary miles per gallon rating. Cash for clunkers was yet another bit of welfare for the well-to-do, a program which was supposed to aid in recession recovery, but in 2010, the only people who could afford to buy new vehicles didn’t need the government assistance.

So, without a government program bribing people to buy electric vehicles, and without the federal government mandate requiring a certain percentage of new vehicles sold to be EVs, the public are simply not buying EVs at a rate which can sustain production of them.

Remember one thing: the left are pro-choice on exactly one thing!

Posted on by

I check Bluesky so you don’t have to! Teen Voguer bemoans losing his job writing hard left politics for an online magazine supposedly focused on teen fashion and beauty.

Lex McMenamin (they/them) describes himself[1]As our Stylebook specifies, The First Street Journal does not use the silly formulation “he or she.” In English, properly understood, the masculine subsumes the feminine. This means that, in … Continue reading in his Bluesky biography as:

permanent Philadelphian in NYC, opinions mine
WAS politics @teenvogue.com
member @transjournalists.org
@leximcmenamin elsewhere
linktr.ee/leximcmenamin

As you can see, Mr McMenamin, who puts plural pronouns in his signature line on Bluesky, is going to be a flaming liberal, as the list of his online articles shows. Alas! she skeeted today:

I was laid off from Teen Vogue today along with multiple other staffers, and today is my last day.

certainly more to come from me when the dust has settled more, but to my knowledge, after today, there will be no politics staffers at Teen Vogue.

I admit to being almost totally unfamiliar with Teen Vogue. What little I do know comes from Robert Stacy McCain, who has mentioned the magazine’s normally silly political articles several times. See this and this — noting how Teen Vogue was ceasing print publication — and this. But it has to be asked: why did an online magazine supposedly concerned with fashion and beauty for teenaged girls need “political staffers”?

I dislike the fact that anyone, other than illegal immigrants in our country, has lost his job, and certainly do not celebrate a “permanent Philadelphian” losing his, but Condé Nast ceased print publication of Teen Vogue because it wasn’t making money, despite, somehow, the magazine’s turn to the political left.

However, it isn’t only Mr McMenamin who has lost his job:

Teen Vogue Will Fold Into Vogue.com

By Danya Issawi | Monday, November 3, 2025 | 2:23 PM EST

One of the last remaining publications dedicated to teens and young adults is undergoing a transformation. Today, Condé Nast announced that Teen Vogue will now live at Vogue.com and that the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Versha Sharma, will be stepping down. Chloe Malle, Vogue’s new head of editorial content, will oversee the publication in Sharma’s place. The move follows last week’s news that Vogue Business will officially move under the Vogue.com umbrella as well.

According to the announcement, Teen Vogue will remain “a distinct editorial property, with its own identity and mission.” The magazine had already ceased printing, releasing a final print issue with Hillary Clinton on the cover in December 2017 before becoming a digital-only publication. During that time, and continuing under Sharma’s direction, the outlet had shifted its focus toward discussing politics and human rights head on, laying a strong stake in the media landscape as a reliable place for young people to seek out sociopolitical coverage. From interviewing Zohran Mamdani on the campaign trail to catching up with Greta Thunberg fresh out of her detention in an Israeli prison to breaking down the lessons that Black Lives Matter taught protestors, Teen Vogue has been considered a platform for young progressives inside the glossy confines of Condé Nast. The company’s announcement makes no explicit mention of the future of the outlet’s political coverage.

It doesn’t take much to see that that last paragraph was written with a leftist bias! But no leftist bias can cover for the fact that Teen Vogue is being subsumed into Vogue, and this move is very similar to others in the credentialed media: they have to cut costs because profits are increasingly scarce.

As for Mr McMenamin and Miss Sharma? It’s not great that they have lost their jobs, and new jobs in the media are tough to find. Some of my friends would retort, “Learn to code,” after the “advice” given to blue-collar workers being laid off — though The New Republic says it’s an evil reich wing meme — but I would say something different: learn to drive a truck! There will be a lot of jobs opening up soon!

References

References
↑1 As our Stylebook specifies, The First Street Journal does not use the silly formulation “he or she.” In English, properly understood, the masculine subsumes the feminine. This means that, in cases in which the sex of the person to whom a pronoun refers is unknown, the masculine is properly used, and does not indicate that that person is male, nor is it biased in favor of such an assumption. We are uncertain as to Mr McMenamin’s actual sex, his biological sex, and thus use the masculine pronouns throughout.
Posted on by

Well, how ’bout that? It seems that President Trump’s tariff ideas are starting to work.

Tariffs are generally disfavored by economists, and, of course, by every Democrat, since the use of tariffs to stimulate American industrial employment is President Trump’s policy. But, what if they actually work as Mr Trump says he wants them to work? From The New York Times:

G.M. to Stop Making Electric Vans in Canada, in Another Hit to a Key Industry

The announcement, which will eliminate about 1,200 jobs, came less than a week after the carmaker Stellantis said it would move production of a new vehicle to Illinois from a Toronto suburb.

by Ian Austen | Tuesday, October 21, 2025 | 3:13 PM EDT

General Motors said on Tuesday that it was ending production of its electric van in Ontario, a move that will mean the loss of about 1,200 jobs. It was the second major blow to Canada’s automobile industry in less than a week.

G.M. cited low demand for its BrightDrop delivery van, as well as the end of tax credits for electric vehicles in the United States.

But Unifor, the Canadian union that represents auto workers, blamed the company’s move on President Trump’s trade battle with Canada, which has made exporting cars to the United States more expensive.

While I don’t celebrate Canadians losing their jobs, if that’s what happens to create more jobs for Americans, I say, America First!

Last week, the automaker Stellantis announced that it would move production of a new Jeep model from an idle factory in the Toronto suburb of Brampton to a plant in Illinois. The company shut down the factory in 2023 and laid off its roughly 3,000 workers so that it could retool the facilities, but now the fate of those employees is unclear.

General Motors was the recipient of roughly CDN$1 billion, or roughly $714 million in real American money, to retool the factory, and now the government is up in arms, and threatening legal action. But GM ceased production of the total electric vans because few companies were buying the silly things. Without government mandates requiring X percentage of vehicles sold to be total electric, people are taking decisions based upon what is more practical for them.

There’s more at the Times original.

Posted on by

The poor economics of Starbucks

While I would expend the effort to drive for a Wawa coffee, it’s pretty foolish to spend $4.50 or more for a Starbucks coffee that I can make at home for 50¢!

Sadly, the days of the wife sending her husband off to work in the morning with a lunchbox in his hand and breakfast already in his stomach are gone. Many, many businesses have grown up around that societal and economic change, with all sorts of chain and local stores selling coffee and a bagel — sesame bagel, dark toasted, with butter for me, thank you very much! — but I have to ask: has the market become oversaturated with some of these businesses?

Starbucks kind of broke the mold, with its waitresses now becoming ‘baristas,’ and its fancy shops and eight million different flavors and brews. The average prices that can be found on the internet vary wildly, but $4.50 seems to be about a midpoint.

Now, the company is having problems:

Why Starbucks is closing these six Philly locations

Starbucks has seen sales decline over six consecutive quarters.

by Erica Palan | Monday, September 29, 2025 | 12:44 PM EDT

Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffee powerhouse, announced last week that it would immediately shut down hundreds of underperforming stores and eliminate 900 corporate positions.

The cuts come as Starbucks has seen sales decline at stores open for at least a year for six consecutive quarters. The company’s shares have fallen about 12% in the past year.

The chain is grappling with rising labor costs, in addition to rising coffee prices.

We have twice previously reported on Starbucks and other coffeehouse workers efforts at unionization, and how OCF coffeehouse owner Ori Feibush simply closed his three Philadelphia coffee shops when the workers decided to unionize. The coffee shops were not profitable anyway, and were only a small part of the owner’s businesses, so he could afford to do it.

Checking Amazon, the Keurig which looks closest to ours, as pictured above, lists for $109. If a person is spending $4.50 every working morning, for coffee that costs me roughly 50¢ at home, he will have paid for that Keurig, and the coffee pods it uses, over the course of 27 workdays. That ignores having to physically stop at the local Starbucks, and whatever fuel he spent if it was out of the way on his way to work.

We also have a toaster, so I could toast a bagel at the same time! 🙂

Starbucks workers have been whining that the closures are the result of management fighting unionization:

Employees impacted by the store closures were notified Friday.

On Sunday, about 35 Starbucks union members gathered in front of the location at 16th and Walnut Streets in protest. They say they’re prepared to strike if the company doesn’t return to the bargaining table to negotiate higher wages, staffing levels, and healthcare benefits.

Over the last few years, Starbucks baristas in Philadelphia and beyond have taken efforts to improve worker protections. Some have been successful in establishing unions, while others have not. According to Starbucks Workers United, there are more than 12,000 unionized Starbucks baristas at more than 650 stores.

So, out of 18,734 Starbucks stores, only about 3.47% have been unionized. Management doubtlessly considers that a serious problem, but does it account for sales dropping for six consecutive quarters? Probably not, but it does point out the rather obvious problem of workers trying to unionize a shrinking company. It’s less expensive to shutter an economically underperforming store.

Three of the closed stores in Philadelphia — 1801 Spruce St., 1709 Chestnut St., and 1500 Market St. — are not unionized. Three others — 1900 Market St., 1128 Walnut St., and 490 N. Broad St — are unionized.

This is a matter of economic competition. If people are spending $4.50 every workday morning just for a cup of coffee they could Keurig themselves, that’s $1,080 in a 240-workday year. After four years of Bidenflation, there just might be a few families that decide that Starbucks every morning just isn’t that good an idea.