Tag Archives: #Business

Posted on by

Ivy League research associate wants clerks at Wawa to pay for her commute

Talia Borofsky, from her Twitter profile.

Cry me a river! Talia Borofsky is “a postdoctoral research associate in Princeton’s High Meadows Environmental institute, where she researches the evolution and ecology of cooperative hunting.” Dr Borofsky lives in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia but commutes to work at Princeton University, and she greatly saddened by the fact that cashiers at WalMart and hamburger flippers at McDonald’s won’t be paying as much for her daily commute!

Amtrak’s sudden fare increases bite the hand that feeds it

Amtrak recently raised multi-ride fares along the Northeast Corridor without adequate prior warning to its ridership. The drastic increase is a slap in the face to taxpayers, writes Talia Borofsky.

by Talia Borofsky | Thursday, August 15, 2024 | 12:00 PM EDT

In July Amtrak raised multi-ride fares along the Northeast Corridor by anywhere from 32% to 70% without directly notifying its ridership in advance.

Amtrak, a federally funded and federally majority-owned company, is meant to serve the public. The drastic fare increase is a slap in the face to taxpayers after the infrastructure bill dedicated a total of $22 billion in direct grants to the company.

You might think from Dr Borofsky’s first two paragraphs that her complaint is that she wasn’t notified far enough and directly enough in advance, but that’s not it. What upsets her is that she’s having to pay more for a direct service she receives.

Investopedia notes:

Amtrak receives considerable subsidies from both state and federal governments but it’s managed as a for-profit company. This isn’t unusual. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support.

But Amtrak’s “for-profit” status is sadly ironic. The train company has never been profitable since its founding nearly fifty years ago. It’s only thanks to its subsidies that the company has survived.

In other words, Dr Borofsky’s daily commute has never been entirely paid for by her fares. It has always been subsidized by taxpayer dollars, many of which are taken from people who earn less money than she does. But hey, if you’re a daycare worker in Philly, or a laborer for a roofing company in Lexington, shouldn’t you be glad to know that some of the money you pay in taxes goes to pay for “a postdoctoral research associate” at an Ivy League university, who earned her doctorate at Stanford, the hoitiest and the toitiest of the colleges west of the Mississippi, to research “the evolution and ecology of cooperative hunting”?

As a postdoc at Princeton University, I commute from Philly to Princeton using Amtrak. This commute used to make financial sense; rents in Philadelphia are almost half the price of those in Princeton, and Princeton provided a helpful although limited commute subsidy.

However, the commute became unaffordable for me and likely many others on July 1; the 10-trip (one-way) ticket package between Princeton and Philly shot up from $230 to $390, and the monthly pass increased from $576 to $975. These sudden increases have impacted many postdocs and graduate students at Princeton, whose budgets were already strained by the previous fares.

There’s such a whiff of elitism from Dr Borofsky’s OpEd. As a “postdoctoral research associate” at an Ivy League university, she is paid much more than most Philadelphians. According to Glass Door:

The estimated total pay range for a Postdoctoral Fellow at Princeton University is $57K–$67K per year, which includes base salary and additional pay. The average Postdoctoral Fellow base salary at Princeton University is $62K per year.

The minimum of $57,000 is slightly higher than the median household income of $56,517 for Philadelphians overall. But Dr Borofsky apparently believes that the baggers at Giant Food Mart or the clerk at Wawa brewing her large coffee for the train ride — yeah, I’m guessing about that last, but everyone in Philly should drink Wawa coffee! — should have to contribute a bit more to pay for her train ride.

Dr Borofsky continued to tell readers about Amtrak’s poor service, and that the suddenness of the fare increase was “exploitative.” I have no qualms with her point that the increase was sudden, nor that Amtrak’s service isn’t the greatest.

But it’s her concluding one-sentence paragraph that gets me:

Train travel should be viable for all, not just the wealthy.

No, train travel should be available to those who pay for the service. Why should I, a retiree, be required to pony up some of my tax dollars so that Dr Borofsky doesn’t have to pay for the service she receives? Why should the janitors at Princeton be required to help fund her commute?

The subtitle of her article states, “The drastic increase is a slap in the face to taxpayers,” but no; the drastic increase is a boon to the taxpayers, the ones who are already subsidizing her train ride. The good research associate should pay for the services she receives herself.

Posted on by

I know how to save The Washington Post! Find a new billionaire owner who doesn't care if the paper is losing money!

I know how to save The Washington Post! Just have Jeff Bezos, net worth $196 billion as of June 4, 2024, owner of the newspaper, give it to MacKenzie Scott, net worth $33.3 billion as of June 4, 2024, Mr Bezos’ ex-wife and a noted philanthropist who has no problem in giving away her money. Just a straight-up reassignment! Mr Bezos stops losing $77 to $100 million a year on the Post, and Miss Scott, with five times as much money as Patrick Soon-Shiong, net worth $6.3 billion as of June 4, 2024, and who is finding the Los Angeles Times’ losses too much to bear, can easily handle losing money, because she doesn’t seem to care if she makes money or not. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Another five bite the dust! More layoffs at The Philadelphia Inquirer

Last Tuesday, I attended a meet-and-greet presentation held by the Lexington Herald-Leader, listening to Executive Editor Richard Green and Managing Editor Lauren Gorla. It was a decent meeting, and Miss Gorla said one thing which stuck with me. While newspapers used to depend primarily on advertising, she stated that currently what my best friend used to call the Herald-Liberal is primarily funded via subscriptions, and occasional donations from philanthropic organizations.

Available was a complete list of newspaper staffers, 32 to them, of which only 17 were listed as reporters, and only 13 of which were not listed as sports reporters.

I was thinking about that when I read a series of tweets from the News Guild of Greater Philadelphia.

We are disgusted and enraged to report that The Inquirer has laid off 5 of our members today.

This is the bulletin we sent to our members a short time ago:

Less than a week after The Inquirer announced a desire to have employees increase their days working in the office in the spirit of “collaboration, inclusion, and sense of urgency about our work” today the company informed five Guild members who have been extraordinary contributors to our mission that they are being laid off. So much for collaboration and inclusion. Continue reading →

Posted on by

But, but, but, it’s just so unfair! Caitlin Clark's new endorsement deals are all about the Benjamins

Caitlin Clark was the top NCAA women’s basketball player this past season, and was the number one draft pick by the Indiana Fever. She was the major reason that the Iowa Hawkeyes’ women’s team got more coverage this year, and that the women’s tournament drew a lot more viewers than the norm. And, as her rookie season begins, the advance television schedule shows that the Indiana Fever will get a lot more national television coverage. Continue reading →

Posted on by

When a reporter has more of an agenda than an understanding of economics and business.

We have twice reported on the decisions of Wawa to close down some stores in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia. The late Josh Kruger complained bitterly about such.

This crime is not new, and The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the Headhouse Square Wawa “will become the sixth Center City Wawa to shutter since 2020.”

So, you would think that an article in the newspaper on food ‘deserts’ in some Philly neighborhoods would at least mention crime. But, if you did think that, you would be wrong.

About 40 million people in the United States don’t have access to a full-service grocery store

The 2023 update of the Limited Supermarket Access Study examines the lack convenient access to health food options across the nation — and in Philadelphia.

by Lynette Hazleton | Thursday, March 21, 2024 | 5:00 AM EST

What food is available has everything to do with the food stores that are available.

When the food store is a full-service supermarket, like the ShopRite in Parkside, it usually means you will have the access to a wider variety, higher-quality and lower-cost food, explained Michelle Schmitt, a senior policy analyst at The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) as she walked around the bustling 15-year-old supermarket.

As you can see, the article wasn’t produced by the regular Inquirer staff, but the Leftist Lenfest Institute for Journalism, the non-profit which owns the newspaper. I have previously noted that, as a subscriber, I sometimes receive begging for donations letters from the Leftist Lenfest Institute.

When you don’t have the same access to high quality food as you do to chips, fast food and soda, it can contribute to an unhealthy eating pattern that can ultimately lead to chronic disease.

How is it that Lynette Hazelton, the Philly native who reported this story, couldn’t bring herself to note that the densely-populated rowhouse neighborhoods which make up a significant part of the city’s neighborhoods don’t really have room for a huge Giant Food Mart? Yes, there are corner bodegas in most of the neighborhoods, where you can get those chips, fast foods, soda, beer, lottery tickets, and the occasional bullet in your chest. But the kinds of supermarkets that Miss Hazelton envisions take up around ten acres when parking lots are included.

Schmitt is the main author of the 2023 update to the Limited Supermarket Access (LSA) study which determines who is and is not well served by their grocery store. The official definition for limited supermarket access is 500 people in a low income tract where urban members are more than a mile and rural shoppers are more than 10 miles to a full service store. It is the fourth update since 2010 and the first to include Alaska and Hawaii.

The big take away: about 40 million Americans live without easy access to healthy food options.

Take Parkside, Belmont and Mantua neighborhoods of West Philadelphia. Together they are home to roughly 48,755 residents. Virtually all the blocks are very densely populated, 66% Black and almost half the people had an annual income of $25,000 in 2021, the latest data available.

This was some sloppy writing. Did Miss Hazeltom mean that $25,000 was the median income?

While this is the neighborhood many traditional stores would overlook, it is the type of neighborhood that the LSA study showed was in desperate need of a supermarket.

OK, why would “many traditional stores” overlook those neighborhoods? The author noted that “Virtually all the blocks are very densely populated,” which means less available area to put in a ten-acre supermarket. The neighborhoods are mostly poor, and grocery stores “operate on razor-thin profit margins. The industry average is between one and three percent, far below other retail sectors. With such lean margins, grocery stores rely on high sales volume and inventory turnover to thrive.” Then you throw in Philly’s crime rate, and the obvious question is easy to determine: how could a supermarket make a profit there?

Supermarkets were once associated with suburbs, and by the 1970s seven out of every ten food dollars were spent there. But also supermarkets did not place their businesses in low-income communities which lead to real consequences.

This paragraph alone tells you just how poor Miss Hazelton’s article was. The source she hyperlinked told her that grocery stores in Philly were mostly the ‘corner grocery store’ type, operating in the rowhouse neighborhoods, yet somehow, she couldn’t figure out that those neighborhood structures dictated the kinds of grocery stores that were there. In more rural areas, we had “general stores” before supermarkets were developed, and many lament that so few of those old general stores exist. Alas! The old general store that was near where I now live went out of business, became someone’s auto repair shop for a while, and is now a small volunteer fire station. Kroger and Giant and Aldi forced those old country general stores out of business, but in the suburbs and rural areas, there was the physical room for supermarkets.

Perhaps it’s as simple as the reporter having more of an agenda than an understanding of economics and business.

Posted on by

The 15-Minute City: Another exercise in Soviet economic planning! The oh-so-well-intentioned left seem to think they can 'design' how people live their lives.

Have you ever heard of the 15-minute city concept? As defined by Wikipedia, it is:

an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city. This approach aims to reduce car dependency, promote healthy and sustainable living, and improve wellbeing and quality of life for city dwellers.

I will admit it: I hadn’t heard of this idea until seeing an article on it by William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove. Upon reading about it, and the concept, I was reminded of a couple of articles I read in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

What happens after a Philly neighborhood’s last chain pharmacy shuts its doors

After the Grays Ferry Rite Aid closed this fall, residents there said they felt abandoned and had to devise new ways to get their prescriptions. Seniors without cars struggled.

by Erin McCarthy | Sunday, February 4, 2024 | 5:00 AM EST Continue reading →

Posted on by

What could possibly go wrong?

Who could ever have predicted this?

Pronouns Ruin Prospects: Research Proves Hiring Managers’ Bias Against Non-Binary and Gender Queer Pronoun Users

by Ananyaa Bhowmik | May 30, 2023

Pronouns may be nothing new, but the idea that people may claim their own is still somewhat astonishing to some. Many people still succumb to the siren call of referring to people using binary pronouns.

While struggling to get used to something relatively new is understandable, what is not fair is using it as an excuse to promote bias, especially when it can keep people from earning their livelihoods. Yet hiring managers all over the world seem to be doing just that.

Simply put, research into recent hiring trends shows that resumes with genderqueer and non-binary pronouns elicit less than enthusiastic responses from prospective employers. Some applications are skipped over entirely, while others never receive a callback. A worrying trend, to say the least.

Why wouldn’t a responsible human resources manager discard résumés in which the applicant is telling him that he’s a walking, talking hostile workplace lawsuit?

It isn’t difficult to see where the issue is. If someone goes to the extent of specifying “genderqueer and non-binary pronouns,” he is telling his prospective employer that he finds the issue serious, and wants to be referred to in ways that most normal English-speaking people would not normally use. Whether deliberately or otherwise, such a person may be referred to with references of which he disapproves, and too many such incidences could generate a lawsuit against the employer. The human resources manager’s job is to do more than find the best employees; it is also to protect the company from lawsuits. And one of the easiest ways to do that is not to hire people who could be seen as increasing the probability of a hostile workplace lawsuit.

Legislative guidance introduced by NYCHRL clearly states that the “use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.) 15 with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification.” Despite that, recent research conducted by Business.com concluded that “More than 80 percent of nonbinary people believed that identifying as nonbinary would hurt their job search.”

I spent my career in an almost all-male industry, and it doesn’t take much imagination to see how a significant number of the men with whom I worked would react to a “genderqueer or non-binary” employee. Such an employee would receive little respect and be the target of disparaging remarks. Why would I want to risk having to discipline, and perhaps even lose several trained and experience concrete mixer drivers because there was one employee who specified references which were out-of-the-norm?

I’m retired now, and hadn’t handled any hiring duties the last eleven years during my career, so I, fortunately, never had to face any such silliness in my decisions. But I do know one thing: the job of any employee in taking hiring decisions is to do the best job for the company, and not the applicants.