June 19th, 2017

We will take one day to review how global 1% through United Nations is now controlling not only our Congress but our state and local government.  CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA captured both Republican and Democratic Parties and WE THE PEOPLE allowed 2016 elections go with the same systemic election frauds so now these pols are MORPHING INTO FAR-RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.  Global 1% extreme wealth extreme poverty is now coming back to US to kill American freedom, liberty, and rights of citizens ----and our developed nation quality of life.

The elections in CA were as captured as the elections in Maryland.  The only FEELING THE BERN candidate that may have won an election is that global Wall Street neo-liberal morphing into MARXISM.  These are NOT LEFT SOCIAL FDR PROGRESSIVES---they are Clinton neo-liberals pretending to be LEFT MARXIST.

BERNIECRATS ARE NOT LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES---THEY ARE FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS.

We will remind folks that these few decades of Clinton/Bush busting our US labor unions has sent MANY labor leaders to the other side----working for global Wall Street.

This PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT is no different than global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals----economic progressives.

Berniecrats Took Over the Democratic Party in California, and Provided a Blueprint for the Rest of the Nation

By Walker Bragman  |  January 11, 2017  |  2:32pm
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Politics Features Progressive Movement

*********************************

Here we have a UNION STRONG 4 LIFE understanding this former labor leaders is A SCAB----SCABS are not only non-union workers they are former leaders who sell out labor union members and this is what fills our 5% to the 1% LABOR LEADERS----GET RID OF THESE 5%!



Union Strong 4 Life.
June 14 at 3:40pm ·
SCAB !!! Only word for him !!!



2017 Legislature EB-5 Legislator Guide Burlington Campaign Finance Database Bernie Sanders


  Former President of AFT Vermont and Vermont AFL-CIO Launches New Firm Jun. 13, 2017, 2:34 pm by Press Release


News Release — Progressive Labor Solutions
June 12, 2017 Contact:
Ben Johnson

________________________________

We had hoped NATIONAL NURSES UNITED would be that US labor union ----these leaders know Bernie went from shouting a platform policy of EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL early in his campaign to shouting SINGLE-PAYER/UNIVERSAL CARE as the Democratic primary progressed.  This is when we KNEW Bernie was that global Wall Street player---we discussed at length how SINGLE-PAYER/UNIVERSAL CARE is a right wing health policy and we showed that it looks just like the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATIONS health platform already installed in third world nations----clinic care preventative care only.  There is no intention of tying 99% of citizens to HOSPITAL CARE----MEDICAL PROCEDURES WE THE PEOPLE have accessed through last century.

Below we see SINGLE-PAYER as California BERNIECRATS promoted.  The global 1% are pretending to install a level of care they really are not and these global 1% are saying those SELFISH WESTERN NATION citizens are taking too much revenue to support that developed nation quality of health care.

HERE IS WHAT BERNIECRATS AND SADLY NATIONAL NURSES UNITED ARE SUPPORTING.

So why can America not get labor leaders who work for WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%-----because since Clinton and the busting of labor unions all labor leaders are now working for UNITED NATIONS ILO-----INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION which is NOT labor-friendly it works to organize labor cheaply for global corporations.


Is Universal Health Care an Attainable Goal?

The latest UN development initiative calls for achieving universal health coverage by 2030, a goal widely supported in the global health community but one that is possibly too ambitious, writes CFR’s Laurie Garrett. Expert Brief by Laurie Garrett September 11, 2015

More on: Global Health Global Governance


Laurie Garrett Senior Fellow for Global Health The United Nations will soon exchange one set of eight aspirational goals for the world for a far more sweeping list that includes slowing climate change, providing universal health care coverage, and ending severe poverty in all nations. The end of this year marks the deadine for  the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which will show a mixed record of success. The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focus on seventeen themes to be embraced by all world governments, along with a gamut of UN agencies and their closely allied multilateral institutions and bilateral donors, including the United States’ global health and development agencies.   At first blush, the SDG picture appears irrational. In addition to the seventeen goals, the SDGs involve 169 targets and 1,063 indicators that serve as metrics for measuring achievements. The United Nations broadly imagines that the SDGs will “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” When combined, the seventeen SDGs aspire to a world in 2030 in which no human being lives on less than $1.25 per day and everyone has access to primary education, safe drinking water, affordable basic health care, ample food, education, and job opportunities devoid of discrimination based on gender or race. A report prepared last year for the UN General Assembly projects that full implementation of the SDGs will be astoundingly expensive, totaling between $90 trillion and $120 trillion. In contrast, MDG spending by 2015 was roughly $400 billion, about half of which came from the U.S. government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Most of the MDG spending occurred after 2005. Locally, countries committed from their own resources about $110 billion over the same period.


‘Well-Being for All at All Ages’


Scrutinizing the chief global health aim for 2030 offers insights into the scale of efforts that will be involved in just one of the SDGs. Under SDG 3, nine targets are listed to reach the stated goal to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” One of these  targets is essential to fulfillment of all of the others: “achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.” The seemingly overambitious pursuit of universal health coverage has wide support in the global health community. There is particularly strong support among those who focus on chronic diseases (cancer, diabetes, stroke, mental illness), traffic accidents and injuries, and maternal mortality, all of which are states of ill health that require access to emergency treatment and around-the-clock routine care. A key criticism of the health-oriented MDGs is that they have fostered a silo approach to the funding, human resources development, and structure of health delivery that is disease-focused on malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, infant mortality, and pediatric care. In poorer countries, resources have been allocated accordingly: Patients are too often viewed via disease-specific clinics, rather than in holistic medical facilities. In wealthy countries, people visit a clinic without necessarily knowing the cause of their ill health, and may receive attention for multiple problems in a single facility. But in poor countries, individuals must self-diagnose and travel, often by foot or at great expense, to one place for their TB care, another for prenatal check-ups, and still elsewhere to mend a broken leg. UHC does not guarantee state-of-the-art medical care to every human being, but it does aspire to remove the bankrupting impact that illness and injury can have on those who are uninsured or inadequately insured, thus aiding in the overarching SDG aim of eliminating extreme poverty. A review of national health policies indicates a range of different approaches that could be employed to reach universal care. Under the Affordable Care Act, for instance, the United States has sought to reduce the individual financial burden of illness through a mix of reforms in both public and private financing of health insurance. A recent Harvard/Gallup survey found some sixteen million Americans had, by spring of 2015, gained coverage under the ACA. Within the first year of activation of the ACA, the number of Americans saying they couldn’t pay their medical bills fell from seventy-five million in 2012 to sixty-four million in 2014, and the overall percentage of medically covered Americans rose from 79 percent in January 2012 to 85 percent by January 2015. By mid-2015 just 13.2 percent of Americans still lacked coverage. Achieving coverage for every single American by 2030 would mean that the United States reached the SDG target for UHC. The UN does not say what form UHC should take–whether it is like the Canadian single-payer system, the U.S. mixed-payment approach, or systems of Rwanda-style vouchers for women and children. Such issues are country and culturally specific. But UHC does insist that everyone have some form of health coverage.


Too Few Health Care Workers

Health coverage leads to increased demand for medical services, which will pose the greatest obstacle to UHC. The World Bank estimates that roughly twelve percent of the global labor force is already employed in the health enterprise in some capacity, yet demand for the most skilled tier of doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, midwives, and technicians far eclipses that of supply. At a minimum, the World Health Organization says, there must be 3.4 skilled health workers for every 1,000 people, a level so far above current global numbers that reaching it will require a rate of training that increases personnel eleven percent annually until 2030. No one has offered a scheme for such an extraordinary scale of annual matriculation, though the World Bank is trying to develop more modest approaches toward training lower-tiered health workers for provision of very basic primary care. Current annual global spending on health is about $6 trillion, with nearly half of that sum spent in the United States. If health coverage and utilization were to expand worldwide at the desired UHC scale, spending in 2030 would reach at least $15 trillion per year, and could go as high as $25 trillion if sophisticated tertiary care were to be broadly provided. If health coverage and utilization were to expand worldwide at the desired UHC scale, spending in 2030 would reach at least $15 trillion. Proportionally, the burden of spending would greatly differ from one country to the next. For example, before the civil wars in the 1990s, Liberia spent about $110 per capita on health, when GDP per capita was merely $140 (or about 79 percent of GDP). Across the OECD, health spending in 2014 averaged just 6 percent of GDP; India is currently devoting only 1.3 percent of its GDP to health. These differences reflect political priorities and population expectations. Political disputes about UHC are simmering. One economist has labelled pursuit of universal health coverage “irresponsible,” claiming it will undermine government and private-sector spending. Conversely, physicians have described UHC as a “moral imperative,” worrying only that emphasis on provision of medical care might come at the expense of general public health services such as provision of clean water and outbreak surveillance. Regardless of the expert perspectives, public demand is rising worldwide. The fastest growing health spending and popular citizenry demand for health is in the APEC nations, where Asian economic growth is fueling both dramatic improvements in life expectancy and health care utilization. Many Asian nations already have some form of UHC, and now seek to expand the range of services covered by insurance and the quality of care. Since its post-WWII recovery period, Japan has considered health as a matter of personal and national security, and has steadily expanded not only its nation’s medical services and access, but also declared global UHC a pillar of its foreign policy under the Shinzo Abe administration. Health Care as Human Right Across the Americas, the UHC as “moral imperative” point of view is shared, linked to essential human rights. The extent of government (versus private or individual) expenditure on health in the region ranges from a public-sector low of 35 percent in Guatemala to a high of 95 percent in Cuba. Across the entire region, premature mortality rates have plummeted since 1990, life expectancies have risen, and utilization of health services show a steady upward trend. Politically, all of the democracies in the American hemisphere have demonstrated that voters expect the improvements (and expenditures) to continue rising well into the twenty-first century. Demand for the most skilled tier of doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, midwives, and technicians far eclipses that of supply. In 2013, the British medical journal the Lancet assembled an elite commission of experts, led by economist and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, to parse both the costs of vastly increasing global access to health care, and the benefits, or financial returns that might be garnered. The commission concluded that “reductions in mortality account for about 11% of recent economic growth in low-income and middle-income countries” over the last twenty years, and recommended $530 billion in spending on global health by 2035, with about $6 billion per year coming from donors and the rest generated by countries and from innovative financing schemes. With sufficient investment in UHC and health systems, including personnel training, the commission said a “grand convergence” would be reached by 2035, closing the now enormous mortality gap between the rich and poor populations of the world. Most of this convergence would be achieved by targeting the low-hanging fruit of public health: vaccination, child nutrition, prenatal screening, access to safe drinking water, treatment of pediatric infectious diseases, and prevention of cardiovascular ailments. After substantial investment, the commission said, global health would reach a stable, sustainable level, with annual health expenditures arriving at an average three-percent-of-GDP increase over current spending. For some countries, spending might increase by eight or nine percent of GDP, while others would achieve convergence with far smaller margins of spending. As the world’s leaders gather for the September 2015 UN General Assembly session, the SDGs, including those devoted to health, will receive formal ratification. And then the hard part will commence: finding human and financial resources for implementation, solidifying political commitment to SDG strategies, and building popular demand inside of every nation for the changes necessary to realize the seventeen goals. 


This publication was made possible with the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation.

___________________________________


So why can America not get labor leaders who work for WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%-----because since Clinton and the busting of labor unions all labor leaders are now working for UNITED NATIONS ILO-----INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION which is NOT labor-friendly it works to organize labor cheaply for global corporations.

This article written and spread by a COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS funded by ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION is not going to share policy good for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.......................



'AFL-CIO President John Sweeney denies that enforcing labor standards can have a protectionist impact. The ILO standards, he notes, are designed to protect the interests of workers in low-income as well as high-income countries'.

About the ILO

The only tripartite U.N. agency, since 1919 the ILO brings together governments, employers and workers representatives of 187 member States , to set labour standards, develop policies and devise programmes promoting decent work for all women and men.

WE THE PEOPLE the 99% managed to elect real left social progressive for decades after the global 1% decided to MOVE FORWARD EMPIRE-BUILDING especially at our local and state level.  As Congress was taken by CLINTON ERA GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS we started to see our labor union leaders tied to WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AND ILO-----the enemy of global 99% of labor.

When our US labor union leaders should have been fighting CLINTON NEO-LIBERALISM they went team global 1%.

Brookings Institute is top gun global empire neo-liberal think tank and they would not print this if it was not global Wall Street stance on labor.



Article

Workers’ Rights: Labor standards and global trade

Gary Burtless Saturday, September 1, 2001   BROOKINGS INSTITUTION


Of all the debates surrounding globalization, one of the most contentious involves trade and workers’ rights.

Proponents of workers’ rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world’s biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.

The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.



The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.


 
Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?


Which Labor Standards Matter Most?

Author Gary Burtless The John C. and Nancy D. Whitehead Chair Senior Fellow - Economic Studies gburtless


Although the international community agrees broadly on the need to respect labor standards, agreement does not extend to what those standards should be. Forced labor and slavery are almost universally regarded as repugnant, but other labor safeguards thought vital in the world’s richest countries are not widely observed elsewhere.

The International Labor Organization, created by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, has published labor standards in dozens of areas, but it has identified eight essential core standards (see box on page 13), most of which refer to basic human rights. Of the 175 ILO member countries, overwhelming majorities have ratified most of the eight standards. More than 150 have ratified the four treating forced labor and discrimination in employment and wages. Washington has ratified just two standards, one abolishing forced labor and the other eliminating the worst forms of child labor, placing the United States in the company of only eight other ILO member countries, including China, Myanmar, and Oman.

Many proponents of labor standards would expand the core list of ILO protections to cover workplace safety, working conditions, and wages. The U.S. Trade Act of 1974 defines “internationally recognized worker rights” to include “acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.” The University of Michigan, for example, obliges producers of goods bearing its insignia to respect the core ILO standards and also requires them to pay minimum wages and to offer a “safe and healthy working environment.”

The labor standards that might be covered by a trade agreement fall along a continuum from those that focus on basic human rights to those that stress working conditions and pay. On the whole, the case for the former is more persuasive. Insisting that other nations respect workers’ right of free association reflects our moral view that this right is fundamental to human dignity. Workers may also have a “right” to a safe and healthy workplace, but that right comes at some cost to productive efficiency. Insisting that other nations adopt American standards for a safe and healthy workplace means that they must also adopt our view of the appropriate trade-off between health and safety, on the one hand, and productive efficiency, on the other.


Enforcing Labor Standards: The Status Quo


The principal global institution enforcing labor standards today is the ILO, which reports regularly and periodically on the steps each nation takes to implement the standards it has ratified. If complaints are lodged, the ILO investigates the alleged violation and publicizes its findings. Even if a member nation has not ratified the freedom-of-association conventions, the ILO may investigate alleged violations of those conventions. The ILO cannot, however, authorize retaliatory trade measures or sanctions. Instead it provides technical assistance to member countries to bring their labor laws and enforcement procedures into compliance.

Although the work of the ILO has been recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, many labor sympathizers are skeptical that it can protect workers using its existing enforcement tools since they impose little penalty besides bad publicity.



Putting Teeth into Standards Enforcement

Labor advocates favor strengthening enforcement by expanding the role of the World Trade Organization or using bilateral trade agreements.

OH, REALLY????

WTO rules do not apply to labor standards; they govern members’ treatment of the goods, services, and intellectual property of other member countries. In those areas the WTO has developed elaborate dispute settlement procedures to investigate complaints. If a WTO panel finds that a member country has violated WTO rules, it may allow the complaining country to retaliate.

At the 1996 WTO ministerial meeting, developing countries strongly resisted efforts to allow the WTO to enforce labor standards, and the meeting concluded by affirming the ILO’s role in determining and dealing with labor standards. Similarly, when President Clinton and some EU leaders tried to bring workers’ rights into the next round of multilateral trade negotiations at the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle, developing countries rejected the initiative.

In a recent free trade pact, Jordan and the United States agreed to protect core ILO workers’ rights. They also spelled out how to resolve disputes over labor standards: if one country weakens its labor laws or fails to bring its laws or enforcement into compliance with the ILO core standards, the other may take appropriate measures, including withdrawal of trade benefits.

The AFL-CIO has endorsed the labor provisions of the Jordan trade pact, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has denounced them. The Chamber favors free trade agreements, and it fears that most countries will resist including enforceable labor standards in any new agreement. This view is almost certainly correct, at least in the developing world.



Practical Difficulties


Some Americans may fear that including enforceable labor standards in trade agreements will open the United States to charges that it fails to enforce ILO core standards, exposing it to possible trade penalties. But U.S. civil rights and labor laws already contain the fundamental protections demanded by the ILO conventions.

THEY USED TO !

Citizens in developing countries might be less confident that their laws and enforcement procedures will meet the tests implied by the ILO conventions, especially as construed by observers from affluent countries. Interpretations devised in the drawing rooms of Paris or the recreation rooms of suburban Washington might seem out of touch with conditions in countries where half or more of the population lives on less than $2 a day.

Two of the most troublesome ILO standards involve child labor. Rich countries—very sensibly—restrict children’s participation in the job market so that youngsters can attend school and prepare to become workers. But in poor countries, where children’s earnings are a crucial family resource and schooling may be unavailable, the restrictions may not be appropriate. Of course, children in poor countries deserve protection and education too, but the standard of protection and the resources available for schooling will be far below those in a wealthy country.

A standard of protection that is appropriate in rich countries can impose excessive burdens on poor ones. Third-world leaders fear, understandably, that including enforceable labor standards in trade treaties will expose their countries to constant challenge in the WTO—and that the standards will be used mainly to protect workers and businesses in developed countries from competition from third-world workers.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney denies that enforcing labor standards can have a protectionist impact. The ILO standards, he notes, are designed to protect the interests of workers in low-income as well as high-income countries. The WTO and United States strongly defend intellectual property (IP) rights and enforce trade penalties when developing countries violate those rights. Extending the same protections to workers’ rights, he reasons, cannot be protectionist.

While it is easy to sympathize with Sweeney’s view, there is a big difference between worker rights in another country and the IP rights of a country’s own citizens. If Burma denies its workers the right to organize independent unions, its actions are deplorable but do not directly injure me. If Burma allows publishers and recording companies to reproduce my copyrighted books and songs without compensating me, the theft of my creative efforts injures me directly. It is hardly surprising that U.S. voters would insist on remedies for injuries to themselves before fixing the problems of workers overseas. Sweeney may object that the injury to Burmese workers from human rights abuses is much more serious than the monetary losses from copyright infringement suffered by a handful of artists, inventors, and U.S. corporations. And he may well be right. But American artists, inventors, and corporate shareholders can vote in U.S. elections; Burmese workers cannot.


How to Assess WTO Penalties?


If the WTO is to be used to assess penalties against countries violating international labor norms, its member countries must devise a new way to assign penalties for violations. Under current procedures, a country found to have a valid trade complaint may retaliate against the offending country by withholding a trade benefit roughly equivalent to the benefit denied it by the offender as a result of the violation of WTO rules. It is not obvious how to calculate the penalty when the violation involves a labor standard. There the injury has been suffered by workers in the offending country, and residents of the complaining country may have enjoyed a net benefit.

Suppose, for example, the United States accuses another country of employing underage children in its apparel industry. The violation increases the offending country’s supply of low-wage workers, thus reducing producers’ wage costs and the prices charged to domestic and overseas consumers. The adult workers in the offending country have clearly suffered injury, as have the children if their work has deprived them of schooling that was otherwise available.

How did the violation affect Americans?

U.S. apparel workers probably lost wages and jobs. But their losses are counterbalanced by gains to U.S. consumers, who bought clothing more cheaply because of child labor in the offending country. Since all American workers, including those in the apparel industry, are themselves consumers, it is not clear whether the violation injured U.S. workers as a class. Last year apparel imports into the United States exceeded exports by about $55 billion. If the use of child labor overseas cut the cost of imports, Americans spent less for clothing than they otherwise would have. While most Americans deplore child labor, at home or abroad, it is hard to see how an overseas violation of the child labor standard has injured them. Nor is the United States likely to weaken its own child labor laws because it has benefited from the availability of cheaper imported clothes.


Private Sanctions


As a final option for enforcing labor standards, American consumers can apply their own private sanctions. Anyone who finds child labor or forced labor reprehensible can refuse to buy products made in countries that tolerate those practices. The ILO could push consumers into action by publishing information about offending countries and their violations. It could also publicize any country’s refusal to cooperate with ILO investigations. If voters want more information about imported goods and services from countries that comply with ILO standards, their own national governments can provide it. Washington can help American consumers increase pressure on offending countries by requiring sellers to label products with the country of origin. It could also encourage or require sellers to identify goods and services produced in countries that fully comply with ILO’s core labor standards.


Should Uncle Sam Enforce Labor Standards?


The case for enforcing labor standards is strongest when it involves basic human rights, such as freedom of association or freedom from slavery, and when it rests on moral grounds rather than economic calculation. If Washington wants to require its trading partners to respect basic human rights, it must be prepared to accept the real costs it will thereby impose on its own producers and consumers—and occasionally on the victims overseas whom it is trying to help. Economic theory and evidence may be useful in calculating the potential cost of trade sanctions to the United States and its trading partners. It is not helpful in determining whether the potential gains to human rights are worth the income sacrifice. Nor is social science very informative about whether a policy of trade sanctions is likely to improve victims’ rights.

The case for requiring U.S. trade partners to respect international labor standards is least compelling when it involves the terms and conditions of employment. If a country respects ILO core standards, then workers will be able to negotiate for the best combination of pay, fringe benefits, work hours, and workplace amenities that their level of productivity allows. If we insist that the resulting compensation package meet minimum international standards, we are substituting our own judgment for that of the affected workers and their employers.

Readers may object, rightly, that the weak bargaining position of workers in poor countries makes it unlikely that their negotiations with employers will secure decent compensation and safe working conditions. But their weak bargaining position is linked to their low productivity and skills. Today U.S. and European labor standards are much higher, and labor regulation enforced more rigorously, than was the case 50 years ago. The improvement is closely associated with workers’ increased skill and productivity. Even in the developing world, the better-off countries are more likely than the poorest to conform to ILO labor standards. In countries with per capita income of $500 a year or less, 30—60 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 work. In countries with per capita income of $500—1,000, just 10—30 percent of youngsters work. As productivity improves, so too will the bargaining position and wages of industrial workers. If history is any guide, national labor standards will improve as well.

The most reliable way to improve the condition of third-world workers is to boost their average productivity. Concerned voters in rich countries can help make this happen by pressing to open up their own markets to third-world products. Many low-income countries have a comparative advantage in manufacturing apparel, textiles, and footwear and in producing staple foods, fruits, and vegetables. Rich countries often impose high tariffs or quotas on these products, and nearly all provide generous subsidies to their farmers—thus denying third-world producers and farmers access to a huge potential market. The World Bank estimates that tariff and nontariff barriers, together with subsidies lavished on U.S. and European farmers, cost third-world countries more in lost trade than they get in foreign aid.

If we insist that developing countries meet immediately the labor standards that the richest countries achieved only gradually, we will keep some of them out of the world’s best markets. The poor countries that agree to abide by ILO standards will occasionally be challenged—sometimes by representatives of rich countries more intent on protecting their own workers from “unfair” overseas competition than on improving the lot of third-world workers. While the moral case for requiring our trading partners to respect labor rights is compelling, the case for removing trade barriers that limit the product markets and incomes of the world’s poorest workers is just as powerful.
______________________________

HERE IS THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS AND THE PETERSON FOUNDATION----AS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING AS IT GETS and they are the ILO..............


'The ILO to the Rescue?
We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized labor stan-
dards. The International Labor Organization (ILO) is the competent body to set and
deal with these standards and we affirm our support for its work in promoting them.
—World Trade Organization, Singapore Ministerial Communiqué, 1996'

**************************************
Remember the video from last week showing all those seniors lining up for housing in Oakland-----and then we hear OAKLAND is first in the nation for BASIC INCOME POLICIES all of which are far-right wing global 1% policies designed to bring US citizens to third world living and wage structures and guess who will lead the way in pushing all of this?  THOSE FAKE LEFT FDR BERNIECRATS WHO ARE SIMPLY CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS MORPHING INTO FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM


AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hundreds of Oakland senior citizens wait in line for subsidized housing There was an unmistakable sign on Thursday of just how severe the affordable housing crisis is in Oakland. (KGO-TV)

By Eric Thomas
Thursday, June 08, 2017
*********************
We have already heard SEIU FORMER LEADER STERN shouting for this policy as we saw UK's Labour pretender CORBYN do the same.

It is called UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME because Foreign Economic Zones around the world----including US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will all have that extreme poverty wage=====sweat shop global factory at $3-6 a day------sweat shop professional white collar worker $20-30 a day-----with only that global 1% and their 2% living the high-life with global neo-liberalism capitalism------LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.


What universal basic income could mean for the future of work


By David Brancaccio
April 18, 2017 | 5:38 AM


 Five years ago, Marketplace explored how machines, robots and software algorithms were increasingly entering the workforce in our series "Robots Ate My Job." Now, we're looking at what humans can do about it with a new journey to find robot-proof jobs.


Technology is transforming the American economy. The investment research firm Forrester predicts automation will create nearly 15 million new jobs by 2025, but at the same time, wipe out nearly 25 million. Do the math and that means 10 million jobs will disappear, on par with what happened during the Great Recession. All this has some experts pushing for new policies to address a teched-up future in which the need for human workers tapers down. One idea gaining traction in Silicon Valley is something called universal basic income, or UBI — unconditional cash payments for all. The policy would mean citizens receive a set amount of money from the government, whether they work or not. "We think it's quite possible that a lot of jobs will become automated," said Matt Krisiloff, director of Y Combinator Research, a division of the start-up incubator Y Combinator. "We are trying to think, if that type of scenario happens, what can we really do to expand the social safety net and meet people's needs as our world changes."



Y Combinator is running an experiment in Oakland, California to see what happens when people are given free money. The pilot will dole out $1,000 a month to participants.  Krisiloff is not the only one in the industry who is concerned about automation. Some of the biggest technology tycoons who hope their own innovations are changing the world for the better also seem deeply worried by what tech could do to jobs in the long haul. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has said UBI will become "necessary."  The idea has attracted some interest from Washington as well, on both the political left and the political right. Around the world, interest has been mixed. There are experiments underway in Finland and Kenya, though voters in Switzerland recently voted down the policy.  "It's such a big shift in how the safety net would be constructed," Krisiloff said. "It's really a tremendously expensive idea, so we need to make sure it's actually a good one before actually advocating for something like this." Y Combinator researchers want to know, among other things, whether free money causes people to seek out more fulfilling work or robs recipients of ambition. If results are positive, some economists believe the U.S. could implement UBI by dramatically expanding the federal earned income tax credit, now targeted toward poor working families. How to fund such an expansion is an open question, but one that Krisiloff is optimistic about.  "If the real need for this is something like we have tremendous automation, it's hard to imagine just how much more wealth we could be creating as a society," he said. "It could be double, it could be thousand times the GDP we have now." In other words, the same tech that disrupts the American workforce could end up saving it.

________________________________
Of course all those raging global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are those FEELING THE BERN BERNICRATS------pretending yet again to be working for the middle-working class and poor. We all know PELOSI, BOXER, FEINSTEIN, BROWN as those aging-out Clinton neo-liberals ---here is the aging-in replacement------KAMALA HARRIS is of course being national media and Wall Street's new POPULIST 5% LEADER FOR THE 99% with Bernie, Gabbard, Ellison, and Elizabeth Warren. It is indeed KAMALA along with these NEW MORPHING CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL 'MARXISTS' that would have pushed both this UNITED NATIONS----ILO------SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE AND BASIC INCOME.

Kamala Harris is simply that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street player-----GREEK MEETS OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE FREEMASONS. She is married to a global Wall Street banker and is a grad of HOWARD UNIVERSITY ----tied to global IVY LEAGUE HARVARD university. She would not be that voice talking against Republicans BECAUSE she is FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET and so are the Republicans.


U.S. Senator Kamala Harris added a new video:

Senator Kamala Harris talks the GOP health care plan.


March 14 · These are the questions you need to be asking about Republicans’ health care plan.

Berniecrats Took Over the Democratic Party in California, and Provided a Blueprint for the Rest of the Nation

By Walker Bragman  |  January 11, 2017  |  2:32pm
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty


So, the question is----where will that $400 billion Singe Payer funding come?  The answer is of course WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATIONS has already installed this plan for global labor pool workers from developing third world nations and they will simply now extend this to US citizens.  Remember, these next two decades will see global labor pool workers flood our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---like Baltimore so US citizen workers will be that minority having to take the same kind of global labor pool health care plan.  Who will be those US citizen workers?  WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%---BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS.

The same global funding mechanism that has these few decades funded the global labor pool health insurance will now fund this AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SINGLE-PAYER and it will look NOTHING like US Medicare or Medicaid.



California Senate advances $400 billion single-payer health care bill — without a funding plan



Kate Scanlon Jun 2, 2017 5:00 pm


The California Senate approved a bill that would implement a single-payer health care system in the state without including a plan to cover the costs of the $400 billion proposal. The bill moves on to the state Assembly. (John Moore/Getty Images)


The California Senate approved a bill that would implement a single-payer health care system in the state without including a plan to cover the costs of the $400 billion proposal, according to the Los Angeles Times. SB562, the Healthy California Act, would replace California’s health insurance marketplace with a publicly funded health care system. The bill, if signed into law, would cost more than the state’s entire budget. Special: Joanna Gaines shocks fixer upper fans by announcing her resignation The Times reported that the “bare-bones” bill passed by the Senate does not contain a plan to pay for the cost of a single-payer system. The state Assembly will consider the bill next. State Sen. Ricardo Lara, who proposed the bill alongside his fellow Democrats, has argued that California should implement its own single-payer health care system. “Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate about the bill, the Times reported. Republican state Sen. Tom Berryhill told the Times that “we don’t have the money to pay for it.” “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag,” Berryhill said. Berryhill also said he doesn’t trust the government “to run our health system.” “What has the government ever done right?” he asked.
___________________________

I like this-----SURPRISINGLY CHEAP!----

Well, since preventative care only and wellness programs are about as cheap a health care model as one gets----yes it will be cheap. Forget that Americans paid for several decades into MEDICARE ---MEDICAID TRUSTS----forget we paid into SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY TRUSTS to assure 99% of citizens received the first world developed nation health care =====enough for all the 21st century-----GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% ARE GOING CHEAP1

CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA--NOW TRUMP----

Obama and Clinton neo-liberals gutted MEDICARE AND MEDICAID of funding back in 2010=====Trump will gut even more. Remember we have that $20 trillion national debt from US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD during these several years that sent our health trusts to JUNK BOND status. Who pushed all that fraud? Our local and state city councils and state assemblies---who failed to protect WE THE PEOPLE against those US Treasury bond and state bond frauds? Our state attorney's offices and our city attorneys----FROSH AND MARILYN MOSBY----or in California it was KAMALA HARRIS AND their city attorneys.

WE HAVE THAT 5% TO THE 1% ACROSS ALL POPULATION GROUPS THAT NEED TO GO----OUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD HAVE EDUCATED SINCE THE 1990S ALL THIS WAS MOVING FORWARD.

WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% have paid trillions of dollars in payroll taxes-----we have paid trillions of dollars in Social Security Disability taxes ---so yes the right wing Republicans are laughing all the way to being FAR-RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS.



MattBruenig | Politics

California’s Surprisingly Cheap Single Payer Plan



There is coverage today of a new report from the California Senate Appropriations committee estimating the budgetary implications of a proposed single payer health plan for the state (Sacramento Bee, LA Times, Vox). I’ve not yet been able to access the report directly, but the coverage of it is pretty encouraging. After the implementation of single payer, the report says, health expenditures in the state of California would total $400 billion per year, or 15 percent of the state’s GDP. This is 3 percentage points lower than the share of GDP the US overall spends on health care. The reports indicate that, currently, government spending on health care in California is around $200 billion and employer spending on health care is between $100 billion and $150 billion. There is no indication of how much individuals currently spend on top of employers and governments on individual premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Nonetheless, net of current government spending ($200 billion) and employer spending ($100-$150 billion), the single-payer plan requires an additional $50 to $100 billion of spending, or 1.9% to 3.8% of CA GDP. For that extra 1.9% to 3.8% of GDP: The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles. That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care. Of course, there are challenges to implementing single payer on the state level. States have to deal with all sorts of federal laws like ERISA that could disrupt their plans. States have to hope the federal government will chip in the share they currently contribute to the state’s health care sector. States have to worry about rich people leaving to avoid tax to some degree. And states have to worry about what will happen during a recession when the state’s budget contracts in ways the federal government’s budget does not. But if the plan would work like this report says it does and at the cost this report says it does, it is a no-brainer.

ISN'T AN ECONOMIC CRASH COMING WITH CALIFORNIA TIED HEAVILY TO STATE MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT FRAUD?  ABSOLUTELY!

______________________________
If we are going to allow GLOBAL TRADE ORGANIZATION/WORLD BANK/IMF/AND UNITED NATIONS write our US policies as a global corporate tribunal controlling CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---NOW TRUMP-----we may as well go to that site to find out to where our US Education policies are MOVING FORWARD------Trump will move forward the same CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA Race to the Top COMMONER CORE.

Until we can stop and reverse the damage of these few decades by GETTING RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS this will be to where we go to understand the enemy's education policy plans. Far-right wing global banking does not want any education for global 99% except just enough vocational training to do a job................Race to the Top and Obama's higher education reforms for our degrees and funding did that.

The people leading these PROTESTS AND MARCHES AGAINST TRUMP ARE THESE SAME GLOBAL UNITED NATIONS PLAYERS knowing Trump is far-right Libertarian Marxist just like Clinton neo-liberals --think global women and Muslims want the US to look like a third world developing nation from which they are trying to escape? Of course not---these United Nations leaders are those global 1% and their 2% creating extreme wealth and extreme poverty now MOVING FORWARD IN US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

All of the YOUTH ADVOCACY GROUPS in our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---like Baltimore are tied to these global Wall Street TRADE/BANKING/UNITED NATIONS' groups. This is why we shout that in our US cities all corporate groups tied to YOUTH JOB TRAINING-----YOUTH EMPOWERMENT----YOUTH LEADERSHIP are all tied by those pesky 5% to the 1% to UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL EDUCATION FIRST INITIATIVE------driven by CLINTON INITIATIVE/WORLD BANK/IMF----

Baltimore's BALTIMORE EDUCATION COALITION----and all youth organizations are those captured GLOBAL WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' ORGANIZATIONS. Oakland CA has its Oakland global Wall Street Development tied to those global IVY LEAGUE hedge funds STANFORD and BERKELEY universities just as Baltimore has global JOHNS HOPKINS and our University of Maryland College Park trying really, really hard to be that global IVY LEAGUE state university like BERKLEY......when we want to stop and reverse all this global Wall Street capture----it is these local institutions a REAL left social progressive would be fighting----


  About About An Initiative of the SG Steering Committee Members Group of Champion Countries Secretariat Youth Advocacy Group


About the Global Education First Initiative

The United Nations Secretary-General launched the five-year Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in September 2012 to accelerate progress towards the Education for All goals and the education-related Millennium Development Goals. The Initiative aims to: Rally together a broad spectrum of actors for the final push to 2015; Put quality, relevant and transformative education at the heart of the social, political and development agendas; Generate additional and sufficient funding for education through sustained global advocacy efforts.


THE INITIATIVE'S THREE PRIORITIES

HOW THE INITIATIVE OPERATES



Partners include UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, UN Special Envoy for Global Education, World Bank, Global Partnership for Education, Educate A Child, Education International, Global Campaign for Education as well as philanthropic and business institutions. GEFI’s Steering Committee is a high-level body that provides strategic direction and guidance to the Secretary-General to ensure visibility and success of the Initiative. The UN Secretary-General invited a group of Member States to serve as ‘Champion Countries’ for GEFI. Their role is to catalyze political and financial support for education among governments. The Youth Advocacy Group (YAG), comprised of young people from around the world, promotes the priorities of youth and GEFI activities and messages.  As the GEFI Secretariat, UNESCO provides overall support to the Initiative. 

“Without universal education, in other words, winning the war against illiteracy and ignorance, we cannot also win the war against disease, squalor and unemployment. Without universal and high standard education we can only go so far but not far enough in breaking the cycle of poverty.” – Gordon Brown, UN Special Envoy for Global Education THE WAY FORWARD

Is that the UK GORDON BROWN--THE RAGING GLOBAL BANKING NEO-LIBERAL CAPTURING THE UK LABOUR PARTY?

Within the global development landscape of acceleration efforts towards 2015 and post 2015 agenda setting, GEFI  is guided by a two-year strategic plan and action framework to:  Advocate for a broader and more ambitious vision for education at the core of the post 2015 agenda; Broaden outreach and engagement on global citizenship education with a focus on learning and teaching for sustainable development; and Advocate for closing the financing gap in education and for smarter funds allocation to reach the populations most in need, especially those in emergency situations.

We have to keep the pressure on -- because investing in education is the single best way to beat poverty, to drive growth, and to promote more inclusive and peaceful societies. There’s no better way, and that’s what this Initiative is about!” – Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director-General and Executive Secretary of the GEFI High-Level Steering

____________________________________

When the UNITED NATIONS and its global education NGOs pretend to be installing education structures globally because EDUCATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT----they are installing these same RACE TO THE TOP structures installed by OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ----these education structures are designed ONLY to identify the exceptional students to be tracked to high-paying employment while a select percentage of a nation's citizens are trained in vocational employment. We notice here in the US more and more students are being marginalized even from public school structures----those able to enter a public school ----are being educated the same as a student in Ghana---as Myanmar-----as Costa Rica.

GLOBAL WALL STREET NEEDS JUST ENOUGH TRAINED GLOBAL LABOR POOL TO COME TO US TO SIDELINE US CITIZENS IN JOBS, JOBS, JOBS----

Since consumption is moving to only the global 1% and their 2% ---and since more and more jobs are robotic-----there will be no need to educate a vast majority of any nations' citizens---that is MOVING FORWARD RACE TO THE TOP.


'CINCINNATI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Convergys Corporation (NYSE: CVG), a global leader in customer management, today announced a partnership with the United Nations to advance its 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Convergys and its team around the globe will focus on improving access to lifelong learning, as well as job creation for under-skilled populations in communities in which the company operates'.

These are the executive jobs many of today's 5% to the 1% have---thinking they are the WINNERS. The next few decades will see all these global structures installed in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and then ---NO NEED FOR ALL THOSE 5%------this stage of MOVING FORWARD leads to only global 1% and their 2% having employment at high-end wages----and not too soon after these few decades those 2% will disappear.


Convergys Partners with the United Nations to Advance Global Education and Employment


Will focus efforts on advancing UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 and Goal 8 by promoting lifelong learning opportunities and employment


October 03, 2016 11:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time CINCINNATI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Convergys Corporation (NYSE: CVG), a global leader in customer management, today announced a partnership with the United Nations to advance its 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Convergys and its team around the globe will focus on improving access to lifelong learning, as well as job creation for under-skilled populations in communities in which the company operates.

“ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”  As part of the United Nations effort, companies are invited to target specific goals which best align with their corporate social responsibility strategies.


Convergys will work to advance Goal 4: Quality Education to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all,” and Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, which strives to “promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all.” Convergys chose these goals as they directly connect to the company’s three corporate social responsibility (CSR) pillars: workforce preparedness, health and wellness, and stability. “As a global company, with more than 130,000 employees in 32 countries, we are proud to partner with the United Nations to advance efforts to promote lifelong learning and employment,” said Convergys CEO Andrea Ayers. “As an organization with a world-wide presence, we have a unique vantage point and see first-hand how lack of educational and employment opportunities contribute to inequality. We believe that, as a company and individuals, we can make a difference. Collaborating with the United Nations allows us to put two of our company values into action – Do the Right Thing and Serve the Community. It is also an example of the crucial role public-private partnerships can play in changing communities in an impactful and sustainable way. ” Convergys is also proud to partner with Points of Light, the largest organization in the world dedicated to volunteer service, to expand and develop volunteer opportunities for the benefit of its employees and the community at large. Points of Light has helped the company launch two projects to date, with more expected in future months. “Through our partnership, we have connected Convergys with innovative volunteer organizations that are pioneering new ways to grow the number of volunteers and the impact of the work they do,” said Jonathas Barreto, Senior Director, Global at Points of Light. “We believe that business will be a game-changer in the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals and this initiative of Convergys’s is an example of the active role that companies are playing to support the post-2015 development agenda.” In the Philippines, Hands On Manila, an affiliate of Points of Light that helps mobilize volunteers to work on sustainable development projects, created an exclusive volunteer opportunity for Convergys employees. Volunteers help students obtain a graduation certificate through the Alternative Learning System, a Philippine government program that provides basic education options for those who have dropped out or cannot access formal education in schools. In El Salvador and Nicaragua, Convergys is also partnering with another Points of Light affiliate, Glasswing International. Volunteers from two sites are actively participating in “English for Tomorrow,” a program in which employee volunteers use tutoring sessions to become positive role models for students, while helping to reinforce English and customer service skills. The goal of each of these volunteer efforts is to provide learning and employment opportunities that can significantly exceed the minimum wage and starts a career path towards a better future.

About Convergys

Convergys delivers consistent, quality customer experiences in 58 languages and from more than 150 locations around the globe. We partner with our clients to improve customer loyalty, reduce costs, and generate revenue through an extensive portfolio of capabilities, including customer care, analytics, tech support, collections, home agent, and end-to-end selling. We are committed to delighting our clients and their customers, delivering value to our shareholders, and creating opportunities for our talented, caring employees, 130,000-strong in 32 countries around the world. Visit convergys.com to learn more about us.

Contacts Convergys Corporation
Brooke Beiting, +1-513-784-4951
Senior Specialist of Communications