Alfred Woody's Kewl Blog [ 椼森 ]: Jan 28, 2014

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

War is a BANKSTER Racket

most people can’t distinguish between govt propaganda that declare wars as “bringing democracy” to countries versus the truth that wars are a bankster-controlled racket designed to steal resources and make bankers filthy rich. highly decorated army generals have written books to expose the profit-driven reasons for war worldwide.

James Turk: We’re Living Within A Money Bubble of Epic Proportion

Full description and comments:http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast…

James Turk believes the time we live in now will be studied by future historians for generations to come. Just as we today marvel at the collective madness that resulted in the South Sea and Dutch tulip manias, our age will be known as the era when society lost sight of what money really is.And as result, the wrong kinds of wealth — today, that’s mostly financial assets — are valued and pursued. And just like those bubbles from centuries ago, when the current asset boom goes bust, the value of paper wealth will vaporize.In contrast, those holding tangible productive assets or real money will fare much better on a relative basis.James and co-author John Rubino (of DollarCollapse.com) have recently published a new book covering the details of this prediction called The Money Bubble: What To Do Before It Pops. Within it, they delve into the reasons for why the world is destined for what Ludwig von Mises termed a “crack up boom”:

ad more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/james-turk-were-living-within-a-money-bubble-of-epic-proportion/#R5j0aPj1tQq8BUZZ.99

Ukraine borrows $2 billion from Moscow, signals bailout on track

Pro-European integration protesters wearing masks depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich joke during a rally in Independence square in Kiev December 22, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Marko Djurica/Files

(Reuters) - Ukraine is borrowing another $2 billion from Russia on the same terms as a $3 billion Eurobond sold in December, in a sign that Moscow is pushing on with a $15 billion bailout despite concern about violence at anti-government protests in Kiev.
In a geopolitical battle with the European Union after Ukraine spurned a trade pact with the 28-state bloc, Russia agreed on credits and cheaper gas for Kiev in December to help its fellow former Soviet republic meet huge debt payments.
The deal brought a breathing space for the government but the protests have since spiralled into violent unrest in the capital and other cities, forcing President Viktor Yanukovich into talks with opponents who mistrust Moscow.
The Ukrainian government said in a statement on Monday it was issuing $2 billion in Eurobonds to Russia on the same terms as in December, bringing the total amount borrowed - over two years at an interest rate of 5 percent - to $5 billion.
Financial analysts said the statement sought to signal that all is well with the bailout, intended to help Kiev cover external debt repayments of $8 billion this year and boost depleted central bank reserves.
"This is a kind of verbal intervention to partially or completely calm people," said Oleksandr Valchishen of InvestCapital Ukraine, "to appease business and people who could move a lot of money, put pressure on the hryvnia."
Olena Belan, of Dragon Capital, said: "Russia is continuing to support Ukraine because this was the agreement."
In Moscow, the Kremlin and Finance Ministry did not immediately comment. But, signalling Russia is not having second thoughts about the bailout, a government source said: "The help will be extended."
Another government official said, however, it was not clear when Moscow would make the purchase of the further $2 billion.
Underlining that the bailout is as much as political decision as a financial move, the source said: "It's not the Finance Ministry's decision. It is the Kremlin's decision."
"BROTHERLY LOVE"
President Vladimir Putin said in December the bailout was an act of brotherly love for Russia's fellow Slavs in Ukraine. He denied it was a way to keep Ukraine out of the EU's clutches in a tug-of-war over the country of 46 million which is a large trading market and is rich in mineral resources.
Russia regards Ukraine as part of its traditional sphere of influence and the deal was widely seen in Moscow as a victory for Putin that kept Kiev in its orbit.
Since then at least six people have been killed in clashes, according to the prosecutor's office and medics, and the crisis has deepened tension between Russia and the West.
Uncertainty about the fate of the Ukrainian government has mounted because Yanukovich has offered important posts to the opposition, including the role of prime minister.
The thought of the opposition joining the government in Kiev is alarming for Russia because its leaders say they would "take the country into the European Union".
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed concern last week that the situation in Kiev was spinning out of control and warned European governments not to meddle in Ukraine.
Russian business daily Vedomosti quoted an unnamed Russian official as saying Moscow would "review the situation" if the political risks in Ukraine grew.
But Putin has said nothing in public of the violence - Russia's options are limited and Vedomosti's source said there had been no discussion of halting credits to Kiev.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, told Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda last week that Moscow was watching events closely and sometimes with pain but added: "Interfering in (Ukraine's) internal affairs is for us unacceptable."
A presidential aide, Yuri Ushakov, said contacts with the Ukrainian government were continuing at the top level but declined to give details.
(Additional reporting by Lidia Kelly and Jason Bush in Moscow; Writing by Timothy Heritage; Editing by Douglas Busvine and Alison Williams)

FILED UNDER:

Economy

The Mises View: “Problems with the CPI” | Peter G. Klein

Peter G. Klein answers a viewer’s question, and discusses the growing evidence of asset price inflation. Klein is the Mises Institute’s Executive Director and Carl Menger Research Fellow. For more information, visit the Mises Institute online at mises.org. Submit a question via twitter @MisesView

SUBSCRIBE (It’s FREE!) to “Finance and Liberty” for more interviews and financial insight: http://bit.ly/Subscription-Link

FINANCE AND LIBERTY:
Website: http://FinanceAndLiberty.com
Like us on Facebook: http://fb.com/FinanceAndLiberty
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Finance_Liberty
Google Plus: http://Gplus.to/FinanceLiberty

This video was originally published on December 6, 2013 and licensed under Creative Commons:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b…
Link to original video: http://youtu.be/uD0fQBET3Rg

REALIST NEWS – Market Crash Coming Soon – China Trust about to default – JPM Gold

Why we should be talking about “Natural Capital”

Our politicians, bankers, and corporations all tell us that we must “grow the economy” or else DIE. But that economy is destroying our planet. A concept called “natural capital” has arisen to combat just that. The Resident (aka Lori Harfenist) discusses. Follow The Resident at http://www.twitter.com/TheResident

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

Here's A Horrifying Picture Of What Unemployment Can Do To You

It's been more than three decades since such a large percentage of Americans were out of work and not even looking, according to government numbers.
That's a problem for the economy as a whole, but it's an even bigger issue for the people actually struggling without work. Some people, known as the long-term unemployed, are even going six months or more without picking up a paycheck.
All of this has profound consequences for those personally affected by the unemployment crisis. But just what happens to the body under the stress?
(See full-size image here.)

Infographic by Troy Dunham for The Huffington Post.
Here are some resources for those who need help dealing with unemployment:
My Unemployment Resource helps the unemployed attain free forms and information.
Bankrate has advice on everything from COBRA to stock options.
Facts About Unemployment Insurance from the Iowa Workforce Development.
The Unemployment Handbook has advice for job seekers, an unemployment forum and a list of state unemployment offices.

RBS faces £8bn in full year losses

RBS boss Ross McEwan: "These losses relate to pre-crash times"

Big Banking

RBS may face full-year losses of up to £8bn, after the bank said it needed another £3.1bn for claims relating to the financial crisis.

Shares in the 80%-taxpayer-owned bank dropped 3% on the news.
RBS boss Ross McEwan said: "The scale of the bad decisions during that period [the financial crisis] means that some problems are still just emerging."
RBS said its executive committee would not receive a bonus for 2013, Mr McEwan has waived his bonus for 2013-14.
RBS said on Monday the £3.1bn it planned to set aside would be used to settle claims relating to mortgage products, PPI claims and interest rate hedging.
Surprise It would allocate:

£1.9bn to pay for fines and damages relating to mis-selling mortgage bonds in the US, as well as other penalties relating to market manipulation
£650m of losses for mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI)
£500m of losses for compensating small businesses who were wrongly sold interest rate hedging products
The bank also said there would be £4.5bn of further losses on bad loans and investments
It suggested there could be unspecified further losses from selling off bad assets

RBS chairman Philip Hampton said: "RBS did suffer more than most banks in the crisis and these charges today represent an extra clearing-up of the mess that was created in the bank in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2008."

“Start Quote

For what it's worth, a number of investors and politicians have recently said to me they think it is a wholly naive hope that we will ever get all our money back”

Robert Peston Business editor

Read more from Robert

The announcement of the new provisions came near the end of share dealing in London.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: "It's an absolutely shocking story that the British taxpayers are still paying for the excesses of this bank in the boom period before it collapsed."
Ian Gordon, from Investec Securities, said the news was not entirely unexpected, but the amounts involved were.
"Some of this is a pull forward of future bad news and some of this is additional," Mr Gordon said.
"Most of the items aren't surprising, but the amounts are at or above the top end of expectations."
The cumulative amount set aside to cover the mis-selling of PPI, payment protection insurance, alone, is now £3.1bn, said RBS.
RBS, has also, in common with most of its rivals, been fined for fixing the key Libor interest rate and has suspended traders amid an investigation into alleged rigging of the foreign exchange markets.
'Repayment unlikely' The BBC learned earlier this month that general discussions about bonuses had taken place with shareholders, including UK Financial Investments, the body that manages the government's shareholding in the bank.
But, in an interview with the BBC on Monday, RBS chief executive Ross McEwan explained why the most senior executives would not be receiving bonuses this year.
"This is about leadership," he said. "When you look at what we're having to put aside for past activity regarding litigation and conduct, I said to the team, 'I am sorry, I just cannot justify the payment of a bonus.'"
He added most of the current leadership had nothing to do with past wrongdoing, but said they needed to "set the standards".
But Mr McEwan said that when it came to paying 200% bonuses to attract and keep talented staff, "We need to make sure that, whatever the market does, we are in a position to follow it.
"We are not the leaders on pay, we just need to stay within touching distance of those we have to compete with to get the talent."
The controversy over bank bonuses flared up in Parliament earlier this month, with Labour demanding Chancellor George Osborne block any attempt by RBS to pay bonuses of up to double its bankers' annual salary.
In 2008, the government bailed out RBS with £46bn of public funds, and now owns just over 80% of the giant bank.
Since then, the bank's share price has tumbled to less than one-third the price the government paid for it.
There are questions over whether the government will be able to recoup that money.
BBC business editor Robert Peston said that investors and politicians had told him they think it is unlikely taxpayers will get all their money back.

Anton Casey fired and flees Singapore in economy class over "poor people" comments

A British businessman who mocked the poor has fled Singapore after receiving death threats and losing his job as a wealth fund manager.
Anton Casey caused an uproar in the country after posting a series of abusive photographs on Facebook where he called a local taxi driver a "retard" and referred to commuters as "the poor".
The former City stockbroker was last seen on Friday morning boarding a Singapore Airlines flight en route to Perth, Australia, with his wife, a former Miss Singapore and his five-year old son in economy class.
In an email to Singapore national daily The Straits Times, Casey said he hopes to make amends with the people of Singapore and return to the country one day, which he still considers his home.
He added: "I hope the people of Singapore will allow me to volunteer my time and resources to community projects in order to make amends for my mistakes.
"I also hope the people of Singapore, my adopted home, will forgive me over time… Singapore is our home, and we hope to return when we feel safe."
He described the incident as "the worst mistake of my life".
Outlook: Expat who mocked the poor in Singapore is by no means unique
Casey's employer, Crossinvest Asia, has also announced it has "parted ways" with the banker with immediate after it launched an internal investigation over his inappropriate remarks.

Anton Casey has apologised after causing an uproar in Singapore where he mocked "poor people" and a taxi driver
In a statement, the firm said:" The online comments made by Mr Casey do not represent the culture that we have built over many years. Accordingly, Crossinvest Asia and Mr Casey have parted ways with immediate effect."
Crossinvest acknowledged that Casey's comments had caused "great distress among Singaporeans", who blasted his behaviour on social media and called for his immediate deportation.
Porsche-driving Casey had spent 12 years in the country. His wife and son are Singapore citizens.
Last week, the financier issued a separate statement where he apologised for his "poor judgement" and described Singapore as a "wonderful country" after the photographs where he mocked locals went viral.
British expat banker Anton Casey causes uproar in Singapore after mocking 'poor people' calling a taxi driver a 'retard'
In one post, Casey shared a picture of his son sitting on a train on Facebook with the caption: "Daddy, where is your car & who are all these poor people?"
Another photo showed the five-year-old in his Porsche, with an equally offensive caption: "Ahhhh reunited with my baby. Normal service can resume, once I have washed the stench of public transport off me."
In a separate Facebook post, Casey insulted a local cabbie for wearing a towel on his lap and hand warmers while driving.
He added: "Today's cabbie retard award goes to...Mr Arm Warmers, stripy mittens & towel on the lap man....After all, it's only 37c outside."
He tried to change his Facebook name to Anson Casey but ultimately deactivated the account to stop the abuse.

Working Age Americans are the Majority of People on Food Stamps for the First Time

When people ask me to describe the state of the U.S. economy, what I always say is that it can best characterized as an ongoing state-sanctioned theft. This theft consists of the 0.01% oligarch class intentionally leveraging a corrupt monetary and political system in order to funnel all of the wealth of the non-oligarch rich and middle-class upward to them. The underclasses are kept quiet and in-line via food stamps and other forms of so-called “welfare.”
In reality, I have frequently maintained that food stamps are actually corporate welfare and that the stock market represents food stamps for the 1%. The entire economy is a gigantic bait and switch in which a handful of people rape and pillage everyone else.
With unemployment and GDP statistics hopelessly manipulated, we must look at other data points in order to gain an understanding of how things really stand. Data related to food stamp rolls is one way to gain real insight into the true state of the U.S. economy.
In an excellent article from the Associate Press, we learn several things.

For the first time ever, working-age people now make up the majority in U.S. households that rely on food stamps.
Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training.
By education, about 28 percent of food stamp households are headed by a person with at least some college training, up from 8 percent in 1980.

China’s central bank is now the latest to roll out capital controls

Forbes Reports:

In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers. There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.
The specific reason given—“system maintenance” at the central bank—is preposterous. It is not credible that during the highest usage period in the year—the weeklong Lunar New Year holiday beginning January 31—the central bank would schedule an upgrade and shut down cash transfers.
A better explanation is that the country’s banking system is running dry. Yes, there is an increased need for money in the run-up to and during the Lunar New Year holiday, but that is only a small factor. After all, central bank officials knew this spike in demand was coming—it occurs every year at this time—and a core function of central banks is to manage seasonal liquidity fluctuations. Moreover, the holiday has not started yet, and the PBOC, as that institution is known, could have added more liquidity to meet cash needs.

Lloyds facing huge compensation bill over cashpoint crash which left hundreds of thousands unable to use debit cards

Two of seven servers went down at Lloyds Banking Group, which has 30million customers at Lloyds, TSB, Halifax and Bank of Scotland
Quarter of TSB users and thousands at Lloyds couldn't access money
Customers raged on Twitter at being unable to pay for inexpensive items
Bank tells MailOnline that it would ensure customers 'are not out of pocket'

By Claire Ellicott and Martin Robinson

Outrage: A quarter of TSB customers could not use their cards after two of the company's seven servers failed

Lloyds Banking Group could face a huge compensation bill after hundreds of thousands of customers were left unable to use debit cards and 7,000 cashpoints yesterday as the result of a computer glitch.
The largest retail bank in the UK, which has 22million customers, has apologised for the widespread disruption – the latest in a series of IT problems to hit UK banks in recent years.
It said debit card transactions were affected between 3pm and 6pm yesterday, while Lloyds, TSB, Halifax and Bank of Scotland customers suffered ATM problems for four and a half hours.
A spokesman told MailOnline today it would not 'leave customers out of pocket' and would consider compensation claims on a 'case-by-case basis'.
The bank is also confident they were not hacked and it was a server error, although the exact problem is yet to be identified.
TSB said a quarter of its customers’ debit card transactions were affected after it suffered problems with two out of seven computer servers.
But despite this, there was no mention of problems on the bank’s website last night.
It has 4.6million customers and more than 630 branches. Furious customers last night took to Twitter to vent their frustration, forcing the bank’s chief executive, Paul Pester, to post an apology.
He said: ‘My apologies to TSB customers having problems with their cards.
'I’m working hard with my team now to try to fix the problems.’

In December, an estimated 750,000 Royal Bank of Scotland customers were unable to use their credit and debit cards for three hours following an IT glitch on one of the busiest shopping days of the year.
In 2012, a major IT failure locked many RBS, NatWest and Ulster Bank customers out of their accounts for several days.

Twitter users blasted the banking group as their inability to pay for low-cost items left them embarrassed

TSB, which split from Lloyds last year, issued a statement on Twitter saying: ‘We’re having issues with ATMs and debit cards at present.
‘We’re hoping to have this fixed shortly, apologies for inconvenience caused.’ Customers yesterday reported difficulties paying for goods in shops and getting money out of ATMs.
Leanne Seaward, 29, from Verwood in Dorset, said she found she had problems when she went to pay for her weekly supermarket shop.
‘It was a little embarrassing,’ she said. ‘I put my card in and it kept saying “transaction void”.
'I thought it was because I am in the process of switching banks, so assumed they might have closed my account without telling me. Luckily I had my husband with me so he was able to pay, but if I was getting petrol and on my own it could have been a completely different matter.’

Apology: Paul Pester, chief executive of TSB Bank, took to Twitter to apologise to angry account holders

On Twitter one TSB customer, Nicky Kate, wrote: ‘Really embarrassed to get my card declined while out shopping, never had any problems with Lloyds then they changed my account.’
Another, Hannah Smith, said: ‘I am a TSB customer with a Lloyds card still (like everyone else). And I’ve been embarrassed three times today re: card declined.’
TSB customer Essie Young wrote: ‘Could not buy my twins a birthday present today with TSB card.’
Mark Logan wrote: ‘Put petrol in then realised my Lloyds card was not working. Great service Lloyds. Left me right in it.’
TSB was launched in September 2013 and was formed from a number of Lloyds TSB branches in England and Wales, all branches of Cheltenham & Gloucester and the business of Lloyds TSB Scotland.
A bank spokesman said last night the problems had been fixed but added that some customers ‘may still experience a short delay making payments’ while the backlog of payments was processed.

Dr. Doom Scenario: It Looks Like 1914 Again. World War Coming.

Second Major Banking Crash Imminent : HSBC Bank

China halts transfers at Citi, other banks: report

By Michael Kitchen

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Citigroup Inc.'s C -0.02% China branches, and possibly other banks, have stopped all cash transfers for three days and all currency conversions from yuan for nine days, Forbes reported Sunday via an article by contributor Gordon Chang. Citi reportedly made the announcement in a notice on its web portal for Chinese customers, saying the move was a result of "system maintenance of People's Bank of China," a reason Forbes's Chang described as "preposterous." MarketWatch couldn't immediately confirm the report. Chang said the move was similar to action taken in June and December of last year. "In June, for instance, the central bank used the excuse of a 'system upgrade' to allow banks to shut down their ATMs and online banking platforms. As a result, they conserved cash and thereby avoided a nationwide meltdown," Chang wrote. See the Forbes item here .

Collapse! Get Your Money Out of the Banks RIGHT NOW!

Description:
HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals
Some HSBC customers have been prevented from withdrawing large amounts of cash because they could not provide evidence of why they wanted it, the BBC has learnt.
Bank blocking some customers from making large withdrawals without ‘evidence’ of spending need

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25…
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/…

5 Organizations That Gamed the System and Screwed the Public

Nobody likes being scammed. It turns you into a victim, it shakes the foundations of your inherent trust in your fellow man, and, most importantly, it usually involves relieving you of your precious money. That's your favorite stuff! But sometimes, when a scam is clever enough, you almost don't mind being ripped off. Sure, it still sucks that you're out some ramen funds, but you have to admire the ingenuity of the con, right? Now, what happens when those clever little scams are being run not by lovable street urchins with rigged card games, but gigantic heartless corporations?

#5. Goldman Sachs Takes America for a Ride on the Aluminum "Merry-Go-Round"

hero30/iStock/Getty Images

Think back to when life was all Pop Rocks and comic books and hilariously incorrect assumptions about sex. Your insatiable need for said Pop Rocks and comic books that inadvertently reinforced all that incorrect sex stuff -- it all required money. And earning that money, your allowance, required you to do chores, like clean your room. So you'd shuffle all your toys from the floor to the closet. Then your mom would discover that you'd transformed your closet into a barely contained plush-and-plastic avalanche, and you'd shuffle all your stuff underneath your bed. Then your mom would discover all the crap you'd crammed underneath your bed, and the process would repeat in a never-ending cycle of filth and lies. Such is childhood.

diego cervo/iStock/Getty Images
Except for the porn, which was crammed underneath your brother's bed.

For years, Goldman Sachs used the method we just described to ever so gently dry hump your wallet whenever you popped open a can of soda. We're talking about the aluminum trade, and over the past three years Goldman and their cohorts have managed to fleece American soda connoisseurs out of more than five billion dollars of hard-earned drink machine change.
First, Goldman bought out all the Detroit-area warehouses where bulk aluminum was stored. Then they effectively drove up the worldwide price of the metal by artificially increasing the wait times for aluminum orders more than tenfold. But they couldn't just perpetually stockpile the aluminum and let the prices climb ever higher, because there were regulations in place requiring them to ship a certain amount of it each day. So ship it they did ... to another warehouse. That was also owned by Goldman. From the closet, to the bed, to your stupid sister's room (fortune favors the bold), and back to the floor. Repeat. The price of aluminum went up, Goldman collected rent on it for the entire time they shuffled it among their many warehouses, and you eventually paid more for that can (via increased soda prices) -- win-win-lose!

Stockbyte/Stockbyte/Getty Images
"One for you, one for me. Two for you, one, two for me."

While the average cost to the consumer was miniscule -- only about a tenth of a cent per can -- the industry used so much aluminum that Goldman almost certainly built a Scrooge McDuck-style money bin with the profits. We're trying to muster up some outrage -- but honestly, who could stay mad at Goldman, with those dimples, and Sachs, with his puppy dog eyes. The little scamps!

#4. Mortgage Lenders Haunt Cash-Strapped Homeowners With Zombie Titles

Andy Dean/iStock/Getty Images

In the midst of the economic fallout that rained down after the U.S. housing H-bomb blew sky high in 2008, banks realized something: Foreclosures are hard. There were all those notifications to send to the homeowner, the legal red tape to work through to actually repossess the house, and then the actual auctioning off of the house -- that's a whole boatload of work, and work is work. You know what's much, much easier? Telling the homeowner you're going to foreclose, and then never following through with it.

Siraphol/iStock/Getty Images
In financial circles, this is known as "The Milton Strategy."

And thus, the zombie title was born.
See, rather than repossessing and selling off the homes of people who could no longer afford payments, mortgage lenders started telling people they were going to repossess their homes, and then muttered "psyche" under their breath with their fingers crossed. So the homeowners would clear out and find other places to live, only to be stalked by debt collectors -- in some cases even threatened with jail time -- for not paying fees or managing the upkeep on properties they thought they no longer owned. The offending banks, on the other hand, not only didn't have to swallow the costs of selling a house at drastically reduced rates, but also got to claim tax benefits and other financial compensation for a foreclosure that never really happened. Then, when lenders refused to take responsibility for the homes they never actually reclaimed, municipalities ended up shelling out taxpayer dollars to keep the abandoned houses from falling into disarray. And by "falling into disarray" we mean "friggin' exploding," which has happened to several of these "foreclosed" houses when the natural gas supply was left on. Zombies and explosions?

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Welcome to the exciting world of pseudo-legal mortgage fraud!

#3. Payday Lenders Use Native American Tribal Sovereignty to Dodge Interest Rate Restrictions

Eric Hood/iStock/Getty Images

You may recognize the term "payday loans" from the flashing neon sign in the window of that run-down gas station you pass on your way to work -- you know, the one that causes you to compulsively lock your doors every time you pass? In case you've never had the misfortune to find yourself tragically short on hooker money, a payday loan is a short-term loan designed to help those strapped for cash make it to their next check. The catch? A ridiculously high interest rate that helps ensure that the people the loans are targeted at -- the poor -- stay that way. Luckily, there are laws in place to make sure such operations can't charge overly exorbitant interest rates -- in New York, for example, the maximum allowed is 25 percent. But to some truly savvy lenders, there's an easy way to work around these limits in order to keep exploiting destitute Americans, and that's by exploiting destitute Native Americans.

Wikipedia
Because that's never backfired.

It works on the same principle that allows Native American tribes to erect an enormous casino right in the middle of a state where gambling is illegal. The tribes are immune to many state laws, especially pertaining to finance: It's sort of the consolation prize the white man gave them for coming in second in the genocide marathon. Well, payday lenders figured out that some financially struggling tribes just don't have the knack to run a decent casino (it takes a certain kind of person to schmooze with Tom Jones), so they began enticing the tribes into a new money-making endeavor: Internet payday loans.
Once the payday lender finances a new "tribal lending entity" under the tribe's name, they inherit the tribe's sovereign immunity, and they're free to ream borrowers with interest rates as high as 782 percent. So why don't state or federal officials crack down on these unfair lending practices? Well, some say it's high time to do just that, but it's not quite so cut-and-dry. Remember, the tribes that enter into these deals are not exactly rolling in the dough otherwise, so whichever side a lawmaker chooses, they're screwing someone. So the choice is really between screwing the other-American poor or screwing the Native American poor. And that, uh ... that is a choice that has not historically gone in the favor of the Native Americans.

Wrapping the ‘Precarious’ and ‘At-will’ labels on 150 million USA Workers

“Are Adjunct Professors the Fast-Food Workers of the Academic World?” Is this provocative, evocative, adversarial, or emblematic of an age of casino capitalism, corrupted Admin Class, and a see/ hear/speak no evil compliant groups of people who are in the 20 percent? Not One Percenters, for sure, these destroyers of community, of sanity, of democracy, culture, our futures, but still, VPs and provosts and HR personnel and Presidents and others in the pencil neck-data-software-bean counter class who make more than $120 K a year, and have with the flick of their mouse wrists, people’s lives in the balance.
Too bad they never meet punks like me at cocktail parties. Really. These people are either smug (easily defeated in any argument) or slithering toward the greasy little Eichmann brand of human (easily pushed into their racism and classism boxes). They see right through us, the ones on the front line, hustling, working our butts off, and, alas, paid like peons (and, that racist thing, peon, is how they divide and conquer us, some of us, wanna be bourgeois!). They may not recognize what it means to bear witness, but we sure as hell can make their days and cocktail hours unbearable.
I know it sounds harsh, tough, lone wolf-like, and even anti-education and anti-scholarly, but what do we have to lose? What?
These people are not our friends, our allies or our brethren. They exist on other planes of existence, and they are what keeps consumerism spinning and our hamster wheels greased.

I’ve said much of what follows in two articles and two comments (one, at theChronicle of Higher Education, is mine) at many conferences, in front of Prez’s and VPs and other honchos, on the streets, and in writing, here , too atDV. But I will let some fine adjunct say it verbatim below in one article, and let the Chronicle of Higher Education go into the part-time or adjunct bill of rights legislation put forward in California, that Jerry Brown “kill all teachers and all sanity” state.
There are all sorts of various movements around education, the failure we’ve built in for young people to even attempt to enjoy and absorb and participate in a real education, one where the bias and prejudice and old time religion are imploded with every sort of intellectual and political Claymore mine imaginable. I have students who do not like reading, who do not like thinking, who do not like trying and experimenting. I have students struggling to find themselves, to break out of the parents’ mold, to envision a new day. Most students want to be what the Media-Culture-Vanguard-Corporation-Software tells them to be.
We humble adjuncts are rising up like frozen mammoths, but that rising is in tandem with neoliberalism’s plagues, the disease of profit for a few, the sickness of community collapse, the pathogen of dumber and dumber and the more illogical after the greater illogical, this continuous stream of meaningless and meaningless phlegm; junk and consumption products like a solar shower . . . . Until, what is it we can give and do to build community, what can we do to survive multiple gunshot wounds to the soul and society and systems? Students would not even think of how to take the standard bearer and rip it free and point the standard into the force corporations, into the heart of the paving and building industries, into the brains of the polluters and miners and the mass of them. This is the community bill of rights, a city and county power to keep in check all profiteers, and to place the standards and regs WE envision through this home-rule model, a community bills of rights, that forces the pigs of profit to listen to our community standards for zero tolerance for pollution, zero tolerance for wrecking the landscapes, the water, air, food. Ya think?
We’re getting more stories about the failure of education from the students’ point of view and the adjunct faculty’s POV; however, this is the reality of 24/7, nano-attention spans: stories . . . and more of them . . . are stories that end up in the whirlpool of gigabyte nothingness and fluttering into cloud servers that float our histories into the stratosphere, into complete ionization, vanishing.
Here:
My comment, then another, then the story we are commenting on:

Whew, so much to comment on both around the article and some of the comments. This is not a difficult learning curve, however, for anyone working today in the USA. Anyone working in education, in any field, as a worker, laborer, professional, a PMC, AKA, professional managerial class individual, we know how precarious our lives are in a world where Social Security is attacked, unionizing is considered treason, health care for all paid for by our society is considered socialism, and where the backbone in our society is constantly attacked, eviscerated and pulverized by the vanguard, the financial felons and the mundane and complicit press/slash/media.
Current and past economic policies rammed down our collective throats by the One Percent and a good chunk of the 19 percent at the top of their feeding pool have brought us to the edge of this precipice: precarious work for the majority; youth disenfranchised through outsourcing, cutthroat-sourcing, and debt-futures; a continuous attack on communities, big and small, trying to build the safety nets of a society with 77 million baby boomers and 79 million millennials almost forced to face off in a dog-eat-dog world of fighting for the last good job in a pool of 1,000 applicants.
This is not an exceptional, powerful, worthy society, and so many people I work with, write about and teach know it, but they have been colonized by the spectacle and consumerism and a representative democracy that is run by a very few ethically-empty interlopers.
I’ve been teaching since 1983, at the college level. Teaching at four schools in while still a graduate student, in El Paso, and working part-time as a journalist and consultant and organizer and community activist. This was my foundation, when college was populated with, oh, around 30 percent part-time faculty or non-tenure track. Go 30 years into the future, now, and it’s 75 percent NTT and PT. This has been a project of neoliberalism, stupidity by our under-experienced, under-educated, undermining politicians. This project has been led by Administrators and HR folk and all these hangers on who have created a higher ed system of paper pushers-data hoarders-software lovers-technology fiends-anti-teacher/faculty leaders (sic).
Here we are, paying people with PhDs diddly squat; pushing youth into debt for barista jobs; gutting culture, threading reading abilities (AKA critical and participatory thinking), jettisoning history for a chance at meaningless apps for the even more meaningless IT-Digital Hells to Extinction.
So, fun stuff here trying to coalesce a very splintered, dichotomous rag-tag group of people, adjuncts, freeway fliers, migrant workers, or as Pablo Eisenberg calls us, “The Untouchables” . . . . in a caste system that has paid off for a few, including tenured faulty, on the backs of real education, the majority educators, and students . . . . Our collective futures are in the sewer.
So, those futurists and politicians and business class and corporate superstars in our respective states do not have the answers to these problems because they have not coalesced themselves around the people with the answers — educators, in the trenches, on the front lines, or, call us adjuncts.
We face a president who wants more college-educated youth, more community colleges doing these fantastic things, yet in a state like Washington (blue, the last time I checked the mainstream mush), well, we have anti-union Amazon and Boeing, and we have false labor stats about an improving economy and with that improvement (sic) less funding for the 34 state community and technical colleges, fewer students this fall than last fall, and so adjunct jobs are on the chopping block.
Continuous cycles of boom or bust do not make for a underpinning of success for two or five or even one generation out.
So here we are, with hyperbole, out-of-touch thinkers, in 2014, believing adjuncts in the million-plus do this because we are hobbyists, or have some fist-full of dollars buried in our backyards, or that belief people working fast-food jobs are not in need of living wages, or that all those health care workers and service workers are just “doing it as a summer job or while educating themselves in school.” We pay the real people nothing and the nothing people real bucks. Welcome, capitalism, free-wheeling markets, with steer wheels thrown out the window and blind pilots drinking away . . . .
This is a complicated picture, tied to many economic lies, and many failures by the political class, the lobbyists and the so-called leaders in our states who come aboard education boards and conferences with almost zero experience in this field. The solution to this might be rattling more than just the cages of capitalism. Maybe we need a reinvention of what work is, what duty is, and what value we place on the skills, trades and proclivities of people who actually build community away from the all-mighty profit margin and casino/slash/predatory free marketeering.
Paul Haeder
**********
It is good to see that there is at least some interest in the predicament adjuncts or (to use the euphemism) contingent faculty find themselves in, which is part of the predicament of higher education itself in declining Western civilization in the early 21st century. I won’t tell my life story, except to note that I walked away from an adjunct position that paid me $2,200 per course at best for four courses per semester after seven years at the institution; at one point I was teaching six philosophy courses spread out over three campuses. This after over a decade of bouncing from university to university to university, moving every year to three years, for over a decade before. I am now outside academia, still doing intellectual writing (building a small, home-based business while living very frugally on an inheritance and an investment), accepting my status as an outsider and preparing to let the chips fall where they may.
What we need is a national conversation on what we want the future of higher education to be, as well as how the people in it are going to be treated. Does American society really want an educated citizenry? Based on observation, I’d say No. Thinking people are not wanted by government because they can see through the BS spewed by the average member of the political class; nor are they wanted by corporations because they tend to ask questions about priorities and externalities. Thinking people don’t simply bow to authority. This may explain why the country has been gradually choking its own capacity to educate for as long as I can remember, turning public schools into obedience factories where teachers teach to the test; students come to college unprepared to do what used to be considered college-level work and graduate with five to six figures of student loan debt because they haven’t been taught the first thing about personal finance.
If the U.S. really wants an educated citizenry, institutions are going to have to pay for it. From what I can gather, adjuncts are slowly getting organized and preparing to fight a system that’s left them no alternative — although it’s bound to be slow and very precarious going as most of these people know they can be replaced on a whim and don’t want to be forced to become unemployment statistics.
Steven Yates

The California House of Representatives (sic), the bill, the politician Schakowsky:
H. R. 675
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES>
Ms. Schakowsky introduced the following bill; which was referred to the , and in addition to the Committees on, and, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL — Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013
To extend protections to part-time workers in the areas of employer-provided health insurance, family and medical leave, and pension plans.
The story:

An ‘Alarming Snapshot’ of Adjunct Labor”
By Syndi Dunn
When Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California,launched an online forum asking adjuncts to submit stories of their working conditions, contingent faculty greeted the effort with cautious applause. Finally, a national public figure was speaking up about higher education’s deepening labor gap. But would the talk lead to any substantive action?
Weeks after the forum’s submission deadline, that has yet to be determined. But today Democrats in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on which Miller serves, weighed in with a 36-page report detailing its findings.
The report draws on 845 stories submitted by adjuncts in 41 states over the course of six weeks. For the most part, it echoes news articles and other recent research on adjunct labor: “Contingent faculty often earn low salaries with few or no benefits, are forced to maintain difficult schedules to make ends meet, face unclear paths for career development, and enjoy little to no job security.”
But it also suggests a possible solution: passage of the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013, a bill introduced last February that would, among other things, extend Affordable Care Act coverage mandates and family and medical leave protections to part-timers. (The bill wasreferred to a House subcommittee in April and has languished since.)
This is just one idea, though, and there’s no indication that the bill will soon make headway. Miller said in a statement that he plans to work with fellow committee members, universities and colleges, and contingent faculty to posit more solutions to the “troubling issues.”
The report’s findings will help guide those discussions, said Julia Krahe, communications director for the education and workforce committee.
‘Just-In-Time Professor’
Miller said that the report—“The Just-in-Time Professor: A Staff Report Summarizing eForum Responses on the Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education”—is “in no way an exhaustive account of the circumstances of adjunct faculty,” but it raises “some serious concerns.” It pairs data gathered from the forum entries with anonymous quotes from the respondents.
The respondents, despite varied education and work backgrounds, submitted stories that were largely consistent, Krahe said. While some said their employment situation was better than others, citing union contracts or access to benefits, most shared the same difficulties.
Highlights from the findings include:
Contingent faculty often have low pay and few, if any, benefits. Of the 845 forum respondents, 166 supplied information on how much they are paid per course. Most respondents indicated they made between $2,000 and $3,500 per three-credit hour course. Of the 152 respondents who listed their estimated annual teaching salary, the average was $24,926.
More than 60 respondents reported salaries that would put them beneath the federal poverty line for a three-person family. Some respondents said they were on federal assistance programs like Medicaid or food stamps. One added: “During the time I taught at the community college, I earned so little that I sold my plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for [my child’s] daycare costs.”
On top of low pay, 75 percent of the respondents who discussed the topic said they did not receive benefits—either because their employer didn’t offer them or because they were otherwise ineligible. One adjunct wrote: “The health care plan that I could buy into costs more than my take-home pay on even a good year. My retirement plan is to work until they bury me.”
Most respondents teach several courses per semester and travel among several institutions. Nearly half of the adjuncts who specified their course load taught either two or three three-credit-hour courses per semester. But because some respondents took on many additional courses, the average course load is just over three.
Those instructors are also teaching at multiple universities at a time. Of respondents who gave information about the number of schools they served, 48 percent taught at two institutions, 27 percent taught at three, and 13 percent taught at four or more. Most identified themselves as “freeway flyers.” One respondent said: “My commute at the highest point was 900 miles per week; at the lowest it was only 550 miles per week.”
Adjuncts lack job security and predictable schedules. 95 percent of respondents who spoke on the matter said they had no job stability and did not know whether they would be teaching courses from one semester to the next. Furthermore, some adjuncts said they often find out if they have a course just days before the semester begins.
More than 100 respondents said they have never had sufficient time to prepare for their courses. One wrote: “I taught four courses in the fall, but was not told until the day before spring semester started that I wouldn’t have any classes for the spring. I was unemployed with no notice.”
Adjuncts report receiving little professional support.Several problems were cited frequently: a lack of administrative support, difficulty securing copies of required textbooks and students’ email addresses, limited access to professional-development courses, and inability to participate in departmental meetings.
One adjunct recalled: “Although I’ve been at my … very decent university job for the past 15 years, a tenured professor asked me, ‘So, you’re teaching for us this semester?’ Why am I not part of this ‘us’ after so much dedicated teaching, year after year?
- See more at: CHE.
This is a good piece, quick, to the jugular, fine, refined, easy to swallow, dear public!

When Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, launched an online forum asking adjuncts to submit stories of their working conditions, contingent faculty greeted the effort with cautious applause. Finally, a national public figure was speaking up about higher education’s deepening labor gap. But would the talk lead to any substantive action?
Weeks after the forum’s submission deadline, that has yet to be determined. But today Democrats in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on which Miller serves, weighed in with a 36-page report detailing its findings.
The report draws on 845 stories submitted by adjuncts in 41 states over the course of six weeks. For the most part, it echoes news articles and other recent research on adjunct labor: “Contingent faculty often earn low salaries with few or no benefits, are forced to maintain difficult schedules to make ends meet, face unclear paths for career development, and enjoy little to no job security.”
But it also suggests a possible solution: passage of the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013, a bill introduced last February that would, among other things, extend Affordable Care Act coverage mandates and family and medical leave protections to part-timers. (The bill was referred to a House subcommittee in April and has languished since.)
This is just one idea, though, and there’s no indication that the bill will soon make headway. Miller said in a statement that he plans to work with fellow committee members, universities and colleges, and contingent faculty to posit more solutions to the “troubling issues.”
The report’s findings will help guide those discussions, said Julia Krahe, communications director for the education and workforce committee.
‘Just-In-Time Professor’
Miller said that the report—“The Just-in-Time Professor: A Staff Report Summarizing eForum Responses on the Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education”—is “in no way an exhaustive account of the circumstances of adjunct faculty,” but it raises “some serious concerns.” It pairs data gathered from the forum entries with anonymous quotes from the respondents.
The respondents, despite varied education and work backgrounds, submitted stories that were largely consistent, Krahe said. While some said their employment situation was better than others, citing union contracts or access to benefits, most shared the same difficulties.
Highlights from the findings include:
Contingent faculty often have low pay and few, if any, benefits. Of the 845 forum respondents, 166 supplied information on how much they are paid per course. Most respondents indicated they made between $2,000 and $3,500 per three-credit hour course. Of the 152 respondents who listed their estimated annual teaching salary, the average was $24,926.
More than 60 respondents reported salaries that would put them beneath the federal poverty line for a three-person family. Some respondents said they were on federal assistance programs like Medicaid or food stamps. One added: “During the time I taught at the community college, I earned so little that I sold my plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for [my child’s] daycare costs.”
On top of low pay, 75 percent of the respondents who discussed the topic said they did not receive benefits—either because their employer didn’t offer them or because they were otherwise ineligible. One adjunct wrote: “The health care plan that I could buy into costs more than my take-home pay on even a good year. My retirement plan is to work until they bury me.”
Most respondents teach several courses per semester and travel among several institutions. Nearly half of the adjuncts who specified their course load taught either two or three three-credit-hour courses per semester. But because some respondents took on many additional courses, the average course load is just over three.
Those instructors are also teaching at multiple universities at a time. Of respondents who gave information about the number of schools they served, 48 percent taught at two institutions, 27 percent taught at three, and 13 percent taught at four or more. Most identified themselves as “freeway flyers.” One respondent said: “My commute at the highest point was 900 miles per week; at the lowest it was only 550 miles per week.”
Adjuncts lack job security and predictable schedules. 95 percent of respondents who spoke on the matter said they had no job stability and did not know whether they would be teaching courses from one semester to the next. Furthermore, some adjuncts said they often find out if they have a course just days before the semester begins.
More than 100 respondents said they have never had sufficient time to prepare for their courses. One wrote: “I taught four courses in the fall, but was not told until the day before spring semester started that I wouldn’t have any classes for the spring. I was unemployed with no notice.”
Adjuncts report receiving little professional support. Several problems were cited frequently: a lack of administrative support, difficulty securing copies of required textbooks and students’ email addresses, limited access to professional-development courses, and inability to participate in departmental meetings.
One adjunct recalled: “Although I’ve been at my … very decent university job for the past 15 years, a tenured professor asked me, ‘So, you’re teaching for us this semester?’ Why am I not part of this ‘us’ after so much dedicated teaching, year after year?
- See more at: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/292-an-alarming-snapshot-of-adjunct-labor#sthash.l9hpvZp0.dpuf

When Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, launched an online forum asking adjuncts to submit stories of their working conditions, contingent faculty greeted the effort with cautious applause. Finally, a national public figure was speaking up about higher education’s deepening labor gap. But would the talk lead to any substantive action?
Weeks after the forum’s submission deadline, that has yet to be determined. But today Democrats in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on which Miller serves, weighed in with a 36-page report detailing its findings.
The report draws on 845 stories submitted by adjuncts in 41 states over the course of six weeks. For the most part, it echoes news articles and other recent research on adjunct labor: “Contingent faculty often earn low salaries with few or no benefits, are forced to maintain difficult schedules to make ends meet, face unclear paths for career development, and enjoy little to no job security.”
But it also suggests a possible solution: passage of the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013, a bill introduced last February that would, among other things, extend Affordable Care Act coverage mandates and family and medical leave protections to part-timers. (The bill was referred to a House subcommittee in April and has languished since.)
This is just one idea, though, and there’s no indication that the bill will soon make headway. Miller said in a statement that he plans to work with fellow committee members, universities and colleges, and contingent faculty to posit more solutions to the “troubling issues.”
The report’s findings will help guide those discussions, said Julia Krahe, communications director for the education and workforce committee.
‘Just-In-Time Professor’
Miller said that the report—“The Just-in-Time Professor: A Staff Report Summarizing eForum Responses on the Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education”—is “in no way an exhaustive account of the circumstances of adjunct faculty,” but it raises “some serious concerns.” It pairs data gathered from the forum entries with anonymous quotes from the respondents.
The respondents, despite varied education and work backgrounds, submitted stories that were largely consistent, Krahe said. While some said their employment situation was better than others, citing union contracts or access to benefits, most shared the same difficulties.
Highlights from the findings include:
Contingent faculty often have low pay and few, if any, benefits. Of the 845 forum respondents, 166 supplied information on how much they are paid per course. Most respondents indicated they made between $2,000 and $3,500 per three-credit hour course. Of the 152 respondents who listed their estimated annual teaching salary, the average was $24,926.
More than 60 respondents reported salaries that would put them beneath the federal poverty line for a three-person family. Some respondents said they were on federal assistance programs like Medicaid or food stamps. One added: “During the time I taught at the community college, I earned so little that I sold my plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for [my child’s] daycare costs.”
On top of low pay, 75 percent of the respondents who discussed the topic said they did not receive benefits—either because their employer didn’t offer them or because they were otherwise ineligible. One adjunct wrote: “The health care plan that I could buy into costs more than my take-home pay on even a good year. My retirement plan is to work until they bury me.”
Most respondents teach several courses per semester and travel among several institutions. Nearly half of the adjuncts who specified their course load taught either two or three three-credit-hour courses per semester. But because some respondents took on many additional courses, the average course load is just over three.
Those instructors are also teaching at multiple universities at a time. Of respondents who gave information about the number of schools they served, 48 percent taught at two institutions, 27 percent taught at three, and 13 percent taught at four or more. Most identified themselves as “freeway flyers.” One respondent said: “My commute at the highest point was 900 miles per week; at the lowest it was only 550 miles per week.”
Adjuncts lack job security and predictable schedules. 95 percent of respondents who spoke on the matter said they had no job stability and did not know whether they would be teaching courses from one semester to the next. Furthermore, some adjuncts said they often find out if they have a course just days before the semester begins.
More than 100 respondents said they have never had sufficient time to prepare for their courses. One wrote: “I taught four courses in the fall, but was not told until the day before spring semester started that I wouldn’t have any classes for the spring. I was unemployed with no notice.”
Adjuncts report receiving little professional support. Several problems were cited frequently: a lack of administrative support, difficulty securing copies of required textbooks and students’ email addresses, limited access to professional-development courses, and inability to participate in departmental meetings.
One adjunct recalled: “Although I’ve been at my … very decent university job for the past 15 years, a tenured professor asked me, ‘So, you’re teaching for us this semester?’ Why am I not part of this ‘us’ after so much dedicated teaching, year after year?”
- See more at: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/292-an-alarming-snapshot-of-adjunct-labor#sthash.l9hpvZp0.dpuf

“Are Adjunct Professors the Fast-Food Workers of the Academic World?”
By James D Hoff who teaches writing and literature in New York City. H’s a PhD in English Literature.

I am what’s called an adjunct. I teach four courses per semester at two different colleges, and I am paid just $24,000 a year and receive no health or pension benefits. Recently, I was profiled in theNew York Times as the face of adjunct exploitation, and though I was initially happy to share my story because I care about the issue, the profile has its limits. Rather than use my situation to explain the systemic problem of academic labor, the article personalized – even romanticized – my situation as little more than the deferred dream of a struggling PhD with a penchant for poetry.
But the adjunct problem is not about PhDs struggling to find jobs or people being forced to give up their dreams. The adjunct problem is about the continued exploitation of a large, growing and diverse group of highly educated and dedicated college teachers who have been asked to settle for less pay (sometimes as little as $21,000 a year for full-time work) because the institutions they work for have callously calculated that they can get away with it. The adjunct problem is institutional, not personal, and its affects reach deep into our culture and society.
Though there are tens of thousands of personal stories like mine of economic hardship and lives ruined or put on hold, it is not to these stories that we should turn when we consider the exploitation of adjuncts in academia, but to our universal sense of justice. For the continued exploitation of adjuncts is, to put it bluntly, nothing less than unjust. Here’s why:
1. Using adjuncts devalues higher education
According to the American Association of University Professors, adjuncts and other contingent employees made up 70% of the faculty at American universities and colleges in 2007. Though the numbers differ drastically from one campus to the next, all but the most elite college students are being taught by overworked and underpaid adjunct lecturers. These faculty are essentially paid contractors, who come in, do a quick job, and then head out. Maintaining high standards and expectations, performing research, and providing honest and accurate assessment under such conditions is incredibly difficult, and the continued use of adjuncts is destroying the integrity and value of higher education.
2. Paying adjuncts less creates a hierarchy within academia
It is unjust because it creates an ugly hierarchy within academia that mirrors the increasingly gross divide within American society. While the private sector has seen a startling loss of living wage jobs, the erosion of benefits, and the destruction of unions, academia has undergone its own slow transformation. While the average faculty member makes anywhere between $60,000 to $198,000a year (frequently for a course load of two or three courses per semester) most adjuncts are paid somewhere between $2,500 to $4,000 per course. They also have little to no control over their course assignments, except to refuse offered courses (which can lead to less work and less pay) and they have absolutely no job security, meaning they are subject to sudden termination at the whims of department chairs and administrators, without any explanation or any process for grievance or appeal.
3. Universities spend more on administration than teachers
It is unjust because it takes power away from the practitioners of higher education – teachers and researchers – and puts it in the hands of administrators. While the academe has become increasingly reliant upon temporary and disposable adjuncts, who live in constant fear of poverty, the administrative classes within those institutions have steadily grown. As Benjamin Ginsberg documented in The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, between 1985 and 2005 administrative spending increased by 85%, while administrative support staff increased by a dramatic 240%. Meanwhile spending on faculty increased by only around 50%. Such wasteful spending on non-essential staff is out of proportion to the actual goals of academic institutions, which are charged to teach and research, not administer.
4. Using adjuncts betrays the students who are most in need
The students who frequently need the most help – poor and working class students, first generation college students, and students of color – are also the ones most likely to be taught by adjuncts. It is no accident that the increased use of adjuncts followed quickly on the heels of a massive shift in the demography of college attendance in the late sixties and early seventies. As more and more working class people and people of color began attending public universities in California and New York, state funding was quickly reduced. Rather than continue to offer the best to these students, universities decided instead to expand the use of adjuncts. Just as the doors of academia were opened to the most underprivileged students, the feast of knowledge that lay behind was quietly hidden from view, and the paper plates and frozen dinners brought out instead.
5. Under-paying adjuncts makes full-time teaching unaffordable
Lastly, it is unjust because it cynically manipulates the better angels of the human spirit – the desire to help and to share one’s interests and values, to cultivate meaningful relationships, to inspire, and to teach – in order to save a few bucks. Like federal and state governments, which are expected to subsidize the wages of full-time fast food workers, adjuncts – who frequently subsidize their earnings with other jobs – are voluntarily underwriting the institutions they work for. Though many of these adjuncts would be thrilled to dedicate themselves exclusively to teaching, few of them can, because none of them can afford to.
Many people ask me why, given all of this, I would continue to work as an adjunct, but that is the wrong question to ask. The work I do is important, it’s what I was trained to do, and there’s a clear and growing demand for it. Rather than asking why adjuncts don’t find other work, or why they don’t “just quit” as so many well-meaning commentators have suggested, people should instead be asking colleges and universities why they think it’s OK to pay so little for such important work.

Paul K. Haeder lived one-year in Seattle working for “the” SEIU (Service Employees International Union), the largest private sector union in the USA (in their pro-Obama PR materials), to organize adjuncts in Bezos-Boeing-Gates land, after having worked as a communications, language, composition, writing instructor of the freeway flyer variety in El Paso for the University of Texas, the El Paso Community College, language institutes, Park College, the US Army, La Tuna Federal Correctional Institute, Packard Electric in Juarez, New Mexico State University, and several cities in Mexico. In Washington State, he taught at Gonzaga University, Spokane Community College, Spokane Falls Community College. He’s job hunting — at that golden age of 56 (and counting down) … just what the progressive-left-of-center non-profits in the Vancouver-Portland “area” want (NOT). Visit Paul’s website.