Honduran march to USA stirs up Trump's base

With early mid term voting beginning in many U.S. cities, and  with an attendant rush to vote, accelerated on both sides from the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the stakes are high, and in a few days activity is bound to reach a fever pitch; now adding to that frenzy is the issue of thousands of Hondurans coming to the United States seeking political asylum in the face of drug wars, gangs, and political corruption, beginning this past Friday.

It has also allowed President Trump to use it to galvanize the base, as  no other issue has, noted The Economist, “More than any other single issue, attitudes towards immigration define Mr. Trump’s base.”

In recent days, the president has threatened to send in troops to protect the border between the U.S. and Mexico, a move whose optics, even if it fails to materialize, cannot fail to push his supporters to the polls.

"Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border," Trump tweeted. He also added that "People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away."

“Nevertheless, around 3,000 people were marching in the caravan on the Mexican side, according to an estimate from a federal police commander whose forces were closely monitoring the migrants' progress,” reported france24.com.

Mexico seems to have supported Trump, by noting their priority for asylum in their country first, prompting some Mexicans to complain that they are doing the dirty work of the American president.

Nevertheless, the pictures, and videos and sounds of throngs of desperate people, of men, women and children, some barely dressed, or shod, for a walking journey crossing hundreds of miles, undeterred has garnered sympathy in many quarters.

After being processed, “the next stop on a journey of at least 3,000 kilometers (1,800 miles) is to the border between Mexico and the United States, the site continued.

“No one is going to stop us, after all we've gone through," said 21-year-old Aaron Juarez, who was accompanied by his wife and baby and was walking with difficulty because of an injury.”

"We are tired, but very happy, we are united and strong," added Edwin Geovanni Enamorado, a Honduran farmer who said he was forced to leave his country because of intimidation by racketeering gangs.”

In another rejoinder, Trump tweeted, on Tuesday that he was prepared “to terminate all aid to the developing Central American nation and others if leaders in the countries don't manage to turn the migrants back.

"The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!" Trump tweeted.

“It is not entirely clear what Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández can do to turn the migrants back now that they are on Guatemalan soil,” reported USA Today

“The president's threat comes as his administration has proposed deep cuts to Latin America and the Caribbean aid. The administration is currently asking Congress for only $1 billion for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, according to the Congressional Research Service. That's a major drop from 2011, when the region got nearly $1.9 billion.”

On the cutting boards is also one that “Honduran government officials have expressed worries over,” since his “recent decision to end the "Temporary Protected Status" program, which covers about 86,000 Honduran nationals already in the U.S.

The humanitarian program allows certain immigrants to temporarily remain in the U.S. if their home countries have experienced armed conflict or natural disasters. Hondurans first received TPS eligibility in 1999 under then-President Bill Clinton following Hurricane Mitch, a massive storm that destroyed much of the country's economy.

The end of TPS would mean those 86,000 Hondurans would have to return to Honduras or stay in the U.S. as undocumented immigrants.”

“The Mexican government reported late Tuesday that the number of caravan migrants dipped to about 4,500 people, with those dropping out either having applied for asylum in Mexico or having chosen to return home,” noted an updated report from USA Today.

Currently, “Mexico’s Interior Ministry said immigration officials have received 1,699 asylum claims, while 495 Hondurans have asked to be returned to their country of origin. The Central American migrants come mostly from Honduras but also includes those from Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. The status of about 500 other migrants is unclear. United Nation officials estimated Monday there were more than 7,200 migrants in the caravan.”

Kevin Maldonado. A “20-year-old from Honduras said he had walked six hours from Tapachula to Huixtla under a scorching sun, passing through a Mexican immigration checkpoint just before entering Huixtla.”

Noting, “a plunge in coffee prices prompted him to consider taking the treacherous trip to the United States, and he said he is not discouraged or dissuaded by Trump’s remarks and threats that the caravan would be stopped by soldiers, if necessary, and remains optimistic he can get to the U.S.” adding “Maybe he’ll have a change of heart and give us a chance.”

Long a bone of contention, or inaction, as The Economist noted, the legacy of an immigration movement,, both legal and illegal, that began in 19th century America has festered, along a path imperiled both by politics, with pressure from those seeking entry to the States, as well as those employers who wanted them, as a cheap labor source.

Ironically, the flow of Southern immigrants to the States, has slowed down: “As the tide goes out, a big population of undocumented migrants is being left behind. After peaking in 2007 at around 12.2m people, the undocumented population in 2016 stood at 11.3m, comprising just over 25% of all the country’s immigrants, and about 5% of the American workforce.”

Despite these numbers the use of fear by Trump, and probably, the mistaken origins of the marchers, is enough to create horror in the minds of his base; and as has been noted before, being foreign born is not enough, being non-white and not Protestant makes the situation even more combustible, for those that oppose the march.

Efforts at any level of compromise have been defeated, ever since America’s first attempt at numeral countries occurred in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed Act, and hobbled through the end of the quotas in 1965, with legislation that favored skilled workers and their immediate family members already living in the U.S.

The failure to provide “a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants and [that] ended family reunification, leaving only the spouse and children of a green-card holder eligible to legally immigrate to America,” failed in the Senate.

“A similar measure in 2013 passed the Senate, with the votes of all 52 Democratic senators, but died in the Republican-dominated House, which appeared interested only in enforcement. Shortly before that bill died, President Barack Obama enacted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) with an executive order. This allowed undocumented immigrants brought to America as children who enrolled in or graduated from school, university or the armed forces and had no criminal record temporary, renewable legal working papers. Mr Trump tried to end DACA last September.”

Attempts to identify organizers of this march have centered on Pueblo Sin Fronteras, however, “There’s no one in charge of this thing,” Alex Mensing, an organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, an immigration rights group, told USA TODAY. “It’s a mass exodus.”

There have been attempts, by some, to contrast this with the 1980 Mariel boatlift from Cuba,”  in an effort to “attempt to overwhelm U.S. immigration law on the pretext of celebrating American freedom”, noted an editorial in The Wall Street Journal.

In contrast they also note that “A Mariel replay now seems to be coming from Honduras. Though the details are murky, we do know that former Honduran congressman Bartolo Fuentes of the left-wing Libre Party has admitted to organizing this caravan.”

Whether this is factual or note, the comparison seems weak, obscuring the very real dangers that these Central Americans face at home, yet the Journal also takes a hard line and stated that “Criminal organizations and governments like Venezuela would benefit from chaos at the U.S. border that embarrasses the Trump Administration before the election. Many nongovernmental organizations on the left also support the migrants’ “right” to the American dream.”

On suspicion, if nothing else, “Over the border, Guatemalan police officers detained Bartolo Fuentes, a former Honduran lawmaker, from the middle of the large crowd that he and three other organizers had led from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, since Saturday.”

In response, “The Honduran security ministry said Fuentes had been detained because he “did not comply with Guatemalan immigration rules” and would be deported back to Honduras in the coming hours.”

While the press and the governments of all three countries pick and pan each other, there is in the making a situation that could result for those supporters of Trump, an embarrassment that might lead to cries for compassion.

In a remarkable show of military power the  The Hill reported, on Monday (10/29) that “The U.S. military will send more than 5,200 active duty troops to the southern border with Mexico by the end of the week, the Defense Department announced Monday.

“By the end of this week will we deploy over 5,200 soldiers to the southwest border. That is just the start of this operation, we’ll continue to adjust the numbers and inform you of those,” U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command head Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy told reporters.

The troops are in addition to the 2,092 National Guard troops deployed in April to the border as part of Operation Guardian Support.

The troops will come from Fort Bragg, N.C., Joint Base Lewis–McChord, Wash., Fort Stewart, Ga., Fort Campbell, Ky., Fort Knox, Ky., and Fort Riley, Kan., among other locations.

O'Shaughnessy said that 800 troops are already on their way to the border. He added that the soldiers deployed will be armed.

“We have the authority, give to us by Sec. Mattis, the units that are normally assigned weapons, they are, in fact, deploying with weapons,” he said.

The optics on this further brands America as an isolated nation, replete with a show of power to enforce it. The spectacle of a Bloody Sunday is one that makes many people shudder.

Updated: 29 October 2018

Harvard lawsuit may kill affirmative action

It seems clear to many of us that cover the Trump administration that there is a hit list, in concert with the more radical members of the Republican party, on exactly what type of legislation from previous administrations, some stretching back decades, that are right for repeal - topping the list is Roe v. Wade, the 1973 legislation that legalized abortion in the U.S.

Next to that, comes Medicare and Medicaid, and of course, President Roosevelt's key legislation, Social Security.

But lurking in the background, and adding to the issue of what President Bill Clinton described, as America’s most intractable problem, is race, and to that effect, Monday saw opening arguments by a group of Asian American students who feel that the prestigious school is discriminating against them, despite the fact that the recent incoming freshman class has just under 25 percent representation from that group.

In contrast, from that same group, are African Americans, at 15 percent.

Critics say that this suit is a thinly veiled effort to take the consideration of race from college admissions, long debated in the United States, as promulgated through affirmative action, another target of conservative opposition.

Contained within the debate are the questions of quotas, which has been deemed by an earlier Supreme Court decision as undesirable -- but Harvard maintains that while race is not a criteria for admissions, it is a factor in creating a diverse incoming class, and which countless colleges, many less prestigious than Harvard, use..

“Harvard’s approach to holistic admission decisions has been widely adopted throughout higher education,” the American Council of Education, the nation's leading higher education lobbying group, wrote in a brief in the case on behalf of 37 college groups. “A victory for the plaintiff could upend this evolved and evolving system.”

While there is some debate within the Asian community as to the merits of either affirmative action, or the suit, they represent only 6 percent of the population, causing many observers, including educators, as why this, and why now?

The answer rests with the Oval Office and the Departments of Justice and Education, who not only support the suit but have steadily chipped away at earlier efforts, especially by the Obama administration, in many areas, and especially with the removal of protections for rape victims on American college campuses, among others.

Looking at the suit reveals a focus in demographics as well as political affiliation and issues, they say, and, “Asian-Americans have long supported Democrats, tending to favor gun control, pathways to citizenship — and even affirmative action. But a vocal and growing segment of the Asian-American population is fed up with the use of race in admissions, which they believe holds Asian-Americans to higher standards than other groups — and some Republicans see an opening to start to woo a new bloc of supporters. GOP candidates in at least two congressional races this year have railed against affirmative action in explicit bids for Asian-American voters.”

“Polling shows the group still overwhelmingly supports Democrats and largely disapproves of President Donald Trump,” noted Politico.

With the intense partisan gridlock in Washington, and the upcoming midterm elections, with high stakes for control of at least the House, if not the Senate, then this is an effort that pays a dual dividend: shatter affirmative action and gain a new voter bloc.

“Asian-Americans unhappy with the use of race “have an ear, because they occupy a pretty unique place in American politics: They’re nonwhite voters who are opposing affirmative action,” said Janelle Wong, a professor of Asian-American Studies at the University of Maryland who supports affirmative action.”

Sounding the alarm, Wong cautioned, ““If Asian-Americans move to the GOP — that’s the end of the ‘rainbow coalition' in the U.S., and that is a problem for the Democrats,” she said.

Adding to the mix of political bedfellows is that the suit is being “led by longtime anti-affirmative-action activist Edward Blum . . . and its journey begins just after Trump added a fifth conservative justice to the Supreme Court, where the case is likely to end.”

No one in academic circles, or on Capitol Hill is immune to that fact and the new 5-4 conservative majority of the Court, with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, is tied to the legislative agenda drafted by the GOP, in concert with such groups as The Federalist Society.

Students for Fair Admissions, Blum’s group, brought the suit against Harvard in 2014, and this summer the Justice Department joined in, accusing Harvard of discrimination in court filings.

The statements from DOJ, and Attorney General Sessions are revealing - “Harvard’s race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial groups — including both white applicants and applicants from other racial minority groups.”

“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement at the time.”

On the surface that seems benign enough, yet, read on another level, one can see Wong’s point.

Within the documents, and statements, filed by the plaintiff, we also see value laden terms, that suggest race coded language, which we explored in another column.

To date, we have this: “The plaintiff alleges that Harvard engineers every year a precise racial balance of admission offers that gives an unfair edge to less-qualified applicants from other groups. The plaintiff also charges that Harvard gives too much weight to race and fails to fully comply with a Supreme Court mandate to consider race-neutral alternatives for assembling a diverse class.”

The fear of less-qualified applicants: that was often a term used by some schools that were forced to integrate in the 60’s 70’s and early 80’s.

Continuing, on this theme, Politico also noted, “It's just one piece of the Trump administration's crackdown on affirmative action. The DOJ has launched separate investigations into admissions policies at Harvard and Yale, the latter of which the Education Department’s civil rights office joined. And the two agencies this summer scrapped Obama-era guidance that called on school superintendents and colleges to consider race when trying to diversify their campuses.”

“An attorney representing Harvard countered that student diversity, which he described as key to the school’s mission, is not possible without affirmative action, and he said race is never considered negatively in applications. “Harvard cannot achieve its educational goals without considering race,” attorney Bill Lee said, according to the Boston Globe.”.

In an attempt to garner opinions from the Chicago academic community, the response was either a polite, but firm, no, if asked if there would be a statement, or an unpleasant  email exchange from the Chicago campus of the largest Illinois university, and silence from a prestigious South Side campus, long the home of Nobel prize recipients, suggesting a wariness, on their part to join in the debate, one way or another.

The Washington Post, reported that “Lee, denied that the university discriminates against Asian Americans or any other demographic group. Harvard’s doors, he said, “are open to students of all backgrounds and means.”

Indeed qualifying students from low-income backgrounds are included, as well as those from prestigious families, such as the Kennedy’s.

“U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the trial and expects to issue a verdict. There will be no jury. Both sides assume Burroughs will not have the final word because any verdict faces a near-certain appeal.”

Walking back through time is important in getting a grasp on the case, and there are precedents even irony, as “Harvard was also previously identified as a model for affirmative action by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. In the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Powell became the pivotal vote in both striking down the admissions policy of University of California for using racial quotas, and then upholding affirmative action more broadly, pointing to Harvard as a good example because it considered race as a “plus.”

In a fast forward, ”The pretrial phase of the suit exposed that Harvard received internal warnings about potential bias against Asian Americans in recent years but apparently did little to follow up, and “addressing that issue, Lee said Monday an internal report on potential bias in 2013 was incomplete and preliminary and that senior officials who reviewed it saw “no reason for alarm.”

In 2016, there was the case of Fisher v. University of Texas: “Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class.”

For the remaining slots, race was considered a factor and “she sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed,” it then went to the Supreme Court, “which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny”.

A pivotal case, perhaps, even more so, was heard 15 years ago, and Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote, and there are still “critics of affirmative action who were frustrated by the pivotal role Justice O'Connor played in preserving race-conscious admissions policies in the Supreme Court's 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, involving the University of Michigan Law School. Seen as the court's swing vote on the affirmative-action issue, she ended up siding with its liberal wing in a 5-to-4 ruling holding that race-conscious admissions policies are constitutional because they serve the compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.”

O’Connor also looked to the future and in a book of essays by one of her former clerks Stewart J. Schwab, who is now dean of the Cornell Law School, discusses what might be needed, further down the line, citing the 25 years, she wrote, that might be needed to move forward, and Schwab, noted that this period, was not fixed: "When the time comes to reassess the constitutionality of considering race in higher-education admissions," the essay says, "we will need social scientists to clearly demonstrate the educational benefits of diverse student bodies, and to better understand the links between role models in one generation and aspirations and achievements of succeeding generations."

That time seems to have come.

Kavanaugh wins, U.S. loses the moral corner

It’s all over -- including the fighting -- Brett Kavanaugh was approved and confirmed in a 50-48 vote, Saturday, by the Senate Judiciary Committee - that ended a bitter and partisan fight that showed the intensity and high stakes for both the Republicans and the Democrats, especially with a hard right candidate, bound with a 5-4 majority for a conservative court, for generations.

The allegation, and testimony of Dr. Christine Ford, a California based psychologist, who left the quiet corridors of academia to expose herself, on the Hill, with her testimony, saying that in their high school years, Kavanaugh had tried to rape her, saw record viewing audiences, and in an echo of the Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill charge decades ago, once more showed that the closed ranks of male politicians took a strongly partisan one, that was evident in the shrieking rampage, of denial, by Kavanagh after Ford’s testimony.

Seconding that emotion, was the unbridled tongue of South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham, who lost the total demeanor of not only, a senator, but that of a southern gentleman, shocking many, but which most viewers saw as confirmation of the intense partisanship that has gridlocked Washington for many years.

Further exposed was the loss of the judiciary as an independent, if interdependent part of American democracy, that surely has the founding fathers spinning in their graves.

This seems to be the greatest fall out from this beleaguered candidate, whose testimony in his hearings seemed to be contrived to not answer any direct questions, and even, trod the line between misrepresentation, or perjury, and who seemed to delight in another partisan battle, instead of behaving, as any job candidate should do, especially one with the prestige of the United States, and for a lifetime appointment.

When contrasted with Ford’s professional, and lady like, demeanor, many began to question the veracity of his denials; and, it also led to a palimpsest of alcohol abuse and women, and in what was never explored by the FBI, a strong history of sexual predatory behavior.

At first blush, when the letter forwarded to Sen. Feinstein appeared, some felt that it might have been a sexual indiscretion that would be dealt with, behind closed doors, only to see that it was far more, than many believed, or wanted.

Moral exhortation came from Sens. Jeff Flake and Susan Collins, only to have them, especially the latter, cave to naked partisanship, to the embarrassment of those aligned with justice.

If as Lincoln, noted, long ago, in an appeal to the better angels of our nature, all was lost as it sent the credible allegations of Ford, from a rigged confirmation hearing, to a rigged FBI investigation, whose short scope gave even some of Kavanaugh’s defenders pause.

The pause button could not be hit and the politicization of the process for a member of the nation’s Supreme Court, was tattered.

CNN, on Monday revealed that a poll taken showed that: “Overall, 51% in the poll oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, up from 39% who opposed it in early September, after his initial confirmation hearing but before accusations of sexual misconduct emerged. Support for Kavanaugh's confirmation has merely inched up, by contrast, from 38% backing him in early September to 41% now.”

While Kavanaugh's supporters all pointed to his qualifications, (this was not a routine job in an office cubicle), they failed to take in the equally important aspect of a judicial temperament that at times seemed like a beast unleashed, or unfed.

“All told, 52% of Americans say they believe the women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct over the judge's denials of those accusations (38% said they believed him more than the women). And half (50%) said they thought he lied about his alcohol use as a young adult, more than thought he was telling the truth about it (37%). Half say Kavanaugh's personal conduct has disqualified him to serve on the court, and 53% say his professional qualifications do not outweigh any questions about his personal conduct,” said CNN.

Supporters of the judge, like himself, pointed to conspiracy theories -- the Clintons once again ---but also charges that they demeaned the man, ring hollow for a party that used Willie Horton, as the scary black man, to win an election, or the struggle with alcohol of Kitty Dukakis, to win, rings very hollow indeed.

Legions of protestors at every corner, virtual, or not, like a Greek Chorus showed that above all, many men, and one woman, were forgetting that women who are sexually assaulted are not believed, at any time, no matter their professional status, or affluence. And, this is what sent the protestors to the streets and Capitol Hill.

In the aftermath, no one knows if Kavanaugh will sink into juridical quiet, like Thomas, or will he be a demon to legislation such as Roe. v. Wade, Obergefell, and the continued dilution of voting rights for Black Americans?

All of this also confirms that in the U.S. equality of women is not here, and that our history of not having a female head of state, unlike Western Europe, or even Southeast Asia, must lead to an examination of conscience for a nation, that seems to have lost it.

September jobs report: lower than expected

Friday’s release of the September Jobs Report  dulled the already whetted appetite of most economists, and observers that the U.S. boon cycle would continue along a straightforward path, with the economy adding 185,000 jobs, yet it delivered merely 134,000 jobs.

Most attributed the decrease to Hurricane Florence that devastated the Carolina's, and the tourism and hospitality that also showed a corresponding loss. Most analysts expect this figure to be revised, as was August, month traditionally has revisions according to summer and seasonal employment.

ADP had predicted that there would be a surge  in non farm employment of 230,000 jobs, and this report is seen by many as a precursor to the government report issued at the end of each month by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, that gives, what we refer to as the marquee number for unemployment, and also the overall picture of unemployment in the United States.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said “that at the current pace of job creation, unemployment will fall into the low 3 percent’s by this time next year,” reported The Hill.

The upward revisions for July and August, encouraged some to ignore September, since there were 87,000 more jobs in July and August than initially reported, and chief among them was “Jason Furman, the former head of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, [who] said the drop in unemployment along with upward revisions in jobs growth in July and August is "enough to make you ignore the 134K headline jobs number" and "you would be mostly right in doing that," he wrote on Twitter.

Even so, there was concern by many others who saw that the revision, still pushing the U.S. economy, nearly to full employment, was showing signs of heating up, and to that end, caution must be exercised as the Federal Reserve has scheduled interest rate hikes to counter any sign of inflation - one of the their mandates.

With the 3.7 unemployment figure, it gave President Trump, once again, the right to proclaim that the victory was his, all his, and once again he broke a “federal rule that says federal workers should not comment on the jobs report until an hour after it has been released. Previous White Houses have typically followed the rule but none used Twitter like Trump,” also reported the Hill.

Each president, of course, likes to tout lowered unemployment, as their own, but most recently, the rising figures have been shown to be a direct effort on the part of former Fed Chair, Janet Yellen; who along with President Obama, whose efforts made possible legislative efforts that helped spur growth in employment.

Consequently, the Hill got it right when it reported, “The economy has added jobs for 96 straight months, beginning in October 2010 under President Obama. It is the longest streak of monthly jobs growth on record.”

Partisanship is taking full credit, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, touted the falling unemployment rate and that his party's actions are improving Americans' lives through economic growth.

“Our economy keeps getting better," Thune said, and added, "As a result of the positive reforms the Republican-led Congress implemented to grow our economy, more Americans are getting back to work.”

"The labor market is in excellent shape heading into the end of 2018, perhaps the best it has been in 50 years," proclaimed Gus Faucher, chief economist for PNC.

Tempering that optimism are wages, which have still not risen, despite the gain from August of 2.8 percent; which while increasing the overall yearly rise, was still lower than  the prior month.

Some, such as Shawn Sebastian and Marshall Steinbaum of FedUp, have felt that the Fed should not raise rates, until wages are up, and attribute decreased wages to monopoly employers, specifically those that are few in number, but that hire most of the workforce.

In an interview with CNBC at the annual meeting of central bank economists in Jackson Hole, Wy., they also said that antitrust actions might come into play to increase wages, and the slow demise of unions is also responsible, along with market concentration.

Offering another perspective, in her interview with The New York Times, “Amy Glaser, senior vice president of Adecco Staffing, said that employers she worked with were raising wages and reaching into less-common pools of potential employees like retirees, stay-at-home moms and people with disabilities.

Ms. Glaser said she expected wages to rise further, saying some of her clients were thinking about increasing hourly wages as much as 20 to 40 percent during the peak holiday season and early next year. Employers are also pushing to retain the workers they have — for example, by offering more bonuses for e-commerce and other seasonal workers who stay through the holidays.”

Taking a broader, more global look, The Economist has described the slump in wages, tied to inflation that is nibbling away at wages. They said, in June, that "inflation is eating up pay increases and that real—that is, inflation-adjusted—wages are therefore stagnant. Real wages in America and the euro zone, for example, are growing more slowly even as the world economy, and headline pay, have both picked up.”

Notably, the August wage increase was not enough to increase consumer spending, which drives the overall American economy.

A significant bright spot, continuing from August, is the increase in hiring for job seekers with only a secondary education. And some employers are even decreasing requirements, overlooking lesser marijuana convictions, and even giving employees greater control over their schedule, as a further hiring incentive.

In that regard, with e-commerce shipments growing by seemingly light years, there is a correspondent, and urgent need for truckers.

On another track, is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who said that "beneath the September jobs numbers, middle-class families across America are struggling to keep their heads above the rising costs of health care, prescription drugs and everyday living expenses."

Joining her, in this, assessment is Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League who stated on CNBC that while “Low unemployment is a good thing, but many still don’t have enough in their pocket books to pay the bills.”

He also cited the specter of rising inflation, and a decreased housing market as subsidiary factors in reading the September report.

It’s been a given that black unemployment decreases further than whites, and the old adage is when white America sneezes, black America catches a cold.

In December of 2016, it was noted by many that Illinois - held the nation’s highest black unemployment, in the nation, at 15 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute,

That was preceded by another report in 2015, showing that “nationally, African Americans had the highest unemployment rate in June, at 8.6 percent, followed by Latinos (5.8 percent), whites (4.4 percent), and Asians (3.5 percent).”

September has showed a welcome change, and the decrease over the last few months and highlighted in September showed a decrease in unemployment, by three-tenths of a point, to a 6 percent rate; but as Morial stated, there is still a long way to go, and the issues that Pelosi points out are bread and butter issues, that will not disappear without hard effort on the part of lawmakers.

That aside, there are others who are optimistic, stating  “that the labor market was still pushing ahead — no matter how unevenly — in what is now the ninth year of an economic expansion. “The other data we’ve been seeing this week don’t show any signs of a weaker trend,” Jim O’Sullivan, chief United States economist at High Frequency Economics said, “If you take out Texas and Florida, there’s been no increase in jobless claims over the past five weeks.”

Market reaction was mildly negative, said the Times, and there has been no visible effect on the economy -- at least not yet -- by the increase in tariffs, which Trump had at $50 billion, but now has increased to $53.2 billion. Yet, some economists believe that ultimately the American consumer will be hit with higher costs for consumer goods, thus wiping out job gains, no matter how hard wrought, or on whose watch.

Taking the report on the whole, for most, seems, due to Florence, a blip on the market, yet there are those who take it even stronger, and one is Zandi, who in an interview with CNBC, said: “This labor market is rip-roaring hot, and it is just going to get a lot hotter. The risk that this economy overheats is very high and this is just one more piece of evidence of that.”

It can be argued with the issue of housing, healthcare, and even regional differences, that some might want him to switch to decaf, yet the threat of an overheated market is one that the Fed will be watching very carefully.

Updated 16 October 2018