How is WalMart forcing its workers to buy their own uniforms? Bryce Covert at Think Progress explains how: by adopting a "dress code" instead of a proper uniform requirement, WalMart can force employees to buy new clothes that comply with the dress code. Because providing uniforms (and health care, and decent wages, et cetera) costs money. This is how Our Glorious Elites redistribute workers' wealth upward to themselves, and I bet WalMart's brain trust all think they're the smartest people on Earth.
Speaking of shifting costs, ProPublica explains how some health insurance corporations are shifting costs to the sick -- they're now charging as much for some generic drugs as for name-brand drugs. Warning: the health insurer rationale for this practice uses the odious phrase "skin in the game," as if life were a game and we don't all have too much "skin" in it already. The trouble with the health insurers' "game"? A court might find that charging more money for HIV drugs discriminates against folks with HIV. By "court," of course, I don't mean our Supreme Court, whose Chief Justice did once write the phrase "what more can a corporation do?" in an opinion.
The Guardian asks whether states should invest pension funds with Wall Street hedge funds -- noting that one of the biggest proponents of such investments, Rhode Island Treasurer Gina Raimondo, captured the Democratic gubernatorial nomination this year. The main problem the Guardian finds is that hedge funds take lots of money in commissions and fees. The main problem I find is that hedge funds make the most money when things go horribly wrong, which isn't exactly a moral way to run an economy.
Apple declares that it won't comply with law enforcement requests for private data on its iOS8 devices, because it can't -- that is to say, Apple has engineered iOS8 devices so that only the end-user (and not the corporation) can retrieve data from it. Which is wonderful news, if true (we really only have their word!), and the courts might not actually be able to do anything about it, since the compulsive literalist who presently heads up the Supreme Court might well rule that it's Apple's inalienable right to design a product protected from Apple. Besides, law enforcement can always just come after the person who owns the phone, which is how I'd rather have it -- forces them to do work, and work builds character.
Finally, Sean Hannity goes easy on Vikings running back Adrian Peterson after the latter beats his child repeatedly with a tree branch. We could debate whether or not Mr. Hannity really turned out OK after his father hit him with a "strap" some indeterminate number of times, but Mr. Peterson's child suffered bruises and cuts on his legs, his back, and his scrotum -- and had defensive wounds on his hands. Worse than that: Mr. Hannity goes off on Big Gummint interfering with child-rearing when it's clearly civilization "interfering" with child-rearing he really has a problem with. Even worse than that: he doesn't get that a parent who does what Mr. Peterson did isn't being tough -- he's being desperate.