GasBandit
Staff member
New Jersey residents howling in terror at the thought of having to pump their own gas.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I didn't even realize full service was still a thing. I can't remember the last time I've seen one. From the article:
And who can argue with that?
And the only other mandatory full-service State, Oregon is also considering taking steps in that same direction.
--Patrick
They wanted to survive in the most basic way possible.
They wanted $15/hour.
Which they wouldn't be able to do when the franchise owner was forced to close down.
GasBandit
Staff member
Then maybe they shouldn't be working at McDonald's. Seriously, is there ANY job some people won't assert deserves 30k/year, no matter how unskilled or undemanding it is?
Nobody says that. You have exactly the same right to health care that he does - none. Health care is not a "right," and to assert otherwise is to lay ownership to another person's labor - the health care provider's. Last I checked, that was still the definition of slavery.
What you're really mad about is someone who you perceive as contributing less to society, and being a less worthwhile person, has more money than you.
What I'm frequently mad about is someone who I perceive as contributing less to society having less debt than me.
...but that's what you get when you see the world through owes-colored glasses.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Those who speak of the "right" to health care actually don't understand what their rights are, or even what it means to have a "right." A common argument that healthcare is a "right" is because everybody needs it at some point. Yet, I can name things people need much more urgently, frequently, and critically than health care. Food, for example. None of that, and you're dead in rather short order, and unpleasantly at that, to put it mildly. But nobody ever talks about the "right" to food. If you're hungry, and you can't afford food, so you go into a restaurant and eat without paying, you end up in jail. Because other people have rights too. Just like a doctor has the right to not have his skills, education, labor, time and attention taken from him without his consent.
Now, compare that to an actual "right," as laid out in the US constitution (I know you're Canadian, but bear with me, the debate is American in nature) - the right to keep and bear arms. This is an expressly enumerated right, one considered so crucial to liberty that it was the second one on our forefathers' list after the right to speak freely. But what does that right mean? Does the "right" to arms mean that it is someone else's responsibility to buy and provide the firearm to me, to which I have the right? After all, if we're to accept that the aforementioned alleged "right" to health care means that it's someone else's responsibility to pay for and provide that health care, why is the explicitly acknowledged and enshrined right to keep and bear arms different?
Rights mean you are free, not kept. Don't confuse a right with an entitlement.
Where, ironically, you get access to food and healthcare.
GasBandit
Staff member
Food, shelter, exercise, healthcare... everything a human needs to thrive, right? Heck, there's even cable TV and education.
The thing people wanting legislation don't understand is that companies/corporations will always, always find a way around the rules so they won't lose money. They know the same rules can't apply to everyone, because smaller companies can't survive on the rules people want to impose on the large ones, so they would rather break down their companies into smaller ones that work together than pay that extra. Demand certain benefits for full-time workers? They'll reduce everyone's hours just enough so no one qualifies for full-time. Put the benefits to all workers? They'll fire enough to make up the difference. Tax the 1$ differently, they will buy out politicians to change that.
Anything you can think of, there is a counter-move to weasel around it. Therefore, the only way everyone will have access to living wage, healthcare, etc. is through the government, because it is mandatory for us to pay them. Now, why do people take issue with this? Because they're only doing so well or not well themselves. The majority of the wealth will not change hands, and never will. If there was a revolution, it would change the government, maybe people from the impoverished and middle class would switch places, but those with money at the top will not change.
So arguing that the 1% should put out more is pointless. No one has the ability to make them.
Anything you can think of, there is a counter-move to weasel around it. Therefore, the only way everyone will have access to living wage, healthcare, etc. is through the government, because it is mandatory for us to pay them. Now, why do people take issue with this? Because they're only doing so well or not well themselves. The majority of the wealth will not change hands, and never will. If there was a revolution, it would change the government, maybe people from the impoverished and middle class would switch places, but those with money at the top will not change.
So arguing that the 1% should put out more is pointless. No one has the ability to make them.
I had always assumed that this was the reason members of the Elite classes mysteriously turn up dead or "go missing" from time to time.
--Patrick
Historically, this has been untrue. While some of the wealthy will invariably escape with SOME portion of their wealth and some of the others will evade the troubles through politics or supporting said revolution, it's usually the upper class that loses out the most in armed revolutions and it's usually the current middle class (or at least part of it) that takes their place. The poor usually do a bit better too... and the rich who fled with their wealth usually don't get to come back, having been labeled traitors by the successor government.
Generally, the wealthy with the worst excesses are put to the sword immediately, as a precursor to get the rest to fall in line. This is what happens when you don't take care of your community and instead antagonize them.
Regardless, that's not what is likely to happen. Automation is the future for basically every job in the next 50-100 years and we're going to have to face the reality that more than half of our workforce isn't necessary in the new economy. When that happens, basic human living expenses will be guaranteed and the wealthy WILL have to suck it unless they want armed mobs burning down their livelihood. It's simply the price of living in a polite society.
I don't really see that when people end up attacking their own neighborhoods as opposed to the wealthy ones.
As for livelihood, I don't see uprisings going on where these companies tend to outsource. The governments in Asia appear to welcome this practice.
As for livelihood, I don't see uprisings going on where these companies tend to outsource. The governments in Asia appear to welcome this practice.
Occupy Oakland shutdown the 5th biggest port in the nation on a whim. It happened entirely because the police were completely unwilling to do what it would take to get rid of them. You don't think people would do it again (and permanently) if they were desperate enough?
And as for livelihood... China's about to have it's own problems soon. It will soon become unprofitable to build in China and ship elsewhere (ether due to rising energy costs or a rising wage in China). Whether this means big business will move their factories somewhere else (like Africa) or simply move them back home when automation becomes sufficient is unseen, but the current business model (like ALL 20th century business models) is unsustainable in the long run when the simple introduction of jobs is enough to stabilize a region and promote Western ideals.
Ironically, Western ideals are the very thing keeping Capitalism from reaching it's end game: you can't get ALL the money when your very presence undermines the conditions you need to flourish completely. When you can't exploit workers fully, Capitalism dies a slow death.
I suppose that gels with "how do we sell more when we've reached market saturation?" issues I've seen talked about in the advertising world.
I'm not arguing as a matter of debate; I want you to be right. I just have trouble seeing it with the way things are.
Exactly. This is how Capitalism works against itself. In that case, the issue is that investors demand a certain amount of profit from their investments... but that can only happen under unsustainable conditions. There IS a point where you can't sell any more product, ether because further markets don't exist or you can't make a profit from those markets you haven't tapped into. When it becomes apparent that their investments will grow no further, most investors are going to sell their holdings and invest in something else with growth potential. However, this is self destructive... or at the very least shows no concern for the factors that make investing profitable.
GasBandit
Staff member
Capitalism doesn't mean everybody (or every business) succeeds just "because capitalism." Nobody who understands capitalism, or the world in general, would make that assumption. That said, it's still the most efficient engine to generate weath in the fairest way.
That's halfway to what I think the proper role of government should be in a free market society - ensuring balance by busting up trusts and monopolies when they become a detriment to competition, a-la Ma Bell. Of course, even there it wasn't done 100% right, but we're still better off than if one company owned all things telephony. Capitalism works best when businesses have to fight each other tooth and nail. Bad things happen when they collude or combine, or grow too large. Pop the bubbles before they get "too big to fail."
Right now, the single biggest issue the government should be addressing in this regard is breaking the collusion of the cable/internet connection markets. There is no actual competition when some providers have to rent their lines from their biggest local competitors because local municipalities have made it impossible to lay new ones... or when local markets decide to match prices to keep the shit under control. For that matter, the government should be subsidizing the updating and expansion of the current networks in order to improve net access as a common good... and needs to make it so the ISPs can't raise their rates in response to this better service. Say what you will about the government forcing phone companies to hook up EVERYONE who was willing to pay for a line, but it was an undeniable infrastructure improvement that helped the entire nation for decades... same with the interstate system.
Or just do what I want and make government lines that sell internet only for pennies on the dollar. The US has some of the worst net access in the free world and it's entirely because the local dealers don't want to drop money on improving their networks to modern standards... and the local government offered services have so far been some of the best, fastest networks in the country.
For all the crap we give you, @GasBandit, I really hope you're staying safe with all the storms rolling through Texas (yes, ALL of Texas) at the moment.
It appears Austin is underwater, and Houston is coming close to it.
It appears Austin is underwater, and Houston is coming close to it.
The rest of the world gets it.
Here's a link to an article that really lays out how this really looks like less an infrastructure problem and more one of entrenchment.
Yes, you heard right, for the majority of people out there, it's cheaper to buy a SIM from a British company, send it here to the USA, stick it in your smartphone, and "roam" using the exact same towers and network infrastructure than it is to have a contract with a domestic carrier.
Heck, if you go to Britain/Ireland/Hong Kong/Indonesia/Australia/Spain/etc, you don't even have to get another SIM card...this one is still good there, too. If you had a domestic carrier, you'd pay through the nose for the privilege. Through the nose.
--Patrick
One of the big problems is that manufacturing jobs and industrial jobs where you didn't necessarily need highly educated employees have been heavily automated, leading to a smaller workforce, as well as being outsourced overseas. Then there's boomers who can't afford to / won't retire. So you have an entire generation entering a very restricted job market. Then you compound that by adding on crippling student debt - entering a limited and unstable job market with 25k+ in debt that can't be discharged. Then you take away their rights as workers with "right to work" laws, because the only bargaining power most workers have is when they're together - individually, there's no way they have any leverage with a large company. Mandatory unpaid overtime. Constantly shifting hours. Hours cut or jobs being classified as temporary so you don't get the benefits to which you're legally entitled. Then you don't pay them a living wage, but then cut any supplemental aid they could get - SNAP benefits, etc.
That's not good economics, that's fuel for an uprising.
But no, I'm sure that just means employees are lazy and want handouts, right? Unlike those hard-working executives with golden parachutes, who can walk away with a severance package worth millions after completely fucking up and costing the company billions.
That's not good economics, that's fuel for an uprising.
But no, I'm sure that just means employees are lazy and want handouts, right? Unlike those hard-working executives with golden parachutes, who can walk away with a severance package worth millions after completely fucking up and costing the company billions.
You got me curious, so I basically just Googled for recent news stories involving "golden parachutes."
This was one of the first ones to pop up. Let's make a few assumptions. What was Mr. Cahill's salary in 2014? About 4.1 million dollars in cash and equity.
Let's apply McDonald's logic to this. What's the salary of a McDonald's store manager? Seems it's about $45000.
By that logic, if a freshly-promoted McDonald's manager were to be fired without cause (as per the terms of Mr. Cahill's contract), he would for some reason then be entitled to 485% of his yearly salary as severance, which works out to about $200k. Now doesn't that sound a little silly? A little...undeserved?
Now obviously a McDonald's manager is not going to have the authority to sell his restaurant's building to a competitor the way Mr. Cahill did, but think about what just happened: A guy was groomed for 9 months and then put into a position where he would have the power to sell his company to a competitor, "inexplicably" did just that, and then received almost 5 years' salary as a reward for his supernaturally savvy business sense. Also, a McDonald's manager is not going to have the sort of clout necessary to build such a favorable
Oh, and the guy who stepped down and retired at the end of 2014 to let Mr. Cahill in? A guy by the name of Tony Vernon? He had to sign a 2yr noncompete agreement, but he is going to get two years of severance pay to make up for that as well as staying on as a "senior advisor" to handhold Mr. Cahill until March 31st...but that's ok, because the merger paperwork got signed on March 24th. This does not sound like a series of good business decisions. This sounds like a closed-door engineered plan that's been going on for quite some time dressed up as "business theater." It also sounds like Mr. Cahill got paid a lot of money to be a figurehead for a month. What did he actually do during his tenure as CEO that was worth almost $20 million? Aside from being almost the same age as Mr. Vernon, that is.
I picked this one solely because it was the first one in the list. I didn't know when I started searching around that it was going to be so textbook buddy-buddy, old-boy-network, golden parachute-y.
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Infrastructure has to be the government's responsibility as well, that went for telephones last century, it goes for internet this century. It's just going to be one hell of a balancing act to limit them to regulating ISPs without getting their hooks into the stuff ON the internet.
We got some flooding here, and it knocked 3 of our transmitters off for a while (we have backups fortunately), but the worst that is going to happen to me here is all the mosquitoes that will spawn in all the standing water in my neighborhood.
Hmph! I said it BEFORE Rand did!
Before anybody even knew who Rand Paul was!
Well, Texas sure as hell does.
NJ has a "go with the traffic" clause in our speed laws whereby the driver needs to be going fast enough to not be a road hazard to other drivers, regardless of the listed speed limit.
Naturally, this gets into weird territory when the flow of traffic is going faster than the listed speed limit (which happens quite a lot on the NJ Turnpike).
Naturally, this gets into weird territory when the flow of traffic is going faster than the listed speed limit (which happens quite a lot on the NJ Turnpike).
Necronic
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, who knows when they're gonna run out of virgins, right? Gotta make sure the fam gets em while the gettin's good!
I assume the officers just do what they do in Virginia, and look for out of state tags.