Export thread

I've been hearing malarkey about some CEO in Nevada laying of 24 Hispanic workers from his 110 person workforce specifically because Obama won the election, there was a story of one boss telling his workers to vote Romney or they're fired, and now this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?tid=pm_pop



Boy the wealthy sure hate to share a fraction of that pie with the rest of us.

By the way, isn't this the guy who owns the coal company that was interviewed during the attempted rescue of all of his employees in a coal mine in West VA a few years ago? The guy who pretty much didn't care about all the safety violations that caused those men to get trapped and die?

Oh big business, you just won't stop making new ways to be dick-bags will you?

This makes me think of people who beat someone up and then say "see what you made me do."

Cajungal said:

This makes me think of people who beat someone up and then say "see what you made me do."

Click to expand...

Pretty much my thoughts as well. Figuring out a way to adapt to tax increases without drastically cutting the workforce? That takes actual leadership and management skills!

Silent Bob said:

By the way, isn't this the guy who owns the coal company that was interviewed during the attempted rescue of all of his employees in a coal mine in West VA a few years ago? The guy who pretty much didn't care about all the safety violations that caused those men to get trapped and die?

Click to expand...

Crandall Canyon Mine, Utah.

But yeah, this is the same asshole that dropped a mountain on his miners, and the rescue team that went in after them.

Then he gave a shitton of money to WVU and got a chair in the mining department of the engineering school named after him.

Just another reason to hate coal and everything it stands for. Because it was built on the corpses of men the mine owners don't give two fucks about. But they will exploit at every turn if it means more profit in their pockets.

Are you guys sure there aren't sound business reasons behind these layoffs?

I had a look at the US coal consumption statistics. It seems domestic demand is down, and growth in exports doesn't seem to be picking up the slack. Producers might be under market pressure to readjust capacity accordingly, and this usually means people get the boot. I don't know about any taxes, but they would presumably add to costs and thereby exacerbate the problem for producers.

EIA said:

EIA forecasts that coal production will decline by 7 percent in 2012 as domestic consumption falls. Coal production for the first three quarters (January-September) of 2012 was 46 million short tons (MMst) below the same period in 2011. EIA expects production to remain flat in 2013 as inventory draws and lower exports offset an increase in domestic consumption in the forecast. Electric power sector stocks, which ended 2011 at 175 MMst, are forecast to total 185 MMst at the end of the 2012 and 180 MMst in 2013.

Click to expand...

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm

Most American companies that don't rely on the holiday season as their highest sales point (i.e. companies that don't make consumer goods) finalize their budgets for the subsequent year in September. So if he were in a position of needing to let workers go as a matter of course, you would have expected him to do so within the last couple months, not immediately after the election.

Most likely, the public way in which Murray has politicized the firings is to try and blame Obama for the company's dwindling profits and not his inability to keep up as the energy market moves towards natural gas.

TommiR said:

Are you guys sure there aren't sound business reasons behind these layoffs?

Click to expand...

Looking at who he as and what he's done? No. Not a frakking chance.

He does business in the West Virginia coal fields. There are no "sound business reasons." It's "we do what we want to who we want, and we've got the politicians and courts in our pockets."

These are the people who admit to the media they're buying lawmakers and judges, and dare anyone to try and stop them.

SpecialKO said:

Most American companies that don't rely on the holiday season as their highest sales point (i.e. companies that don't make consumer goods) finalize their budgets for the subsequent year in September. So if he were in a position of needing to let workers go as a matter of course, you would have expected him to do so within the last couple months, not immediately after the election.

Most likely, the public way in which Murray has politicized the firings is to try and blame Obama for the company's dwindling profits and not his inability to keep up as the energy market moves towards natural gas.

Click to expand...

So do I understand correctly that we agree it may have been a perfectly valid move for the company to cut costs by laying off employees to improve profitability in the face of declining demand, and the outrage in this thread is more directed towards them doing it after the election and the owner blaming Obama?

DarkAudit said:

Looking at who he as and what he's done? No. Not a frakking chance.

He does business in the West Virginia coal fields. There are no "sound business reasons." It's "we do what we want to who we want, and we've got the politicians and courts in our pockets."

These are the people who admit to the media they're buying lawmakers and judges, and dare anyone to try and stop them.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I'd expect them to hardly be above market concerns. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast I quoted above does indicate an expected reduction in coal production in 2012. Wouldn't that mean expected personnel layoffs in any industry, and in any country?

TommiR said:

So do I understand correctly that we agree it may have been a perfectly valid move for the company to cut costs by laying off employees to improve profitability in the face of declining demand, and the outrage in this thread is more directed towards them doing it after the election and the owner blaming Obama?


Be that as it may, I'd expect them to hardly be above market concerns. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast I quoted above does indicate an expected reduction in coal production in 2012. Wouldn't that mean expected personnel layoffs in any industry, and in any country?

Click to expand...

The coal industry is in denial. They do not want to admit both demand and reserves are down, so they make up fairy stories like the "War on Coal", where it's Obama and the EPA want to destroy a "way of life". Then they manage to get the miners to fall for this bullshit narrative and spread the tale to their family and friends.

This is an industry that cares about nothing else except moving coal? Regulations that keep miners alive? Ignored in writing. The Upper Big Branch disaster was not an anomaly. It was not a fluke. It was the result of standing Massey Energy policy. Regulations that get in the way of moving coal were to be ignored.

DarkAudit said:

The coal industry is in denial. They do not want to admit both demand and reserves are down, so they make up fairy stories like the "War on Coal", where it's Obama and the EPA want to destroy a "way of life". Then they manage to get the miners to fall for this bullshit narrative and spread the tale to their family and friends.

This is an industry that cares about nothing else except moving coal? Regulations that keep miners alive? Ignored in writing. The Upper Big Branch disaster was not an anomaly. It was not a fluke. It was the result of standing Massey Energy policy. Regulations that get in the way of moving coal were to be ignored.

Click to expand...

Could well be, I'm not familiar with the coal mining industry or how it it practised in West Virginia. But I'm not sure the issues you mention feature all that greatly in the present case of personnel reductions. Demand is down and not expected to go up in the short term, so reducing capacity might, in my understanding, be a valid response from the company. Why this particular company got to where it is now and how distasteful their practices are can be discussed separately, but, ignoring rhetoric and blaming of others for mistakes which may well have been their own, the company itself is still subject to regular business logic.

TommiR said:

Are you guys sure there aren't sound business reasons behind these layoffs?

I had a look at the US coal consumption statistics. It seems domestic demand is down, and growth in exports doesn't seem to be picking up the slack. Producers might be under market pressure to readjust capacity accordingly, and this usually means people get the boot. I don't know about any taxes, but they would presumably add to costs and thereby exacerbate the problem for producers.



http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm

Click to expand...

TommiR said:

Could well be, I'm not familiar with the coal mining industry or how it it practised in West Virginia. But I'm not sure the issues you mention feature all that greatly in the present case of personnel reductions. Demand is down and not expected to go up in the short term, so reducing capacity might, in my understanding, be a valid response from the company. Why this particular company got to where it is now and how distasteful their practices are can be discussed separately, but, ignoring rhetoric and blaming of others for mistakes which may well have been their own, the company itself is still subject to regular business logic.

Click to expand...

I think you answered it though. He's blaming Obama for lowering demand in coal.

TommiR said:

Are you guys sure there aren't sound business reasons behind these layoffs?

Click to expand...

Of course there are, and he would have fired those people anyway. If anything he just waited until the election was over so he can blame it on Obama. That's kinda the whole point of why this is BS.

@Li3n said:

Of course there are, and he would have fired those people anyway. If anything he just waited until the election was over so he can blame it on Obama. That's kinda the whole point of why this is BS.

Click to expand...

Especially the coal industry. And to be honest, rightfully so. We really need to invest more into future energy sources and shy away from fossil fuels. That's the better answer than the GOP's "let's tap it all" solution.

@Li3n said:

Of course there are, and he would have fired those people anyway. If anything he just waited until the election was over so he can blame it on Obama. That's kinda the whole point of why this is BS.

Click to expand...

Yes, so we have a situation where a coal producer is laying people off due to decreased demand, and blaming government policies for it. Which may have had some influence, truth be told; my understanding is that the US government is supporting alternative energy sources, which would presumably negatively impact prospects for coal.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see all that much to get worked up over this.

Silent Bob said:

Especially the coal industry. And to be honest, rightfully so. We really need to invest more into future energy sources and shy away from fossil fuels. That's the better answer than the GOP's "let's tap it all" solution.

Click to expand...

Personally I favor going nuclear. Clean, dependable, relatively affordable, and can be built to produce big numbers.

TommiR said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see all that much to get worked up over this.

Click to expand...

It is just you. This is the equivalent of kicking the dog because you had a bad day at work.

Tress said:

It is just you. This is the equivalent of kicking the dog because you had a bad day at work.

Click to expand...

Well, I just don't see it that way. If it has been established that there may be sound business reasons why to fire those people, then they will lose their jobs anyway and that's that. What difference does it really make if the company blames government policy for the financial situation?

You don't see why people might get annoyed by a corporation lying for political gain?

TommiR said:

Well, I just don't see it that way. If it has been established that there may be sound business reasons why to fire those people, then they will lose their jobs anyway and that's that. What difference does it really make if the company blames government policy for the financial situation?

Click to expand...

Honesty? The way the statement is made matters.

Especially when it's the same guy who forced his employees to take unpaid leave to attend a pro-Romney rally, told them via company memo that he'd be forced to cut jobs if Obama was re-elected, and allegedly forced his employees to donate 1% of their pre-tax revenue to a PAC he created.

TommiR said:

Well, I just don't see it that way. If it has been established that there may be sound business reasons why to fire those people, then they will lose their jobs anyway and that's that. What difference does it really make if the company blames government policy for the financial situation?

Click to expand...

Well, you clearly have a certain narrative you want to put forth and you'll view this any way you can to make it work. So bully for you, then.

The prayer basically saying Obama is of the devil didn't help either...

When are republicans going to realize that corpratism is not capitalism. A free market can not flourish without some form of regulation to make it a level playing field for the forces of supply and demand to work. There's a reason there are anti-trust laws.

Bowielee said:

When are republicans going to realize that corpratism is not capitalism. A free market can not flourish without some form of regulation to make it a level playing field for the forces of supply and demand to work. There's a reason there are anti-trust laws.

Click to expand...

It's not just Republicans. The "Democrats" (more DiNOs than real Democrats) have run WV since the beginning of time, and have been completely in thrall to the Friends of Coal the entire time.

If coal is removed from it's place of power here by anything but force of arms, it will be a complete shock to me.

Silent Bob said:

Especially the coal industry. And to be honest, rightfully so. We really need to invest more into future energy sources and shy away from fossil fuels. That's the better answer than the GOP's "let's tap it all" solution.

Click to expand...

I actually heard a guy on POTUS (a Sirus XM station) say "Who put the fossil fuels in the ground and why would they do that if we weren't meant to use them".

drifter said:

You don't see why people might get annoyed by a corporation lying for political gain?

Click to expand...

As I've understood, the company line is that government policies have worsened the case for coal to a substantial degree, and since there is no prospect for those policies to be overturned under a second Obama term, they have no choice but to announce those layoffs. This may be an exaggerated and biased account that does not give the whole picture, but it may actually be true to an extent when seen from a certain point of view. So I'm not sure the company is factually lying, more like they are portraying events in a light which they think is the best for them.

Now, I can see how this might irk people off. Some because they've done their research and have solid arguments pointing to the conclusion that the company story is a gross misrepresentation, and others because the story conflicts with their own preconceived notions of rapacious and soulless corporations exploiting the little guy and hijacking the political process.

As I see it, the fact of the matter is that about 160 people lost their jobs, and I think a case has been made that the layoffs may have been in keeping with perfectly regular business procedures. Concentrating on who said what and whose version of the events is more correct may be interesting from a 'truth commission' point of view, but if the layoffs were genuine, then it may not amount to much more than an evaluation of the accuracy of the used rhetoric. Could be somebody's cup of tea, but I kind of take it for granted that every side of the matter with an interest at stake is polishing their own shield and pushing their own agenda.

MindDetective said:

Honesty? The way the statement is made matters.

Click to expand...

Yes, it matters at least from a PR point of view. On the whole, honesty seems to me a rather kantian notion, a bit too absolute and universal to have extensive utility in a business or political environment, outside of what is required by law and/or suggested by prevailing practices.

Using that as a guideline, I assume the company followed the law in these layoffs, and, if there were legitimate business realities at play, then that would satisfy the 'prevailing practices' part as well. What is left is the company's account of what led to these business realities forcing the layoffs, which may be subject to differing points of view.

SpecialKO said:

Especially when it's the same guy who (a) forced his employees to take unpaid leave to attend a pro-Romney rally, (b) told them via company memo that he'd be forced to cut jobs if Obama was re-elected, and (c) allegedly forced his employees to donate 1% of their pre-tax revenue to a PAC he created.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll take all of those to be correct, and label them a, b, and c as indicated in the quote.

a) Sounds to me like coal isn't selling the way it used to. Otherwise, letting your whole staff essentially have extra time off instead of, well, working, doesn't seem like a smart move. Telling them what to do while unpaid does seem like a dickish move, though. Do US labor laws permit an employer to send employees on leave without pay for a while instead firing them in case of a temporary reduction in business (finnish labor laws do)? The company or a part of it might have basically closed down for a day, in preference to sending a handful of people home for weeks of unpaid leave (or firing them). Doesn't change the fact that telling unpaid people what to do is a dickish move, though.
b) That might be in keeping with the company story of the reason behind the business realities forcing the layoffs. Did the memo say "if Obama is re-elected", or did it say something like "if the energy policies of the current administration continue" or some such? In any case, I think it is necessary to give employees advance notice before you fire them, so some sort of a memo would probably have been needed anyway.
c) If that affected their take-home pay without their consent, then that is crossing a few lines. If it was one of those tax-deductible loophole kind of things that some company accounting wizard noticed and worked their magic to shift a few figures around, then it is dubious and, particularly if done without the knowledge and consent of the employees, might be illegal. But not necessarily something that directly affected the pay of the workers.

Tress said:

Well, you clearly have a certain narrative you want to put forth and you'll view this any way you can to make it work. So bully for you, then.

Click to expand...

Not really. I'm just of a mind to explore alternative explanations to the narrative I'm being fed.

North_Ranger said:

The prayer basically saying Obama is of the devil didn't help either...

Click to expand...

I view that as propaganda. Might resonate with more religious communities, and thereby bring added weight to bear on public representatives.

Bowielee said:

When are republicans going to realize that corpratism is not capitalism. A free market can not flourish without some form of regulation to make it a level playing field for the forces of supply and demand to work. There's a reason there are anti-trust laws.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't an ideal efficient free market be devoid of government interference in pricing, allowing supply and demand to decide the outcome? In such a case with the absence of government subsidies and disincentives, coal might actually be a very competitive form of energy production.

DarkAudit said:

It's not just Republicans. The "Democrats" (more DiNOs than real Democrats) have run WV since the beginning of time, and have been completely in thrall to the Friends of Coal the entire time.

If coal is removed from it's place of power here by anything but force of arms, it will be a complete shock to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's probable that the coal and related industries employ a lot of people there, and further jobs in the service sector live off of that. If coal were removed, then the effects might be devastating to local economies. Which is why I'd expect many people there to fight for coal tooth-and-nail, as the livelyhoods of very many probably depend on it.

But damned if I actually know anything about local economies over there.

Krisken said:

I actually heard a guy on POTUS (a Sirus XM station) say "Who put the fossil fuels in the ground and why would they do that if we weren't meant to use them".

Click to expand...

I feel that it is a bit quaint to ascribe some higher meaning for their existance. That being said, people use what they can to achieve what they feel they need. And coal apparently does help in that, given it's large market share in energy production and the self-sufficiency of domestic coal reserves in the US.

TommiR said:

Yes, it matters at least from a PR point of view. On the whole, honesty seems to me a rather kantian notion, a bit too absolute and universal to have extensive utility in a business or political environment, outside of what is required by law and/or suggested by prevailing practices.

Using that as a guideline, I assume the company followed the law in these layoffs, and, if there were legitimate business realities at play, then that would satisfy the 'prevailing practices' part as well. What is left is the company's account of what led to these business realities forcing the layoffs, which may be subject to differing points of view.https://www.halforums.com/members/specialko.54/

Click to expand...

https://www.halforums.com/members/specialko.54/

The implications reach beyond the business, though. They affect politics (quite intentionally) as well.

Get used to it chums, another 4 years (at least) of businesses large and small battening down the hatches. Papa John's and Applebees have said they don't see themselves expanding or hiring for now. Also, you didn't need people to keep investing in the stock market anyway, did you?

But hey, enjoy those drone strikes

TommiR said:

Wouldn't an ideal efficient free market be devoid of government interference in pricing, allowing supply and demand to decide the outcome? In such a case with the absence of government subsidies and disincentives, coal might actually be a very competitive form of energy production.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if you can't see where a completely unfettered free market would be manipulated via monopolies and price fixing, I'm not really sure where to go with this.

GasBandit said:

Get used to it chums, another 4 years (at least) of businesses large and small battening down the hatches. Papa John's and Applebees have said they don't see themselves expanding or hiring for now. Also, you didn't need people to keep investing in the stock market anyway, did you?

But hey, enjoy those drone strikes

Click to expand...

Funniest post in this thread so far

TommiR said:

As I've understood, the company line is that government policies have worsened the case for coal to a substantial degree, and since there is no prospect for those policies to be overturned under a second Obama term, they have no choice but to announce those layoffs. This may be an exaggerated and biased account that does not give the whole picture, but it may actually be true to an extent when seen from a certain point of view. So I'm not sure the company is factually lying, more like they are portraying events in a light which they think is the best for them.

Now, I can see how this might irk people off. Some because they've done their research and have solid arguments pointing to the conclusion that the company story is a gross misrepresentation, and others because the story conflicts with their own preconceived notions of rapacious and soulless corporations exploiting the little guy and hijacking the political process.

As I see it, the fact of the matter is that about 160 people lost their jobs, and I think a case has been made that the layoffs may have been in keeping with perfectly regular business procedures. Concentrating on who said what and whose version of the events is more correct may be interesting from a 'truth commission' point of view, but if the layoffs were genuine, then it may not amount to much more than an evaluation of the accuracy of the used rhetoric. Could be somebody's cup of tea, but I kind of take it for granted that every side of the matter with an interest at stake is polishing their own shield and pushing their own agenda.

Click to expand...

Government policies haven't worsened the case for coal (lately, anyway). Coal is hurting thanks to an overabundance of cheap natural gas. There is proposed legislation regarding fly ash, but nothing regarding it has been passed into law.

drifter said:

Government policies haven't worsened the case for coal (lately, anyway). Coal is hurting thanks to an overabundance of cheap natural gas. There is proposed legislation regarding fly ash, but nothing regarding it has been passed into law.

Click to expand...

But hey, why deal logically with market realities when you can just blame the gub'mint, and stampede the Fox-watching masses into demanding what you want for you? Doesn't matter if it destroys the landscape, poisons the water, or kills your children. That's all the gub'mint's fault for pushing the Friends of Coal into a corner.

MindDetective said:

The implications reach beyond the business, though. They affect politics (quite intentionally) as well.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But political decision making does not happen in a vacuum. Most people are employed in the private sector, so reactions there to public policies are relevant in any political discussion with implications on economic and labor policies. How much weight is given to proclamations from the private sector depends on the circumstances. Too much is 'bad' from a social point of view, and too little is 'bad' from an economical point of view.

Quite what is the right amount is something I think you, I, and people in general might differ on. My personal approach is rather econ-friendly, in the sense that you need to make a cake before you can start to divide it.

GasBandit said:

But hey, enjoy those drone strikes

Click to expand...

Enjoy them for as long as you can, as Boeing announced 30% management layoffs in it's defence division the day after the election.

Bowielee said:

Honestly, if you can't see where a completely unfettered free market would be manipulated via monopolies and price fixing, I'm not really sure where to go with this.

Click to expand...

I am more referring to government subsidies for alternative energy production and reserch, pending EPA legislation hampering the use of coal, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

drifter said:

Government policies haven't worsened the case for coal (lately, anyway). Coal is hurting thanks to an overabundance of cheap natural gas. There is proposed legislation regarding fly ash, but nothing regarding it has been passed into law.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that about 30% of the retirements in coal energy generation capacity are estimated to be due to pending EPA legislation. Here is the study.

But I think we can all agree that the reduction in demand for coal is an interplay of several different factors, the least of which is not the overall economic situation. So the company story is not the complete picture.

Looks like I made a mistake: that pdf points out that there were several regulations instituted by the EPA (one of which replaces a less stringent measure). However, a quick read says that 5% of generation capacity is projected to be retired by 2016 due to legislation: 16 GW worth, with the other plants being retired regardless of legislation. But my eyes started glazing over about halfway through, and I might have missed something.

I read the same. 56 GW worth of coal fired capacity is to be retired by 2016, and 16 GW of it is estimated to be due to EPA regulations, making for about 30%.

All right, I'm being nitpicky here, but 5% is a far cry from 30%. That makes about 70% of the projected decline due to factors aside from government regulations. I also don't understand where you're getting 30% from; 56 out of 320 is 17.5%.

-edit-

Ah, never mind, I understand now, I was misreading what you wrote. Let this stand as testament to my shitty reading comprehension.

Sorry about that, likely my fault. My english is far from perfect, so I might not always be able to express myself satisfactorily.

I think perhaps a significant point is that, aside from the coal plants currently under construction, no new plants are projected to be built at least until 2030 in the study. Coal demand is estimated to decrease by 7% in 2012, and to remain flat for 2013, according to the EIA estimates I cited earlier. Coupled with the reductions in capacity (of which 30% are due to EPA regulations) and the absence of newly built capacity (assuming the study accurately reflects future projects in this regard), this might reflect very poorly on the prospects of coal. Which will likely lead to further personnel layoffs in the coal industry.

pdf said:

Visibly absent is new coal capacity; through 2030, no new coal generation is projected to be built in either case except for the units that began construction prior to this analysis, which are not included in this chart. Although the Policy Case does not include the EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standard for greenhouse gases—which would essentially require any new coal capacity to include carbon capture and sequestration—these results would not be impacted by such a requirement, because of the lack of new coal builds.
...
Coal generation has seen a decline in recent years that is expected to continue.

Click to expand...

Naw, it's my bad. Your follow-up post cleared it up, I just wasn't paying enough attention.

So let me get this straight. We're supposed to let rich people walk all over the common folks or they'll hold the economy hostage, isn't that what these CEOs are going for?

Well DUH.

Waaaah! People expect us to not pollute the shit out of the water we drink out of, no fair!

Okay with stuff like this happening, WHY THE HELL HASN'T THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED YET?! I mean DAMN! You go to a punk show and you hear about how much people hate the government, but what are they changing? NOTHING! They just whine and whine and pretend like their doing something when they are doing nothing! If I had the money...I would take it all down.

Honestly, I'd be completely happy with the complete abolition of corporate entities as a whole and go to a true supply and demand economy that relies on small businesses.

Capitalism is one of the best economic systems, but when it's abused by large special interests, it no longer works off of traditional economic models.

Bowielee said:

Honestly, I'd be completely happy with the complete abolition of corporate entities as a whole and go to a true supply and demand economy that relies on small businesses.

Capitalism is one of the best economic systems, but when it's abused by large special interests, it no longer works off of traditional economic models.

Click to expand...

And it gets even worse when capitalists defend themselves by saying " I earned this money, so why should I pay taxes" bull-shit. Most of the money industrialists make are made from their workers hard efforts and they are a small piece of the pie.

Silent Bob said:

So let me get this straight. We're supposed to let rich people walk all over the common folks or they'll hold the economy hostage, isn't that what these CEOs are going for?

Click to expand...

That's what Congressional Republicans have been doing the last few years, and their cohorts in the Senate decided to follow suit. The fiscal cliff looks to be their next exploitable target. Thing is, if we hit it, the results will be noticeable, but not a disaster like failing to raise the debt ceiling. Obama could call their bluff, and let the Republicans take the full force of the blame they earned.

But this guy in the news post - what a jackass. I'd love to see a real criminal investigation announced into this guy's record - announced on his birthday.

Yoshimickster said:

Okay with stuff like this happening, WHY THE HELL HASN'T THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED YET?!

Click to expand...

Because you're living better than anyone has ever lived before, ever.

Silent Bob said:

So let me get this straight. We're supposed to let rich people walk all over the common folks or they'll hold the economy hostage, isn't that what these CEOs are going for?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying the EPA regulations necessarily 'bad', that may be a topic for another discussion. But what I am saying is that they will result in common folks loosing their jobs. If a powerplant closes down due to regulations, then most of the people working there are out of a job, and their suppliers will end up with that much excess capacity that they need to figure out what to do with.

Nothing unusual about that, and you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. No revenge or plutocratic conspiracies necessary, just perfectly normal business.

Bowielee said:

Honestly, I'd be completely happy with the complete abolition of corporate entities as a whole and go to a true supply and demand economy that relies on small businesses.

Capitalism is one of the best economic systems, but when it's abused by large special interests, it no longer works off of traditional economic models.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions regarding your idea.

How would your economic model with it's small businesses handle competition from foreign industrial conglomerates with their cheap products due to economies of scale? Protectionism and export subsidies? And do I understand correctly that you would use regulatory measures to prevent successful small businesses from becoming not-so-small businesses?

GasBandit said:

Because you're living better than anyone has ever lived before, ever.

Click to expand...

But not everybody is living as good as me, which is the problem. For every guy whose living comfortably there are five guys eating rats for dinner just to get by. How the hell can I enjoy my splendor knowing there are people who are screwed out of getting the chance, and that I could easily lose my comfort at any time. I like what I have, but unless everybody is able to have a warm house to sleep in I won't be satisfied.

Yoshimickster said:

For every guy whose living comfortably there are five guys eating rats for dinner just to get by.

Click to expand...

Umm, I'm pretty sure the poverty rate (and abject poverty by the way you describe it there) isn't 83.3% in the USA. That's what 1 good for 5 "holy shit bad" means. Actual stats are useful (though look up what a person living at the poverty line has) but hyperbole is not.

And look up Russian (Soviet) history when they made sure that "everybody" was able to have a warm house to live in and what they did to ensure that shortly after the revolution.

Yoshimickster said:

But not everybody is living as good as me, which is the problem. For every guy whose living comfortably there are five guys eating rats for dinner just to get by.

Click to expand...

Like Eriol said - not in this country, there isn't.

Coal is dying because of natural gas. Why is this even an argument? This is common knowlege. Sure some of the EPA/regulatory policies are quickening it's death, but why in gods name would we allow them to loosen their environmental regulations just to allow them to compete with a cleaner, cheaper, safer (so far *fingers crossed*), and honestly a more accountable industry.

Coal dug it's own black grave. Now they can sleep in it.

Necronic said:

Coal is dying because of natural gas. Why is this even an argument? This is common knowlege. Sure some of the EPA/regulatory policies are quickening it's death, but why in gods name would we allow them to loosen their environmental regulations just to allow them to compete with a cleaner, cheaper, safer (so far *fingers crossed*), and honestly a more accountable industry.

Coal dug it's own black grave. Now they can sleep in it.

Click to expand...

I'm actually not 100% sure what the argument currently is since it's branched off a bit. But I think the original discussion was about the layoffs mentioned in the OP: were they out of spite (or something of the kind), or were there actual sound economic reasons at play such as declining demand for coal.

I believe everyone can agree that the decline in coal demand has to do with many factors, competition from natural gas included.

I guarantee the timing of the layoffs were based on spite. Real businesses don't work like that. There are proper fiscsal cycles that determine these things. Presidential elections influence them. They don't determine them.

I mean shit, if he thinks he's got it bad he should go talk to the defense industry. EVERY ELECTION is a massive change in their situation. But do you see the head of Lockheed Martin standing up and saying "Oh I'm so sorry guys we're laying you all off because Obama was elected I'm so sorry let's now pray to god".

Of course not. You know why? Because they are run like a grown-up business. Something Coal never learned how to do.

Wait, what? Accountable? The coal industry?

TommiR said:

How would your economic model with it's small businesses handle competition from foreign industrial conglomerates with their cheap products due to economies of scale? Protectionism and export subsidies? And do I understand correctly that you would use regulatory measures to prevent successful small businesses from becoming not-so-small businesses?

Click to expand...

Actually, most of that would be sorted out quickly by repealing corporate personhood. I know it's a super extreme stance that is unrealistic, but I recall being a kid and having the local hardware store, deli, bakery, movie house, etc... EVERY SINGLE ONE is closed now, replaced by a Walmart or other corporatized business. It is ridiculous and is the main reason we're a service economy now, which is just a fiscal house of cards. As it stands, the corpratocracy that is in place in America will lead to our downfall as a nation.

Necronic said:

I guarantee the timing of the layoffs were based on spite. Real businesses don't work like that. There are proper fiscsal cycles that determine these things. Presidential elections influence them. They don't determine them.

I mean shit, if he thinks he's got it bad he should go talk to the defense industry. EVERY ELECTION is a massive change in their situation. But do you see the head of Lockheed Martin standing up and saying "Oh I'm so sorry guys we're laying you all off because Obama was elected I'm so sorry let's now pray to god".

Of course not. You know why? Because they are run like a grown-up business. Something Coal never learned how to do.

Click to expand...

So I take it we agree that laying people off was a decision based on business realities in the form of decreasing demand of coal. The question remaining being why did they let the people go now, instead of like a month earlier, when they had finalised their budgets for the next term and likely identified the need for a reduction in capacity. In a sense, why did they keep about 160 people on the payroll for a month longer than necessary, and fire them now?

I might speculate along three different avenues.

1) Economic. With the election result, any chance of a pro-business Romney administration reversing EPA legislation and general government energy policy had vanished, along with chances for improvement in the prospects of coal
2) Political. People afraid for their jobs are more likely to vote for a candidate seen as favoring their industry, than people who have been fired by said industry. And Romney's platform of job creation might have suffered some loss of credibility if his supporters start firing people before the election, similarly to the case of neutral Boeing. Now, the guy had an opportunity to frame the layoffs in a more favorable light
3) Personal. Hey, he got to stick it to the evil Kenyan muslim socialist

With any combination of these three, and the absence of reasons to the contrary (reasons that I can see anyway), there was absolutely no sense in keeping these people on the payroll any longer.

Personally, I'd think the reasons a sensible business manager could fall for tend towards 1, and I can believe 2. But I think 3 requires some other factors at play.

Bowielee said:

Actually, most of that would be sorted out quickly by repealing corporate personhood. I know it's a super extreme stance that is unrealistic, but I recall being a kid and having the local hardware store, deli, bakery, movie house, etc... EVERY SINGLE ONE is closed now, replaced by a Walmart or other corporatized business. It is ridiculous and is the main reason we're a service economy now, which is just a fiscal house of cards. As it stands, the corpratocracy that is in place in America will lead to our downfall as a nation.

Click to expand...

Well, I must say I disagree with nearly everything you stated there. We can discuss our respective views on the points further, if you are willing.

But I can certainly empathize with the allure of the 'Mom and Pop' store. We had those here, too. Not so many remain anymore.

Eriol said:

Umm, I'm pretty sure the poverty rate (and abject poverty by the way you describe it there) isn't 83.3% in the USA. That's what 1 good for 5 "holy shit bad" means. Actual stats are useful (though look up what a person living at the poverty line has) but hyperbole is not.

And look up Russian (Soviet) history when they made sure that "everybody" was able to have a warm house to live in and what they did to ensure that shortly after the revolution.

Click to expand...

Dammit Jim, I'm a ranter not a mathematician! Also I was talking more big picture than just America, but I'm sure that's not the right statistic either. Course no matter what the statistic, the poor people we have are still fucking poor.

And yes I am aware of Soviet Russia, I took History class as well. It was not a true socialism, and sucked just as much as any capitalist society.

Fewer than ten people die per year in the us due to starvation. Even our poor are wealthy relative to the world.

Wait, you have statistical analysis for that?

From my search, World Health Organization as of 2004 said roughly 120 died due to lack of food. That's not including statistics of people who are malnourished due to poverty.

Yoshimickster said:

Dammit Jim, I'm a ranter not a mathematician! Also I was talking more big picture than just America, but I'm sure that's not the right statistic either. Course no matter what the statistic, the poor people we have are still fucking poor.

Click to expand...

This only means you haven't met -really- poor people.

Of course, that same source also says

Starvation rates in the United States are generally not recorded due to the relative infrequency of the occurrence. Generally speaking, most people do not starve to death in America as a result of lack of access to food. A combination of government food programs and private charities help to ensure this. However, Americans do have a serious problem with malnutrition. Starvation (that is, death due to lack of food) in America, in the relatively rare instances that it does occur, is not usually an indication of poverty but rather a variety of other social issues.

Click to expand...

So, malnutrition is a problem, but Americans actually starving to death is rare due the safety nets we have in place through private organizations and government programs.

Krisken said:

Wait, you have statistical analysis for that?

Click to expand...

Numbers? NUMBERS?!

We don't need no stinkin' numbers!

83% of my numbers are made up.

stienman said:

83% of my numbers are made up.

Click to expand...

He just made that up. A more accurate value would be 71%, plus or minus two percent or so.

TommiR said:

Well, I just don't see it that way. If it has been established that there may be sound business reasons why to fire those people, then they will lose their jobs anyway and that's that. What difference does it really make if the company blames government policy for the financial situation?

Click to expand...

Then the legitimate rape party gets 48% of the vote, that's the problem.

TommiR said:

I read the same. 56 GW worth of coal fired capacity is to be retired by 2016, and 16 GW of it is estimated to be due to EPA regulations, making for about 30%.

Click to expand...

So it's 70% not Obama's fault... which makes it totally Obama's fault guys.

Also, energy demands are still rising, so the % of people actually fired because of new regulations that favour other energy generation types should be able to find jobs in the energy industry, just not with coal (obviously not the same people necessarily).[DOUBLEPOST=1352988505][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:

Because you're living better than anyone has ever lived before, ever.

Click to expand...

And yet Bhutan has higher happiness ratings... it's almost as if over-consumption of goods isn't a good metric of a good life.

@Li3n said:

Then the legitimate rape party gets 48% of the vote, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

But now that the Democrats have won the election, they will surely turn the United States into a socialist dictatorship, destroy traditional marriage, and give children the gay!

So it's 70% not Obama's fault... which makes it totally Obama's fault guys.

Also, energy demands are still rising, so the % of people actually fired because of new regulations that favour other energy generation types should be able to find jobs in the energy industry, just not with coal (obviously not the same people necessarily).

Click to expand...

40% greater capacity drawdowns up to 2016, and no new capacity starting to be built, partly due to more stringent restrictions hampering their competitiveness.

Nobody is saying the company story is an unbiased account with no other interpretations possible, but it might be equally wrong to say that it is completely groundless.

As to the people being laid off, it is certainly not like they will spend the rest of their lives unemployed. Whether in the energy production/mining industries, or as waitresses and Walmart greeters, hopefully they will find new jobs and suffer no greater hardships than anyone else the world over who has lost their jobs as a result of the global economic crisis. Doesn't make it fun when people lose their jobs, though.

And yet Bhutan has higher happiness ratings... it's almost as if over-consumption of goods isn't a good metric of a good life.

Click to expand...

Plato's Cave, and all that.

@Li3n said:

And yet Bhutan has higher happiness ratings... it's almost as if over-consumption of goods isn't a good metric of a good life.

Click to expand...

"The things you own end up owning you."

@Li3n said:

And yet Bhutan has higher happiness ratings... it's almost as if over-consumption of goods isn't a good metric of a good life.

Click to expand...

I think a better statement is that if you've had it good your entire life you take it for granted. Which is what most Americans do (myself included.)

TommiR said:

40% greater capacity drawdowns up to 2016, and no new capacity starting to be built, partly due to more stringent restrictions hampering their competitiveness.

Nobody is saying the company story is an unbiased account with no other interpretations possible, but it might be equally wrong to say that it is completely groundless.

Click to expand...

Problem is that by that logic a lot of other laws, like against slavery etc., also gets in the way of profit, and they could blame anything on the government because at least party it's their fault for enforcing rules.

TommiR said:

Plato's Cave, and all that.

Click to expand...

Except that the only way Plato's Cave would affect happiness in the way you're implying is if you're aware of the next level of, lets say comfort, which again implies that unlike the bhutanese western people see better conditions then they have at a constant enough rate to cause want.

I mean i don't see any way to argue that being on a higher level of the cave (having more stuff) would instantly make you less happy just by being at that level.

@Li3n said:

Problem is that by that logic a lot of other laws, like against slavery etc., also gets in the way of profit, and they could blame anything on the government because at least party it's their fault for enforcing rules.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could assist me be clarifying what the logic you refer to here is, and what the similarities are between EPA regulations and slavery abolition acts.

Except that the only way Plato's Cave would affect happiness in the way you're implying is if you're aware of the next level of, lets say comfort, which again implies that unlike the bhutanese western people see better conditions then they have at a constant enough rate to cause want.

I mean i don't see any way to argue that being on a higher level of the cave (having more stuff) would instantly make you less happy just by being at that level.

Click to expand...

If memory serves, the people chained in the cave were also quite happy, spending their time at guessing about the shadows on the walls.

The industrial revolution brought products, that had previously been the province of the wealthy, to within reach of the common man. This is generally considered to be a good thing, and the benefits accrued to the middle- and lower classes. Regretfully, there are some places in the world that are not as weall-off as others, and do not have access to the same level of standard of living. But perhaps that will change in time, and those places will also come to fully enjoy the fruits of human invention.

Bowielee said:

Honestly, I'd be completely happy with the complete abolition of corporate entities as a whole and go to a true supply and demand economy that relies on small businesses.

Capitalism is one of the best economic systems, but when it's abused by large special interests, it no longer works off of traditional economic models.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Screw mass production! Totally ruined this country.

Papa Johns NOT cutting hours or raising pizza costs or closing stores? What stupid left-wing nutcase is making THESE claims? Oh, it's the Papa himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...bamacare_b_2166209.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

As the right calms down we'll see more and more of this.

TommiR said:

Perhaps you could assist me be clarifying what the logic you refer to here is,

Click to expand...

The one you where using, see " completely groundless" aka "any amount of influence is enough".

TommiR said:

and what the similarities are between EPA regulations and slavery abolition acts.

Click to expand...

Well if i didn't pay any employees my expenses would go down, thus more profit... obviously laws against slavery are hindering my business.

TommiR said:

If memory serves, the people chained in the cave were also quite happy, spending their time at guessing about the shadows on the walls.

Click to expand...

Yes, the point was that i for one don't remember Plato making the argument that once they got turned around to see the fire they'd be less happy. Then again it's been a while.

TommiR said:

But perhaps that will change in time, and those places will also come to fully enjoy the fruits of human invention.

Click to expand...

Yup, i for one can't way for space slums...[DOUBLEPOST=1353594375][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:

Papa Johns NOT cutting hours or raising pizza costs or closing stores? What stupid left-wing nutcase is making THESE claims? Oh, it's the Papa himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...bamacare_b_2166209.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

As the right calms down we'll see more and more of this.

Click to expand...

It's almost as if less employees to serve people and higher prices are not conductive to getting more customers...

@Li3n said:

The one you where using, see " completely groundless" aka "any amount of influence is enough".



Well if i didn't pay any employees my expenses would go down, thus more profit... obviously laws against slavery are hindering my business.

Click to expand...

These guys are in the business of mining coal. Demand for coal has gone down and is not expected to pick up for some time, a claim for which evidence has been provided. It is reasoned that this decline in coal demand is pressuring producers to reduce capacity and lay off personnel to cut costs. The company is blaming the government, saying that energy policies have worsened the prospects for coal. I say this may be partly true, and the layoffs are likely to be in agreement with normal business logic. You apparently disagree with something there. I'm not exactly sure with what, and I seem to be unable to convince you to clarify in plain english, beyond subtle hints and allusions. I have brought up EPA legislation, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and government grants and subsidies to support my position. You bring up the slave trade to support yours.

I think this is the point in the conversation where you and I agree to disagree.

Yes, the point was that i for one don't remember Plato making the argument that once they got turned around to see the fire they'd be less happy. Then again it's been a while.

Click to expand...

Didn't Plato's allegory also state that if one of these chained-up people was freed and brought out of the cave, then, once he had familiarised himself with the new situation, he would not wish to return back to the cave, and would think the games they played back there were rather silly? If that person was truly more happy being chained up inside the cave then being free in the outside world, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he'd want to go back?

We can both probably agree that ignorance is bliss, but we may have different opinions on whether such bliss is truly desireable.

Great story in the NY Times onCostco being the anti Walmart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?_r=0

Krisken said:

Great story in the NY Times onCostco being the anti Walmart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

Each and every one of those "analysts" can go fuck themselves while dying in a fire.

TommiR said:

These guys are in the business of mining coal. Demand for coal has gone down and is not expected to pick up for some time, a claim for which evidence has been provided. It is reasoned that this decline in coal demand is pressuring producers to reduce capacity and lay off personnel to cut costs. The company is blaming the government, saying that energy policies have worsened the prospects for coal. I say this may be partly true, and the layoffs are likely to be in agreement with normal business logic. You apparently disagree with something there. I'm not exactly sure with what, and I seem to be unable to convince you to clarify in plain english, beyond subtle hints and allusions. I have brought up EPA legislation, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and government grants and subsidies to support my position. You bring up the slave trade to support yours.

I think this is the point in the conversation where you and I agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Or you know, you could try actually understanding my argument before dismissing it?


You basically said that it's not a lie because government policy did have an influence. My reply was that, unless the influence is actually the main reason for the firing, it is a lie because most, if not all government policy plays a role in the economy, but in very few cases it is the deciding factor in any free market (well market that includes plenty of free market principles).

TommiR said:

You bring up the slave trade to support yours.

Click to expand...

It's called an analogy...

TommiR said:

Didn't Plato's allegory also state that if one of these chained-up people was freed and brought out of the cave, then, once he had familiarised himself with the new situation, he would not wish to return back to the cave, and would think the games they played back there were rather silly?

Click to expand...

The way i understood your remark about Plato's Cave to my Bhutan comment was that those people are happier because they're deeper in the cave... I argued back that the allegory didn't state you'd be less happy at higher levels on the cave, and thus your argument is invalid.

TommiR said:

If that person was truly more happy being chained up inside the cave then being free in the outside world, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he'd want to go back?

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why i disagree that Plato's Cave has anything to do with the higher happiness rating.

I guess you do understand.

@Li3n said:

Or you know, you could try actually understanding my argument before dismissing it?

Click to expand...

You know, you're not exactly the best person on these boards when it comes to making your points clear.

The way I understand serious discussions work is that everyone gets to state their own position, and if others don't quite understand, they ask for clarification. Offering vague clues and sarcastic one-liners leaves too much ambiguity (or just the right amount of wiggle-room, if one is less than sincere), and just results in needless misunderstandings and unintentional strawmen. Honest mistakes in making one's position clear are okay, but if one just can't be bothered with stating what they fucking actually mean, even when asked to clarify, then exactly what obliges others to bother with indulging them in their little games?

But perhaps you have an alternative view on how actual discussion is supposed to work. If so, I invite you to share it.

Now then.

You basically said that it's not a lie because government policy did have an influence. My reply was that, unless the influence is actually the main reason for the firing, it is a lie because most, if not all government policy plays a role in the economy, but in very few cases it is the deciding factor in any free market (well market that includes plenty of free market principles).

Click to expand...

I would contend that the employees were let go due to economic reasons, chiefly the reduction in coal demand. Why there is a reduction in demand is an interplay of several different things. If you take a look at earlier postings in this thread, I think you will come to notice that no-one is claiming the company line is the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but such is not really a requirement in my opinion. It is simply a viewpoint, one which seeks to portray events in a light the company thinks is best. But to dismiss the viewpoint as a lie with no basis in truth requires, in my view, that the reasons they state have little to no effect. This I do not believe is the case, and the various incentives for alternative energy research and production and disincentives for coal energy production in federal and state-level statutes have a significant extra-market impact on the competitiveness of coal. Hence their viewpoint would be a valid one, among a host of others.

It's called an analogy...

Click to expand...

And I dispute it. The situation of the coal miners compares to the situation of slaves in no practical way. Companies laying off workers legally compares to slavery in no practical way. Pro-alternative energy legislation combats perceived evils similar in no practical way, either in nature or scale, to the evils of slavery. For-profit enterprise is perfectly normal, and does not need to compare to slavery in any practical way.

Unless of course you had a different purpose in mind with your analogy. If so, I'd ask you to clarify. As you may have gathered from the above, I dislike operating on guesses based on vague hints.

The way i understood your remark about Plato's Cave to my Bhutan comment was that those people are happier because they're deeper in the cave... I argued back that the allegory didn't state you'd be less happy at higher levels on the cave, and thus your argument is invalid.


Which is exactly why i disagree that Plato's Cave has anything to do with the higher happiness rating.

I guess you do understand.

Click to expand...

As I understand Plato's Cave, the people chained immobile to the wall are not happy because of it; they are happy in spite of it, as they've never gotten to experience anything else. Now imagine some farmhand in Bhutan learns himself some english, and travels to the United States (is freed from the cave). He gets an education and a job, and is reasonably successful. Then, twenty years later, he is asked if he wants to go back to the simple life on a bhutanese farm that he knew before. I'd wager his response would be along the lines of "Hells no!". Even if some statistic says people in Bhutan are in general happier, he most likely wouldn't want to go back to the way things were (like Plato said). So it might be that we over here in the First World just have things a bit better in terms of what people want out of life, regardless of happiness ratings in either Bhutan or inside a cave.

I love that there's someone on the boards that makes Gasbandit look positively liberal.

Bowielee said:

I love that there's someone on the boards that makes Gasbandit look positively liberal.

Click to expand...

Is that to my loss?

Depends on your perspective. You're far more right-wing than he is. He's for small government in business, you're advocating no government in business.

He works hard for that avatar

I like TommiR. He cites sources and his positions are well reasoned and his posts are interesting to read. At the very least, I tend to learn something.

Terrik said:

I like TommiR. He cites sources and his positions are well reasoned and his posts are interesting to read. At the very least, I tend to learn something.

Click to expand...

I like him too. I don't agree with his opinions, but he's come by his opinions through careful study and consideration, and I can respect that. But I still find his avatar amusingly accurate.

Hey TommiR, you know you're winning when they start critiquing the poster, and not the post.

And you have way more patience than me, too. heh.

Wow.

As a philosopher, I just want to say, to both sides....FFS, make up your own analogies. BOTH of you are horribly abusing Plato's Cave for things it wasn't meant for. You're all, and those Bhutanese famers as well, stuck snugly inside the cave, I assure you (and me too). It's literally impossible to be made free and look outside of the cave.

Bubble181 said:

As a philosopher, I just want to say, to both sides....FFS, make up your own analogies. BOTH of you are horribly abusing Plato's Cave for things it wasn't meant for. You're all, and those Bhutanese famers as well, stuck snugly inside the cave, I assure you (and me too). It's literally impossible to be made free and look outside of the cave.

Click to expand...

This is why we MUST continue to fund robotic missions outside the cave.

stienman said:

This is why we MUST continue to fund robotic missions outside the cave.

Click to expand...

Once robots can actually register the true essence of a thing, rather than its corporeal presence, they'll have overtaken their creators.

That said, I'm all in favour of robots.

Bubble181 said:

Once robots can actually register the true essence of a thing, rather than its corporeal presence, they'll have overtaken their creators.

Click to expand...

Better them than us, I'm pretty comfortable where I'm at.

stienman said:

Better them than us, I'm pretty comfortable where I'm at.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. It's been proven over and over that people are a LOT happier if they have less worries and less thinking to do. People who are "a bit simple" tend to be much, much happier than the real thinkers. You might worry about the ozone layer, global warming, national politics, the price of gas, terrorism, the sad state of the education system, your relationship, your personal hygiene, your iPhone crashing, your stocks plummeting,....
A somewhat simpler person just doesn't really know or care much about most of those issues.
Now, that farmer over in Bhutan may be just as smart as you are, but he still has a lot less to worry about. He doesn't *hear* about national politics. He doesn't *have* an education system to worry about. He doesn't *live* in a society where it's important to (shave your armpits/trim your nose hair/use deodorant/have white teeth/whatever). He doesn't use gas. Etc etc.

All in all, generally speaking*, the less you know and have to worry about, the happier you are. Inversely, the highest amount of depressions and anxieties is found with people who know about a lot of stuff, but can't actually change any of it.

Less worries -> happier. Having more stuff? Hardly matters at all, and actually has a negative impact, since more things break down/have to be replaced/have to be maintained.

*There are, of course, also neuroses, depressions etc in people with lesser mental capacities as well. People with Down syndrome and a depression are really sad to see and almost impossible to get out of it, because it's bloody hard to try and reason it out and help them. A lot of therapy methods aren't effective or simply don't work because they lack specific understanding or knowledge or capabilities of reflection.

TommiR said:

You know, you're not exactly the best person on these boards when it comes to making your points clear.

The way I understand serious discussions work is that everyone gets to state their own position, and if others don't quite understand, they ask for clarification. Offering vague clues and sarcastic one-liners leaves too much ambiguity (or just the right amount of wiggle-room, if one is less than sincere), and just results in needless misunderstandings and unintentional strawmen. Honest mistakes in making one's position clear are okay, but if one just can't be bothered with stating what they fucking actually mean, even when asked to clarify, then exactly what obliges others to bother with indulging them in their little games?

But perhaps you have an alternative view on how actual discussion is supposed to work. If so, I invite you to share it.

Click to expand...

Well if one wants a clarification it would help to actually stop at the request and not say things like "I have brought up EPA legislation, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and government grants and subsidies to support my position. You bring up the slave trade to support yours." and then complaining about the other side using strawman arguments... (to be clear, amount of arguments brought says nothing about their importance, one could bring up 1 million instances when the Bible was right, but another needs only bring up one when it was wrong to disprove the statement that the Bible is never wrong).


I mean, was "Well if i didn't pay any employees my expenses would go down, thus more profit... obviously laws against slavery are hindering my business." really unclear? I don't see how you can interpret that one as being about the condition of slaves vs coal miners.So i assume you wrote the reply to that in an attempt to make me clarify more...

As for the sarcasm, well it's either that or i end up sounding as pissed of as Gas or JCM came off back in the day...

TommiR said:

I would contend that the employees were let go due to economic reasons, chiefly the reduction in coal demand. Why there is a reduction in demand is an interplay of several different things. If you take a look at earlier postings in this thread, I think you will come to notice that no-one is claiming the company line is the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but such is not really a requirement in my opinion. It is simply a viewpoint, one which seeks to portray events in a light the company thinks is best. But to dismiss the viewpoint as a lie with no basis in truth requires, in my view, that the reasons they state have little to no effect. This I do not believe is the case, and the various incentives for alternative energy research and production and disincentives for coal energy production in federal and state-level statutes have a significant extra-market impact on the competitiveness of coal. Hence their viewpoint would be a valid one, among a host of others.

Click to expand...

Let me just distil that a bit: "I think you will come to notice that no-one is claiming the company line is the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but such is not really a requirement in my opinion"

Yes, you aren't, my problem is that you still are making an excuse for them claiming it because of the government. Objectively at most the government's policy just made them fire those people faster.

I know that compared to some of the completely fictional "facts" some morons use (women's bodies can kill sperm) it's leagues better, but "we fired them because of Obama" is still a lie...

It's like firing a woman and saying it's because her work wasn't as good as the other woman that works for you, while there's clear evidence that some men doing the same job do an even worse job but weren't fired. Sure, the fact that she was worse then the other woman was part of the reason why she was fired and not the other woman, but the evidence shows it's not the main reason, doesn't it.

TommiR said:

And I dispute it. The situation of the coal miners compares to the situation of slaves in no practical way. Companies laying off workers legally compares to slavery in no practical way. Pro-alternative energy legislation combats perceived evils similar in no practical way, either in nature or scale, to the evils of slavery. For-profit enterprise is perfectly normal, and does not need to compare to slavery in any practical way.

Unless of course you had a different purpose in mind with your analogy. If so, I'd ask you to clarify. As you may have gathered from the above, I dislike operating on guesses based on vague hints.

Click to expand...

Considering what we where discussing i assumed it was clear that the slavery analogy had nothing to do with the situation of the slaves vs the coal miners, but with the effect of government policy on business.

I'm sure there are plenty of businesses out there that wouldn't have gone bankrupt/failed if they didn't have to pay their workforce, yet i don't think you'd accept them blaming the government for not allowing them to have slaves.

TommiR said:

As I understand Plato's Cave, the people chained immobile to the wall are not happy because of it; they are happy in spite of it, as they've never gotten to experience anything else. Now imagine some farmhand in Bhutan learns himself some english, and travels to the United States (is freed from the cave). He gets an education and a job, and is reasonably successful. Then, twenty years later, he is asked if he wants to go back to the simple life on a bhutanese farm that he knew before. I'd wager his response would be along the lines of "Hells no!". Even if some statistic says people in Bhutan are in general happier, he most likely wouldn't want to go back to the way things were (like Plato said). So it might be that we over here in the First World just have things a bit better in terms of what people want out of life, regardless of happiness ratings in either Bhutan or inside a cave.

Click to expand...

Yes (well truth is i don't know, as i have never experienced life in Bhutan, and there are other places ), that's how the cave would work. But that isn't the same as being less happy as you get to the higher levels.

That's why Plato's Cave doesn't apply, unless you argue that not only is the person in the US at a higher level, but also aware of the next level of the cave

Bubble181 said:

As a philosopher, I just want to say, to both sides....FFS, make up your own analogies. BOTH of you are horribly abusing Plato's Cave for things it wasn't meant for. You're all, and those Bhutanese famers as well, stuck snugly inside the cave, I assure you (and me too). It's literally impossible to be made free and look outside of the cave.

Click to expand...

If you check he's the one that brought it up, and i said it doesn't apply (as there's no reason why one should be less happy at higher levels as long as they're ignorant that there's more levels ahead).

Bowielee said:

Depends on your perspective. You're far more right-wing than he is. He's for small government in business, you're advocating no government in business.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I'm against any kind of government influence or intervention in business. Given this thread, I can understand how you might have gotten the idea, but I don't think I've actually stated such, as I'm not quite that right-wing. The actual statements I've made here can perhaps best be summarised as the following three:

1) the ~160 employees that were fired as read in the OP were laid off due to normal business logic;
2) the company line that the layoffs were due to the effects of government energy policy is accurate to an extent;
3) government energy policy has had a highly appreciable negative effect on the prospects of coal energy.

In addition to this there was also our small sidetrack into examining your economic model.

Bubble181 said:

As a philosopher, I just want to say, to both sides....FFS, make up your own analogies. BOTH of you are horribly abusing Plato's Cave for things it wasn't meant for. You're all, and those Bhutanese famers as well, stuck snugly inside the cave, I assure you (and me too). It's literally impossible to be made free and look outside of the cave.

Click to expand...

If you as a philosopher tell me that nothing in the allegory is useful for the purposes of what I meant, then it's my bad. I haven't read about Plato's Cave since high school, so I may misremember a few things.

Bubble181 said:

Well, yeah. It's been proven over and over that people are a LOT happier if they have less worries and less thinking to do. People who are "a bit simple" tend to be much, much happier than the real thinkers. You might worry about the ozone layer, global warming, national politics, the price of gas, terrorism, the sad state of the education system, your relationship, your personal hygiene, your iPhone crashing, your stocks plummeting,....

Click to expand...

I remember hearing from somewhere that "if you want to find a man who is truly and always happy, start looking in mental asylums". While certainly a quip, it would stand to reason that perpetual bliss in life can only be found amongst the insane. Whilst perhaps offering the greatest degree of happiness, most people who are still in possession of their faculties would likely find the idea of such an existence undesirable. Assuming the above are true, could it be argued that a strategy which seeks to maximise happiness is not optimal, and that a strategy in which the person also desires other things is superior?

A somewhat simpler person just doesn't really know or care much about most of those issues.
Now, that farmer over in Bhutan may be just as smart as you are, but he still has a lot less to worry about. He doesn't *hear* about national politics. He doesn't *have* an education system to worry about. He doesn't *live* in a society where it's important to (shave your armpits/trim your nose hair/use deodorant/have white teeth/whatever). He doesn't use gas. Etc etc.

All in all, generally speaking*, the less you know and have to worry about, the happier you are. Inversely, the highest amount of depressions and anxieties is found with people who know about a lot of stuff, but can't actually change any of it.

Click to expand...

I know you told me to stop using Plato's Cave, but... I think I can remember that the people chained up in the cave were happy as they were, were fearful of change, yet release from the cave was still considered a good thing - even if it was originally against their will, though don't make too much of that.

Assuming the bhutanese farmhand who doesn't want to go back is representative, would his unwillingness not count as a point in favor of the current US/western model, over the bhutanese way? Even if the bhutanese are happier in general, according to some claims.

Less worries -> happier. Having more stuff? Hardly matters at all, and actually has a negative impact, since more things break down/have to be replaced/have to be maintained.

Click to expand...

Being rich would provide the potential for a person to fulfill a greater amount of his or her needs, thereby presumably increasing happiness. Were you talking about 'negative impact' as diminishing marginal utility of stuff to the point of being negative, or is having more stuff detrimental to happiness in general? It seems to me that both cases would result in rich people, who are people with more stuff, as being less happy. At first sight this might seem something of a paradox, may I inquire as to your views on this?

@Li3n said:

Well if one wants a clarification it would help to actually stop at the request and not say things like "I have brought up EPA legislation, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and government grants and subsidies to support my position. You bring up the slave trade to support yours." and then complaining about the other side using strawman arguments... (to be clear, amount of arguments brought says nothing about their importance, one could bring up 1 million instances when the Bible was right, but another needs only bring up one when it was wrong to disprove the statement that the Bible is never wrong).

Click to expand...

At that point I had already asked for clarification, without success. My outburst back there was too confrontational, I'm sorry about that. But it would make this conversation more fruitful and less frustrating if you were to continue in the manner you've adopted in your last two posts of making the effort to be more clear with your points. It helps those of us who don't know you well enough to accurately guess your way of thinking to understand.

The amount of arguments by itself is not reflective of their relevance. Their merits are. I believe all of the three points I provided are relevant to the discussion. If you wish to dispute them, please proceed to do so. And if you have something of your own to corroborate your position, I'd be happy to see it.

I mean, was "Well if i didn't pay any employees my expenses would go down, thus more profit... obviously laws against slavery are hindering my business." really unclear? I don't see how you can interpret that one as being about the condition of slaves vs coal miners.So i assume you wrote the reply to that in an attempt to make me clarify more...

Click to expand...

The words themselves are clear, certainly. The intention behind them and your view on it's relevance to the conversation is still not. I'll get more into that later.

Let me just distil that a bit: "I think you will come to notice that no-one is claiming the company line is the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but such is not really a requirement in my opinion"

Yes, you aren't, my problem is that you still are making an excuse for them claiming it because of the government. Objectively at most the government's policy just made them fire those people faster.

I know that compared to some of the completely fictional "facts" some morons use (women's bodies can kill sperm) it's leagues better, but "we fired them because of Obama" is still a lie...

It's like firing a woman and saying it's because her work wasn't as good as the other woman that works for you, while there's clear evidence that some men doing the same job do an even worse job but weren't fired. Sure, the fact that she was worse then the other woman was part of the reason why she was fired and not the other woman, but the evidence shows it's not the main reason, doesn't it.

Click to expand...

I have posited three things previously:

1. The layoffs took place due to a decline in coal demand
2. A non-insignificant part of that decline is due to government policies favoring other forms of energy production
3. The Obama administration is generally thought of as continuing those policies during his second presidential term

If those three are taken to be correct, then it would follow that the company statement was correct to a non-insignificant degree. This, to me, means it is partially true, and therefore not a lie. As I've said, it is not the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but it's partly true.

As to your example, so person A was fired for not doing as good of a job as person B, while there are indications that persons C, D and E were doing even worse and weren't fired. And the company says they fired A because of not doing as well as B. There could be a number of reasons why they fired A instead of, say, D, and some of them might be valid reasons. But not doing as good of a job as B is one of them, so the company statement is partially true, though perhaps not the whole picture if there were other reasons as well.

Considering what we where discussing i assumed it was clear that the slavery analogy had nothing to do with the situation of the slaves vs the coal miners, but with the effect of government policy on business.

I'm sure there are plenty of businesses out there that wouldn't have gone bankrupt/failed if they didn't have to pay their workforce, yet i don't think you'd accept them blaming the government for not allowing them to have slaves.

Click to expand...

We are discussing the effects of a subset of government policies on the energy sector, more specifically their adverse effects on the competitiveness and prospects of coal energy in relation to other forms of energy production. If you wish to have a conversation about the effects of government policy on business in general, then I'm game, but it really is an entirely separate discussion.

As to your slavery analogy, in my previous post I disputed it's relevance in the discussion. Now, for the record, I'd like to ask you to spell out how you believe slavery is analogous to the situation of US energy policy and it's effects on the energy market.

Krisken said:

Great story in the NY Times onCostco being the anti Walmart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

Hoo shit, that article is ancient.

Also, when Costco starts carrying those big bulk bags of Landjaeger sausage again, I will be back to being their biggest supporter.

1 kg for 15 bucks (when they run 3.50 per 100g at the local Sobey's), yes please. FUCKING CARRY MY SAUSAGE COSTCO!

Frank said:

FUCKING CARRY MY SAUSAGE COSTCO!

Click to expand...

That's...

Aww, never mind, it's just too easy.

I will repeat my assertion that economics has nothing to do with this. Murray is a shitbag murdering bastard. Dropping a mountain on both his miners and their would-be rescuers, and then blaming it all on the media attests to that.

This little performance was not for EU consumption. It was strictly for the right-wing noise machine and those who have been beaten into believing their bullshit tale that there is a "war on coal". That "unemployed miner" in the Pennsylvania campaign ads probably did the ad on threat of whatever job he has now.

... Man, you really hate coal, don't you.

I don't think it is the coal he hates, just the coal companies and the owners.

You can appreciate the importance of a fuel source while at the same time condemn the companies who exploit everything about that resource.

The operators are nearly cartoon-like in their vileness. It was said of Don Blankenship that he was the most evil man in America. Regulations? Safety? They are as nothing to these men. As long as coal moved, it was merely a "business expense" to pay whatever fine came across and continue right on as before, with complete disregard to miner safety. The Pinto Memo comes to mind, but as these men have such hold of the political process, they shrug it off with a "yeah, so?"

As long as these men make their money, the extraction industries in this state have no motivation to help this state or others like it climb out of the basement in most economic categories. In fact, their business model depends on keeping states like WV 49th out of 50 in everything that matters. It gives them a poor and uneducated work force that has been indoctrinated over the generations that the mines are the only option for them. Even when those mines are fewer and fewer with each passing day. And anything that threatens this model, even when it conflicts with state or federal law, is a "war on coal".

Krisken said:

I don't think it is the coal he hates, just the coal companies and the owners.

You can appreciate the importance of a fuel source while at the same time condemn the companies who exploit everything about that resource.

Click to expand...

Certainly, and I meant the coal companies with that statement. Perhaps I should have specified.

DarkAudit said:

I will repeat my assertion that economics has nothing to do with this. Murray is a shitbag murdering bastard. Dropping a mountain on both his miners and their would-be rescuers, and then blaming it all on the media attests to that.

This little performance was not for EU consumption. It was strictly for the right-wing noise machine and those who have been beaten into believing their bullshit tale that there is a "war on coal". That "unemployed miner" in the Pennsylvania campaign ads probably did the ad on threat of whatever job he has now.

Click to expand...

Well, decline in the demand of coal is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact, assuming the EIA statistics I presented earlier can be trusted. This would lead to a decrease in operating profit for coal producers, prompting cost-cutting measures. Such measures usually mean layoffs. I believe this line of thought is in agreement with perfectly normal business theories. Regardless of what coal producers in West Virginia choose to think of themselves, they would still be subject to market forces, as they can't really sell if no-one is buying. Indeed, the same EIA statistics forecasted that coal production would go down by 7% in 2012.

You assert that such economic considerations had nothing to do with those layoffs. You argue that the company owners are evil people, make several claims to demonstrate their evilness, and state that the most logical conclusion given the evidence presented is that the workers were fired not because of business reasons, but because of the owner's evil motives. I hope I've understood your position correctly.

As I'm sure you've gathered, I disagree with that conclusion. Prevailing business theories seem quite solid, and my assesment of their application to the current circumstances would lead one to expect personnel layoffs in the industry. Which is what we are seeing here, with no evil required.

Now, you seem to live in the same state where the company in question has some operations, so it is possible you know something the rest of us don't. But given the economic circumstances of the industry, asserting that business considerations played no part in these layoffs strikes me as quite strong.

TommiR said:

At that point I had already asked for clarification, without success. My outburst back there was too confrontational, I'm sorry about that. But it would make this conversation more fruitful and less frustrating if you were to continue in the manner you've adopted in your last two posts of making the effort to be more clear with your points. It helps those of us who don't know you well enough to accurately guess your way of thinking to understand.

The amount of arguments by itself is not reflective of their relevance. Their merits are. I believe all of the three points I provided are relevant to the discussion. If you wish to dispute them, please proceed to do so. And if you have something of your own to corroborate your position, I'd be happy to see it.

Click to expand...

You know, there comes a point in an argument when if the other side can't understand your arguments there's little point in continuing.

At least try to come up with a few interpretations of your own of what i said so i can see what i'm not making clear...

TommiR said:

The words themselves are clear, certainly. The intention behind them and your view on it's relevance to the conversation is still not. I'll get more into that later.

Click to expand...

Considering we're not arguing in front of an audience i don't see the relevance of my intentions behind the words... they should speak for themselves.

Maybe if you tell me what exactly is unclear about them, because from my pov i've explained it twice now.

TommiR said:

I have posited three things previously:

1. The layoffs took place due to a decline in coal demand
2. A non-insignificant part of that decline is due to government policies favoring other forms of energy production
3. The Obama administration is generally thought of as continuing those policies during his second presidential term

If those three are taken to be correct, then it would follow that the company statement was correct to a non-insignificant degree. This, to me, means it is partially true, and therefore not a lie. As I've said, it is not the unexaggerated and unbiased truth, but it's partly true.

Click to expand...

Biased truth... i think that's where we disagree on our assessment of objective reality.

As Ambassador Kosh said "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

IMO it's only TRUTH if it's unbiased.

TommiR said:

As to your example, so person A was fired for not doing as good of a job as person B, while there are indications that persons C, D and E were doing even worse and weren't fired. And the company says they fired A because of not doing as well as B. There could be a number of reasons why they fired A instead of, say, D, and some of them might be valid reasons. But not doing as good of a job as B is one of them, so the company statement is partially true, though perhaps not the whole picture if there were other reasons as well.

Click to expand...

Ah but see, saying that they fired A because he was worse then B implies that's the only reason, when clearly it wasn't.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

It's clearly designed to foster a misconception, that without the government policy there would be no firings.

TommiR said:

We are discussing the effects of a subset of government policies on the energy sector, more specifically their adverse effects on the competitiveness and prospects of coal energy in relation to other forms of energy production. If you wish to have a conversation about the effects of government policy on business in general, then I'm game, but it really is an entirely separate discussion.

Click to expand...

While the specifics for the coal industry might be more , well, specific i guess, i see no reason why one cannot use an analogy from any other sector of industry.

If you wish to rebuke the analogy then you need to actually come up with reasons why the analogy used doesn't hold up (and for that you need to understand that it doesn't actually require making any moral judgements about slavery, i could have gone with a number of other policies most economists agree are good, like liveable minimum wages, i just assumed the slavery one would be more self evident).

BTW, for an actual explanation of the analogy i used see below.

TommiR said:

As to your slavery analogy, in my previous post I disputed it's relevance in the discussion. Now, for the record, I'd like to ask you to spell out how you believe slavery is analogous to the situation of US energy policy and it's effects on the energy market.

Click to expand...

How do i make it more clear then: "I'm sure there are plenty of businesses out there that wouldn't have gone bankrupt/failed if they didn't have to pay their workforce, yet i don't think you'd accept them blaming the government for not allowing them to have slaves."

Now this analogy is actually meant to show another argument then the one above about them lying about the reasons for the lay-offs.

It's meant to show that your assertion that "A non-insignificant part of that decline is due to government policies" can also be used to justify blaming the government for companies going bankrupt because they can no longer pay their workers and still make a profit.

Thus i was arguing (separate from the truth argument above) that by your logic any company can blame the government for any firing because wages are a non-insignificant part of expenses in most industries.

So either blame them for everything or only for those things in which they are the main cause... otherwise you're just arbitrarily choosing to blame the government when it's convenient.

TommiR said:

As I'm sure you've gathered, I disagree with that conclusion. Prevailing business theories seem quite solid, and my assesment of their application to the current circumstances would lead one to expect personnel layoffs in the industry. Which is what we are seeing here, with no evil required.

Click to expand...

But here's an interesting question, what other coal companies are firing people now that Romney lost?

Because if we're going by pure theory then there's no reason to fire them based on the election itself, but at certain points in the decline period when they work won't generate any extra income vs they salaries.

@Li3n said:

You know, there comes a point in an argument when if the other side can't understand your arguments there's little point in continuing.

Click to expand...

I most certainly agree with this.

Considering we're not arguing in front of an audience i don't see the relevance of my intentions behind the words... they should speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

Intention is meaning. What you meant by the analogy, and what its relevance in the conversation is. And you have an audience of at least one; me. And I'm occasionally struggling to understand your meaning.

Biased truth... i think that's where we disagree on our assessment of objective reality.

As Ambassador Kosh said "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

IMO it's only TRUTH if it's unbiased.

Click to expand...

I doubt you will find much truth in business and politics, then, if you wish to stick with objective truths devoid of external influence and interpretations. IMO everything is always a result of a combination of factors, and many people, whether they have an interest at stake or are being sincere, will seek to either promote the point of view which they see as most advantageous to them and their agenda or take as truth the explanation that most fits with their preconceived notions of thinking. They can therefore not always be counted upon to present a view which is completely devoid of bias, whether they realise their own bias or not. And I'm not immune to this myself; any information I receive goes through a mental filter or three. That's why such things are called subjective viewpoints or opinions, not FALSEHOODS as opposed to TRUTHS.

My view is that statements can be assigned in terms of verity to three broad categories: true, partly true, and false, with the endpoints reserved mostly for provable facts. If I understand correctly, you see only two gategories, that statements are either true or false, with no area in between and the definition of true rather restricting. This may be a fundamental difference between how you and I see the world.

It's clearly designed to foster a misconception, that without the government policy there would be no firings.

Click to expand...

That is not exactly what they are claiming. A more accurate description of their position would be along the lines of 'without anti-coal government policy, firings and hirings would be determined by market factors, but now the layoff of these people are the result of government policy'. And according to the sources I presented earlier, at least 16 GW of coal plant retirements by 2016 are a direct result of government policy (there are also other effects), which would indicate they have some point in their statement.

While the specifics for the coal industry might be more , well, specific i guess, i see no reason why one cannot use an analogy from any other sector of industry.

If you wish to rebuke the analogy then you need to actually come up with reasons why the analogy used doesn't hold up (and for that you need to understand that it doesn't actually require making any moral judgements about slavery, i could have gone with a number of other policies most economists agree are good, like liveable minimum wages, i just assumed the slavery one would be more self evident).

Click to expand...

Every single industry has to pay for their labor, whether they mine coal, uranium, iron, or make baby food and greeting cards. Pretty much every single industry which reduces or closes down operations fires people. The reasons for this may be wholly, partly, or in no way connected to personnel expenses. In this case, they were ultimately due to reduced demand for the product. I have no doutbt the layoffs were completely legal and in accordance with the employment contracts the workers signed voluntarily.

Mining is very capital intensive. Even if the workers had agreed to work for half the pay, they still might well have been fired (well, the company might have fired other people and kept the ones who had agreed to work for half pay, but they would have fired people regardless). Running a mine costs money even if you don't have to pay much wages, and the product isn't selling at the moment, and isn't expected to sell in the near future. No need to produce as much of it, which means there is no need to keep extraneous workers on the payroll, regardless of how much a single worker costs as long as cost>0.

EPA legislation, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and government subsidies stack the free market playing field against coal, and result in the decrease of competitiveness of coal versus other forms of energy production.

I don't see a problem in the above, and I don't see how slavery is relevant in any of this.

How do i make it more clear then: "I'm sure there are plenty of businesses out there that wouldn't have gone bankrupt/failed if they didn't have to pay their workforce, yet i don't think you'd accept them blaming the government for not allowing them to have slaves."

Now this analogy is actually meant to show another argument then the one above about them lying about the reasons for the lay-offs.

It's meant to show that your assertion that "A non-insignificant part of that decline is due to government policies" can also be used to justify blaming the government for companies going bankrupt because they can no longer pay their workers and still make a profit.

Thus i was arguing (separate from the truth argument above) that by your logic any company can blame the government for any firing because wages are a non-insignificant part of expenses in most industries.

Click to expand...

What? If I sell hot dogs from carts on the street and people aren't buying as much as they were buying before, I might have to reduce my number of carts and lay off the workers who operate them. Even if they worked for just food and board I might have to get rid of them, as I don't want to pay for their food and board if they are not bringing in enough. If the government requires people to eat 10% of their food in hamburgers, are subsidising pizza manufacturers, and make fast food legislation which doesn't really affect the other forms but increases hot dog costs, then yeah, I might have some point in saying that the government doesn't seem to like hot dogs. And I don't think I'd exactly be lying if I said that.

So either blame them for everything or only for those things in which they are the main cause... otherwise you're just arbitrarily choosing to blame the government when it's convenient.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Blame them when there is reason to blame them, blame them for their policies where they have had a non-insignificant impact. Doesn't mean there aren't other reasons, but when their actions have had a demonstrable impact of non-insignificant proportions, they get to shoulder some of the blame. If hot dogs aren't selling as well as they might be selling without government policies hampering hot dog sales, then lost jobs in the hot dog sector are partly at the government's doorstep.

But here's an interesting question, what other coal companies are firing people now that Romney lost?

Because if we're going by pure theory then there's no reason to fire them based on the election itself, but at certain points in the decline period when they work won't generate any extra income vs they salaries.

Click to expand...

There were about 88 000 people working in coal mining in 2011. If you take a look at the documents, you will note that coal demand has gone down, and that production forecasts indicate a 7% decrease in coal production in 2012. You can bet your buttcheeks that ~160 people isn't the extent of layoffs in the coal mining industry if production decreased by 7%.

As to the timing, we kind of already gave it some thought. Several coal mining companies have announced some layoffs and operations draw-downs in November. So it doesn't seem to me that the circumstances the coal industry finds itself currently are particularly adverse to layoffs, but that sound business reasons may call for cost-cutting at this time.

TommiR said:

I doubt you will find much truth in business and politics, then, if you wish to stick with objective truths devoid of external influence and interpretations.

Click to expand...

BINGO...

And that's why i object to you defending them with subjective "truths".

TommiR said:

As to the timing, we kind of already gave it some thought. Several coal mining companies have announced some layoffs and operations draw-downs in November. So it doesn't seem to me that the circumstances the coal industry finds itself currently are particularly adverse to layoffs, but that sound business reasons may call for cost-cutting at this time.

Click to expand...

Hint: i wasn't asking you about who fired who, i was asking you to think about what you just posted means...

Now that's one way to get the last word in an argument

Dave said:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fast-Food-Worker-Hours-Cut---185827392.html

Click to expand...

Is anyone surprised? It's a really obvious solution.

I can't believe there are still people out there whose plan for the future never rose above "support my family by working (not managing) at wendy's", and furthermore, I can't believe there are people out there being surprised that leftist policy hurts most those it purports to help.

Not only that, but it forces higher employment. Each employee gets less, but as a result of this law more people will be counted as "employed" and more people will have to work two jobs to make ends meet, and even better, employers will pay higher employment taxes due to the higher number of employees.

It is terrible for workers at the ground level, and for employers, but it hits all the high notes for the democrats. "employment is up, tax revenue is up" will be the claim, but the truth is much worse.

The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can't afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone's health insurance.

Click to expand...

I mean, yeah, what the hell are you supposed to do? Nobody wins.

We said over and over - Obamacare to address the problems with the health care system was like trying to solve world hunger by making it illegal to not buy food. It just doesn't work that way, and yes, it would have been better to do nothing than shit the bed about a dubious number of people "without health care."

It's nice how the health care legislation is called Obamacare when it was first thought up by republicans. I agree it's a horrible plan, but it was put out because it was the only one that would pass, which is sad. Don't put this all on the Democrats. It's a pile of shit built by both sides.

Shakey said:

It's nice how the health care legislation is called Obamacare when it was first thought up by republicans. I agree it's a horrible plan, but it was put out because it was the only one that would pass, which is sad. Don't put this all on the Democrats. It's a pile of shit built by both sides.

Click to expand...

Look. Democrats used what can at most kindly be called "exotic parliamentary methods" to pass Obamacare in the dead of night under cover of darkness. Republicans unanimously opposed its passage in both chambers and have voted to repeal it over 30 times. I think it's clear where the ownership of this boondoggle is. That one would even consider trying to spread the blame across the aisle speaks volumes about how horrible an idea it was.

GasBandit said:

Look. Democrats used what can at most kindly be called "exotic parliamentary methods" to pass Obamacare in the dead of night under cover of darkness. Republicans unanimously opposed its passage in both chambers and have voted to repeal it over 30 times. I think it's clear where the ownership of this boondoggle is. That one would even consider trying to spread the blame across the aisle speaks volumes about how horrible an idea it was.

Click to expand...

They only opposed it because anything coming from Obama was supposed to be DOA. It was a Republican plan Obama put out in hopes to pass something to help people. If they were more willing to work with him, we might have gotten something better than this. It speaks volumes that the Republicans opposed this plan they supported simply because of who was president.

Shakey said:

They only opposed it because anything coming from Obama was supposed to be DOA. It was a Republican plan Obama put out in hopes to pass something to help people. If they were more willing to work with him, we might have gotten something better than this. It speaks volumes that the Republicans opposed this plan they supported simply because of who was president.

Click to expand...

Nnnno, I'm pretty sure the great majority of them were doctrinally opposed to the largest expansion of government into the private sector since Roosevelt. They didn't call it Obamacare because they they opposed it due to where it came from, they called it Obamacare because they knew it was bad and wanted to tie it around his neck. To call it their creation because they used it as a stick to try to blunt Hillarycare in the 90s is intellectually dishonest. Republicans do a lot of dumb things for a lot of dumb reasons, but lockstep opposition to Obamacare was and is not one of those things.

Right, cause they didn't continue that doctrine of oppose everything Obama until they got nailed in the last election.

Obamacare would have been government run healthcare and you know it. To blame it on one person or party is just plane stupid. You're smarter than that, at least I hope so.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Shakey said:

Right, cause they didn't continue that doctrine of oppose everything Obama until they got nailed in the last election.

Obamacare would have been government run healthcare and you know it. To blame it on one person or party is just plane stupid. You're smarter than that, at least I hope so.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, you're correct in that it isn't just Obama all by his lonesome, but ObamaPelosiRangelCare doesn't have the same ring to it. But trying to make it look like it's just as much the republicans' baby as the democrats' is silly.

Necronic said:

Now that's one way to get the last word in an argument

Click to expand...

I have a problem with leaving arguments unfinished (if he had posted after a month i would have replied), and didn't have the time for long post in December (ppl get way too stressed with closing the year at work).

GasBandit said:

I can't believe there are still people out there whose plan for the future never rose above "support my family by working (not managing) at wendy's", and furthermore, I can't believe there are people out there being surprised that leftist policy hurts most those it purports to help.

Click to expand...

So people that work in retail and fast-food are low life scum that never aspired to be anything in their lives, and therefore don't deserve a living wage and access to healthcare?

I noticed you work as a radio DJ. Really? You're knocking people for working at Wendy's? Please, Mr. Big Shot, don't shadow all of us at once with your awesome celebrity.

You've got it backwards. You're saying that people who work there must be terrible. He's only talking specifically about people who decide to work there as a career, not as a way to become a manager, and have no interest in better jobs.

Choosing to stay there and make that one's career is a poor choice. Others may be stuck there with no way out, but gas bandit is specifically annoyed by those who could do better, but choose not to, and then complain when the govt changes things in a way that hurts them. They could change and do better, but they choose not to.

Again, he's not saying everyone who works a fast food joint is this way, but the article specifically quoted a person who believed this was a good career, and had no intention of improving their situation.

It's not a good career.

stienman said:

It's not a good career.

Click to expand...

I have to believe there are people who would much rather rise to plateau as the owner/manager of a fast food establishment rather than enter an executive lifestyle and try/fail/try/fail endlessly skinning their knees trying to climb that corporate ladder. The responsibilities are smaller, etc. Some people may be quite content living in a 1500sq ft house on $50k/yr, and just not feel the need to prove themselves beyond that. What price, happiness, indeed?

--Patrick

Sure, just as there are those happy to hunt, farm, and trade with no income.

Those that want to rise to manager are aspiring to a position that will support them and possibly a family.

Those who only ever want to raise and lower the fry basket, and seek nothing more are going to have a hard time supporting themselves.

Silent Bob said:

So people that work in retail and fast-food are low life scum that never aspired to be anything in their lives, and therefore don't deserve a living wage and access to healthcare?

I noticed you work as a radio DJ. Really? You're knocking people for working at Wendy's? Please, Mr. Big Shot, don't shadow all of us at once with your awesome celebrity.

Click to expand...

What they said. I don't knock people who get a job, even if it's fast food, so long as that isn't the pinnacle of their aspirations. Actually, I still don't knock them TOO hard even if it is, and they're only supporting themselves. It's the dumbasses who rail about not being able to support a spouse and 2 kids working a griddle. I mean, what, do you expect to be paid $100k/year to flip burgers? Your misery is entirely your own manufacture. This is America, you had education, opportunities... the only thing holding you back is the decisions you made, metaphorical you.


Also, I am not a DJ. Being a DJ pays 7.50 an hour. My title is IT/Production Director. I was also on the air for a year or two at first at the same time, mostly just for fun, and so that I could say I did. I prerecorded my shift, took about 20 mins to do a 4 hour shift.

GasBandit said:

It's the dumbasses who rail about not being able to support a spouse and 2 kids working a griddle. I mean, what, do you expect to be paid $100k/year to flip burgers? Your misery is entirely your own manufacture. This is America, you had education, opportunities... the only thing holding you back is the decisions you made, metaphorical you.

Click to expand...

If everybody had the ambition you're talking about it wouldn't all of a sudden make more better positions available or reduce the need to burger flippers to zero...

So you know, people with no ambition etc. are actually making the world fairer...

that seems to be my dads line about how someone has to shovel your shit, it doesn't mean they don't deserve x. Now to be fair, I worked 30 hours a week through college and have just obtained a degree in environmental science and hydro-geology, so I am totally aspiring to keep working hard so I can make enough money that I don't have to worry about finances as much.

@Li3n said:

If everybody had the ambition you're talking about it wouldn't all of a sudden make more better positions available or reduce the need to burger flippers to zero...

So you know, people with no ambition etc. are actually making the world fairer...

Click to expand...

Can you expand upon what you're talking about here? I'm having trouble processing it. Also an expanded explanation for "making the world fairer" also seems justified. I'm not meaning to troll you, I really do wonder about what you mean, as there's a few explanations, a few of them contradictory (at least it seems so).

Eriol said:

Can you expand upon what you're talking about here? I'm having trouble processing it. Also an expanded explanation for "making the world fairer" also seems justified. I'm not meaning to troll you, I really do wonder about what you mean, as there's a few explanations, a few of them contradictory (at least it seems so).

Click to expand...

Wait, do you want me to explain everything or just the fairer thing?

Oh well, same thing really. It's something like this:


Lets say there are 3 management positions and 20 qualified people for it... clearly only 3 people can get that job... once more then 3 people really want it one more wanting it won't all of a sudden make more available management positions.


As for the fair thing, well it ties into what GB said: "Your misery is entirely your own manufacture."... aka they deserve to flip burgers... unlike when they tried but someone was slightly better, or maybe even just got lucky and overtook them by very little etc. aka they might have deserved the position (they're better then just flipping burgers) but someone deserved it more...

@Li3n said:

Wait, do you want me to explain everything or just the fairer thing?

Oh well, same thing really. It's something like this:


Lets say there are 3 management positions and 20 qualified people for it... clearly only 3 people can get that job... once more then 3 people really want it one more wanting it won't all of a sudden make more available management positions.


As for the fair thing, well it ties into what GB said: "Your misery is entirely your own manufacture."... aka they deserve to flip burgers... unlike when they tried but someone was slightly better, or maybe even just got lucky and overtook them by very little etc. aka they might have deserved the position (they're better then just flipping burgers) but someone deserved it more...

Click to expand...

I think his idea is more that burger flipping is a temporary "summer job" for kids, which has (and should have according to his logic) high turnover rates. Unfortunately, this logic is severely flawed in an economy where 50% of college graduates can't find a job. I find it funny that a lot of conservatives always pine for this 1950's golden age, where a man could work a simple factory job on a high school education and provide a house, car, food, etc for his family, but they abhor the possibility of people working menial jobs in modern era where they get decent benefits.

Why isn't Gasbandit knocking on the hardworking WWII generation factory workers for not aspiring greater things? Shouldn't they have also tried harder to get management positions and own the factories they worked in? Do you honestly believe a society can survive if no one works the shit jobs? Reality check - sometimes flipping burgers is all a person can or wants to do. Who the hell are you to judge?

Silent Bob said:

Who the hell are you to judge?

Click to expand...

It's GasBandit. That's all he does. He has no intention of doing anything truly constructive to fix anything, and makes damn sure you know that.

I honestly think that what Gas is trying to say is that if you live within your means, then great. More power to you, happiness is what you make it, etc. But if you outgrow your income (or your health insurance, or whatever), then instead of complaining about how your job has not kept pace with your needs, you should instead be putting that effort into improving your position.

--Patrick

People who are content to be low man on the totem pole and put no effort into improving their situation when they can shouldn't be complaining about the problems of their chosen lifestyle.

If they cannot improve their position, then there's a problem that needs to be addressed. But otherwise choosing to stay a fry cook and complaining that its hard to raise a family on a fry cooks income when one can improve their position but chooses not to is silly. Take responsibility for your success, or lack thereof.

We shouldn't be instead saying, "all fry cooks should be making $40k per year with full medical benefits."

And if we give everyone excellent jobs there will still be more jobs, because people who aspire to something greater will create jobs, not take them.

And there will still be plenty of youth and others who will fry our food for us, though I'd be happy if more of that was automated and everyone had a much better job.

But they have to want a better job first. And many of them don't want a better job, they just want more benefits and money for less work.

So we get fry cooks that can't raise their family in anything more than poverty.

I'm completely ignoring the people that do want something better and work to get it. That's a whole different problem, and it is a problem. I'm just talking about the people that have no desire to improve themselves, yet want to live the lifestyle of those that have put in the time and effort to do so.

stienman said:

People who are content to be low man on the totem pole and put no effort into improving their situation when they can shouldn't be complaining about the problems of their chosen lifestyle.

If they cannot improve their position, then there's a problem that needs to be addressed. But otherwise choosing to stay a fry cook and complaining that its hard to raise a family on a fry cooks income when one can improve their position but chooses not to is silly. Take responsibility for your success, or lack thereof.

We shouldn't be instead saying, "all fry cooks should be making $40k per year with full medical benefits."

And if we give everyone excellent jobs there will still be more jobs, because people who aspire to something greater will create jobs, not take them.

And there will still be plenty of youth and others who will fry our food for us, though I'd be happy if more of that was automated and everyone had a much better job.

But they have to want a better job first. And many of them don't want a better job, they just want more benefits and money for less work.

So we get fry cooks that can't raise their family in anything more than poverty.

I'm completely ignoring the people that do want something better and work to get it. That's a whole different problem, and it is a problem. I'm just talking about the people that have no desire to improve themselves, yet want to live the lifestyle of those that have put in the time and effort to do so.

Click to expand...

There's a whole heap of assumptions wrangled in a few broken down sentences right thar. So you're saying that working class people don't deserve access to affordable healthcare because their job title isn't important enough to warrant it? Is that it?

Try this assumption on for size: You sound like a well-to-do guy, who's probably worked really hard, but has never really had to struggle through poverty because he grew up in a nice, secure household with middle/upper class parents, and has had a lot more doors of opportunity open for him than someone who grew up in a ghetto. It's really easy to say "pull yourself from your bootstraps" when you've grown up in that kind of environment. I know, friend, I grew up in that kind of household. I don't doubt for a second that I didn't have more opportunity and a headstart over other people. They still deserve the same access to healthcare that I have.

Again, why was the WWII generation able to have menial factory jobs that paid a living wage and afford healthcare and raise a family on that single source of income? Why is that generation (and the GOP in general) constantly bitching about Millennials and Gen Xer's not reaching their potential when they never did. But they sure loves their social security and medicare benefits.

PatrThom said:

I honestly think that what Gas is trying to say is that if you live within your means, then great. More power to you, happiness is what you make it, etc. But if you outgrow your income (or your health insurance, or whatever), then instead of complaining about how your job has not kept pace with your needs, you should instead be putting that effort into improving your position.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm talking about healthcare. Everyone deserves access to healthcare. It's pretty much what defines a modern civilized society, in my eyes.

Ooh, I love playing this game!

It sounds like you're saying I should receive free full healthcare without working, despite my obvious capability to do so. Not working is a choice that society should support without question.

It also sounds like you're saying that poor people are stupid, and will always be mentally incapable of aspiring to greater things, nevermind choosing a path that will take them there.

Yay! This is fun! Let's stop thinking critically about the other persons arguments, and boil them down to the extreme where its pointless discussing the issue!

The world still needs hotel clerks. The ones who stay on the job beyond a month or two deserve something more than, "you still have a job. That's your benefit. Now STFU before you don't."

stienman said:

Ooh, I love playing this game!

It sounds like you're saying I should receive free full healthcare without working, despite my obvious capability to do so. Not working is a choice that society should support without question.

It also sounds like you're saying that poor people are stupid, and will always be mentally incapable of aspiring to greater things, nevermind choosing a path that will take them there.

Yay! This is fun! Let's stop thinking critically about the other persons arguments, and boil them down to the extreme where its pointless discussing the issue!

Click to expand...

A fry cook is working...

I do like how you're completely skirting the issue because you know you're full of shit. I'm sorry, it just makes me angry that it seems like you're saying a person's job title should dictate what kind of health service they deserve. So a frycook breaks his leg. He doesn't deserve heatlhcare for his broken leg? He doesn't deserve disability? Because he didn't have the opportunities to make it further in life than a fry cook? So he should get evicted from his apartment? This is ok with you because, afterall, he's just a shitty, loser frycook?

Silent Bob said:

you know you're full of shit.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I'm having such a hard time expressing myself in a way that you understand. When you repeat what you think I'm saying, it's completely wrong.

I don't know of a better way to explain myself though, so I suppose I will just have to live with you misunderstanding my position.

Sorry to have angered you, it's certainly not my intention, and rather than risking further unhappiness I'll bow out now.

Silent Bob said:

This is ok with you because, afterall, he's just a shitty, loser frycook?

Click to expand...

My brain says that this is evolution and that the human race would be better if all the osteoporotic, apathetic fry cook-type people kill themselves off.
My viscera say that even apathetic fry cooks deserve a chance at greatness, a chance to make something of themselves, a chance to be a somebody, instead of being a bum.
My gestalt supposes that which way I would ultimately lean would depend upon what I know/find out about him and his life.

FWIW, I believe that basic health care is but one of many "perks" that should be available to all citizens who are in good standing, so that people can go about their daily lives secure in the knowledge that, at a minimum, at least their most basic needs will be met. I also acknowledge that this would be a logistical nightmare, that funding such a program would be difficult at best, and that there would be people who would seek to abuse and/or pervert the system on both sides of the dole. In fact, I think it's that last one that would be the most difficult to guard against.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

My brain says that this is evolution and that the human race would be better if all the osteoporotic, apathetic fry cook-type people kill themselves off.
My viscera say that even apathetic fry cooks deserve a chance at greatness, a chance to make something of themselves, a chance to be a somebody, instead of being a bum.
My gestalt supposes that which way I would ultimately lean would depend upon what I know/find out about him and his life.

FWIW, I believe that basic health care is but one of many "perks" that should be available to all citizens who are in good standing, so that people can go about their daily lives secure in the knowledge that, at a minimum, at least their most basic needs will be met. I also acknowledge that this would be a logistical nightmare, that funding such a program would be difficult at best, and that there would be people who would seek to abuse and/or pervert the system on both sides of the dole. In fact, I think it's that last one that would be the most difficult to guard against.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Why would it be a logistical nightmare? It's done all over Europe.

PatrThom said:

My brain says that this is evolution and that the human race would be better if all the osteoporotic, apathetic fry cook-type people kill themselves off.
My viscera say that even apathetic fry cooks deserve a chance at greatness, a chance to make something of themselves, a chance to be a somebody, instead of being a bum.
My gestalt supposes that which way I would ultimately lean would depend upon what I know/find out about him and his life.

FWIW, I believe that basic health care is but one of many "perks" that should be available to all citizens who are in good standing, so that people can go about their daily lives secure in the knowledge that, at a minimum, at least their most basic needs will be met. I also acknowledge that this would be a logistical nightmare, that funding such a program would be difficult at best, and that there would be people who would seek to abuse and/or pervert the system on both sides of the dole. In fact, I think it's that last one that would be the most difficult to guard against.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Sorry, I firmly believe in a right to healthcare is beneficial to everyone in a society, regardless of their "standing".

PatrThom said:

I honestly think that what Gas is trying to say is that if you live within your means, then great. More power to you, happiness is what you make it, etc. But if you outgrow your income (or your health insurance, or whatever), then instead of complaining about how your job has not kept pace with your needs, you should instead be putting that effort into improving your position.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Oh yes, but in true GB style, he's also implying that putting in the effort is enough to actually get a better job...

Hence my comment.

PatrThom said:

My brain says that this is evolution and that the human race would be better if all the osteoporotic, apathetic fry cook-type people kill themselves off.

Click to expand...

Except that's not how evolution works... if they're still alive and breeding then as far as evolution is concerned they deserve to be alive...

Also, limiting genetic variety has proven to not be a very good strategy, as it increases the chance of one disease wiping out the whole population... just ask banana's.

@Li3n said:

Except that's not how evolution works... if they're still alive and breeding then as far as evolution is concerned they deserve to be alive...

Also, limiting genetic variety has proven to not be a very good strategy, as it increases the chance of one disease wiping out the whole population... just ask banana's.

Click to expand...

...or coffee.

And actually, that is how evolution (i.e., natural selection) works. If dude breaks his leg, and therefore can't support a family, then he is more of a failure and won't pass on his genes. What is called into question, however, is whether or not his genetic makeup is what was responsible for his being a failure, so it is imprecise. That's why evolution works best over a large population, so the "accidents" (i.e., bad luck events) only affect the an organism, and not the species.

--Patrick

Well, I have a fundamental disagreement with Silent Bob in that I don't think healthcare is a fundamental right, and even if it were, having a right to something in the US doesn't mean somebody else pays for it for you - IE, I have a right to a gun, but that doesn't mean it's the government's (or anybody else's) responsibility to pay for it for me. Healthcare is a limited resource - if you are saying you are entitled to healthcare, you are saying you are entitled to someone else's time and money (the doctor's time, the money it takes to pay for it). This thinking is fundamentally anathema to the system which provided for America's prosperity and should be shunned whenever possible. (GB mode ON) This is the thinking of a dead weight parasite.

At any rate, Patrick is essentially correct about my primary assertion. Living within your means is great. I got no problem with the guy flipping burgers who isn't inseminating everything in sight.

@Li3n said:

Oh yes, but in true GB style, he's also implying that putting in the effort is enough to actually get a better job...

Click to expand...

Contrary to socialist dogma, economics is not a zero sum game. There is no hard limit on "number of jobs" where everybody below that cutoff is just SOL. There is, however, something going on right now that is making employers extremely reluctant to hire - it's the rise to prevalence of the sort of thinking that says you should have all needs covered without being expected to do more than flip burgers, and the seeming willingness of those in power to pander to it.

GasBandit said:

I got no problem with the guy flipping burgers who isn't inseminating everything in sight.

Click to expand...

Funny how often these two behaviors go together.

stienman said:

And there will still be plenty of youth and others who will fry our food for us, though I'd be happy if more of that was automated and everyone had a much better job.

Click to expand...

97 times out of 100 when dealing with a fast food joint other than Chick-fil-a I find myself longing for the day they figure out away to remove humans from the process. The service would be much more pleasant.

Covar said:

97 times out of 100 when dealing with a fast food joint other than Chick-fil-a I find myself longing for the day they figure out away to remove humans from the process. The service would be much more pleasant.

Click to expand...

I believe you're looking for this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/burger-robot-could-revolutionize-fast-food-industry-2012-11

Business website: http://momentummachines.com/

360 burgers an hour. So one every 10 seconds. And supposedly GOOD ones too. Could be half-vaporware, but if not, then there ya go.

Covar said:

97 times out of 100 when dealing with a fast food joint other than Chick-fil-a I find myself longing for the day they figure out away to remove humans from the process. The service would be much more pleasant.

Click to expand...

And the quality would be more consistent, too.

--Patrick

Eriol said:

I believe you're looking for this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/burger-robot-could-revolutionize-fast-food-industry-2012-11

Business website: http://momentummachines.com/

360 burgers an hour. So one every 10 seconds. And supposedly GOOD ones too. Could be half-vaporware, but if not, then there ya go.

Click to expand...

Oh god yes. That would be excellent.

I can't wait for the rise in crime we're gonna get once all these burger flipping robots take over. Because that's what's going to happen once robots capable of replacing service industry people become available: People with no other options in life are going to riot... and without an immediate means of employing people, it's going to be a serious problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

I know in America this would be unconcievable, but whatever. It's either that or a very fast change in the social model regarding jobs (which GMI ir Basic MI would generate anyway)

AshburnerX said:

I can't wait for the rise in crime we're gonna get once all these burger flipping robots take over. Because that's what's going to happen once robots capable of replacing service industry people become available: People with no other options in life are going to riot... and without an immediate means of employing people, it's going to be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

Survival of the fittest! If you're not a successful and rich, you must be an uninspired loser and deserve to die.



...except the whole point of civilization is compassion against the indifference of nature.

Silent Bob said:

the whole point of civilization is compassion against the indifference of nature.

Click to expand...

Citation required - this doesn't make sense. Perhaps it's an ideal? Basic anthropology stuff I've read certainly doesn't suggest that civilization is born of compassion.

Of course if you actually were an antitranscendentalist that would explain a lot of your perspective.

AshburnerX said:

I can't wait for the rise in crime we're gonna get once all these burger flipping robots take over. Because that's what's going to happen once robots capable of replacing service industry people become available: People with no other options in life are going to riot... and without an immediate means of employing people, it's going to be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

Just like those buggy whip manufacturers!

Covar said:

Just like those buggy whip manufacturers!

Click to expand...

The buggy whip manufacturer revolution was a terrible time in our past.

Let us never speak of it again.

stienman said:

Basic anthropology stuff I've read certainly doesn't suggest that civilization is born of compassion.

Click to expand...

At its core, I figure civilization was born of the necessity of divvying responsibilities. The same way that insurance divides risk up among many individuals, civilization ensures that no individual has to work as hard as he would on his own to achieve the same level of prosperity.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

Contrary to socialist dogma, economics is not a zero sum game. There is no hard limit on "number of jobs" where everybody below that cutoff is just SOL. There is, however, something going on right now that is making employers extremely reluctant to hire - it's the rise to prevalence of the sort of thinking that says you should have all needs covered without being expected to do more than flip burgers, and the seeming willingness of those in power to pander to it.

Click to expand...

Not being a zero sum game only implies that more jobs can be created, not that everyone can have a good job... (also, since, to teh best of our knowledge, the universe isn't infinite, it will eventually become a zero sum game, assuming our species still exists...)


Unless you're implying that we don't need any number of minimum wage profession can be done away with (well, at least until we get wiped out by a virulent disease from a "unexpectedly dirty" telephone) there will always be a need for burger flippers, and it's kinda hard to work while starving... and the companies paying them too little = other people have to put up the difference (see: tip scene from Reservoir Dogs - confused the hell out of me until i found out about tips and the USA).

GasBandit said:

something going on right now that is making employers extremely reluctant to hire

Click to expand...

Clearly that's not anything related to the state of any economy, and a lack of demand, just employees asking too much of the poor companies.

GasBandit said:

Contrary to socialist dogma

Click to expand...

[DOUBLEPOST=1360885319][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:

Healthcare is a limited resource - if you are saying you are entitled to healthcare, you are saying you are entitled to someone else's time and money (the doctor's time, the money it takes to pay for it). This thinking is fundamentally anathema to the system which provided for America's prosperity and should be shunned whenever possible. (GB mode ON) This is the thinking of a dead weight parasite.

Click to expand...

Jobs - not a zero sum game, healthcare - totally one...


Also, no advantage to having a healthy population whatsoever...

PatrThom said:

That's why evolution works best over a large population, so the "accidents" (i.e., bad luck events) only affect the an organism, and not the species.

Click to expand...

Tell that to T-Rex*...

* disclaimer, i have no idea atm if they where even alive at the time the meteor struck, but i think i got my point across, evolution dont care bitches

I just received my W2 summary. Time to fire all my workers!

@Li3n said:

Not being a zero sum game only implies that more jobs can be created, not that everyone can have a good job... (also, since, to teh best of our knowledge, the universe isn't infinite, it will eventually become a zero sum game, assuming our species still exists...)

Click to expand...

This has to be the grandest non sequitur I've seen in years. Good job. (see what I did there)

Unless you're implying that we don't need any number of minimum wage profession can be done away with (well, at least until we get wiped out by a virulent disease from a "unexpectedly dirty" telephone) there will always be a need for burger flippers, and it's kinda hard to work while starving... and the companies paying them too little = other people have to put up the difference (see: tip scene from Reservoir Dogs - confused the hell out of me until i found out about tips and the USA).

Click to expand...

They tip the waitstaff, not the cooks. Anyway, if you're arguing that every single job ever should pay a living wage, I've got bad news for you - economics doesn't work that way. Yes we "need" burger flippers and always will, but the level of our need is vastly dwarfed by the number of qualified applicants - it is, after all, a low skill, low intensity job that requires minimal training. Thus, supply and demand sets the wage low. Nobody should expect to raise kids on minimum wage - even its proponents acknowledge minimum wage isn't there to make sure everybody can raise kids. Otherwise, the minimum wage would be $20/hr.

Jobs - not a zero sum game, healthcare - totally one...

Click to expand...

Actually, once you strip out the sarcasm, that is a correct statement. It is much faster, easier and less expensive to create (or find) average employment than it is to train a doctor.

I really feel like I'm having to condescend to teaching you basic principles of economics here, and frankly, I don't have time to coax you gently through ECON101.

Also, no advantage to having a healthy population whatsoever...

Click to expand...

Contrary to leftist histrionics, Americans were not dropping dead in great swaths in the street prior to 2007. Our health care system may not have been perfect (and it is less so now, obviously), but it was the driving force behind medical advancement in the world. The impetus for the current boondoggle was largely manufactured out of whole cloth in an attempt to force centralization for dogmatic motivations, not to actually improve the system.

@Li3n said:

Tell that to T-Rex*...

* disclaimer, i have no idea atm if they where even alive at the time the meteor struck, but i think i got my point across, evolution dont care bitches

Click to expand...

A most unusual/rare event, and an outside one, at that. Certainly nothing you could plan for.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

This has to be the grandest non sequitur I've seen in years. Good job. (see what I did there)

Click to expand...

It's only one if you ignore my original complaint about your argument and the implications it has that you always ignore for idealogical reasons.

GasBandit said:

They tip the waitstaff, not the cooks.

Click to expand...

Don't the tips get spread out amongst employees, or am i confusing that with someplace else...

Anyhow, that's beside the point i was trying to makes, aka in the end people still need to make enough money to live, in that case it's the customer that pays their part of their wages directly.

GasBandit said:

Anyway, if you're arguing that every single job ever should pay a living wage, I've got bad news for you - economics doesn't work that way. Yes we "need" burger flippers and always will, but the level of our need is vastly dwarfed by the number of qualified applicants - it is, after all, a low skill, low intensity job that requires minimal training. Thus, supply and demand sets the wage low.

Click to expand...

Sure, economics by itself doesn't, but that hardly means it's an ideal situation...

I mean look, there's a good argument to be made that the black plague helped jump start capitalism by limiting the supply of workers and forcing employers to pay more... google it, there's plenty of stuff about it.

Hell, that's the whole point of minimum wage, the fact that economics cares about people starving while working a full job as much as evolution does...


Also, the definition of living wage aka subsistence wage means that unless those people you where complaining about are starving/homeless etc they do make one (or have other sources of income, over here ppl just steal stuff, it's totaly working out awesome).

GasBandit said:

Nobody should expect to raise kids on minimum wage - even its proponents acknowledge minimum wage isn't there to make sure everybody can raise kids. Otherwise, the minimum wage would be $20/hr.

Click to expand...

And that's why i said the world is more fair with people that do what you said at the start, then it would be with everyone being 100% committed to bettering themselves or whatever...

But clearly people are raising kids on minimum wage if they can complain about it to you instead of crying about their kids dying of starvation...

GasBandit said:

Actually, once you strip out the sarcasm, that is a correct statement. It is much faster, easier and less expensive to create (or find) average employment than it is to train a doctor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that still doesn't make it a zero sum game...

Plus, there's plenty of things one could do for healthcare that doesn't require a new doctor (it's not like you have less, especially since a lot of foreign ones come to the US because there's more money to be made there).

GasBandit said:

I really feel like I'm having to condescend to teaching you basic principles of economics here, and frankly, I don't have time to coax you gently through ECON101.

Click to expand...

You know, there's a reason why high school econ doesn't make one an economist... and also why econ isn't as hard a science as math etc.

GasBandit said:

Contrary to leftist histrionics, Americans were not dropping dead in great swaths in the street prior to 2007. Our health care system may not have been perfect (and it is less so now, obviously), but it was the driving force behind medical advancement in the world. The impetus for the current boondoggle was largely manufactured out of whole cloth in an attempt to force centralization for dogmatic motivations, not to actually improve the system.

Click to expand...

No, healthcare wasn't/isn't the reason for the fact that the US is the driving force behind medical advancement, the fact that you pay your doctors more was/is...

And you're right, people weren't dropping dead in the streets, they where just going bankrupt...

PatrThom said:

A most unusual/rare event, and an outside one, at that. Certainly nothing you could plan for.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

New dominant species is able to imagine this:


Coincidence?!

Trying to abbreviate the text wall:

1) Your "point" was beneath addressing as it was positively submoronic
2) Sometimes waiters split tips with bussers, but that's never been the case for cooks that I've heard of. Secondly, if your job doesn't pay you enough money then you improve yourself and get a better job. If you honestly expect anybody should make 35k+ a year bussing tables then you're absolutely divorced from reality.
3) Those people are idiots, which is my point.
4) They are a limited resource. And they're getting even more limited as many are now just deciding it's not worth it any more and closing up shop. But don't worry about us, we just made it illegal to not have health insurance. I'm sure that will help all those people who couldn't afford health insurance.
5) This response was devoid of content.
6) Your first point is irrelevant and unrelated, your second point is another example of the manufactured "crisis" blown out of proportion. Yes, it happened, no it was not as rampant as depicted.

GasBandit said:

1) Your "point" was beneath addressing as it was positively submoronic

Click to expand...

Man, now i really want to know what you though what my original post said...

GasBandit said:

2) Secondly, if your job doesn't pay you enough money then you improve yourself and get a better job.

Click to expand...

And once again you're back to the original argument about the availability of better jobs and how someone has to do the crappy jobs too.

Hey look, there's even an official name for your reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

GasBandit said:

3) Those people are idiots, which is my point.

Click to expand...

And yet without idiots there wouldn't be enough workers to go around...

Ok, to make it clear, my rebuttal was that it wouldn't make that much difference if they weren't...

GasBandit said:

4) They are a limited resource. And they're getting even more limited as many are now just deciding it's not worth it any more and closing up shop.

Click to expand...

Talking about econ101... pretty sure the only "unlimited" resources are air and maybe water (depending on region)...


And no one is actually deciding it's not worth it based on their feeling that they're paying people too much... and if some businesses can't afford to pay people enough for them to live they will close down eventually anyway once their employees starve (if we're doing econ 101 i can simplify it too).

GasBandit said:

But don't worry about us, we just made it illegal to not have health insurance. I'm sure that will help all those people who couldn't afford health insurance.

Click to expand...

While no one was particularly happy with the "compromise" the fact still remains that 20 people each pay less when sharing the cost of something then 10 people sharing the cost for the same thing. Hell,even 20 people getting something that's 9$ pay less then 10 people getting something that's 5$...

GasBandit said:

5) This response was devoid of content.

Click to expand...

You know, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it has no meaning... see your point 3.

GasBandit said:

6) Your first point is irrelevant and unrelated, your second point is another example of the manufactured "crisis" blown out of proportion. Yes, it happened, no it was not as rampant as depicted.

Click to expand...

So what % of it happening is acceptable?


Because i don't actually have any problem with you complaining about how they went about trying to solve the problem,

@Li3n said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Click to expand...

For the record, this is a sociopsychological concept, and you're applying it incorrectly. It's not a philosophy, it's a bias.

GasBandit said:

If you honestly expect anybody should make 35k+ a year bussing tables then you're absolutely divorced from reality.

Click to expand...

Meh. It just means more robots and fewer unskilled positions. Those that are unable to become skilled at and gain a job that's actually worth minimum wage will live on the public dole, like they do in other countries where 20% unemployment is considered low. Your burger will still only cost $1, but it will be made on demand by a machine rather than a high school student.