|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 25, 2014 7:22:22 GMT
I would have placed this one-time assessment on everyone. (Note: Given the nature of our current Welfare State, the chief beneficiaries of this largesse would have been the underclass and the lower-middle class; so the fact that they would have been expected to pay a bit toward this total amount does not strike me as being especially unfair.)
How would you have proposed the poor pay for this additional taxation when they already have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States? You know, the parents that have to go hungry just so they can feed their children (that you want to cut off SNAP benefits to).
If you will check the US budget the greatest single expenditure from the general fund is the military-industrial complex and not welfare. Military spending has always been the elephant in the living room, not welfare assistance. Added on top of that is the post 9-11 "Homeland Security" budget where we spend money like crazy. Did you know, for example, that the Air Marshalls that we employed after 9-11 have an average cost per arrest of $300 million?!?!?! People complain about the $800 screw used on a military airplane but ignore the cost of $300 million to make an arrest. Seriously.
You know who the chief beneficiaries of our "welfare state" are don't you? It's the wealthy capitalist that exploits the labor of the American people so that they can fly around in private jets piling up millions and billions of dollars. A person that wakes up a year from now with nothing more in their pocket than they have today isn't benefiting. We can only claim that they survived for another year without starving or freezing to death but they did not benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 25, 2014 20:11:33 GMT
I would have placed this one-time assessment on everyone. (Note: Given the nature of our current Welfare State, the chief beneficiaries of this largesse would have been the underclass and the lower-middle class; so the fact that they would have been expected to pay a bit toward this total amount does not strike me as being especially unfair.)
How would you have proposed the poor pay for this additional taxation when they already have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States? You know, the parents that have to go hungry just so they can feed their children (that you want to cut off SNAP benefits to).
If you will check the US budget the greatest single expenditure from the general fund is the military-industrial complex and not welfare. Military spending has always been the elephant in the living room, not welfare assistance. Added on top of that is the post 9-11 "Homeland Security" budget where we spend money like crazy. Did you know, for example, that the Air Marshalls that we employed after 9-11 have an average cost per arrest of $300 million?!?!?! People complain about the $800 screw used on a military airplane but ignore the cost of $300 million to make an arrest. Seriously.
You know who the chief beneficiaries of our "welfare state" are don't you? It's the wealthy capitalist that exploits the labor of the American people so that they can fly around in private jets piling up millions and billions of dollars. A person that wakes up a year from now with nothing more in their pocket than they have today isn't benefiting. We can only claim that they survived for another year without starving or freezing to death but they did not benefit from it.
If someone "survived...without starving or freezing to death" due to income-transfer payments (a.k.a. The Welfare State), it would probably be accurate to say that he (or she) "benefit[ted]" from the system. Your severe distaste for "wealthy capitalist " is rather telling, though. Perhaps you would prefer a more egalitarian system than capitalism--say, socialism...
I do not know what your source is for the figure given ($300 million per arrest for air marshals, post-9/11), or just how that was calculated. But even if it is essentially correct--and that is a very big "if"--so what? If just one future 9/11 were to be prevented, would you really say that the expense was just not worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 27, 2014 13:18:30 GMT
How would you have proposed the poor pay for this additional taxation when they already have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States? You know, the parents that have to go hungry just so they can feed their children (that you want to cut off SNAP benefits to).
If you will check the US budget the greatest single expenditure from the general fund is the military-industrial complex and not welfare. Military spending has always been the elephant in the living room, not welfare assistance. Added on top of that is the post 9-11 "Homeland Security" budget where we spend money like crazy. Did you know, for example, that the Air Marshalls that we employed after 9-11 have an average cost per arrest of $300 million?!?!?! People complain about the $800 screw used on a military airplane but ignore the cost of $300 million to make an arrest. Seriously.
You know who the chief beneficiaries of our "welfare state" are don't you? It's the wealthy capitalist that exploits the labor of the American people so that they can fly around in private jets piling up millions and billions of dollars. A person that wakes up a year from now with nothing more in their pocket than they have today isn't benefiting. We can only claim that they survived for another year without starving or freezing to death but they did not benefit from it.
If someone "survived...without starving or freezing to death" due to income-transfer payments (a.k.a. The Welfare State), it would probably be accurate to say that he (or she) "benefit[ted]" from the system. Your severe distaste for "wealthy capitalist" is rather telling, though. Perhaps you would prefer a more egalitarian system than capitalism--say, socialism... I do not know what your source is for the figure given ($300 million per arrest for air marshals, post-9/11), or just how that was calculated. But even if it is essentially correct--and that is a very big "if"--so what? If just one future 9/11 were to be prevented, would you really say that the expense was just not worth it?
As for the thousands that could die because you would take the food off their table or the roof from over their head so they freeze to death that's completely acceptable to you? Seriously?
I have absolutely no distaste for the caplitalist but do oppose economic slavery just as I oppose any form of slavery. There is no necessity for under-compensation in employment by the caplitalist. I also believe in "fair taxation" where everyone, regardless of income, is subjected to the identical tax rules and tax rates on every dollar of income regardless of source (as demonstated by my tax proposal).
The American People have assumed responsibility for safety aboard commercial airliners and have demonstrated repeatedly that the events of 9/11 cannot happen agian. The American people are not stupid and they learned from Flight 93 that the passengers cannot sit idly by and allow terrorists to take control of a commercial airliner. Even at risk of immediate death the passengers on a commercial airliner will rise up to suppress an attempted hijacking of a commercial airliner today. There is absolutely no need for the Air Marshalls and they do not prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11. The American people flying on commercial airliners prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 27, 2014 20:22:20 GMT
If someone "survived...without starving or freezing to death" due to income-transfer payments (a.k.a. The Welfare State), it would probably be accurate to say that he (or she) "benefit[ted]" from the system. Your severe distaste for "wealthy capitalist" is rather telling, though. Perhaps you would prefer a more egalitarian system than capitalism--say, socialism... I do not know what your source is for the figure given ($300 million per arrest for air marshals, post-9/11), or just how that was calculated. But even if it is essentially correct--and that is a very big "if"--so what? If just one future 9/11 were to be prevented, would you really say that the expense was just not worth it?
As for the thousands that could die because you would take the food off their table or the roof from over their head so they freeze to death that's completely acceptable to you? Seriously?
I have absolutely no distaste for the caplitalist but do oppose economic slavery just as I oppose any form of slavery. There is no necessity for under-compensation in employment by the caplitalist. I also believe in "fair taxation" where everyone, regardless of income, is subjected to the identical tax rules and tax rates on every dollar of income regardless of source (as demonstated by my tax proposal).
The American People have assumed responsibility for safety aboard commercial airliners and have demonstrated repeatedly that the events of 9/11 cannot happen agian. The American people are not stupid and they learned from Flight 93 that the passengers cannot sit idly by and allow terrorists to take control of a commercial airliner. Even at risk of immediate death the passengers on a commercial airliner will rise up to suppress an attempted hijacking of a commercial airliner today. There is absolutely no need for the Air Marshalls and they do not prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11. The American people flying on commercial airliners prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11.
Are you really quite certain that the events of just one incident, in 2001, prove conclusively that any future hijacking will be foiled by passengers who will simply "rise up" to prevent the incipient terror? (And even if that were correct--which is an enormous "if"--it would still necessitate the deaths of many innocent passengers, as a tradeoff for your desire to not pay for air marshals.) Your naked plea to emotion--I would (supposedly) "take the food off [poor people's] table or the roof from over their head"--is badly misplaced, as it starts with the gratuitous assumption that poor Americans fare better with The Welfare State plus private charities than they would with private charities alone. (I have addressed this matter in another thread.) Your use of the term, "economic slavery," sounds almost Marxist. The employer and the employee are on essentially equal terms: Either may refuse the employment contract, if the conditions are not sufficiently appealing. And the prospective employee may take his (or her) skills and talents elsewhere--assuming, of course, that he (or she) has acquired any such skills or talents... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2014 14:28:21 GMT
As for the thousands that could die because you would take the food off their table or the roof from over their head so they freeze to death that's completely acceptable to you? Seriously?
I have absolutely no distaste for the caplitalist but do oppose economic slavery just as I oppose any form of slavery. There is no necessity for under-compensation in employment by the caplitalist. I also believe in "fair taxation" where everyone, regardless of income, is subjected to the identical tax rules and tax rates on every dollar of income regardless of source (as demonstated by my tax proposal).
The American People have assumed responsibility for safety aboard commercial airliners and have demonstrated repeatedly that the events of 9/11 cannot happen agian. The American people are not stupid and they learned from Flight 93 that the passengers cannot sit idly by and allow terrorists to take control of a commercial airliner. Even at risk of immediate death the passengers on a commercial airliner will rise up to suppress an attempted hijacking of a commercial airliner today. There is absolutely no need for the Air Marshalls and they do not prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11. The American people flying on commercial airliners prevent a reocurrance of the events of 9/11.
Are you really quite certain that the events of just one incident, in 2001, prove conclusively that any future hijacking will be foiled by passengers who will simply "rise up" to prevent the incipient terror? (And even if that were correct--which is an enormous "if"--it would still necessitate the deaths of many innocent passengers, as a tradeoff for your desire to not pay for air marshals.) Your naked plea to emotion--I would (supposedly) "take the food off [poor people's] table or the roof from over their head"--is badly misplaced, as it starts with the gratuitous assumption that poor Americans fare better with The Welfare State plus private charities than they would with private charities alone. (I have addressed this matter in another thread.) Your use of the term, "economic slavery," sounds almost Marxist. The employer and the employee are on essentially equal terms: Either may refuse the employment contract, if the conditions are not sufficiently appealing. And the prospective employee may take his (or her) skills and talents elsewhere--assuming, of course, that he (or she) has acquired any such skills or talents...
There have been so many instances where the passengers have subdued those that represented a threat on a commercial airliner that I would even attempt to document them all but merely ask you to recall the shoe-bomber, an actual terrorist, that the passengers subdued. While the government won't release the actual number of air marshalls we know based upon the budget authorizations that the odds of an air marshall being on a commercial airliner when a problem arises is MORE THAN 0.001% and the odds of the passengers addressing any threat is currently 100%.
I've long been a supporter of Northwest Harvest that is the primary food bank system in Washington and I've been to the local food bank. It doesn't even have enough food to provide for those that show up there in need much less the hundreds or thousands in the community that receive SNAP assistance. The distribution of food at the food bank is highly rationed and a person would only be able to survive for a couple days per week on what it can provide.
No, the employer and the employee are not on equal terms. There is absolutely nothing that requires the employer to hire anyone and it certainly wouldn't hire someone if it couldn't profit for their labor but the person must work for a living even if the compensation doesn't provide for their basic needs. The enterprise is never required to operate at a loss as it can simply shut it's doors and stop all operations. The person cannot simply "shut the doors" and short of committing suicide they cannot stop all operations. The enterprises is not required to "operate at a loss" but the person is. Over 20% of all working households are forced to "operate at a loss" today and that percentage is increasing based upon all of the economic indicators.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 29, 2014 20:59:47 GMT
Are you really quite certain that the events of just one incident, in 2001, prove conclusively that any future hijacking will be foiled by passengers who will simply "rise up" to prevent the incipient terror? (And even if that were correct--which is an enormous "if"--it would still necessitate the deaths of many innocent passengers, as a tradeoff for your desire to not pay for air marshals.) Your naked plea to emotion--I would (supposedly) "take the food off [poor people's] table or the roof from over their head"--is badly misplaced, as it starts with the gratuitous assumption that poor Americans fare better with The Welfare State plus private charities than they would with private charities alone. (I have addressed this matter in another thread.) Your use of the term, "economic slavery," sounds almost Marxist. The employer and the employee are on essentially equal terms: Either may refuse the employment contract, if the conditions are not sufficiently appealing. And the prospective employee may take his (or her) skills and talents elsewhere--assuming, of course, that he (or she) has acquired any such skills or talents...
There have been so many instances where the passengers have subdued those that represented a threat on a commercial airliner that I would even attempt to document them all but merely ask you to recall the shoe-bomber, an actual terrorist, that the passengers subdued. While the government won't release the actual number of air marshalls we know based upon the budget authorizations that the odds of an air marshall being on a commercial airliner when a problem arises is MORE THAN 0.001% and the odds of the passengers addressing any threat is currently 100%.
I've long been a supporter of Northwest Harvest that is the primary food bank system in Washington and I've been to the local food bank. It doesn't even have enough food to provide for those that show up there in need much less the hundreds or thousands in the community that receive SNAP assistance. The distribution of food at the food bank is highly rationed and a person would only be able to survive for a couple days per week on what it can provide.
No, the employer and the employee are not on equal terms. There is absolutely nothing that requires the employer to hire anyone and it certainly wouldn't hire someone if it couldn't profit for their labor but the person must work for a living even if the compensation doesn't provide for their basic needs. The enterprise is never required to operate at a loss as it can simply shut it's doors and stop all operations. The person cannot simply "shut the doors" and short of committing suicide they cannot stop all operations. The enterprises is not required to "operate at a loss" but the person is. Over 20% of all working households are forced to "operate at a loss" today and that percentage is increasing based upon all of the economic indicators.
I have very little respect for those who allow themselves to be bullied by others, simply because they feel that they must "operate at a loss." If these people have any self-respect--and if they have any skills or talents they can take elsewhere-- they will not meekly agree to "operat[ing] at a loss." You seem to believe that we ought not hire air marshals, as that costs a few bucks; we could, instead, merely count upon the passengers to sacrifice their own lives, in order to stop the intended hijackings. There are lots of private charities--not just the "Northwest Harvest...food bank," and similar food banks elsewhere throughout the nation. And there are also individuals who offer assistance to others, who are truly needy. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 30, 2014 13:40:35 GMT
I have very little respect for those who allow themselves to be bullied by others, simply because they feel that they must "operate at a loss." If these people have any self-respect--and if they have any skills or talents they can take elsewhere-- they will not meekly agree to "operat[ing] at a loss." You seem to believe that we ought not hire air marshals, as that costs a few bucks; we could, instead, merely count upon the passengers to sacrifice their own lives, in order to stop the intended hijackings. There are lots of private charities--not just the "Northwest Harvest...food bank," and similar food banks elsewhere throughout the nation. And there are also individuals who offer assistance to others, who are truly needy.
"Physical labor" is a highly necessary skill in our economy. Anyone that can perform physical labor is providing an essential "skill" to our economy and yet, based upon market coercion, they are not compensated for their labor where they can "operate at a profit" in our country.
Considering the fact statistically it's almost a certainty that an Air Marshall is NOT going to be on the flight anyway they offer zero protection to the passengers on commerical airliners. Try finding even one story of an Air Marshall intervening in a problem on a commercial airliner since 2001. The only story I found doing a search related to "Air Marshall arrests" was of an Air Marshall being arrested for taking pictures up women's skirts. I found none that related to an Air Marshall making an arrest while a plane was in flight. At best an Air Marshall might be at the airport and make the arrest after the airliner arrives but even that is doubtful. Air Marshalls aren't protecting anyone.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465865/Air-marshal-arrested-taking-photos-passengers-skirts.html
Yes, there are lots of charities but Northwest Harvest coordinates virtually all of the food banks in Washington and if the people had to depend upon Northwest harvests, even with personal assistance from friends and families that is very unreliable, they would starve to death in a few months.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 31, 2014 19:46:58 GMT
I have very little respect for those who allow themselves to be bullied by others, simply because they feel that they must "operate at a loss." If these people have any self-respect--and if they have any skills or talents they can take elsewhere-- they will not meekly agree to "operat[ing] at a loss." You seem to believe that we ought not hire air marshals, as that costs a few bucks; we could, instead, merely count upon the passengers to sacrifice their own lives, in order to stop the intended hijackings. There are lots of private charities--not just the "Northwest Harvest...food bank," and similar food banks elsewhere throughout the nation. And there are also individuals who offer assistance to others, who are truly needy.
"Physical labor" is a highly necessary skill in our economy. Anyone that can perform physical labor is providing an essential "skill" to our economy and yet, based upon market coercion, they are not compensated for their labor where they can "operate at a profit" in our country.
Considering the fact statistically it's almost a certainty that an Air Marshall is NOT going to be on the flight anyway they offer zero protection to the passengers on commerical airliners. Try finding even one story of an Air Marshall intervening in a problem on a commercial airliner since 2001. The only story I found doing a search related to "Air Marshall arrests" was of an Air Marshall being arrested for taking pictures up women's skirts. I found none that related to an Air Marshall making an arrest while a plane was in flight. At best an Air Marshall might be at the airport and make the arrest after the airliner arrives but even that is doubtful. Air Marshalls aren't protecting anyone.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465865/Air-marshal-arrested-taking-photos-passengers-skirts.html
Yes, there are lots of charities but Northwest Harvest coordinates virtually all of the food banks in Washington and if the people had to depend upon Northwest harvests, even with personal assistance from friends and families that is very unreliable, they would starve to death in a few months.
If "friends and family" would allow their own "friends and family" to "starve to death," that really does not speak very well about these people. (You seem to have a much more cynical view as regarding Americans than I do. Americans--correctly, I think--have often been characterized as "the most generous people in the world.") No, I do not believe that "physical labor" is a "skill." It may indeed be necessary, in some instances--although automation is gradually making it less so--but it really does not qualify as a "skill." Moreover, those who do not believe that they are being compensated adequately should simply leave, and take their "skill" elsewhere. If nothing else. air marshals give many passengers a peace of mind--much as a life-insurance policy does--and I am guessing that your real opposition to air marshals is not the cost, but a sense of political correctness... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 1, 2014 13:34:09 GMT
"Physical labor" is a highly necessary skill in our economy. Anyone that can perform physical labor is providing an essential "skill" to our economy and yet, based upon market coercion, they are not compensated for their labor where they can "operate at a profit" in our country.
Considering the fact statistically it's almost a certainty that an Air Marshall is NOT going to be on the flight anyway they offer zero protection to the passengers on commerical airliners. Try finding even one story of an Air Marshall intervening in a problem on a commercial airliner since 2001. The only story I found doing a search related to "Air Marshall arrests" was of an Air Marshall being arrested for taking pictures up women's skirts. I found none that related to an Air Marshall making an arrest while a plane was in flight. At best an Air Marshall might be at the airport and make the arrest after the airliner arrives but even that is doubtful. Air Marshalls aren't protecting anyone.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465865/Air-marshal-arrested-taking-photos-passengers-skirts.html
Yes, there are lots of charities but Northwest Harvest coordinates virtually all of the food banks in Washington and if the people had to depend upon Northwest harvests, even with personal assistance from friends and families that is very unreliable, they would starve to death in a few months.
If "friends and family" would allow their own "friends and family" to "starve to death," that really does not speak very well about these people. (You seem to have a much more cynical view as regarding Americans than I do. Americans--correctly, I think--have often been characterized as "the most generous people in the world.") No, I do not believe that "physical labor" is a "skill." It may indeed be necessary, in some instances--although automation is gradually making it less so--but it really does not qualify as a "skill." Moreover, those who do not believe that they are being compensated adequately should simply leave, and take their "skill" elsewhere. If nothing else. air marshals give many passengers a peace of mind--much as a life-insurance policy does--and I am guessing that your real opposition to air marshals is not the cost, but a sense of political correctness...
The "friends and family" of those living in proverty are often living in poverty themselves. They don't have anything to give to help each other as they can't even provide for themselves. The belief that everyone has a "rich uncle" is a false belief.
In truth low income common labor jobs are not the target of automation (AI and technology) today which, for economic reasons, tends to replace middle income jobs. It is twice as cost effective to use a automation to replace a $30/hr job than it is to replace a $15.00/hr job. Only when we run out of middle income jobs that can be replaced with AI and technology will it become cost effective to replace the common laborer. I've already pointed this out to you in other posts and provided the evidence of it occuring today.
Where are these laborers going to take their skills, Nigeria? Going from McDonalds to Wendys is not going to increase the wages for the burger-flipper (and it should be noted that flipping burgers does require skills that I don't have and even I'd have to be trained to do it).
The Air Marshall service isn't providing any actual service and it costs billions of dollars. As you note in provides a "false sense of security" (i.e. peace of mind) just like the TSA. I would remind you of a fact. The purpose of law enforcement (i.e. the police) does not provide protection for the people but instead it is to enforce the law. What little protection it does provide is based exclusively upon it's role of enforcement of the law where a person that has already violated the law is in custody for committing a criminal act. Incarceration is the only "protective" function of law enforcement. Law enforcement never prevents the initial criminal act. That's why it's called "law enforcement" to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 10, 2014 21:55:10 GMT
If "friends and family" would allow their own "friends and family" to "starve to death," that really does not speak very well about these people. (You seem to have a much more cynical view as regarding Americans than I do. Americans--correctly, I think--have often been characterized as "the most generous people in the world.") No, I do not believe that "physical labor" is a "skill." It may indeed be necessary, in some instances--although automation is gradually making it less so--but it really does not qualify as a "skill." Moreover, those who do not believe that they are being compensated adequately should simply leave, and take their "skill" elsewhere. If nothing else. air marshals give many passengers a peace of mind--much as a life-insurance policy does--and I am guessing that your real opposition to air marshals is not the cost, but a sense of political correctness...
The "friends and family" of those living in proverty are often living in poverty themselves. They don't have anything to give to help each other as they can't even provide for themselves. The belief that everyone has a "rich uncle" is a false belief.
In truth low income common labor jobs are not the target of automation (AI and technology) today which, for economic reasons, tends to replace middle income jobs. It is twice as cost effective to use a automation to replace a $30/hr job than it is to replace a $15.00/hr job. Only when we run out of middle income jobs that can be replaced with AI and technology will it become cost effective to replace the common laborer. I've already pointed this out to you in other posts and provided the evidence of it occuring today.
Where are these laborers going to take their skills, Nigeria? Going from McDonalds to Wendys is not going to increase the wages for the burger-flipper (and it should be noted that flipping burgers does require skills that I don't have and even I'd have to be trained to do it).
The Air Marshall service isn't providing any actual service and it costs billions of dollars. As you note in provides a "false sense of security" (i.e. peace of mind) just like the TSA. I would remind you of a fact. The purpose of law enforcement (i.e. the police) does not provide protection for the people but instead it is to enforce the law. What little protection it does provide is based exclusively upon it's role of enforcement of the law where a person that has already violated the law is in custody for committing a criminal act. Incarceration is the only "protective" function of law enforcement. Law enforcement never prevents the initial criminal act. That's why it's called "law enforcement" to begin with.
I find it most instructive that you placed the words, "false sense of security," within quotes, as though I had uttered those words--when, in fact, I did not--but you did not place the words, "peace of mind," within quotes, when I did, in fact, utter those words. No, of course not everyone has a "rich uncle." I certainly do not. But if one's relatives are also impoverished, then they, too, may benefit from the largesse of private charities.
The $30-per-hour job may be harder to replace with a mere robot than the $15-per-hour job is--although there are probably not many burger flippers making even $15 per hour. (And if you seriously wish to classify burger flipping as a "skill," then it is a "skill" that is easily learned--and by just about anyone.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 11, 2014 11:38:44 GMT
The "friends and family" of those living in proverty are often living in poverty themselves. They don't have anything to give to help each other as they can't even provide for themselves. The belief that everyone has a "rich uncle" is a false belief.
In truth low income common labor jobs are not the target of automation (AI and technology) today which, for economic reasons, tends to replace middle income jobs. It is twice as cost effective to use a automation to replace a $30/hr job than it is to replace a $15.00/hr job. Only when we run out of middle income jobs that can be replaced with AI and technology will it become cost effective to replace the common laborer. I've already pointed this out to you in other posts and provided the evidence of it occuring today.
Where are these laborers going to take their skills, Nigeria? Going from McDonalds to Wendys is not going to increase the wages for the burger-flipper (and it should be noted that flipping burgers does require skills that I don't have and even I'd have to be trained to do it).
The Air Marshall service isn't providing any actual service and it costs billions of dollars. As you note in provides a "false sense of security" (i.e. peace of mind) just like the TSA. I would remind you of a fact. The purpose of law enforcement (i.e. the police) does not provide protection for the people but instead it is to enforce the law. What little protection it does provide is based exclusively upon it's role of enforcement of the law where a person that has already violated the law is in custody for committing a criminal act. Incarceration is the only "protective" function of law enforcement. Law enforcement never prevents the initial criminal act. That's why it's called "law enforcement" to begin with.
I find it most instructive that you placed the words, "false sense of security," within quotes, as though I had uttered those words--when, in fact, I did not--but you did not place the words, "peace of mind," within quotes, when I did, in fact, utter those words. No, of course not everyone has a "rich uncle." I certainly do not. But if one's relatives are also impoverished, then they, too, may benefit from the largesse of private charities.
The $30-per-hour job may be harder to replace with a mere robot than the $15-per-hour job is--although there are probably not many burger flippers making even $15 per hour. (And if you seriously wish to classify burger flipping as a "skill," then it is a "skill" that is easily learned--and by just about anyone.)
"Peace of mind" based upon a "false sense of security" is delusional. Do you advocate delusional thinking?
You continue to ignore the fact that private charities have never been capable of mitigating the effects of poverty in recorded history. They have helped but always in a very small way. By analogy private charities are like using a coffee cup to bail out the Titanic in an attempt to keep it from sinking. They don't hurt the effort, and help it to a small degree, but they are simply incapable of providing the assistance necessary and have always been incapable of providing the assistance necessary throughout recorded history.
Based upon a cost/benefit analysis the $30/hr job is actually easier to replace than the $15/hr job. The cost is only slightly higher while the financial benefit is double.
I've taught "high paying job skills" in aerospace and they are "easily learned - and by just about anyone." I could easily train virtually any burger flipper to be a skilled and highly paid aerospace technician in a matter of weeks and I did that for about five years working at Boeing. Also of interest is that my wife grew up in a family, and was employed in, the food service industry. Those in this job field need to know a lot just related to food safety that we unknowlingly depend upon. Poor sanitation can literally kill those of us that eat out be it at McDonalds or a s*snuggle*y five-star restaurant. You may not think their "job knowledge" is important and a critical skill but you're life literally depends upon their knowledge and skill in food preparation, food handling, and sanitation. Do you realize that people in the food industry literally have to pass a government test (in all states I'm aware of) just to work in the industry? That is not required for a highly paid machinist that only pushes a button to download the CNC program and then reads the newspaper while the part is machined automatically.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 11, 2014 22:08:33 GMT
I find it most instructive that you placed the words, "false sense of security," within quotes, as though I had uttered those words--when, in fact, I did not--but you did not place the words, "peace of mind," within quotes, when I did, in fact, utter those words. No, of course not everyone has a "rich uncle." I certainly do not. But if one's relatives are also impoverished, then they, too, may benefit from the largesse of private charities.
The $30-per-hour job may be harder to replace with a mere robot than the $15-per-hour job is--although there are probably not many burger flippers making even $15 per hour. (And if you seriously wish to classify burger flipping as a "skill," then it is a "skill" that is easily learned--and by just about anyone.)
"Peace of mind" based upon a "false sense of security" is delusional. Do you advocate delusional thinking?
You continue to ignore the fact that private charities have never been capable of mitigating the effects of poverty in recorded history. They have helped but always in a very small way. By analogy private charities are like using a coffee cup to bail out the Titanic in an attempt to keep it from sinking. They don't hurt the effort, and help it to a small degree, but they are simply incapable of providing the assistance necessary and have always been incapable of providing the assistance necessary throughout recorded history.
Based upon a cost/benefit analysis the $30/hr job is actually easier to replace than the $15/hr job. The cost is only slightly higher while the financial benefit is double.
I've taught "high paying job skills" in aerospace and they are "easily learned - and by just about anyone." I could easily train virtually any burger flipper to be a skilled and highly paid aerospace technician in a matter of weeks and I did that for about five years working at Boeing. Also of interest is that my wife grew up in a family, and was employed in, the food service industry. Those in this job field need to know a lot just related to food safety that we unknowlingly depend upon. Poor sanitation can literally kill those of us that eat out be it at McDonalds or a s*snuggle*y five-star restaurant. You may not think their "job knowledge" is important and a critical skill but you're life literally depends upon their knowledge and skill in food preparation, food handling, and sanitation. Do you realize that people in the food industry literally have to pass a government test (in all states I'm aware of) just to work in the industry? That is not required for a highly paid machinist that only pushes a button to download the CNC program and then reads the newspaper while the part is machined automatically. If Americans "literally have to pass...a government test...just to work in the food industry," that has certainly changed since I was in it, in 1973-74, making pizzas. (In fact, I was far more fastidious than the manager was. I can still remember one occasion in which meat had been left out of the freezer overnight, and was spoiled. The manager said to just put more than the usual amount of seasoning on it, in making sausage, so that no one would notive the rancid flavor to it. And I can remember another occasion in which a large can of pizza sauce had a swolen top--gases had evidently built up in it, and it had gone bad--and the manager wanted to use it, anyway. I threw it away.) What is your evidence that government assistance has helped to ease poverty in America? Or, more specifically, that LBJ's so-called "War on Poverty" has met with even modest success? The $30-per-hour job, presumably, is more complex and/or more difficult than the $15-per-hour job is; so it would probably be harder to replace with a mere robot. If you claim that you actually did train burger flippers for the aerospace industry, I am certainly not in a position to assert that you did not. But I am guessing that these were young people of reasonable intelligence-- not middle-aged people who had been stuck in an unskilled job, and suddenly decided to take on a highly skilled job. By the way, it is exclusively you has has used the modifier, "false," to describe the sense of security that others feel due to the presence of air marshals. So I really do not feel any need to defend my position in this regard... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 13, 2014 11:41:29 GMT
If Americans "literally have to pass...a government test...just to work in the food industry," that has certainly changed since I was in it, in 1973-74, making pizzas. (In fact, I was far more fastidious than the manager was. I can still remember one occasion in which meat had been left out of the freezer overnight, and was spoiled. The manager said to just put more than the usual amount of seasoning on it, in making sausage, so that no one would notive the rancid flavor to it. And I can remember another occasion in which a large can of pizza sauce had a swolen top--gases had evidently built up in it, and it had gone bad--and the manager wanted to use it, anyway. I threw it away.) What is your evidence that government assistance has helped to ease poverty in America? Or, more specifically, that LBJ's so-called "War on Poverty" has met with even modest success? The $30-per-hour job, presumably, is more complex and/or more difficult than the $15-per-hour job is; so it would probably be harder to replace with a mere robot. If you claim that you actually did train burger flippers for the aerospace industry, I am certainly not in a position to assert that you did not. But I am guessing that these were young people of reasonable intelligence-- not middle-aged people who had been stuck in an unskilled job, and suddenly decided to take on a highly skilled job. By the way, it is exclusively you has has used the modifier, "false," to describe the sense of security that others feel due to the presence of air marshals. So I really do not feel any need to defend my position in this regard...
It is true (according to my wife who has far more knowledge on the subject) a "food handler license" was not required in the 1970's, at least in California where she (we) lived until 1989. It was because those in the business were literally poisoning customers with unsafe food and unsanitary practices that states began to require special training and licensing of those working in the food service industry. Your own account demonstates the necessity of this licensing and training. Ironically many Republicans seem to be opposed to this regulation of enterprise and instead would rather see people die than to require those handling food to know about food safety and sanitation.
Actually it's not that hard to replace a $30/hr position with a machine and I will draw on my personal experience once again. A common job function of an "A" mechanic (aerospace technician that can earn over $30/hr) is to shoot rivets that hold the airplane structure together. One of the primary riveting jobs on a commercial airliners are the "skin" of the wing that are riveted to the wing structure and there are often tens of thousands of rivets used on large wings. Years ago they developed the "Drivematic Riveter" that automatically rivets the skins to the structure and the machine replaced millions of manhours of hand riveting previously done by the mechanic. As I've also recounted computers have been able to replace many skilled mechanical engineering job functions like stress analysis and even design work reducing the manhours of engineering time required. Aerospace mechanical engineers earn well above the average salary of typical mechanical engineers with salaries often above $80,000/yr and sometimes above $100,000/yr.
Because of the complexity involved in "making a burger" is far greater than simply "shooting a rivet" or of performing "finite element analysis" it is, in many respects, a much harder job to replace in a cost effective manner than these common job functions in the aerospace industry. The small enterprise, such as the local McDonalds, simply doesn't have enough employees to warrant the cost of the technology require to replace them with AI and technology.
I don't know the specific backgrounds of those I trained but know that many had zero knowledge to begin with and they came in all age groups although older individuals were less common as most older individuals already have established professions. I didn't know their previous employment either but would tend to believe that most were under age 40 but that would include a lot of potential "ex-burger flippers" as the average age for a "burger-flipper" is about 29 today. I also know that when I was a manufacturing planner we specifically created planning on one program so that displaced farm workers could build aircraft as there was a federal program to employ these relatively "unskilled" individuals in aerospace. How hard is it really to shoot a rivet or install a screw or bolt which is perhaps 98% of what $30/hr aerospace technicians do on a daily basis?
While the exact number of Air Marshalls is not known we do know the number of commercial flights daily and the odds against an Air Marshall being on a commercial flight are somewhere between a thousand and ten-thousand to one. With those odds against an Air Marshall even being on the aircraft anyone believing that there might be one to protect them is purely delusional as it really would be a fluke. Since 2001 I can't recall of even one case where a passenger needed to be subdued that an Air Marshall was on the flight. If it ever did happen then I've not read about it. The only cases I've read of were when an Air Marshall happened to be at the airport when the plane landed and made the actual arrest and even having a Air Marshall at the airport seems to be rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 13, 2014 21:31:31 GMT
If Americans "literally have to pass...a government test...just to work in the food industry," that has certainly changed since I was in it, in 1973-74, making pizzas. (In fact, I was far more fastidious than the manager was. I can still remember one occasion in which meat had been left out of the freezer overnight, and was spoiled. The manager said to just put more than the usual amount of seasoning on it, in making sausage, so that no one would notive the rancid flavor to it. And I can remember another occasion in which a large can of pizza sauce had a swolen top--gases had evidently built up in it, and it had gone bad--and the manager wanted to use it, anyway. I threw it away.) What is your evidence that government assistance has helped to ease poverty in America? Or, more specifically, that LBJ's so-called "War on Poverty" has met with even modest success? The $30-per-hour job, presumably, is more complex and/or more difficult than the $15-per-hour job is; so it would probably be harder to replace with a mere robot. If you claim that you actually did train burger flippers for the aerospace industry, I am certainly not in a position to assert that you did not. But I am guessing that these were young people of reasonable intelligence-- not middle-aged people who had been stuck in an unskilled job, and suddenly decided to take on a highly skilled job. By the way, it is exclusively you has has used the modifier, "false," to describe the sense of security that others feel due to the presence of air marshals. So I really do not feel any need to defend my position in this regard...
It is true (according to my wife who has far more knowledge on the subject) a "food handler license" was not required in the 1970's, at least in California where she (we) lived until 1989. It was because those in the business were literally poisoning customers with unsafe food and unsanitary practices that states began to require special training and licensing of those working in the food service industry. Your own account demonstates the necessity of this licensing and training. Ironically many Republicans seem to be opposed to this regulation of enterprise and instead would rather see people die than to require those handling food to know about food safety and sanitation.
Actually it's not that hard to replace a $30/hr position with a machine and I will draw on my personal experience once again. A common job function of an "A" mechanic (aerospace technician that can earn over $30/hr) is to shoot rivets that hold the airplane structure together. One of the primary riveting jobs on a commercial airliners are the "skin" of the wing that are riveted to the wing structure and there are often tens of thousands of rivets used on large wings. Years ago they developed the "Drivematic Riveter" that automatically rivets the skins to the structure and the machine replaced millions of manhours of hand riveting previously done by the mechanic. As I've also recounted computers have been able to replace many skilled mechanical engineering job functions like stress analysis and even design work reducing the manhours of engineering time required. Aerospace mechanical engineers earn well above the average salary of typical mechanical engineers with salaries often above $80,000/yr and sometimes above $100,000/yr.
Because of the complexity involved in "making a burger" is far greater than simply "shooting a rivet" or of performing "finite element analysis" it is, in many respects, a much harder job to replace in a cost effective manner than these common job functions in the aerospace industry. The small enterprise, such as the local McDonalds, simply doesn't have enough employees to warrant the cost of the technology require to replace them with AI and technology.
I don't know the specific backgrounds of those I trained but know that many had zero knowledge to begin with and they came in all age groups although older individuals were less common as most older individuals already have established professions. I didn't know their previous employment either but would tend to believe that most were under age 40 but that would include a lot of potential "ex-burger flippers" as the average age for a "burger-flipper" is about 29 today. I also know that when I was a manufacturing planner we specifically created planning on one program so that displaced farm workers could build aircraft as there was a federal program to employ these relatively "unskilled" individuals in aerospace. How hard is it really to shoot a rivet or install a screw or bolt which is perhaps 98% of what $30/hr aerospace technicians do on a daily basis?
While the exact number of Air Marshalls is not known we do know the number of commercial flights daily and the odds against an Air Marshall being on a commercial flight are somewhere between a thousand and ten-thousand to one. With those odds against an Air Marshall even being on the aircraft anyone believing that there might be one to protect them is purely delusional as it really would be a fluke. Since 2001 I can't recall of even one case where a passenger needed to be subdued that an Air Marshall was on the flight. If it ever did happen then I've not read about it. The only cases I've read of were when an Air Marshall happened to be at the airport when the plane landed and made the actual arrest and even having a Air Marshall at the airport seems to be rare.
Wheras the prospect (however minute) of an air marshal's being on board an aircraft will probably not deter a determined terrorist--one who is suicidal--it will, I believe, deter run-of-the-mill criminals who would much prefer to live, and who do not believe that their martyrdom (?) will instantly result in their acquiring the services of 72 virgins in Paradise. I cannot speak intelligently as regarding the necessities of employees in the aerospace industry--you would doubtless know far more about that than I do--but I can (and will) say that $30-per-hour employees in most industries would likely be far harder to replace than a $15-per-hour employee is. That seems like just common sense. As for the "complexity" of making a hamburger, I really have to laugh! Whenever I wish to make my own burgers, I simply purchase some ground beef from Kroger (or Walmart), shape it into patties, and then fry those patties. It does not require an advanced degree. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 14, 2014 14:11:54 GMT
Wheras the prospect (however minute) of an air marshal's being on board an aircraft will probably not deter a determined terrorist--one who is suicidal--it will, I believe, deter run-of-the-mill criminals who would much prefer to live, and who do not believe that their martyrdom (?) will instantly result in their acquiring the services of 72 virgins in Paradise. I cannot speak intelligently as regarding the necessities of employees in the aerospace industry--you would doubtless know far more about that than I do--but I can (and will) say that $30-per-hour employees in most industries would likely be far harder to replace than a $15-per-hour employee is. That seems like just common sense. As for the "complexity" of making a hamburger, I really have to laugh! Whenever I wish to make my own burgers, I simply purchase some ground beef from Kroger (or Walmart), shape it into patties, and then fry those patties. It does not require an advanced degree.
As you accurately note the "terrorist" is not going to be deterred based upon the remote possibility of an Air Marshall being on board a commercial airliner. How many cases of "run-of-the-mill" criminals committing criminal acts on an airliner can you cite from the last 50 years? We had DB Cooper decades ago that hijacke an airliner but generally speaking the only problems we have on commercial airliners are disruptive passengers that the crew/passengers subdue. These are not "run-of-the-mill" criminals but merely irresponsible people causing a disruption and the crew and passengers deal with them routinely.
The $30 employee is minimally harder to replace because the $15/hr employee often has more of the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the task (or where on the job training could provide the knowledge and skills) before being hired than the $30/hr employee. As I noted in aerospace it took a few weeks to provide the basic knowledge and skills for the aerospace technician. In short the aerospace company has to "invest" up front prior to the employee actually working and earning their keep while a lower paying job doesn't require that pre-investment by the employer. There is no lack of people willing to work in aerospace and they are easily replaced. The difference is that the $30/hr employee requires more investment by the enterprise than the $15/hr worker.
I've also gone to the market, purchased some hamburger, cooked it, and all too often, upon taking my first bite, found that it was still raw in the middle. That is unacceptable from a commercial standpoint. Because I'm not a professional "burger-flipper" I can't produce a consistent and quality product for others. Given time and experience (knowledge and skill) I could but I certainly couldn't today.
|
|
