Conquer Club

notyou2 wrote:Not sure how you see this as a major blow to the economy? Unless a great deal of the product they made was shipped outside of the US.

Um.....the US economy lost 10's of thousands of jobs, IE 10's of thousands of taxpayers.

It's self evident, unless you can show how this is good or neutral for the US economy? I'm betting you won't, probably just call me some names...

Phatscotty wrote:Tell me if this is right or not. The offer from the company, they say to stay in business, was a 5% pay cut. And the unions turned it down.

How much is 5% of 28k? about $1400? What's the difference than if their health insurance costs rose 5% and were asked to pay? Certainly, health insurance average costs rose 10% last year....so.....

If I have this right, why did they turn down the 5% paycut? when the alternative is unemployment and yet another major blow to the American economy?

$28K? So, $14 an hour, minus deductions? I can make more than that panhandling.

Below a certain point you're better off slinging your knapsack over your shoulder and going off to seek your fortune elsewhere. Working at a job that barely covers your basic cost-of-living doesn't make sense. If you aren't making more than COL you're not moving forward.

Dukasaur wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Tell me if this is right or not. The offer from the company, they say to stay in business, was a 5% pay cut. And the unions turned it down.

How much is 5% of 28k? about $1400? What's the difference than if their health insurance costs rose 5% and were asked to pay? Certainly, health insurance average costs rose 10% last year....so.....

If I have this right, why did they turn down the 5% paycut? when the alternative is unemployment and yet another major blow to the American economy?

$28K? So, $14 an hour, minus deductions? I can make more than that panhandling.

Below a certain point you're better off slinging your knapsack over your shoulder and going off to seek your fortune elsewhere. Working at a job that barely covers your basic cost-of-living doesn't make sense. If you aren't making more than COL you're not moving forward.

I was just blurting out a number. If you like, an employee making 50k would be cut 5k, or someone making 100k would be cut 10k.

It's not the case that all 18,000 of those employees who no longer have jobs makes 28k.

Also, i know people who make it a point to make less than 16k a year and goes on cruises, has a twice a week casino addiction, a flat screen in every room, and when she buys her kids a game for PS3, she gets 2 copies of the same game, so they don't have to share. So that's 16k..... you are way off about 28k barely covering the cost of living.

Luckily that is not the point here

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Not sure how you see this as a major blow to the economy? Unless a great deal of the product they made was shipped outside of the US.

Um.....the US economy lost 10's of thousands of jobs, IE 10's of thousands of taxpayers.

It's self evident, unless you can show how this is good or neutral for the US economy? I'm betting you won't, probably just call me some names...

If the food that replaces Hostess on the shelf is from the US, there isn't necessarily a loss of jobs, perhaps a shift of jobs from one US place to another, but not necessarily a loss. I hope the junk food void is filled by crap made in Canada and the jobs go here.

Maybe we all need to do our part and eat more hostess cakes so these workers have jobs again.
It really burns me when people think that they are deserving of their current employ when the demand for their industry just isn't there. For instance, at the annual town meeting where I live this past year budget cuts were discussed. One area that was suggested to be downsized was the police force and the cops went bonkers and instantly came back with "What are you suggesting we do, lay off policemen???!". Well, yeah, if we don't need them. Derp.

notyou2 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Not sure how you see this as a major blow to the economy? Unless a great deal of the product they made was shipped outside of the US.

Um.....the US economy lost 10's of thousands of jobs, IE 10's of thousands of taxpayers.

It's self evident, unless you can show how this is good or neutral for the US economy? I'm betting you won't, probably just call me some names...

If the food that replaces Hostess on the shelf is from the US, there isn't necessarily a loss of jobs, perhaps a shift of jobs from one US place to another, but not necessarily a loss. I hope the junk food void is filled by crap made in Canada and the jobs go here.

So you make a point to comment about how little impact this will have on the US economy, but then in the next post you comment about the hopefully positive impact to Canada's economy?

That makes you a hypocrite. You can't get a positive effect from something you just argued does not have a negative effect.

notyou2 wrote:
I hope the junk food void is filled by crap made in Canada and the jobs go here.

Nnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

I guess we're comparing apples to oranges. Life in the U.S. is a lot cheaper. Here in Canada, 28K wouldn't support a family, even in a very cheap neighbourhood. 16K is barely enough for a single person. But since it was just a hypothetical figure, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Phatscotty wrote:Also, i know people who make it a point to make less than 16k a year and goes on cruises, has a twice a week casino addiction, a flat screen in every room, and when she buys her kids a game for PS3, she gets 2 copies of the same game, so they don't have to share. So that's 16k..... you are way off about 28k barely covering the cost of living.

Luckily that is not the point here

The basic point is: whether you're working for pennies or for billions, whether you're a tomato picker in Chile or a transnational banker, every deal has a walk-away point. You can't just keep saying "something is better than nothing" and accepting whatever crap the other side is dishing out. That approach will just get you suckered every time. There is a point, no matter what the job or what the commodity you're dealing over, that you have to say "it's not worth my time" and go look for something better.

Phatscotty wrote:You can't get a positive effect from something you just argued does not have a negative effect.

Economics is not a zero sum game.

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Not sure how you see this as a major blow to the economy? Unless a great deal of the product they made was shipped outside of the US.

Um.....the US economy lost 10's of thousands of jobs, IE 10's of thousands of taxpayers.

It's self evident, unless you can show how this is good or neutral for the US economy? I'm betting you won't, probably just call me some names...

If the food that replaces Hostess on the shelf is from the US, there isn't necessarily a loss of jobs, perhaps a shift of jobs from one US place to another, but not necessarily a loss. I hope the junk food void is filled by crap made in Canada and the jobs go here.

So you make a point to comment about how little impact this will have on the US economy, but then in the next post you comment about the hopefully positive impact to Canada's economy?

That makes you a hypocrite. You can't get a positive effect from something you just argued does not have a negative effect.

I was joking about the jobs to Canada part. Someone else will buy the factories and produce the same thing but non-union.

The part about the food I was serious. The jobs aren't necessarily gone. You're just making a thread to whine about how your country is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to Obama.

Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

Dukasaur wrote:I guess we're comparing apples to oranges. Life in the U.S. is a lot cheaper. Here in Canada, 28K wouldn't support a family, even in a very cheap neighbourhood. 16K is barely enough for a single person. But since it was just a hypothetical figure, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Phatscotty wrote:Also, i know people who make it a point to make less than 16k a year and goes on cruises, has a twice a week casino addiction, a flat screen in every room, and when she buys her kids a game for PS3, she gets 2 copies of the same game, so they don't have to share. So that's 16k..... you are way off about 28k barely covering the cost of living.

Luckily that is not the point here

The basic point is: whether you're working for pennies or for billions, whether you're a tomato picker in Chile or a transnational banker, every deal has a walk-away point. You can't just keep saying "something is better than nothing" and accepting whatever crap the other side is dishing out. That approach will just get you suckered every time. There is a point, no matter what the job or what the commodity you're dealing over, that you have to say "it's not worth my time" and go look for something better.

Why not? You think it's more likely these people who walked off the job are going to find another job that pays more, or less?

I am very surprised by your attitudes on this one. "meh, they're just jobs...."

I have been giving up my annual cost of living increases just to hold on to my health insurance since 2003.....

In all seriousness I'm not downplaying the loss of jobs. I just think that hanging onto an inefficient industry is bad for everyone in the long run.

Phatscotty wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I guess we're comparing apples to oranges. Life in the U.S. is a lot cheaper. Here in Canada, 28K wouldn't support a family, even in a very cheap neighbourhood. 16K is barely enough for a single person. But since it was just a hypothetical figure, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Phatscotty wrote:Also, i know people who make it a point to make less than 16k a year and goes on cruises, has a twice a week casino addiction, a flat screen in every room, and when she buys her kids a game for PS3, she gets 2 copies of the same game, so they don't have to share. So that's 16k..... you are way off about 28k barely covering the cost of living.

Luckily that is not the point here

The basic point is: whether you're working for pennies or for billions, whether you're a tomato picker in Chile or a transnational banker, every deal has a walk-away point. You can't just keep saying "something is better than nothing" and accepting whatever crap the other side is dishing out. That approach will just get you suckered every time. There is a point, no matter what the job or what the commodity you're dealing over, that you have to say "it's not worth my time" and go look for something better.

Why not? You think it's more likely these people who walked off the job are going to find another job that pays more, or less?

I am very surprised by your attitudes on this one. "meh, they're just jobs...."

I have been giving up my annual cost of living increases just to hold on to my health insurance since 2003.....

And I'm surprised that, considering you keep hinting you're a commodities broker or something like that, that you don't immediately grasp the point that every deal has a walk-away point.

Your time is a value. Giving it away too cheaply is giving away your life. What will it avail someone if they bust their ass for 40 years in a dead-end job, and then wake up one day, old and tired and arthritic, and realize they don't own a pot to piss in or, more relevantly, an RSP?

Do I know whether these people will get better jobs? No. I'm guessing some will and some won't. Very clearly most of them, from their own viewpoint which is closer to the scene than yours or mine, have decided they're better off not investing any more time in this company. I suspect some of them are married women, and after consulting with their husbands, they've decided their lifestyle will be better served by staying home and playing housewife. I suspect others will try going to school for a while and shooting for a real career instead of a line job. And yeah, for quite a few of them, it may have been the wrong choice, but it's their choice to make.

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

Phatscotty wrote:For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our food situation is a good thing

Go outside of America and you'll see that there are 1.3 billion people living on the equivalent of less than $1.25 per day, and nearly one billion people living in hunger. America could basically unilaterally end the world's food shortage if it desired to.

Our food situation is barbaric.

Phatscotty wrote:

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

This is a good point. Obesity can unfortunately be a side effect of prosperity.

Phatscotty wrote:

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

It's only really a bad thing because it leads to an increased chance of heart disease

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our food situation is a good thing

Go outside of America and you'll see that there are 1.3 billion people living on the equivalent of less than $1.25 per day, and nearly one billion people living in hunger. America could basically unilaterally end the world's food shortage if it desired to.

Our food situation is barbaric.

$1.25 a day can buy a ton of food in many of those countries, so your guilt trip is misleading.

But let's go down your path. How would that work? You think it would be a good idea to feed the world, but is it actually possible? without breaking the very market that provided the surplus in the first place?

MegaProphet wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

It's only really a bad thing because it leads to an increased chance of heart disease

I don't get what you mean. Of course heart disease as a bad thing, but are you really suggesting we close down all production of foods that you don't think are healthy, or can cause heart disease? Who decides what is healthy and what isn't?

Is that really how things should work in a free country?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our food situation is a good thing

Go outside of America and you'll see that there are 1.3 billion people living on the equivalent of less than $1.25 per day, and nearly one billion people living in hunger. America could basically unilaterally end the world's food shortage if it desired to.

Our food situation is barbaric.

That's not a fair accusation. The world's poor aren't starving because the Americans stole their food; the world's poor are starving because their own leaders stole their food. Almost every country on earth has a food surplus now. Virtually all hunger is created by the nabobs in power, the Parasites in Parliament, the Warlords on their Gilded Humvees, the putrescent corrupt armies of bureaucrats, the corrupt judges and thieving cops, the rent-seekers of every level, choose to extort the wealth of the countryside and concentrate its fruits in their own palaces.

You want to know the cure for hunger? It's called the guillotine.

Phatscotty wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

It's only really a bad thing because it leads to an increased chance of heart disease

I don't get what you mean. Of course heart disease as a bad thing, but are you really suggesting we close down all production of foods that you don't think are healthy, or can cause heart disease? Who decides what is healthy and what isn't?

Is that really how things should work in a free country?

No, that's just the negative that comes with obesity. I agree that our abundance of choice is a good thing, but it can come with consequences. However, that doesn't mean it should be policed

MegaProphet wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

tj755 wrote:Good. Shut down all the places that process fake food crap. Maybe then Americans would not be so fat!

We are phat because we have mastered food production and distribution, and produce more than we need.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think that is a bad thing. Unless I shrug it off as "they just hate America, and attack without thought like barbarians"

Our abundance of food and choices about what we eat are good things, you just need to let people be accountable for their own actions and let them sleep in the beds they make for themselves.

It's only really a bad thing because it leads to an increased chance of heart disease

I don't get what you mean. Of course heart disease as a bad thing, but are you really suggesting we close down all production of foods that you don't think are healthy, or can cause heart disease? Who decides what is healthy and what isn't?

Is that really how things should work in a free country?

No, that's just the negative that comes with obesity. I agree that our abundance of choice is a good thing, but it can come with consequences. However, that doesn't mean it should be policed

okay, just saying, eating too much is the opposite of eating too little IE starvation

Phatscotty wrote:
$1.25 a day can buy a ton of food in many of those countries, so your guilt trip is misleading.

It is not misleading. The World Bank's poverty estimate (what my claim is based on) specifically takes account of purchasing power; that is, 1.3 billion people quite literally do subsist on less than what $1.25 purchases in the United States. Most people would spend more than that on a bottle of water at a convenience store without batting an eye.

But let's go down your path. How would that work? You think it would be a good idea to feed the world, but is it actually possible? without breaking the very market that provided the surplus in the first place?

Yes, it is possible through one of two routes. One is by personal donation. For example, if the top 10% of America donated a modest amount of their income to international aid efforts, America could singlehandledly be responsible for achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which basically aim to eradicate poverty and hunger on the global scale. I'll spare you the details unless you're interested, but it could be done with a progressive scale starting at 5% of income for those earning more than $100,000 per year. The rest of America would not even have to donate, although they could (and should).

Another is by switching to vegetarian diets on the large scale. Annually, the world feeds hundreds of billions of tons of grain to feed animals that we later eat. But the process is incredibly inefficient. For cows, for example, we get fewer than a 10% return in food compared to what we put in (in terms of pounds of food produced). If most of the developed world stopped eating meat, there would be enough food left over to end world hunger. I'm not exaggerating.