Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

This was brought up long ago. Simply having provision in new cars to fit breathalyzer lockouts of the kind already in use for repeat DUI offenders would satisfy the requirement.

[McTraveller]

The study concludes that asymmetric enforcement can result from neutral policies when behavior differs between groups.

Apparently someone finally researched "causality" in the tech tree...

EDIT unrelated to the above, but also American politics:

Holy crap, the head of the longshoremen (the shipping union on strike) earns like $900k / year. And his son, also in leadership of the same union, earns $700k / year.  WTF?

Also, they are trying to get pay increases that amount to 77% over 6 years.  Apparently this is going from $38 to $68 an hour, which without overtime is going from about $74k/year to over $130k/year.  That's a sizable increase, and they want that and "guarantees" that the shipping companies won't automate anything.  Apparently the union head is also quoted as saying that he's willing to burn the world economy down to get his demands met.  Oh and he's got ties to Trump and has apparently in the past been accused of having ties to the mafia, but "those charges were dropped."

I'm all for treating workers well, but this seems... a bit over the top. I mean I can't get 10% per-year raises for 6 years straight... (over my career so far, my average has been... 5.4%/year).  I definitely can't get guarantees that my job will be around in a few years either - I don't know how any organization could make such a guarantee to be honest; so why do people expect them?

I don't see the endgame here, other than "short term gain" for ... what?  Why aren't they fighting for equity instead, so they can take advantage of the automation, instead of trying to stave it off, which is an inevitably losing proposition...

[Maximum Spin]

I don't see the endgame here, other than "short term gain" for ... what?  Why aren't they fighting for equity instead, so they can take advantage of the automation, instead of trying to stave it off, which is an inevitably losing proposition...

I would say that the point is the continuation of the union, and, consequently, of the union head's $900k per annum.

[anewaname]

The longshoreman strike is related to the presidential elections, because even if it is "good timing" for the union to force their demands through right now, that union leader would not have done it without political support from other groups. He is going to completely screw the shipping and trucking businesses, along with farm exports, so someone else out there is backing his play, and the rightwing media response shows this.

Other news, in Colorado, 9 years of prison for the Mesa County Colorado clerk who was in the group that attempted to physically hack the 2020 elections in Colorado. Incarceration, not probation...

[Folly]

On the one hand, I can totally understand people being worried about paying for their next meal and to that end clinging to job security.

But at the same time, I'm watching people fight for the right to break their backs under an increasingly hot sun for long hours day after day though the best years of their lives, at a point in history where technological advances mean that humans absolutely do not need to be doing this. Honestly, there has got to be some way to work this out so that people get the income they need, without doing labor they don't need to be doing.

[wobbly]

On the one hand, I can totally understand people being worried about paying for their next meal and to that end clinging to job security.

But at the same time, I'm watching people fight for the right to break their backs under an increasingly hot sun for long hours day after day though the best years of their lives, at a point in history where technological advances mean that humans absolutely do not need to be doing this. Honestly, there has got to be some way to work this out so that people get the income they need, without doing labor they don't need to be doing.

That would take a group of humans not living of the rest of us like vampires, which would be a major cultural shift. I don't see that changing soon.

[Lord Shonus]

An important thing about this longshoreman strike is that there was no strike vote - the head of the union declared the strike unilaterally. Not only are the union demands almost certainly beyond anything that could be categorized as "good-faith", it is very likely that the strike is straight-up illegal under the NLRB (which requires a membership vote). Given that said union head is a long-term crony of Trump, it is very likely that he is attempting to force a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the administration going into the election.


The most likely resolution will be that a deal is forced, giving a significant portion of the demanded pay increase and throwing out the (frankly absurd) automation demands.

[McTraveller]

Well apparently the strike is tentatively going to end, with an agreement in place for six consecutive years of $4/hr per year price increases. Or like 62% pay increase over 6 years.

I guess people like locking in the higher shipping prices...  I understand that the workers want a share of the windfall profits the shipping industry has had the past few years.  I still think the better way to do this is through equity, not in increasing the baseline cost floor.  I mean, if employees want a share of the good times, they should have a share of the bad times too right?

Increasing the cost floor contractually takes away the ability for a company to do this.

Back in 2020, my company let us vote as employees; would we rather take a 20% pay cut, or have to lay off 20% of our staff.  We opted to take the pay cut; it's way better to have everyone employed and share the pain.  The cut was only for one year; we got back to our previous level (+3%) the next year.  I did have the advantage of being with that company for so long they were indeed like family.  I wish more companies were like that.

[hector13]

Not every company is going to do that though, and even in apparently bounteous years, people will get laid off.

The video game industry has seen layoffs and studio closures over the past 18 months+, even with  successful releases or follow-ups.

[lemon10]

I'm on the union's side here.

Over three years prior to the pandemic, the shipping container industry suffered $8 billion in losses, according to an analysis shared with ABC News by John McCown, a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy. After the onset of COVID-19, in 2020, the industry began to flourish, pocketing $16 billion in profits that year.

In 2021, profits soared to nearly $150 billion, and the following year climbed even higher to $215 billion, McCown found.

So basically the ports made basically ten times the profits they made going into covid.
A 70% raise is pretty huge, but the owners basically got a 1000% raise.

equity

Equity is tough since most ports don't have a standard corporate structure and they would have to negotiate with each port separately (each with their own owners and ownership structure).

Honestly its much better and simpler for all parties involved to just use money.

[McTraveller]

Oh I'm not opposed at all to the workers getting a share of those massive profits.  What I question is the philosophy that "hey we had some great high profit years, let's assume we're going to make that much every year, so let's just codify getting that much every year!"

It's the same problem that happens with governments and many households. I know people that make well above median wage but they have no margin in their budget; they assume they're going to get that bonus every year so obligate themselves to make payments that depend on it.  So when a real need for cash hits (weather disaster, health issue, etc.) there is no cash reserve, and Problems™ ensue.

This is why I suggest equity - because it is "longer term" and the lower liquidity is a feature not a hindrance.

I don't know enough about the shipping industry to know if they think the past few years of record income is a sustainable trend or if it really was kind of a one-off.  If a one-off, then bonuses all around; if a trend then sure increased salaries are reasonable.

Also here's a really interesting question: who really deserves the windfall profit? The shipping company owners? The shipping company employees?  Or the people who had to pay more for their goods and services in the first place? That is - what if the prices hadn't gone up at all, and the consumers kept more money in their pockets?

[Robot Parade Leader]

This union forcing management to do this is the best news I have heard in a long time.

It would be great if we lived in Star Trek. We don't, because they will not let us. The corporate BS "efficiency" will not benefit us. They will leave us to homelessness to die and then charge us with a crime for sleeping in the streets they forced us into. Yes, you. Everyone.

If these unions don't fight like this we are all screwed. Good faith, bad faith, and all that are all just words that mean nothing.
Management does not care. They will fire you in a second for any reason or no reason or a reason they made up and lied about.

The answer to the fact that we can't get a raise is not to deny everyone raises. The answer is to give everyone a raise without corporate greed raising prices and fake blaming "inflation."  This corporate lie should be a crime and the boards of directors and C suite CEO and all that should face jail / prison time for it. I don't care what the alleged cost will be. Don't tell us things won't be affordable, because things aren't affordable right now. No it won't get worse than it is already going to be getting worse as it is. Eggs should never have been $8 per dozen. The 2008 real estate and economic collapse happened with no one in charge getting any prison for any of it, and just tons of examples. I want high level executives in prison for this, and I mean the ones actually making the decision, not some scapegoat. We don't care anymore. The average person can be "held accountable" for anything but the CEO just walks on water while making all the bad decisions?

We gave them tons of tax breaks to be "job creators." Now they're automating it away? Imprison them. Seize their passports. Chain them to walls. As they like to say "everyone is fungible." Replace them with someone who will be scared enough not to run everything into the ground for short term profit.

***I will vote for this law and so will a LOT of other people. That's why they won't let that on the ballot. We would pass it.****

I just don't care anymore. I've heard every BS lie to justify this corporate fraud (it is all fraud).
Enshitification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification/
Planned obsolesce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Ah, corporate: "Making bad products; fighting regulations so we can make them worse, pay you less, and charge you more."

What these unions did is a good start.

[Maximum Spin]

This union forcing management to do this is the best news I have heard in a long time.

It would be great if we lived in Star Trek. We don't, because they will not let us. The corporate BS "efficiency" will not benefit us. They will leave us to homelessness to die and then charge us with a crime for sleeping in the streets they forced us into. Yes, you. Everyone.

If these unions don't fight like this we are all screwed. Good faith, bad faith, and all that are all just words that mean nothing.
Management does not care. They will fire you in a second for any reason or no reason or a reason they made up and lied about.

The answer to the fact that we can't get a raise is not to deny everyone raises. The answer is to give everyone a raise without corporate greed raising prices and fake blaming "inflation."  This corporate lie should be a crime and the boards of directors and C suite CEO and all that should face jail / prison time for it. I don't care what the alleged cost will be. Don't tell us things won't be affordable, because things aren't affordable right now. No it won't get worse than it is already going to be getting worse as it is. Eggs should never have been $8 per dozen. The 2008 real estate and economic collapse happened with no one in charge getting any prison for any of it, and just tons of examples. I want high level executives in prison for this, and I mean the ones actually making the decision, not some scapegoat. We don't care anymore. The average person can be "held accountable" for anything but the CEO just walks on water while making all the bad decisions?

We gave them tons of tax breaks to be "job creators." Now they're automating it away? Imprison them. Seize their passports. Chain them to walls. As they like to say "everyone is fungible." Replace them with someone who will be scared enough not to run everything into the ground for short term profit.

***I will vote for this law and so will a LOT of other people. That's why they won't let that on the ballot. We would pass it.****

I just don't care anymore. I've heard every BS lie to justify this corporate fraud (it is all fraud).
Enshitification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification/
Planned obsolesce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Ah, corporate: "Making bad products; fighting regulations so we can make them worse, pay you less, and charge you more."

What these unions did is a good start.

The world economy is balanced on a knife's edge from complete systemic collapse. The reason we don't live in Star Trek is not "because they will not let us", but because the technology does not exist, because it's impossible and violates the laws of physics.

"Giving everyone a raise" is a child's idea of economics. You can't eat money. Giving everyone a raise is what inflation is. The problem is not one of having enough money, it's one of having enough stuff to go around. Give everyone more money, and they'll still be using it to chase after the same amount of stuff, and it will still be true that not everyone can get a piece.

Your example of the 2008 real estate crisis is perfectly spot-on. For what "bad decisions" do you want "high level executives" to be "held accountable"? The ultimate cause of the crisis was a very large number of people being given mortgages they couldn't afford to pay back in the long term, resulting in spates of defaults and the consequent devaluing of bank assets backed by those loans; I absolutely agree that allowing those mortgages to be made was a terrible decision, but do you really understand the economic background that led to them? The loosening of credit restrictions was pushed all the way from the federal level, and it was founded in reasons of equity - to "make sure everyone has access to housing". The alternative was that a huge number of people would not get mortgages and would be homeless or forced to rent, while ordinary homeowners still needing to sell their houses would have banks and rental property management companies coming in to fill the gap - just as we've seen since 2008. There are certainly other ways the real estate market could be structured that might result in better or worse performance, but do you have any specific ideas about them or any knowledge about what they would entail?

I can't begin to describe to you the dire straits the real estate market is in right now. How can you build homes for everyone when - the world is running out of sand suitable for making concrete and so far every other alternative has failed to meet requirements? When the Chinese steel industry which provides the majority of the world's structural steel has been faltering for years? Until recently, gypsum plaster, a crucial building material required by virtually all US fire codes, was produced as a byproduct of coal-fired power plants - now the world has been phasing out coal-fired power plants for a few years, so the growing demand for gypsum has to fall on not-particularly-environmentally-friendly gypsum mines. Mining by human labor is incredibly grueling; automated mining is inordinately energy-intensive. The growth in demand for gypsum outstrips any reasonable possibly growth in supply. Eventually, mines will start running out of gypsum, too, and we will have to spend even more effort and energy to get more. How can we afford to build homes for America's growing population under these circumstances, given that all buildings also require constant maintenance which consumes even more energy and material, and construction materials also have to be diverted to so many other necessary tasks nationwide, like repairing crumbling infrastructure?

Producing the things humans want and need is hard, and requires the investment of energy and human labor. (Almost everyone in the first world, even many of the homeless, has a smartphone - made possible only by third-world slavery.) Around the world, our ability to produce enough is failing. This is not a situation where Star Trek fantasies and "just give everyone a raise" are useful solutions.

[McTraveller]

Another related thing - how would you ever prevent someone from bidding more for something they want, and so raise its price?  That is, are you advocating fixed arbitrary price setting? That just doesn't work.

I have to agree with the previous poster: the fundamental issue society is facing is that demand is higher than supply.  What is annoying is that the reasons for this are many: culture, weather, conflict, policy, disease. There is no magic bullet here.

What is clear, is that you can't directly increase supply by forcing companies to give more of their revenue to employees.  This is the same thing as trickle-down; what you're hoping is that if you give employees money, some of them will start their own companies to increase supply over what would be otherwise.  You could also try to tell people to get by with less - but then that will destroy jobs, because hey you're not buying the thing I need!  So there's more systematic change needed - make it so people don't need perpetual income to have a house (which will totally upend the entrenched status quo based on property taxes; trying to reform that would be quite difficult, because you'd want to avoid loopholes that make the situation worse. Maybe AI can come up with a scheme, eh?)

So if you want to "fix" the system, you need policies that make it easier to create competition for all the companies that are exercising enshittification.  Get rid of systematic issues which put too many middlemen between producers and consumers.  Incentivize activities that actually produce goods and transformative services - not sales, entertainment, and advertising.  Make it easier to enter various professions (basic health care does not need the kind of expense it has today; sure specialists and surgeons need a lot, but all the other stuff?)

If you want to take it out on CEOs, don't string them up - make them build houses.  I mean sure you can do stuff like put the marginal tax rate at say 90% on any income over $1M, but that won't actually be anything other than a token gesture that has no material effect on anything.

This is why some US policies (actual or proposed) make no sense; deporting millions of workers is not going to fix inflation; sure it will reduce some tax burden, but the best that can do is reduce the deficit slightly. It will reduce demand somewhat, sure, but it's very likely it will reduce supply faster than it will reduce demand (in aggregate; in some areas it will reduce demand for some things enough that supply is again in balance), exacerbating the situation.  Giving people $25k to make a home purchase is directionally not helpful.  However, some policies are helpful - $50k tax credit to start a new business for example, or tax incentives to build lower-cost housing. 

That's the thing with these recent union issues: they do nothing to address supply shortages in the places that really have supply shortages, often because they physically can't - such as things like the concrete sand, or food shortages, or any other raw material issue.  Physics is a pain like that.

[Maximum Spin]

So there's more systematic change needed - make it so people don't need perpetual income to have a house (which will totally upend the entrenched status quo based on property taxes[)]

Why on Earth would you want to do this? Believe me, as a landowner, I would love not to have to pay property taxes, but the point of property taxes is to make sure that the world's most limited resource is used in a productive way that contributes to benefiting society. I know, I know, you said "you'd want to avoid loopholes that make the situation worse", but that's not really a LOOPHOLE, the thing itself makes the situation worse!