Financial Reform Bill Passed in SenateFollow

Funny. I was not aware of the award Transocean won last year until you posted that Joph. What I have heard repeatedly was that they (meaning BP) were going to be presented an award this year for safety, but when the spill happened, the award ceremony was canceled. I can't speak for Moe obviously, but that is what I assumed was being referenced, doubly so since he was talking about BP and not Transocean.


Did it even occur to you that he might have been referencing a different award in a different year?

Ok then, there you have it.

I don't see the urgency of the President immediately running to the scene of an accident to exclaim "OMG! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!" and generally get in the way of the initial response. I mean, Kevin Costner was there, he had it all in hand. Obama has a lot of important stuff to do, like killing your grandmother and eliminating the labor market.

Again, is there any indication of incompetence on the rig?

There's always a fucking comedian, isn't there?

Let's see how smart you are after the fiftieth hour in detention, kiddo.

Why the leading question, Gbaji? Tell me the answer.


What effort? A Google search? There's just not much to downplay. The award previously given to Transocean was based off records collected in 2008 and there's no real evidence that BP was winning an award over the other finalists this year except that it makes for a better story.

Sure. It means a lot less than being the winner. Hence the chatter being "They were going to get an award!" and not "They were one of three finalists..."

Edited, May 27th 2010 9:23pm by Jophiel

What just happened? The "gap between rich and poor" in this example went from 2:1 to 7:1. The owner is making 3.5 times more relatively speaking than her employees compared to what she was making relative to them before the introduction of the new pie-making technology. But are the workers worse off? No. They make exactly the same amount of pies for the same amount of labor. They didn't get cheated.

They did. Increased supply lowers the value of each pie, they are paid in pies, they value of their compensation is decreased.

This is why we can't have discussions. You can't even offer a rational example that goes beyond the reasoning ability required to make changed. Although, I suppose if you paid for everything by check, you wouldn't even have to worry about that, eh?

:)

Now let's use a slightly more realistic example.

A cooperation manufactures widgets.

It takes each skilled worker one day to manufacture one widget at a labor cost of 50 currency units per day and a production cost of 50 currency units per widget.

There is demand support for 1000 widgets per day at 1000 currency units each.

There is demand support for 10000 widgets per day at 100 currency units each

There is demand support for 100000 widgets per day at 10 currency units each.

A machine is available allowing a less skilled class of worker to produce 1000 widgets per day at a labor cost of 30 currency units per day and a production cost of .1 currency units per widget.

What's going to happen to the skilled class of workers?

This what actually happens in the marketplace. Workers with a specific skill set are replaced by automation. Sometimes their skill set is transferable to other jobs, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes just the time consuming parts of their job are eliminated, resulting in less demand for workers of that class. What happens to wages, then?

This is the problem. Work should be exchanged for an ownership stake in the enterprise, period. The very concept of wages in exchange for labor guarantees continued class stratification and, more importantly *dependence* of the working class upon the ownership class. Sometimes this works fine, like in your case, where, through zero to do with you or your work ethic or skill set, lucked into a career because of timing. Sometimes it doesn't. Being a member of the working class, you're entirely dependent on the good will of your ownership class. If they decided to move your responsibility to a lower cost labor market, you'd take a huge cut in pay.

I compete in an open, essentially global, market for my services, every day. I see the market at work, daily. I see the commoditization of IT labor, skilled manufacturing labor, etc, every day. I know what your loaded labor rate is within a very small error range, I also know what the market rate is for it.

You only have a job *because of government intervention caused by labor unions*. Not a joke, not a "oh how ironic, the guy who'd be digging ditches in a free market loves to talk about how great the market is", just a fact of life. Someone can do your job, just as well as you, for a total rate of $18k/yr, and without question they'd be doing so if it wasn't for the government and unions working to prevent it while you complain about the intervention.

All you have to do to see the effect of unions is look at the states and companies that are saturated with unions and their lazy as* employees.

AS opposed to, say, Tennessee? Part of the reason I can buy and sell you 40 times over is that I work in a state with a strong union history.

Massachusetts median family income: 81,569.
Tennessee median family income: 53,799.

Percentage of union workers in 10SE: 9.8
Percentage in the Cchussetts: 15.7

I'm amazed you toothless self hating closeted gay fucks can afford buy pork rinds and grits.

Incidentally, BY FAR the strongest correlation to having a high income level is the percentage of union workers.

I'd say the strongest correlation would be the staggering unemployment rate of the states that are union controlled.

Yeah, that must be it. Unemployment in 10SE: 10.5 Unemployment in MA: 9.2.

I'm sure there's something your ****hole state is better than Massachusetts at. Sports, maybe? How many championships has your professional basketball team won in the last 10 years. Oh wait. How about your professional baseball teams. They play in the fucking Appalachian League, right? Do you pig fucking yokels even have a AAA baseball team???